Large numbers of members apostatizing - says Marlin K Jensen

[_Franktalk]

I agree and I find this most troubling. If it weren't for the capacity of Mormonism to damage people's capacity for rational faith and religious experience, why would I care at all? I wouldn't. But the fact of the matter is that, as you say, eventually any honest Mormon will come to a point where they realize that the Church they used to believe with all their heart and soul was the One True Church is actually a house of lies. As someone who cares deeply about both my own religious tradition and the troubling developments in Western religion generally I think it is important to try to provide a kind of "middle way" narrative, that is, a viewpoint that avoids both extremes.

It looks to me that you pick and choose what to believe in your middle ground. If God were to tell you that man has his facts wrong and what most men believe is in error just what would you do? Would you go out and test what man says to prove God right or would you trust God to tell you the truth? In general I find middle of the road people the most troubling. I rather have a discussion with a strong atheist.

I have tested scripture and I have tested the ideas of man. Man lost that test. Man tends to believe something today and then completely overturn what he believes next week. God and scripture have been consistent and prophecy has taken place just like it was predicted. Man can't predict the weather past tomorrow. Sometimes even today they get it wrong. So just what do you trust man to say that you believe? If man says that God does not exist will you then stop believing in God? That is the way of man.

[_Buffalo]

I have tested scripture and I have tested the ideas of man. Man lost that test. Man tends to believe something today and then completely overturn what he believes next week. God and scripture have been consistent and prophecy has taken place just like it was predicted. Man can't predict the weather past tomorrow. Sometimes even today they get it wrong. So just what do you trust man to say that you believe? If man says that God does not exist will you then stop believing in God? That is the way of man.

It doesn't sound like you did a very exhaustive test. Prophecy doesn't work when it's specific enough to nail to a wall. The LDS cannon is the very definition of inconsistency, with dozens of conflicting theologies and Christologies.

[_Franktalk]

It doesn't sound like you did a very exhaustive test. Prophecy doesn't work when it's specific enough to nail to a wall. The LDS cannon is the very definition of inconsistency, with dozens of conflicting theologies and Christologies.

You are quite right in that prophecy for the most part is vague. This is done on purpose so that we come to God in faith not proof. But in my study of prophecy I learned enough so for me it was clear that prophecy has and will take place in God's own time. Let me take one prophecy and I will describe how I read it.

2 Peter 3

1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

Here Peter is talking to the faithful. He is saying that what he about to talk about is contained in scripture and was spoken of by the prophets. He is also saying that the following contains a message from the Savior as well. So this message is probably interwoven in scripture all over the place.

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

Now he is changing gears and is pointing to people in the last days, that would be us. He is describing people who scoff at the message from God and they walk in their own ideas or lust.

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Here Peter is telling us what these scoffers are using as their reason to scoff at scripture. The scoffers are saying that all things continue without change all the way back to the beginning of the creation. So the scoffers look at the world around them and see the world one way and assume that that is the way the world works and behaves all the way back to the creation. In modern terms this is called uniformitarianism. It is an assumption in science that what we see today is the way things worked going back in time. This assumption leads to all kinds of theories and conclusions. All of which are wrong if uniformitarianism is wrong.

5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Here we see a description of the flood. First we see it was not a natural event. It was caused by the Word of God. Second we see the world being overflowed with water. I take this as a world wide event. But the most important thing is the earth that was perished. In other scripture we see that before the flood a mist from the ground watered the earth. It rained after the flood. There were no rainbows before the flood but there have been rainbows ever since. This was clearly a supernatural event with supernatural changes to the earth.

7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Now after the flood God again by the Word of God has placed a supernatural hold on the earth. Some kind of stasis so that the earth is kept in store. The earth is reserved unto fire for the day of judgment. So men in observing the earth do not realize that the earth is in stasis by God. Here God through Peter is telling the world that the thing we call uniformitarianism is directed by God. So the incorrectly interpreted processes we see around us are not what we would see before the flood. Apparently things were changing all the time. Things were not uniform. But man has taken the idea that the earth is stable and used it to project backwards in time and has laid out a story of the past that rest on a false assumption. We can use this same reasoning about projections and apply them to many of the sciences.

8But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

I might as well tell you what else I think this chapter is saying. Here is a reference to the Lord's second coming. But He introduces this with the one day as a thousand years. I think that as He was in the ground three days He will be gone from the earth for two thousand years and will be back in the third day (thousand years). From His death if we find 2000 prophetic years it lines up with 1994 (I think, if I remember right). So we are in the third day. The other thing we see here is the Lord after His day of judgment will no longer hold the earth in stasis but will cause dramatic changes.

11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

Knowing a day of judgment comes we should be careful.

16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.

Here Peter is saying that with this prophecy comes responsibility. Seeing that you know these things in advance you should not be led away in error.

18But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

What a wonderful chapter in the Bible. So much in so few words.

[_SteelHead]

I agree and I find this most troubling. If it weren't for the capacity of Mormonism to damage people's capacity for rational faith and religious experience, why would I care at all? I wouldn't. But the fact of the matter is that, as you say, eventually any honest Mormon will come to a point where they realize that the Church they used to believe with all their heart and soul was the One True Church is actually a house of lies. As someone who cares deeply about both my own religious tradition and the troubling developments in Western religion generally I think it is important to try to provide a kind of "middle way" narrative, that is, a viewpoint that avoids both extremes.

It looks to me that you pick and choose what to believe in your middle ground. If God were to tell you that man has his facts wrong and what most men believe is in error just what would you do? Would you go out and test what man says to prove God right or would you trust God to tell you the truth? In general I find middle of the road people the most troubling. I rather have a discussion with a strong atheist.

I have tested scripture and I have tested the ideas of man. Man lost that test. Man tends to believe something today and then completely overturn what he believes next week. God and scripture have been consistent and prophecy has taken place just like it was predicted. Man can't predict the weather past tomorrow. Sometimes even today they get it wrong. So just what do you trust man to say that you believe? If man says that God does not exist will you then stop believing in God? That is the way of man.

So thou shalt not kill, except when god commands it, and not bare false witness, except when god commands it are examples of a consistent god?

And god planting all of the evidence that is contrary to the creation story and the flood is to cause us to have faith.

[_Buffalo]

It doesn't sound like you did a very exhaustive test. Prophecy doesn't work when it's specific enough to nail to a wall. The LDS cannon is the very definition of inconsistency, with dozens of conflicting theologies and Christologies.

You are quite right in that prophecy for the most part is vague. This is done on purpose so that we come to God in faith not proof.

Does the same go for astrology readings? Most of it's pretty vague too - vague enough so that the listener will supply his own meaning. Hey, just like Biblical prophesy!

But in my study of prophecy I learned enough so for me it was clear that prophecy has and will take place in God's own time. Let me take one prophecy and I will describe how I read it.

2 Peter 3

1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

Here Peter is talking to the faithful. He is saying that what he about to talk about is contained in scripture and was spoken of by the prophets. He is also saying that the following contains a message from the Savior as well. So this message is probably interwoven in scripture all over the place.

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

Now he is changing gears and is pointing to people in the last days, that would be us. He is describing people who scoff at the message from God and they walk in their own ideas or lust.

4And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

That's not much of a prophesy. As long as there has been religious discussion there have been "scoffers." That's about as impressive as predicting that it will rain sometime in the next decade.

"Peter" (I used quotes because 2 Peter was not written by the apostle Peter) is really describing his own day. Early Christians really expected Jesus to come back within their own lifetime and for the end to come. When that didn't happen, of course there were scoffers (rightly so), so the Christians had to reinterpret prophesy in order to manage their disappointment. Paul dealt with that issue in Thessalonians, where he said that "we who are left" will be lifted up at the second coming, which was to have included Paul. By the time 2 Peter was written, it must have been an even more pressing issue. Jesus was supposed to have already come.

It's interesting that when prophesy fails, belief is often cemented all the more tightly. Human psychology is so strange.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

[_Franktalk]

Buffalo,

It does not matter who wrote 2 Peter. It is a message that transcends time and can if viewed in the proper context give one a glimpse of God's mind. You can view it anyway you wish. You can throw the message in the trash if you wish. Many do not believe. And of course that was predicted as well.

[_Drifting]

3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

Now he is changing gears and is pointing to people in the last days, that would be us. He is describing people who scoff at the message from God and they walk in their own ideas or lust.

Frank.
Just when are the last days?
It seems that the people at the time 2nd Peter were told they were in the last days.
Joseph Smith portrayed the 1800's as the last days.
And here we are in the last days.

shouldn't this be talked about as 'the last centuries' or 'the last millenia'?
It seems the word 'days' is a tad misleading.

If it is predicted that in these last days members would flood away from the Church why is Jensen sounding surprised and disappointed?

[_Buffalo]

Buffalo,

It does not matter who wrote 2 Peter. It is a message that transcends time and can if viewed in the proper context give one a glimpse of God's mind. You can view it anyway you wish. You can throw the message in the trash if you wish. Many do not believe. And of course that was predicted as well.

It's as impressive a prediction as a garden variety horoscope:

Today you should be experiencing a strong feeling of satisfaction and contentment with your life, Pisces. Business and financial matters continue to go well, and your home life especially appears to be secure and stable. You might be considering investing some of your resources in your home. Any new romantic relationships begun at this time could well last for a long time, so make sure you really like the person before committing!


Franktalk, I predict that you'll continue to dismiss everything I have to say on the topic of religion. I guess that makes me a prophet!

[_bcuzbcuz]

I see a problem with the way people are approaching the declining membership of LDS and Jensen's statement re: the same. A lot of people here have commented that most ex-LDS tend to feel burned by religion/Christianity and turn into some kind of physicalist and/or atheist. I appreciate the reasons why someone would turn from LDS, but I am trying to distinguish between the valid reasons for leaving LDS and a blanket condemnation of religion or the religious worldview (whatever that might mean).

I have a theory why people who turn from LDS then form a blanket condemnation of all things religious. By accepting Mormonism one accepts their world view, i.e. that all religions prior to Mormonism are/were untrue. That is, after all, a basic premise of Joe Smith.

Further study and devotion into LDS faith confirms that view, all things non-mormon are tainted one way or another. There is a built-in cynicism when reviewing any news or history or stories originating around a religious theme. Mormonism ridicules speaking in tongues, it heaps scorn on televangelists (admittedly an easy target), it derides faith healing that isn't through their priesthood and believes Mormonism has the only key to unlock eternal life and being with god(s).

If you buy into this idea, and many of the Mormon arguments seem (feel) compelling, your world view is shaded through Mormon colored glasses.

Then, when your eyes open and you get your first breathes of fresh air, and you begin to question the "Mormon truths, your natural impulse is not to turn to your objects of previous scorn. You have already written them off as not worthy of consideration. Why would you choose second best?

For me, my critical view of all things man made, religions included, has continued since the day I decided, very willfully, to turn my back on Mormonism. I've cleaned off the dried-on mud from 30+ years of Mormonism. It is not my natural inclination to jump into the next mud puddle I come across. ( I have asked my wife, that should I ever start babbling anything religious , that she push my wheelchair over the nearest cliff).

Atheism is not a belief. It is what you have left when you believe in nothing.

[_bcuzbcuz]

...

Story #2. I was out moose hunting in northern Canada with a Swedish buddy. A moose came out from the undergrowth less than 50 meters from where we stood. Something startled it and it began to dart into the trees close by it. My buddy yelled out, in Swedish, "Stop, in the name of the law, or I'll shoot!"

The moose froze in its tracks and turned to face us. Whereupon my buddy shot it.
(my buddy is an ex-cop. Sorry, Johann, I just had to add that)
...

Two observations: (;=)

a. That wasn't very sporting, was it?
b. I hope your buddy treats human suspects differently when they obey his order to stop.

I totally agree with both your points. Johann is/was a decidedly better hunter than he was a cop. And that poor moose never knew what hit him. But worst of all, we had to sit through Johann retelling the story every time we were invited over for a moose meat dinner.