Thanks to all of you for your thoughts.

Thanks for the offer, but perhaps the name to put on the prayer roll is your own.

“oh but of course. the church isn’t wrong, those evil people just made something up and said it was wrong so they could commit adultery or watch football. jayspec, that is just goofy”

who said that? You did, not me. I only related my own experiences. You want to get all chaffed up and tell me I’m wrong, go right ahead.

I’m going to the Temple tomorrow to watch our friends get sealed to their adoptive children. It’s been a 6 year battle to get to this point. And then, I am going to watch General Conference and, enjoy it. Not get all bend out of shape that I am being lied to. And then I am going to fly to Europe and enjoy some French food.

BTW, I will put your names on the Temple rolls.

“I don’t mean to offend you or criticize but, honestly, I’m having some difficulty believing what you write here: a Stake President who doesn’t believe in a key part of the BoM plus what you wrote before on non-believers with callings…..I don’t know, maybe its just me, but no sorry, I just don’t believe everything you have written here”

I guess I could bear my testimony to you and ask you to go pray about it… Honestly, you have offended me; you’re calling me a liar because your world view of leader worship won’t allow you to believe my witness. I could give you names dates and places, but out of respect for the people involved I won’t. I think it’s indicative of why most members can stay true to the faith. They dismiss things that don’t fit their particular paradigm. I actually have two callings at present and I am certainly not a literal believer.

As to your contention that truly faithful members don’t question key points of doctrine; perhaps I just bring out the worst in people including you. Do you really want me out of the church brother???? I suppose the comments by GBH about polygamy not being doctrinal, or his dodge on the man> God, God> man teaching were just fabricated too. After all, I did hear him say it, but then again I’m a liar. If he did say it, then by your logic he better resign for not believing in key points of doctrine as well. Perhaps you could cut me a little slack here…

One last thing, I realize my points have been made from my own experiences which don’t lend themselves to discussion. I’ll try and concentrate on more verifiable things in the future. To make an honest start, I’ll take a risk and give the names of my GG grandmother and the uncle combination daddy husband from comment # 234. Her name was Mary Anne Birch, her father’s name was James Birch (died crossing the plains) and her uncle who married her at age 15 was Richard Birch. That should be easy enough to validate… Thanks for your faith in me brother…

If you guys are being serious about the assertion that only non-serious, non-committed, non-testimony holding members leave when discovering some of these things, you’re way, way off base and you have won the generalization game hands down.

Certainly where. Many of the missionaries I knew where on a mission due to social pressures back home (and to get close to the hottest mormon babes!)

Guys, please, exmormong.org is a better site for you!

Can’t there be a new episode up here asap? on general conference, or new apostles, or anything else? Please!

oh but of course. the church isn’t wrong, those evil people just made something up and said it was wrong so they could commit adultery or watch football. jayspec, that is just goofy.

how about the abysmal retention rate of returned missionaries? were they fringe members? what about people who were high priests, were they fringe members? bishops have bolted, but i suspect they were fringe bishops too.

what a bizarre concept. are you telling me that the church is more true and god is more godly for people that do more and get more callings at church? that says a lot pal, when some people are not even eligible to leave the fringe and be a bishop, elders quorum teacher, high councilor, mission president or sunday school president, based on their genitals.

you would think that there would be a place in the church for those that serve and the served. by your standards, those that are being served are just disposable fringe players. that aint so nice.

what chaps me the most about your comments here is that it is such a common position and people inside the church dont rise up and shoot it down. it may directly hurt some of the people that leave. but more than anything, it hurts the family members of those that have a child or parent leave the church. imagine sitting in a sunday school and hearing you say that only fringe people leave. and there sits a dedicated mother, with some of her children out of the church. is she supposed to believe you and trust that her kids are not as good as other people? or is she welcome to participate even if she thinks that the church just didnt work for her kids despite them being amazing and talented people? your casual dismissal of dissenters and generalizations of their causes is hurting the people that share the church with you. for the most part, those that leave know why they left and when your explanation doesnt fit they just think that you are, well, uninformed or a liar. what else is one to think? i mean sheesh, i know why i left and its not what you say, so i think do not have the spirit of elvis. i know how hard i worked in the church and i still left, so think you must have been painting too long in an unventilated room. i know a relief society president that left which defies your explanation, so what else must i conclude about you and your statements? any suggestions? maybe you are painting a room with elvis, is that it?

I and the majority of the people I personally know who have left the church did exhibit a strong desire to fully participate, or they actually DID fully participate as faithful members. I was a faithful counselor in the primary presidency when I left the church. And I did quietly leave the church.

That is the type of Mormon, in my opinion, who finds out things that are kept out of our lesson manuals and who ends up being unable to stay within the church once it becomes obvious that the church was less than forthright in keeping those things from them in order to keep them faithful.

Of course, the ward rosters are filled with names of people who get baptized and then quit going shortly thereafter. My sentiments on that are if certain changes are made by the men at the top ~ changes which embrace differences rather than embracing and promoting conformity at all costs ~ then those members who do remain faithful will be more open-minded and loving and accepting of those who are “fringe” members, and the fringe members won’t be hearing those lessons which so blatantly call out how far from God’s Ideal they really are. It is damn depressing at church for many, many members, and I don”t blame them one bit for avoiding that kind of thing. I’m not just talking about sinners who choose not to attend in order to not feel guilty. I’m talking about all the subtle and not-subtle ways we are made to feel we don’t measure up in the Gospel Plan for Happpiness as spelled out for us in all the lessons and talks and interactions with others at church. That is the real tragedy in the church, in my opinion. Of course not all of the members feel this. But sadly, all too many people do. And they avoid church accordingly.

Jayspec, nice try – but the “we’re not teaching PhD courses in history”, in my view is also a worn out argument. For starters, this train of thought does not account for the convenience of leaving out only troubling details of our restorational story.

The cause (and I think the motives) of the church are good – the main goal, I believe, is to bring people to Christ. But the ends DO NOT justify the means – the distortion of fact, telling of half truths or setting a course that leads people to build faith on fiction.

“How convenient But, of course , the so-called “disaffected” members could possibly have their own agenda and do exactly the same thing.”
You used the fact that many historians who learn of difficult issues in the church stay to support your conclusion that we shouldn’t teach tough history because we don’t have all of the facts. I said that your logic didn’t follow, for one reason, because some may be inclined to spin certain facts to meet pre-determined conclusions. You stated that the inverse is also true. Yep – but we’re back where we started. I am not advocating a one sided review of the historical record. To anyone who looks into these issues, I say read widely and evaluate everything on merit – which inherintly includes weighing the bias some may have. But it seems like some within the church are willing to evaluate any inherent bias that may exist based strictly on church membership, loyalty to fundamental teachings or whether or not a certain notion is faith promoting – whether the author is “disaffected.” That notion has too many problems to address here.

“It is a matter of perspective. A person’s faith that things happen a certain way is no less valid than another’s “so-called” evidence that it did not.”

“So called” – I love it!

“Need an excuse to leave the church?” That thar is an example of overgeneralizations you decried earlier.

“A person’s faith that things happen a certain way is no less valid than another’s “so-called” evidence that it did not.”

Maintaining faith in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence amounts to nothing more than willful self-delusion.

That is all I have to say about that. Good day sir.

Sure, no problem. Most of the folks I know who have left participation in the church never exihibited a strong desire to fully particpate. They were usually husbands who were non-members but joined the church to seemingly make their wives happy. Sometimes if was wives who joined. Or new converts who never fully integrated into the ward either because they were unknown to ward members (only attended once to get baptized), attended sporatically or just didn’t seem to fit in.

Many came to be influenced by outside forces such as Anti-Mormon sites on the Internet, friends, family, co-workers who pointed out the “evils” of the church.

And, in other cases still, just chose to do something different on Sundays rather than go to church.

Again, in my experience, they didn’t just quietly leave with the notion that they just didn’t want to belong anymore, there had to be something “wrong” with the church.

Would you care to explain what you mean by ““Most of the folks I have known who have been disaffected tended to be fringe people at best”?

Should be “plenty”

It is a matter of perspective. A person’s faith that things happen a certain way is no less valid than another’s “so-called” evidence that it did not. As I stated before, historical facts are often mis-interpreted and as you also said, if a writer has an agenda, they will slant those facts to meet it. Good example: The Godmakers. Penalty of truth but presented and slanted the wrong way.

“The fact is, we teach only what will further the cause….and that’s the problem. ”

And just what do you think the “cause” is? A Ph.d in church history? Or salvation and enternal life with Heavenly Father?

“An apologist historian, many times, has made up his/her mind and is searching for anything to bolster their position.”

How convenient But, of course , the so-called “disaffected” members could possibly have their own agenda and do exactly the same thing. Need an excuse to leave the church?

“Besides, many (including Bushman) are pushing for a more open approach to history because they have seen the problem the lack of openness can cause.”

We agree. But I don’t think Bushman or anyone else would say that knowing these “secrets” will neccesarily keep anyone in the church.

A couple of points….the first is relevance. I don’t see how MMM has anything to do with our restorational story? Haun’s Mill, maybe – it would be good to discuss HM from a more fair perspective, but I’m not sure what point of doctrine came from either event? Generally speaking, the details I’m arguing relate to the restoration and have some doctrinal/theological impact.

“A faith-promoting version may be a “real version” just minus all the details.” A faith promoting version is exactly that and that’s the problem.

“The lessons at church have a severe time limitation and so much detail is left out for the main points of the lesson.” After 30 years of 3 hour blocs, hour seminary 5 days per week, mutual/YM every week, missionary prep classes, MTC, 2 year missions, millions of other firesides, meetings, conference, etc., etc., etc., we have anything but time limitations. The fact is, we teach only what will further the cause….and that’s the problem.

“I think that is too simplistic a conclusion given the fact that many of those Mormon Scholars continue to be beleiving Latter-day Saints.” Many stay, but I don’t know how that supports your argument relative to the complex history dilema. An apologist historian, many times, has made up his/her mind and is searching for anything to bolster their position. Besides, many (including Bushman) are pushing for a more open approach to history because they have seen the problem the lack of openness can cause.

I don’t know, maybe its just me, but no sorry, I just don’t believe everything you have written here even if I know that the US church has some trouble in retention and low baptisms.

And I do have my ‘issues’ with some things in church like current sealing policies (a mess), especially the treatment of divorced males (discrimination), the many wards & stakes opened without enough people, the treatment of women by some leaders, but these are issues with current policies. Going as far as saying that we cover 49 truths to keep one lie going is crossing a line that’s way too out there for me.

And really if one doesn’t believe in this, well maybe one should be honest and have the courage to stand up for one’s beliefs and just resign from church, if you don’t believe in it, no matter what it does to the extended family. They should love you the same.

“While you have a point, I think the historical dilema you cite is overused in the mormon context – kind of an excuse to keep doing what we’ve always done….teach a faith promoting version (instead of the “real version”). Certainly work done by various outstanding mormon scholars over the last 50 years is much more solid than we now give credit in our manuals and standard programme.”

I think that is too simplistic a conclusion given the fact that many of those Mormon Scholars continue to be beleiving Latter-day Saints. A faith-promoting version may be a “real version” just minus all the details. In fact, I would say that most are. The lessons at church have a severe time limitation and so much detail is left out for the main points of the lesson.

Here is an example: Take the Haun’s Mill Massacre. I was shocked to find out that 27 people out of 250 were actually killed. Hardly a massacre in my eyes. Mountain Meadows, on the other hand, was a real massacre because barely anyone was left alive. But, the fact is, the Haun’s Mill incident was an tragedy nonetheless because it was the result of hostility by the Saint’s Missiouri neighbors. In some ways, the members did things to incite their neighbors, but no one deserved to die. Knowing the “real version” does not make that much difference.

“I look with regret upon the narrow teachings that one must seek to be perfect like the prophet Joseph supposedly was, and the very real and subtle message that to err means that you are fallen, lacking, less of a worthy person.”

I can’t imagine where you get this stuff???? “ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” That is what the church teaches. That is what most Christian Churches teach. Joseph said, “I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught. . . . (HC 6:366.)”

“Wow. That’s a very condescending statement”

Really?? I am making an ovservation about my experience and that is condescending???

“It may surprise you to hear that I consider myself on the most spiritual journey I’ve ever been on. This far surpasses the spirituality I felt while in church.”

Not at all. When one can determine all the rules, it can be very satisfying indeed.

Makes sense as to why you wouldn’t have felt betrayed or why you would have trouble understanding those who do. It’s probable that the betrayal is more prevelant among those who were raised or taught a very perfect version of the restoration and then had their expectations smashed when difficult things were discovered. As you kind of dealt with these issues as you developed your testimony – your expectations were likely different. One may even consider your experience evidence that innoculation works…..

“I would question the use of the term “real version” since as with many things historical, the “real” story may not be fully told since historians must interprete fact they have and extraopolate them into a conclusion. Even the most well documented events can be seen from different angles depending on the teller’s perspective.”

While you have a point, I think the historical dilema you cite is overused in the mormon context – kind of an excuse to keep doing what we’ve always done….teach a faith promoting version (instead of the “real version”). Certainly work done by various outstanding mormon scholars over the last 50 years is much more solid than we now give credit in our manuals and standard programme.

As John F said above…..”[E]ven though choosing to leave the Church or stop believing in the Church’s truth claims upon learning of complex and difficult details of Church history and development is certainly a reasonable choice for a person to make, others might not see this as the necessary conclusion to draw from these complex and difficult details and choose to stay.”

I think there is broad consensus that there are difficult facts, details and issues related to church history. You’re right that some people will interpret those facts, details and issues one way, while other people will interpret them another way. But we do have enough facts to deal with in reasonable terms and draw rational conclusions. The “facts” as they relate to continued association with the church may be a matter of opinion or interpretation….but as Daniel Patrick Moynihan (and I think subsequently Tim Russert) said “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts” and we do have enough facts to work with here.

“I feel bad that you do not look upon you repentance process as something you did for yourself and look upon it with regret due to someone else’s actions 170 years ago.”

I do not look upon my repentance with regret. I look with regret upon the narrow teachings that one must seek to be perfect like the prophet Joseph supposedly was, and the very real and subtle message that to err means that you are fallen, lacking, less of a worthy person. Had I known of some of the less stellar qualities Joseph Smith possessed, I’d have felt a bit less low for my own sin, which I did repent of and don’t regret now in the least. My son is the best thing to have happened to me.

“Most of the folks I have known who have been disaffected tended to be fringe people at best.”

Wow. That’s a very condescending statement. Did you intend to be that way? “Fringe people at best.” Does that mean “Low-lifes at best” or “Paraiahs at best” or “outcasts at best” or what?

“But, having said that, I must be different because I do not let the history or other people derail me from my spiritual journey. Because, to me, that is what it is all about.”

It may surprise you to hear that I consider myself on the most spiritual journey I’ve ever been on. This far surpasses the spirituality I felt while in church.

My wife asks me this very same question on almost a daily basis. She can’t understand why someone who fulfilled a mission, served in bishoprics, high council, ward mission leader, EQP, stake ym’s president, and nearly every other position in the ym’s program would lose his testimony. I wish I had a good answer for her. As Equality stated, it’s been the most gut wrenching thing I’ve ever had to deal with. Most TBMs will just say I lost the spirit through sin or being a sign seeker, neither of which are true.

I’m not saying I live a perfect life, but I don’t do anything different now than I did three years ago when I was a TBM. My disaffection began slowly as I had to put issue after issue on the shelf. I love to read and I’ve always enjoyed learning about history. Eventually “the shelf” got too full and my world view had to make a radical change.

What I really find fascinating is reading other peoples experiences in the process and seeing how very similar they have been to mine. I really don’t think I’m unique; it would appear that many folks have treaded this same path and arrived at the same conclusions. If you only knew how desperately I wish I could go back to that wonderful ignorance I enjoyed as a missionary in Australia over twenty five years ago. Perhaps it was the Truth vs. Error discussion we used to teach that made an impact. Concept 1, Jesus is asked “what is truth?” He responds by stating that the truth will set you free. Learning the truth about Mormonism has certainly been a freeing although somewhat painful experience.

I, like Equality, had to figure out how spiritual experiences fit into my new world view. I believe I’ve resolved that issue and now and have a much better understanding of how other people’s experiences, from different faiths, can be real. It is very freeing indeed…