Large numbers of members apostatizing - says Marlin K Jensen

[_Buffalo]

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.

That was definitely my experience with Mormonism in regards to attitudes toward other faiths. Read something like The Great Apostasy and you'll walk away with utter contempt toward the Catholic Church. Even worse if you serve a mission - the anti-Christian rhetoric among missionaries is intense.

However, I lost my faith in God before I explored the skeletons in the Church's closet, so my experience veers from most ex-Mormons, I think.

[_thews]

It looks to me that you pick and choose what to believe in your middle ground.

Pot calling kettle black.

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.

Your words are so convoluted it assumes you are strong in your beliefs. You can't even finish a simple discussion of the facts without throwing out "paper trail" to negate the facts, which would make your stance rather weak at best.

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.

When you state "God and scripture have been consistent and prophecy has taken place just like it was predicted" in the above, surely you aren't referring to Joseph Smith and Mormon doctrine? From "White and delightsome" doctrine changes to Joseph Smith's failed prophecies, your argument hinges on the way you've supposedly tested them. For example:

http://carm.org/false-prophecies-of-joseph-smith

History of the Church

Prophecy about Jesus' return within 56 years - "President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called, because God had commanded it; and it was made known to him by vision and by the Holy Spirit. He then gave a relation of some of the circumstances attending us while journeying to Zion--our trials, sufferings; and said God had not designed all this for nothing, but He had it in remembrance yet; and it was the will of God that those who went to Zion, with a determination to lay down their lives, if necessary, should be ordained to the ministry, and go forth to prune the vineyard for the last time, for the coming of the Lord, which was nigh--even fifty-six years should wind up the scene." (History of the Church, vol. 2, p. 189). See context.
Jesus did not return within fifty-six years when 1891 arrived.

What's your take on how Joseph Smith failed in the above prophecy Frank? Isn't the "test" of a prophet the ability to prophisize correctly?

http://biblelight.net/false-prophets.htm

Defining The False Prophet And Their Fate:

Deu 18:20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
Deu 18:21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

[_Franktalk]

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?

One day with the Lord is like a thousand years. So the last days are here and they were also in the time of Peter. There are a bunch of prophecies that take place before the end of this world. Also spiritual manifestations will come back before the end. The mystery of God will end before the end as well. We live in exciting times. But as the restrainer lets go of the earth evil will become very powerful. The balance between good and evil may not hold.

If those who walk in the spirit gather in the church then the rest will be like the rest of the world. When the powers of evil manifest those who desire proof will flock to Satan. Scripture warns many times not to be deceived. Whatever God has said will happen. It is man who gets the message wrong and expects something else. I have ideas about the end times but would not be surprised if I was wrong on many things.

[_Drifting]

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?

One day with the Lord is like a thousand years.

Really?
The earth was created in just 6,000 years prior to Adam?
That would mean the earth is only....
Hmmmm Adam is circa 4,000 bc... add 6,000 years for the creation... add on the 2,000 years since Christ... and we get to....
12,000 years old.
Really?

It is conundrums like this one that is partly causing The Exodus that Jensen refers to.

[_bcuzbcuz]

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.

Wow, you really cover a lot of ground when you get around to it. You're back from the Rainbow thread with your "heavenly sprinkler system and no rainbows" view of reality, all linked in with a tirade about "uniformitarianism". Denial is obviously alive and well, in your head.

Then you get into 1000 year long days. If one extrapolates from your non-uniformitarianism view, Are you sure that earth days aren't getting longer, as gravitaional pull diminishes and centrifugal force moves the earth further from the sun, thereby warping your thousand year calculations?

[_SteelHead]

Frank,
what is meant in the book of Moses by rain?

Moses 7:
28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?

How would Enoch know what rain was if it never rained before the flood?

[_Drifting]

Frank,
what is meant in the book of Moses by rain?

Moses 7:
28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?

How would Enoch know what rain was if it never rained before the flood?

I'm going with 'Joseph was only speaking as a man when he wrote the book of Moses'.

[_Buffalo]

One day with the Lord is like a thousand years. So the last days are here and they were also in the time of Peter.

The only reason early Christians had to come up with that idea was because Jesus hadn't come back as promised.

[_Franktalk]

Really?
The earth was created in just 6,000 years prior to Adam?
That would mean the earth is only....
Hmmmm Adam is circa 4,000 bc... add 6,000 years for the creation... add on the 2,000 years since Christ... and we get to....
12,000 years old.
Really?

It is conundrums like this one that is partly causing The Exodus that Jensen refers to.

Reach for the stars with your wild schemes. You either start making sense or I will stop posting to you. You have wasted enough of my time.

[_Buffalo]

Really?
The earth was created in just 6,000 years prior to Adam?
That would mean the earth is only....
Hmmmm Adam is circa 4,000 bc... add 6,000 years for the creation... add on the 2,000 years since Christ... and we get to....
12,000 years old.
Really?

It is conundrums like this one that is partly causing The Exodus that Jensen refers to.

Reach for the stars with your wild schemes. You either start making sense or I will stop posting to you. You have wasted enough of my time.

Really, Frank? Most of your posts read like they were cobbled together from various unrelated conversations. The people you're attempting to argue with can take an idea, argue about it logically and follow a complete train of thought. Your posts are mostly incoherent, and you can't seem to follow even a very simple argument.

A little humility on your part would be refreshing, as well. We've been very patient in trying to decipher your stream of consciousness posting style.