Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[rockpond]

On 1/2/2017 at 9:37 AM, rpn said:

I am wondering what posters here thought of this blog post (aside from the kind of puzzling title as it doesn't seem to easily fit, at least in who exmormons would describe themselves).

http://happiness-seekers.com/2017/01/02/the-alarming-truth-behind-anti-mormonism/

 

Added Jan 3 11AM SEE last post pg 2 for screenshot if link doesn't work.

Broad-brushed inaccurate portrayal of "atheists" (and all who he includes in that term).  Ridiculous implication that atheists are somehow more likely to be drawn towards wealth accumulation and criminal activity.  Propaganda.

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Very helpful. I kind of understood what you said in the two posts I referred to, but this one solidifies it for me and I now understand. Thank you.

In light of your posts, I wonder why the prophet Joseph Smith says when things eventually get to the point where the world will hatefully reject the Restored Gospel and violently persecute and murder those who espouse it, he will then try to bring those who reject the Restored Gospel message to repentance, and to the TRUTH, by what the prophet called "the sermon of nature." And what is this semon of nature? It's the oft prophesied dreadful day of divine destruction when God will send forth mighty convulsions of nature designed to humble the rebellious and bring then to repentance and the TRUTH. Do you think God will be unwise if he actually resorts to such a crude and inelegant method to try to bring unbelieving atheists to his version of the TRUTH? Another way of phrasing the same question might be, "when it comes to bringing people to God's version of the  truth, does human sorrow, misery, agony  and desperation trump in effectiveness challenges issued by believers for atheists to engage in post-modern philosophical introspection?" Or is it that the sermon of nature will inspire much post-modern philosophical introspection? 😉

I like how you capitalized TRUTH.  If you really want to take it to the next level, I suggest using: TRVTH.

 

[The Nehor]

I disagree with most of it.

I do agree with the testimony part but not a lot of the rest.

At the risk of sounding consdescending I think it is cute when people dream up a scheme (positive or negative) for social engineering taking place and think it will actually work. If the Saints would just live the gospel we would live in consecrated Zion. If sinners would just follow through on the logical consequences of their behavior they will become incurably depraved. Neither happens in bulk. The world pulls at the saints and keeps them from realizing their full potential en masse. Other people driven by other religious faiths or philosophical and moral convictions or even basic social conditioning do not demand this insane level of respect the blogger speaks about. Meanwhile the dimmed light of Christ (or even enlightened self-interest) keeps the truly selfish and wicked from en masse joining in baby-eating feasts and the like.

Our generation has its problems and its prophetic warnings but "twas ever thus". People talk about great divides and siftings and the like but the test for eternal life has not changed. I see no evidence is has gotten harder. Scripture talks about the devil having power over his dominion but that is counteracted by the Saints being gifted with power to even the scales.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Very helpful. I kind of understood what you said in the two posts I referred to, but this one solidifies it for me and I now understand. Thank you.

In light of your posts, I wonder why the prophet Joseph Smith says when things eventually get to the point where the world will hatefully reject the Restored Gospel and violently persecute and murder those who espouse it, he will then try to bring those who reject the Restored Gospel message to repentance, and to the TRUTH, by what the prophet called "the sermon of nature." And what is this semon of nature? It's the oft prophesied dreadful day of divine destruction when God will send forth mighty convulsions of nature designed to humble the rebellious and bring then to repentance and the TRUTH. Do you think God will be unwise if he actually resorts to such a crude and inelegant method to try to bring unbelieving atheists to his version of the TRUTH? Another way of phrasing the same question might be, "when it comes to bringing people to God's version of the  truth, does human sorrow, misery, agony  and desperation trump in effectiveness challenges issued by believers for atheists to engage in post-modern philosophical introspection?" Or is it that the sermon of nature will inspire much post-modern philosophical introspection? 😉

 What God actually does and what actually happens has little to do with how we talk about truth in an abstract way.

 We know what truth is when we see it we just can't define it. I often get comments similar to yours where people talk about driving off a cliff and will we know the truth of the cliff when we drive off of it?

 When we drive off a cliff we will not be thinking about the nature of Truth,  nor will we be delivering a discourse about it.

When we talk about truth we are not talking about what is -we are talking about how we talk about KNOWING what is- nothing more nothing less.

Talking about something is far different than experiencing it, or what actually is happening.

Philosophy nowadays is only about how we speak about things,  not about what really is, perhaps amazingly, because no in can agree on "what is"

 are things really are the way we perceive perceive them Or are they different? how do we get outside our perceptions to find out what really is if things are not really the way we perceive them?

Light waves are reflected by atoms back to our eyes  but what is a chair or table really??

These become semantic questions that philosophers no longer worry about, along with truth

But yes even philosophers experience reality, there is just not much that can be said about it logically. It is what it is.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I like how you capitalized TRUTH.  If you really want to take it to the next level, I suggest using: TRVTH.

 

Love it.

[MiserereNobis]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Love it.

That's just because you have Latin as part of your avatar...

It's actually an old joke between me and Mark.  I thought I'd come out of semi-retirement to bring it up again

 

[Bobbieaware]

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I like how you capitalized TRUTH.  If you really want to take it to the next level, I suggest using: TRVTH.

 

Substituting Classical Latin's V for the English U really does seem to impart greater gravitas.

In my post, the capitalized word TRUTH was employed to represent God's truth as opposed to any particular fallen man's imperfect perception of truth

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Many can many can't- it's not my fault.

"The kingdom of heaven is not of this world"- what else could that mean?   If it's not of this world, what world is it?  It is the world within us- and that means subjective.  VERY clearly

The way to describe it to those folks AND the way I actually see it, is that God teaches us individually as we need it

One could always say that "they aren't ready for the truth yet" and leave it at that.   IN FACT that is what we do anyway when we pray "Please lead the missionaries to those who are ready to hear the gospel"

Yes, but it's just as easy to say that people land in Mormonism because "they're not ready for the truth yet" and leave it at that.

 

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Essentially that is exactly what is being said there- some are ready some are not.

So I really think that is what most Mormons tacitly believe anyway if they actually thought it through.

That way they get to think there IS one truth for all- which postmodernism does not rule out

Maybe, but it could just as easily be Catholicism or reformed Judaism or Lutheranism or Islam or Buddhism.

 

 

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

All postmodernism would say to that is that it cannot be objectively known that there is "one truth for all".  That is included in the idea that even relativism is only relatively "correct".

And indeed that all fits perfectly in the belief that "on earth we walk by faith, seeing through a glass darkly".   THAT actually SAYS explicitly that we cannot know all about God in an objective way until "then we see him face to face"

So here we walk by faith and different paths lead to God.  If you are a drunk on skid row, the Salvation Army might be the "right" path to Christ for you- for a time.

Even we believe that the "church" as it is now constituted will not be necessary in the Celestial Kingdom.

I think taking that approach - that particular paths may be right for some but not for everyone - is the most useful and helpful. But one must come to grips that Mormonism is not "true" for the vast majority of the human population. At least the way it's set up now, it meets the spiritual needs of some but probably not most.

 

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What we have to know is that EVERY concept Mormonism teaches CAN BE SEEN in a postmodern and relative way- or someone has suggested an alternative way to see it by interpretation.   Even President Kimball speaking on absolute truth acknowledges that truth exists in it's own "sphere", per DC 93  https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=spencer kimball absolute truth

Yes, it can be interpreted that way. But I think a big part of Joseph Smith's impetus was to get back to "actual historical facts" using the medium of revelation. In other words, a man called Elohim tells you what was really going on in Palestine in the first century, and you model your church after that. In many ways, the spirit of the restoration lives on elsewhere in progressive Christianity, which is an evolving theology in response to historical findings about early Christianity and the life of the historical Jesus.

Not to say there are aren't other aspects of Mormonism that are a good fit with postmodernism, as you outline below:

 

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Alma 32 essentially says that religious truth is "what is sweet" to the individual- that is pretty clearly a "postmodern" notion of truth as relative to the subjective experience of individuals.

Alma 32 is incompatible with the idea of scientific objective truth as is 1st James, Moroni 10 4-5 and many other scriptures- including DC93

If God teaches individuals, what he teaches them is not scientific truth.   That is just as plain as it can be- we just need to carry that concept forward.

Alma 32 even applies to prophets right?   Then what they see as "sweet" may not be what we see as "sweet".  Unless we want to throw away logical consistency that is the inescapable conclusion.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am basing my comments on this matter directly on research which shows this to be consistently true.  Of course, there will always be exceptions (which prove the rule), but they are outliers. People just do not enter or leave a religion (or any organization) over doctrinal or dogmatic matters.  This is true for all religions and applies in all countries.  Indeed, most people who are socialized into a religion (by upbringing or conversion) tend to stay.

The notion of a "church of the month club" in the wonderful film "Sweet Charity" just doesn't apply to real life.  Most people just don't change religions.  Those who do change have personal reasons of social comfort, unless converting to the religion of a new spouse.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SbmaGAXlGQ .

What research? CFR because I don't buy that for a second. I agree that socialization and community are important but you are making it sound like it is the only determining factor in where a person chooses to attend church or how to affiliate. The social discomfort I feel in church comes directly from my doctrinal issues I have with church and how people react to that. IF I left it would be for doctrinal issues, not social ones, other than noting that the community was not strong enough to overcome the doctrinal.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What research? CFR because I don't buy that for a second. I agree that socialization and community are important but you are making it sound like it is the only determining factor in where a person chooses to attend church or how to affiliate. The social discomfort I feel in church comes directly from my doctrinal issues I have with church and how people react to that. IF I left it would be for doctrinal issues, not social ones, other than noting that the community was not strong enough to overcome the doctrinal.

I agree.

The doctrine and dogma of today's LDS church are what make me want to abandon it.  The socialization and community are what keep me in.  And my online interactions tell me that there are countless others who feel likewise.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I agree.

The doctrine and dogma of today's LDS church are what make me want to abandon it.  The socialization and community are what keep me in.  And my online interactions tell me that there are countless others who feel likewise.

In my experience that is why, when the community falters, or fails to lovingly support member struggling with doctrinal/belief issues, the member leaves. It's not out of offense, but because the draw of community no longer compensates for the doctrinal issues.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes, but it's just as easy to say that people land in Mormonism because "they're not ready for the truth yet" and leave it at that.

 

Maybe, but it could just as easily be Catholicism or reformed Judaism or Lutheranism or Islam or Buddhism.

 

 

I think taking that approach - that particular paths may be right for some but not for everyone - is the most useful and helpful. But one must come to grips that Mormonism is not "true" for the vast majority of the human population. At least the way it's set up now, it meets the spiritual needs of some but probably not most.

 

Yes, it can be interpreted that way. But I think a big part of Joseph Smith's impetus was to get back to "actual historical facts" using the medium of revelation. In other words, a man called Elohim tells you what was really going on in Palestine in the first century, and you model your church after that. In many ways, the spirit of the restoration lives on elsewhere in progressive Christianity, which is an evolving theology in response to historical findings about early Christianity and the life of the historical Jesus.

Not to say there are aren't other aspects of Mormonism that are a good fit with postmodernism, as you outline below:

.

 

Maybe you didn't read the post very well. I answered all those objections in the post. Yes it is obvious that many disagree with Mormonism. I was outlining a way Mormonism can be interpreted  which meets all those objections and you have shown no new ones.

Thanks for the compliment.

Edited January 4, 2017 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

Now that I can actually read the blog post, I agree that it does not jive with what I have seen, and he doesn't provide good support for his claims.

The oddest claim to me is his theory on how "atheist morals" will be the downfall of society ("Post-Modern Atheism Is Paving the Way for a New and Destructive Moral Order").

With all due respect, and while I appreciate the great good religious morals have done for me personally and for the world in general, I don't see where any religion can claim to take the moral high ground based on their scriptures and their history.  It just requires too much selective reading and parsing to say that basing morals on the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon or anything else is categorically superior to what atheists could make up on their own.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Now that I can actually read the blog post, I agree that it does not jive with what I have seen, and he doesn't provide good support for his claims.

The oddest claim to me is his theory on how "atheist morals" will be the downfall of society ("Post-Modern Atheism Is Paving the Way for a New and Destructive Moral Order").

With all due respect, and while I appreciate the great good religious morals have done for me personally and for the world in general, I don't see where any religion can claim to take the moral high ground based on their scriptures and their history.  It just requires too much selective reading and parsing to say that basing morals on the Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon or anything else is categorically superior to what atheists could make up on their own.

I agree... that point #3 is really insulting to atheists/agnostics who generally seem to live by a very high moral standard in a world that is currently struggling to deal with crimes, terrorism, and hate that are largely fueled by religious beliefs.

[rockpond]

It appears that the blog owners are no longer letting comments through moderation.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

What research? CFR because I don't buy that for a second. I agree that socialization and community are important but you are making it sound like it is the only determining factor in where a person chooses to attend church or how to affiliate. The social discomfort I feel in church comes directly from my doctrinal issues I have with church and how people react to that. IF I left it would be for doctrinal issues, not social ones, other than noting that the community was not strong enough to overcome the doctrinal.

I did not say that no one leaves for doctrinal reasons.  There clearly are a few such, but the majority of those joining and leaving has to do with social comfort levels.  Of course you don't buy it.  You engage in the fallacy of thinking that if it doesn't apply to you then it is false.  Yet standard academic research has consistently shown why people shift from one religion to another, or out of religion entirely.  It is no mystery.

For those few who do leave for dogmatic reasons, most do not actually understand the LDS faith.  See, for example, Michael R. Ash, "Shaken Faith Syndrome" (2008 FairMormon Conference): 

Quote

 "When critical information destroys conclusions based on straw men or false assumptions, some members will lose their entire testimonies. The most common misconceptions that seem to factor into personal apostasy include: (A) Unrealistic Expectations of Prophets (B) Confusing Tradition With Doctrine (C) Imposing Our View on Others (D) Unrealistic Expectations of Science and Scholarship."  http://www.fairblog.org/2011/05/18/best-of-fair-episode-4-shaken-faith-syndrome/ .  His book of the same title is in its second edition.

As to your CFR, please note the following:

Emma Green, “How Will Young People Choose Their Religion?” Atlantic, Mar 20, 2016, online at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/how-will-young-people-choose-their-religion/474366/ .

Frank Newport, "The Religious Switcher in the United States," American Sociological Review, 44 (1979), 528-552.

J. T. Richardson, ed., special issue on "Conversion and Commitment in Contemporary Religion," American Behavioral Scientist, 20/6 (July-Aug 1977).

Lewis R. Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion (1995).

Lavina Fielding Anderson, "What Are Nonmembers Interested In?" Ensign, 7/10 (Oct 1977), 72-76, based on research on July 1975 LDS converts by Gordon C. Whiting and M. Richard Maxfield.

S. L. Albrecht & H. M. Bahr, "Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts, and Former Mormons," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22 (1983), 366-379.

“Why People Leave the LDS Church,” Sunstone Review, 4/3 (Mar 1984), 10.

Sociologist Gary Tobin says that 2 of every 5 “Americans switch religion at least once” (Moment, 27/4  [Aug 2002], 58).

David G. Bromley, “Unraveling Religious Disaffiliation: The Meaning and Significance of Falling From the Faith in Contemporary Society,” Counseling & Values, 35/3 (April 1991):164-185, online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1991.tb00989.x/abstract .

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[pogi]

On 1/3/2017 at 5:13 PM, mfbukowski said:

That way they get to think there IS one truth for all- which postmodernism does not rule out

All postmodernism would say to that is that it cannot be objectively known that there is "one truth for all".  

How does one reconcile the belief in absolute truth  ("one truth for all") with a belief in relative truth and postmodernism?  Postmodernism kind of dismisses any notion of absolute truth because it can't be objectively known, and so nothing can be said about it.  Which is why much of Mormonism is nonsense to them, because we do attempt to say something about it.

Postmodernism teaches that if "the truth" is not working for you, then it is not true.  In Mormonism, we teach that if the truth is not working for you then you are not working the truth.  Or, we teach that we just need to have faith that it will ultimately lead to happiness in the end.  Mormonism does not promote the "whatever floats your boat" way of life.  Relativism and postmodernism promotes the idea of becoming a law (morally speaking) unto ourselves, while Mormon scripture teaches otherwise.  I don't see how the two can be reconciled.  Help me out here.

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by pogi

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did not say that no one leaves for doctrinal reasons.  There clearly are a few such, but the majority of those joining and leaving has to do with social comfort levels.  Of course you don't buy it.  You engage in the fallacy of thinking that if it doesn't apply to you then it is false.  Yet standard academic research has consistently shown why people shift from one religion to another, or out of religion entirely.  It is no mystery.

For those few who do leave for dogmatic reasons, most do not actually understand the LDS faith.  See, for example, Michael R. Ash, "Shaken Faith Syndrome" (2008 FairMormon Conference): 

As to your CFR, please note the following:

Emma Green, “How Will Young People Choose Their Religion?” Atlantic, Mar 20, 2016, online at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/how-will-young-people-choose-their-religion/474366/ .

Frank Newport, "The Religious Switcher in the United States," American Sociological Review, 44 (1979), 528-552.

J. T. Richardson, ed., special issue on "Conversion and Commitment in Contemporary Religion," American Behavioral Scientist, 20/6 (July-Aug 1977).

Lewis R. Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion (1995).

Lavina Fielding Anderson, "What Are Nonmembers Interested In?" Ensign, 7/10 (Oct 1977), 72-76, based on research on July 1975 LDS converts by Gordon C. Whiting and M. Richard Maxfield.

S. L. Albrecht & H. M. Bahr, "Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts, and Former Mormons," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22 (1983), 366-379.

“Why People Leave the LDS Church,” Sunstone Review, 4/3 (Mar 1984), 10.

Sociologist Gary Tobin says that 2 of every 5 “Americans switch religion at least once” (Moment, 27/4  [Aug 2002], 58).

David G. Bromley, “Unraveling Religious Disaffiliation: The Meaning and Significance of Falling From the Faith in Contemporary Society,” Counseling & Values, 35/3 (April 1991):164-185, online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1991.tb00989.x/abstract .

 

What is this Robert?  Throw everything at the wall as see if anything sticks?  Most of what you cut and pasted from somewhere is not available on line and may not even address what your claim was.  The two that you did post a link to offered NOTHING but opinion.  There are no facts here to support your assertion.  If you actually have some facts, then post them.  This cut and past job is pathetic. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

How does one reconcile the belief in absolute truth  ("one truth for all") with a belief in relative truth and postmodernism?  Postmodernism kind of dismisses any notion of absolute truth because it can't be objectively known, and so nothing can be said about it.  Which is why much of Mormonism is nonsense to them, because we do attempt to say something about it.

Postmodernism teaches that if "the truth" is not working for you, then it is not true.  In Mormonism, we teach that if the truth is not working for you then you are not working the truth.  Or, we teach that we just need to have faith that it will ultimately lead to happiness in the end.  Mormonism does not promote the "whatever floats your boat" way of life.  Relativism and postmodernism promotes the idea of becoming a law (morally speaking) unto ourselves, while Mormon scripture teaches otherwise.  I don't see how the two can be reconciled.  Help me out here.

 

 

 

For the umpteenth time, postmodernism doesn't speak about the truth. It says there is nothing to say about it

It does not say anything is true

That would be defining truth

Alma says the truth is what is sweet to you.

That does not promote anything goes any more than postmodernism

You do not seem to be able to understand this, we have been over this many times.

 It's like saying Alma 32 promotes Anything Goes.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

What is this Robert?  Throw everything at the wall as see if anything sticks?  Most of what you cut and pasted from somewhere is not available on line and may not even address what your claim was.  The two that you did post a link to offered NOTHING but opinion.  There are no facts here to support your assertion.  If you actually have some facts, then post them.  This cut and past job is pathetic. 

More hate, california boy?  I was replying to a CFR, and it was not cut and paste.  I read most of those articles when they came out years ago, long before the internet could access them -- otherwise I'd have a URL for each, so that you could read them for yourself, without going to a library.  It is really not news, but the accepted view in academe.  Why does that enrage you?

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

More hate, california boy?  I was replying to a CFR, and it was not cut and paste.  I read most of those articles when they came out years ago, long before the internet could access them -- otherwise I'd have a URL for each, so that you could read them for yourself, without going to a library.  It is really not news, but the accepted view in academe.  Why does that enrage you?

Projection.

[Bobbieaware]

57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

For the umpteenth time, postmodernism doesn't speak about the truth. It says there is nothing to say about it

It does not say anything is true

That would be defining truth

Alma says the truth is what is sweet to you.

That does not promote anything goes any more than postmodernism

You do not seem to be able to understand this, we have been over this many times.

 It's like saying Alma 32 promotes Anything Goes.

Do you find that the Nephite prophet Jacob's definition of truth (below) fits into your postmodern approach to finding truth or does it do violence to it?

13 Behold, my brethren, he that prophesieth, let him prophesy to the understanding of men; for the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls. But behold, we are not witnesses alone in these things; for God also spake them unto prophets of old. (Jacob 4)

Edited January 5, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[pogi]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

For the umpteenth time, postmodernism doesn't speak about the truth. It says there is nothing to say about it

You need to read my posts more carefully, I kind of acknowledged that in my post.  What you don't seem to understand, for the umpteenth time, is that Mormonism does speak about the truth.  There is something to say about it. 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It does not say anything is true

Right, but Mormonism does.  We teach that the word of God is truth as it comes forth in the spirit of prophecy.  We teach that such truth is like a double edged sword.  It doesn't just "work" for everybody - we have to work it.   Are you really suggesting that we stop saying that things are absolutely true in Mormonism because postmodernism is the only intellectual way forward?  If you think that absolute truth and relative truth are reconcilable, I would like to know how.  We teach that certain principles apply to everybody, so they are absolute. It doesn't matter if we think they work for us or not and can't see the point in it, we are still are obligated to live by the truth as it is revealed through the spirit of prophecy.  

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Alma says the truth is what is sweet to you.

Yet, Nephi says that the truth is hard on the wicked.  Doesn't sound very relative to me.  There is much more said about truth in scripture than what Alma says.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It's like saying Alma 32 promotes Anything Goes.

Alma doesn't say that but postmodernism does.  If it works for you then it is true. That simply is not cohesive with Mormonism.

Edited January 5, 2017 by pogi

[Bobbieaware]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

You need to read my posts more carefully, I kind of acknowledged that in my post.  What you don't seem to understand, for the umpteenth time, is that Mormonism does speak about the truth.  There is something to say about it. 

Right, but Mormonism does.  We teach that the word of God is truth as it comes forth in the spirit of prophecy.  We teach that such truth is like a double edged sword.  It doesn't just "work" for everybody - we have to work it.   Are you really suggesting that we stop saying that things are absolutely true in Mormonism because postmodernism is the only intellectual way forward?  We teach that certain principles apply to everybody, so they are absolute. It doesn't matter if we think they work for us or not and can't see the point in it, we are still are obligated to live by the truth as it is revealed through the spirit of prophecy.  

Yet, Nephi says that the truth is hard on the wicked.  Doesn't sound very relative to me.  There is much more said about truth in scripture than what Alma says.

Alma doesn't say that but postmodernism does.  If it works for you then it is true. That simply is not cohesive with Mormonism.

Very well put. My concern is the members of the Church should be less concerned with offending the sensibilities of postmodern philosophers and more concerned with upholding the testimony of the scriptures concerning the objective reality of divine revelatory truth. I hope I'm wrong but what I seem to be hearing is that all perceptions of reality are just as valid, worthwhile and acceptable as God's own perception of reality. But the problem is Mark probably understands all of this very well and is frustrated because there's something truly valid about what he's saying but we're just not "getting it." Therefore, I'm open to further instruction.

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did not say that no one leaves for doctrinal reasons.  There clearly are a few such, but the majority of those joining and leaving has to do with social comfort levels.  Of course you don't buy it.  You engage in the fallacy of thinking that if it doesn't apply to you then it is false.  Yet standard academic research has consistently shown why people shift from one religion to another, or out of religion entirely.  It is no mystery.

For those few who do leave for dogmatic reasons, most do not actually understand the LDS faith.  See, for example, Michael R. Ash, "Shaken Faith Syndrome" (2008 FairMormon Conference): 

As to your CFR, please note the following:

Emma Green, “How Will Young People Choose Their Religion?” Atlantic, Mar 20, 2016, online at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/how-will-young-people-choose-their-religion/474366/ .

Frank Newport, "The Religious Switcher in the United States," American Sociological Review, 44 (1979), 528-552.

J. T. Richardson, ed., special issue on "Conversion and Commitment in Contemporary Religion," American Behavioral Scientist, 20/6 (July-Aug 1977).

Lewis R. Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion (1995).

Lavina Fielding Anderson, "What Are Nonmembers Interested In?" Ensign, 7/10 (Oct 1977), 72-76, based on research on July 1975 LDS converts by Gordon C. Whiting and M. Richard Maxfield.

S. L. Albrecht & H. M. Bahr, "Patterns of Religious Disaffiliation: A Study of Lifelong Mormons, Mormon Converts, and Former Mormons," Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22 (1983), 366-379.

“Why People Leave the LDS Church,” Sunstone Review, 4/3 (Mar 1984), 10.

Sociologist Gary Tobin says that 2 of every 5 “Americans switch religion at least once” (Moment, 27/4  [Aug 2002], 58).

David G. Bromley, “Unraveling Religious Disaffiliation: The Meaning and Significance of Falling From the Faith in Contemporary Society,” Counseling & Values, 35/3 (April 1991):164-185, online at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.2161-007X.1991.tb00989.x/abstract .

 

Given the number of active, temple recommend-holding priesthood leaders who leave the church each year it is ridiculous to state that people leave because the just don't understand the LDS Faith.  Ash's statement is simply his opinion and not supported by data. 

It's easy to say that people who leave don't understand the faith in the way YOU do or in the way that would have allowed them to stay (obviously).  It's a different matter to look at each individual and determine whether he/she understood the faith in the way it was taught to them which ultimately caused them to leave when they realized it was false. 

As long as we, as a church, keep blaming faithful but departed members for "just not understanding the LDS faith" we'll never make progress in keeping people from leaving. 

The Brethren have begun publicly acknowledging that the narrative taught to members was not always accurate or sufficient.  We ought to follow their lead in our interactions with others.