How Do So Many People Leave The Church Or Go Inactive?

[Scott Stevenson]

I really don't know if I should start with you or not.

 

What makes you think that questions of the truth of religious propositions lies with objective evidence?

 

What theory of truth do you adhere to ?

I have no grand unified theory of truth, do you? I just have questions. I was much more certain about things when I was a believing member. 

 

I only asked how someone would know if the Church wasn't true and I get back Moroni's promise. I don't know what to do with that. It only raises more questions for me.

[mfbukowski]

What is the source of spiritual truth? What's the difference between spiritual truth and just plain truth? Why does the utility of the Church matter to its truth claims? Don't Catholicism and Judaism work ad intended?  Isn't Moroni's promise just circular reasoning? Why is the arm of flesh less trustworthy than a God? Which God should I start with and why?

 

I don't expect you to answer any of this. It's just why I can't seem to believe the Mormon Church is the one and only true and living Church on the face of the Earth. 

 

Could you construct a scenario or think of evidence that you could encounter that would make you think the Church wasn't what it claimed to be? Would you even want to know?

I will start with you.  You raise some interesting points.

 

As far as "truth" is concerned, it is a fairly useless notion.  I subscribe to the deflationary theory of truth. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

 

We know what the word means, but going beyond that in trying to analyze "what it is" is a pretty pointless exercise in my opinion.

 

Yes, all religions "work" but Mormonism can be seen in a light which completely avoids the semantic puzzles you raise. 

 

Whether or not Moroni's promise can be categorized as "circular" is all in its interpretation.

 

And no, religious interpretations are basically preferences.  Can you think of evidence which would make you straight if you are gay or gay if you are straight?

 

Can you think of evidence which would convince you that it was right to kill babies for fun?  Religious belief is like moral beliefs in that way.  Objective evidence is irrelevant.

[mfbukowski]

I have no grand unified theory of truth, do you? I just have questions. I was much more certain about things when I was a believing member. 

 

I only asked how someone would know if the Church wasn't true and I get back Moroni's promise. I don't know what to do with that. It only raises more questions for me.

I only have what I have studied in philosophy as far as theories of truth.

 

So you like Nozick?

[Scott Stevenson]

A pointless exercise.  We could talk about UFO's too but that would be a waste of time.

 

If experience is not "real" what is, and how could you possibly know?

I don't think it's pointless. It shows that we like to think our lives are authentic (whether they are is definitely debatable). It's why most people say they wouldn't choose to be hooked up to the machine because in the back of their mind they would always know it was "virtual". 

 

I think experience is real but whether that means that it objectively happened I don't know. 

[mfbukowski]

I don't think it's pointless. It shows that we like to think our lives are authentic (whether they are is definitely debatable). It's why most people say they wouldn't choose to be hooked up to the machine because in the back of their mind they would always know it was "virtual". 

 

I think experience is real but whether that means that it objectively happened I don't know. 

Let me just cut to the chase.

 

Religion is not about scientific facts, it is a set of beliefs which give your life meaning and purpose and help you understand your place in the universe.

 

That is one present way of understanding religion and is the understanding of many philosophers who actually have an opinion on it.

 

In other words, believing in God and having "religious beliefs" are independent variables.  There are atheists who believe they have a "religious belief" even though they believe that God does not exist.  Here are two such individuals:

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/apr/04/religion-without-god/

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/05/how-richard-rorty-found-religion

 

And there are many more.

 

I was once an atheist who had beliefs similar to these individuals and then I found Moroni's promise which totally changed my life.

 

The difference between Mormonism and all other modern religions is that Mormons believe in a Human God.  That means that humans are gods in embryo and that God and man have the same nature.  Essentially that is what the atheists above also teach- that religion must be based on humanism.

 

The key insight is that when God is a human, as he is in Mormonism, humanism becomes theology.  What is missing for those atheists who's works I have given links to, is that they have never understood that such could be possible.

[Scott Stevenson]

I only have what I have studied in philosophy as far as theories of truth.

 

So you like Nozick?

I like thought experiments. Nozick's Experience Machine is an interesting one too. It's really an argument against hedonism but I like what it says about what we value.

[Scott Stevenson]

Let me just cut to the chase.

 

Religion is not about scientific facts, it is a set of beliefs which give your life meaning and purpose and help you understand your place in the universe.

 

That is one present way of understanding religion and is the understanding of many philosophers who actually have an opinion on it.

 

In other words, believing in God and having "religious beliefs" are independent variables.  There are atheists who believe they have a "religious belief" even though they believe that God does not exist.  Here are two such individuals:

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/apr/04/religion-without-god/

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/05/how-richard-rorty-found-religion

 

And there are many more.

 

I was once an atheist who had beliefs similar to these individuals and then I found Moroni's promise which totally changed my life.

 

The difference between Mormonism and all other modern religions is that Mormons believe in a Human God.  That means that humans are gods in embryo and that God and man have the same nature.  Essentially that is what the atheists above also teach- that religion must be based on humanism.

 

The key insight is that when God is a human, as he is in Mormonism, humanism becomes theology.  What is missing for those atheists who's works I have given links to, is that they have never understood that such could be possible.

I tend to think that knowing your place in the universe infers some facts about yourself and the universe. 

 

I think the "Gods in embryo" part is really the pinnacle of Mormonism. I was surprised to see on a different thread that others had an issue with it. It seemed like a completely logical progression to me. 

[Tsuzuki]

The difference between Mormonism and all other modern religions is that Mormons believe in a Human God.  That means that humans are gods in embryo and that God and man have the same nature.  Essentially that is what the atheists above also teach- that religion must be based on humanism.

 

The key insight is that when God is a human, as he is in Mormonism, humanism becomes theology.  What is missing for those atheists who's works I have given links to, is that they have never understood that such could be possible.

Though Mormonism isn't unique in this.

[ERayR]

Maybe it doesn't make any difference to you whether the Church is actually what it claims to be or not, but it matters to me.

 

Are you familiar with the Experience Machine thought experiment?

 

It goes something like this:

Image that Psychologists have invented a virtual reality machine that you could be hooked up to that would make you experience the best life ever for you. Would you choose to be hooked up to the machine or not? Why?

 

Please reread my post # 121, this time don't skim, read for comprehension.  I did not say it didn't make a difference to me.  I was answering a what if scenario.  If the scenario were true it wouldn't make any difference.

[Scott Stevenson]

Please reread my post # 121, this time don't skim, read for comprehension.  I did not say it didn't make a difference to me.  I was answering a what if scenario.  If the scenario were true it wouldn't make any difference.

I was responding to your original response (#116). I think you should go back and reread what you wrote since I'm not the only one that got that impression from what you wrote. I'll leave it to the rest of the people reading this thread to decide who's incomprehensible.

[wenglund]

What is the source of spiritual truth? What's the difference between spiritual truth and just plain truth? Why does the utility of the Church matter to its truth claims? Don't Catholicism and Judaism work ad intended?  Isn't Moroni's promise just circular reasoning? Why is the arm of flesh less trustworthy than a God? Which God should I start with and why?

 

I don't expect you to answer any of this. It's just why I can't seem to believe the Mormon Church is the one and only true and living Church on the face of the Earth. 

 

Could you construct a scenario or think of evidence that you could encounter that would make you think the Church wasn't what it claimed to be? Would you even want to know?

 

Contrary to your expectations, let me address your questions.

 

Logically, and far from circular reasoning, just as you are the source of truth regarding who and what you are as Scott Stevenson as well as your will and mind, God is the source of spiritual and divine truth regarding him and his spirit realm.   

 

Spiritual truth is a subset of all truth, and pertains to the realm of spirits and the divine.

 

The utility of the Church does matter because essentially the intent and purpose of the Church/gospel is utilitarian. Since the purpose of the Church is to bring us to Christ and enable us to become like him, then the verity of the Church/gospel and its truth claims essentially rest on whether it does what it claims and is designed to do. The Church/gospel is a vehicle of sorts, the means to an end, and so logically it should be viewed as such and tested in that regard--i.e. whether it is a viable means to the end. Think of it as analogous to the intents and purposes and truth claims of the Toyota 4-Runner. If you wish to know if the 4-Runner, and the truth claims associated therewith, is "true", one does so by putting it to the test in driving it and see if it does what it is designed to do.

 

I believe that Catholicism and Judaism do work pretty much as intended, just as Dodge pickups and Chevy vans work pretty much as as they are  intended.

 

However, Catholicism and Judaism are not exactly designed for, nor work as well towards ultimately achieving the intents and purposes of the LDS Church/gospel, just as the Dodge pickup and Chevy Vans are not exactly designed for or work as well in achieving the specific intents and purposes of the 4-Runner.

 

Logically, because all paradigms, secular as well as religious, are encapsulated, there are no "truth" tests that aren't to some extent circular. The reasonable objective then is to minimize the impact of circularity. This is often accomplished by way of multiple tests that analyze things in different ways and from from different angles. This is why I tend to include Alma 32 in conjunction with Moroni 10. By all rights, Moroni 10 may be considered as a preliminary test, or the seed of faith to be planted and ultimately tested by Alma 32 (as explained above). So, whatever remote circularity may exist with Moroni 10, it is compensated for and rendered moot via Alma 32.

 

The reason that the arm of flesh is less trustworthy than the divine in matters of the divine, beyond the obvious omniscient verses relative ignorance distinction between God and man, is for the same reason that,a medical doctor is more trustworthy than a shoe salesman in matters of medicine. It makes sense to put our trust in that which has the far superior knowledge and wisdom and is in a rightful and authoritative position to say.

 

There aren't different Gods, just different perspectives and beliefs about God. The place to start, as indicated above, is by opening yourself up humbly to him in prayer and study and obedience and allow him to reveal himself more and more to you in time--primarily by making change in you towards Christ. We come to better know God by becoming more like him.

 

Now, even though I have answered your questions contrary to your expectation, I respect that you don't and may not yet believe in Mormonism as the only true church or otherwise (it is the only true Church for what it is ultimately designed). I would suggest that this is, in part, because you don't correctly get what the Church/gospel is really about. Your naive questions inadvertently betray the fact that you haven't much of a clue--in large part because you have mistakenly relied on your own woefully inadequate arm of flesh rather than rightly trusting in the source of far more superior knowledge and wisdom and authority. That is your choice.

 

Just know that you can chose otherwise to your mortal and eternal advantage.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 16, 2014 by wenglund

[sdc999]

You obviously tried very hard to misinterpret what I wrote.  I did not say I did not believe in the Church and the gospel it teaches.   The question was a what if question and I responded to the what if scenario.  Does that subtle distinction escape you?

No, you subtle distinction did not escape me but if you go back and read, I did not say you did not believe.  What I said is your belief doesn't matter.   It's like a math problem.  What is accoutable to one side should be accountable to the other.  So, if it doesn't matter if it is false, it really shouldn't matter if it is true - just so long as it affords you a good life.    Now, I know you do believe as I have read your posts.   

So, if someone attributes your comments to their own life - they being non-believers and non-churchgoers, but yet they are good people, raised great upstanding kids, donate their time and money to worthy causes, have great moral character - does it then matter or no?

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I'm being a bit snarky here, but it seems like every single person who left the church and feels strongly about it to make a Youtube video or something similar was an RM, married in the temple, parent of four or more kids, and if not a bishop or RS prez, at least a HP group leader.

This leaves me with one of two conclusions: If you leave after having been immersed in the church for most or all of your life, you feel a greater need to justify it publicly (they would say they are trying to warn people), either that or some of them are lying. Saying I left after being inactive for ten years because my girlfriend wouldn't live with me if I was still a Mormon doesn't pack the punch of saying I resigned my bishopric and my membership on the same day. 

 

 

The snark is obvious and the opinion misguided. There is a serious problem in the church. Wonderful, strong people are leaving. These people are bishops and high counselors, RSPresidents, etc. Might there be some liars in there? Sure. But if you write off the phenomenon as anti-mormon lies you are burying your head in the sand. There is a serious problem and it should be recognized, not minimized.

 

The queston isn't HOW people leave but Why are they leaving? There are legitimate reasons.

[JLHPROF]

The snark is obvious and the opinion misguided. There is a serious problem in the church. Wonderful, strong people are leaving. These people are bishops and high counselors, RSPresidents, etc. Might there be some liars in there? Sure. But if you write off the phenomenon as anti-mormon lies you are burying your head in the sand. There is a serious problem and it should be recognized, not minimized.

 

The queston isn't HOW people leave but Why are they leaving? There are legitimate reasons.

 

There is no legitimate reason to walk away from what is true.  There are legitimate things causing people to doubt truth, discard truth, disagree with truth, misunderstand truth, or to simply believe a lie.

 

A better job of helping people through their faith crises is what is needed.  Actually working through the doubts, anger, or whatever has arisen instead of just preaching "have more faith".  Some leaders do a very good job of this and have doubtless helped many regain or strengthen their testimony.  Others let peoples doubts fester unattended.

[wenglund]

The snark is obvious and the opinion misguided. There is a serious problem in the church. Wonderful, strong people are leaving. These people are bishops and high counselors, RSPresidents, etc. Might there be some liars in there? Sure. But if you write off the phenomenon as anti-mormon lies you are burying your head in the sand. There is a serious problem and it should be recognized, not minimized.

 

The queston isn't HOW people leave but Why are they leaving? There are legitimate reasons.

 

Good people are leaving the Church. But good people are also remaining in strong faith. Since the Church is relatively the same and hasn't changed for both, then logically the cause for some good people leaving, legitimately or otherwise, rests in the difference between the sets of good people and not so much with the Church. As such, it would make sense to address the serious problem within the differences between the two sets. In other words, if good people are eventually failing the tests of faith, they would be wise to look for guidance and role-modeling from those continually passing the test  

 

Makes sense?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 16, 2014 by wenglund

[HappyJackWagon]

 

There is no legitimate reason to walk away from what is true.  There are legitimate things causing people to doubt truth, discard truth, disagree with truth, misunderstand truth, or to simply believe a lie.

 

Or it could be that people are finding additional truth. Is the church perfect? Or in other words, is the church 100% true? or are there some untruths mingled in? I ask because it's possible for the church to be both true and untrue on different levels. Whether it be in understanding church history which is a trove of uncomfortable truths, or the the evolution of doctrine which can also be uncomfortable truth, the truth within the church is not always absolute. There is truth outside the church as well. So claiming something is true is problematic becuase it equivalent to saying it is perfect. Otherwise it's merely a choice between different levels of truth.

 

 

Good people are leaving the Church. But good people are also remaining in strong faith. Since the Church is relatively the same and hasn't changed for both, then logically the cause for some good people leaving, legitimately or otherwise, rests in the difference between the sets of good people and not so much with the Church.

 

Many people leave because they learn more truth about the church than they have ever learned at church. Some argue that the church is experiencing a "truth crisis" which is causing many to experience a "faith crisis". Many people who leave are very curious. They are seeking information. They are learning and their faith grows in some ways and diminishes in others. On the other hand some simply are content to do nothing but show up for church on Sunday. They aren't studying. They aren't seeking information. They are stagnant because they are ignorant, sometimes by choice. I'm not suggesting that everyone who is faithful in the church is unaware of difficult issues but I do suggest that the majority are NOT aware. They haven't been spoon fed. Many don't even know or care about the lds.org essays. They are happy in their ignorance and are static in their understanding and faith.

 

Good people are leaving because the church no longer controls the information.

[ERayR]

Good people are leaving because the church no longer controls the information.

 

The Church never did control the information.  Publishing and disseminating anti-Mormon literature has, from the first, a lucrative industry.

[HappyJackWagon]

The Church never did control the information.  Publishing and disseminating anti-Mormon literature has, from the first, a lucrative industry.

Yes, but the average member today has access to mountains of information independent from the church which is different than in the past. It used to be that members could either accept the church info or the anti-mormon info. They could seek out the anti-mormon info in magazines, books, newspapers etc but now there is more.

 

Information that used to be derided as anti-mormon is now accepted in books recognized by the church for accuracy like Rough Stone Rolling. We have the Joseph Smith Papers. That wasn't available before. We have loads of new info that is neither "official church" info or "anti-mormon".

[HappyJackWagon]

The church continues to TRY to control the info by dissuading people from searching the internet and using only approved sources to answer their "legitimate" questions. The correlated info taught in church used to be the main source of info for church members. That's not the case today, at least for those who are curious and seeking to grow in knowledge and understanding.

[JLHPROF]

Or it could be that people are finding additional truth. Is the church perfect? Or in other words, is the church 100% true? or are there some untruths mingled in? I ask because it's possible for the church to be both true and untrue on different levels. Whether it be in understanding church history which is a trove of uncomfortable truths, or the the evolution of doctrine which can also be uncomfortable truth, the truth within the church is not always absolute. There is truth outside the church as well. So claiming something is true is problematic becuase it equivalent to saying it is perfect. Otherwise it's merely a choice between different levels of truth.

 

You only addressed the first half of my post.  I addressed this in the second half where I said that we as a Church need to do a better job helping people come to terms with "additional truths" and things they find outside of official Church publications.

I also mostly agree that the Church is not 100% true in its doctrine, but is 100% true in its divine origin.

We need to help people become comfortable with the "uncomfortable truths".  We need to provide context before anti-Mormons can take things out of context. 

 

I almost agreed with you.  Claiming something is true in the case of the Church refers to its origin and claims to be God's Church.  That in no way makes it perfect.

[ERayR]

Yes, but the average member today has access to mountains of information independent from the church which is different than in the past. It used to be that members could either accept the church info or the anti-mormon info. They could seek out the anti-mormon info in magazines, books, newspapers etc but now there is more.

 

Information that used to be derided as anti-mormon is now accepted in books recognized by the church for accuracy like Rough Stone Rolling. We have the Joseph Smith Papers. That wasn't available before. We have loads of new info that is neither "official church" info or "anti-mormon".

 

There is certainly an increase in volume but it is generally endless reiterations of the same old "stuff".

 

We certainly have increased access to some material but some of us had family and friends who taught us most of what you call new material.  The only difference is that the web has increased the volume of the strident cacophony from the critics and antis.   It hasn't improved the validity but has only increased the volume.

[HappyJackWagon]

There is certainly an increase in volume but it is generally endless reiterations of the same old "stuff".

 

We certainly have increased access to some material but some of us had family and friends who taught us most of what you call new material.  The only difference is that the web has increased the volume of the strident cacophony from the critics and antis.   It hasn't improved the validity but has only increased the volume.

 

I agree that this isn't really "new" stuff but it is new to most/many people. It sounds like you were fortunate to have some of these things taught to you young. Many are not that fortunate so when they see detailed evidence that JS had 30+ wives, some of whom were married to other many or were young 14 year old girls, it is shocking. This information isn't anti-mormon. It is just reality even though it used to be characterized as anti.

 

Growing up in a very orthodox, literal family who decried JS polygamy as anti material it creates a problem for people when the sources of material are suddenly validated and the information is accepted. I now have to reconcile that I have been misled, either honestly or dishonestly in this and many other issues.

 

Within the last year, the one piece of material I've heard people refer to most frequently that has damaged their testimony is...wait for it... the LDS.org essay, Race and the Priesthood. This is hardly anti mormon caucophony. The church acceptance of many historical facts it previously refuted and their treatment of issues like the Book of Abraham faccimilies as material that is "repackaged" as an inspired text, causes people to look at these things afresh. This time, instead of writing them off as part of the anti-mormon deluge of info on the internet, they now look at it with a critical eye. When people view these things critically (which is to say, honestly, without preconceived bias) then it often creates problems.

[Boanerges]

Within the last year, the one piece of material I've heard people refer to most frequently that has damaged their testimony is...wait for it... the LDS.org essay, Race and the Priesthood. This is hardly anti mormon caucophony. The church acceptance of many historical facts it previously refuted and their treatment of issues like the Book of Abraham faccimilies as material that is "repackaged" as an inspired text, causes people to look at these things afresh. This time, instead of writing them off as part of the anti-mormon deluge of info on the internet, they now look at it with a critical eye. When people view these things critically (which is to say, honestly, without preconceived bias) then it often creates problems.

 

Yep, I agree. For some reason that one, not JS translating the plates without even having them present and while looking at a stone in a hat and not JS's polyandry and polygamy, seems to have had the most negative impact.

[JLHPROF]

I agree that this isn't really "new" stuff but it is new to most/many people. It sounds like you were fortunate to have some of these things taught to you young. Many are not that fortunate so when they see detailed evidence that JS had 30+ wives, some of whom were married to other many or were young 14 year old girls, it is shocking. This information isn't anti-mormon. It is just reality even though it used to be characterized as anti.

 

I don't doubt it is shocking, but it's there if you studied a bit.  I've know for decades, many here for many years longer.  It is also only shocking if 1. you are stuck in a modern viewpoint instead of looking at the period OR 2. you are unable to connect the history to the doctrinal teachings from God that led to the events.  I try not to do the first and I have been largely successful (to my mind) at achieving peace through the second.

 

 

Growing up in a very orthodox, literal family who decried JS polygamy as anti material it creates a problem for people when the sources of material are suddenly validated and the information is accepted. I now have to reconcile that I have been misled, either honestly or dishonestly in this and many other issues.

 

This is the real threat the Church faces.  The claim that "I was misled" and I think it has led to the Church being more open and discussing things it used to not emphasize.  But I think that to claim deception is just not completely fair.  I still think the onus of study is on the member, not on the Church to teach every controversial topic.  But I do agree there needs to be a better system in place for handling controversies when they appear.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I still think the onus of study is on the member, not on the Church to teach every controversial topic.  But I do agree there needs to be a better system in place for handling controversies when they appear.

 

 

I agree. The problem is, if the onus is on the individual but the individual is discouraged by the church from looking at information that may be damaging to their testimony or is "anti-mormon" then the individual is faced with the choice of not following the church and studying things that could be "dangerous" or they just accept it as anti-mormon. Eventually many will come to the point that study is necessary and it is at that point that the disillusionment and feelings of betrayal come in.

 

It's kind of like if the church is a cop standing near an accident scene saying "Move along, there's nothing to see here" in reference to the hard issues within the church. We dutifully move along but then one day we realize, oh, there was something to see there afterall.