Can Mormons leave for legitimate reasons?

[King Folly]

Nice post, Kevin.

--KY

[Tchild2]

The good Dr. wrote:

Having said all of this, I add for the record that my experience with friends, relatives, and acquaintances who have left the Church has been very similar to Beowulf's. I'm not sure if I know of a single case of purely intellectual apostasy.

Part of the process of questioning the church for some people, is a reassessment of the nature of truth, God...even reality itself. If a person no longer views God as some anthropomorphic being that blesses or curses anyone, or even a God that exists judging events in a dualistic fashion (good vs bad) then that person takes on a different perspective of even the nature of sin and what it might be or not be. Consequences exist, but to attribute our failure to follow any natural or spiritual law and the actions that follow to some God, need not be. Likewise, our "sins" do not separate us from God, only insomuch that we believe they do.

Perhaps, to remaining believers as they look out at those who have left and perceive actions that were once contrary to the former member's belief system, they (current members) believe that part of the motivation or impetus of leaving the church may be due to a desire to live a lifestyle not in accord with that former LDS belief system.

In fact, in many cases, this abandonment of certain lifestyle choices is due to new beliefs about the nature of reality and are NO longer viewed as something called, "sin". A good example of this are the WoW edicts once followed by the ex-member. Another good example are normal and healthy sexual relations performed in loving relationships that fall outside of the traditional avenue of formal marriage.

I can only share my perspective, but when I questioned my whole world view, my Mormon cosmology and its objective and absolute truths of right and wrong no longer seemed to represent the nature of truth as I viewed it. I still maintain that one cannot escape the consequences, karma or "as ye sow so shall ye reap" effects that follow ALL of our actions, but one no longer need attribute those consequences to a punishing or "vengeful" God. The nature of what the world calls "karma", becomes the perfect justice for all humankind equally, and God gets to stay out of equation.

[Lissa]

Once at a door on my mission, a woman admitted to not believing in God. I asked why. "Well, I prayed for (something pretty shallow, I can't even remember what. A new car or something) and I never got it. So, there can't be a God."

Dillfest, I just had to respond! I used to be athiest and when I was young (real young!) I piled some crayons on the floor and told God that if he was really there, to light the crayons on fire to prove it to me. Then I would believe in Him! Made perfect sense to me at the time, but looking back on it (and to the few I admitted the experience to) it just doesn't quite work, does it?

And yet, we could expand as an analogy to go with the discussion (do I really want to step in here? ). Based on my knowledge at the time of who God was and what He could do (all powerful, right? Wants me to believe in him, right?), it made perfect sense. He didn't respond so He must not exist (either that or He's chicken Brawk! Brawk!). Does that really mean He doesn't? Or was I perhaps not spiritually in tune enough (being a young tyke), not possessing the openness to the idea that just cuz I think God is one way doesn't make Him that way, or perhaps simply just too lazy to look further to see if the grounds for my "test" were proper grounds.

I have personally come to the conclusion that there's a convincing argument to every side. I am continually at a loss as to what is truly "true" in this crazy world of ours. I do know now that there is a God who cares for me, and will answer my prayers - if I ask the right question, just like any good parent. Only He knows the real truth and can reveal it to me (or His prophet, etc). Anything else is subject to re-evaluation. Or is the earth still flat?

[King Folly]

Perhaps, to remaining believers as they look out at those who have left and perceive actions that were once contrary to the former member's belief system, they (current members) believe that part of the motivation or impetus of leaving the church may be due to a desire to live a lifestyle not in accord with that former LDS belief system.

As a case in point, someone who no longer believes the Mormon church to be uniquely true might not see a need to continue paying tithing or wearing the garment even while remaining a member. Close family members might falsely presume that the reason the person claims to no longer believe is because he no longer wants to make the sacrifice of wearing garments or paying tithing. Trust me, it could happen

--KY

[Katzpur]

Dr. Peterson,

First let me say that I am a great admirer of yours. I've heard you speak at Education Week, loved Offenders for a Word, and generally hang on just about every word you say.

It's for this reason that I was really bothered by your statement:

And, from my perspective, "closet doubters" merely constitute a specialized subset of those who have effectively "left the Church."

You see, I am somewhat of a closet doubter myself, having been raised in an active LDS home but by parents who taught me to question and not just accept everything I was taught. From the time I was a little kid, hearing my friends stand up and bear their testimonies and saying, "I know the Church is true...", I couldn't help but think, "No you don't. You're ten years old and all you know is what your parents have told you is true." Now at age 56, I believe the Church is true, but I still don't know. Not the way a lot of people do. But I do want to know, and I don't feel as if my doubts make me one who has "effectively left the Church." I have no intention of leaving the Church.

Maybe I misunderstood your statement. I would just appreciate a clarification of what you meant, because to me that attitude is pretty judgemental. Coming from a person I respect so much, it was particularly troublesome.

Regards,

Kathryn

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm not sure I'm following you Dan. Are you saying, for example, that if group A is unconvinced by the evidence, as is group B, that this means group B's conclusion is not "intellectual," or, as Beowulf succinctly put it, "based on knowledge"? I'm having a hard time finding any definition of the term "intellectual" that would support this line of thought. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your position again.

I'm not sure that I follow your question.

Here's what I'm saying. If Information X is possessed in common both by those holding Position A and those holding Position Not-A, Information X cannot plausibly be identified as the sole and sufficient explanation for why the first group holds Position A instead of Position Not-A, or vice versa. There must be something else that accounts for the difference.

Why, when confronted, say, with evidence regarding horses in the Book of Mormon and pre-Columbian America, does one group of reasonably intelligent and sane people reject the Book of Mormon while another group, possessed of similar intelligence and likewise sane, does not reject the Book of Mormon? Why do the two groups weigh and weight evidence differently? It is, I think, ridiculous and counterintuitive to suggest that factors such as personal history, background, experiences, hopes, precommitments, habits of thought, unique psychological qualities, etc., etc. -- yes, and including but not limited to spiritual experiences (or a lack thereof) -- play no role in such matters. On both sides.

I've said, and I'll say it again, that I do not believe that any human who lives today or who has ever lived is a purely rational propositional-calculus computer.

In the case of group A (LDS who remain faithful), a bedrock LDS principle must be acknowledged. Mainly, that we do so for other reasons (such as spiritual); none of which are in any sense classified as "intellectual." Therefore, it seems rather disingenuous for us to deny an ex-Mormon "intellectual" claims when in fact we are the ones who are basing a belief on factors other than purely factual "knowledge" (i.e. spiritual, emotional, etc.).  As for why both parties do not come to the same conclusion, one could just as easily argue that the LDS faithful have too much to lose, therefore they don't believe it because they don't want to. We do like these types of ESP drawn conclusions anymore than ex-Mormons do.

I do not believe that those who leave the Church are any more purely rational than are those who remain. At the very beginning of this thread, I wrote that

our perceptions are always colored by our own individual personal history, character, knowledge, ignorance, desires, mental and emotional health, ambitions, etc. So no decision to accept the gospel or to reject it is likely to be purely rational, uncolored by "personal" factors.

You fundamentally misunderstand me if you think that I'm arguing that all who leave the Church are irrational, while those who do not are purely rational. I'm not sure that I'm capable of denying that any more clearly than I already have.

Before we assume ex-Mormons are the ones with non-intellectual baggage that taints their perspective,

An assumption that I do not make -- not, at least, in the sense that I think "non-intellectual baggage" is unique to ex-Mormons. It is, I say again, the universal and inescapable condition of all human minds.

we should consider the fact that if the BoA were put on trial, it would be dismissed without incident.

I don't agree.

[BCSpace]

One close friend told me that I would leave the church, just like he did, as soon as Bro. Benson became President. Why? Because Bro. Benson was too conservative for the both of us. (This was true, btw) I patiently explained to him that when Bro. Benson became President, he would not say anything that would offend me. (And he did not)

But what about my friend? He had been dabbling in drugs since he was 15, was woefully depressed for years, never married, grew bitter, etc. etc. And yet his withdrawal from the Church was intellectually based?

Or how about my brother-in-law, who taunted my sister for believing in the silly BofAbr, as he drifted away from the church. After their (inevitable) divorce, he was later jailed for child pornography, and last I heard took his son (my nephew) to a rally in Washington DC in favor of legalizing marijuana. Is his withdrawal intellectual?

I still have never seen anyone, who once was a 'TBM', leave the Church for 'intellectual' reasons. On the surface it may seem that way at first, but it always comes down to using 'intellectualism' to find justifications for sin instead.

It does not always involve some grievious sexual sin. It could be as small as keeping the Sabbath Day holy etc. and then all of a sudden they stop comming to Church at all because they've been away long enough to cool and then they begin to find 'doctrinal' reasons (that they can't prove if put to the test) why they should stay away.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dear Kathryn:

I apologize if you felt that I was being judgmental, and particularly if you thought my comment had even the slightest connection with people like you.

I could have been clearer. By the phrase "closet doubter," I had in mind the phenomenon described in a very specific book with that phrase in its title, written quite a number of years ago by D. Jeff Burton. His "closet doubters" were, as I recall the book, not merely people with doubts -- I presume that every member of the Church, even the most faithful, has experienced some sort of doubt at one point or another or from time to time -- but covert disbelievers, who remained active because they liked the Mormon lifestyle or didn't want to upset family members or jeopardize a marriage, or who feared losing social position or employment, or some such thing, but who frankly reject the Church's truth claims and may not even like the Church much. (There are several such people on the so-called "Recovery" board, who regularly report mockingly on their most recent visit to the temple, post cynical notes about ward council meetings, or describe their efforts, while serving on a high council, to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of young missionaries.) Such people I do indeed regard as having effectively left the Church, even if they remain outwardly active in it. (I will not share my opinion of their character and their actions.)

I did not have in mind people who sincerely attempt to live the gospel even if they do not have, or think that they do not have, rock solid testimonies.

[Tchild2]

I still have never seen anyone, who once was a 'TBM', leave the Church for 'intellectual' reasons. On the surface it may seem that way at first, but it always comes down to using 'intellectualism' to find justifications for sin instead.

That is a perception only and is not a reality for many who leave. It is the great fallacy of current members and how they assess former members who leave. It simply is not true. People who honestly seek truth in their lives do so for the sake of truth itself...not as some justification to "sin".

It is the nature of what one deems as "sin" that may change, but that to current members appears as willful sin. If you reach a point in self realization (as an example) where you do not view the drinking of coffee or alcohol in moderation as a sin, then is it? Perhaps it is to you, but then again, another might view certain of your actions (or lack of) to also be a sin according to their standards of right or wrong.

It isn't always that former members change to accomodate a lifestyle they wish to live, it is that the paradigm shift former members undergo in reassessing their world, changes their perspective as to how they viewed the nature of what was once believed to be "sin".

Just because you or anybody calls something a sin in God's eyes, doesn't make it so.

[vistamod]

I find it an extreme position that everyone who leaves does so because of a sin, or lack of effort or desire to attempt to keep all the commandments. In fact I find that a degrading stereotype. I also find the extreme position that people join the LDS church or stay because they are weak, ignorant, afraid of living in the real world etc. equally degrading.

I find the LDS church to be an interesting and at times difficult beast. It means something different to all of us, simply based on the particular filters that we have and see the world through. I find that we get in trouble when we try to compare our individual journey to anothers individual journey, as if there were some standard.

Each of us are in a process of progression. That progression exists in so many areas of our lives. We progress in our understanding of God, we progress in our relationship with God, we progress in the multitude of earthly temptations which we all face. We progress in obtaining humility, we progress in overcoming pride, we progress in overcoming physical lusts, appetites, greed possesions, etc. No two people have the same combinations or exist at the exact same point, yet we act like they do.

One may be a active, faithful member that steals, or is addicted to pornography, and those are simply obstacles in their progression, rather than an indicator of their spiritual nature. The same things apply to those who have many problems with the church, whether they are intellectual, spiritual, or "moral". We can ALWAYS find sin amongst those who have left the church, that doesn't make it the cause or reason. We certainly do not apply the same concept to those who are active and commit the same "sin". In that case we make the "weakness" allownace, and do not take it as a sign that the body of the church is corrupt.

People are at different places and at times in ones life the church may not do it for people. At certain times in ones life the intellectual problems of the gospel may be insurmountable and may require a path change. Who knows.

I would love it if we could do our best to respect the path of others as part of their progression. I will give alot of credit to this board. For the most part very confrontational topics are discussed, and for the most part in a civil manner. This board should be given credit for even allowing some of the dissenting topics that are here.

Personally I am not active in the church, but I try to respect those who are. I learn alot on this board and really do appreciate the amount of civility that exists due to the potential volatile nature of almost every thread.

[King Folly]

I still have never seen anyone, who once was a 'TBM', leave the Church for 'intellectual' reasons.

[Ray Agostini]

I still have never seen anyone, who once was a 'TBM', leave the Church for 'intellectual' reasons.  On the surface it may seem that way at first, but it always comes down to using 'intellectualism' to find justifications for sin instead.

Ok then. Let's say for sake of argument that I concede that it's possible for a rational person to believe the claims of Mormonism I still haven't actually met anyone like that. Everyone I know who believes the church is true does so because they are deluded, deceived, or want it to be true more than they want to know the truth. Everyone I know--indeed everyone on this forum--who claims to have received a spiritual witness that the church is true is kidding him- or herself.

How does that sound?

--KY

It doesn't sound very convincing, because what is being argued is that peole do not leave the church only for intellectual reasons. Likewise, people do not join the church only for spiritual reasons. In my time in the church, and particularly as a missionary, I have never once seen a person join the church only for spiritual reasons, ie, that they received a spiritual witness. Indeed, I know people who received a spiritual witness but still did not join. Not only that, the church has mandated that no one shall join until they have been taught and understand the gospel. That's a rational process, added to the spiritual witness.

When Loren Dunn tried his 24 hour baptsisms in Sydney in the late 70s and early 80s the First Presidency put a stop to that.

So what exactly are you arguing? It doesn't show or expose any lack of logic in the claim that peole do not leave for intellectual reasons only.

[King Folly]

So what exactly are you arguing? It doesn't show or expose any lack of logic in the claim that peole do not leave for intellectual reasons only.

BCSpace offered his opinion that "it always comes down to using 'intellectualism' to find justifications for sin instead". To me, that's the same (i.e. equally as ridiculous and offensive) as saying that when anyone claims a 'spiritual witness' as the reason for believing it is instead a justification of delusion or psychological weakness.

--KY

[Kevin W. Graham]

== It doesn't sound very convincing, because what is being argued is that peole do not leave the church only for intellectual reasons. Likewise, people do not join the church only for spiritual reasons.

If someone joins the Church for purely intellectual reasons, then they can also leave the Church for intellectual reasons. Sadly as it may seem, there are a great many who do not join the Church for spiritual reasons at all. There is an intellectual appeal to many LDS claims and doctrines, and some people join the Church on this basis alone. I know, I've met them.

Therefore, if these same people end up leaving the faith, it can only be due to intellectual reasons which served as a foundation for their testimony to begin with.

Much of this is our fault, to be honest. Though our missionaries are always told to ask the investigator to pray and get that "spiritual witness", they also spend a great deal of time making an "intellectual" case for the Church (i.e. explaining how obvious the apostasy is, therefore there must be a restoration with apostles and prophets if God is loving, etc.).

[noel00]

As a young man I saw the missionaries bring in the LDS church many girls, who after their favourite missionary left, would fall into inactivity. If I ever had some substantial plausible evidence and spiritual witness i would make the long path back .

[wenglund]

What you said I do not disagree with (except the part where you said I was ever-so humble). I have no doubt, as I have indicated elsewhere, that many people leave the Church for reasons other than intellectual. I'd venture to say the vast majority do not. So merely sharing more experiences of people who fit Beowulf's description is just stacking the deck without dealing with fallacious argument he presented. Which argument would that be? The one that says each and every ex-Mormon on the planet fits this description, and if they say otherwise, they're lying.

Kevin,

I think you may be mistakenly imposing fundamentalistic interpretations onto Beowulf's comments. I could be wrong, but I don't believe he is speaking in "either/or" terms (either you leave the Church for purely intellectual reasons, or you only leave for reasons other than intellectual, with the latter being his position). As I understand him, or at least as I believe myself, while intellectual reasons may well be a factor in many people vacating their faith in the restored gospel of Christ, it can't, by the very spiritual and faith-based nature of things, be the only reason. If one is using only their intellect in deciding about spiritual and faith-based matters, then they are doing so at the expense of the spirit and faith. Hense, in such cases, a contributing factor for vacating their faith is also the lack of spiritualizing and faith.

Does that make sense?

== Otherwise, I will leave you, undesterbed by me, to lecture the straw man of your own making.

There is no straw man involved here. I admit that you and Dan have not explicitly supported Beowulf's argument with unambiguous endorsement, but your silence on the matter is what led me to believe you implicitly support it.

That is fallacious thinking on your part (the fallacy of arguing from silence).

== P.S. not that it may matter to you, but I share Dr. Peterson's curiosity about what may be driving your over-the-top behavior towards fellow saints on this and other threads.

Ever since I was banned from the FAIR e-list (for sharing concerns about gossip), I haven't had access to a forum where I'm comfortable speaking of such things.

I suspected that there was some action taken against you somewhere that I wasn't privy to, which precipitated your seemingly vengeful behavior of late on this board.

Sadly, at least from my pespective, your aversive reaction here to that action elsewhere, has done nothing to rectify matters, but has reflected poorly on YOU and perhaps even steeled people's resolve in the actions they may have taken against you. In other words, as a friend who care deeply about you, it is important for you to know that YOU are merely making things worse for YOURSELF. Using the same arrogance, dismissiveness, and disrespect towards your fellow foot-soldiers and leaders that you are infamous for against the enemy, will not win you friends on either side, but only alienate you everywhere. That is unhealthy.

And, as much as I love and respect you, I am not one to broach your disrespect towards other people that I love and respect, or towards other people in general.

Anyway, this is a bit off topic, so for my part I will leave off there.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ray Agostini]

As a young man I saw the missionaries bring in the LDS church many girls, who after their favourite missionary left, would fall into inactivity. If I ever had some substantial plausible evidence and spiritual witness i would make the long path back .

There is a term we had for that in the mission field: "Elderised converts."

[Katzpur]

Dr. Peterson,

Thanks for the clarification. I'm relieved to hear that I misunderstood your initial comment. Jeff Burton may possibly have written two books on the subject; I'm really not sure. The one I have does not have the phrase "closet doubter" in the title at all. It's called For Those Who Wonder. However, I suspect we're referring to the same book after all.

I personally did not come away with quite the same understanding of the phrase as you apparently did, but found the book to be an encouraging reminder that I was not alone in my doubts. I think of "closet doubters" as individuals who, like myself, have trouble accepting all of the Church's doctrines or who are bothered by some of its history, but who, nonetheless, remain active for any one of a number of reasons (some of which are obviously better than others).

When it comes to people like those you have described who frequent the "Recovery" board, I have no use for them. The phrase "recovery" itself is, in my opinion, extremely derogatory. "Recovery" from what? Obviously, the answer is an insult to all active members of the Church.

It's difficult for me to hear people say that they know "beyond the shadow of a doubt" that the Church is true. It makes me wonder why they know and I don't. Sometimes it makes me wonder if they really do, or if they have just been saying they do for so many years that the words have simply become second nature. When a person claims to "know" at age five or six, I can't help but consider the possibility that by the time he's my age, he's never really given the matter any serious thought at all. While these people don't do the Church any real harm, I don't personally have much respect for them, either.

You know, I fantasize (for lack of a better word) about the day I can stand up in Testimony Meeting and say, "I know the Church is true!" -- and really mean it. I still have confidence that someday that's going to be the case. Until then, rather than looking for reasons to disbelieve, I look for reasons to believe, and just try to be patient. Finally, I find a degree of comfort in D&C 46:13-14:

To some it is given to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. To others it is given to believe on their words, tht they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

Regards,

Kathryn

[Ray Agostini]

Kevin, you wrote:

RAY: == But we must distinguish between fact and perception.

What has this to do with the fact that people can leave the Church for intellectual reasons?

I've explained that in my replies to Joy. See them.

== To leave the church "for intellectual reasons" is a mighty big supposition

How is that? I gave a simple example with the horses. How is that not based on knowledge?

Because if you read the literature on horses more closely you'll see that several experts who hold unconventional views believe that this judgement, that the horse could not have existed in ancient America, is possibly wrong and definitely not proved. So if you walk away from the church on that ground you're doing so based on a "perception", not a fact. The fact is that nothing at all has been "proved" regarding the horse in ancient America.

== it supposes that ALL the answers are known and that the person is justifiably leaving on concrete, solid grounds of fraud and deception.

It does no such thing. One doesn't need to believe "ALL the answers are known" in order to leave due to "knowledge." Where do you come up with this stuff?

Largely from very admirable and objective thinkers/writers like Robert Anton Wilson. See his book The New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science.

For instance, faithful LDS might feel inclined to hold out for future evidence, and in the meantime rely on the "its still plausible" rationale. That's fine. But others may not. This does not discount the fact that a person leaving the LDS faith because horses have been proven not to have existed in the Ancient Americas, are doing so based on "knowledge." Whether you agree with that knoweldge is irrelevant. Nobody has any business recreating reality by saying it isn't because of knowledge, and Beowulf's excuse via psychoanalysis of thousands of people, based on limited experiences of a few friends, is a pretty outrageous "supposition" in itself.

It's not knowledge, it's supposition. Go back and read what you wrote. The "knowledge" you are referring to is temporary, fallible knowledge, and as I said disputed by many scholars, and because their views are unconventional does not mean they are wrong. Cyrus Gordon, for example, a notable and famous scholar, held the very unorthodox view that Hebrews may well have been in America, and he used the kind of evidence that FARMS does to support his view, Hebrew inscriptions, etc.

== This is actually quite laughable, because no one has this final absolute knowledge.

You're not making any sense. If one cannot leave the Church with knowledge, then one cannot remain in the Church with knowledge. You can't have it both ways. To throw your hands up and say anything is plausible since we don't really "know everything," appears to be nothing more than a cop-out; and an anti-intellectual one at that. But at least apply the standard evenly.

I know it sounds like a cop out, but my continuing to believe the BoM is not based only on a spiritual witness, but on practical knowledge. When I read the BoM I don't, logically, believe that any man could have written it, and I apply standards of comparative study here. There's simply nothing that compares with it when you really examine the facts in detail, which includes how, when, where it was produced. The "scholarship" which vouches otherwise, IMO, is very shoddy and speculative and partial. But that's not to deny that when I read it I also go into deep spiritual thought and have feelings I don't have when reading any other book, except ther Bible at times. But if it were not for the power of practical knowledge I would admit I could be deceived in my feelings, just like Jones or Heaven's Gate. But I've studied this book for 30 years and can honestly say from a practical viewpoint that I find it also intellectually unsurpassed. But because of my intellectual leaning I'm also open to any provable theory which estabished fraud. So far I have found none plausible, and the ones that have been put forward are so weak as to increase my convictions about the divine authenticity of the book.

You had more comments Kevin, but I have to stop here for now. Very busy man in the process of moving house.

[Mighty Curelom]

The question is not "can a believer leave the church for purely intellectual reasons?"; the question at the beginning of this thread was "can a believer leave the church for legitimate reasons?"

Legitimate--Based on logical reasoning; reasonable

A legitimate reason could include both intellectual and spiritual witness. It could include psychological reasons; it could include cultural reasons. An african american who leaves the church because of perceived historical racism is leaving for intellectual, cultural, and psychological reasons. It is logical and reasonable to believe that God's church would not exhibit this behavior, therefore his apostacy is entirely legitimate.

Another example- Let's say a person prays and receieves an answer that Mormonism is false and that they should convert to orthodox christianity. This isn't an intellectual reason for defection, but it's certainly a legitimate one. Unless you want to argue that spiritual witness isn't a valid reason to believe something, but I don't think you want to go there.

Even the person who leaves the organization because of the 20 problems I listed at the start of this thread is behaving in a reasonable, logical manner. Millions of people who are exposed to Mormonism through missionaries or neighbors reject it for one reason or another. Are those millions of people unreasonable? Are they acting in an illogical manner by dismissing Mormonism? Does every person who rejects Mormonism do so out of a willingness to sin? If never-mos can reject mormonism without being accused of arrogance or sin, why can't exmos?

[Kevin W. Graham]

Hi Wade,

== I think you may be mistakenly imposing fundamentalistic interpretations onto Beowulf's comments. I could be wrong, but I don't believe he is speaking in "either/or" terms (either you leave the Church for purely intellectual reasons, or you only leave for reasons other than intellectual, with the latter being his position).

I thought he made himself pretty clear when he said, "When they [ex-Mormons] do leave, there is always a personal reason, despite what they say...It is not 'knowledge' in whatever form that turns a person away from the Church. The person has some personal demons, or anguish, or whatever..."This seems clear to me that he did in fact say "knowledge" was never the reason, or ever part of the reason. I gave him ample opportunity to clarify or correct what he wrote, but he has maintained this poistion ever since. While you and Dan have argued for a mixture of both "knowledge" and "personal" reasons, Beowulf clearly said knowledge never plays a factor. This is an insult to the masses. If one said such a thing about a particular race, it would be considered racist. He added further insult to injury when he said any attempt by an ex-Mormon to assert otherwise, is merely lies ("despite what they say").

Would you take offense to the claim that all Mormons suffer from mental delusions and demonic influence, and that we never really have a spiritual experience from God? Come to think of it, that is exactly what they say. Dropping ourselves to their level of discourse is not going to create an environment conducive to civil dialogue, which, is what I thought we were supposed to be striving for.

== As I understand him, or at least as I believe myself, while intellectual reasons may well be a factor in many people vacating their faith in the restored gospel of Christ, it can't, by the very spiritual and faith-based nature of things, be the only reason. If one is using only their intellect in deciding about spiritual and faith-based matters, then they are doing so at the expense of the spirit and faith. Hense, in such cases, a contributing factor for vacating their faith is also the lack of spiritualizing and faith.

I agree with generally everything you're saying, but in the case of apostates, we have to accept the very real probability that many people join the Church for intellectual reasons alone. For these people, intellectual reasons are all that is needed to compell them to leave. I do not subscribe to the theory that all apostates were lively spiritual beings at some point during their membership, to which some demonic influence caused them to fall from grace. Unfortunately this is the norm in LDS thinking, and I think it needs to be corrected, not propagated. I prefer to think of apostates as those who genereally never had that spiritual witness to begin with. They should be pitied for this, not chastized as if this was due to their own spiritual shortcomings.

== That is fallacious thinking on your part (the fallacy of arguing from silence).

No, it would have to be an argument first. It isn't. It was an observation driven by what I can only refer to as common sense. To see you and Dan bypass an outrageously false and offensive caricature of an entire class of people, as if it didn't happen, was nothing short of amazing. Why? Because you guys come across as the "false caricature police." Try taking it as a compliment, as it was intended.

== I suspected that there was some action taken against you somewhere that I wasn't privy to, which precipitated your seemingly vengeful behavior of late on this board.

Vengeful behavior? Good grief. You really are out of the loop, huh? This "action" took place a little over a year ago and has nothing to do with my expressing my discontent with false caricatures.

== Sadly, at least from my pespective, your aversive reaction here to that action elsewhere, has done nothing to rectify matters, but has reflected poorly on YOU and perhaps even steeled people's resolve in the actions they may have taken against you.

You're assuming that my posting here is a reaction to something that took place over a year ago. Nonsense. My post was a reaction to Beowulf's offensive post. Whether or not you and Dan were also offended by it is irrelevant. I've learned that it is best to correct error because it is error, not because it happens to occur only with anti-Mormons. The most productive form of correction takes place amongst those on our side of the fence.

== In other words, as a friend who care deeply about you, it is important for you to know that YOU are merely making things worse for YOURSELF.

Howso? Can I not expect to be able to speak freely in an LDS forum without worrying about appearing "politically correct"? Gaining friends while being involved in LDS apologetics is a benefit, but not the primary purpose for doing it. How many people get involved with FAIR, yet produce no apologetic material of their own? Too many. Having said that, you may have lost respect for me, but there are others who haven't. A relatively small political crowd at FAIR does not represent the majority, I can assure you of this. When I made my final post on the e-list, one which even Scott Gordon himself said was a good post, there were several who applauded me in private email, and a few others did so openly on the list. I was banned an hour later because the post (which, again, Scott initially said he appreciated) upset one FAIR member and a couple of her close friends. She was implicated in a bad case of gossip, which I felt needed to be addressed. My post was concerned with the damage gossip actually causes in the Church and since the FAIR conference was being used as a gossip platform I decided that I could do one of two things: 1) ignore it and pretend it didn't happen, or 2) bring it up and discuss it like rational adults with those whom should be concerned also.

Silly me, I actually thought FAIR would be interested in resolving what Ezra Taft Benson called "the devil's tool." But as Scott Gordon said last year on ZLMB, "FAIR is not fair," and I was operating under the delusion that my cohorts at FAIR would actually take time to listen to my concerns. Instead I was told privately (again, after I was congratulated) that I forgot to "know my [your] audience." Whatever that means. At first I blew it off since I, as well as a few others, was already planning to quit the e-list anyway. It had become more of a social club than it was a serious resource for LDS apologists, and the emails were so many a day that it wasn't even worth sifting through them. Maybe one in a thirty was worth reading. I figured, oh well, I can still do my apologetic thing and just correspond with FAIR off the e-list. But the email Gordon sent me made it perfectly clear that, in spite of my 6 years of contributions to FAIR, I was not only banned from the e-list, but I was also given a final farewell from FAIR for good. This is what disturbed me more than anything. I'd rather not spill out all the details here, so if you're interested in the context, check the e-list archives and see for yourself. The ordeal took place in December of 2003.

But the ironic fact is, I've become closer friends with people who were on the list, ever since that unfortunate event took place. I have spent many hours in phone conversations with three members. Those who wanted me to be banned from the list were relatively few. You could probably count them on one hand. The "action" was taken so quickly, there was no possible way a group meeting could have been gathered before judgment was passed. Scott Gordon went from congratulating me for making the post, to banning me for it in a matter of just a couple of hours. Others were entirely confused, and some, like Ben McGuire, spoke up in my defense after the "action" was taken. So I'm not entirely convinced that my personal views have caused a total social backlash for me, as you seem to imply. If it has, I'm unaware of it. While I respect and value how you feel about me, it remains a fact that you and I have had close to zero correspondence in the 6 years we've known about one another. Our respect and admiration for one another has been from a distance, so your feelings of me now is not a standard I can use to determine whether or not I am hurting myself in the social arena.

== Using the same arrogance, dismissiveness, and disrespect towards your fellow foot-soldiers and leaders that you are infamous for against the enemy, will not win you friends on either side, but only alienate you everywhere. That is unhealthy.

I do not think I am being arrogant, dismissive or disrespectful, and neither do others who know me well. But I think it is unhealthy for LDS apologia to keep entertaining the dysfunctional thinking that goes on in so many LDS minds. It comes across as self-serving, and does nothing but provide fodder for antis who love to push the "brainwashing" envelope. We should be correcting these things, not encouraging them. We can't hold back just because the people doing it are LDS. As apologists we should be bound by truth, not political correctness. Heck, I'm LDS too, but that hasn't stopped anyone in the Church from criticizing me (Incidentally, Beowulf is a pseudonym, or else I probably would have been less harsh).

But the problem remains. Why do we feel the need to demonize those who leave the faith? They are people just like you and me. Do you have any idea how many people almost came back into the fold, only to leave again because of the way they were treated by other LDS who saw them as the spiritually corrupt "apostates"?

Further, I get the distinct impression that I have gained the respect of many of our critics during the past year since I was banned by FAIR. Consider me the Zell Miller of LDS apologia. I have my views, but my willingness to give credit where credit is due, and criticize those on my own side, gains me the respect from those whom I would rather disuade. I'm afraid FAIR has become a social club of sorts, and the more important goals have been superseded with political correctness.

[Kevin W. Graham]

Hi Dan, somehow I overlooked your reply.

== Here's what I'm saying. If Information X is possessed in common both by those holding Position A and those holding Position Not-A, Information X cannot plausibly be identified as the sole and sufficient explanation for why the first group holds Position A instead of Position Not-A, or vice versa. There must be something else that accounts for the difference.

Generally speaking, I agree. Though, this is far different from the original argument posited by Beowulf. And also, this depends on how conclusive the evidence is. For example, if group A insists 2+2 doesn't really = 4, I hardly think their lack of judgment somehow makes group B's acceptance of this fact something less than "purely intellectual."

== Why, when confronted, say, with evidence regarding horses in the Book of Mormon and pre-Columbian America, does one group of reasonably intelligent and sane people reject the Book of Mormon while another group, possessed of similar intelligence and likewise sane, does not reject the Book of Mormon?

Good question, and my point is that our critics can make the same argument; that we are the ones holding to our position for theological reasons. In fact, they do. And I believe that to a certain extent, they are justified. Why? Because we base our belief in "spiritual knowledge" so to speak. We also criticize Protestants who argue from theological positions such as biblical inerrancy. Atheists and ex-Mormons may have external factors as well, but they are not nearly as obvious as our own. We wear our bias on our sleeves, and we have to psychoanalyze them just to feel as if they are suffering from just as much subjectivity. Perhaps this is why we call everyone who questions our belief, "anti-Mormon." It places them on our level in the subjectivity arena. Then we can say, "We might have every theological reason to argue for our position, but now, you, as a labeled 'anti-Mormon,' have just as much bias as we do."

Would a non-LDS be justified in rejecting the BoM based on what is deemed a historical fact by virtually all experts in the field? I have a hard time criticizing them for that.

== Why do the two groups weigh and weight evidence differently? It is, I think, ridiculous and counterintuitive to suggest that factors such as personal history, background, experiences, hopes, precommitments, habits of thought, unique psychological qualities, etc., etc. -- yes, and including but not limited to spiritual experiences (or a lack thereof) -- play no role in such matters. On both sides.

Yes, both sides! And who has more to lose or gain by accepting said position? Because of teh position we're in, I don't think this is a game we want to be playing. Hence, my immediate criticism of Beowulf's argument. He felt free to psychoanalyze an entire class of people. He says their decisions to leave the faith are never based on knowledge at all. They are not intellectual decisions he says. You're saying that they are not "purely intellectual" because everyone relies on other factors in making decisions. I can agree with that, but I'm not going to go as far as he did by saying their decisions are not based on knowledge at all. Again, the absence of horses in the ancient Americas is generally recognized as a fact by virtually all experts in the field. One would be hard pressed to find a non-Mormon expert to suggest otherwise. If we are comfortable assuming Horses existed, then why produce apologetic arguments suggesting real horses were not what Smith had in mind? At this point, this is the best argument we have to offer, I think.

== do not believe that any human who lives today or who has ever lived is a purely rational propositional-calculus computer.

True, but some think they can make rational and intellectual decisions, and if they tell me they've never felt the spirit as a member of the Church, then who am I to tell them otherwise. I don't think people like Metcalfe consider themselves human computers, but I have to ask... when is it ever acceptable to use the term "intellectual" when referring to decisions? It seems as though you do not believe it can ever be applied without some qualifying factor attached. Are any conclusions ever properly defined as "purely intellectual"? For instance, when Marie Curie concluded that Radium was in fact a unique element, did she make an intellectual conclusion based on "knowledge," or was it also a mixture of her psychological past that played a part?

== I do not believe that those who leave the Church are any more purely rational than are those who remain. At the very beginning of this thread, I wrote that

I agree completely, and that was certainly never my argument. The issue was whether or not people can leave the church based on new "knowledge" gained. Beowulf clearly says no. I say yes, and it appears you agree.

[1dc]

It's difficult for me to hear people say that they know "beyond the shadow of a doubt" that the Church is true. It makes me wonder why they know and I don't. Sometimes it makes me wonder if they really do, or if they have just been saying they do for so many years that the words have simply become second nature.

Sometimes I wonder about this as well . . and then I think of whether we "know" the sun will rise in the East in the morning . . it probably will but then that is dealing with probability and not fact . . with faith we can allow a wider range of use of the word "know" than something presumed to be a scientific fact . . even scientific "facts" have been revised with more light and knowledge.

Faith takes effort . . consider how many in scripture have had experiences we would treasure . . and who then toss them away.

To me it boils down to this . . I believe we can feel what is right and what is wrong. I find I am better at this when I am trying to live righteously, and get input from others who are also. In the end I think developing and following our conscience in righteousness is what matters most.

My step father talks with God and says God talks with him (in his head) . . he's a very nice, humble non-LDS guy . . my completely inactive mother says he's looney but she loves him . . I'll give him the respect and the benefit of a shadow of doubt.

[juxtaposed]

People would say that I am a highly intelligent type, that I'm "scholarly", or other such things... given that, you would expect that I would also try to profess that I left the church on a "purely intellectual basis," hoping this would give me some added justification; however, I did not.

When I left the chuch it was before I knew anything about anti-mormons, the history of the church, or anything like that. I just grew up in the church, all over the place, and didn't know much besides what the typical stuff you are told in church.

And I decided the church wasn't for me from that.

So, here I go again, thinking about what really caused me to leave the church -- something I've reflected on from time to time.

I would say initially I just came to a realization that the church didn't really... make sense in my own mind. I had no way of proving to myself the legitimacy of the church -- oh sure I could come up with something. I seemed to have this "testimony" thing, but after careful consideration I decided that no matter how much a testimony appeared to be inspiration or a message from God, that I couldn't justify my testimony as anything stronger than a Nazi's proof that Hitler was an inspired leader, or a 19th century man's justification that he was better than women and blacks were the inferior race.

Once I no longer believed in the legitimacy of testimony, the rest came quickly. The church was an external restriction being added to my life. If I can't justify its legitimacy over any other ruleset, then it made a whole lot more sense to just create my own ruleset; and that new ruleset began to take form as I discovered and decided upon things that made sense to me and my study, but were in direct contrast with the church.

Eventually, before I knew it, I found myself and my beliefs being something completely different from the Church, and then I had to leave.

That was it.

So, my experience was certainly not "purely intellectual" or "knowlegde"-based -- in fact I am not even sure you can really seperate the "intellectual" from the "emotional" that well -- but I think it was legitimate. It was done rationally, reasonably, and fairly. It was done with careful and thoughtful consideration. It was done with plenty of thinking about the future. If was done honestly. It was done introspectively and inductively, with no real reliance or trust of outside "information" or "knowledge."

If that is not legitimate, I am not sure what is.

[emaughan]

1dc puts it well.

The folks I have seen leave the church do so because of:

- Other priorities (i.e. Sunday is a play day not a church day)

- Sin (they don't feel worthy to mix with the saints, or worse they feel their sin is justified)

- Pride (someone looked at them funny or they did not get the calling they knew they deserved)

I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are the ones I have met in person. I haven't seen anyone leave the church because of doubts, but I have seen people use doubts after the fact to justify their leaving (of course this brings up the 'ol chicken and egg debate - which came first the doubt or the sin and who fed the other).