How Prevalent Are Serious Doubters In The Lds Church

[Buzzard]

Just an observation or two, niether statistical:

-The kind of folks who post on internet boards, read FAIR articles, etc.., are probably more likely to wonder about church doctrine and history, and come up with doubts about that doctrine and history. A lot of members just don't worry about it. 

  I see my neighbors, they raise their families, work at a full time job, and recreate on Saturdays. They probably don't have time to read internet forums with raising their kids, and would be more inclined to look on ones having to do with gardening, or bowling or dirt bikes if they did. Just because we are obsessing doesn't mean the whole church is.

-My personal, non-scientific, purely anecdotal sampling of people, family and friends, who have left or become less active says that a lot more people leave the church because of sin. I know a lot of you will scoff and say it is a cop out, but the three people I personally know who are RM's and now atheist were guilt-ridden members fornicating with a pretty girl until they changed their beliefs to match their behavior. Again, I don't know the overall numbers, but I will postulate from personal observation that while some members leave before becoming involved in behaviors against gospel standards, a lot more change their standards and then decide that JS plagiarized the BOM.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott,

 

I think we're speaking past each other.  I don't approach this board as litigation.  I'm not here to win, but to understand.  So there is no "burden of proof."  I've told you my thoughts.  I'm sincerely interested in your experience.  

 

I think the concept of burden of proof is applicable in all aspects of life and logic, not just the courtroom. It is a reasonable assumption that when one expresses an opinion, one desires to do so persuasively. And being persuasive entails substantiating any assertion that is made. As a corollary, it is not persuasive to make an unsubstantiated assertion and expect to have it embraced as true unless someone proves the contrary.

 

Furthermore, I don't believe the expectation that an assertion be substantiated necessarily makes for an adversarial exchange.

 

If my statement was not clear let me make it more so.  I do not think that most members who encounter historical issues go into a faith crises.  Only a minority do.  But we should care about that minority. 

 

 

I've not said that we shouldn't care about them.

 

I do not think that faith crises are the most significant struggle for any group of members, including "strong members and local leaders" (to use my original group definition).  Porn, apathy and other issues affect strong members and local leaders more so than faith crises.  Again, "for now."

 

OK.

 

What I said, and still maintain, is that if one looks at the whole of those who experience a faith crisis, there will be a larger percentage of strong members and local leaders in that group than in the church population as a whole.  In other words, faith crises disproportionatly affect strong members and local leaders.

 

And I'm only pointing out that this will be nothing more than supposition on your part unless and until it can be substantiated.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

It basically is the 12-step program. A member of our bishopric usually is in charge (and is recovering from addiction). He tells me that they use it and add scripture and gospel principles. It is not segregated by addiction. Alcohol, drugs, codependency, porn, and whatever else all meet as a group.

It sounds like the same program that a couple in my ward is involved with as missionaries.

[sdc999]

It's my understanding that those with such calling are trained in implementing a 12-step program similar to Alcoholic Anonymous, but with a gospel bent.

 

Do you find it "way beyond scary" that non-specialists such as those involved in AA programs are involved in giving support to those with addictions?

Non-specialists in AA do have to have a counseling certification at minimum and most states require more.  It is also said that while AA has some benefits, success is greatly increased if a person receives professional help in addition.    I will concede that AA is better than nothing at all but the church usually tries to keep 'everything' within.    I'm not opposed to the gospel infusion, just not sure that those involved as counselors will know when they are in over their head and that's where a professionally trained individual would be more effective. 

[why me]

We are living in strange times where doubt is infecting many members of the church. The critics control the internet when it comes to information and they attempt to create doubt. Lets look at it this way. A member goes to the internet and reads about the book of abraham. He or she discovers that the papyri is not the book of abraham. They are told that the church has lied to them. Thus, they begin to doubt. Of course, it is overlooked that the church made this admission when it was discovered that the papyri in the church's possession was not the book of abraham years ago. The information was in church magazines. But that information is thrown out the window by the member if they discover it.

 

When it comes to the internet, the exmembers write to sow doubt and to depress the member into doubt.

[why me]

 

I don't recall the exact percentage of loss of membership in Kirtland. 30%-50% comes to mind.

I'm just wondering if next Sunday you walked into church to find 50% of your ward missing including some of your top leadership (and you were informed that 5 of the quorum of the 12 had left as well) would you consider that the church had been damaged?

 

It was many. And the witnesses also left the church. But if one thinks about it, the witnesses left over joseph and not because they no longer believed. They also left with their experience intact. Others became hostile to the church. To be a member back then was like being on a roller coaster ride. And it was not easy to stay a member.

[Scott Lloyd]

Non-specialists in AA do have to have a counseling certification at minimum and most states require more.

I don't know a whole lot about AA, but does everyone involved in it have to have a counseling certification? I understand that it is a "mutual-aid fellowship" (wording from Wikipedia article), implying that some of those involved are recovering alcoholics themselves. Do they need a counseling certification to be involved in the program?

 

It is also said that while AA has some benefits, success is greatly increased if a person receives professional help in addition.    I will concede that AA is better than nothing at all but the church usually tries to keep 'everything' within.    I'm not opposed to the gospel infusion, just not sure that those involved as counselors will know when they are in over their head and that's where a professionally trained individual would be more effective.

 

I don't know how much training the missionaries who are called to work in the program receive or how much involvement/guidance there is from professionals. Do you?

Edited August 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[sdc999]

I don't know a whole lot about AA, but does everyone involved in it have to have a counseling certification? I understand that it is a "mutual-aid fellowship" (wording from Wikipedia article), implying that some of those involved are recovering alcoholics themselves. Do they need a counseling certification to be involved in the program.

 

I don't know how much training the missionaries who are called to work in the program receive or how much involvement/guidance there is from professionals. Do you?

 "Some states may require as little as a high school diploma and counseling certification, while others may require as much as a graduate degree. Licensure or certification is required in most states in order to provide formal counseling services."   Education Portal : AA Counselor Training Programs and Requirements

 

I do not; however, a great friend of mine, a psychologist, who specializes in teens and also marriage counseling has commented on LDS couples that he has seen in the past.  Most are like many couples he sees but he said he can definitely tell a difference when a couple has been seeing a bishop for many sessions.  And it's not always a nice picture and they don't always want to fix the issues.  They just want everybody to look pretty on the outside. 

[Scott Lloyd]

 "Some states may require as little as a high school diploma and counseling certification, while others may require as much as a graduate degree. Licensure or certification is required in most states in order to provide formal counseling services."   Education Portal : AA Counselor Training Programs and Requirements

 

Again, I'm wondering how much involvement there is from people who are not providing "formal counseling services" but who are nevertheless present as supportive and caring individuals. In that event, it seems to me they might be comparable to the missionaries who are called to serve in the Church programs.

 

I do not; however, a great friend of mine, a psychologist, who specializes in teens and also marriage counseling has commented on LDS couples that he has seen in the past.  Most are like many couples he sees but he said he can definitely tell a difference when a couple has been seeing a bishop for many sessions.  And it's not always a nice picture and they don't always want to fix the issues.  They just want everybody to look pretty on the outside. 

 

 

I'm inclined to take such hearsay with a grain of salt.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I don't have any numbers, but I would say doubters are among the same percentage as any other faith. We can barley track home teaching.

[Kevin Christensen]

I don't know a whole lot about AA, but does everyone involved in it have to have a counseling certification? I understand that it is a "mutual-aid fellowship" (wording from Wikipedia article), implying that some of those involved are recovering alcoholics themselves? Do they need a counseling certification to be involved in the program.

 

I don't know how much training the missionaries who are called to work in the program receive or how much involvement/guidance there is from professionals. Do you?

I'm the Addiction Recovery Rep for my stake. I got training through LDS Social services over a period several months. Training sessions were mostly online (they are based in Michigan), but there have been a few local meetings.

AA started in the 1930s. To get an idea of how is started, read a bit, or watch the excellent movie, My Name is Bill W. with James Woods and James Garner. One thing not mentioned in the movie is the input from Carl Jung. But the key is sitting down with a group of people who know by experience exactly what you are going through, and can share experience strength and hope on how to get better. The AA principles were adopted by Narcotics addicts, gambling addicts, co-dependents, and sex addicts and others. The trained therapists noticed the successes and learned from the addicts the benefits of the fellowships. Recent advances in imaging have shown that all addictions change the brain the same same way, that once an addictive neural pathway is created, other addictions can and often do, piggyback. And that 12 Step recovery can actually heal the brain damage.

One of the men involved in running classes in our stake had been an alcoholic and can show you the liver transplant scar to show you how serious it was. He's also since gotten a Masters in counseling. For all the counselors he has known over the years, he remains convinced that only those who have been in the cage can tell you how to get out.

The first LDS 12 step book is He Did Deliver Me From Bondage, by Colleen Harrison. Her addictions were perfectionism, and co-dependence. She demonstrates, among other things that the Book of Mormon contains all of the 12 step principles advocated by AA in the Blue Book. It was used by LDS Social Services as their pilot program for nine years. There is a new official addiction recovery book.

LDS Social Services encourages people to get counseling as well as 12 step attendance, and most counselors will recommend 12 step groups.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[omni]

I never said sinning was an illegitimate reason to leave. While I don't judge a person for the reason they choose to leave or stop believing, IMHO intellectual/philosophical/historical reasons are the most valid or legitimate.

Much like one can join the church for any number of reasons: social, family pressure, cute missionaries, etc. While one could argue these are all acceptable, I believe the most valid or legitimate reason is being truly converted to the gospel.

[cinepro]

I'm the Addiction Recovery Rep for my stake. I got training through LDS Social services over a period several months. Training sessions were mostly online (they are based in Michigan), but there have been a few local meetings.

AA started in the 1930s. To get an idea of how is started, read a bit, or watch the excellent movie, My Name is Bill W. with James Woods and James Garner.

 

Anyone interested in the history of AA (as well as how it does or doesn't work) should check out this article:

 

Secret of AA: After 75 Years, We Don’t Know How It Works

 

in Wired Magazine from June 2010.  The website won't let me link directly to it, but a quick search will lead you right to it.  It's a great article.

 

What we do know, however, is that despite all we’ve learned over the past few decades about psychology, neurology, and human behavior, contemporary medicine has yet to devise anything that works markedly better. “In my 20 years of treating addicts, I’ve never seen anything else that comes close to the 12 steps,” says Drew Pinsky, the addiction-medicine specialist who hosts VH1′s Celebrity Rehab. “In my world, if someone says they don’t want to do the 12 steps, I know they aren’t going to get better.”

Wilson may have operated on intuition, but somehow he managed to tap into mechanisms that counter the complex psychological and neurological processes through which addiction wreaks havoc. And while AA’s ability to accomplish this remarkable feat is not yet understood, modern research into behavior dynamics and neuroscience is beginning to provide some tantalizing clues.

One thing is certain, though: AA doesn’t work for everybody. In fact, it doesn’t work for the vast majority of people who try it. And understanding more about who it does help, and why, is likely our best shot at finally developing a system that improves on Wilson’s amateur scheme for living without the bottle.

Edited August 28, 2013 by cinepro

[cinepro]

With regards to porn usage, many Wards and Stakes have addiction specialists called and they serve kind of like it's a mission to help those with substance and porn addictions.  A few years ago, some gave the 5th Sunday lesson in my local ward and the men and women were addressed separately in different rooms.  We men were asked to look at the person on our left and then the one on our right and then told that statistically one of the people we looked at was involved with porn.  If I had to guess, the numbers might be higher now.

 

Uh, that's a pretty awful misapplication of statistics. 

 

You should have raised you hand and told the (presumably male) instructor that between the two of you, statistically one of you was a woman, and since you knew you weren't, maybe he has something he'd like to share....? 

Edited August 28, 2013 by cinepro

[omni]

Hi Bill,

 

To answer the OP, I'm not sure any of us on this board has a good idea of the prevelance of faith crises, especially for the church world-wide.  I can make some localized judgments based off of my personal experiences, but I think the best indicator we have is the increased attention being given church leaders.  Church websites and press statements are being created that give nuance and leave room for a larger variety of beliefs.  The most recent general conferences have had significant, and increasing, attention paid to the issue.  In fact, in my recollection, last conference probably had more references to faith crises than to pornography.  Compare that to 10 years ago where every other address seemed to be about porn.  I don't think that's an indicator that we've solved porn.  If anything we're throwing up our hands in frustration.  Rather, it's a reaction to the growing concern over faith crises.

 

That said, I'll also give my my personal 2-cents:

 

• Faith crises are a relatively minor but growing problem.  Porn, gossip, and general apathy affect many more members than BOA and polygamy.  For now.
• Those experiencing faith crises are disproportionally strong members and local leaders - i.e., the "cream of the crop."  So while the numbers may be fewer than for other issues, the affect on the church is more substantial than pure numbers would indicate.
• Faith crises are faithly unique in how members and local leaders typically react.  For most other issues we react with compassion.  We don't feel personally threatened with Bro. Smith starts smoking.  But for faith crises, very often we treat the person as if they need to be quarantined for the good of others.  They - the person - become the problem rather than the historical issue.  The only thing comprable is, ironically, porn (I know, again?), which also becomes overly personal and so tends to be covered up rather than dealt with. 
• Faith crises are also unique in that their end-game differs from other problems.  With porn, WOW, etc., the goal is to remove the behavior and restore trust.  For faith crises, there "is no going back."  The person has to find a new paradigm.  While that is very possible, it often means the person will have a different outlook than many of their friends/family.  So not only is there no going back for the person's testimony, there is no going back to the same relationships.
• Faith issues are very different for youth than adults.  For youth, faith issues are generally not as severe because they have not become as rigid as adults in their belief system.  They rarely feel "lied to" because they haven't been around that many years.  They're used to encountering new, even conflicting, information.  And they don't take it personally when the church changes position.  They were never that wedded to the old position and did not sacrifice for it.  As one example, youth reacted to the women's prayer in GC with an honest "I never noticed."  But for some older adults who had been taught at one point that women should not pray in conference, it was a harder change.  Same thing with the racial priesthood ban.  Expunging "folklore" reasons for the ban affects older members much more because they internalized those reasons in ways the youth never did. 
• For youth, the primary problems are social and economic issues.  Changing gender roles, female ordination, and especially gays.  Something like 75% of young adults in the US support SSM.  For church youth, the numbers are probably less, but not much.  That issue is a potential trainwreck.  But even more challenging are changes to adulthood.  There is a large and growing gap between leaving the YM/YW program and entering full adulthood with marriage and kids.  Right now we simply don't have much to offer that group.  Not surprising, we have activity rates in the single digits.  Yes, that problem existed in the past too, but I think there is a difference between youth stepping away from the church for 2-3 years and stepping away for 10-15.

This!!! For some reason I can't give rep points anymore, so consider this one

[Scott Lloyd]

I find today's post by Dan Peterson on his blog particularly relevant to the topic of this thread, so I have decided to link to it and to quote an excerpt here:

 

I’ve encountered a number of people who have abandoned their faith in God or become alienated from the Church because, they say, of certain facts or issues.  But what’s striking about the facts or issues that they cite is that I, too, am aware of them.  In fact, in most cases, I’ve been aware of them for a very long time.  (I’m inconceivably old).  And yet, unlike these other people, I remain a committed, believing, active Latter-day Saint.  And so do others who are aware of the same issues and facts.

 

We assign a different weight to these facts or issues than they do, or find counterarguments persuasive that they don’t.

 

Plainly, the sheer “facts” before us are pretty much the same, and yet we react differently to them.

 

I see that as evidence that there is more going on in such cases  – within those who fall away, or within those of us who don’t, or, most likely, within both groups — than a straightforwardly objective rational calculus.

 

 

 

The entire post is worth a look.

[Questing Beast]

I've read through most of the comments and want to point out that religiously devoted people number far less than twenty-five percent of the population in the USA and probably the world generally. In those places (rare) where the law demands public devotion the number appears artificially higher, much higher even. But in a free environment, where there is zero repercussions for disbelief or disaffection, the number of "actives" goes dramatically down. Are most of the "less actives" doubters? I don't think so. I think that most irreligious people just aren't interested in the first place. Religion does not call to them. Most of them are just fine without religion, being for the most part decent and honest people in every way toward others, and not having a higher incidence of addictions either. It seems to me that only a minority of people are drawn by religion of the dogmatic type. Doubting isn't even on the radar of irreligious people. (note: "irreligious" as I use it means disinterested in religious affiliation, not behavior definition....)

[Scott Lloyd]

This!!! For some reason I can't give rep points anymore, so consider this one

Have you checked to see if you are logged into the website? Your inability to give rep points may be due to not being logged in.

 

Edited to add:

 

Never mind. If you weren't logged in, you wouldn't be able to post.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Palerider]

 

I find today's post by Dan Peterson on his blog particularly relevant to the topic of this thread, so I have decided to link to it and to quote an excerpt here:

 

The entire post is worth a look.

Yes........my stake president said the same thing. He said he'd read it all and none of it bothered him and his great testimony was still intact. Right, right.

Now what if I did the same thing that many here do when they ASSUME that the person in faith crises is also involved in sin (which is just down right repulsive), and suggest that because my stake president is so emotionally invested in the church and his standing in the community and prophet worship and working his way up to being a general authority.....that his sense of right and wrong have been over-ridden and he's basically too cowardly to call a spade a spade....how would that sit with you???

At the end of the day, even if Joseph himself appeared to him in a vision and said, "o.k. they got me, I was a total fraud", my stake president wouldn't believe it.....

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes........my stake president said the same thing. He said he'd read it all and none of it bothered him and his great testimony was still intact. Right, right.

Now what if I did the same thing that many here do when they ASSUME that the person in faith crises is also involved in sin (which is just down right repulsive), and suggest that because my stake president is so emotionally invested in the church and his standing in the community and prophet worship and working his way up to being a general authority.....that his sense of right and wrong have been over-ridden and he's basically too cowardly to call a spade a spade....how would that sit with you???

At the end of the day, even if Joseph himself appeared to him in a vision and said, "o.k. they got me, I was a total fraud", my stake president wouldn't believe it.....

Did you go to the link and read the post, or did you just read and react to the portion I quoted here?

 

I ask, because in the very next paragraph, Dan addresses the objection you raise:

 

The more aggressive among them have often informed me that my problem is that my judgment has been warped by my material self-interest (e.g., I’m employed at BYU), and/or by intellectual dishonesty, and/or by cowardice, and/or by wanting to be as big a fish as I can in the small Mormon pool, and/or by irrational emotionalism, and/or by something else altogether.  But, whatever the merit of those accusations — it’s limited to nonexistent, in my opinion — they all seem to me to assume the validity of precisely what I’ve suggested:  They all allege some not purely intellectual factor.

Since you appear disinclined to read any of his post other than what I quote here, I will go ahead and quote his concluding paragraph:

 

What accounts for the differences in reaction? Not, I think, the stupidity and superficiality of typical believers when contrasted with unbelievers. I see no evidence for that. And the scriptures and conference talks and doctrines that are known to the one group are precisely those known to the other. No, yet again I think it clear that extra-intellectual, extra-rational, factors have to be granted an explanatory role.

 

Edited August 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[omni]

Have you checked to see if you are logged into the website? Your inability to give rep points may be due to not being logged in.

 

Edited to add:

 

Never mind. If you weren't logged in, you wouldn't be able to post.

 

 

 

 

It seems to be working now.  Whew...for a while there I thought I was on some kind of probation.

[Palerider]

 

Did you go to the link and read the post, or did you just read and react to the portion I quoted here?

 

I ask, because in the very next paragraph, Dan addresses the objection you raise:

 

Since you appear disinclined to read any of his post other than what I quote here, I will go ahead and quote his concluding paragraph:

I've read enough of these sorts of things that usually I just end up wishing I had that 10 minutes back to spend in a more productive way.

Since the last paragraph you quote makes nearly no sense whatsoever, being couched in general terms, I will read the entire article but I have the feeling he's just trying to "cut critics off at the pass" or preclude the discussion going in that direction, by adding his comments on church emotional investment, before they beat him to the punch.

[Bob Crockett]

I'm the Addiction Recovery Rep for my stake. I got training through LDS Social services over a period several months. Training sessions were mostly online (they are based in Michigan), but there have been a few local meetings.AA started in the 1930s. To get an idea of how is started, read a bit, or watch the excellent movie, My Name is Bill W. with James Woods and James Garner. One thing not mentioned in the movie is the input from Carl Jung. But the key is sitting down with a group of people who know by experience exactly what you are going through, and can share experience strength and hope on how to get better. The AA principles were adopted by Narcotics addicts, gambling addicts, co-dependents, and sex addicts and others. The trained therapists noticed the successes and learned from the addicts the benefits of the fellowships. Recent advances in imaging have shown that all addictions change the brain the same same way, that once an addictive neural pathway is created, other addictions can and often do, piggyback. And that 12 Step recovery can actually heal the brain damage.One of the men involved in running classes in our stake had been an alcoholic and can show you the liver transplant scar to show you how serious it was. He's also since gotten a Masters in counseling. For all the counselors he has known over the years, he remains convinced that only those who have been in the cage can tell you how to get out.The first LDS 12 step book is He Did Deliver Me From Bondage, by Colleen Harrison. Her addictions were perfectionism, and co-dependence. She demonstrates, among other things that the Book of Mormon contains all of the 12 step principles advocated by AA in the Blue Book. It was used by LDS Social Services as their pilot program for nine years. There is a new official addiction recovery book.LDS Social Services encourages people to get counseling as well as 12 step attendance, and most counselors will recommend 12 step groups.FWIWKevin ChristensenPittsburgh, PA

A very helpful post. I have been skeptical of the LDS version of this program because it doesn't meet frequently enough and lumps addictions, but perhaps I should instead try to be supportive.

[why me]

I find today's post by Dan Peterson on his blog particularly relevant to the topic of this thread, so I have decided to link to it and to quote an excerpt here:

 

The entire post is worth a look.

Dan makes a good point. I think that we need to remember the shock value that the critics have when they post information on the web. I think that certain critic sites depend on shock value and they depend on the understanding that the members do not know this information, so the critics write it in such a way that would shock the member. Or at least jolt the member into a shock syndrome.

 

And when such members go to FAIR and read that such information may be true, the shock becomes deeper in the member and when they read the FAIR version it may not help because the event has been confirmed but with a different interpretation. I believe that most members want to read that what they have read on the critic site is a blatant lie.

Edited August 29, 2013 by why me

[Storm Rider]

Doubt, trials of faith, the dark night of the soul; these are all companions for disciples of Christ. It is the challenge of mortality. I know I don't have a perfect faith and I have experienced periods of disinterest in the Church. However, I have been relatively able to maintain a relationship with our Father in Heaven.

I do not think this is a challenge unique to LDS, but is common among all religious pursuits. The act of striving for holiness is hard work. When there are challenges we often fatigue of fighting against the process. Evaluating its continued worth should be expected.