Where's Mr. D?

[_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).

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-

In other words, your data is all anecdotal. And thus, totally worthless. Okay, just wanted to establish that.

[_cricket]

When I left the church, I thought that I was just disentangling myself from a bunch of weirdos with funny underwear and made-up theology who wanted me to marry and have babies.

It wasn't until much, much later that I discovered the facts in all their glory. Then I was pissed.

Anger is not only justifiable in many circumstances, but necessary for change. I never attempt to hide my anger at those who seek power over others and who wish to spread lies. I do, however, question the motives of assholes who choose to look at the anger instead of the reason for the anger. Joseph Smith did plenty of sickening things that any clear thinking person would be up in arms about. I am not wrong for being disgusted. His followers are wrong for not being disgusted.

[_Mister Scratch]

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.

Actually, Quinn does not fit. In his famous lecture entitled, "On Being a Mormon Historian," he writes "The tragic reality [...] is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the Mormon past, but have offered to the Saints instead a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials." (Cited in Under the Banner of Heaven, pg. 338) Krakauer further cites him as saying "...to be excommunicated in like a form of death. It's like attending your own funeral. You feel the loss of that sense of community. I miss it deeply" (pg. 339). Quinn was also a vocal critic of BYU's stifling academic atmosphere, going so far as to describe it as "an Auschwitz of the mind."

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?

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. [/quote]

Perhaps it would be best to separate these two things out, then? After all, there's really no question that the Church has been dishonest in the past. That's why your other thread went downhill so quickly---because you were unwilling to recognize this very obvious fact.

Those who didn't believe the Church had lied about what it claimed to be, are D's.

So, would it be fair to say that a prerequisite for being a "Mr. D" is ignorance? Because there is really no way that anyone who has done the research would believe such nonsense.

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.

I think that you are waffling and changing your argument, Wade. Your initial objective---and please correct me if I'm wrong---was to try and assuage pain that people felt upon learning that the Church was dishonest in some way. But this is a totally separate issue from exiting the Church, no? After all, there are plenty of TR-carrying members who are fully aware of past Church deceptions, who were/are angry about those deceptions. Right?

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.

Well, there you have it. You've convinced me, Wade: the two things (i.e., reasons for leaving the Church, and being angry about the Church's lies) are separate (though sometimes related) issues.

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.

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.
[/quote]

The only apparently aggravated people on that thread were you and Loran. The reason for this was your intransigent unwillingness to admit that the Church hasn't always been honest. If Quinn can do it, why can't you?

[cacheman]

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.

So, again, can you give us an example of a someone who left the church out of unbelief but who nevertheless does not believe the church lied? So far, you haven't. Again, the crucial question is belief. By definition, those who left for "other reasons" excludes those who left out of unbelief. This isn't all that hard, Wade. Please give us examples.

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".

Again, unbelief is crucial. The vast majority, as I mentioned, leave for reasons other than belief or unbelief. So, Mr. D is the group that no longer believes.

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

I'm betting that there are far more Mr. Bs than there are Mr. Ds. Your failure so far to produce even one Mr. D tends to support my bet.

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".

Wow, Wade: According to you, anyone who has left the church for whatever reason and is not hurt or angry is Mr. D. That's a far cry from the "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'." So, in a matter of days, you went from saying that Mr. D no longer believes in the product to saying that belief has nothing to do with it. It's not particularly helpful to keep switching definitions, Wade. Do you agree with the following definition of Mr. D?

1. He once believed in the church.
2. He no longer believes in the church.
3. He was never hurt or angry about his loss of belief.

Or are you going back to saying that belief doesn't matter?

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).

Wade, the discussion was about feelings of hurt and anger upon discovering one had been lied to. As desert_vulture has shown, one can feel that way without leaving the church (in fact, I'm still in the church, as well). I think we can all agree that leaving the church for reasons other than feeling deceived would not necessarily lead to feelings of anger or hurt. As I quoted you above, "Mr. D no longer believes in the product." Every one of your examples still believed in the product.

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

Interesting that you equate excommunication with "having left the church." I don't think the church sees it that way.

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.

You yourself set up as the primary qualifier that "Mr. D no longer believes in the church." Now you're saying that belief is irrelevant. What the ...?

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.

Hmmm. I'd say your clarification and reiteration sound more like backpedaling, but that would be a cognitive distortion. ;-)

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-

I would hope you can forgive the "marass" (sic), but I would like some clarification.

[_Who Knows]

And I'd like a definition of 'leaving the church'. Does that mean your name is no longer on the rolls of the church? Or does it simply mean inactivity?

I know a number of people who have 'left the church' (inactive In other words), drink, don't go to church, etc., but still profess belief in the church. And they're not angry. It's the ones that no longer believe in the church that have some form of anger, believe in some sort of lie on the part of the church.

[_Runtu]

And I'd like a definition of 'leaving the church'. Does that mean your name is no longer on the rolls of the church? Or does it simply mean inactivity?

I know a number of people who have 'left the church' (inactive In other words), drink, don't go to church, etc., but still profess belief in the church. And they're not angry. It's the ones that no longer believe in the church that have some form of anger, believe in some sort of lie on the part of the church.

I guess that's my question, too. How did we get to belief not being a factor? Lots of people leave the church for all kinds of reasons. It indeed wouldn't make any sense to be angry if one still believed in the church, would it?

[_Who Knows]

It indeed wouldn't make any sense to be angry if one still believed in the church, would it?

True. And people can leave the church, but still believe in it as well.

There's lots of options. I assumed that Wade was referring specifically to those who once believed in the church, but then had some sort of 'change of heart' and now no longer believe in the church (whether they left the church or not). I thought the fact that they no longer believed was the key.

But maybe wade can 'clarify' again.

[_Runtu]

It indeed wouldn't make any sense to be angry if one still believed in the church, would it?

True. And people can leave the church, but still believe in it as well.

There's lots of options. I assumed that Wade was referring specifically to those who once believed in the church, but then had some sort of 'change of heart' and now no longer believe in the church (whether they left the church or not). I thought the fact that they no longer believed was the key.

But maybe wade can 'clarify' again.

Well, considering that he said Mr. D once believed and now doesn't, one would have to assume that belief and not nominal membership was the issue.

by the way, that thudding sound was Wade's "scenario" collapsing in a heap of contradictions.

[_Sam Harris]

by the way, that thudding sound was Wade's "scenario" collapsing in a heap of contradictions.

Dang, I thought it was his deceitful little heart at the prospect of being uncovered completely. He still his his superiority security blanket over him at the moment.

[_Mister Scratch]

It indeed wouldn't make any sense to be angry if one still believed in the church, would it?

True. And people can leave the church, but still believe in it as well.

There's lots of options. I assumed that Wade was referring specifically to those who once believed in the church, but then had some sort of 'change of heart' and now no longer believe in the church (whether they left the church or not). I thought the fact that they no longer believed was the key.

But maybe wade can 'clarify' again.

Well, considering that he said Mr. D once believed and now doesn't, one would have to assume that belief and not nominal membership was the issue.

by the way, that thudding sound was Wade's "scenario" collapsing in a heap of contradictions.

Excellent points. Both Wade and juliann have been making this argument for a long time: i.e., that exiters---which I have always taken to be a synonym for "ex-Mormons"---fit this baloney "Mr D" profile. But, lo and behold! we learn, that, in actuality, the only way this argument works is if the apologist in question conflates exmos with jackmormons and inactives.