in real life - How often do you see people leaving the church?

[_John Larsen]

Packham's numbers are way to high. If there were that number of motivated ex-Mormons the Church would be shaking to its core. Wards would be bleeding families. That is not the case.

[_Scottie]

What would you suggest? It looks like the fingers in the ears combined with saying "lalalalalala" is not working.

Within my lifetime I can see a growing isolationist/survivalist mentality to crop up in a culture already known for taking drastic steps to control its devotees.

Consigliari from MAD was involved in a fireside where they chose a few of the more common criticisms, detail what the criticism is and give the apologetic response. I think they need more of these.

In my mind, I knew about BY and polygamy from a very young age, but it never bothered me. Had I known about Joseph Smith and polygamy from a young age, I'm sure it would have never bothered me. But I didn't, and it bothered me greatly.



.

[_Scottie]

Inoculate against what? Its own history? I hear people say this quite a bit and I don't get it. Many of us left because of things we learned about the Church's past. I find the idea that if they just teach more accurate history they will save more members quite strange.

Inoculation only works with a weak or dead strain of the disease. But this strain is alive and well.

The problem as I see it is that a member may hear something about, say, the problems with the Book of Abraham.

TBM goes to the web and googles Book of Abraham. What is he going to find?? A slew of anti-sites. I tried this and I got Wikipedia, bookofabraham.com which appears to be anti, Jeff Lindseys site, LDS.org and then CARM followed by a bunch of anti sites. FAIR isn't even on the front page.

So, I propose the church hold firesides where the problems with the Book of Abraham are discussed, and explain the acceptable apologetic theories.

[_Ray A]

So, I propose the church hold firesides where the problems with the Book of Abraham are discussed, and explain the acceptable apologetic theories.

That's what John Dehlin essentially tried to do, but realised that by just being exposed to controversy people were still leaving, or even after learning of the controversies through his website, were thinking of leaving, as hard as he tried to look at the problems in a positive way.

Look at how popular he is with exmos, many of whom are thanking him for telling them the truth, and for "getting them out". I think the Church already knows that this is what will happen. If you're going to give an answer, you have to first explain the problem, and many members don't even realise what the problems are.

[_Scottie]

That's what John Dehlin essentially tried to do, but realised that by just being exposed to controversy people were still leaving, or even after learning of the controversies through his website, were thinking of leaving, as hard as he tried to look at the problems in a positive way.

Look at how popular he is with exmos, many of whom are thanking him for telling them the truth, and for "getting them out". I think the Church already knows that this is what will happen. If you're going to give an answer, you have to first explain the problem, and many members don't even realise what the problems are.

You may be right. Perhaps the best course of action is to continue to insinuate that anything that paints the church or it's history in a bad light must be taken out of context or a lie. Avoid anti material like the plague.

I know apologists will deny this happens, but I have some pretty good evidence that members do not want to know any of this stuff.

[_Ray A]

I know apologists will deny this happens, but I have some pretty good evidence that members do not want to know any of this stuff.

So do I - lots of it. I've sat before bishops, stake presidents, and in meetings where I've been asked, "will you make a serious effort to stop reading anti-Mormon literature?" They don't care about it, and they don't want to know about it. It's poison you don't touch if you want to keep believing. I've known of many cases where a brother or sister has said that they "briefly read" some anti literature and were shaken by it, so they never read it again because it "plants too many doubts in your mind". To them it's like the "slime" you avoid while holding on to the Iron Rod.

[_bcspace]

Inoculate against what? Its own history? I hear people say this quite a bit and I don't get it. Many of us left because of things we learned about the Church's past.

Innoculate against insidious criticisms of the Church. Church history on it's own is just fine.

[_John Larsen]

Inoculate against what? Its own history? I hear people say this quite a bit and I don't get it. Many of us left because of things we learned about the Church's past. I find the idea that if they just teach more accurate history they will save more members quite strange.

Inoculation only works with a weak or dead strain of the disease. But this strain is alive and well.

The problem as I see it is that a member may hear something about, say, the problems with the Book of Abraham.

TBM goes to the web and googles Book of Abraham. What is he going to find?? A slew of anti-sites. I tried this and I got Wikipedia, bookofabraham.com which appears to be anti, Jeff Lindseys site, LDS.org and then CARM followed by a bunch of anti sites. FAIR isn't even on the front page.

So, I propose the church hold firesides where the problems with the Book of Abraham are discussed, and explain the acceptable apologetic theories.

Do you think that would have worked with you?

[_Scottie]

Do you think that would have worked with you?

It's hard to say.

I know that I bought into a lot of the other apologetic BS that was passed around.

I believed the Earth was 6,000 years old and that since this world was made from other worlds, it makes perfect sense that dinosaurs bones would be found.
I believed polygamy was because too many men died crossing the plains.
I believed that there was a sun called Kolob somewhere out there.
etc...

It's quite possible that I would have believed the apologetic rebuttals of the troublesome claims.

[_Seven]

I still think the church needs to take inoculation seriously. I don't care when or where they teach the troublesome history, but the problem is only going to get worse.

Ahhh, but Scottie the church doesn't hide anything, remember? That's just a claim coming from those bitter exMos who want to tear down the church.
Mormons who don't know about Joseph Smith's wives would have to be stupid or lazy in their religious studies.
Why is there a need to innoculate the members at all?

I find it hilarious to see apologists discussing the innoculation idea when they claim they've known this stuff since they were in diapers and that's it's soooo easy to find in church publications.