With all due respect to Dehlin, what is the point in staying

[_Darth J]

I don't think that Joseph's polygamy was a big secret. He would usually ask the family members of the women involved for permission. That would include a lot of people knowing about the practice. Also, when his plural wives died and if they went west after his murder, their tombstone usually had the last name of Smith chiseled into them. However, given the persecution the saints were already experiencing and had experienced, the practice did have to be kept away from the general non-member public surrounding the Mormon community.

Tell us about Nancy Rigdon or Sarah Pratt, Why Me. Or Martha Brotherton.

[Hawkeye]

What would the church be like if people over the past 50 years continued to stay after being offended by/or disagreeing with one thing or another, and remained vocal about those problems they saw? I think the Church would be very different today, if this had happened. If true then... I don't know... it is a strange (and possibly an offensive) thing to say... but perhaps it could be said that exmormons are at least partially responsible for the current state of the Church. So I guess I agree with posters here that a good reason to stay could be to make positive contributions to the institution that may stand in need, even though they (or most members/church leaders) may not know it. I have become active over the last few months, largely because (among other things) I have great concern for my children's well being, who will no doubt continue to be raised LDS by their devout mother.

[_MCB]

The liberals and the rational people leave. What is left veers to the far right. Scary.

[_Quasimodo]

If true then... I don't know... it is a strange (and possibly an offensive) thing to say... but perhaps it could be said that exmormons are at least partly to blame for the current state of the Church.

I think it is the church and it's questionable teachings that are to blame for the current state of the church. Exmormons are just the result of that. It's a loosing battle.

The more reliable information about the history of the church and it's teachings becomes available, the more people will leave. Maybe not this generation, but the next or the one after that will see it's demise.

[_Spektical]

All churches need buildings to operate in and they need to keep up with times with technology.

LDS chapels are fine. They're versatile and can serve multiple purposes. They could even serve as substitute facilities if a local school burned down. But the temples are gaudy and over the top. The imaginary service done therein does not justify their expense. "Eternal" marriage isn't even doctrinally required to be performed in temples. The primary purpose they serve is to keep people in line.

The LDS church has done quite well and investing in a mall was a good idea.

How could you possibly know this? Time will tell whether it was a good idea. Investments like that only become good after they've broken even.

It did provide jobs for thousands of people.

What kind of jobs? Retail. Bottom of the totem pole.

Humanitarian aid is given freely to those in need espcially in case of emergency.

Correction: humanitarian aid is a drop in the bucket compared to church "investments." If people get charitable deductions for donating to the church, the church should start acting more like a charity.

[_Mike Reed]

I think it is the church and it's questionable teachings that are to blame for the current state of the church.

But the Church is made up of individual members, each of which has a vote of common consent/opposition--which can collectively overrule decisions of church leadership. Not that it would ever get to that. More likely Church leadership would avoid such a scenario by consciously or subconsciously triangulating their views. I believe the members have far more power than they realize.

The more reliable information about the history of the church and it's teachings becomes available, the more people will leave. Maybe not this generation, but the next or the one after that will see it's demise.

Then what happens at this foreseen collapse? The remaining "faithful" get to liquidate Church property and divvy up remaining assets amongst themselves? ;)

[_Aristotle Smith]

What would the church be like if people over the past 50 years continued to stay after being offended by/or disagreeing with one thing or another, and remained vocal about those problems they saw? I think the Church would be very different today, if this had happened. If true then... I don't know... it is a strange (and possibly an offensive) thing to say... but perhaps it could be said that exmormons are at least partially responsible for the current state of the Church. So I guess I agree with posters here that a good reason to stay could be to make positive contributions to the institution that may stand in need, even though they (or most members/church leaders) may not know it. I have become active over the last few months, largely because (among other things) I have great concern for my children's well being, who will no doubt continue to be raised LDS by their devout mother.

If those of who are leaving in droves didn't, do you really think that those staying in would have as much power as they might have now?

[_Quasimodo]

[quote="Mike Reed"]
But the Church is made up of individual members, each of which has a vote of common consent/opposition--which can collectively overrule decisions of church leadership. Not that it would ever get to that. More likely Church leadership would avoid such a scenario by consciously or subconsciously triangulating their views. I believe the members have far more power than they realize.[quote/]

It's not the leadership or the members. It's the tenets and the history of the religion, itself. It faces an onslaught of facts that are now available to everyone.

[quote/]Then what happens at this foreseen collapse? The remaining "faithful" get to liquidate Church property and divvy up remaining assets amongst themselves? ;)[quote/]

That's a good question! I don't really know (I'm certainly not a prophet). Maybe it just fades away like so many sects before it. Maybe it becomes a backwater, protestant religion. As for the many assets, hopefully they will go to those that need them. My guess is that the church holdings will be sold off as the tithing moneys diminish. There will be little left to divvy up.

[_Mike Reed]

If those of who are leaving in droves didn't, do you really think that those staying in would have as much power as they might have now?

That's a good question. I don't know.

[_son of Ishmael]

What would the church be like if people over the past 50 years continued to stay after being offended by/or disagreeing with one thing or another, and remained vocal about those problems they saw? I think the Church would be very different today, if this had happened. If true then... I don't know... it is a strange (and possibly an offensive) thing to say... but perhaps it could be said that exmormons are at least partially responsible for the current state of the Church. So I guess I agree with posters here that a good reason to stay could be to make positive contributions to the institution that may stand in need, even though they (or most members/church leaders) may not know it. I have become active over the last few months, largely because (among other things) I have great concern for my children's well being, who will no doubt continue to be raised LDS by their devout mother.

If those of who are leaving in droves didn't, do you really think that those staying in would have as much power as they might have now?

If those of us who have left the church really believe that it is "not true", what is the use of staying? If the church is not true, all the bottom up internal changes in the world are not going to make the church true.

If you just want to make it a nicer organization to be part of then you may have a point