Reasons people stopped attending church

[msnobody]

Ahh, I see. So I guess this means you still believe in the core doctrines of Mormonism and the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's mission and calling?

Shades, you and I have very different approaches to this area of life. I think it would probably be a waste of time for both of us, if I were to derail this thread in yet another attempt, in a long history of attempts, to explain my religious views to you. Moreover, you could really use some reflection on your manners.

I’d like to better understand your religious views.

[Dr. Shades]

Ahh, I see. So I guess this means you still believe in the core doctrines of Mormonism and the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's mission and calling?

Do you realize that both things can be true at the same time?

Of course. That's obvious.

Kish could have reasonably concluded the Church's truth claims are untrue and finally stepped away due to the reasons he stated. These are not mutually exclusive issues. Why you attempted to play some stupid gotcha game about this is unfathomable.

It's not "some stupid gotcha game." You see, although those things may indeed be comorbid, Kishkumen did not actually mention having concluded that the church is untrue as being a justification for stepping away. He only mentioned what he physically typed on his keyboard, that of being disgusted by two new church policies.

So, yeah, he could have also come to conclude the church wasn't true, but he also could have been visited by the ghost of Betsy Ross who demanded that he drop Mormonism or else she would curse his mother with tuberculosis. We have no reason to blindly assume either of those things, though, because, like I said, he didn't mention them as reasons for dropping the church. . . no matter how much we may wish he did.

Sorry, but I can only go by what people type. I can't dream up alternate comorbidities simply because I wishfully hope they exist.

[Gadianton]

It doesn't matter if Kish didn't state his beliefs about core doctrines, stated his belief in core doctrines, or stated his disbelief in core doctrines, his statement that he left over those policies in no way implies anything about his beliefs in core doctrines, revealed, hidden, possible, factual, or otherwise.

"So I guess this means..."

Sage?

[Dr. Shades]

It doesn't matter if Kish didn't state his beliefs about core doctrines, stated his belief in core doctrines, or stated his disbelief in core doctrines, his statement that he left over those policies in no way implies anything about his beliefs in core doctrines, revealed, hidden, possible, factual, or otherwise.

"So I guess this means..."

Sage?

Hasn't he mentioned having been an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints well into his adulthood? And if so, is it reasonable to guess that he wouldn't be an active member of a religion in which he didn't actually believe?

[I Have Questions]

For what it’s worth, my take on Kishkumen’s attachment to the Church, is that he views that attachment in a similar way to how I might view myself as British. Like being “Mormon” is a type of nationality. Or how people might view themselves as culturally Jewish but not necessarily live a life of orthodoxy. One can see meaning in a cultural identity without necessarily believing literally a lot of the cultural traditions and truth claims.

I think Kishkumen doesn’t want to denigrate his Mormon cultural identity and so avoids discussing and/or rubbishing some of those cultural myths and legends. He is protective of what he sees as his “people”.

I may have that completely wrong and Kishkumen can feel free to set me straight. But that’s my current take on it.

[Bret Ripley]

It doesn't matter if Kish didn't state his beliefs about core doctrines, stated his belief in core doctrines, or stated his disbelief in core doctrines, his statement that he left over those policies in no way implies anything about his beliefs in core doctrines, revealed, hidden, possible, factual, or otherwise.

"So I guess this means..."

Sage?

Hasn't he mentioned having been an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints well into his adulthood? And if so, is it reasonable to guess that he wouldn't be an active member of a religion in which he didn't actually believe?

Damn, son.

People remain active in religions they don't necessarily believe in for any number of reasons: to keep peace in the family, to socialize, or maybe the music is just really good.

But more to the point --

For illustrative purposes, compare these two alternative ways to approach the same question:

• Why did you pose your question as a guess in the first place?

• I guess your lack of awareness that what you wrote could be perceived as rude is due to something like Asperger's Syndrome?

Can you see how the "I guess" version is unnecessarily presumptuous, and could possibly be seen as offensive? I think most people probably can.

[Gadianton]

If, during a temple recommend interview you were to say that you didn’t believe the Book of Mormon was what it claimed to be, would you get signed off as worthy? If you were to pay a generous tithe but less than ten percent, would you get your recommend? If you only partially sustain the leaders of the Church did you get your recommend?

To your point that the Brethren almost always speak in fundamentalist terms and that the scriptures are fundamentalist and Joseph Smith's teachings were black and white extremes I totally agree. Same with the temple-recommend questions. However, there is a difference between how you answer the recommend questions and how you really live your life. You must answer "yes" to full tithing. If you pay 1% tithing and say you pay a full tithe, you're better off than if you pay 9% tithing and dispute 10% as unfair and want a 1% inflation discount. You can pay 1$ directly to SLC and say you're a full tithe payer and evade your bishop.

Here's something to think about. If you're one of the Twelve and bringing in a new GA, do you judge candidates by how precisely they fulfill the letter of the law as God demands? In theory, you should, because obeying the commandments is the gateway to all else. The scriptures teach that obedience is the first law of heaven. But in practice, do you want the self-flagellating guy who is obsessed with doing what's right with exactness? What happens when that guy learns about how the Church really operates internally? Or do you want the guy who knows how to lie and has a few pet sins, but says the right things and can keep a secret. He's willing to grant others their share of the power if he gets a little for himself.

[I Have Questions]

If, during a temple recommend interview you were to say that you didn’t believe the Book of Mormon was what it claimed to be, would you get signed off as worthy? If you were to pay a generous tithe but less than ten percent, would you get your recommend? If you only partially sustain the leaders of the Church did you get your recommend?

To your point that the Brethren almost always speak in fundamentalist terms and that the scriptures are fundamentalist and Joseph Smith's teachings were black and white extremes I totally agree. Same with the temple-recommend questions. However, there is a difference between how you answer the recommend questions and how you really live your life. You must answer "yes" to full tithing. If you pay 1% tithing and say you pay a full tithe, you're better off than if you pay 9% tithing and dispute 10% as unfair and want a 1% inflation discount. You can pay 1$ directly to SLC and say you're a full tithe payer and evade your bishop.

I agree that the Church is all about showing compliance, rather than actually being compliant, at a member level. Maybe even a little bit higher up the ranks than that these days. In the UK it’s a struggle to find “good” Bishops. There just aren’t many acceptable candidates like there were in the old days. And new Bishop material just isn’t coming up through the born in the church pipeline. So members can be a bit flakey on a lot of stuff and still be called as Bishop, down to a disappearing lot small candidate pool. Stake Presidents, not so much. Yet. So there’s some tolerance. But don’t be loud and public about your quirks and we won’t ask, and you don’t tell.

Here's something to think about. If you're one of the Twelve and bringing in a new GA, do you judge candidates by how precisely they fulfill the letter of the law as God demands? In theory, you should, because obeying the commandments is the gateway to all else. The scriptures teach that obedience is the first law of heaven. But in practice, do you want the self-flagellating guy who is obsessed with doing what's right with exactness? What happens when that guy learns about how the Church really operates internally? Or do you want the guy who knows how to lie and has a few pet sins, but says the right things and can keep a secret. He's willing to grant others their share of the power if he gets a little for himself.

The process for recruiting General Authorities is an elongated version of jobs for the boys. You’ve been thoroughly sounded out by the time you get that tap on the shoulder. You’ve done all the right things, served in all the right callings. Said all the right things to visiting Apostles. Quite often an Apostle and his wife will be “hosted” at a potential candidates home when they are visiting. It’s part of the vetting. The Apostles are looking for “church-broke” men. Yes men. Men who look like they do, walk like they do, talk like they do, and understand how to respond to a nod and a wink. By the time you’re called as a General Authority you’ve had the full medical and brain scan. They don’t take risks. But it doesn’t end there. There’s still a chance for you to not make the grade at General Authority level and you’ll be released back to your day job. Quietly. You would only need to hint a whiff of being willing to ask an awkward question or register a disapproving thought about something, and bam! your Church career stops. There isn’t a man in senior 70’s roles that would raise a question to, or say no to, an Apostle. Only the most sincere Yes Men rise to those dizzy heights.

[malkie]

If, during a temple recommend interview you were to say that you didn’t believe the Book of Mormon was what it claimed to be, would you get signed off as worthy? If you were to pay a generous tithe but less than ten percent, would you get your recommend? If you only partially sustain the leaders of the Church did you get your recommend?

To your point that the Brethren almost always speak in fundamentalist terms and that the scriptures are fundamentalist and Joseph Smith's teachings were black and white extremes I totally agree. Same with the temple-recommend questions. However, there is a difference between how you answer the recommend questions and how you really live your life. You must answer "yes" to full tithing. If you pay 1% tithing and say you pay a full tithe, you're better off than if you pay 9% tithing and dispute 10% as unfair and want a 1% inflation discount. You can pay 1$ directly to SLC and say you're a full tithe payer and evade your bishop.

Here's something to think about. If you're one of the Twelve and bringing in a new GA, do you judge candidates by how precisely they fulfill the letter of the law as God demands? In theory, you should, because obeying the commandments is the gateway to all else. The scriptures teach that obedience is the first law of heaven. But in practice, do you want the self-flagellating guy who is obsessed with doing what's right with exactness? What happens when that guy learns about how the Church really operates internally? Or do you want the guy who knows how to lie and has a few pet sins, but says the right things and can keep a secret. He's willing to grant others their share of the power if he gets a little for himself.

What you say about TR interviews might all be true if the brethren were the ones who conducted the interviews and asked the questions.

However, Bishopric and Stake Presidency members come in all flavours within the multi-dimensional belief/disbelief space, and they ask and respond to answers accordingly. E.g., from about 9 years ago:

Sister A: "I no longer support the FP due to the horrible Nov 2015 policy, so here's my temple recommend."
Bishop: "I'm having a similar issue. Please hold on to your recommend, and go to the temple whenever you feel the desire and need."

[Dr. Shades]

Hasn't he mentioned having been an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints well into his adulthood? And if so, is it reasonable to guess that he wouldn't be an active member of a religion in which he didn't actually believe?

For illustrative purposes, compare these two alternative ways to approach the same question:

• Why did you pose your question as a guess in the first place?

Because I didn't want to assume.

• I guess your lack of awareness that what you wrote could be perceived as rude is due to something like Asperger's Syndrome?

I'm perfectly aware that what I wrote could be perceived as rude, but I didn't think it rose to that level. No Asperger's syndrome here.

Can you see how the "I guess" version is unnecessarily presumptuous, and could possibly be seen as offensive? I think most people probably can.

Conceivably, but I guess I have such thick skin that I mistakenly project that on to others. If I was on the receiving end of a good-faith "So, I guess" question, I'd simply answer it without it even registering on my radar.