Does DCP Require Biased Moderation?

[_charity]

Since most people don't leave the Church because of historical issues, then probably in terms of numbers, not a big group, is being helped.

And you know this how? The church doesn't publish this information, so I'm interested in knowing your source, especially if it's more than gossip.

My experience in the Church over 40 years, knowing people who have left the Church, my last 4 years experience in apologetics. Anecdotal. I know of no studies, nor have I heard even a rumor about any such data kept in the Church. But what I know is well above the level of "gossip."

What I know from personal eperience:

Excommunicated for adultery about 1971, never came back, at least not so far
Left husband and joined a polygamous cult about 1974
Left Church because Utah (the Church his mind) still had capital punishment, which he opposed.
Left Church because she got involved in a self-inprovement scheme that competed with the Church.
Left Church because he felt his great talents were not appreciated with a prestigious calling. (His own words he would not stay with a church which didn't know enough to utilitze men of talent.)

These were actual resignations, and the 1 excommunication. I don't know anyone personally who has left the Church over issues of Church history.

[_the road to hana]

I don't know anyone personally who has left the Church over issues of Church history.

Sure you do. You know plenty of people in that category here. Maybe you're not drinking buddies with any of them, but you're friends, or at least acquaintances.

Interestingly, most of the people I know personally who've left the church left over issues of theology, history or practice.

[_charity]

I think, like I said, for the confrontational sliding down the hill to apostacy member, probably not at all successful. Not just DCP or those others you name. None of us. Because I think that group is pretty much goners. Since most people don't leave the Church because of historical issues, then probably in terms of numbers, not a big group, is being helped. But I think the existence of an apologist group, and with some being fairly prominent, is a good thing in terms of there being the perception of two teams on the field.

So it's all just a ruse. Okay.

Your reading is off kilter. I didn't say that at all.

Don't you think that Mopologetics goes quite a ways beyond "set[ing] the record straight"? FAIR, FARMS, FROB, SHIELDS, MAD.... This seems a bit of an over-the-top reaction for a mere "setting the record straight," don't you think? Also, if this is really just such a simply matter of "setting the record straight," why can't the Church's PR department handle it? Why should the supreme truth in the universe need all these many organizations to defend it? It just doesn't make very much sense, does it, charity?

FARMS exists for the purpose of scholarly research, not apologetics, as much as critics would like to say that isn't true. The others added all together probably don't have a small fraction of the budget of the big anti-Mormon mnistries out there.[/quote]

Do you have any evidence for this? Have you seen balance sheets for FARMS? [/quote]

I specifically stated "the others." That excludes FARMS.

So I don't think it is at all over the top. FAIR doesn't pay their apologists, and even asks the apologists to pay,

Huh? What does this mean?

All the apologists for FAIR, the e-list, etc. donate money to keep the sites up and running. That's what that means.

unlike the anti-Mormon ministries which get revenues for their anti-Mormon presentations, and how much money they drum up from the peopel they can dupe into donating.

It makes a lot of sense. People serving their Church without hope of pay.

It just seems like such a silly, Sisyphean effort, though. You yourself state that only a tiny fraction of struggling members are helped. So, what's the point? Argument just for the sake of argument? Elsewhere, you state that Church critics are like "rabid" dogs, thus suggesting that it is fairly easy to "lure" people away from the Church.... Do you think that's the case?

No, not argument for the sake of argument. Standing up for the truth. I think it is a matter of honor. You know the old adage that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. I think it is important for the "good men" of apologetics to do something.

I don't think people are lured away so much as they start looking for reasons to leave. Then they say that someone influenced them. Kevin has stated to me, that he was "pushed" out by apologists. It is all our fault. And yes, many critics are like rabid dogs. You have seen the hatred exhibited by some of the posters here. Snarling, foaming at the mouth. Really sad individuals.

[_skippy the dead]

Since most people don't leave the Church because of historical issues, then probably in terms of numbers, not a big group, is being helped.

And you know this how? The church doesn't publish this information, so I'm interested in knowing your source, especially if it's more than gossip.

My experience in the Church over 40 years, knowing people who have left the Church, my last 4 years experience in apologetics. Anecdotal. I know of no studies, nor have I heard even a rumor about any such data kept in the Church. But what I know is well above the level of "gossip."

What I know from personal eperience:

Excommunicated for adultery about 1971, never came back, at least not so far
Left husband and joined a polygamous cult about 1974
Left Church because Utah (the Church his mind) still had capital punishment, which he opposed.
Left Church because she got involved in a self-inprovement scheme that competed with the Church.
Left Church because he felt his great talents were not appreciated with a prestigious calling. (His own words he would not stay with a church which didn't know enough to utilitze men of talent.)

These were actual resignations, and the 1 excommunication. I don't know anyone personally who has left the Church over issues of Church history.

Just to clarify - in your usage, does "leaving" the church require resignation or excommunication?

[_truth dancer]

I don't think people are lured away so much as they start looking for reasons to leave.

You can't seem to let this go.... Please take note:

People do not disbelieve the truth claims of the LDS church because Satan lures them away.

People do not disbelieve the the church because they are looking for reasons to leave.

People do not disbelieve the church because of sin.

People do not disbelieve the church because they get offended.

People leave the church because they disbelieve the truth claims of the church.

Like people in EVERY OTHER RELIGION IN THIS WORLD...

Why is this such a difficult concept? There are millions of people the world over who leave and join religions of all types. Why would LDS church members (or former members) who disbelieve be any different than the rest of the world's population?

See the thing is, if someone stops believing in Islam, you hear some believers talk just as you do. If someone stops believing in Scientology, their members repeat your mantra.

Why can't people just accept the fact that some people don't believe in the stories in which they are taught to believe; stories that do not appear to be true so one must rely on faith.

Islam may not ring true to you. Similarly Joseph Smith's religion may not ring true to a Muslim. Scientology may not ring true to me, whereas a believer in Scientology may not believe as do I. Sin isn't the reason a Buddhist monk doesn't believe in the FLDS church. Similarly a LDS isn't typically looking for excuses to NOT believe in Hinduism.

Disbelief has nothing to do with Satan, sin, offense, or trying to find an excuse to leave their religion.


~dancer~

[_charity]

Just to clarify - in your usage, does "leaving" the church require resignation or excommunication?

This is a deep question. In my oown opinion, I would say that a definite "leaving" the Church would require either a resignation or an excommunication. Some specific intent on the part of the person to dissociate him/herself.

But it is really the desire of the person that is important.

I know many people who haven't been to Church in years, paid tihting, etc. who consider themselves members. They would resist anyone questioning their membership. I certainly won't try to tell them if they are or not.

I have known people who have returned to the Church after an excommunication. They felt themselves to be members (Is there an opposite to in name only? A member in everything except name?) during their time when they weren't.

I know people here on this board who say they still consider themselves members, when they do not support the leaders, or major doctrines of the Church. But they say they are.

So, this is not an easy question.

[_skippy the dead]

So, this is not an easy question.

Thanks for the reply. I'll agree that it's not an easy question - that's why I asked. I'd suppose that on this basis, there may be more people in your acquaintance that have "left" the church for historical issues than you may know.

For additional perspective, for me it was a combination of philosophical and doctrinal issues. Both were colored by historic origins, if that makes sense. In other words, I could not see the divine in certain things that I questioned, based in part on the events that lead to those things.

I suppose that only serves to muddy the waters further in trying to categorize various reasons for leaving.

[_beastie]

I guess you don't really understand the meaning of the word "confrontational."

Nonconfrontational response: Hey, thanks. I knew there was an answer. Those critics obviously didn't give me all the pertinent information.

Confrontational response: You idiot! You just want me to stay in the Church so I can pay tithing to the "corportation." You'll say anything, lie, decieve, distort. I know all about you blind, brainwashed morbots!

LOL! Sure, charity, you see that ALL the time at MAD, don't you? ROFL!

Yet you still cited a post that simply immediately agreed with the apologia as "nonconfrontational", so you're still, unwittingly, verifying what I said.

by the way, is this post "confrontational" or "nonconfrontational"?

Ok, now I'm going to delve into those claims and see how valid they are. Whoops! The "linguistic evidence" doesn't refer to metallurgy, but rather simple metal, which no one questions existed. And whoops!! Sorenson distorted his sources in his references. The problem hasn't been resolved at all!! This was not quality evidence!!!

[_charity]

Thanks for the reply. I'll agree that it's not an easy question - that's why I asked. I'd suppose that on this basis, there may be more people in your acquaintance that have "left" the church for historical issues than you may know.

For additional perspective, for me it was a combination of philosophical and doctrinal issues. Both were colored by historic origins, if that makes sense. In other words, I could not see the divine in certain things that I questioned, based in part on the events that lead to those things.

I suppose that only serves to muddy the waters further in trying to categorize various reasons for leaving.

I am trying to play nice, but you are making it hard. So, when I give you a list of reasons why I KNOW people have left the Church, you come back and make an assumption that historical issues play a bigger part than I know? I would say you have no basis to make that assumption. Except that generally anti-Mormons and critics like to think that.

[_beastie]

I am trying to play nice, but you are making it hard. So, when I give you a list of reasons why I KNOW people have left the Church, you come back and make an assumption that historical issues play a bigger part than I know? I would say you have no basis to make that assumption. Except that generally anti-Mormons and critics like to think that.

Who cares who you or anyone else knows personally, in real life, who left the church, and why. For every person you KNOW who left the church, and you (supposedly) KNOW the reasons why, there is at least one other who left without your notice or knowledge, and who left for doctrinal/historical/theological reasons.

And, by the way, the "nice" ones you are sure would never say anything critical about Mormonism just may be posting here or at RFM. People who know ME in real life would never suspect I post on the internet about Mormonism.