DiscussMormonism.com

mentalgymnast wrote:Poor fellow.

Sounds like some possible authority issues in addition to being offended.

My point is that there may have been other factors in the equation as to why this former Bishop decided that the church wasn't for him. I'm sure that in other cases of people leaving or becoming disaffected with the church that there are other reasons and motivating factors that move them in the direction of apostasy. Seems as though this was the case with this man.

His doctrinal reasons for leaving seem to be somewhat shallow and weak. It's amazing how quickly some people decide to jump ship. You have to wonder whether there may, at least with some individuals, be some other factors involved in their decision to abort.

Regards,
MG

Shallow and weak? WTF? Polyandry is shallow and weak? What would be a good reason to leave?

Simon Belmont wrote:This is common anti-Mormon dogma. There is no "exodus out the chapel door."

Whatever, Simon. I never said there was a "mass exodus" out the chapel door, but I think it is fair to say that there is a sizable minority of people taking leave of Mormonism, and partly thanks to the disparity between the correlated curriculum and the information they are learning on the internet.

But do feel free to have a hissy fit over every comment that you feel may misrepresent the idyllic vision of the LDS Church you insist others mirror back to you at all times.

Kishkumen wrote:Whatever, Simon. I never said there was a "mass exodus" out the chapel door, but I think it is fair to say that there is a sizable minority of people taking leave of Mormonism, and partly thanks to the disparity between the correlated curriculum and the information they are learning on the internet.

But do feel free to have a hissy fit over every comment that you feel may misrepresent the idyllic vision of the LDS Church you insist others mirror back to you at all times.

Oh, I see. So if one person decides to leave the church, that, to you, constitutes an "exodus"? I think the problem may be our definitions of terms and the context in which we use them.

Simon Belmont wrote:Oh, I see. So if one person decides to leave the church, that, to you, constitutes an "exodus"? I think the problem may be our definitions of terms and the context in which we use them.

Simon, are you learning disabled? I'm serious, dude. These stories are, as your fellow assholes point out, all too common, hence their disdain for this guy. So common, in fact, that now you guys bitch and moan about his canned exit story. Now you want to claim that he is the lone wolf out there who left the LDS Church over its history?

Simon, exactly when do you begin to care about contradicting yourself? I would love to be saved the trouble of responding to the nonsensical bull crap you spew.

In Simon's defense, the exodus usually isn't through the chapel doors but through the foyer. The chapel-to-foyer is a preliminary step that few skip in the attempt to walk the thin line between growing skepticism and desire to stay/fear of what will happen if they leave.

mentalgymnast wrote:[

This is the carbon copy response which I would expect. Usual talking points.

Possibly, but then maybe becuase it is based on a carbon copy response.

The point can also be made that we don't have enough information to know all the reasons why this gentleman decided to leave the church.

Now you are getting it, but my observation is that many like yourself always look for other reasons then intellectual ones. I am not saying they don't factor into some, just that this is the usual behavior of the members toward all who no longer believe, and you demonstrate it nicely.

It is amazing what will offend people, isn't it? Some other examples come to mind. I'm sure you can think of some from early church history, etc.

I have seen that most who get offended do not stop believing but may stop attending. They usually go back at some time. Maybe after that blankety blank bishop gets released. AS for church history I think you may be thinking of the milk stripings. If you research it up you may find that the story is not very accurate, and may be again a classic example of blaming other factors that may have nothing really to do with it or very little.

Kishkumen wrote:
Simon, are you learning disabled? I'm serious, dude. These stories are, as your fellow assholes point out, all too common, hence their disdain for this guy. So common, in fact, that now you guys bitch and moan about his canned exit story. Now you want to claim that he is the lone wolf out there who left the LDS Church over its history?

Simon, exactly when do you begin to care about contradicting yourself? I would love to be saved the trouble of responding to the nonsensical bull crap you spew.

My only question is your definition of "exodus." How many people constitute an exodus, for you? 1? 5? 1,000?

Simon Belmont wrote:My only question is your definition of "exodus." How many people constitute an exodus, for you? 1? 5? 1,000?

Simon, I urge you to consult a dictionary and look at the word as it is used in different contexts. Obviously, if it had only been one or five people leaving Mormonism over its history, I would not have used to word "exodus." It is astounding to me that you would even ask such a stupid question.

Although many proponents of Mormonism will disregard my sincerity and that of my Brother Stephen - whom you wish to hang for desiring to feel understood without judgment. Its unfortunate that many feel qualified to mind-read a persons deepest emotions and intentions, jumping to conclusions without attempting to really understanding the trauma of existential crisis and subsequent emotional desires and actions of a man whom I know has attempted to control the rumors - by explaining truthfully with a motive to prevent people from jumping to conclusions, and also protecting the interests of those he loves from the judgmental uninformed.

Stephen was one of the most knowledgeable Christ centered members of the stake and highly respected by all who knew him. He is still loved.

Contrary to what many say in response to the letter which states his shock at certain issues regarding church history. I am quite sure he was aware of these issues. But like all TBMs he excepted the explanation given by apologetics. I know this because he defended these same questions I asked him about 5 years previous when he was my Bishop.

He has came to an awareness of the incompatible nature of Mormonism, the justification his mind had been assimilating all these years, with human moral and ethical Christ centered principals he emulated. He expressed shock at his awareness, just like members of other religions. We will always believe the defenders of our religion, until we receive a more informed objective view. Apologetics of all religions will criticise those of whom receive a different perspective.

The first time I knew about his doubt regarding the certainty of the absolute truthfulness of the church, which the church claims to be, was right when he himself was cognitive of the uncertainty of these truth claims.

I am pretty sure all of us throughout our lives, justify our desires and intentions. I believe that for many in the church, our minds are constantly assimilating truth, to justify its goals and sub-goals to achieve happiness - without 'us' (The 'I') being conscious of it.

With regards my brother, we can not be sure when the mind gained knew information which influenced its perception of the church and the conscious awareness leading from shock and denial, and later to admittance and exceptence of a more informed subjective belief regarding lds doctrine, practices and history.

The one month it took for Steve to come to his conclusion, was a tiny fraction in the whole process. For months if not years, his mind had been processing, assimilating, justifying, gaining more information, re-evaluate and then finally becoming self aware of its conclusions, by bringing the intentions of the mind to the consciousness of the mind, where he Stephen was then consciously determined to find out the truth. Emotions then took over and his maturity balanced the crisis he then must endure.

I think it is uninformed for anyone to pre-suppose such a life changing decision can happen so quickly without a visible existential crisis. Many can suffer a sudden crisis through losing a loved one or some other life changing event which alters ones purpose.

There is the argument regarding whether to teach all of the controversy regarding church history.
One only needs to look at children being raised in radical Islamic groups to realise that this would only strengthen their faith. Perhaps the church ought to do the same to prevent further loss - and breed a generation of fully informed Mormon fundamentalists.

Simon Belmont wrote:My only question is your definition of "exodus." How many people constitute an exodus, for you? 1? 5? 1,000?

Simon -

Perhaps there is value in looking at the Pews forum results from 2007 that show there is, in fact, a negative change in affiliation for Mormon's who were born Mormon but then changed to another belief/unaffiliated.

Here, for example, we see that Mormon retention rates of childhood members are around 70%. Is a 30% change from Mormonism to something else an "exodus"?