Reasons people stopped attending church

[Dr. Shades]

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.

Yes, those are all related words. But are they better than "comorbid" in the context of this conversation? If you say they are, then that's fine; we can have a difference of opinion.

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

No, it is not still the major topic of conversation.

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.

But it's a lie.

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

Not if it isn't the real reason. Then it becomes a lie.

To this day, I'm not inactive because "it 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.

So you still believe Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus in the sacred grove, then. Nothing wrong with that; we're all entitled to our beliefs.

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.

No apology necessary. The word works great in this context.

[Marcus]

...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.

[Kishkumen]

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.

Thank you for sharing that, SV!

[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.

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

Fowler and the scriptures didn't really have much to do with it. Section 76 may have played some part though. The expanse and breadth and depth of the universe and the wide variety of life and imagined meanings (from sentient human beings) plays a part with a number of other 'surmisings' over the years.

God is MUCH bigger than black and white. The CofJCofLDS plays its part in the larger scheme of things, but there's more to it. We may have fundamentalists in the church and in the leadership to offer up 'the baseline' for belief and expectation, but experience and simply looking at the way the world works allows for a much larger perspective.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

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

Fowler and the scriptures didn't really have much to do with it. Section 76 may have played some part though. The expanse and breadth and depth of the universe and the wide variety of life and imagined meanings (from sentient human beings) plays a part with a number of other 'surmisings' over the years.

God is MUCH bigger than black and white. The CofJCofLDS plays its part in the larger scheme of things, but there's more to it. We may have fundamentalists in the church and in the leadership to offer up 'the baseline' for belief and expectation, but experience and simply looking at the way the world works allows for a much larger perspective.

Regards,
MG

Do you believe that after they die, people will be assigned distinctly separate “kingdoms” in which they will be collated with other, equally performing like-minded individuals, domains in which they will reside forever and from which they have no ability to progress to a “higher” kingdom?

Do you believe that there will be people in the highest kingdom who haven’t accepted membership in the Mormon Church and for whom a proxy or living baptism has not been performed?

[MG 2.0]

Fowler and the scriptures didn't really have much to do with it. Section 76 may have played some part though. The expanse and breadth and depth of the universe and the wide variety of life and imagined meanings (from sentient human beings) plays a part with a number of other 'surmisings' over the years.

God is MUCH bigger than black and white. The CofJCofLDS plays its part in the larger scheme of things, but there's more to it. We may have fundamentalists in the church and in the leadership to offer up 'the baseline' for belief and expectation, but experience and simply looking at the way the world works allows for a much larger perspective.

Regards,
MG

Do you believe that after they die, people will be assigned distinctly separate “kingdoms” in which they will be collated with other, equally performing like-minded individuals, domains in which they will reside forever and from which they have no ability to progress to a “higher” kingdom?

Do you believe that there will be people in the highest kingdom who haven’t accepted membership in the Mormon Church and for whom a proxy or living baptism has not been performed?

There are gradations of many kinds here on planet earth in respect to the conditions people find themselves in. Accident? Not according to the Apostle Paul. Same in the afterlife? Jesus seemed to point that direction. How ordinances factor into all of that becomes a matter of agency, works, and God's justice/mercy as a result of the mission and Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Regards,
MG

[sock puppet]

There are gradations of many kinds here on planet earth in respect to the conditions people find themselves in. Accident? Not according to the Apostle Paul. * * *
Regards,
MG

And there it is. MG 2.0 confirming, by reference to Paul, the insidious position taken by the LDS church First Presidency in August 1949 (and quoted as authority in 1961 by Henry D. Moyle and Hugh B. Brown, then two counselors in David O. McKay's first presidency of the time).

"The attitude of the Church with reference to negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: 'Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth
cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we are now entitled to.'

"President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: 'The Day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings
which we now have.'

"The position of the Church regarding the negro may be understood when [ue]another doctrine of the Church[/u] is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and
taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood, is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the negroes."

Doesn't the LDS church have such a rich and cherished history?

Sure, blacks got the priesthood in 1978, but as MG 2.0 points out, the teaching that underpinned the ban is still espoused by Mormons. Too bad Jesus, you know, the one described in the four Gospels, wasn't such a respecter of persons. Elohim has probably set Jesus straight in the 2000 years since.

[MG 2.0]

Too bad Jesus, you know, the one described in the four Gospels, wasn't such a respecter of persons. Elohim has probably set Jesus straight in the 2000 years since.

Acts 17:26

General framework. Same in the afterlife? Wiggleroom as there is here? Interesting questions. Early brethren were split in their thinking on the topic of progression between gradations of glory.

I'm willing to have that in God's hands and just work out my own salvation.

Also compliments of Paul.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Do you believe that after they die, people will be assigned distinctly separate “kingdoms” in which they will be collated with other, equally performing like-minded individuals, domains in which they will reside forever and from which they have no ability to progress to a “higher” kingdom?

Do you believe that there will be people in the highest kingdom who haven’t accepted membership in the Mormon Church and for whom a proxy or living baptism has not been performed?

There are gradations of many kinds here on planet earth in respect to the conditions people find themselves in. Accident? Not according to the Apostle Paul. Same in the afterlife? Jesus seemed to point that direction. How ordinances factor into all of that becomes a matter of agency, works, and God's justice/mercy as a result of the mission and Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Regards,
MG

MG 2.0, you’ve avoided both of my reasonably simple questions. They just needed simple Yes or No answers about whether or not you believed in some core doctrines of the Church. I’m unsure why you’ve avoided responding directly and simply to my enquiry. Is it because you actually don’t believe those core doctrines and don’t actually want to express that out loud? Or are you unfamiliar with Church teachings on the Kingdoms of Glory?

[sock puppet]

Too bad Jesus, you know, the one described in the four Gospels, wasn't such a respecter of persons. Elohim has probably set Jesus straight in the 2000 years since.

Acts 17:26

General framework. Same in the afterlife? Wiggleroom as there is here? Interesting questions. Early brethren were split in their thinking on the topic of progression between gradations of glory.

I'm willing to have that in God's hands and just work out my own salvation.

Also compliments of Paul.

Regards,
MG

OK. We'll count you, MG 2.0, as among those that are okay with a God that is a respecter of persons, despite the Biblical protestations otherwise. Another reason the real Christian world can't quite see their way to considering Mormonism as Christian.