Where's Mr. D?

[_Runtu]

I have yet to hear Wade or anyone else give us an example of someone who determined that the LDS church was not what it claimed to be, who nevertheless did not get angry, did not feel lied to, and simply moved on with his or her life.

In my experience, the vast majority of people who leave the LDS church do so because it simply doesn't work in their lives, whether that's because they were not engaged in it, or it just didn't fit their worldview or lifestyle, or whatever. What is interesting to me is that I've met some who left for these reasons who later on discovered the reality behind the church's history and origins, and they were quite simply shocked. And some of them were angry that they had ever felt guilty over leaving the church. Most of those who post on RfM are those people who honestly believed in the church and discovered that it wasn't what it said it was. And yes, many of them are quite angry and hurt when they find this out.

What I have never seen so far is someone who fits Wade's description of Mr. D. So, Wade, if you have some examples, let's hear them.

[_Dr. Shades]

Who or what is this "Mr. D" that everyone keeps talking about?

[_Pokatator]

Who or what is this "Mr. D" that everyone keeps talking about?

Cognitive Distortion #1: Lies and Deceit
Objective: to prevent, stop, and/or resolve unnecessary hurt and anger and grief, particularly as a cycle.

Here is a plausible dynamic of hurt and anger and grief caused by perceptions and accusations of lying and deceit and false pretenses, etc.

1. Mr. A has been selling a product that he firmly believes is true, and the best product of its kind, and very beneficial for those who use it as it is designed. He believes that he has, in good faith, fairly and honestly represented his product to others--though, for practical and privacy reasons, he hasn't readily disclosed the library of data and research on the product and his history with the product, but knows that most of that information is accessible to those wishing to research it themselves.
2. Mr. B purchased Mr. A's product a long time ago, and believed in it and invested a lot of time and energy and money in the product over the years. However, recently Mr. B stopped believing in the product, and now believes that Mr. A lied about the product (believing that the product isn't what it is claimed to be), and that considerable time and energy and money was spent under false pretenses. Naturally, Mr. B was hurt and angered and felt a great loss, which led to his venting and grieving at a public gathering of others who felt the same way as him.
3. Mr. A learns of Mr. B's anger and venting, and he believes that he has been falsely accused and that he and his product have been wrongfully smeared, and that Mr. B is the one who is lying and deceiving. Naturally, this hurts and angers Mr. A and causes him to feel a great loss (not just the loss of a once loyal and beloved customer, the unwarranted loss of his reputation and the reputation of his product, but also the potential loss of other customers due to the perceived smearing). Mr. A then vents his anger at Mr. B and vents and grieves about Mr. B at a public gathering of others who feel the same way about Mr. B and others like him.
4. Mr. B learns what Mr. A has said about him, and believes that he has been falsely accused and that Mr.s A is continuing to lie and deceive. Naturally, this causes Mr. B to be hurt and angered and thus vent and grieve.
5. And around-and-around the cycle goes.

Interestingly enough, while Mr. B is not alone in his belief that Mr. A has lied and his product is a fraud, there are numerous people who didn't experience this hurt/anger/grief dynamic with Mr. A and his product. For example, Mr. C believes firmly in the product, and thinks Mr. A has been honest, sufficiently forthright, and has acted in good faith. And, Mr. D no longer believes in the product, but he agrees with Mr. C about Mr. A having been honest, forthright, and acting in good faith. Mr. D chalks it all up to a difference of opinion with no hard feelings either way, and suggests: "to each their own".

Question: "how can this dynamic and cycle of hurt, anger, and grief, be prevented, stopped, and resolved?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

Who or what is this "Mr. D" that everyone keeps talking about?

Mr. D is a figment of Wade's imagination.

When Mr. D 'decides' he no longer believes in the church, he shrugs his shoulders and says 'Oh well, such is life'. And he leaves Mormonism with absolutely no ill feelings, and never looks back.

[_wenglund]

I have yet to hear Wade or anyone else give us an example of someone who determined that the LDS church was not what it claimed to be, who nevertheless did not get angry, did not feel lied to, and simply moved on with his or her life.

In my experience, the vast majority of people who leave the LDS church do so because it simply doesn't work in their lives, whether that's because they were not engaged in it, or it just didn't fit their worldview or lifestyle, or whatever. What is interesting to me is that I've met some who left for these reasons who later on discovered the reality behind the church's history and origins, and they were quite simply shocked. And some of them were angry that they had ever felt guilty over leaving the church. Most of those who post on RfM are those people who honestly believed in the church and discovered that it wasn't what it said it was. And yes, many of them are quite angry and hurt when they find this out.

What I have never seen so far is someone who fits Wade's description of Mr. D. So, Wade, if you have some examples, let's hear them.

Actually, Mr. D was a scenario that was specific to the issue of whether the Church had lied about what it claimed to be and the anger and hurt and grief that may have been associated therewith. So, if you are looking for Mr. D's (or Mrs. D's), one need only find those who have discontinued to believe and/or who have left the Church for reasons other than because of the belied that the Church had lied about what it claimed to be, and who weren't angred and hurt because of that belief, but moved on with their life.

I am not familiar with any scientific studies that provide authoritative statistic one way or another, but I agree with John that "the vast majority of people who leave the LDS church do so because it simply doesn't work in their lives". To me, that is their reason for leaving, rather than because they believe the Church lied about what it claimed to be, and is a fraud. So, if John and I are correct in our assumtion, then the "vast majority" of those who leave the Church are Mr./Mrs. D.'s.

Here are some historical examples of Mr./Mrs. D's that I could think of: Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, David Whitmer, Emma Smith, William Smith, Edward Boyton.

More recently there was: Micheal Quinn and Abraham Gilliadi.

There are quite a few Mr. D's that I know personally, but I prefer not to mention their names or relations to me so as to protect their privacy.

However, might some of the vast majority of those who have left the Church have been angered for reasons other than a belief that the Church lied about what it claimed to be and was thought to be a fraud? I suspect there are not a few who have been anger by perceived ill-treatment from members and/or the failure of leaders and members to behave in the way that some believe they ought.

But, that is a separate issue from the Mr. D scenerio I had presented. And, were the discussion of the specific issue of the Church allegedly lying about what it claims to be had not proven counterproductive, I had fully intended to address some of those other reeasons that people may have been angered also. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Actually, Mr. D was a scenario that was specific to the issue of whether the Church had lied about what it claimed to be and the anger and hurt and grief that may have been associated therewith. So, if you are looking for Mr. D's (or Mrs. D's), one need only find those who have discontinued to believe and/or who have left the Church for reasons other than because of the belied that the Church had lied about what it claimed to be, and who weren't angred and hurt because of that belief, but moved on with their life.

Except that your scenario specifically said that these were people who agreed that the product was not as claimed, so now you appear to be backpedaling by saying that people who leave for other reasons are also Mr. D.

I am not familiar with any scientific studies that provide authoritative statistic one way or another, but I agree with John that "the vast majority of people who leave the LDS church do so because it simply doesn't work in their lives". To me, that is their reason for leaving, rather than because they believe the Church lied about what it claimed to be, and is a fraud. So, if John and I are correct in our assumtion, then the "vast majority" of those who leave the Church are Mr./Mrs. D.'s.

Again, those who leave for other reasons are specifically excluded from your scenario, so we're talking apples and oranges.

Here are some historical examples of Mr./Mrs. D's that I could think of: Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, David Whitmer, Emma Smith, William Smith, Edward Boyton.

Every one of your examples expressed belief in Mormonism but disagreed with its practice, which is not what we are talking about. None of these people ever expressed a belief that the church was not what it claimed to be. Again, these would be those who fit the "vast majority" scenario I outlined above.

More recently there was: Micheal Quinn and Abraham Gilliadi.

Both of these men still believe, even though they were excommunicated, so again, neither fits your definition. And if memory serves, Gileadi has been rebaptized.

There are quite a few Mr. D's that I know personally, but I prefer not to mention their names or relations to me so as to protect their privacy.

I don't think personal details are important, but I'd like to hear the account of someone who determined that the church was not indeed true and yet quietly walked away with a shrug of the shoulders. Can you share something like that without violating privacy?

However, might some of the vast majority of those who have left the Church have been angered for reasons other than a belief that the Church lied about what it claimed to be and was thought to be a fraud? I suspect there are not a few who have been anger by perceived ill-treatment from members and/or the failure of leaders and members to behave in the way that some believe they ought.

Yes, and those people would also be excluded from the scenario you presented.

But, that is a separate issue from the Mr. D scenerio I had presented. And, were the discussion of the specific issue of the Church allegedly lying about what it claims to be had not proven counterproductive, I had fully intended to address some of those other reeasons that people may have been angered also. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

On the contrary, I didn't consider it counterproductive. I thought it was interesting, to say the least.

[_Mister Scratch]

Runtu already covered the basics, but I wanted to throw in my two cents here as well.

I have yet to hear Wade or anyone else give us an example of someone who determined that the LDS church was not what it claimed to be, who nevertheless did not get angry, did not feel lied to, and simply moved on with his or her life.

In my experience, the vast majority of people who leave the LDS church do so because it simply doesn't work in their lives, whether that's because they were not engaged in it, or it just didn't fit their worldview or lifestyle, or whatever. What is interesting to me is that I've met some who left for these reasons who later on discovered the reality behind the church's history and origins, and they were quite simply shocked. And some of them were angry that they had ever felt guilty over leaving the church. Most of those who post on RfM are those people who honestly believed in the church and discovered that it wasn't what it said it was. And yes, many of them are quite angry and hurt when they find this out.

What I have never seen so far is someone who fits Wade's description of Mr. D. So, Wade, if you have some examples, let's hear them.

Actually, Mr. D was a scenario that was specific to the issue of whether the Church had lied about what it claimed to be and the anger and hurt and grief that may have been associated therewith. So, if you are looking for Mr. D's (or Mrs. D's), one need only find those who have discontinued to believe and/or who have left the Church for reasons other than because of the belied that the Church had lied about what it claimed to be, and who weren't angred and hurt because of that belief, but moved on with their life.

I am not familiar with any scientific studies that provide authoritative statistic one way or another, but I agree with John that "the vast majority of people who leave the LDS church do so because it simply doesn't work in their lives". To me, that is their reason for leaving, rather than because they believe the Church lied about what it claimed to be, and is a fraud.

Let's back up a little bit here. If the Church, which is God's "one true Church on the face of the Earth," somehow "doesn't work for somebody," what does that mean, exactly? Why would it "not work"? Why would anyone---such as this supposed Mr. D---throw away all the promises the Gospel entails? This is yet another problem with your model, Wade: it provides no explanation as to how or why this happens.
So, if John and I are correct in our assumtion, then the "vast majority" of those who leave the Church are Mr./Mrs. D.'s.

Here are some historical examples of Mr./Mrs. D's that I could think of: Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, David Whitmer, Emma Smith, William Smith, Edward Boyton.

More recently there was: Micheal Quinn and Abraham Gilliadi.

As Runtu already pointed out, Quinn and Gilliadi are poor examples. As for you historical examples, they don't really fit, either. After all, do you know for a fact that none of them was every angry? Didn't Sidney Rigdon speak out against Joseph Smith from time to time? These examples are awfully paltry, Wade.

There are quite a few Mr. D's that I know personally, but I prefer not to mention their names or relations to me so as to protect their privacy.

In other words, once again, you have no concrete evidence.

However, might some of the vast majority of those who have left the Church have been angered for reasons other than a belief that the Church lied about what it claimed to be and was thought to be a fraud? I suspect there are not a few who have been anger by perceived ill-treatment from members and/or the failure of leaders and members to behave in the way that some believe they ought.

This once again cuts to the question of just who, exactly, the Church is. Is it the members? The leaders? Both? Neither? Moreover, if the leaders, gifted with the mantle of the priesthood of God's One True Church fail to properly address and repair these supposed "offense," then they have, in fact, misrepresented themselves as being full of God's light.

But, that is a separate issue from the Mr. D scenerio I had presented. And, were the discussion of the specific issue of the Church allegedly lying about what it claims to be had not proven counterproductive, I had fully intended to address some of those other reeasons that people may have been angered also. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah, right. I'm sure your idea of "fully addressing" the issue would be to marshall forth the usual TBM vilification cliches: the person was weak and couldn't live up to the demands of the Gospel; the person was offended; the person wanted to sin; etc., etc., etc. Anything to avoid laying any responsibility on the Church.

[_wenglund]

Actually, Mr. D was a scenario that was specific to the issue of whether the Church had lied about what it claimed to be and the anger and hurt and grief that may have been associated therewith. So, if you are looking for Mr. D's (or Mrs. D's), one need only find those who have discontinued to believe and/or who have left the Church for reasons other than because of the belied that the Church had lied about what it claimed to be, and who weren't angred and hurt because of that belief, but moved on with their life.

Except that your scenario specifically said that these were people who agreed that the product was not as claimed, so now you appear to be backpedaling by saying that people who leave for other reasons are also Mr. D.

There seems to be some confusion as to what is inclusive and exclusive in my specified scenerio. Let me clarify using the mathematic notion of sets:

Superset: Includes everyone who is or has been a member of the Church (believing or otherwise)
Subset A: Includes every member who believes the Church is true, and who sees vocal and angry exmembers as wrongfully hurting the Church.
Subset B: Includes every disbelieving member or former member who believes the Church lied about what it claims to be, and was angered and grief-stricken as a result thereof.
Subset C: Includes every member who believes the Church is true, but who didn't or doesn't view the vocal and angry exmembers as wrongfully hurtful to the Church.
Subset D: Includes Every unbelieving member or former member who DOES NOT view the Church as lying about what it claims to be, and thus was not angry or hurt for that specific reason.

Therefore, the set of Mr./Mrs. D's excludes ONLY those who are both unbelieving former members AND who believe the Church lied about what it claims to be, and includes every unbelieving member or former member who disbelieves or left the Church for reasons OTHER than the belief that the Church has lied about what it claims to be. It is the set that includes, along with unbelieving members, those you described as "the vast majority of those who leave the Church".

The Mr. B's, such as yourself, in the specified scenerio, are, on the other hand, in the underwhelming minority.

I am not familiar with any scientific studies that provide authoritative statistic one way or another, but I agree with John that "the vast majority of people who leave the LDS church do so because it simply doesn't work in their lives". To me, that is their reason for leaving, rather than because they believe the Church lied about what it claimed to be, and is a fraud. So, if John and I are correct in our assumtion, then the "vast majority" of those who leave the Church are Mr./Mrs. D.'s.

Again, those who leave for other reasons are specifically excluded from your scenario, so we're talking apples and oranges.

No, they are not specifically excluded (see above). In fact, they are INCLUDED if they: 1) no longer believe in and/or have left the Church; AND 2) they no longer believe in and/or left the Church for reasons OTHER than believing the Church lied about what it claims to be; AND/OR 3) they were not angered and grief-stricken due to the belief that the Church lied about what it claims to be. This, includes, along with disbelieving members, what you referred to as "the vast majority of those who have left the Church".

Here are some historical examples of Mr./Mrs. D's that I could think of: Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, David Whitmer, Emma Smith, William Smith, Edward Boyton.

Every one of your examples expressed belief in Mormonism but disagreed with its practice, which is not what we are talking about. None of these people ever expressed a belief that the church was not what it claimed to be. Again, these would be those who fit the "vast majority" scenario I outlined above.

Actually, as clarified above, they fit perfectly the subset D (i.e. they qualified by having left the Church).

More recently there was: Micheal Quinn and Abraham Gilliadi.

Both of these men still believe, even though they were excommunicated, so again, neither fits your definition. And if memory serves, Gileadi has been rebaptized.

Both fit the category "D" by virtue of their having left the Church.

There are quite a few Mr. D's that I know personally, but I prefer not to mention their names or relations to me so as to protect their privacy.

I don't think personal details are important, but I'd like to hear the account of someone who determined that the church was not indeed true and yet quietly walked away with a shrug of the shoulders. Can you share something like that without violating privacy?[/quote]

Whether they believe the Church is true or not, has only indirect relevance to the specified scenerio (it was a secondary qualifier in determining weather they were either an A/C or a B/D--those who disbelieve and/or who left the Church are either a B or D). The issue of the thread, and the primary qualifier that distinguished between B's and D's was whether a person believed or not that the Church lied about what it claims to be, and was angered and grief-stricken as a result thereof. Those who didn't believe the Church had lied about what it claimed to be, are D's. That would include anyone who either disbelieves in the Church and/OR left the Church for reasons other than the belief that the Chruch lied about what it claimed to be. The acquaintences, former members, current unbelieving members, friends and relations that I refer to above are just such people. Some believe in the Church but have left the Church for a variety of reasons other than because of a belief that the Church lied about what it claims to be, while still others disbelieve in the Church and either remain or have left, and their disbelief and reasons for leaving the Church are not because of the belief that the Church lied about what it claims to be.

However, might some of the vast majority of those who have left the Church have been angered for reasons other than a belief that the Church lied about what it claimed to be and was thought to be a fraud? I suspect there are not a few who have been anger by perceived ill-treatment from members and/or the failure of leaders and members to behave in the way that some believe they ought.

Yes, and those people would also be excluded from the scenario you presented.

No. As clarified and reiterated above, they would not be excluded. However, they may be considered as Mr./Mrs. B's in their own specified scenerio were it deemed productive to have introduced those scenerios.

But, that is a separate issue from the Mr. D scenerio I had presented. And, were the discussion of the specific issue of the Church allegedly lying about what it claims to be had not proven counterproductive, I had fully intended to address some of those other reasons that people may have been angered also. Oh well...Thanks, -Wade Englund-

On the contrary, I didn't consider it counterproductive. I thought it was interesting, to say the least.[/quote]

I found it counterproductive in that it failed miserably in meeting the stated objective for the thread, and actually exacerbated, in some ways, the very thing it was intended to eliminate or diminish. It became bogged down deflections and in fruitless bantering over relatively insignificant matters and side issue, and even aggitated, to some degree, the cycle of hurt and anger and grief that it was designed to extricate people on both side (the A's and B's) therefrom.

I don't hold out much hope for this thread either given how it has already (after our first exchange) become entangled in a marass of misunderstanding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

Some questions and comments:

1. What does 'left the church' mean, as the phrase pertains to this discussion? Are those included who are inactive as defined by the church (not attending anything for 3 months straight)? Or are those included who have been inactive for a number of years? what about those who self-select a different religion when given the choice, but that are still carried on LDS church rolls? Or are you only including those who have either had their names removed from the rolls or been excommunicated? (this last is a relatively small number, I think).

2. How can we find good data on the number of people who have left, when the church doesn't even keep track of the dead, let alone the living?

3. How can we know any information about why anyone who has ever left the church, when we have so little documentation available? It's not like the church has an exit interview process by which they document why people leave. This is all speculation, and anyone who says they have data had best check their hole card, because the church doesn't let this kind of information out to the public, if they even have it.

[_wenglund]

Some questions and comments:

1. What does 'left the church' mean, as the phrase pertains to this discussion? Are those included who are inactive as defined by the church (not attending anything for 3 months straight)? Or are those included who have been inactive for a number of years? what about those who self-select a different religion when given the choice, but that are still carried on LDS church rolls? Or are you only including those who have either had their names removed from the rolls or been excommunicated? (this last is a relatively small number, I think).

All of the above, as well as others (those who have been excommunicated, etc.)

2. How can we find good data on the number of people who have left, when the church doesn't even keep track of the dead, let alone the living?

The Church does, to a reasonable extent, keep track of the dead and living. But, in answer to the correct portion of your question, good data (which I interpret to mean reasonably accurate for the lay purposes at hand), one may cull anecdotally, or check with the Church's statistical department for figures on activity rates, excommunications, etc.

3. How can we know any information about why anyone who has ever left the church, when we have so little documentation available? It's not like the church has an exit interview process by which they document why people leave. This is all speculation, and anyone who says they have data had best check their hole card, because the church doesn't let this kind of information out to the public, if they even have it.

We can know the information about why some people left the Church by asking them. Obviously. Do we have sufficient data upon which to conduct a scientific analysis? I don't know. But, that is hardly what I am suggesting or hardly what is reasonably needed in an informal discussion such as this.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-