Why People Leave Survey Results

[_Chap]

P.S. Now that Why Me is the first person I have ever put on ignore, I can understand the appeal of that feature. When a thread says that a post has been made by Why Me but doesn't show it, it is evocative of the muffled yells of a person in your trunk who is tied up and has duct tape over his mouth.

Yup ... hey, I didn't know we shared the same hobby! PM me, and I'll share some pictures with you.

[_LDSToronto]

Hi Seth,

Certainly, I wouldn't make any assumptions - Elder Jensen may have something else in mind. This plan was called, "The Rescue" and it came from Salt Lake City. Complete with materials and pictures.

H.

Ah, ok. Well then, it's worse than I thought. ;-) You're right, this grand rescue plan, intended to counteract members' learning all of the negative stuff that's tucked away in LDS history, is really nothing more than just another attempt to "re-activate" people by the same means as they've ever used. The TBMs are given nothing new here, just expected to go suck people back in without actually addressing their concerns.

You already hit on it a bit, Seth - the kind of 'Rescue Plan' that most of us would like to see implemented is unrealistic. I mean, the Church would have to somehow educate it's *active* members in a history that they had either not heard of or had assumed was made up. That alone would create more departures. And, assuming it was possible, imagine the time it would take to create such a cultural shift.

I can't even imagine any steps beyond a mass re-education program. It seems impossible.

H.

[_why me]

Modern Affairs like Hoffman and the Priesthood Ban aren't even discussed in the LDS meeting houses, and when people discover the truth on their own they get pissed because they were lied to or weren't given disclosure.

How often should the priesthood ban be discussed? Every week? Once a month? Once a year? And how often should we discuss Hoffman? Once a week? Once a month? Once a year?

We old timers remember the ban. Should we bring it up once a week? Should I give a talk about it? Should I mention it once a year in a ward meeting?

[_why me]

Ah, ok. Well then, it's worse than I thought. ;-) You're right, this grand rescue plan, intended to counteract members' learning all of the negative stuff that's tucked away in LDS history, is really nothing more than just another attempt to "re-activate" people by the same means as they've ever used. The TBMs are given nothing new here, just expected to go suck people back in without actually addressing their concerns.

Good spin. What is unfortunate is that even if the LDS church came out and addressed the controversial issues, critics would still give it a negative spin. Amazing.

[_Quasimodo]

You already hit on it a bit, Seth - the kind of 'Rescue Plan' that most of us would like to see implemented is unrealistic. I mean, the Church would have to somehow educate it's *active* members in a history that they had either not heard of or had assumed was made up. That alone would create more departures. And, assuming it was possible, imagine the time it would take to create such a cultural shift.

I can't even imagine any steps beyond a mass re-education program. It seems impossible.

H.

Yep. The trouble the Church has is that it has to deal with the same facts we all have that are already out there and available to anyone who cares to look.

It's become apparent that the apologists can't explain away those facts to most rational people. The official Church explanations can do no better.

It's either admit the factual history of the Church and it's teachings (which will lose members) or try to deny it in ways that just won't work (which will lose members).

It's a lose/ lose situation.

[_Sethbag]

The biggest problem, of course, is that the LDS church isn't actually true, and those who leave because they have discovered this aren't going to be sucked back in by taking the discussions from the missionaries again. Having discovered this myself, and seen through the various ways in which I was convinced for so long to believe that the church actually was true, I just stand there sometimes, incredulously, when missionaries I've mentioned my apostasy to earnestly start asking if I've prayed about it. I mean, seriously. That epistemology's ship has well and truly sailed, my friends. At least with me.

I'm at least half-convinced that this whole "Rescue" plan is just a bullet-point for some GA's next OER. ;-) And the other half of me is convinced that it's really aimed at strengthening the resolve of still-believing members by tasking them and making them feel more involved, or more invested, in their church membership. In other words, the "intellectual apostates" are already gone, but the church can slow the rate of apostasy if they can take folks who might find themselves eventually on this path, and divert them towards increased investment in the church instead.

[_Sethbag]

Good spin. What is unfortunate is that even if the LDS church came out and addressed the controversial issues, critics would still give it a negative spin. Amazing.

Why Me, the LDS Church isn't really true. If they came out and admitted to the evidence that persuades one of that, but then tried to spin it to say that it really doesn't, then yes I would criticize that spin. I would criticize it because the church's spin on it would unavoidably be disingenuous, or intellectually dishonest.

[_Willy Law]

Modern Affairs like Hoffman and the Priesthood Ban aren't even discussed in the LDS meeting houses, and when people discover the truth on their own they get pissed because they were lied to or weren't given disclosure.

How often should the priesthood ban be discussed? Every week? Once a month? Once a year? And how often should we discuss Hoffman? Once a week? Once a month? Once a year?

We old timers remember the ban. Should we bring it up once a week? Should I give a talk about it? Should I mention it once a year in a ward meeting?

Why me did you even look at the survey results? If you had you would see that the priesthood ban and Hoffman are not very significant factors in people leaving. That being said I cannot remember the priesthood ban or Hoffman ever being brought up in church.

[_consiglieri]

Certainly, I wouldn't make any assumptions - Elder Jensen may have something else in mind. This plan was called, "The Rescue" and it came from Salt Lake City. Complete with materials and pictures.

H.

Back before I quit my post as High Priest Group secretary, we had the same sort of program introduced, only we didn't call it "The Rescue"; it was called "Focus Fifteen."

But all the details were exactly the same.

Last I heard it wasn't going over swimmingly.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

I just read the article.

I genuinely like Marlin Jensen, so was disappointed to read him quoted as saying the church "has made no effort to hide or obscure its history," admitting only that some aspects "haven't been emphasized."

That is downright dishonest. Of course, the Church has made a huge effort to hide and obscure its history; or at least those portions of its history that portray it in a less than flattering light.

Terryl Givens has it right when he speaks of "a church history that has been selectively rendered through the Church Education System and Sunday school manuals. . . . The problem is not so much the discovery of particular details that are deal breakers for the faithful; the problem is a loss of faith and trust in an institution that was less than forthcoming to begin with."

I do not see a ready reconciliation between Jensen's view and that of Givens.

But I do think Givens is right.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri