The Departed
 

I was released last November after serving 5+ years as 1st counselor to a wise and inspired bishop. Among our greatest joys were the mission calls, making a difference with fractured families and the well planned (i.e. anything without the word Trek) youth activities. Deepest sorrows came from being unable to convince 4 previously active families not to resign their memberships, and not preventing other strong members from drifting into inactivity. I still stay up nights haunted by what we could have done differently.

The departures happened as a result of a group of educated and intelligent members learning more about church history and having problems with what they claimed to be doctrinal inconsistencies. A partial list includes contradictions with BofM historicity, BofA translation, DNA (big problem, including poly and amerindian findings), polygamy, racism, etc. One brother found what he claimed to be "plagiarism" of the plan of salvation from a book entitled Heaven and Hell written by who to me was an obscure author named Swedenborg. This was new to us and quite honestly we did not have a good response ready.

It was as if we were bombarded with a selective abridgment of Brodie, Bushman, Compton, Palmer, Quinn, Southerton, et al. None of the departed left with bitterness, there was no unresolved sin, mistreatment or public announcement. They simply concluded the foundation was unstable and left. We remain friends and neighbors, but the relationships are forever changed.

When the resignations began, the bishop made very effort to offer spiritual guidance and counter arguments. We had ward fasts, special temple sessions and distributed FARM commentaries. The stake president even funded a self styled DNA expert (and protege of Hartman Rector) by the name of Rod Meldrum (http://www.bookofmormonevidence.org) to come speak at a stake fireside and discuss his scientific and historical evidence that BofM events were centered in the Great Lakes region.

Problem was Brother Meldrum spoke to and audience that included physicians and biologists; he had little in the way of sound empirical science, and apparently his timeline is off by at least 10K years. In the end, Meldrum did more harm than good.

Right or wrong we found that some Church members now demand historical credibility and tangible evidence to support their faith. Blessings of the Internet I surmise.

I suspect there is a growing trend of similar defections concentrated primarily in the U.S., Britain and Europe. I also trust the Church's response will be strong and include improved bishopric training materials.

Very interesting. This is something we have discussed at length. Credit goes to SIEQ for the phrase "lack of innoculation."

Hiding history will not help. Forthrightly tackling it from the beginning is the key.

Also, at the end of the day, people that are convinced of the truthfulness of the BoM based on "how much it makes sense" or its historicity will always be on an unfirm foundation.

This is a church that is based on the gifts of the Spirit. Without them, there is nothing. And that has to be the underpinning of all tempests that will fall upon us.

Hence the reason for the concept of "inoculation" becomes apparent. Withholding this information for so long can only do harm.

We've discussed these issues ad nauseum here, to the dismay of many.

Van Swedenborg allegation has been around for a long time, and whether Joseph Smith had access to the information is debatable, but one can see why others might make the connection.

When I read that quote, all I could think of was

Truly sad.

Innoculation can only go so far. It may remove the element of "unfair surprise" to an extent, but with regards to most of the topics that might require innoculation, there simply aren't enough concrete answers out there. For those that are unwilling to simply accept a personal spiritual witness as sufficient for their needs, there isn't enough historicity or tangible evidence in the world to suffice.

well said.

There was a time in my life, many years ago, where I was disturbed by many of the accusations leveled by the anti-Mormons. However, there was a mentor in my ward who helped me along, answered my questions, and was honest. He did me a great service, and no he wasn't a stereotypical FARMS-type. He was actually a very original, very different kind of Mormon that probably fit right in here on CG.

A well written post. Thanks.

A comment and a question:

Comment: LDS assertions, as early as Joseph Smith, but in the 20th century with figures like Ferguson and New World Archaeological foundation or the FARMers, in my opinion, ventured to place Book of Mormon into the rational, scientific, archaeological/historical, etc. fields and are now suffering the consequences of entering a rational debate with an irrational argument.

To date, there exists no substantial evidence of Book of Mormon historicity, but - as a friend of mine recently noted - the apologists have adroitly shifted the discussion to challenging "the world" to "disprove" the book, rather than focusing their attempts on "proving" the book. The LDS fixation on "truth," certainty, and absolute knowledge is fine theology, but translates poorly into academic arenas.

Question: In your opinion, why did these families feel obligated to withdraw their membership? Why not just quit attending? Did they seem to have a psychological need for closure, or what?

Wouldn't academia support the approach of disproving rather than proving a hypothesis? The null hypothesis is never accepted; you either reject it or fail to reject it.

If LDS apologists have taken the stance that the truthfulness needs to be rejected rather than proven, then they are merely being consistent with modern empirical analysis.

Those who actually resigned shared some similarities. There was a dominant husband (3) or wife (1) who, after a period of inactivity, convinced their families that resignation was the only way end the limbo and bring about what to them was peace of mind. I don't know enough to say that they achieved that elusive goal.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry, I don't mean to laugh at your travails but reading these lines caused me to choose between gulping at once too much hot coffee or ruining my key board. I have a sore throat. But it was worth the laugh. It's like creationism cubed. I should hope he did more harm than good. This is too funny to be true clear down to the part about him being "a protege of Hartman Rector." I'm sure firebrand Rector has some awesome natural history creds!

The BoM teaches us that people turn to God when times get hard.

Times are not hard right now.

History tells us that times are not always good.

My intuition tells me that people will turn to God again. When the time is right.

Agreed. What it comes down to for me is my personal spiritual experiences and journey. I don't need to have every last question answered perfectly right now, as practicing the principles of the gospel and following the Spirit works for me and makes me happy. Not all scholarship pushes one away from the church either. It's a huge mistake to make that conclusion, IMO.

The fact that he had to be paid says enough. Also in hard times, people will buy snake oil.

No. You stole that from Tolstoy.

Only Tolstoy I have read is Anna Karenina. Is it from AK?

The spirit will bring things to your rememberance....

Maybe in some respects, but the archaeological or historical arguments for the BoM need something to support them, not just a John Sorenson saying that a lack of horses in America doesn't disprove the book. In my opinion, at least.

Wow. I had you pegged for a mullah for some reason.

More his philosophical musings late in life. He practically started his own religion and the Orthodox Church excomunicated him even though in the end he was kind of a religious hermit and pilgrims would visit him. But I think the idea that God becomes relevant during trying times and at death's door is a recurring theme in both Dostoevsky's and Tolstoy's works.

What methods of inquiry do you use aside from hypothesis testing?

In my experience there are a few things that help people who come down with the "fever" of the issues and sources you've cited. Some of us here on CG have been faced with the decision of whether or not to walk away. Others are facing that decision right now. Here are a few:

1. A focus on the fruits of Mormonism in my life, as opposed to dwelling on the uncertainty of the roots of the Church.

2. A willingness to accept ambiguity on many issues. My academic training has actually helped me with this.

3. A willingness to not let the mullahs and fundies get me down (at least not in a serious way). The second phase of this is to go about actively deciding what I do and don't think and believe. Jetissoning all the mental gymnastics and non-think can actually feel good. Phase three is being able to appreciate that the ward is filled with good people who mean well despite their shortcomings. I haven't found phase four yet.

4. Getting plugged in to the LDS intellectual scene. Knowing I am not alone is powerful. CG helps many of us in this regard. There are people in every ward who are in very similar situations. They can make great friends.

5. Take seriously what Joseph Smith said about embracing truth wherever you find it. This has lead me to a kind of Mormon universalism, where I'm a faithful heretic.

6. Finding my niche has been important. I served in the primary for four years and loved it. The kids appreciated me and I was insulated from the nonsense going on during the other two hours of the block.

I could keep going, but you get the idea. Wrestling with troubling questions concerning the Church can be very healthy. Faith dies when you stop asking those questions.

#1. The problem is you come across as angry, both in tone and style.

Take it from one of the masters of pissing people off with his over aggressive tone at times. The louder you yell and the more incendiary you deliberately try to be,,,,,the less people hear and want to hear.

As a former victim of abuse I'm personally offended that someone like you who claims to be so politically correct and sensitive towards others, so flippantly and casually throws the word abuse around when it comes to the church. I'm kindly asking you to re-think before you make those statements again.

You are not a victim.

#2. Given your consistent history of baiting others and carefully worded plans of attacking the church, its policies, its leaders, its doctrine, its members, you've really lost any right to continue your charade as a victim.

Change your tone and approach some and you might be taken more seriously.

Interesting thoughts.

And here I thought this was going to be about the Irish mob in South Boston. On a side note, I hear it is easier to leave the Irish mob than leave the church. Hitmen are not nearly as determined as hometeachers.

Remind me what phase four is.

Scoutmaster.

40 years on the activities committee! :rolleyes:

I appreciate the reference, but my point regarding the way you approach things still stands and is unchanged.

The way you approach things clearly indicates you're interested in getting your points across via shockvalue and painting yourself as a victim and then you wonder why people react the way to you they do.

Drop the facade and you'll be taken more seriously.

Ultimately most people decide if they like a way of life, a culture. It's like Sooner said once, it's like choosing ice cream. I feel sorry for those who can't stand the culture and plug along, trapped. Or maybe they are selecting what they see as the least distasteful of what they perceive as bad alternatives.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Who are these people you reference?

Umm, Mormon-lite won't work. If you haven't paid attention for the last, what 30 years, I will inform you that the Protestants have tried Protestant-lite. To disastrous results.

Temple Free Mormons. Positive or negative affect on growth in the church?

I don't think they tried Protestant-lite. What they did was change their stance on modernity; they became more accepting of the broader culture on issues like social and economic justice.

Interestingly, a similar stance has worked very well for black churches.

evangelical churches grow much faster than liberal churches.