Reasons people stopped attending church

[Dr. Shades]

OMG, your reply is the most Mormon thing I have read in a very long time!

No, it isn't.

But it's a lie.

This is a core problem in Mormonism: There's more to the world than "truth" or "lie."

Yes, but there are also lies, too.

There's also: Belief. Misunderstanding. Sincerity. Mystery. Evasion. Sensation. Evolution. Authenticity. Hypothesis. Synthesis. Fiction. Memory. Guessing. Metaphor. Invention. Opinion. Exaggeration. Trickery. The Unknown and the Unknowable. (I keep adding to the list. We'll see how many I can come up with by the time I post this.)

Right. But there are also lies, too.

Some of those words, depending on context, could be equated with "truth" or "lie." But not all of them and not in all contexts.

Of course not. But lies still exist.

If I form a hypothesis that I sincerely believe but my hypothesis is false, that's not a lie. There was no intent to deceive.

Of course not. But "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" is indeed an intent to deceive if "it's not true" wasn't one of the original reasons for stopping attending.

Alternatively, I've told a couple stories about my youth, but nowhere near all of them, and I've left out significant portions of the stories I have told. That's not a lie either. It's reducing a memory to its most relevant portions given the topic. (Even if that could somehow be construed as lying by omission, none of us have any sort of "right" to each other's life stories that would make omission of details "lying.")

But if was never part of the original occurrence--which doesn't count as "omission," because an omitted portion WAS part of the original occurrence--then it's a lie.

One way or another, Mormonism always comes down to that: Either all of it's true or none of it is. This seems to have only grown, like a cancer, in the past 20+ years, and ex-Mormons are just as stuck in that binary as active Mormons.

False equivalency. Just because someone tells a lie doesn't mean the entirety of human experience is either true or a lie. But his or her lie is still a lie.

I'm using "ex-Mormon" here very loosely, so I'll put some parameters on the term, just for the sake of this particular conversation: How many hours one spends thinking about or discussing Mormon-related topics, despite no longer being an active member. There's now a whole cottage industry of professional ex-Mormons, many of whom spend more time thinking about Mormonism than my tithe-paying, temple-going parents do. At some point, "ex-Mormon" becomes a personal identity that's just as compelling (and destructive) as Mormonism itself.

None of that changes "I left because I no longer believed in it" into NOT being a lie if no longer believing in it was not, in actuality, the reason one left.

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

Your underlying assumption here is that there's One Real Reason. Very much like One True Church.

No, that's not my underlying assumption. There can be any number of reasons. But if one says "I left because of X" when one actually left because of Y, then "I left because of X" is a lie.

Sure, it could be a lie. If I knew it to be false, but I intentionally represented it as true, then that's a lie.

If "'It's not true' becomes the post-hoc, shorthand answer later, because it feels smarter. Quicker. Less personal, more superficial" when "it's not true" was not the original reason one left, then "I left because it's not true" is a lie. . . regardless of how much smarter it feels, how much quicker, how less personal, and/or how superficial.

(Will someone please buy this man a Dictionary/Thesaurus?? You can find them bundled together. Like quads.)

Will someone please buy this woman a dictionary?

I'm sure some ex-Mormons do lie about why they left, even if only for self-preservation.

Perhaps, but that doesn't magically transform a lie into a truth.

I suspect that, more often, it's a matter of adding reasons post-hoc.

Post-hoc additions are lies by both default and definition.

Perhaps, in retrospect, their first temple experience feels culty now, but they describe it in such a way as to depict it as feeling culty at the time. That might be a lie, or it might not be. Are they gaining insight into their past feelings? Or are they bandwagon-hopping because it's currently fashionable in the ex-Mormon sphere to call the church a cult? That's how we would determine whether it's a lie or not, but (given how personal and internal the question is), it would be pretty much impossible to ever really know either way. And also it's not really any of our business.

If it didn't feel culty at the time, but one says it DID feel culty at the time, then the latter part is a lie.

My own most prominent or pressing reasons for leaving have been different at different points in my life.

Then the one that caused you to leave WHEN you left is the true one; the rest are retroactive falsehoods.

When I was going to a secular university and telling my parents that I was still faithfully attending all my church meetings? Indisputably a lie. But there were a lot of reasons I didn't want to remain active, and the way those reasons blended into each other over time is not subject to the "truth/lie" binary that you want to cram them into.

They are if you aren't honest about them and instead invent a non-existent reason simply to "feel smarter. Quicker. Less personal, more superficial."

There were reasons I understood at the time, reasons I've come to understand with time and perspective, and probably reasons that will dawn on me later in life. That doesn't make them lies.

No, but inventing something later that never was one of your "reasons" is a lie, even if that lie makes you "feel smarter. Quicker. Less personal, more superficial."

Humans are more complex than that.

Of course they are. But humans are capable of lying, too.

Mormonism is more complex than that.

As Marcus pointed out, it's not.

The refusal, or perhaps inability, to accept and deal with that complexity is eating ex-Mormons alive. In my opinion.

Mormonism's supposed "complexity" is a post-hoc invention by those suffering from cognitive dissonance as a way to delay facing the inevitable. Complexity was never preached by the Brethren.

Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt that your "truth versus lie" construct is actually more of a "truth versus falsity" construct (i.e., one can be incorrect without being intentionally deceptive OR intentionally deceptive while still being correct), there's just so much we don't know or don't understand, I doubt I'm the only one whose experiences won't fit neatly into what your "truth/lie" framework allows for.

There are an ENORMOUS amount of things that don't know or don't understand. But I do know why I left the church, because I'm the one who left it. If I tell you I left the church because I didn't believe in it, but I actually stopped attending because I was excommunicated while still a hardcore believer in the mission of Joseph Smith and the divine authority of the Quorum of the Twelve in Salt Lake City, then the thing I told you was a lie, regardless of the fact that there are an enormous amount of things I don't know or don't understand.

But if a person is still thinking about and talking about Mormonism for at least several hours a week, can that person really be said to have left Mormonism at all, as opposed to having simply replaced it?

If by "left" such podcasters mean "stopped believing in and stopped attending its meetings," then they're telling the truth. But if by "left" such podcasters mean "stopped talking about it or thinking about it in any way," then it's a lie.

Ex-Mormonism really is a lot more like Mormonism than anybody wants to admit. An inverted, funhouse-mirror version of it, but still...I can't imagine watching General Conference anymore, or even watching someone else analyze it. The industry just doesn't seem to be serving the function they think they are or that they want to be.

None of which has anything to do with the fact that declaring "I left the church because of X," all the while knowing that one actually left the church because of Y, makes "I left the church because of X" into a lie.

I think by now I'd rather give Mormonism 10% of my money than 10% of my time and mental energy.

The Brethren agree with you 100%.

[Physics Guy]

Reasons for doing things can be complicated. Like, a kid leaves home and wants to finally stop eating those weird old crackers that the family always used to eat, because the crackers are gross, even though Mom always said they were good for you. The kid is responsible for their own health now, though, and would keep on crunching the gross crackers for health reasons, except that the kid goes online and discovers that the crackers are of no nutritional value and have been shown to contribute to spleen damage in mice.

Kid stops eating those crackers, and offers the nutritional issues alone as the reasons, without mentioning grossness. Is that a lie? I wouldn't say so. The grossness may have been the original reason why the kid wanted to stop eating the crackers, but if it hadn't been for the nutrition stuff, the kid would be eating them still.

Yeah, the grossness was the motivation that led to the nutrition discovery. If the crackers hadn't been gross, the kid would probably never have learned about the mouse spleens. But grossness in crackers is a subjective issue, lots of people eat things they don't like because they're good for you, sometimes you have to be an adult and overcome your own emotional reactions, and so on. The fact that the crackers are 75% sawdust is the thing that cuts through all that. So it's really the reason.

[I Have Questions]

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?

I'm bumping this for MG 2.0 because he's yet to (as a missionary would be expected to do) give a clear response as to what he believes on this subject. My questions are very specific, very easy to understand, they are about a very well known doctrinal subject, and can be answered with a simple Yes or a simple No. MG 2.0 either believes what the Church specifically and unequivocally teaches about the afterlife (which is reflected in my questions), or he doesn't. His avoidance of giving a direct answer to each makes his claim about being here to do missionary work disingenuous. If he lacks sufficient courage of his self proclaimed convictions to answer such simple questions, then I can only surmise it's because he doesn't really believe what his Church teaches.

His nonsensical reference to a passage in Acts suggests he might actually be struggling to follow along and fully comprehend what he and others are saying. If he's struggling due to age-related mental deterioration then I wish him all the best.

[MG 2.0]

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?

I'm bumping this for MG 2.0 because he's yet to (as a missionary would be expected to do) give a clear response as to what he believes on this subject. My questions are very specific, very easy to understand, they are about a very well known doctrinal subject, and can be answered with a simple Yes or a simple No. MG 2.0 either believes what the Church specifically and unequivocally teaches about the afterlife (which is reflected in my questions), or he doesn't. His avoidance of giving a direct answer to each makes his claim about being here to do missionary work disingenuous. If he lacks sufficient courage of his self proclaimed convictions to answer such simple questions, then I can only surmise it's because he doesn't really believe what his Church teaches.

His nonsensical reference to a passage in Acts suggests he might actually be struggling to follow along and fully comprehend what he and others are saying. If he's struggling due to age-related mental deterioration then I wish him all the best.

Sweet. Thanks for the well wishes. You're too kind!

Apparently I lacked enough clarity for you.

First question: no

Second question: no

This will undoubtedly be clear enough and won't require further questions?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

This source might help you:

https://purposeinchrist.com/progression ... perplexity

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I'm bumping this for MG 2.0 because he's yet to (as a missionary would be expected to do) give a clear response as to what he believes on this subject. My questions are very specific, very easy to understand, they are about a very well known doctrinal subject, and can be answered with a simple Yes or a simple No. MG 2.0 either believes what the Church specifically and unequivocally teaches about the afterlife (which is reflected in my questions), or he doesn't. His avoidance of giving a direct answer to each makes his claim about being here to do missionary work disingenuous. If he lacks sufficient courage of his self proclaimed convictions to answer such simple questions, then I can only surmise it's because he doesn't really believe what his Church teaches.

His nonsensical reference to a passage in Acts suggests he might actually be struggling to follow along and fully comprehend what he and others are saying. If he's struggling due to age-related mental deterioration then I wish him all the best.

Sweet. Thanks for the well wishes. You're too kind!

Apparently I lacked enough clarity for you.

First question: no

Second question: no

This will undoubtedly be clear enough and won't require further questions?

Regards,
MG

Thanks for answering, finally. Does your Bishop know you’re an apostate that doesn’t believe core church doctrine?

[MG 2.0]

Sweet. Thanks for the well wishes. You're too kind!

Apparently I lacked enough clarity for you.

First question: no

Second question: no

This will undoubtedly be clear enough and won't require further questions?

Regards,
MG

Thanks for answering, finally. Does your Bishop know you’re an apostate that doesn’t believe core church doctrine?

You're welcome! No need to bring this up with an ecclesiastical leader. There are varying views and discussions that go on between active and believing members of the church in regards to the two question you pose, along with many others.

Easy to point fingers from the outside looking in, isn't it?

Questions are good, though.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Thanks for answering, finally. Does your Bishop know you’re an apostate that doesn’t believe core church doctrine?

You're welcome! No need to bring this up with an ecclesiastical leader. There are varying views and discussions that go on between active and believing members of the church in regards to the two question you pose, along with many others.

Easy to point fingers from the outside looking in, isn't it?

Questions are good, though.

Regards,
MG

I’m surprised that you disbelieve that only members of the Church will reside in the Celestial Kingdom. I’m genuinely taken aback that you hold an apostate view about that.

For those unfamiliar with the significance of this - Mormonism holds that to enter the Celestial Kingdom (the highest level in the Mormon version of the afterlife) you need to have completed all the Mormon ordinances from Baptism through to Temple Marriage, either directly yourself, or indirectly via a proxy session after you are deceased. It's the reason temples exist. For MG 2.0 to express a disbelief in that core tenet is a big statement of apostate thinking.

[Dr. Shades]

Reasons for doing things can be complicated.

But it's also possible to lie about the reasons for doing things.

Like, a kid leaves home and wants to finally stop eating those weird old crackers that the family always used to eat, because the crackers are gross, even though Mom always said they were good for you. The kid is responsible for their own health now, though, and would keep on crunching the gross crackers for health reasons, except that the kid goes online and discovers that the crackers are of no nutritional value and have been shown to contribute to spleen damage in mice.

Kid stops eating those crackers, and offers the nutritional issues alone as the reasons, without mentioning grossness. Is that a lie? I wouldn't say so. The grossness may have been the original reason why the kid wanted to stop eating the crackers, but if it hadn't been for the nutrition stuff, the kid would be eating them still.

Yeah, the grossness was the motivation that led to the nutrition discovery. If the crackers hadn't been gross, the kid would probably never have learned about the mouse spleens. But grossness in crackers is a subjective issue, lots of people eat things they don't like because they're good for you, sometimes you have to be an adult and overcome your own emotional reactions, and so on. The fact that the crackers are 75% sawdust is the thing that cuts through all that. So it's really the reason.

But if the kid said he stopped eating the crackers because he was dissatisfied with their shape, then he would be telling a lie.

[IWMP]

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

The Church or the knowledge of Jesus Christ and His Atonement? Belief in God as our Father?

The Church is an organization. Jesus Christ, well, that's something else. God...that's bigger than an organization that one might be put off by for one reason or another.

Isn't it?

My question would be, how many people that have left the church ever had a deep and abiding testimony of Jesus Christ? Or a real desire to know if there is something BIGGER and more powerful in the universe...than them, or their puny knowledge.

Personal opinion? I think that those that do stay in the church even when coming up against 'speed bumps' are those that continue to seek a knowledge of Jesus Christ and how/why He is the One who matters. Not people. Not mistakes. Not money issues. Etc.

It's all about Jesus and whether or not He was resurrected from the dead. It kind of all comes down to that. Not whether or not we might be bored at times when we attend church or if our own personal (selfish) needs aren't always met.

But that's just one guy's opinion.

To each his or her own.

Regards,
MG

I do believe those who seek Christ and further knowledge can be capable of looking elsewhere when they realise some Sundays have no mention of Jesus or God at all (excluding sacrament). I do think there is a small point to what you are making, in that, there must be a deeper lack of faith in order for someone to give up salvation I suppose and that leaving because it's not fun or whatever not faith related reasons doesn't feel like a good enough reason to turn your back on the true church but I don't think Christ is what keeps people going. This might be the case for you.