Why are we leaving the LDS Church in droves? Why? Why? Why?

I think that Kevin Barney was sincerely interested in finding answers when he first posed the question. The trouble is that when you ask a question on the Internet, there’s a danger that you’ll get responses from people who have actual, first-hand experience. Then the double-trouble is that it’s hard to answer that question in a reasonable way without, y’know, pointing out things that might possibly be wrong with the CoJCoL-dS. Which, in Mormonland, is not kosher. Those are the kinds of truths that aren’t useful — unless you want to actually address and solve the problems. But that would require acknowledging that the CoJCoL-dS may not be already perfect exactly the way it is. Just imagining such a thing makes some believers respond with la-la-la-I-can’t-hear-you-anymore-because-I’m-bearing-my-testimony-at-you-now (which Chino argues may be the root of the problem).

But, to be fair, the responses that Andrew calls “cringe-worthy” (about how obviously bad and wrong the church is) don’t really answer the question either. We’ve hardly scratched the surface of the main mysteries:

  • Why now? Why was the LDS church growing a few decades ago and now heading into decline? (If it’s not true now, it’s not as though it was more true thirty years ago…)
  • Why is religion in general losing ground throughout the industrialized world? Are Mormonism’s problems just a part of that trend, or is there something more going on in Zion?
  • Why is it that the more liberal/laid-back religions seem to be losing ground faster than the more extreme/all-consuming religions? (Is that actually the case, and is Mormonism a counter-example?)

Now, I have my own theory about this, but please formulate your own theory before reading it.

Ready?

OK, remember how they used to teach us in Sunday School that nobody knows when the exact time of the Second coming will be, not even Heavenly Father? Well, naturally that causes some coordination and planning problems. HF had saved up a whole bunch of choice, valiant spirits for the last days — but He used them all up a generation ago, and now in the latter-latter days, He’s left scraping the bottom of the spirit barrel. Meanwhile, Jesus is still in the bathroom doing his hair for His return in clouds of glory.

But, seriously, any ideas?

chanson

C. L. Hanson is the friendly Swiss-French-American ExMormon atheist mom living in Switzerland! Follow me on mastadon at @chanson@social.linux.pizza or see "letters from a broad" for further adventures!!

You may also like...

530 Responses

  1. chanson says:

    Seth @344 — Yes, as I said, the passages are ambiguous. Plenty ambiguous enough for a smart apologist to explain them away. From personal experience, I can also tell you that they’re ambiguous enough that people can (and do) use them to teach “doctrines” about black people — sincerely and legitimately believing that the scriptures back them up.

  2. Andrew S says:

    re 342,

    Diane,

    Not just the Mormon church…but EVERY church, EVERY country, EVERY organization that EVER existed. EVERY person, EVERY organization, EVERY government lies and deceives in order to accomplish something good.

    I agree that there are gray areas in life, but in my opinion, religious doctrine shouldnt be one of them.

    I’ll say that is why I am not a believer. I would like to hold religions to a higher standard TOO, but if not, I call things as I see them: GRAY. I don’t say that the religion is “all bad” or “all detrimental” just because they are just as gray as everything else.

    Of course, part of what bothers me is that although some tithing money is used to give service to people in need, the majority of it is used for many other things, such as building the City Creek Mall, the cost of which is now approaching $6 billion dollars (and of course, the lifestyles of the First Presidency and GAs, which includes flying first-class around the world).

    Financial impropriety happens everywhere. The church isn’t “evil” for having material, financial goals along with its theological goals.

    And comparing lies told by the Mormon Church (or by any religion) to the legend of Santa Claus? Thats like comparing apples and oranges. Its an interesting analogy (and definitely entertaining), but IMO, its a real stretch to debate those two very extreme areas. When a child reaches the age of, say 10, 11 or so, they discover that Santa Claus is not real and that is not harmful in the long-run. But discovering after a lifetime of devoting a persons life to Mormonism that it is built on nothing but lies and deception that have been perpetuated throughout the years is extremely harmful.

    There are plenty of people whose trusts in their parents become irreparably damaged when they find out Santa Claus is not real.

    And there are plenty of people who are not harmed at all by finding out the history of Mormon doctrine. For these people, the religion becomes more complex and engaging as a result. It becomes more REAL because of the nuance and complexity.

    So, you say “apples and orange” — but you cannot tell which is an apple and which is an orange! You want to say that Mormonism is always damaging and Santa Claus is always harmless, but it’s just not true! Plenty of people are hurt by Santa and plenty of people are helped by Mormonism, because different people have different experiences.

    re 343:

    To me, though, if a person (or religion) lies to people, then they are clearly citing their character or underlying premise.

    But once again, you have to understand intent. A lie is intentional deception. A person of religion actually believes what he says, so he cannot be a liar. YOU MAY THINK he is “deceived”, but he is not a “liar.”

    And I want nothing to do with people (or organizations) that lie not only because they are deceitful but also because the likelihood is that there are many more lies underneath the surface. Integrity is paramount. Lies are destructive.

    Do you buy anything from any company? Do you work for anyone or any company? I hope not, because EVERY PERSON and EVERY ORGANIZATION has “lies underneath the surface.”

    In fact, if you are so concerned about integrity, you should probably leave whatever country you’re in…because politics is NOT about integrity. International politics are especially NOT about integrity, if you’ve been keeping up with Wikileaks.

  3. kuri says:

    Seth,

    In #347, was agreeing with you.

    I guess neither of us is used to that, so it might not have been clear. 😉

  4. Seth R. says:

    I knew you were kuri. And I’m sure I found it as strange as you did.

  5. Diane Tingen says:

    OK, sorry for going “HUGELY off-topic” (although I don’t think bringing up any aspect of what the Mormon Church does is off-topic because it all involves why people are leaving the Mormon Church, just as I have). I was simply trying to show what lies are perpetuated by the Mormon Church, and although I think the higher-ups know exactly what lies they are perpetuating, obviously others don’t see it that way. And as far as lies themselves are concerned, the Mormon Church was built on lies from the get-go so the culture of deception runs deep. For Gordon B. Hinckley to be as deception as he was in interviews (both in regard to Mormons believing that they can become Gods and about “little flecks of history” not being important) is a classic example.

    But I guess I’ve said enough — and although I could continue to go on and on, I suppose I should spare you my further views on this topic.

  6. jason says:

    andrew– I know what you want to hear but i cannot deny the words of many of the founding authorities of the church. I am a faithful member of the church and if i were to start believing that they were racist (which i dont) i would be no different then an anti-mormon putting my own personal doctrine above those who were called by God to lead and direct his church on earth. No i do not think they were racist. Have you ever contemplated that blacks were nuetral in the pre-existence? Not saying that a black person is or was ever less then any other white person cause i definately will never think or believe that, but i just believe what prophets have said to be true to be true. If they were all racist the church would not be true. If i have faith the church is true i have to sustain my authorities and know that God would remove them from their calling. I would hope andrew that you would not be offended at what leaders have said happened thousands and thousands of years ago if not millions of years ago. As far as the church changing their stance on blacks and the priesthood because of liberal infiltration that is my opinion but i hope im wrong, but i am so grateful that good men like yourself can now hold the priesthood and whatever happened in the pre-existence can be overwith and we all can move on. I know you still wont think i understand but i lean heavy on the doctrine of the early church so to deny their teachings would put me in the same place that kuri and many other people on here have now got to when it comes to being an active membe of the church.

  7. Andrew S says:

    re 356

    Jason,

    You don’t have to deny the words of the founding authorities of the church.

    You can simply listen to the later authorities who said, as Bruce R. McConkie said:

    …We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things. There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such? And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

    We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They dont matter any more.

    It doesnt make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles…

    By listening to more current revelation, we know that blacks were NOT neutral in the preexistence. We forget about that. We have a new flood of intelligence and light on the issue that erases all of the darkness in the past. You FORGET what President Brigham Young or what George Q. Cannon or whomever said.

    If you do not, it is YOU who is not in accordance with Mormon beliefs and Mormon doctrine. It is YOU who is the heretic! Because Mormons believe in continuing revelation, if you insist to believe on the “doctrine of the early church,” you are an apostate and a heretic! You are as the polygamists! I call you to discipline!

  8. Seth R. says:

    jason, I don’t really want to hear any more assertions from you about what the position of the founding authorities of the LDS Church was until you can provide me with some quotes that you consider to be binding doctrine, so I can judge for myself how to regard them.

  9. jason says:

    seth– as i check this today i quickly see that everyone on here has pretty much gave you all the refrences you want. I dont understand why you asked for these refrences cause your a smart guy and you probably already knew them and if you didnt now you do. I hope you dont ask me to point out that i may have racist thinking cause i do not, like i said as i look into all my mixed nieces and nephews eyes the last thing i would ever see is someone less then myself even though i believe the mark or curse of cain to be real.

  10. jason says:

    seth–are you joking me?! How many quotes do you need? You must be in denial cause if you deny every quote you have read there’s nothing i can say or show you cause youll just say “not that one show me something else” and i dont have all day to quote you to death i do have a life ya know.

  11. kuri says:

    Diane,

    I’m not a mod or whatever, but “on-topic” isn’t enforced here IME. Threads are free to run where they will.

    Anyway, I think GBH’s statements about becoming Gods and so on really meant “I don’t want to talk about that because it makes the church look bad; let’s talk about something else.” But he didn’t want to come right out and say that either, because that would also make the church look bad.

    So he said some things that came across as evasive. (Because they were.) Is that being scrupulously honest? No. But is it “lying”? I don’t think so. I think it’s “trying to change the subject.”

    I think a lot of subject changing goes on in church. I think it’s certainly deceptive in a way. But I don’t think a lot of people high up in the church are saying things they don’t actually believe. In that sense, I think they aren’t “liars.”

    The reason I think they believe what they say is pretty simple: it’s a lay church until you get to the highest levels, and high leaders come up through the ranks. They come up through the ranks by being orthodox and competent and fitting in socially. Part of all that, it seems to me, is never allowing yourself to have any serious doubts.

  12. jason says:

    andrew– Yes they recieved revelation for blacks to recieve the priesthood and yes they said they are learning more knowledge then they had known before, but no where in those statements does it say that its untrue blacks were not neutral in the pre-existence, they just said they never heard they were not allowed to give blacks the priesthood. Just like presidnet hinkley said he didnt believe polygamy was doctrinal but every other church prophet thought otherwise so tell me who would be correct pres. hinkley or everyone else?

  13. jason says:

    andrew– they said that knowledge changed that they were now allowed to give blacks the priesthood not that everything they had been taught by previous prophets was wrong.

  14. Andrew S says:

    jason,

    Continuing revelation means the present overrides the past. NATURALLY, if a prophet gets new revelation,then all the previous prophets will disagree. But you follow the most current prophet, do you not?

    They said this:

    Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

    We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They dont matter any more.

    The Priesthood ban, the doctrine on race, the doctrine of neutrality in the premortal existence, they ALL go together. They are all wrong. They do not matter anymore.

  15. Niki says:

    Mormonism has nothing to offer beyond platitudes and circular argument, most of us are trying to make sense of our lives and this involves questioning ourselves. Any religion that denies it’s followers the ability to question and shape their own lives has nothing to useful to offer, except social control.
    I believe that people have always left the church in droves, there have never been many new converts and mormonism has always relied on their members to make new ones, regardless of the fact that many kids are scarred for life by this, and all kids with any spark of individuality have always left. The internet just provides community for us.
    I’ve never cared whether mormonism is true or not, I only knew, as a child that it had nothing to offer me, as a woman, except a life of bondage and second-class citizenship.

  16. kuri says:

    Andrew,

    For some reason, your dialog with Jason brings Homer’s Odyssey to mind:

    Yea and I beheld Sisyphus in strong torment, grasping a monstrous stone with both his hands. He was pressing thereat with hands and feet, and trying to roll the stone upward toward the brow of the hill. But oft as he was about to hurl it over the top, the weight would drive him back, so once again to the plain rolled the stone, the shameless thing. And he once more kept heaving and straining, and the sweat the while was pouring down his limbs, and the dust rose upwards from his head.

  17. MoHoHawaii says:

    The question of whether a church with patently absurd doctrine can be a force for good is the central theme behind the new Broadway musical “The Book of Mormon.” Orthodox Mormons will hate this musical because it satirizes LDS beliefs. It’s interesting, though, that the play also portrays Mormons as nice people whose silly cosmology doesn’t detract from their ability to do good in the world.

    Audiences love this play. It’s probably going to be a big hit.

    I’m torn by the message of the play. Fundamentalist religions (including orthodox Mormonism) divide families and cause tremendous suffering to those they force into exile. On the other hand, those who fit in well get a ready-made community that serves them well. Like a lot of things in life, it’s a mixed bag. On the whole, I think fundamentalism works better when there’s geographical separation between the various sectarian groups. When we’re all mixed up together and have to be each other’s neighbors, the fundamentalist viewpoint causes strife. Mormons, Evangelical Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists and gay people all live on the same block and work in the same offices. We have to do a better job of respecting one another. I don’t feel that respect coming from institutional Mormonism that continues to demonize many of us.

    (Yes, Jason, I’m gay.)

  18. chanson says:

    I believe that people have always left the church in droves, there have never been many new converts

    Certainly there have always been people leaving the LDS church. In my own seven-generation Mormon family, there have been “apostates” in nearly every generation. However, there have also been periods when the CoJCoL-dS has been quite successful at attracting and retaining converts. The stats show that the LDS conversion rate and deconversion rate have varied over time.

  19. Andrew S says:

    re 366:

    kuri, I believe in the glory of sisyphean tasks.

    re 367:

    MHH, I so want to see the musical. From all the reviews and summaries, I like the message…but of course, I want to see how it’s executed for myself too!

    I agree with your summarization/analysis too. But unfortunately, I feel like it’s not just the church that creates division between groups, so it’s not like you can get of religion (or fundamentalist religion) and then have peace or whatever.

  20. chanson says:

    On the whole, I think fundamentalism works better when theres geographical separation between the various sectarian groups.

    That’s an interesting question! (And BTW, Kuri’s right that we don’t have any kind of “stay on topic” rule here. Only a “try to keep it civil and constructive” rule.)

    I would say that isolation of fundamentalisms can cause its own problems. For one thing, the lack of alternatives can make it harder for people who don’t fit in to get by.

  21. jason says:

    andrew–i dont know where your getting that quote but if your gonna start erasing all the views and doctrines of the past then you will have no future. Why follow something when in 50 years its going to change its doctrine and believe entirely something else. If im not going to believe a quote out of many it will be that one if it even is a quote. The church is the same yesterday, today, and tommorrow it never changes so if i believed that, i wouldnt believe anything my current leaders say cause in the future it would all change and they would be proven wrong so what would be the point? Andrew its thoughts and conclusions like that that get people to leave the church in the first place. Satan knows doctrine and loves to twist our understanding of scripture. The fact that you let these things bombard your thinking and hurt your faith are signs that the adversary is in an eternal struggle with your spirit. I could spend the rest of the day showing you a hundred scriptures and quotes that may seam contradictory but it wouldnt do either one of us any good. If you dont want to believe it great, thats not important at all whats important is that you do all you can do in this life to make it to the celestial kingdom and if believing that people were wrong about this one subject then so be it whatever improves your faith. I have to go for now but ill check back later.

  22. Seth R. says:

    jason, here is the Bruce R. McConkie speech Andrew is quoting:

    http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=11017

    Additionally, I would direct you to an interview by current apostle Jeffrey R. Holland for the recent PBS documentary on the Mormons:

    http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html#1

    Here’s the money-quote in the Q&A session:

    Questioner:
    I’ve talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn’t have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.

    Jeffrey R. Holland:
    One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. … I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. … They, I’m sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. …

    It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don’t know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. … At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, … we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

    Questioner:
    What is the folklore, quite specifically?

    Jeffrey R. Holland:
    Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don’t know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I’ve been able to live in the period where we’re not expressing or teaching them, but I think that’s the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. … But I think that’s the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. … We just don’t know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. … That’s my principal [concern], is that we don’t perpetuate explanations about things we don’t know. …

    We don’t pretend that something wasn’t taught or practice wasn’t pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we’re absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that’s not perpetuated in the present. That’s the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. …

    Here’s a 2006 Priesthood Session Conference address from Gordon B. Hinckley:

    http://lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/the-need-for-greater-kindness?lang=eng

    Here’s the main quote:

    “Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

    Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

    Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

    Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

    Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.”

    So jason,

    Are you going to get in line behind the living oracles or not?

  23. Seth R. says:

    Chanson, too many hyperlinks in my comment – it went into moderation.

  24. Diane Tingen says:

    Niki said: Mormonism has nothing to offer beyond platitudes and circular argument, most of us are trying to make sense of our lives and this involves questioning ourselves. Any religion that denies its followers the ability to question and shape their own lives has nothing to useful to offer, except social control. I believe that people have always left the church in droves, there have never been many new converts and mormonism has always relied on their members to make new ones, regardless of the fact that many kids are scarred for life by this, and all kids with any spark of individuality have always left. The internet just provides community for us.
    Ive never cared whether mormonism is true or not, I only knew, as a child that it had nothing to offer me, as a woman, except a life of bondage and second-class citizenship.

    I SO AGREE. I just wish my spark of individuality had exhibited itself earlier in my life (and been more of an impetus) because although I realized much of that as a teenager, I put all that on my “shelf” hung in there for many, many more years before finally leaving. And when I did leave, it was because I discovered all the lies and deception obviously present in Mormon history (prior to, during and after a Mormon Church History tour that I went on in 2001). I think one of the main differences between growing up in the information age (and having access to the internet) as opposed to growing up in the 60’s is that information about the church is so much more accessible now. I would hope that if I had had access to all that is available today when I was growing up that I would have left then.

  25. Andrew S says:

    Seth, comment pulled out of moderation.

    re 371

    jason,

    Please pay attention to Seth’s comment in 372.

    You ask me:

    Why follow something when in 50 years its going to change its doctrine and believe entirely something else.

    But that is something you have to ask yourself as a Mormon who believes in continuing revelation. Ask yourself what it means to follow the ninth article of faith:

    >We believe all that God has revealed, all that [H]e does now reveal, and we believe that [H]e will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the [K]ingdom of God.

    What does it mean that we may have limited understanding today? that we may see in a glass, darkly?

    Seems like if you don’t want to follow living prophets then you don’t trust in God’s judgment and wisdom in continuing to lead the church.

  26. chanson says:

    Yes, I was about to do it, but Andrew is too fast for me. 😉 We’re in the middle of putting the kids in bed here in Switzerland.

  27. Diane Tingen says:

    By the way, I see people quoting other people’s comments and those quotes being highlighted, but I can’t figure out how to do that myself. Any enlightenment would be appreciated.

  28. chanson says:

    @377 The magic is html formatting:

    <blockquote>this is a quote</blockquote>
    =

    this is a quote

    <a href=”link url address here”>this is a link</a> = this is a link

  29. chanson says:

    <b>bold</b> = bold
    <i>italics</i> = italics

  30. chanson says:

    And, BTW, just following up on one of the earlier tangents: Even though essentially all organizations/ideologies have some “mythology” doesn’t imply they’re all equal in this regard. Even if no one succeeds 100%, some group cultures sincerely value honesty and introspection more than others, and that matters.

  31. Diane Tingen says:

    chanson said:

    And, BTW, just following up on one of the earlier tangents: Even though essentially all organizations/ideologies have some mythology doesnt imply theyre all equal in this regard. Even if no one succeeds 100%, some group cultures sincerely value honesty and introspection more than others, and that matters.

    Trying it out. And to reply to your comment, I totally agree. Sincere honesty and introspection do matter, not only from a theology standpoint but from a day-to-day life view as well. An organization telling people to be honest and not being honest itself is sending entirely the wrong message.

  32. Andrew S says:

    re 380

    chanson,

    Duly noted, but the idea is if we’re going to say ALL or NOTHING, then we should at least recognize that every organization, every person, etc., is “nothing.”

    To start saying “some value honesty and introspection more than others” is talk that arises when you can compare grays.

  33. chanson says:

    Andrew @382 — OK. Look, I’m just agreeing with you that people and groups are more complex than a simple “all good” or “all bad”, but that doesn’t imply we should throw all comparisons out the window.

  34. Andrew S says:

    No, I’m saying that ONLY through acknowledging complexity can we bring comparisons back *into* the window.

  35. chanson says:

    OK, then we agree. Except that beginning word where you incongruously said “No.” instead of “exactly,” 😉

  36. Andrew S says:

    In English, we need a word like “doch” 😉

  37. chanson says:

    So true! As frustrating as the German language can be, it has some cool features! (The equivalent word exists in French, too, BTW: “si” instead of “oui”.)

  38. jason says:

    andrew– i had a talk with my stake president and he agrees with me that the mark of cane was true and that they remained neutrol in the pre-existence. He answered me as if to say “who doesnt believe that, we know it is.” So i have to sustain my stake president on this one cause he is also an institute teacher at a major university and knows his subject matter pretty good. Ive also read the full text of his talk and i still can not find anywhere him saying it was not true.

  39. Andrew S says:

    Random Stake President: More Doctrinally Aware Than Jeffrey R. Holland.

    Literally. That’s what Mormons really believe.

  40. jason says:

    Andrew– yes God does reveal new things to his current prophets but in no way will it ever nigate the doctrine of previous prophets it may add to it or give a bigger picture of what happend but doctrine is doctrine and does not change. It may have things added to it but if Tell brigham young something is true and he tells the people its true, then how would it give any current prophet the right to go back and say that prophet was wrong. Ive never heard a prophet say that anyway they just kinda try and avoid the converstion entirely.

  41. Andrew S says:

    Do you believe that everything a prophet ever says is prophecy?

  42. jason says:

    Seth–holland is giving his opinion and it almost seams to me that he is rambling a little bit. He said he didnt know why and he wouldnt because that was way before his time as an authority and if the ban started first with brigham young he would have been the prophet whom God spoke to to reveal any doctrine or teachings to be given to the church. Holland has no authority over the prophetic office that brigham young held. What i take out of that whole interview was a big plate of apeasment, sometimes the church is so worried about saving souls and looking good they will sugar coat points of doctrine that may offend certain investigators. What is true will always be true.

  43. kuri says:

    “…so once again to the plain rolled the stone, the shameless thing.” Unlike Sisyphus’s stone, this one apparently has a stake president pushing on the other side. 😀

  44. jason says:

    Andrew– I do not believe ANY prophet is infalliable. But, if a prophet tells me something is prophecy i believe it and I incorporate into my life. Now, if a more modern prophet says something that goes against what many of the founding prophets have said i would go with the early prophets or be very confused and come up with my own conclusions and try to just not worry about it till i pass away to the next life.

  45. Andrew S says:

    So, what is the point of a modern prophet if you’re going to listen more to the founding and early prophets?

    Why not just get rid of the prophet and stick to the Bible???

  46. I don’t this Jason’s point is really about race and neutrality at the core. It’s about what he tried to say in a comment earlier, the view that current leaders will never negate past leaders. If you accept that prophets have ever been wrong on any of the big(er) stuff, then you obviously have an entirely different worldview. Jason’s view does NOT allow for one prophet’s word to go against another’s. If there is a threat (e.g. Holland, above) it has to be dismissed as “he has no authority” or “he is rambling” etc. This view must withstand everything, otherwise a complete change in the way we look at things would be necessary (e.g. prophets DO get things “wrong” sometimes, newer teachings hold on to some things while doing away with past error, etc.).

    Seems I have been rambling a little bit though.

  47. Oh boy it’s late. Typos abound.

  48. Andrew S says:

    re 396:

    yeah, I see that shenpa warrior. It just baffles me. Why would you even be a member of the church rather than a fundamentalist or polygamist if you believed this way? Or why would you accept modern revelation AT ALL if you believed this way?

  49. jason says:

    andrew– your just interpreting hollands words to benefit your own personal opinion or hardship you may have with the church. Yes i would bet a good majority believe in the teachings of the early prophets. Even in the book of mormon God had darkened the skin of the lamanites who had fell away. I dont have my scriptures with me but i remember reading in a few places where this was the case. I dont remember where but i also remember reading something along the lines of “i fear that their skin shall be whiter then your in”…??? I remeber they were talking about the people with darker skin having whiter skin then them in the next life cause the lamanites at one time where more rightous then the nephites. I dont remember where i read that but i know its there.

  50. Seth R. says:

    jason, did you even read what Jeffrey R. Holland said?

    And what makes your Stake President an expert on this?

    Since when was it HIS Priesthood calling to unilaterally define what is or is not doctrinal for the ENTIRE LDS Church? Especially when he’s contradicting a full apostle?

    I kind of wonder if your stake president wouldn’t change his tune if he’d actually read the sources I provided. You’ve actually done your Stake President a disservice here by not making him aware of the prophetic and scriptural sources I provided you. You are now in the position of trying to manipulate your own local Priesthood leaders into opposition to the words of the General leadership of the LDS Church. This is a dangerous game you are playing jason. And I’m sure your Stake President would not appreciate it very much if he knew that this is what you are doing.

    I think Armand Mauss makes it pretty clear that the verses that people usually draw doctrines like Mark of Cain and “fence sitters” in the pre-mortal world from do NOT actually require that reading at all.

    Not to mention 3 Nephi 13:24.

    “No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.”

    Which seems to flatly contradict your little theory here.

    So you have no scriptural leg to stand on in the Standard Works. And then you have Jeffrey R. Holland specifically backing away from it (as I quoted him above). Not to mention that this doctrine has never been taught by any General Authority of the Church (as far as I know) since the Priesthood ban was lifted.

    But I’m not done yet.

    In the 1954 book Doctrines of Salvation (compiled by Bruce R. McConkie), Joseph Fielding Smith stated that “there were no neutrals in the war in heaven,” but suggested that the rewards received in this life reflected actions taken in the pre-existence:

    “NO NEUTRALS IN HEAVEN. There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.”

    Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954) , 1:65-66.

    But I’m still not done. Let’s try Brigham Young himself.

    “Lorenzo Young asked if the Spirits of Negroes were Nutral in Heaven. He said someone said Joseph Smith said they were. President Young said No they were not. There was No Nutral spirits in Heaven at the time of the Rebelion. All took sides. He said if any one said that He Herd the Prophet Joseph Say that the spirits of the Blacks were Nutral in Heaven He would not Believe them for He herd Joseph Say to the Contrary. All spirits are pure that Come from the presence of God. The posterity of Cane are Black Because He Commit Murder. He killed Abel & God set a Mark upon his posterity But the spirits are pure that Enter their tabernacles & there will be a Chance for the redemption of all the Children of Adam Except the Sons of perdition.”
    So even Joseph Fielding Smith disagrees with you jason.

    Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruffs Journal, 9 vols., ed., Scott G. Kenny (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1985), 6:511 (journal entry dated 25 December 1869).

    How about prophet Joseph F. Smith:

    “there is no revelation, ancient or modern, neither is there any authoritative statement by any of the authorities of the Church [in support of the idea] that the negroes are those who were neutral in heaven at the time of the great conflict or war, which resulted in the casting out of Lucifer and those who were led by him.”

    First Presidency letter from Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund, and Charles W. Penrose, to M. Knudson, 13 Jan. 1912.

    Not to mention that following the 1978 revelation, President Kimball “flatly [stated] that Mormonism no longer holds to…a theory” that Blacks had been denied the priesthood “because they somehow failed God during their pre-existence.”

    Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride, chapter 24, page 3; citing Richard Ostling, “Mormonism Enters a New Era,” Time (7 August 1978): 55. Ostling told President Kimball’s biographer and son that this was a paraphrase, but an accurate reporting of what he had been told (see footnote 13, citing interview on 10 May 2001).

    And for a bonus, Elder M. Russell Ballard, talking of today’s youth, said in 2005:

    “Remind them that they are here at this particular time in the history of the world, with the fulness of the gospel at their fingertips, because they made valiant choices in the premortal existence.”

    M. Russell Ballard, “One More,” Ensign, May 2005, p. 69.

    “Which means that everyone living in 2005 was considered by Elder Ballard to have been “valiant” in the pre-existence.”

    And Elder Dallin H. Oaks speaking on the Priesthood ban – Elder Oaks pointed out that some leaders and members had ill-advisedly sought to provide justifications for the ban:

    “…It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we’re on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that…. The lesson I’ve drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.

    …I’m referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.

    …Let’s [not] make the mistake that’s been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that’s where safety lies.”

    Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in Daily Herald, Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.

    Then 2 Ne. 26: 33:

    “For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”

    jason, I suggest you stop pestering your Stake President over an area of LDS doctrine that he is apparently not fully-versed in, and focus instead on obtaining your OWN understanding and your OWN witness of whether the quotes I have provided for you are true or not.