Reasons people stopped attending church

[MG 2.0]

That would be awesome!

Regards,
MG

Thank you, MG. I appreciate it. I do not foresee it, but I am genuinely touched that you would welcome that development.

I've had a few friends in my wards over the years (one that I can think of when I was EQP) that were unorthodox in their views. I found them to be stimulating conversation partners. They were more or less 'tribal' Mormons. Although there were also those that had gone through a deconstruction and reconstruction of their faith. Good folks and interesting to be around. For many years I've thought it would be a good thing to have a gospel questions class where those that have found ways to reconstruct and/or build their faith after having a faith crisis of some kind could have one on one discussions with those that are struggling.

Probably won't happen.

And yet it does, sort of. It's called 'cultural hall discussions' or 'linger longer hallway discussions'.

The important part of the Sunday meetings is the sacrament. If a person feels some connection with their baptismal covenants and a degree/particle of faith and hope that Jesus is the Christ, I think those that are not full of faith or have strong testimonies are welcome. Of course one would also need to be obeying the commandments as they see fit according to the covenants they've made.

But even at that, I think there are those that attend and don't partake of the sacrament and yet are still welcome. If at times there is the 'bored factor' that some folks express here (I think you have ) there is always the smartphone remedy.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Most people I know who stopped going to church tell me it just didn’t/doesn’t bring them joy.

That’s certainly supported by the data.

I have a thought (a theory?) that routinely attending LDS Church on a Sunday is tantamount to Virtue Signalling. For most people it really serves no meaningful purpose beyond the conditioning of their children, or a chance to feel important, or a way to delude themselves into feeling they are doing something righteous. I’m generalising. I know some people feel a sense of community when attending Church on a Sunday. People talk to them etc and they may not get that contact in any other way.

But by the time you’re an adult, you’ve heard all the same Sacrament Talks a hundred times, every “lesson” a hundred times. Heard all the outpourings of guilt and self importance disguised as “testimony” to last a lifetime.

I think the frequency and reputation kills the joy.

I think LDS Church Sunday services would be more engaging if they were just held once a month. And all the other Sundays in the month all used for Ward service projects in the community. Surely doing good, rather than sitting around talking about doing good, is a more Christlike use of that time?

[Kishkumen]

I've had a few friends in my wards over the years (one that I can think of when I was EQP) that were unorthodox in their views. I found them to be stimulating conversation partners. They were more or less 'tribal' Mormons. Although there were also those that had gone through a deconstruction and reconstruction of their faith. Good folks and interesting to be around. For many years I've thought it would be a good thing to have a gospel questions class where those that have found ways to reconstruct and/or build their faith after having a faith crisis of some kind could have one on one discussions with those that are struggling.

Probably won't happen.

And yet it does, sort of. It's called 'cultural hall discussions' or 'linger longer hallway discussions'.

The important part of the Sunday meetings is the sacrament. If a person feels some connection with their baptismal covenants and a degree/particle of faith and hope that Jesus is the Christ, I think those that are not full of faith or have strong testimonies are welcome. Of course one would also need to be obeying the commandments as they see fit according to the covenants they've made.

But even at that, I think there are those that attend and don't partake of the sacrament and yet are still welcome. If at times there is the 'bored factor' that some folks express here (I think you have ) there is always the smartphone remedy.

Regards,
MG

Thou almost persuadest me . . . .

[malkie]

Most people I know who stopped going to church tell me it just didn’t/doesn’t bring them joy.

That’s certainly supported by the data.

I have a thought (a theory?) that routinely attending LDS Church on a Sunday is tantamount to Virtue Signalling. For most people it really serves no meaningful purpose beyond the conditioning of their children, or a chance to feel important, or a way to delude themselves into feeling they are doing something righteous. I’m generalising. I know some people feel a sense of community when attending Church on a Sunday. People talk to them etc and they may not get that contact in any other way.

But by the time you’re an adult, you’ve heard all the same Sacrament Talks a hundred times, every “lesson” a hundred times. Heard all the outpourings of guilt and self importance disguised as “testimony” to last a lifetime.

I think the frequency and reputation kills the joy.

I think LDS Church Sunday services would be more engaging if they were just held once a month. And all the other Sundays in the month all used for Ward service projects in the community. Surely doing good, rather than sitting around talking about doing good, is a more Christlike use of that time?

The beginning of the end for me was a period during which I had to work on the weekend, and could not fit church attendance in.

After a few weeks I realised that I was simply not missing the experience. It had not been bringing me joy, although I had let myself believe that it did. Fact met fiction.

I spent a little time on the internet trying to get a handle on what I was/wasn't feeling. Then I found Richard Packham's website.

From that point it was a bit like The Hemingway Law of Motion: slowly at first, and then all of a sudden.

[Gadianton]

If I were to take a survey and had to agree or disagree with sentences about religion written by the Rev, Stig, and Shades, I'd probably end up agreeing with the Rev and Stig far more often than Shades. However, Shades' approach does have its merit. His questions and points are often very illogical, but they aren't Trump-supporter incoherence, they are -- whether by practice or subconscious -- intelligently constructed as false dilemmas with the point of locking one into a fundamentalist view of God.

So why do I think that's valuable? Because I agree with Shades that as far as revealed religion goes, God is a fundamentalist. There is nothing in any Christian scripture that leads me to believe that God thinks in any other way than black and white. And so I think Shades perspective is valuable in assessing whether one is approaching religion from a humanist bent that rejects revealed religion while patronizing it, or if one really believes revealed religion lays the bedrock for what God is about and personal redactions are just that and not extreme reformations.

[MG 2.0]

Then I found Richard Packham's website...

Oh oh. I remember spending a lot of time there. Very small font.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Because I agree with Shades that as far as revealed religion goes, God is a fundamentalist. There is nothing in any Christian scripture that leads me to believe that God thinks in any other way than black and white.

I came to the opposite conclusion a number of years ago.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

I came to the opposite conclusion a number of years ago.

Sure, but your evidence is a modern psychologist with the last name of Fowler who you misunderstand, not the scriptures themselves.

[Gadianton]

I have to give MG credit for finding this survey result:

https://religionnews.com/2024/03/07/who ... -findings/

I think it's bad, although, in a mindless web search to prove a point his response is just as valid as my 2-second google A.I. search, if not more. Honestly, I admit that I've submitted no better evidence to the cause that post-Mormons believe than MG has submitted that they are non-believers. I'm more interested in MG thinking about his position that ex-Mormons are all atheists than I am concerned about whether they are or not believers.

But I wanted to make one more point. You can't create a survey using "trigger words" -- you can't ask questions about "knowing God lives" or "knowing" anything when "knowing" things is a TBM-specific trigger word in a survey that involves Mormons and ex-Mormons who are psychologically likely to be in a identity war, especially on a platform like Facebook. That's like asking "Do you believe America is Great Again?" during a Trump presidency and then claiming Democrats are unpatriotic by the results.

You should make statements like "God exists", "There is a God", "There is no God", "God lives" -- and responders need to "strongly agree", "agree" etc.

"Atheist" and "Agnostic" are also highly problematic labels, and it's better to ask these kinds of questions. ^^^

Lots of people see these terms as measures of extremes. Many of those who bear the terms have ideologically-rooted definitions that aren't that great. For instance, a "thoughtful" agnostic might say science can't prove or disprove God therefore they are agnostic. A "thoughtful" atheist (especially online) might say atheism really means agnosticism. Not that they deny God, but they lack a conception of God. These believe everyone is born an atheist and fight over the idea that they are rejecting God - they merely have no conception of God.

[I Have Questions]

I have to give MG credit for finding this survey result:

https://religionnews.com/2024/03/07/who ... -findings/

I think it's bad, although, in a mindless web search to prove a point his response is just as valid as my 2-second google A.I. search, if not more. Honestly, I admit that I've submitted no better evidence to the cause that post-Mormons believe than MG has submitted that they are non-believers. I'm more interested in MG thinking about his position that ex-Mormons are all atheists than I am concerned about whether they are or not believers.

But I wanted to make one more point. You can't create a survey using "trigger words" -- you can't ask questions about "knowing God lives" or "knowing" anything when "knowing" things is a TBM-specific trigger word in a survey that involves Mormons and ex-Mormons who are psychologically likely to be in a identity war, especially on a platform like Facebook. That's like asking "Do you believe America is Great Again?" during a Trump presidency and then claiming Democrats are unpatriotic by the results.

You should make statements like "God exists", "There is a God", "There is no God", "God lives" -- and responders need to "strongly agree", "agree" etc.

"Atheist" and "Agnostic" are also highly problematic labels, and it's better to ask these kinds of questions. ^^^

Lots of people see these terms as measures of extremes. Many of those who bear the terms have ideologically-rooted definitions that aren't that great. For instance, a "thoughtful" agnostic might say science can't prove or disprove God therefore they are agnostic. A "thoughtful" atheist (especially online) might say atheism really means agnosticism. Not that they deny God, but they lack a conception of God. These believe everyone is born an atheist and fight over the idea that they are rejecting God - they merely have no conception of God.

I have found that Mormon teachings are particularly black or white. Mormon Leaders speak in black or white terms. Mormon God doesn’t leave any wriggle room or latitude in your basic thinking about belief. Sure you can believe whatever you want in private, but try being anything other than full on orthodox in public. In a sacrament talk try putting the point across that not everything Nelson says is to be believed. Or that Nelson can get things wrong. Or that your own thoughts have led you to a different conclusion in something like same-sex marriage. Or that you’ve researched the Book of Abraham and concluded that Joseph made it up. There seems to be a little movement forming around viewing the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction. A first step towards acknowledging it isn’t really what Joseph claimed it to be. That’s moving belief in the Book of Mormon into the grey. That will not be tolerated. If, during a temple recommend interview you were to say that you didn’t believe the Book of Mormon was what it claimed to be, would you get signed off as worthy? If you were to pay a generous tithe but less than ten percent, would you get your recommend? If you only partially sustain the leaders of the Church did you get your recommend?

Those temple recommend questions are designed to be black and white. And those are the key measure of a Mormon. Mormon God is definitely a fundamentalist.