I love the Book of Mormon’s 4th Nephi. Read this: “And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.” Three other verses follow it describing an amazing society:

And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God. There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God. And how blessed were they! For the Lord did bless them in all their doings; yea, even they were blessed and prospered until an hundred and ten years had passed away; and the first generation from Christ had passed away, and there was no contention in all the land. The people of 4th Nephi are worthy of evaluated and emulated in our quest to become a Zion people.

There is futility when trying to apply it to the multi-denominational “Christian” world, a people warring against themselves, a Babylon more than Christ’s first century Church.

“Contention” is about the manner in which the people interact “because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.” Was there no contention because the people loved each other too much to give in to “envyings, strifes, tumults, etc”? (ie. contention rejection) OR Was there no contention because the people were so busy loving each other that previously contentious situations never arose (ie. contention prevention)?

I quote Paul Mortensen with the following as a persuasive statement explaining why contention increases at Blogstream and most other mixed audience blogging communities:

I think the disconnected nature of our society today facilitates contention. Look at the problem from the perspective of game theory. Most of our interactions with others are one-time encounters or encounters that will not necessarily lead to additional repeat encounters. The result is that there’s little motivation to avoid contention when the potential for it arises. In relationships, such as marriage, one is keenly aware (or at least one should be) that each encounter is going to lead to another and that one’s reaction to each encounter is going to affect reactions to every subsequent encounter which should motivate both parties to avoid contention. Hence, when Julie says she and her husband disagree on almost everything political but they avoid contention they are acting out of a desire to preserve the relationship. Their actions indicate that they value the relationship more than the stakes involved in the items with which they have disagreement.

I suspect that there were two factors that lead to the idyllic society of post visitation Nephitedom. The first, of course was the visitation by Christ to the Americas. The second was the size of the population. The devastation that preceded the Lord’s visit undoubtedly took a heavy human toll and probably isolated the Nephite population from other population centers. This forced those surviving to depend more heavily upon each other leading to more stable relationships that required nurturing for mere survival. As the population grew and the Nephites began reestablishing connections to other populations then the need for the number of stable relationships decreased and the motivation to avoid contention decreased as well. Hence, contention began to creep back into society.”

There will always be contention between Zion and Babylon. And wherever Zion is winning, it is because she defends herself effectively from its insults and assaults. And delivers the searing nature of truth to remove the infection.

Over the past three years, my wife and I have enjoyed visits to out of the way places. We’ve enjoyed the experiences to the bush of Alaska and presently here in Colorado . It was in these places that we came upon two LDS who had left the church for no particular reason that they could remember. It was not as if it strained our friendship in discussing it with them. It was as if the Church had become a memory forgotten.

A recent conversation with my wife (we talk now and again) worked around to a discussion of people leaving the church. Now I don't want to step on any toes here. I know the reasons people leave the church are varied. Further, I know nearly everyone struggles with something sometime in their life. Yet since joining neither my wife nor I have had those serious a struggle.

I recall reading a statistic about how many active members had spent at least a year inactive and it was quite high. (Sorry I don't recall the figures) I have known a Bishop or two who have become inactive in the church, bringing to mind that poor DNA scientist who was excommunicated. But I'd urge caution that we not engage in value judgments regarding why people leave the church. Our duty is to love those who leave and pray that they find their way back. Having said that though, my wife and I discussed the interesting question of whether one has to engage in a kind of denial to leave.

Now clearly people can go inactive while retaining a testimony. Lots of people leave not because they disbelief in God or the Church but because they are angry. Perhaps at God. Perhaps at the Church. Perhaps at the members. But that's not where I wish to travel with this.

Let's presume that most actually had a testimony given by revelation. (And clearly not all Mormons do - indeed I sometimes feel pessimistic and wonder how many within the church really do). But if there have been real spiritual experiences in their lives, don't you have to seriously deny them so as to leave? I know, memories being what they are, even profound experiences can fade. And it’s clear that in the Book of Mormon we have experiences most profoundly with Laman and Lemuel who had SEEN manifestations of Angels. But if they become stale, we can come to doubt them. So, there is the importance of not just having a testimony, but continually remembering, sharing and renewing it. But to what extent do we have to deny the experience of our spiritual experiences to even re-interpret them as "not real"?