Why People Leave the Church and Never Come Back

[Not Buying It]

Saw this on Facebook - I thought it was pretty good actually. Not perfect, but pretty good:

https://mormondom.com/why-people-leave- ... 0e3e817a3a

[Give It Time]

Excellent. I'd share it, but I'm afraid of what people will think.

[Enoch Witty]

Hey, you're right. This is pretty good. Always confuses me how people can go back, though. Unless it's all a ploy to mine Mormon wallets.

[Mormorrisey]

Yeah, saw that on Reddit yesterday. It is a pretty good starting place, and I appreciate the author's take - and now it's making the Facebook rounds? One can only hope that it will get some minds thinking about how people are treated merely because of their beliefs. Thanks for sharing, NBI.

Another interesting blog post I read this morning makes a similar plea for "big tent Mormonism" by taking apart Callister's last conference talk on the Book of Mormon. Dude has a Masters in History, and makes some great points that will be familiar to many of us here:

https://hartbrad.blogspot.ca/2017/10/th ... d.html?m=1

One can only hope that the progressives are going to make a dent in the nonsense, but then again, this is a blog post, and Callister was able to spew this drivel in General Conference. I guess I answered my own question.

[Jeffret]

Another interesting blog post I read this morning makes a similar plea for "big tent Mormonism" by taking apart Callister's last conference talk on the Book of Mormon. Dude has a Masters in History, and makes some great points that will be familiar to many of us here:

https://hartbrad.blogspot.ca/2017/10/th ... d.html?m=1

One can only hope that the progressives are going to make a dent in the nonsense, but then again, this is a blog post, and Callister was able to spew this drivel in General Conference. I guess I answered my own question.

Though I lack the credentials, I used to take much the same approach as the author of this article. I've been aware of much of the claims, counter-claims, and actual history he describes for a long time. I could've pretty much written it. And have written a number of pieces of it in postings over the years.

The one part that I hadn't considered before is that, "If you wanted to preserve a record for a long time then writing on gold would not be the best choice, since the weight of gold (combined with softness of the metal) would, over time, press all engravings flat, leaving nothing but flat gold behind." But, that's also one of the more easily answered issues, because if the plates had existed they were almost certainly alloys of gold with other metals. Pure gold is rarely used, because it has all of these problems, but it easily alloys with other common metals.

Ultimately, I think the major flaws in Brad Hart's article are the things he depends most on. First, is his belief that the BoM contains spiritual value outside of its historicity. Or better yet, unique and important historicity. I agree that the BoM does contain some spiritual value. And a few things that are somewhat unique. But on the whole, as Hart explains, it is fairly common. There are a number of other similar works. Sure, the book has some spiritual insights of value, but not to the level that re-reading it constantly is really all that valuable of a use of time. There is more value in reading those other works to get other viewpoints.

Hart's other major error, expressed near the beginning and near the end is, "my hope that Mormonism can be that 'big tent' faith where a diversity of opinion on this and other issues are free and welcomed." I hoped for the same, but became convinced that if that ever occurs, it will be a long time in the making. I'm not willing to participate long enough and endure the other issues waiting for it to happen. There is little evidence of it at play in Mormonism these days. When I was faced again with just how fundamental the assumption is that the BoM is historical that I found my disconnect too large between trying to maintain that expansive view of Mormonism and the actual experience of it in Church on Sunday.

Ultimately, I think both Hart and I were wrong and that, as Peggy used to say on NOM, what is really important to the Church about the BoM isn't what is inside the book, but that it exists, in story form. As such, people can connect with it and feel from it. What it contains or its actual historicity is largely unimportant to the Church. And that's how Church leaders and almost all of its membership treat it.

[Just This Guy]

Overall, a very good article. Much more real than most stuff to come out of the Mormon blog-o-sphere.

The only thing I would add is with regard to the trend to shun people when they leave. When someone leaves the church, many TBMs will remove them from their lives. It only adds to the pain when people who you thought were your friends turn their backs on you. If someone leaves, the best thing is to keep being their friend like you always were. If you don't, it only makes it worse.

[Linked]

Thanks for sharing NBI, that was a very refreshing read. I might send it to my family, I think it would resonate with them.

The section on Why People Leave was missing something though.

People leave the church for many reasons. Some have been deeply hurt or offended by other members of the church. Some people feel deceived and betrayed by the church because of inaccuracies in church history. Some have been deeply wounded by the actions of leaders or official church policies that affect people they love. Others doubt because of the imperfect actions of our founding prophet, Joseph Smith. And many just plain don’t feel like they fit in…

What about those who come to think it isn't true? I wasn't hurt or offended, I was happy with my leaders and didn't know of any policies that bothered me. I was a fan of Joseph Smith and I fit in really well as a straight, white man descended from moderately famous early mormons. I saw a few things in life that led me to think that the church is probably not right about the reality of just about anything. That slowly turned me from the in group to the out group, and then church became uncomfortable. Also, once you don't believe it the main driver for participation is gone.

How are they supposed to get people like me back?

[deacon blues]

Imagine if a leader had the confidence and insight to invite a person who had left the church but hadn't gone back.

[Godislove]

I really liked this article. I felt like it hits on some really key issues but is still "safe" for anybody to read.

Thinking of sharing myself but I don't know that I want to engage on the topic.

[Godislove]

The comments are pretty fascinating if you want to recall how a TBM feels/thinks.

[Emower]

Thanks for sharing NBI, that was a very refreshing read. I might send it to my family, I think it would resonate with them.

The section on Why People Leave was missing something though.

People leave the church for many reasons. Some have been deeply hurt or offended by other members of the church. Some people feel deceived and betrayed by the church because of inaccuracies in church history. Some have been deeply wounded by the actions of leaders or official church policies that affect people they love. Others doubt because of the imperfect actions of our founding prophet, Joseph Smith. And many just plain don’t feel like they fit in…

What about those who come to think it isn't true? I wasn't hurt or offended, I was happy with my leaders and didn't know of any policies that bothered me. I was a fan of Joseph Smith and I fit in really well as a straight, white man descended from moderately famous early mormons. I saw a few things in life that led me to think that the church is probably not right about the reality of just about anything. That slowly turned me from the in group to the out group, and then church became uncomfortable. Also, once you don't believe it the main driver for participation is gone.

How are they supposed to get people like me back?

I think that was the refreshing part of the article, his point was to quit trying to get people back. Let them have their space. It seems a little weird coming from a guy who had left and then came back so that he could be the EQ pres.

[Linked]

Thanks for sharing NBI, that was a very refreshing read. I might send it to my family, I think it would resonate with them.

The section on Why People Leave was missing something though.

People leave the church for many reasons. Some have been deeply hurt or offended by other members of the church. Some people feel deceived and betrayed by the church because of inaccuracies in church history. Some have been deeply wounded by the actions of leaders or official church policies that affect people they love. Others doubt because of the imperfect actions of our founding prophet, Joseph Smith. And many just plain don’t feel like they fit in…

What about those who come to think it isn't true? I wasn't hurt or offended, I was happy with my leaders and didn't know of any policies that bothered me. I was a fan of Joseph Smith and I fit in really well as a straight, white man descended from moderately famous early mormons. I saw a few things in life that led me to think that the church is probably not right about the reality of just about anything. That slowly turned me from the in group to the out group, and then church became uncomfortable. Also, once you don't believe it the main driver for participation is gone.

How are they supposed to get people like me back?

I think that was the refreshing part of the article, his point was to quit trying to get people back. Let them have their space. It seems a little weird coming from a guy who had left and then came back so that he could be the EQ pres.

I agree, the article was refreshing. Lots of great advice. I just felt one of the main reasons (and my reason) for leaving was left off his list. Most of the world subscribes to not believing Mormonism too.

[Give It Time]

My reason was left off, too. That's nothing new.

I think it was more important to say how painful it is to lose your testimony and reconstruct your beliefs. I also think it's more important to say not to try to win us back.

[RubinHighlander]

Good for the most part, really feel it was a healthy talk for TBMs. I would have cautioned the bishops about using their office as a place to talk. It's not neutral ground, it's a place of purported authority and I don't think most NOMs would be willing to go there.

It wasn’t until I had a bishop who invited me into his office — not to get me to come back, but to just express his love for me and show empathy and understanding for what I was going through — that I even contemplated coming back.

If the bishop had taking off his suite, tie and just offered to go to lunch or something, that would be a better approach IMHO.

Is he calling out Bednar or just telling people they are misusing that talk?

We need to stop using Elder Bednar’s “Choose Not To Be Offended” talk as an excuse to be cruel to each other.

It's a nice Unitarian approach, suggesting we should try to make space in the church for all kinds of behaviors that go against the grain. The problem is the correlated narrative is very ingrained in the TBM population and it will have to change from the top down in all the printed material and talks from the pulpit. It's a complete change of attitude from the top down. However, there is some progress I see at the local level, but it's so rare and small that it's not a big enough percentage to make much difference.

This is why I felt it was best to simply lay down my rules when I sent my resignation letter. Anyone from the ward was welcome to stop by, as long as it was not church related. I made it clear we were not going to be a project, that we were not broken or leaving because we wanted to sin, we simply didn't believe it anymore and disagreed with many church policies. People were still left to make their own judgements, but at least I established my reasons for leaving very clearly with my former leaders. I think I was lucky in my neighborhood, because it seems to have worked. I've had many conversations with former ward members and it does not feel weird, at least to us. I've participated in ward cleanups on our block, and it felt normal. I hope at least some of the TBMs feel okay as well, but I'm guessing there will always be friction and cogdis there.

[Emower]

I agree, the article was refreshing. Lots of great advice. I just felt one of the main reasons (and my reason) for leaving was left off his list. Most of the world subscribes to not believing Mormonism too.

True. There was not a discussion about the reasons for leaving. This is probably petty of me, but I didnt like this coming from a guy who became EQ pres after coming back. If I were listening to this as a tbm, it would seem that regardless of what he said, the real key is just to not give up trying to get people back. It worked on this guy right? So even though he advises against this, what a tbm may need to do is try to be more "loving" aka sneaky. But different people take different things away from all kinds of stuff differently from others.

It's a nice Unitarian approach, suggesting we should try to make space in the church for all kinds of behaviors that go against the grain. The problem is the correlated narrative is very ingrained in the TBM population and it will have to change from the top down in all the printed material and talks from the pulpit. It's a complete change of attitude from the top down. However, there is some progress I see at the local level, but it's so rare and small that it's not a big enough percentage to make much difference.

This is the problem I have with it. It seems like a fairy tale. This may be your experience if you win the roulette, but it is not the prevailing attitude. And i get that we need guys like him and his bishop to change the attitude, but at what point to you stop trying to turn a pigeon into a parrot and go out and buy a parrot?

[Linked]

My reason was left off, too. That's nothing new.

I think it was more important to say how painful it is to lose your testimony and reconstruct your beliefs. I also think it's more important to say not to try to win us back.

You are right, there was more good than bad in the article. I was just giving my critique for the sake of discussion.

I agree, the article was refreshing. Lots of great advice. I just felt one of the main reasons (and my reason) for leaving was left off his list. Most of the world subscribes to not believing Mormonism too.

True. There was not a discussion about the reasons for leaving. This is probably petty of me, but I didnt like this coming from a guy who became EQ pres after coming back. If I were listening to this as a tbm, it would seem that regardless of what he said, the real key is just to not give up trying to get people back. It worked on this guy right? So even though he advises against this, what a tbm may need to do is try to be more "loving" aka sneaky. But different people take different things away from all kinds of stuff differently from others.

Good point. His blog post says not to have an ulterior motive in loving exmos, while his story shows that just loving exmos satisfies the ulterior motive. But there is a Catch-22 here, because this message coming from someone antagonistic will be ignored by TBMs, but coming from a reclaimed exmo undercuts the message. I suppose if it came from a life-long faithful leader it could have my desired effect. Bednar?

[lostinmiddlemormonism]

For me the answer is quite simple. The church is not what it claims to be.


If the church was what it claimed to be, then the issues would resolve themselves

If the church actually benefitted members they way that it claims it benefits members you wouldn't be able to stop them from doing missionary work...but you can't because deep down they don't want to share the church with their worst enemy let alone their best friend.

If the church did even half the charity work that members believe the church does it would be front page news....but it's not because LDS charity amounts to less than $5/member/year.

If the church empowered women they way that they claim they do, then it would really be the #1 womens organization in the world...but it's not because the women need a man to preside over their women's organization.

If priesthood blessings actually healed people, then Johns Hopkins and Harvard Med would be in Salt Lake taking notes...they are not because there is no discernible difference in the healing of an individual who gets a blessing and one who doesn't.

If members loved temple work as much as they claim to, they wouldn't have to beg people to attend temple sessions...but they do have to beg, because most people would much rather watch Star Wars than the Kolob Star Show.

If the Book of Mormon brought as much joy, knowledge, and understanding it would be studied in every major university in the country...but it's not because Mark Twain described it best, "Chloroform in print."

If the church had an individual that could look into the future and provide God-given relevant, timely, guidance then people would flock to hear their words...but what they get instead is "Let's go shopping"

The problem with the church is that it is not what it claims to be. Everything else is just window dressing.

-lost

[Not Buying It]

For me the answer is quite simple. The church is not what it claims to be.
...

The problem with the church is that it is not what it claims to be. Everything else is just window dressing.

-lost

Well said!

[Corsair]

For me the answer is quite simple. The church is not what it claims to be.

Well stated. We train missionaries with high perssure sales techniques dressed up in the guise of "teaching by the spirit". But investigators are simply not joining the LDS church becaues it is so compelling in doctrine and in fascinating in practice. This extends to the members who serve in a culture that exists mainly to preserve organizational longevity.

[Nonny]

For me the answer is quite simple. The church is not what it claims to be.

The problem with the church is that it is not what it claims to be. Everything else is just window dressing.

-lost

Excellent summation. I'm saving this post.