Reasons people stopped attending church

[I Have Questions]

To your point that the Brethren almost always speak in fundamentalist terms and that the scriptures are fundamentalist and Joseph Smith's teachings were black and white extremes I totally agree. Same with the temple-recommend questions. However, there is a difference between how you answer the recommend questions and how you really live your life. You must answer "yes" to full tithing. If you pay 1% tithing and say you pay a full tithe, you're better off than if you pay 9% tithing and dispute 10% as unfair and want a 1% inflation discount. You can pay 1$ directly to SLC and say you're a full tithe payer and evade your bishop.

Here's something to think about. If you're one of the Twelve and bringing in a new GA, do you judge candidates by how precisely they fulfill the letter of the law as God demands? In theory, you should, because obeying the commandments is the gateway to all else. The scriptures teach that obedience is the first law of heaven. But in practice, do you want the self-flagellating guy who is obsessed with doing what's right with exactness? What happens when that guy learns about how the Church really operates internally? Or do you want the guy who knows how to lie and has a few pet sins, but says the right things and can keep a secret. He's willing to grant others their share of the power if he gets a little for himself.

What you say about TR interviews might all be true if the brethren were the ones who conducted the interviews and asked the questions.

However, Bishopric and Stake Presidency members come in all flavours within the multi-dimensional belief/disbelief space, and they ask and respond to answers accordingly. E.g., from about 9 years ago:

Sister A: "I no longer support the FP due to the horrible Nov 2015 policy, so here's my temple recommend."
Bishop: "I'm having a similar issue. Please hold on to your recommend, and go to the temple whenever you feel the desire and need."

I think the Church is definitely having a problem with that kind of thing. It’s why Oaks recently tried to rally people into conducting more excommunications. Bishops and Stake Presidents aren’t holding the line as vigorously as they should. And I agree that it’s because Bishops and Stake Presidents have moved more towards being less than 100% behind the letter if the law.

[The Stig]

Do you realize that both things can be true at the same time?

Of course. That's obvious.

Kish could have reasonably concluded the Church's truth claims are untrue and finally stepped away due to the reasons he stated. These are not mutually exclusive issues. Why you attempted to play some stupid gotcha game about this is unfathomable.

It's not "some stupid gotcha game." You see, although those things may indeed be comorbid, Kishkumen did not actually mention having concluded that the church is untrue as being a justification for stepping away. He only mentioned what he physically typed on his keyboard, that of being disgusted by two new church policies.

So, yeah, he could have also come to conclude the church wasn't true, but he also could have been visited by the ghost of Betsy Ross who demanded that he drop Mormonism or else she would curse his mother with tuberculosis. We have no reason to blindly assume either of those things, though, because, like I said, he didn't mention them as reasons for dropping the church. . . no matter how much we may wish he did.

Sorry, but I can only go by what people type. I can't dream up alternate comorbidities simply because I wishfully hope they exist.

First, that was the dumbest use of the word "comorbidities" I've ever seen.

Second, it's not like Kish is new here. Did you forget every possible source of context? Appealing to his ONE post as the ONLY source of your information is bad faith argumentation on your part.

Yeah, I nailed it with the "stupid gotcha game" reference.

[Gadianton]

Sister A: "I no longer support the FP due to the horrible Nov 2015 policy, so here's my temple recommend."
Bishop: "I'm having a similar issue. Please hold on to your recommend, and go to the temple whenever you feel the desire and need."

Definitely a possibility. What is extraordinarily unlikely though is to get in trouble for fully sustaining the Brethren and affirming a full tithe and obeying all the commandments, even if you aren't. I think it's possible to become a rogue bishop or SP or even higher, the odds are against it. As IHQ essentially said getting to the top means you're a guaranteed tool.

[malkie]

Sister A: "I no longer support the FP due to the horrible Nov 2015 policy, so here's my temple recommend."
Bishop: "I'm having a similar issue. Please hold on to your recommend, and go to the temple whenever you feel the desire and need."

Definitely a possibility. What is extraordinarily unlikely though is to get in trouble for fully sustaining the Brethren and affirming a full tithe and obeying all the commandments, even if you aren't. I think it's possible to become a rogue bishop or SP or even higher, the odds are against it. As IHQ essentially said getting to the top means you're a guaranteed tool.

Not just a possibility, Dean Robbers - it's a precis of an anonymised actual conversation between a local leader and a dedicated but heterodox member.

This was someone who had consistently gone beyond reasonable expectations in callings, and in supporting church programs even without being called to a relevant role. This person is a member of a unit in which members routinely simply refused callings, or accepted them and did nothing.

===

Here's another example - also from real life. I may already have told this story on this board - or perhaps it was another venue. But, really, what on earth are leaders thinking about when they suggest a "stunt" like this? Is this priesthood inspiration, or something else?

• Bishop: "I'm having a lot of difficulty getting the prieshood members to actually do home teaching. I know you no longer believe in the church, but I also know that, if you accepted the calling as a home teacher, you would do it. What do you think?
• malkie: "I certainly could accept an assignment. But let's look at the practicalities. You are proposing to make me choose between
  a. telling the families I visit the truth about how I feel about the church, or
  b. lying to their faces to make the visit appear to be a good one.
  What choice do you think I'd make in these circumstances?
• Bishop: "Hmmm - maybe not such a good idea after all.

===

Is it any wonder that people stop attending church?

[Dr. Shades]

It's not "some stupid gotcha game." You see, although those things may indeed be comorbid, Kishkumen did not actually mention having concluded that the church is untrue as being a justification for stepping away. He only mentioned what he physically typed on his keyboard, that of being disgusted by two new church policies.

So, yeah, he could have also come to conclude the church wasn't true, but he also could have been visited by the ghost of Betsy Ross who demanded that he drop Mormonism or else she would curse his mother with tuberculosis. We have no reason to blindly assume either of those things, though, because, like I said, he didn't mention them as reasons for dropping the church. . . no matter how much we may wish he did.

Sorry, but I can only go by what people type. I can't dream up alternate comorbidities simply because I wishfully hope they exist.

First, that was the dumbest use of the word "comorbidities" I've ever seen.

Then by all means, suggest a word that encapsulates the concept better. I'll wait.

Second, it's not like Kish is new here. Did you forget every possible source of context? Appealing to his ONE post as the ONLY source of your information is bad faith argumentation on your part.

He has never said that he believes the LDS church is false. Therefore, I can only conclude that he stepped away from activity due to the reasons he stated and not because he disbelieves in Mormonism proper.

Yeah, I nailed it with the "stupid gotcha game" reference.

No, you didn't. Not by a long shot. See above.

[Gadianton]

This was someone who had consistently gone beyond reasonable expectations in callings, and in supporting church programs even without being called to a relevant role. This person is a member of a unit in which members routinely simply refused callings, or accepted them and did nothing.

Of course, because this is someone for whom truth, doing the right thing, and giving others the benefit of the doubt mattered, and the Church is great at exploiting this. I'm glad you had that bishop though who tried to be reasonable.

[I Have Questions]

Part of the issue might be that the top leadership of the Church (the Apostles) as far as I know, live in Utah. So their views and thinking is influenced disproportionately by what they see and hear and experience, and what their family see and hear and experience, in that area.

Visiting doesn’t cut it. They’re celebs when they visit. They get pandered. They are hosted and man-marked for the duration. They get told what they want to hear. They do not see real life. They think everywhere smells of fresh paint.

Were the Apostles to reside day in/day out far and wide in the four corners of the globe, and consist of a demographic that better matched the overall membership demographic, there would be a wider lived experience underpinning the leaderships discussions on policies and practices.

As it is, they suffer collectively from Ivory Tower Syndrome.

[Kishkumen]

He has never said that he believes the LDS church is false. Therefore, I can only conclude that he stepped away from activity due to the reasons he stated and not because he disbelieves in Mormonism proper.

You can conclude that I stepped away from activity for the reasons I gave, yes.

[Moksha]

Then by all means, suggest a word that encapsulates the concept better.

Concurrent.

[SaturdaysVoyeur]

Sorry, but I can only go by what people type. I can't dream up alternate comorbidities simply because I wishfully hope they exist.

First, that was the dumbest use of the word "comorbidities" I've ever seen.

Then by all means, suggest a word that encapsulates the concept better. I'll wait.

Coexistent. Concurrent. Simultaneous. Intersectional. Contemporaneous. Concomitant. Associated. Related. Interlinked.
Get a thesaurus, Shades.

Seven pages later and whether Kish left because he didn't "believe" in Mormonism is still the major topic of conversation??

It's not why I left either. Not exactly. Only Mormonism itself would make literal acceptance of its truth claims the defining litmus test.

Supposedly men are more likely to leave because they realize the truth claims aren't true, while women are more likely to leave over relational and social issues. I guess 'cause men are so much more intellectual. I suspect a lot of people stop attending for a variety reasons, and "It's not true" becomes the post-hoc, shorthand answer later, because it feels smarter. Quicker. Less personal, more superficial.

I can't even pin down one defining reason I left. I loved Young Womens and I hated Relief Society? Because in YW, we had fun and we had long heart-to-heart talks about how to live the gospel is the best way possible, but in Relief Society, all we ever did was read yet another General Conference talk and pretend it had a depth it didn't even have the first time around?

Because I was bored?? Because once I saw the lives of the women in Relief Society up close and personal, I realized I would rather clean the bathrooms every week with my tongue than live the rest of my life that way?

Well, that sounds petty and it doesn't make me sound smart. I better just say, "Well, of course, because it's not true."


Funny, I used to thank Heavenly Father for making me a girl, for relieving me of all those terrible responsibilities.

What I viewed as "little bonuses" at the time (that only boys got the priesthood....y'know, the little stuff) were Heavenly Father's Consolation Prizes for what I imagined as hours and hours of long and difficult work. I was also legitimately relieved that I would not be expected to go on a mission, perhaps in the same way boys might have felt relieved they would never have to go through childbirth.

In a way, you might say I left because I realized having responsibilities is a part of growing up, and the church is perpetual kindergarten. Which isn't to say that being a wife and mother isn't a ton of responsibility. (In fact, as a Mormon girl, I expected I would have many more children than I actually do, doubtless with much less help from my "priesthood holder," who would be far too busy with all those those terrible responsibilities I had been spared.)

It's perpetual kindergarten spiritually. What fed my soul through childhood and high school no longer contained enough spiritual calories to sustain me once I reached adulthood. (I never took out my endowments, but I've heard this sense of let-down can hit all at once the first time someone goes through the temple. What bothered them wasn't so much, "This is so weird! I must be in a cult!" (which I suspect is often another post-hoc answer) but more like, "That's it? This is all there is?")

To this day, I'm not inactive because "it’s not true." I grew up surrounded by Evangelical Christians. I had more than enough exposure to the idea that Mormonism's unique narrative is not literally true.

Huh....can't think of much more to say about that. What Kish believed or didn't believe when he left isn't any of my business, really. Actually, that was another reason I left: Constant Gossip. An almost pornographic lack of personal privacy.

More importantly, why did the authorities of the CoJCoLDS decide to STOP it being fun? Because it looks like a conscious decision to me. Did they not realise that providing a rich, varied and totally LDS social life for its members of all ages was the best way they could tie both young and old members into the church?

Or may be they now have so much money that they just don't care if the members leave in droves?

If they can drive them all away, then the 15 will just divide up the wealth and be done with it.

I don't think this is the reason.

For one thing, the current Q15 would have to be storing up treasure for the future Q15, not for themselves. Sure, the top leaders aren't "lay clergy," but they're not living anywhere near as lavishly as the church's wealth would allow them to. And the membership wouldn't even complain! They'd let them take it. It must be Heavenly Father blessing them. The prophet said so; the debate is over!

For another, Mormonism is far from the only mega-rich religion. The Catholics are still richer, just not as rich per-capita anymore. But you can't put on a play without an audience. The Catholics accumulated an obscene amount of wealth within its first few centuries and their uppermost leadership actually do live lavishly, but they still see the benefit in maintaining a large worldwide membership.

Besides, they can't just dissolve the LDS church and divvy up the loot amongst the Brethren. The church is a 501(c)3. If they dissolved, they would be required to distribute their assets for a public purpose. Rome might have an easier time of that than Salt Lake City, since Vatican City is a country unto itself.

Most of the things that made the church fun don't cost much money either. Yet even wealthy wards have done away with most of their social calendar. The stake I grew up in still has a low enough cost-of-living and enough stay-at-home moms that the members themselves could organize fun activities and pay for it out of their own pockets.

It's almost like it's been prohibited. No fun allowed. I can't even posit a logical explanation, because as Chap pointed out, it would help keep people in the church. Partly by tying them there. It helps ensure most of your friends and potential mates are Mormon. But mostly by creating an attractive community that people want to be a part of. There's a time I would have said that's central to the gospel. It's how the gospel is lived out on a day-to-day basis.

My only guesses are:
The Brethren post-Hickley decided to "separate the wheat from the tares." Make being a member suck and see who's truly faithful.
or
Kirton McConkie advised them to stop due to the legal liability if someone gets injured or abused during a church-endorsed activity.
And it is comorbid with widespread public knowledge of abuse within the church.

Sorry, I couldn't think of a better word than comorbid.