"Why They Leave" Inquiries

[smac97]

Grok summary:

Quote

Summary of the YouTube Transcript:

In this interview, BYU professors Justin Dyer (Editor-in-Chief of BYU Studies) and Jenna Ericson (Religious Education and Wheatley Institute) discuss their new co-authored research paper (with Sam Hardy, Barbara Gardner, and David Doahight), titled "Latter-day Saint Trends in the United States: Religiousness, Well-being, and Retention."

Main Takeaways:

• Broader Context: The U.S. is experiencing a well-documented decline in religiosity, with rising numbers of "nones" (people with no religious affiliation). The researchers initially set out to study this trend but were struck by how different the Latter-day Saint experience is.
• Retention: LDS retention rates have declined somewhat since the 1980s, and every person who leaves is felt as a loss. However, Latter-day Saints still retain members at significantly higher rates than most other religions.
• Active Retention: What stands out most is active engagement. LDS members who identify with the faith are far more likely to attend church regularly (at least monthly) than in the past. This "tightly bound" connection between identity and practice is stronger now. Among Millennials and Gen Z, 76% attend church at least monthly — the highest rate of any religious group surveyed by Pew.
• Overall Outlook: Despite real challenges and areas needing improvement, the data shows the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in a remarkably strong position relative to other faiths in a secularizing culture. The researchers express excitement about the vitality of the Restoration and the good being done by Latter-day Saints worldwide.

The tone is balanced — honest about losses and the need for continued work, but optimistic and encouraging. They emphasize focusing on the substantial positives rather than letting negativity dominate the narrative.

The losses are hard.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Grok summary:

Quote

Summary of the YouTube Transcript:

In this follow-up segment, the hosts and guests (Justin Dyer and Jenna Ericson) discuss a key finding from their research on Latter-day Saint retention:

Strongest Predictor of Staying in the Faith

The single strongest predictor of whether a young person stays active in the Church is feeling God’s presence in daily life.

Using longitudinal data (following youth from ages ~12–14 into their early 20s, including about 1,000 Latter-day Saints), the researchers found that those who strongly agreed they felt God’s presence regularly were far more likely to remain. Those who left often did not have that experiential connection.

Scripture study, temple attendance, prayer, and other practices are important not as ends in themselves, but because they help foster a real, personal relationship with God — feeling His love, peace, and reality.

Personal Insights & Encouragement

• Justin Dyer and Jenna Ericson shared personal experiences: consistent daily scripture study, prayer, temple attendance, and listening to prophets help maintain that connection, even when spiritual experiences aren’t constant or dramatic.
• They noted that connection with God evolves over time and that periods of “ordinary” faithfulness (like Joseph Smith’s three years between major visions) are normal.
• For young adults struggling to feel God: Keep going with patience and diligence (referencing Alma 32 and Nephi’s vision of the iron rod). The data shows that those who stay religious generally experience better well-being than those who leave.

Overall Message: In a secular age, a living, felt connection to God is what anchors faith. Practices put us in the right place for the Lord to reach us — even if the “fruit” (Alma 32) takes time to appear. The Church’s emphasis on personal revelation and ordinances supports this vital experiential dimension of faith.

"The single strongest predictor of whether a young person stays active in the Church is feeling God’s presence in daily life."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kevin Christensen]

On 6/6/2026 at 11:03 AM, california boy said:

 

When the Book of Abraham was first published in 1842, it carried the heading written by Joseph Smith:

“A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.”

For me, this statement is kind of a litmus test for how you handle the claims of the church.  If you have figured out a way around the divine claim by Joseph Smith, then you will probably continue in your beliefs of the other divine claims of Joseph Smith.

If it is so apparent to you that the Book of Abraham could not have possibly been written by Abraham's own hand (age of papyrus not even close to his time period) and what Joseph Smith claims is written on those paprius has nothing to do what what he said he translated (common book of the dead content) then you may also start to doubt all the other claims Joseph Smith made which leads many out of the church.  As the study states very clearly, secularization has little (6%) to do with why people leave the church.  It might be another issue, but the point is the same

For me personally, it was reason number 2, social issues is why I left. Doctrine not matching up with truth keeps me from coming back.  (Social issues / doctrines (e.g., sexual identity, gender equality, financial transparency — 33%) convinced me that how the church feels about me being gay was irrelevant.  

Christianity as a whole has similar litmus tests.  

Was Adam created by God and the first man on earth despite fossil evidence of humans living for hundreds of centuries before and Eve didn't actually bring in death into the world?  A claim that was held for centuries and only recently been labeled an allegory.

The story of Noah. when there is zero evidence of a flood covering the whole earth. (No evidence of that kind of everything getting wiped out except an ark with a few people and animals)

The increased secularization is not caused by people wanting to indulge in their own sins, but by no long believing in the divine claims of Christianity.

The actual publication in 1842 said "a translation of some ancient records that have fallen into [Joseph Smith's] hands from the catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called "The Book of Abraham, written by Own Hand, upon Papyrus."  (See John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, page 1, citing the original 1842 heading.   The "purporting to be" is important, as is the fact that a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a papyrus that said "written by his own hand" would still say "written his own hand" because that is what a responsible copyist does.  And it also happens that Joseph Smith possessed much more papyrus than has survived, thanks to the Chicago fire.  Tim Barker did an important presentation called "The Answer Under Our Heads".

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/2020-fairmormon-conference/the-answer-under-our-heads

For all of the detail, figures, and commentary Barker provides, at the center of it all is one very clear observation about information provided by Tanner and Heward in an early Dialogue essay claiming that the Book of Abraham is a bogus translation from the Hor Book of Breathings.  Tanner and Heward made the important observation that Joseph Smith directed Rueben Hedlock to fill out gaps in the engraving for Facsimile 3 (the hypocephalus) with some characters from the Hor Book of Breathings and a figure from elsewhere. Unlike the previous 50 years of commentators, Tim Barker notices that while Heward and Tanner match up characters from the Hor Book of Breathings to marginal characters in the Egyptian papers, they did not match up to their influential thesis the fact that Joseph Smith's comments in the annotated portions of the published, reconstructed facsimile plainly show that Joseph Smith openly declares that had expressly NOT translated those characters (taken from the Hor Book of Breathings).  That means that the source of the Book of Abraham must be something else, despite long standing assumptions to that effect by a great many critics.

As to the Hor Book of Breathings, it is related to but distinct from the Book of the Dead.  Nibley was the first to point that out.  Nibley also pointed out that the Book of the Breathings is one link in a long line of documents that is essentially an Egyptian Endowment, a temple ritual, notably akin to the Latter-day Saint temple endowment.  (See Nibley, An Egyptian Endowment).  Nibley also pointed out in 1981 in the first edition of Abraham in Egypt that "The evidence that has led experts in the past 10 years to recognize the close ties between the old Abraham Apocrypha and the Egyptian Book of the Dead, especially with reference to the pictures in the latter, effectively eliminates the one argument against serious reading of the Book of Abraham. Now the show is on the other foot: How was Joseph Smith to know that an authentic Abraham Apocryphon should not be without visible affinities to the Book of the Dead?"  (Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, 40, in the long and detailed chapter, "Abraham and the Book of the Dead.")

Margaret Barker points out that Genesis 1 closely maps to the erection of the tabernacle in Exodus.   (See Temple Theology: An Introduction, 16-21). It is a ritual drama, a performance, not a geology text.  Indeed, in one of his last publications, Nibley pointed out that our Book of Abraham account includes stage directions.  (See "Abraham's Creation Drama.")  No matter how many people misread Genesis 1 as history (the famous example, Bishop Usher was an text interpreter, not an eye witness of the original events) does not bind believers in the Bible and Christianity to the uninformed interpretations of misinterpreters.

Nor must the Noah story be interpreted as global, any more than the plague of locusts that "covered the face of the whole earth" (Exodus 10:13-15) means that they covered all continents, rather than "the Land of Egypt". 

There is huge difference between reading for understanding and reading for leverage.  The same seed, planted in different soils, nurtured in different ways, can produce vastly different harvests.  "Know not this parable?  How then shall ye know all parables."  It is ironic that passing an exit narrative based on a popular set of misreadings, while posturing as scornful of the ignorant, so often demonstrates that the question of just who is demonstrating ignorance by their readings is an open question.   The real problem, as Joseph Smith explained, is that creeds say "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further."  We can all learn more, and understand better.  Even our testimonies do not bestow perfect knowledge, (Alma 32) but rather, just valid "cause to believe" that we are engaged with something real.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Tooele, UT

Edited Thursday at 10:46 PM by Kevin Christensen
type, Thanks Calm

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The actual publication in 1842 said "a translation of some ancient records that have fallen into [Joseph Smith's] hands from the catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called "The Book of Abraham, written by Own Hand, upon Papyrus."  (See John Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, page 1, citing the original 1842 heading.   The "purporting to be" is important, as is the fact that a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a papyrus that said "written by his own hand" would still say "written his own hand" because that is what a responsible copyist does.  And it also happens that Joseph Smith possessed much more papyrus that has survived, thanks to the Chicago fire.  Tim Barker did an important presentation called "The Answer Under Our Heads".

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/2020-fairmormon-conference/the-answer-under-our-heads

For all of the detail, figures, and commentary Barker provides, at the center of it all is one very clear observation about information provided by Tanner and Heward in an early Dialogue essay claiming that the Book of Abraham is a bogus translation from the Hor Book of Breathings.  Tanner and Heward made the important observation that Joseph Smith directed Rueben Hedlock to fill out gaps in the engraving for Facsimile 3 (the hypocephalus) with some characters from the Hor Book of Breathings and a figure from elsewhere. Unlike the previous 50 years of commentators, Tim Barker notices that while Heward and Tanner match up characters from the Hor Book of Breathings to marginal characters in the Egyptian papers, they did not match up to their influential thesis the fact that Joseph Smith's comments in the annotated portions of the published, reconstructed facsimile plainly show that Joseph Smith openly declares that had expressly NOT translated those characters (taken from the Hor Book of Breathings).  That means that the source of the Book of Abraham must be something else, despite long standing assumptions to that effect by a great many critics.

As to the Hor Book of Breathings, it is related to but distinct from the Book of the Dead.  Nibley was the first to point that out.  Nibley also pointed out that the Book of the Breathings is one link in a long line of documents that is essentially an Egyptian Endowment, a temple ritual, notably akin to the Latter-day Saint temple endowment.  (See Nibley, An Egyptian Endowment).  Nibley also pointed out in 1981 in the first edition of Abraham in Egypt that "The evidence that has led experts in the past 10 years to recognize the close ties between the old Abraham Apocrypha and the Egyptian Book of the Dead, especially with reference to the pictures in the latter, effectively eliminates the one argument against serious reading of the Book of Abraham. Now the show is on the other foot: How was Joseph Smith to know that an authentic Abraham Apocryphon should not be without visible affinities to the Book of the Dead?"  (Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, 40, in the long and detailed chapter, "Abraham and the Book of the Dead.")

Margaret Barker points out that Genesis 1 closely maps to the erection of the tabernacle in Exodus.   (See Temple Theology: An Introduction, 16-21). It is a ritual drama, a performance, not a geology text.  Indeed, in one of his last publications, Nibley pointed out that our Book of Abraham account includes stage directions.  (See "Abraham's Creation Drama.")  No matter how many people misread Genesis 1 as history (the famous example, Bishop Usher was an text interpreter, not an eye witness of the original events) does not bind believers in the Bible and Christianity to the uninformed interpretations of misinterpreters.

Nor must the Noah story be interpreted as global, any more than the plague of locusts that "covered the face of the whole earth" (Exodus 10:13-15) means that they covered all continents, rather than "the Land of Egypt". 

There is huge difference between reading for understanding and reading for leverage.  The same seed, planted in different soils, nurtured in different ways, can produce vastly different harvests.  "Know not this parable?  How then shall ye know all parables."  It is ironic that passing an exit narrative based on a popular set of misreadings, while posturing as scornful of the ignorant, so often demonstrates that the question of just who is demonstrating ignorance by their readings is an open question.   The real problem, as Joseph Smith explained, is that creeds say "Hitherto thou shalt come, and no further."  We can all learn more, and understand better.  Even our testimonies do not bestow perfect knowledge, (Alma 32) but rather, just valid "cause to believe" that we are engaged with something real.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Tooele, UT

I get that Mormon apologists have figured out ways to explain what was believed to be true in a way that works for many people and I am well aware of their revised look at possible other ways of looking at things to make those statements and stories work for them.  And for many members those explanations can work.  But for many it just doesn’t line up with what they were taught or how they read things. It can start them on a road to looking more closely at other revisions of what they were taught.
 

 It is pretty clear that it is an issue that can’t be easily waved off by an explanation that doesn’t match with what was believed to be true for many years. 

Changing the narrative of what was once taught is the number one reason why so many have left the church.  Assuming that it is because they haven’t heard all of the apologists current answers is a mistake. It is more they don’t find those revisions in meaning believable. 
 

I am sure you have seen the lists of problematic issues. It is why I labeled these two issues as a litmus test.  How one feels about the explanations of these two questions probably determines how they react to the rest of the list of problematic questions like no death in the world until the fall of Adam.  And yes I know apologists have an answer for that as well. Like many of these revised answers, it is not how it was taught to them.  
 

i don’t think you are surprised at anything I have written.  And I get why you felt like you should respond.  But neither statements of you or me will change why this issue is the number one reason people are leaving the church and has very little to do with secularization (6%)

The second big reason why people are leaving the church are policies against LGBT, women and other social issues most of which come from a place of prejudice and without any claims of revelations

[california boy]

On 6/9/2026 at 4:01 PM, Stargazer said:

I think they're cautious about teaching it because there's no specific revelation (or canonical revelation) regarding it.

The whole plural marriage thing is another third rail issue. But how can there not be multiple Heavenly Mothers given that President Nelson is sealed to two women, his wife who predeceased him, and Wendy, his widow? If there aren't multiple HMs, when Pres. Nelson is exalted, which one of his wives gets tossed out on her ear? 

So, things are complicated enough without delving into speculations over things we have no revelation for. Not that this stops anyone from commenting.

Totally agree.  I wish the same standard of let God sort things out in the next life since we are speculating on matters where there is no revelation also applied to gay marriage which is also without revelation instead of falling to the policy from prejudice.  
 

What policy is harsher. Requiring a man to live a life without a second chance if the love of his life has died or requiring a man to never experience love in his entire life 

Ah it’s great to be heterosexual and have all those setting policy to also be straight.  The solution of letting God sort things out in the next life isn’t even on the table 

 

Edit:  I just came across this article about how consumers react to companies that don’t publicly support the LGBT community.  I think it also has relevance on how the church handles the LGBT community. 
 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2026/06/10/gay-transgender-pride-pullback-could-hurt-brands/90466051007/?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=deeperdive&utm_campaign=oc
 

Dismissing this issue as something that doesn’t affect how the public views the church as being an insignificant issue may be a huge mistake.  Numbers leaving the church also clearly acknowledge it as being a significant issue.  

Edited Thursday at 05:38 PM by california boy

[ttribe]

On 6/5/2026 at 4:45 PM, smac97 said:

Thank you for sharing.  If it is not intrusive to ask, would you be willing to explain which "truth claims" you found you could no longer accept, and why?

It sounds like losing faith in "the Divine" came at the end, and so was it "the effect, not the cause" as well?

If these are improper questions, please disregard.

Thanks,

-Smac

It's been more than 15 years. That's a chapter in my life I just don't feel like re-opening right now.

You have the order of operations correct in my case about losing faith in anything divine and then leaning into secularization.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

However, Latter-day Saints still retain members at significantly higher rates than most other religions.

I was curious, so I dug in a bit. Their study is linked below. Figure 14 shows a survey retention rate of 54% (which as I understand it, indicates the respondent indicates that they identified with the indicated religion as a teen and continue to do so). This compares with 82% for Hindus, 77% for Muslims, 76% for Jewish, 66% Orthodox; 57% Catholic. Buddhists were at 45%. The error bars on some of these numbers are pretty large. Latter-day Saints score better than many protestant faiths, but I'm not sure members of protestant traditions view changing church's the same way that the above listed religions do. That is, I'm not sure a Methodist deciding to be Baptist or Episcopalian carries the same weight as a Latter-day Saint becoming Methodist or vice versa. (If that makes sense). 

In order to arrive at the claim "retain members at significantly higher rates than most other religions", the study authors state "To understand retention rates, it is important to not only look at the percentage of who continue to identify as a member of their childhood religion as adults, but how many are regularly participating in religious services. ". Using some dubious math (IMO) they arrive at Figure 15 which puts Latter-day Saints on top.

 

https://foundations.byu.edu/0000019b-1343-d613-a59b-17df82980000/latterdaysaintreligiosity-pdf

Edited Thursday at 11:46 PM by SeekingUnderstanding

[Kevin Christensen]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I get that Mormon apologists have figured out ways to explain what was believed to be true in a way that works for many people and I am well aware of their revised look at possible other ways of looking at things to make those statements and stories work for them.  And for many members those explanations can work.  But for many it just doesn’t line up with what they were taught or how they read things. It can start them on a road to looking more closely at other revisions of what they were taught.
 

 It is pretty clear that it is an issue that can’t be easily waved off by an explanation that doesn’t match with what was believed to be true for many years. 

Changing the narrative of what was once taught is the number one reason why so many have left the church.  Assuming that it is because they haven’t heard all of the apologists current answers is a mistake. It is more they don’t find those revisions in meaning believable. 
 

I am sure you have seen the lists of problematic issues. It is why I labeled these two issues as a litmus test.  How one feels about the explanations of these two questions probably determines how they react to the rest of the list of problematic questions like no death in the world until the fall of Adam.  And yes I know apologists have an answer for that as well. Like many of these revised answers, it is not how it was taught to them.  
 

i don’t think you are surprised at anything I have written.  And I get why you felt like you should respond.  But neither statements of you or me will change why this issue is the number one reason people are leaving the church and has very little to do with secularization (6%)

The second big reason why people are leaving the church are policies against LGBT, women and other social issues most of which come from a place of prejudice and without any claims of revelations

Concerning "for many it doesn't line up with what they were taught or how they read things," Science has progressed since Aristotle, and there have been many shifts in thought along the way.  I recall and consider Whitehead's comment:

Quote

When I was a young man in the University of Cambridge, I was taught science and mathematics by brilliant men and I did well in them; since the turn of the century I have lived to see every one of the basic assumptions of both set aside; not, indeed, discarded, but of use as qualifying clauses instead of as major propositions; and all this in one life-span — the most fundamental assumptions of supposedly exact sciences set aside. And yet, in the face of that, the discoverers of the new hypotheses in science are declaring, “Now at last, we have certitude.” (From Alfred North Whitehead, in Charles P. Curtis, Jr., and Ferris Greenslet, comps., The Practical Cogitator, or the Thinker’s Anthology (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1945), 112.

Change happens with life.  Accepting that necessary for moving from Position 2 of the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth, to moving to Position 9.  The idea that nothing should ever change from what I first heard whomever say is an immature position I ought to outgrow, not leverage for self-justification and bitterness, as though I was born with an inherent entitlement that all my teachers should be omniscient and perfect so that I never have to change my thoughts on any topic or have to endure any human imperfection as a price for living.  As though God owes me an unchallenging life, rather than say, an environment in which I am likely to be tested to the breaking point.  As though I deserve a God who says, "If ye love me... nevermind.  What does it matter?  Any standards I give would frustrate someone.  So do whatever you feel like doing, and I will take responsibility and clean up the mess someday."

Joseph Campbell noted that one of the purposes of a mythology is to "sustain a social order".   Exit narratives have a role in defining a exited community, just as conversion narratives play an important role for the Latter-day Saint committed.  Grievance stories have a role in defining many communities.  For example, "They are eating the dogs," is a grievance with implications for which community is acceptable in American society, and which is not, despite the easily discoverable fact that they weren't actually eating the dogs. The false narrative was shared because telling that story generates outrage, defines boundaries, and helped to sustain a particular social order.  So people sharing the story even after it had been debunked do so in support of a particular social order.  (The woman who first posted it soon found her dog and investigators found no other evidence.)  The willingness to share a grievance story that has no factual support tells me more of the sharer of the story than the subject of the story.  One of the notable insights of Twelve Step communities is that they understand the importance of "Dismantling the Grievance Story" to better understand themselves and to have a better self-defined story, to help participants shift from a "victim" narrative (and the accompanying sense of entitlement),  to a "survivor" narrative, with an accompany sense of having endured real ordeals, and having grown through it.   It is related to "removing the beam from one's own eye before rushing to judgement," to see clearly.   It is akin to George Bailey deciding that his grievances and personal frustrations, however valid, are simply not as important as the significance of his relationships.  That showed that his painful sacrifices were not pointless, but meaningful. 

So if a litmus test for self-justification in moving from one community to another, with the accompanying change in social standards and social boundaries that comes, is based demonstrable falsehood and misunderstanding, what does that say about the validity of the test?  Was Othello's test for Desdemona's virtue valid or not?  Or is it only important that Othello was sincere and truly felt hurt and betrayed?  If such a litmus test is so commonly accepted in certain circles, and is a visible part of their shared mythology and obviously functions to sustain and justify a particular social order, does that mean no one should question or try to correct it?  Is what people feel and want of their chosen society is more important than what is actually correct?

When I was a small child, my father took us to see the Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur quarry.  There, as a child with an imperfect understanding, I saw bones in the rocks.  And though the science has changed drastically over the years from what I was first taught, one thing has not changed at all.  The bones were real.  Progress and change in understanding has not changed that, any more than than the roots and chutes and leaves and branches that radically change the appearance of the original seed means that the one who first showed me the seed and planted it, must have been deceived or a liar because the seed changed.

Is it embracing falsehood a path to freedom?  Or does the knowledge of the truth make us free?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Tooele, UT

[Calm]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

“The single strongest predictor of whether a young person stays active in the Church is feeling God’s presence in daily life."

Which is what it should be, imo.  If not daily life, then at crucial times when needed most.

I don’t fault anyone who has not experienced this as not everyone is capable.  The muted experience or complete lack of it may occur for a variety of reasons not a result of their own behaviour (genetics, environment they grew up in, medications required for physical well being and others) from what I have seen, learned, and personally experienced plus there is so much noise and external pressures (not talking just religious ones, but general behavior) these days, one’s internal experience may not be clear (many people have acted so long in ways they believed they should behave and were pushed to behave that once they recognize this persona is not who they really are, they have great difficulty figuring who they really are or what they want).

I see this being discussed in communities of neurodiversity the most (probably because I visit them a lot these days), but every community, including and especially family, has expectations of its members and roles they are expected to play and narratives they tell that gets internalized and can end up being louder than the inner voice in some, maybe many ways. 

Edited Friday at 12:39 AM by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Joseph Smith possessed much more papyrus that has survived…

“than has survived”, I think you mean (it may be confusing to those not familiar with the history, otherwise it’s a minor typo)

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

So if a litmus test for self-justification in moving from one community to another, with the accompanying change in social standards and social boundaries that comes, is based demonstrable falsehood and misunderstanding, what does that say about the validity of the test?  Was Othello's test for Desdemona's virtue valid or not?  Or is it only important that Othello was sincere and truly felt hurt and betrayed?  If such a litmus test is so commonly accepted in certain circles, and is a visible part of their shared mythology and obviously functions to sustain and justify a particular social order, does that mean no one should question or try to correct it?  Is what people feel and want of their chosen society is more important than what is actually correct?

 I completely agree with you, but also think there needs to be included compassion and patience and respect in understanding*** because our particular community creates a sense of belonging and stability in part through promoting faith in our leaders knowing truth.  We value highly committed Position 2s, sometimes it seems more than position 9s (also I think people tend to be a mix of positions and it can be confusing if they are much more vocal when dealing with one position rather than all of them that they hold so they appear to be Position 2 overall, but are not).

I personally believe that promise of truth from prophets needs to be applied in a very limited, though extremely important fashion, thus a true need for a personal witness, seeking personal revelation and above all a personal relationship with God.  However, there have been notable leaders who have limited the necessity of personal witness and revelation to confirmation of what has been taught by prophets or at least who can be easily interpreted to mean that (meaning in part they focus so much on confirmation of the truth it can sound like they believe prophets will never err, especially since they don’t give much instruction for if that happens in significant ways, even if at times they admit error, such as what was said in 1978  about forgetting anything contrary to the new revelation).  Same with the idea of a personal relationship with God, which got very confusing for awhile.

 In many ways, we are requiring our own to rise above our culture—which has been in part created by various teachings of very prominent leaders—in order to maintain a spiritual connection with our community.  I personally think that is a good thing in the long run.  Just believe there should be public recognition we haven’t made it very easy for each other (speaking generally as my mother and father made it very easy for me to see my faith as potentially having errors, but inherently structured to be open to change; the way my brain works also helps a great deal…even if it causes massive issues in the nonreligious sides of my life, lol).

*** not saying you lack it, just that’s it’s not always included in these types of conversations as if this type of moving past old ways of thinking is natural and just happen without much nudging

Edited Friday at 02:40 AM by Calm

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Concerning "for many it doesn't line up with what they were taught or how they read things," Science has progressed since Aristotle, and there have been many shifts in thought along the way.  I recall and consider Whitehead's comment:

Change happens with life.  Accepting that necessary for moving from Position 2 of the Perry Scheme for Cognitive and Ethical Growth, to moving to Position 9.  The idea that nothing should ever change from what I first heard whomever say is an immature position I ought to outgrow, not leverage for self-justification and bitterness, as though I was born with an inherent entitlement that all my teachers should be omniscient and perfect so that I never have to change my thoughts on any topic or have to endure any human imperfection as a price for living.  As though God owes me an unchallenging life, rather than say, an environment in which I am likely to be tested to the breaking point.  As though I deserve a God who says, "If ye love me... nevermind.  What does it matter?  Any standards I give would frustrate someone.  So do whatever you feel like doing, and I will take responsibility and clean up the mess someday."

Joseph Campbell noted that one of the purposes of a mythology is to "sustain a social order".   Exit narratives have a role in defining a exited community, just as conversion narratives play an important role for the Latter-day Saint committed.  Grievance stories have a role in defining many communities.  For example, "They are eating the dogs," is a grievance with implications for which community is acceptable in American society, and which is not, despite the easily discoverable fact that they weren't actually eating the dogs. The false narrative was shared because telling that story generates outrage, defines boundaries, and helped to sustain a particular social order.  So people sharing the story even after it had been debunked do so in support of a particular social order.  (The woman who first posted it soon found her dog and investigators found no other evidence.)  The willingness to share a grievance story that has no factual support tells me more of the sharer of the story than the subject of the story.  One of the notable insights of Twelve Step communities is that they understand the importance of "Dismantling the Grievance Story" to better understand themselves and to have a better self-defined story, to help participants shift from a "victim" narrative (and the accompanying sense of entitlement),  to a "survivor" narrative, with an accompany sense of having endured real ordeals, and having grown through it.   It is related to "removing the beam from one's own eye before rushing to judgement," to see clearly.   It is akin to George Bailey deciding that his grievances and personal frustrations, however valid, are simply not as important as the significance of his relationships.  That showed that his painful sacrifices were not pointless, but meaningful. 

So if a litmus test for self-justification in moving from one community to another, with the accompanying change in social standards and social boundaries that comes, is based demonstrable falsehood and misunderstanding, what does that say about the validity of the test?  Was Othello's test for Desdemona's virtue valid or not?  Or is it only important that Othello was sincere and truly felt hurt and betrayed?  If such a litmus test is so commonly accepted in certain circles, and is a visible part of their shared mythology and obviously functions to sustain and justify a particular social order, does that mean no one should question or try to correct it?  Is what people feel and want of their chosen society is more important than what is actually correct?

When I was a small child, my father took us to see the Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur quarry.  There, as a child with an imperfect understanding, I saw bones in the rocks.  And though the science has changed drastically over the years from what I was first taught, one thing has not changed at all.  The bones were real.  Progress and change in understanding has not changed that, any more than than the roots and chutes and leaves and branches that radically change the appearance of the original seed means that the one who first showed me the seed and planted it, must have been deceived or a liar because the seed changed.

Is it embracing falsehood a path to freedom?  Or does the knowledge of the truth make us free?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Tooele, UT

Thanks for your follow up post. It gives me more insight to how you have been able to navigate the significant shifts in how the church presents these significant departure of what was once the foundation of some of its claims.  I except completely that science by its very nature is not only open to change but accepts it as a vital force in discovering truth 

The problem for many is the issues that are leading them away from the church were never presented as best thinking at the time.  The problem is these issues were claimed to come from God himself not man’s best guess.  Are you claiming that God is figuring this all out and only time will bring the truth from Him or that revelation from God never occurred ?  If the truth claims of prophets come from only their own understanding of things in their own time, then how is what prophets teach any more important than any other person?

As a side note I resent your judgment of me and others of leaving because of self justification and bitterness.  I don’t.  I think the church works well for many but for some it is problematic.  I also think you are evading the central issue the data shows as the reason so many are leaving the church.  What was once claimed came from God himself is now just portrayed as just men of their time and their own understanding.

[Senator]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

 In many ways, we are requiring our own to rise above our culture—which has been in part created by various teachings of very prominent leaders—in order to maintain a spiritual connection with our community.  

Not only a spiritual connection, but a marker of standing in the church.  That cultural church and the dogmas that it created carried real weight.  Buck against those cultural dogmas and it was a sure sign that apostacy was knocking at the door. So many of the people that I know that have left or distanced themselves from the church, claim the church culture was the aggravant, only then to be told "it was never about the culture".  Then the feelings of gaslighting explode. 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Senator said:

Buck against those cultural dogmas and it was a sure sign that apostacy was knocking at the door.

While I know this happened with many, it didn’t happen with my family or extended as far as I have heard (looking on us as proto apostates)..  We have all been active (held leadership and teaching callings, a brother has been a bishop, others in the bishopric or stake), but spoke in Church in support of more scientific and scholarly positions back when evolution was considered a dirty word by many members with no blowback except argument as far as I know.  My dad got called as seminary and gospel doctrine teacher.  We never made waves, we just made it clear we were in disagreement with some of what was pushed by the McConkie style culture. 

 I also knew back in the 70s and 80s professors and practitioners of science who were called as bishops, branch presidents, and to the high council.  My professor who was very openly an evolutionary psychologist got called as a stake president.  Not saying there was no pushback against such (we heard stories from Ken Hamblin who taught geology and lived across the street from my parents after they retired of some of the hassles he had to go through, but his standing in the Church was never at risk I believe).  There were also plenty of stories we laughed about of conservative responses when I was a student (first in physics and then psych when my dad convinced me that finding a job in physics would be difficult and I knew my personality wasn’t assertive to promote myself as the best candidate).

But maybe you mean some members treated those of a different POV that way, not an official or global response.  I would also not be surprised if there were disapproving comments when members assumed they were among those who would not take offense where they would never be critical to the person and wouldn’t question their faith, just appropriateness.  I remember a conversation in my in-laws’ home where one of my sister-in-laws expressed her dissatisfaction with seeing jean skirts and flip flops at church.  She did not attack the person except to convey she thought it was disrespectful.  Unknown to her I had worn both, flip flops were because of an injured foot, but I wore a jean skirt at least once a month to church.  I did not speak up at that time because she was in mourning and I assumed some of it came from the stress as I never heard her criticize in that way at any other time.  Her family were typically very, very welcoming of anyone.  A very loving family over all.  But if those thoughts occur with her, chances are they are popping up with others who are less normally respectful.   I assume similar conversations happen over scholarly and political topics, though I have never heard one set of my in-laws, who are highly conservative, speak in any disapproval in terms of spirituality or church standing of more progressive members even when they condemn the politics as dangerous or stupid…which I appreciate greatly.  And thinking about it, I am certain if their minds went there, to question whether progressives were apostate prone or standing in church, I would hear it as they were not shy about criticizing church critics.  And I do not share my politics publicly except in very limited conditions as too often the reaction is more than the enjoyment of the discussion is worth.  I pretty much end up disagreeing as much as I agree with most as I have a varied approach when it comes to politics.  Just bringing up the last example of my in-laws to demonstrate even those highly invested in politics in the Church (and they were the most I personally know, worked for a PAC for a time, very politically active) may question someone’s sanity without thinking apostasy is on the horizon.

I hope that makes sense, edited it and edited it so many times and it still looks confusing and all over the place to me.  That kind of day.

Edited Friday at 09:28 PM by Calm

[Kevin Christensen]

On 6/11/2026 at 8:15 PM, california boy said:

Thanks for your follow up post. It gives me more insight to how you have been able to navigate the significant shifts in how the church presents these significant departure of what was once the foundation of some of its claims.  I except completely that science by its very nature is not only open to change but accepts it as a vital force in discovering truth 

The problem for many is the issues that are leading them away from the church were never presented as best thinking at the time.  The problem is these issues were claimed to come from God himself not man’s best guess.  Are you claiming that God is figuring this all out and only time will bring the truth from Him or that revelation from God never occurred ?  If the truth claims of prophets come from only their own understanding of things in their own time, then how is what prophets teach any more important than any other person?

As a side note I resent your judgment of me and others of leaving because of self justification and bitterness.  I don’t.  I think the church works well for many but for some it is problematic.  I also think you are evading the central issue the data shows as the reason so many are leaving the church.  What was once claimed came from God himself is now just portrayed as just men of their time and their own understanding.

You are welcome.  Given, as you say, that "The problem for many is the issues that are leading them away from the church were never presented as best thinking at the time. The problem is these issues were claimed to come from God himself not man’s best guess."

I often think back to a moment in the film of Kipling's, "The Man Who Would Be King", when Michael Caine's character, Peachy Carnahan, asks Sean Connery's character, Daniel Dravot, "Would you rather follow a man or a God?"  The context for the question was after a skirmish in which a Afghan arrow had appeared to strike Dravot, but had only become planted in a thick leather strap on his uniform.  For convenience, they decide to let it be thought that Dravot was a God.  Encouraging that expectation smooths their path for a time, but eventually leads to their downfall.  Expectations are very important because, as Kuhn observes, "Anomaly emerges against a background of expectation."   I notice the passive voice as you state the problem.  "These issues were claimed to come from God himself, not man's best guess."

Who specifically made the claim?  Where did the expectation originate?  My understandable frustration and inevitable protests through life that that "It is not what I expected!" or "It is not what I want!" ought not distract from the possibility of my personally asking "What should I expect?" Might there be a beam in my own eye that I could remove, and thereby, obtain clearer vision?  Asking whether something is Real is very different than asking if something is what I expected or something I wanted.

What should I expect from Latter-day Saint leadership?  When I asked "What should I expect?" I had no trouble finding numerous statements akin to the formal statement of "mine authority and the authority of my servants" in Doctrine and Covenants 1:6 and not a text that I had to seek in the archives.   Verses are rather blunt and for me, set my expectations appropriately.

Quote

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

27 And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;

28 And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

Just last week, I watched a Becoming Brigham video which covered the failure of the Kirtland Bank, in which one of the embittered Apostles told Joseph Smith that he thought God would never permit the Bank to Fail.  Joseph Smith responded that he had never made such a claim.  The Apostle responded, "But that is what I thought!"  So, where to such expectations come from? 

So I can also ask, "What should I expect from Human Development? "  So I have also been enlightened by the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth

Quote

POSITION 2 - Multiplicity Prelegitimate.  (Resisting snake)

Now the person moves to accept that there is diversity, but they still think there are TRUE authorities who are right, that the others are confused by complexities or are just frauds.  They think they are with the true authorities and are right while all others are wrong.  They accept that their good authorities present problems so they can learn to reach right answers independently.  

Reading this, I notice that one of the most common claims in Latter-day Saint culture comes not from D&C 1:30 (Which expressly does NOT say "one and only true church," but something very different, a relative well-pleasingness relative to notions associated with the Biblical images of "true and living" and presenting therefore, a very different set of expectations) but from an unavoidable position in human ethical growth.   Over a dozen years ago, in "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista") I was able to show that Joseph Smith, by precept and example, strives to get us to Position 9.

Quote

POSITION 9.  Commitments in Relativism further developed.

The person now has a developed sense of irony and can more easily embrace  other's viewpoints. He can accept life as just that "life", just the way IT is! Now he holds the commitments he makes in a condition of "PROVISIONAL ULTIMACY", meaning that for him what he chooses to be truth IS his truth, and he acts as if it is ultimate truth, but there is still a "provision" for change. He has no illusions about having "arrived" permanently on top of some heap, he is ready and knows he will have to retrace his journey over and over, but he has hope that he will do it each time more wisely. He is aware that he is developing his IDENTITY through Commitment. He can affirm the inseparable nature of the knower and the known--meaning he knows he as knower contributes to what he calls known. He helps weld a community by sharing realization of aloneness and gains  strength and intimacy through this shared vulnerability. He has discarded obedience in favor of his own agency, and he continues to select, judge, and build.

I also learned from the Perry Scheme that progress is not inevitable, but that people may respond to the tensions and uncertainties, and the "opposition in all things" in life by regressing, rather than progressing.

Quote

If the person RETREATS, rage takes over and he loses agency to make sense. He survives by avoiding complexity and ambivalence and regresses to Dualism, position 2, (multiplicity prelegitimate).  He becomes moralistic righteous and has "righteous" hatred for otherness.  He complains childlike and demands of authority figures to just tell him what they want.

Knowing these things sets my expectations in a very different way than I see in many exit narratives, which often feature "Why did not one tell me this or that"! or "Why did this or that person do or say something that failed me or hurt me?"  I expect the Latter-day Saints to be humans on a life journey, flawed and in process, not finished products whose intellectual and mortal failings disprove the entire system and culture.

I understand that you resent me, though I have seen a range of exit narratives, many of which do not involve bitterness, but in just expressing our own points of view, how we see the world, which stories we tell as paradigmatic examples, and expressing our values and such, we are all involved in self-justification.  Our own self justifications are entwined with the lives we chose to live.  So Socrates commented that "An unexamined life is not worth living."  I got involved in apologetics in significant measure because I friend of mine left the church back in 1976, and I wanted to understand that better.  I find it notably ironic that many writers on the topic of departing from Latter-day Saint culture insist that what she bluntly told me is expressly not why most leave the church.  (If it's the truth, why isn't there more truth in it?" aimed at the behavior of some in her little branch, and "I want to do what I want to do, without anyone telling me."  Due to my different journey, I see LDS things differently, yes.  And I take the time to explain exactly why I disagree, which necessarily involves spelling out my reasons for doing and thinking what I do.  We do have a presidential example of what happens when a person decides to surround himself with people, who as far as possible who never challenge his preconceptions and desires, who indeed, compete to flatter him the most even on camera, and we saw how last week he threw a tantrum when an interviewer asked him for evidence, for transferrable, objective grounds for his self-justification, besides his subjective judgement on voting.  He called her names and walked out.  Very presidential.   Joseph Smith, I notice, is radically different, far more tolerant, pictures a far more loving God, and declares that people are judged against their own life context, what they have, Christian or Heathen or whatever, and not against what they have not.  And he said "By proving contrarieties, truth is made manifest," truth being "knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come."  I seek to understand the contrarieties, and by so doing, see more clearly both myself and life.

FWIW,

 Kevin Christensen

Tooele, UT

Edited Monday at 09:42 PM by Kevin Christensen
Corrected to Socrates from Thoreau

[california boy]

17 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

You are welcome.  Given, as you say, that "The problem for many is the issues that are leading them away from the church were never presented as best thinking at the time. The problem is these issues were claimed to come from God himself not man’s best guess."

I often think back to a moment in the film of Kipling's, "The Man Who Would Be King", when Michael Caine's character, Peachy Carnahan, asks Sean Connery's character, Daniel Dravot, "Would you rather follow a man or a God?"  The context for the question was after a skirmish in which a Afghan arrow had appeared to strike Dravot, but had only become planted in a thick leather strap on his uniform.  For convenience, they decide to let it be thought that Dravot was a God.  Encouraging that expectation smooths their path for a time, but eventually leads to their downfall.  Expectations are very important because, as Kuhn observes, "Anomaly emerges against a background of expectation."   I notice the passive voice as you state the problem.  "These issues were claimed to come from God himself, not man's best guess."

Wow I am impressed with the thought and studying you have put into this issue.  The problem I have with your analogy is that Dravot used the ignorance of the people to perpetuate a false story that he wanted to build upon for his own gain.  He was not a god, but he liked being called and treated like a god.  That seems problematic to me.

17 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Who specifically made the claim?  Where did the expectation originate?  My understandable frustration and inevitable protests through life that that "It is not what I expected!" or "It is not what I want!" ought not distract from the possibility of my personally asking "What should I expect?" Might there be a beam in my own eye that I could remove, and thereby, obtain clearer vision?  Asking whether something is Real is very different than asking if something is what I expected or something I wanted.

What should I expect from Latter-day Saint leadership?  When I asked "What should I expect?" I had no trouble finding numerous statements akin to the formal statement of "mine authority and the authority of my servants" in Doctrine and Covenants 1:6 and not a text that I had to seek in the archives.   Verses are rather blunt and for me, set my expectations appropriately.

I thin D&C 1:6 is a bit fuzzy about expectations.  But the church used far more direct scriptural quotes to tie prophets directly to being a mouth piece for God himself.  I remember as a missionary, using the church produced discussions that at the time, the church expected missionaries to give verbatim where we had the investigator read from Amos  3:7 Surely the Lord GOD does nothing without revealing His secret plan [of the judgment to come] To His servants the prophets. ( I didn't even have to look up what that verse said from all the times I used that on my mission).   Another verse that was commonly used was D & C 1:37-38  “Whether by Mine Own Voice or by the Voice of My Servants, It Is the Same”.  Both of those scriptures were used so often in describing what the church claimed that I think most members could quote those verses without looking them up.  And those verses paint a very different picture of how members should treat what the latter day prophets said and taught.  Can you see why many that have left the church couldn't really buy into the thinking that you are now presenting?

17 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Just last week, I watched a Becoming Brigham video which covered the failure of the Kirtland Bank, in which one of the embittered Apostles told Joseph Smith that he thought God would never permit the Bank to Fail.  Joseph Smith responded that he had never made such a claim.  The Apostle responded, "But that is what I thought!"  So, where to such expectations come from? 

So I can also ask, "What should I expect from Human Development? "  So I have also been enlightened by the Perry Scheme of Cognitive and Ethical Growth

You are right.  Many early members invested in the Kirtland bank with the idea that Joseph established the bank with the approval from God, which evidently was not the case.  But isn't this just another example of blurring the lines of when a prophet claims something came from revelation to something they did without revelation?  Isn't the claim of the Book of Abraham is that its translation came from God as it was written by the hand of Abraham himself?  Did the Book of Abraham come from God or Joseph Smith.  Did Abraham have any part in what is written in the Book of Abraham?  When the church speaks of revelation from God, what do you think that even means?

17 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Reading this, I notice that one of the most common claims in Latter-day Saint culture comes not from D&C 1:30 (Which expressly does NOT say "one and only true church," but something very different, a relative well-pleasingness relative to notions associated with the Biblical images of "true and living" and presenting therefore, a very different set of expectations) but from an unavoidable position in human ethical growth.   Over a dozen years ago, in "Sophic Box and Mantic Vista") I was able to show that Joseph Smith, by precept and example, strives to get us to Position 9.

I also learned from the Perry Scheme that progress is not inevitable, but that people may respond to the tensions and uncertainties, and the "opposition in all things" in life by regressing, rather than progressing.

Knowing these things sets my expectations in a very different way than I see in many exit narratives, which often feature "Why did not one tell me this or that"! or "Why did this or that person do or say something that failed me or hurt me?"  I expect the Latter-day Saints to be humans on a life journey, flawed and in process, not finished products whose intellectual and mortal failings disprove the entire system and culture.

I get that you have changed your expectations of what to expect of someone calling himself a prophet of God, but I think the vast majority of people leaving the church don't share your revised expectations because they literally were not taught to have those lower expectations from so much of the doctrine that has been laid out by those claiming to be a prophet.

17 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I understand that you resent me, though I have seen a range of exit narratives, many of which do not involve bitterness, but in just expressing our own points of view, how we see the world, which stories we tell as paradigmatic examples, and expressing our values and such, we are all involved in self-justification.  Our own self justifications are entwined with the lives we chose to live.  So Thoreau commented that "An unexamined life is not worth living."  I got involved in apologetics in significant measure because I friend of mine left the church back in 1976, and I wanted to understand that better.  I find it notably ironic that many writers on the topic of departing from Latter-day Saint culture insist that what she bluntly told me is expressly not why most leave the church.  (If it's the truth, why isn't there more truth in it?" aimed at the behavior of some in her little branch, and "I want to do what I want to do, without anyone telling me."  Due to my different journey, I see LDS things differently, yes.  And I take the time to explain exactly why I disagree, which necessarily involves spelling out my reasons for doing and thinking what I do.  We do have a presidential example of what happens when a person decides to surround himself with people, who as far as possible who never challenge his preconceptions and desires, who indeed, compete to flatter him the most even on camera, and we saw how last week he threw a tantrum when an interviewer asked him for evidence, for transferrable, objective grounds for his self-justification, besides his subjective judgement on voting.  He called her names and walked out.  Very presidential.   Joseph Smith, I notice, is radically different, far more tolerant, pictures a far more loving God, and declares that people are judged against their own life context, what they have, Christian or Heathen or whatever, and not against what they have not.  And he said "By proving contrarieties, truth is made manifest," truth being "knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come."  I seek to understand the contrarieties, and by so doing, see more clearly both myself and life.

FWIW,

 Kevin Christensen

Tooele, UT

I do like your reasoning that you have laid out here.  But I honestly see a huge gap in what I was taught about prophets and priesthood authority and what you are presenting here.  Like in your analogy of "The Man Who Would Be King" I feel like the church exploited what people thought a prophet was and what he really was.  

Maybe I could ask you 2 questions to see how your thinking answers real questions.  

Do you think women should never be allowed to hold the priesthood because God has ordained that only men hold the priesthood and it is a woman's role to only support that priesthood?

Do you think God forbids gay couples from falling in love, marrying and forming family relationships?

 

Edited Saturday at 03:58 PM by california boy

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

But I honestly see a huge gap in what I was taught about prophets and priesthood authority and what you are presenting here.

A very common refrain from those disaffected with the Church (on this board and elsewhere). "Sure, I recognize that [insert item] isn't really correct doctrine but I was taught that it was therefore [Church bad/false/etc.]."

PS: Just a drive by post, not an attempt to engage (Kevin Christensen is doing just fine).

[Tacenda]

This is a pretty good podcast about the subject, I'm only 30 minutes in. 

 

[MustardSeed]

On 6/11/2026 at 7:16 AM, smac97 said:

Quote

 

"The single strongest predictor of whether a young person stays active in the Church is feeling God’s presence in daily life."

 

(warning: the following is just me getting some thoughts out. I think if I had not changed my view, I might have left the church a while ago.)
 

This is a major issue for me in my life journey.  I agree with the statement and the necessity of feeling God every day.

The way I took the teachings of the church through most of my life was basically a vending machine model. When I put my quarter in and didn’t get the candy bar, it shook my faith. 
If I could start over as a young women leader which I did for decades, or even as a parent, I would teach not to pray for a specific outcome, but rather to pray for God‘s companionship through all outcomes.

I don’t believe in crediting God for good things that happen anymore than I believe in blaming God for bad things that happen. Things happen - end of story IMO-  If I believe otherwise, I feel much more alienated from God.

I have learned instead to trust God’s program for the universe and eternities, let life be what it is, and worship God through service to others and daily gratitude attitude. Though I don’t believe God sent a check in the mail, I believe that he is the source of all things, generous and good. So I can be grateful without putting that kind of pressure on my relationship with Him any more 

 

I do think that in our church, we allow a type of speculation that is really not rooted in doctrine- that when good things happen, it’s because God has intervened (We share the speculation with general Christianity- )

Even yesterday in sacrament meeting, somebody stood up and talked about how he knows when he goes hunting that when it’s the Lord’s will, God will send him an elk that he can shoot. 

My music partner always used to say things like “ hey it’s a good thing we missed our flight because probably something bad was gonna happen on that airplane, thank God we were late to the airport” - 

Drove me absolutely nuts. How about taking responsibility for sleeping in and being late for your flight? Lol  😬

now I’m rambling. Thanks for indulging.

 

Edited Monday at 01:48 PM by MustardSeed

[Nofear]

17 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t believe in crediting God for good things that happen anymore than I believe in blaming God for bad things that happen. Things happen - end of story IMO-  If I believe otherwise, I feel much more alienated from God.

Your disaffection is understandable when we LDS have scriptures like this.

"And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments." D&C 59:21

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Your disaffection is understandable when we LDS have scriptures like this.

"And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments." D&C 59:21

Is that what that means? 

[MrShorty]

On 6/11/2026 at 8:16 AM, smac97 said:

"The single strongest predictor of whether a young person stays active in the Church is feeling God’s presence in daily life."

As I've been monitoring the conversation around the internet, I'm finding a common theme or tension. In some ways, I think these conversations with Dyer and his team contrasted with the conversations I see with Strong (aside: I think it would be great to get them both on the same podcast and let them compare and contrast their different data sets) is where to place "blame" for the trends in disaffiliation that we're seeing. It would probably require a deeper dive into the whole of the data to really tease this out, so I'm not sure that anyone has really pressed the issue. What I'm seeing is that Dyer and his team like to emphasize these kinds of statements that seem to put the onus for disaffiliation on the disaffiliates themselves while seeming to characterize the church and the devout members as innocent bystanders. Strong's emphasis has been on "culture" and trying to push a narrative where, if devout church members were "better" at talking with potential disaffiliates, then fewer would disaffiliate and the disaffiliates are just responding to what the devout members say and do. To polarize the conversation, it seems that everyone either wants to claim that the disaffiliates themselves are all to blame or the church is all to blame. I just don't think it is a clear dichotomy. I think people who disaffiliate make choices and otherwise have their part to play in their own disaffiliation, AND the church and its devout members make choices and have their part to play in people's disaffiliation. I feel like the better conversations would try to understand what is happening in the middle ground where we try to understand how both parties are interacting together.

While we're trying to parse out blame for the disaffiliation phenomenon, the other difficult thing I see in this particular quote is when does God Himself become complicit in disaffiliation? I recognize that it's kind of a "problem of evil" question, but, if Dyer is right about this being the strongest predictor, then why doesn't God make Himself a little less hidden for these people? Strong notes that many of these disaffiliates wrestle with things for years before pulling the plug. If God would just be a little less stingy with His "presence" in their lives, would fewer disaffiliate? Or could this observation tell us something about God's priorities? I have noted before that it seems that the church's ultimate priority is to convince people to stay active and participating in the church. What if that isn't God's highest priority?

Edited Monday at 05:10 PM by MrShorty

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Is that what that means? 

I think your interpretation of all good eventually traces back to God works better than all good or all good and bad comes from God’s direct intervention…because “all things” does not just say “good things” and if taken in isolation, the last version all good and bad makes the most sense, imo.

I do believe however, that the verse should be taken in the context of the rest of the section where one can point to what “all things” the previous verses are addressing to understand what is being referred to and it’s “the good things of the earth”, basically the physical necessities of life.  Since God is the Creator, then it makes sense to thank him for his creations.

Quote

Yea, blessed are they whose feet stand upon the land of Zion, who have obeyed my gospel; for they shall receive for their reward the good things of the earth, and it shall bring forth in its strength.

4 And they shall also be crowned with blessings from above, yea, and with commandments not a few, and with revelations in their time—they that are faithful and diligent before me.

5 Wherefore, I give unto them a commandment, saying thus: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy might, mind, and strength; and in the name of Jesus Christ thou shalt serve him.

6 Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it.

I love that the first commandments we are blessed/crowned with here is to love God and love our neighbor and avoid those things that harm others.

Edited Monday at 05:25 PM by Calm

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Is that what that means? 

What Calm said. It's appropriate to read any particular verse in context. Yet, context is often the very thing that we mortals struggle with. Likewise, one of the things I most dearly appreciate about the Gospel is the context it gives me/us.

Edited Monday at 05:33 PM by Nofear

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As I've been monitoring the conversation around the internet, I'm finding a common theme or tension. In some ways, I think these conversations with Dyer and his team contrasted with the conversations I see with Strong (aside: I think it would be great to get them both on the same podcast and let them compare and contrast their different data sets) is where to place "blame" for the trends in disaffiliation that we're seeing. It would probably require a deeper dive into the whole of the data to really tease this out, so I'm not sure that anyone has really pressed the issue. What I'm seeing is that Dyer and his team like to emphasize these kinds of statements that seem to put the onus for disaffiliation on the disaffiliates themselves while seeming to characterize the church and the devout members as innocent bystanders.

I wonder if we are better off setting aside notions of "blame" and "onus" and instead focusing on what we individually and collectively can do to improve retention.  

Pretty much anything the institutional church does, or fails to do, can alienate some Latter-day Saints.  For example, I remember my father telling me that he had a number of friends and acquaintances who separated from the Church prior to 1978 due to the Priesthood Ban, and others who left when the Bad was eliminated.  I have two friends whose sociopolitical views are strongly to the right, and who have left the Church because they don't see the Church's stance on certain issues as sufficiently congruent with their individual views.  Conversely, I have a number of friends and acquaintances whose sociopolitical views are strongly to the left, and have left the Church for the same reasons.

As individuals, we all need to do what we can to refrain from being stumblingblocks to the faith of others.  But that can only go so far.  For example, I have a friend who has deemed the Church's doctrinal disagreement with same-sex marriage to be morally abhorrent, such that he both left the Church and brands anyone who stays and/or shares the Church's position on same-sex marriage to be morally defective.  He also heavily implied that the only way the Latter-day Saints of his acquaintance can return to his good graces will be for them to leave the Church and endorse same-sex marriage.  For my part, I am very sad that my friend has left the Church, but I cannot "blame" the Church or its members for having views that are incompatible with his.  Sometimes we have to make a "Choose Ye This Day"-style decision.

28 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Strong's emphasis has been on "culture" and trying to push a narrative where, if devout church members were "better" at talking with potential disaffiliates, then fewer would disaffiliate and the disaffiliates are just responding to what the devout members say and do.

I would like to better understand this.  My general experience is that many of my friends and acquaintances who "disaffiliate" have done so by having gone through a faith crisis quietly/secretly, nursing doubts and voicing them online, but not really communicating with "faithful" friends and sources.  For these folks, I think it's difficult for "devout church members" to address concerns when they don't know the concerns are there, or are not aware of the severity of those concerns.

Alternatively, there are some who do make a real effort to maintain/salvage their faith.  Several years ago a fellow contacted me privately (I think he may have done so through this board initially), and we had an extended email conversation in which he expressed doubts, concerns, frustrations, etc. and asked for input/feedback.  It was clear that he was striving to maintain his faith while still addressing these issues.  He had sought out faithful sources of information (FAIR, etc.), and was really trying to give the Church and its advocates a fair hearing.  I don't know where he ultimately ended up, but I admired his effort.

28 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

To polarize the conversation, it seems that everyone either wants to claim that the disaffiliates themselves are all to blame or the church is all to blame. I just don't think it is a clear dichotomy. I think people who disaffiliate make choices and otherwise have their part to play in their own disaffiliation, AND the church and its devout members make choices and have their part to play in people's disaffiliation. I feel like the better conversations would try to understand what is happening in the middle ground where we try to understand how both parties are interacting together.

I agree with you here.

For my part, I tend to focus and re-focus, when needed, on the foundational events of the Restoration, and really give the Gospel, and the Church that houses it, a "fair hearing."  I have articulated this in a few different ways.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Quote

I struggle with many of the truth claims of the church.  Yet as you pointed out, church leaders have made it very black and white the church is either true or is a fraud.

In an ultimate, when-all-is-said-and-done sense, yes.  The Church makes some very bold claims about itself.

In a similar sense, we can consider Jesus Christ in a "very black and white" way, too.  He was either the Son of God, or else he was a fraud.  He either performed miracles by the power of God, or He did not.  He either suffered and atoned for our sins, or he did not.  He is either "the way, the truth, and the life," or he is not (John 14:6).  Either He was correct in stating that "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me," or he was not.  

However, all these are conclusions that, I think, cannot be made by skipping to the end.  We need to give Jesus Christ a fair hearing.  Similarly, I think we need to give the Church a fair hearing.  I am concerned that this isn't happening.  I am concerned that people, including members, are relying on online materials (the the "Letter to a CES Director") that are hostile to the Church, and are designed to make the Church look as bad as possible, and are certainly not intended to give the Restored Gospel a fair hearing.  In other words, this stuff a shortcut.  It is a replacement for rigorous, systematic, thoughtful research and effort (and yes, prayer, and pondering, and exercising faith).

Here (regarding the SEC issue) : 

Quote

The investigation has been resolved through settlement and payment of a fine.  The SEC Order says what it says.  The Church has issued a formal statement.

I think some want the Church to explain more.  To hash out the particulars of what happened (going back, it seems, 20+ years).  Perhaps even to name names.  All regarding its efforts to comply with one of the most complex bodies of regulatory law ever created.  I find that both unlikely to happen and unnecessary to do.  If the Church erred in its regulatory compliance, that error has been rectified.

I hope folks, particularly those who affirm faith in the Restored Gospel but who are nevertheless upset about this story, will take a step back, calm down, set aside hard feelings and other knee-jerk reactions, and contextualize this.  What has happened is just as pertinent to our relationship with the government - particularly the Administrative State - as it is to our relationship with the Church.  There are a lot of moving parts here, not a single one of which implicates the truth claims and foundational events of the Restoration.  Either Joseph Smith experienced the First Vision, or he did not.  Either he was guided by the Angel Moroni to obtain, and later translate "by the gift and power of God," the Book of Mormon, or he was/did not.  Either Peter, James and John descended in angelic form and restored the Priesthood to Joseph Smith, or this did not happen.  Either Joseph Smith received the revelations published in the Doctrine & Covenants, or he did not.

If these things happened, then let's stay the course.  If some of you are upset (and candidly, I can understand and appreciate why you might be), then write a letter to the Church to express your views.  Do so with grace and charity, and with temperance and patience.  Otherwise, let's keep moving forward. 

The government has mechanisms in place to address disputes as to compliance with the law, and those mechanisms have worked.  The Church is now fully compliant with the SEC's expectations and guidelines.  The Church will be paying a fine.  The Church has also expressed regret for its "mistakes."  

If this story was indicative of some widespread and/or ongoing corruption or incompetence in the upper echelons of the Church, or by those charged with managing the financial and business affairs of the Church, I could see a need to have "more" explained to us.  But I don't think that is the case.  

Here (re: the "Inspired Fiction" theory) : ddj

Quote

The central premise of the "Inspired Fiction" theory is "fiction."  As in no Lehi, hence no Nephites/Lamanites, hence no 1000-year record kept by prophets, hence no abridgment by a non-existent Mormon, hence no burying of the Plates, hence to discovery of the Plates centuries later by Joseph Smith acting pursuant to instructions from a non-existent resurrected Moroni, and so on.

The "Inspired Fiction" theory presents a real dichotomy, not a false one.  Latter-day Saints encountering this theory are forced into an either/or situation.  They can listen to and accept the explanation for the origins of The Book of Mormon as explained in scripture and in historical records from Joseph Smith, or they can reject that explanation and in its place accept an alternate one posted by folks like Prince.  

We're not dealing with nuanced distinctions about details here.  This is not an issue where a modern theory can be reconciled with Joseph's narrative.  It's an either/or situation.  A dichotomy ("a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different").

• Either Joseph Smith was visited by an angel named Moroni (the Church's teaching), or he was not (an implicit assumption of the "Inspired Fiction" folks).
• Either this angel led Joseph to discover a set of ancient metal plates buried in a hill for centuries (the Church's teaching), or not (the "Inspired Fiction" approach).
• Joseph Smith either obtained possession of ancient metal plates (the Church's teaching) or he did not (the "Inspired Fiction" approach).
• The Three Witnesses either saw an angel descend from heaven and show them these plates (the Church's teaching) or they did not (the "Inspired Fiction" approach).
• Either there was an ancient historical figure named "Lehi" as described in The Book of Mormon (the Church's teaching) or there was not (the "Inspired Fiction" approach).
• Either there was a migration of Lehi and his family and friends from the Arabian Peninsula to the Americas (the Church's teaching) or there was not (the "Inspired Fiction" approach).

These are factual assertions presented by, on the one hand, Joseph Smith and his successors, and by the Church, and on the other hand are being rejected as factually false by the "Inspired Fiction" folks.  So with respect, I think the "Inspired Fiction" theory necessarily requires a rejection of these things.

And here (same topic) :
 

Quote

Quote

It is said he did not translate plates, so much as dictated a message that perhaps appeared to him in no other form than in his mind's eye.  That is he very well could have been inspired to dictate the story of the BoM and it very well might not represent anyone ancient at all.  And even he could have mixed that up--considering his religious mindset from his era, that's not a big surprise.

So . . . he was lying or deluded.  That's your position?

Either Joseph Smith saw an angelic being named Moroni, or he did not.

Either Joseph was instructed by that angel to go to a particular location, a drumlin in upstate New York, or else that did not happen.

Either Joseph went there at the instruction of the angel and located the burial site of the plates, or else that did not happen.

Either Joseph had further interviews with the angel at that site for years afterward, or he did not.

Either Joseph eventually recovered the ancient plates (and other items buried with them), or he did not.

Either the Three Witnesses saw the plates under the circumstances described in their testimony, or they did not.

Either the Eight Witnesses saw the plates under the circumstances described in their testimony, or they did not.

As I see it, the only plausible explanation for these various "or not" alternatives is that Joseph Smith was A) profoundly dishonest, B) profoundly mentally ill, C) profoundly tricked by unknown persons, or D) some combination of A-C.   Also, the Witnesses were likewise either A) profoundly dishonest, B) profoundly mentally ill, C) profoundly tricked (by Joseph and/or others), or D) some combination of A-C. 

And here:

Quote

Prophets and apostles are good and decent men.  But in the end, they are servants.  In a way, I am happy to see them pass on to the next phase of their journey, as I fully expect for the Atonement to apply to them, to wash away their sins and weaknesses, leaving them for what they really tried to be.  "Well done, thou good and faithful servant..."

My job is not to sustain them unless they have weaknesses.  My job is to sustain them despite their weaknesses.  And meanwhile, I should look to see that my own house is in order.

I think I'm in the Church, come what may.  I believe any member of the Church can be led astray, including leaders (witness the many who apostasized in the early days of the Church).  I also reject the notion of inerrancy (though I note that it is quite possible for a church leader to make a mistake, or even many mistakes, and yet not be "astray").  

However, I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray.  

I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted.  

I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God."  I think that's right.

I believe in The Book of Mormon, in its testimony of Jesus Christ, and of the implications that are associated with the prophetic mantle involved in its production, preservation, and transmission to us.

I believe the sentiment expressed here (attributed to Joseph Smith): "‘I will give you a key that will never rust, —if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."

The Church is not perfect.  But it is, in my view, overwhelmingly good.  I love it a lot.  

 

28 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

While we're trying to parse out blame for the disaffiliation phenomenon, the other difficult thing I see in this particular quote is when does God Himself become complicit in disaffiliation?

Disaffiliation is a choice.  God gave us agency, the right to choose.

That said, to be "complicit" means "helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way."  However we frame an issue, I don't think we can do so by attributing misconduct to God.

28 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I recognize that it's kind of a "problem of evil" question, but, if Dyer is right about this being the strongest predictor, then why doesn't God make Himself a little less hidden for these people?

I think the Lord helps all who seek and accept it.  Lots of scriptures about this.  

28 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Strong notes that many of these disaffiliates wrestle with things for years before pulling the plug. If God would just be a little less stingy with His "presence" in their lives, would fewer disaffiliate?

There will be all sorts of variations as to what "wrestling" means in this context.

28 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Or could this observation tell us something about God's priorities? I have noted before that it seems that the church's ultimate priority is to convince people to stay active and participating in the church. What if that isn't God's highest priority?

I think the Church's ultimate focus it to encourage and facilitate individuals, families, communities and nations to turn to and accept Jesus Christ, and to keep His commandments.  

"God's highest priority" is, I think, His children:

"For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man"  (Moses 1:39).

That work and glory is wrought through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, who in turn has established His Church to facilitate faith, repentance and obedience: "Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day" (3 Nephi 27:20).

"And even so I have sent mine everlasting covenant into the world, to be a light to the world, and to be a standard for my people, and for the Gentiles to seek to it, and to be a messenger before my face to prepare the way before me" (D&C 45:9).

Thanks,

-Smac