Blogger on "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

[california boy]

8 hours ago, why me said:

Many books have been writtten about the catholic history and many not in a positive light but I don't think that they have much of an effect on catholics. Now, secularism may have an effect, especially in the west. But not past history. There is also a problem with moral relativism. And the direction of values that may run counter to traditional christian values. All history would be found to have imperfections in them because history is made by human beings who are imperfect.

 

But for mormons, its critics stress history because they know it works. as a faith tumbler. If I were a critic I would use it too. And I would use the lds' conservative social positions against them too. But I would also know that such approaches are basically unfair to use. Many people are joining christian churches in the world. Not because of history but because of faith. But it seems that critics do not want people to find their faith in the lds church.

 

Have you talked to many former Catholics?  Have you asked them if they still think that the Pope is still infallible?  Yes it is true that many books have been written about Catholic history. A lot of them have been within the last 40 years.  And just like Mormons, Catholics were told not to read them.  That they were written by anti-Catholics full of falsehoods and lies.  

It wasn't that long ago when Catholics were not allowed to even read the Bible for themselves.  When I was growing up, it was only the church leaders that were allowed to read the Bible for themselves and mass was conducted in Latin.  When Catholics started to read for themselves,, many no longer believed in some of the things they were taught.   I remember telling an employee of mine who attended mass every week that Jesus had brothers and sisters and their names are in the Bible.  I showed her the verses.  She was so troubled by that, she went to her priest to ask him because she thought what I told he could not possibly be true.  She had been taught that Mary was still a virgin and never had sex with Joseph.  Her priest had a difficult time answering her question.  

It has not been that long since people of all faiths have come to the realization that what they had been taught in church did not match the facts.  It is pretty hard to still believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans on the earth.  That the earth is only 6.000 years old.  Or that there was a universal flood as taught in the Bible.  These things were never taught as allegories in the past.  They were taught as truths from God.  The grip that religion had in controlling the narrative began to fall apart for all Christians, not just Mormons.

This has nothing directly to do with secularism.   It is true that people want religion more out of government then in the past.  But that is because they are no longer willing to turn their lives blindly over to religion.  And that includes allowing religion to tell the government what they should do.  People are loosing faith in religion because religion no long can control all the facts.  History and science are giving people an alternative to what religion has been feeding them for centuries.  And for some, the story of religion is no longer working for them.

No one is saying that there are not still people joining churches because of their faith.  And you don't have to be a critic of Mormonism to want to know what really happened in the past and find out for yourself what is true or not.  Personally I think it is the responsibility of every member to seek the truth. 

John 8:32  And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.

Do you really think that only critics of the church should find out the history of Mormonism?

[rockpond]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One does not need any advanced degree (I don't have one) in order to be a faithful Mormon, or to leave the Mormon faith.  Any given Mormon has all he needs if he has a testimony via the Holy Spirit, and if he lives the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Of course, that entails a lot, but it does not entail any sort of academic training in theology, history, or the like.  If he comes to dislike the religion, he may leave at any time -- although we would probably all counsel him not to leave for "light and transient causes," but only after careful consideration.

We have discussed this very issue many times on this board.  And I have always pointed out that only someone who has been raised in a very narrow and rigid home would see that as a reason to leave.  Why?  Because, even though Mormon prophets are explicitly defined as fallible humans who make mistakes, this notion is rejected in favor of infallible prophets.  Indeed, the mindset most likely to leave is ironically that which accepted as "Gospel" the false claims made on race and such by Bruce R. McConkie in his well-known book on Mormon Doctrine.  in the end, Elder McConkie had to eat crow.

However, it goes much further than that.  Those well-read in LDS history already knew that Joseph and his brethren had been ordaining Black men and that no such prohibition existed until adopted by Brigham Young.  Moreover, Joseph's platform as a serious presidential candidate included the end of slavery -- which brought major persecution in Missouri.  It also includes false assumptions that the Book of Mormon contains racist claims.  The entire matter begins to be far more complex than at first imagined.

You didn't actually address or counter the reason that the hypothetical person left.  You just skirted around the issue with Joseph Smith's positions on the matter ( it relevant) and the fallibility of prophets (not taught routinely in the church). 

So can I conclude that the hypothetical reason for leaving was valid?

[rockpond]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I have repeated umpteen times, one may leave any church for any reason, imagined or real.  One may leave for reasons of social discomfort of any kind, or one may find another religion which seems far more attractive.  These are personal decisions, and may be valid to the one leaving, while perhaps seeming too abrupt or unjustified by family and friends.  We must learn to accept such decisions with good graces.  Even when someone leaves claiming that their reason(s) is doctrinal, we should honor that decision.  In reflecting upon it later, we make take issue with that "doctrinal" reason, whether because we simply disagree with the tenor of that doctrinal claim, or because we think it is a false claim.

Just because Ash and I agree that most of those leaving for intellectual reasons misunderstand the LDS faith, and are unprepared to make a valid intellectual decision, that does not mean that such folks should not leave.  After all, they are exercising free will and choice.  Besides, there are very likely other, non-intellectual reasons for their leaving anyhow.  We should wish them well and remain friends.

So I take it that the answer is "no", you can't define a valid reason for a person leaving the church.  At least not one that you would consider "intellectual".  So I should have asked that question early on. Because if you can imagine no valid intellectual reason to leave, than your position is really far too biased to be worth consideration. 

[pogi]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Sure why not

So what?

What was he saying then according to you?  

I don’t claim to understand his philosophy very well, so I can only guess at what he is trying to say.  I think an important point can be made here though.  This video is useless to the average Mormon without having the broader context of his other writings and overall philosophy.  It could be interpreted in so many different ways in different contexts.  Expecting us to understand what he is saying without the broader context is a recipe for misunderstanding and miscommunication.  

This is all I know, either he is talking about absolute truth, or else he is not very good at speaking off-the-cuff and made several poor choices of words. 

Mysteries to me:

• If he rejects the concept of absolute truth, why does he posit absolutes?
• He says elsewhere, “only sentences can be true.” If that sentence is true, than it is an absolute truth and paradoxical to his stance on absolute truth.
• “Nothing can be said about truth.”  First of all, Is that the absolute truth?  Second of all, if only sentences can be true, and if nothing can be said about truth, then truth is not true because nothing can be said about it.  It is a total paradox. 
• If “human beings make truths by making languages in which to phrase sentences”, then truth is of their own making and ignorance is not possible.

Having said all that, I am still interested in his philosophy because I think a lot of it parallels my own paradigm.  My whole paradigm is based on the notion that there can only be interpretations relative to our perspective and beliefs.  As such, absolutes cannot be understood in mortality (“not much can be said about it”).  We both agree that while science is useful, it can’t tell us the facts. 

The difference is that I have faith that our perspective can become absolute like God’s.  While “we cannot rise above interpretation to get the facts” I have faith that what I am interpreting are the facts as known and revealed in pieces by God.  Our interpretation is relative to our perspective, and with a limited perspective in mortality we cannot know the facts in this life with any certainty.  Without considering an after life, and without considering the light of Christ, which light encompasses all things, then Rorty cannot even consider the possibility of an absolute perspective and what that might mean, so I find his philosophy limiting to my beliefs. 

Edited January 7, 2017 by pogi

[cdowis]

6 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

because we often say a prophet doesn't always speak and  act as a prophet.

I guess the SS should devote an entire lesson on that topic ==

"The prophet is not always inspired, so enlightened members should be prepared to give him advice."

Edited January 7, 2017 by cdowis

[Jeanne]

So...after all this, I guess it is just stupid people that leave the church. Someone needs to walk a mile in my life experience to even begin to understand.  But hey...I get it.  Mr. Smith, if the church has taught you this arrogance..then I am smarter than I thought.  You are so not helping!!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don’t claim to understand his philosophy very well, so I can only guess at what he is trying to say.  I think an important point can be made here though.  This video is useless to the average Mormon without having the broader context of his other writings and overall philosophy.  It could be interpreted in so many different ways in different contexts.  Expecting us to understand what he is saying without the broader context is a recipe for misunderstanding and miscommunication.  

This is all I know, either he is talking about absolute truth, or else he is not very good at speaking off-the-cuff and made several poor choices of words. 

Mysteries to me:

• If he rejects the concept of absolute truth, why does he posit absolutes?
• He says elsewhere, “only sentences can be true.” If that sentence is true, than it is an absolute truth and paradoxical to his stance on absolute truth.
• “Nothing can be said about truth.”  First of all, Is that the absolute truth?  Second of all, if only sentences can be true, and if nothing can be said about truth, then truth is not true because nothing can be said about it.  It is a total paradox. 
• If “human beings make truths by making languages in which to phrase sentences”, then truth is of their own making and ignorance is not possible.

Having said all that, I am still interested in his philosophy because I think a lot of it parallels my own paradigm.  My whole paradigm is based on the notion that there can only be interpretations relative to our perspective and beliefs.  As such, absolutes cannot be understood in mortality (“not much can be said about it”).  We both agree that while science is useful, it can’t tell us the facts. 

The difference is that I have faith that our perspective can become absolute like God’s.  While “we cannot rise above interpretation to get the facts” I have faith that what I am interpreting are the facts as known and revealed in pieces by God.  Our interpretation is relative to our perspective, and with a limited perspective in mortality we cannot know the facts in this life with any certainty.  Without considering an after life, and without considering the light of Christ, which light encompasses all things, then Rorty cannot even consider the possibility of an absolute perspective and what that might mean, so I find his philosophy limiting to my beliefs. 

We are very close- I just wrote you a huge reply and hit the wrong button and lost it.  Our difference is purely semantic between Mormonese and philosophese

I don't even know what happened to lose the post.  I will respond tomorrow- no time left for this today.READ THIS

Quote

According to the deflationary theory of truth, to assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself. For example, to say that ‘snow is white’ is true, or that it is true that snow is white, is equivalent to saying simply that snow is white, and this, according to the deflationary theory, is all that can be said significantly about the truth of ‘snow is white’.

 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

This is not Rorty- it is arguably the primary "theory of truth" today

If truth cannot be defined, then even the statement "truth cannot be defined" is not "true" but ONLY IF you think truth CAN be defined.

But that's ok- we can work it out.  Windows 10 is not cooperating on this machine.  Chromebook forever- get one now- cheap and always works!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I don’t claim to understand his philosophy very well, so I can only guess at what he is trying to say.  I think an important point can be made here though.  This video is useless to the average Mormon without having the broader context of his other writings and overall philosophy.  It could be interpreted in so many different ways in different contexts.  Expecting us to understand what he is saying without the broader context is a recipe for misunderstanding and miscommunication.  

This is all I know, either he is talking about absolute truth, or else he is not very good at speaking off-the-cuff and made several poor choices of words. 

Mysteries to me:

• If he rejects the concept of absolute truth, why does he posit absolutes?
• He says elsewhere, “only sentences can be true.” If that sentence is true, than it is an absolute truth and paradoxical to his stance on absolute truth.
• “Nothing can be said about truth.”  First of all, Is that the absolute truth?  Second of all, if only sentences can be true, and if nothing can be said about truth, then truth is not true because nothing can be said about it.  It is a total paradox. 
• If “human beings make truths by making languages in which to phrase sentences”, then truth is of their own making and ignorance is not possible.

Having said all that, I am still interested in his philosophy because I think a lot of it parallels my own paradigm.  My whole paradigm is based on the notion that there can only be interpretations relative to our perspective and beliefs.  As such, absolutes cannot be understood in mortality (“not much can be said about it”).  We both agree that while science is useful, it can’t tell us the facts. 

The difference is that I have faith that our perspective can become absolute like God’s.  While “we cannot rise above interpretation to get the facts” I have faith that what I am interpreting are the facts as known and revealed in pieces by God.  Our interpretation is relative to our perspective, and with a limited perspective in mortality we cannot know the facts in this life with any certainty.  Without considering an after life, and without considering the light of Christ, which light encompasses all things, then Rorty cannot even consider the possibility of an absolute perspective and what that might mean, so I find his philosophy limiting to my beliefs. 

Pogi

From the same article from the Stanford Encyclopedia

"iff" means "If and only if"

Quote

 

7.2 Objection #2: Correspondence

It is often said that what is most obvious about truth is that truth consists in correspondence to the facts — for example, that the truth of the proposition that the earth revolves around the sun consists in its correspondence to the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. The so-called correspondence theory of truth is built around this intuition, and tries to explain the notion of truth by appeal to the notions of correspondence and fact. Even if one does not build one's theory of truth around this intuition however, many philosophers regard it as a condition of adequacy on any theory of truth that the theory accommodates the correspondence intuition.

It is often objected to deflationism, however, that the doctrine has particular trouble meeting this adequacy condition. One way to bring out the problem here is by focusing on a particular articulation of the correspondence intuition, an articulation favoured by deflationists themselves (Horwich 1998b). According to this way of spelling it out, the intuition that a certain sentence or proposition ‘corresponds to the facts’ is the intuition that the sentence or proposition is true becauseof a certain way the  world is; that is, the truth of the proposition is explained by some contingent fact which is usually external to the proposition itself. We might express this by saying that someone who endorses the correspondence intuition so understood would endorse:

(8) The proposition that snow is white is true because snow is white

Now, the problem with (8) is that, when we combine it with the deflationary theory-or at least with a necessary version of that theory-we can derive something that is plainly false. Someone who holds a necessary version of deflationism would clearly be committed to the necessary truth of:

(9) The proposition that snow is white is true iff snow is white.

And, since (9) is a necessary truth, it is very plausible to suppose that (8) and (9) together entail:

(10) Snow is white because snow is white.

Unfortunately, however, (10) is false. The reason is that the relation reported by ‘because’ in (8) and (10) is a causal or explanatory relation, and such relations must obtain between distinct relata. But the relata in (10) are (obviously) not distinct. Hence (10) is false. But this means that the conjunction of (8) and (9) must be false, and that deflationism is inconsistent with the correspondence intuition. To borrow a phrase of Mark Johnston's — who mounts a similar argument in a different context — we might put the point differently by saying that, if deflationism is true, then what seems to be a perfectly good explanation in (8) goes missing; if deflationism is true, after all, then (8) is equivalent to (10), and (10) is not an explanation of anything.

How might a deflationist respond to this objection? One response is to provide a different articulation of the correspondence intuition. For example, one might point out that the connection between the proposition that snow is white and snow's being white is not a contingent connection, and suggest that this rules out (8) as a successful articulation of the correspondence intuition. That intuition (one might continue) is more plausibly given voice by (8*):

(8*) ‘Snow is white’ is true because snow is white.

However, when (8*) is conjoined with (9), one cannot derive the problematic (10), and thus, one might think, the objection from correspondence might be avoided. Now certainly this is a possible suggestion; the problem with it, however, is that a deflationist who thinks that (8*) is true is most plausibly construed as holding a sententialist, rather than a propositionalist, version of deflationism. A sententialist version of deflationism, on the other hand, will in turn supply a version of (9), viz.:

(9*) ‘Snow is white’ is true iff snow is white

which, at least it is interpreted as a necessary truth, will conspire with (8*) to yield (10). And we are back where we started.

Another response would be to object that ‘because’ creates an opaque context — that is, the kind of context within which one cannot substitute co-referring expressions and preserve truth. If ‘because’ creates an opaque context, then it would be illegitimate to suppose that (8) and (9) entail (10). This too is a possibility; however, it is not clear that ‘because’ creates opaque context of the right kind. In general we can distinguish two kinds of opaque context: intensional contexts, which allow the substitution of necessarily co-referring expressions but not contingently co-referring expressions; and hyper-intensional contexts, which do not even allow the substitution of necessarily co-referring expressions. If the inference from (8) and (9) to (10) is to be successfully blocked, it is necessary that ‘because’ creates a hyper-intensional context. However, it is open to a friend of the correspondence objection to argue that, while ‘because’ creates an intensional context, it does not create a hyper-intensional context.

A final, and most radical, response would be to reject the correspondence intuition outright. This response is not in fact as drastic as it sounds. In particular, the deflationist does not have to say that someone who says ‘the proposition that snow is white corresponds to the facts’ is speaking falsely. Deflationists would do better to say that such a person is simply using a picturesque or ornate way of saying that the proposition is true, where truth is understood in accordance with the deflationary theory. Indeed, the deflationist can even agree that for certain rhetorical or conversational purposes, it might be more effective to use the ‘correspondence to the facts’ talk. Nevertheless, it is important to see that this response does involve a burden, since it involves rejecting a condition of adequacy that many regard as binding on a theory of truth

 

 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

So...after all this, I guess it is just stupid people that leave the church. Someone needs to walk a mile in my life experience to even begin to understand.  But hey...I get it.  Mr. Smith, if the church has taught you this arrogance..then I am smarter than I thought.  You are so not helping!!

 

I feel like Robert's POV is that there are no  "facts" regarding the church that could ever be damaging to a testimony as long as those facts are properly understood. 

Therefore, anyone who leaves because of those facts (i.e. Intellectual reasons) must be wrong or failed to understand properly.  

If one comes at the issue from that POV, it makes sense. 

For those of us who understand the flaw in that assumption, it seems like an arrogant attitude (at least the way Robert presents it).  I don't think he means for it to sound arrogant, he just can't see it any differently.  I'll admit that the 30 year old me might have had a similar attitude. 

[Okrahomer]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'll admit that the 30 year old me might have had a similar attitude. 

So, Robert F. Smith--and those of us who share his faith--we're all just immature.  

Did someone say something about arrogance?

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, SteveO said:

And then you have the gall to follow this up by saying:

But you're the "unbiased" one right? 

 

Yes you got it.  

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, SteveO said:

And then you have the gall to follow this up by saying:

But you're the "unbiased" one right? 

 

But what you did was leave out the post that prompted my response.  If read Robert correctly he and Ash think even if someone claims to leave for intellectual reasons it is likely they don't really understand the doctrine or issue they claim is causing them intellectual problems.   If I misunderstood this Robert can correct me.  If not yes I find this a prime example of confirmation bias and stand by it.  If you think that makes me biased so be it. 

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have a PhD in history from a university viewed as a global leader in the field, and I just wrapped up almost five years as an editor for a history journal headquartered at the same university. I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect that I have a better understanding of history and historical issues than you and many posting in this thread, and I completely disagree with your assertions. FWIW.

Sure.  I am fine with that.  I often say I could be wrong. I was referring to how I personally have come to view the unfiltered (as unfiltered as any history narrative can be) historical narrative of the LDS church.  I certainly used to view it differently but Asia apparent have no longer found it very plausible.   I find contradictions as well as based on what I have studied of the history, and in spite of not being a professional historian can read and have read an abundance on the topic, find it is doubtful a divine God was behind it all and rather like many religions more man made.   

Above you mentions you have a better understanding of history and historical issue than I do.   Were you referring to specific LDS history or history in general. 

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

He has no basis for HIS "truth claims" but I am on my way out the door and taking on no new "clients" who need correction.

 

I thought for you truth cannot be defined and is based on what the individual finds and is led personally.  Thus one "truth"could be as good as another.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have a PhD in history from a university viewed as a global leader in the field, and I just wrapped up almost five years as an editor for a history journal headquartered at the same university. I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect that I have a better understanding of history and historical issues than you and many posting in this thread, and I completely disagree with your assertions. FWIW.

May I ask you another question?  

How many of your colleagues find the LDS historical narratives convincing and compelling enough to acccept them as true?  How many accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and the Book of Mormon as the word of God as the LDS church claims?

[rockpond]

58 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

So, Robert F. Smith--and those of us who share his faith--we're all just immature.  

Did someone say something about arrogance?

I said absolutely nothing about maturity.  I was referring to the fact that my faith crumbled in my late 30's and had to be rebuilt from the ground up.  I have a different POV now. I don't consider it any more or less mature than before. 

[Okrahomer]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I said absolutely nothing about maturity.  I was referring to the fact that my faith crumbled in my late 30's and had to be rebuilt from the ground up.  I have a different POV now. I don't consider it any more or less mature than before. 

OK.  I apologize for misreading you.  I do appreciate that you have had to rebuild your faith.  I respect the hard work that represents.

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I thought for you truth cannot be defined and is based on what the individual finds and is led personally.  Thus one "truth"could be as good as another.

Yes therefore you have no basis for your truth claims that Mormon truth claims are false.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/6/2017 at 5:49 PM, Jeanne said:

Yes..it is painful and not an easy thing.  My reasons were valid and very real to me and as far as intellectual knowledge..trying to get anything from the church in past is like pulling teeth!

Most people who leave the LDS Church do so with strong feelings, but rarely with any sort of intellectual understanding of the faith.  This is entirely normal, and is based on the fact that there are very few well-trained scholars who can adequately measure the intellectual content of the LDS faith.  Of course, as I always say, it is never necessary to have a well-trained intellect in order to leave Mormonism.  One may simply not be happy with, or comfortable with the LDS faith, and that is reason enough to leave.  I am sure that your reasons for leaving were valid and real, and very personal.

As to the difficulty of studying the LDS faith and history, such an academic pursuit will always be tough to pursue.  Not because the sources are not readily available, but because academic research is always difficult for everybody -- the preparation and experience required are daunting at best, and require great patience over many years.  And most people just don't have time for that.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, Teancum said:

What utter nonesense,   Many stop believing in Moromonsim due to intellectual reason.  In fact Mormonism does not stand up well to intellectual inquiry.  It's history and historical claims has so many large holes big enough to drive a truck through that it is amazing so many apparently intelligent people continue to buy into it.  However, most true believers don't really pursue the intellectual issues.

It is true that most believers in the LDS faith do so for other than intellectual reasons, and it is also true that many very intelligent people accept that faith. Indeed, contrary to your intuitive negative approach, the higher the level of education a Mormon has, the more likely he is to believe and be active.  Yet you claim that those who leave the faith do so for intellectual reasons, and that it's history and historical claims are basically false.  You are contradicting yourself.

23 hours ago, Teancum said:

  Nor does the leadership promote an Intellectual pursuit of Mormon truth claim but rattler promote gaining a testimony through feelings that are then attributed to revelation from the Holy Ghost.

Correct.  The missionaries appeal to inspiration of the Holy Spirit in their proselyting, and always have.  The powers of the intellect can be immense and valuable, but are seldom used in either entering or leaving the Mormon faith.

23 hours ago, Teancum said:

  Further many apologists here argue all they need to do is present a very low bar of "plausibility" for the LDS truth claims that then can encourage someone to pray for those feeelings from the "Holy Ghost" that can then be considered "revelation."  This is a really a pretty low end argument for finding out what is really true.

One does not need to argue for any sort of intellectual plausibility of Mormon history or theology in order to proselyte.  Although Mormonism can hold its own in any intellectual debate, the strongest argument on behalf of the LDS faith is always inspiration via the Holy Spirit.  That may seem "low end" to you, but it is ultimately biblical and the sort of argument preferred by our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.  Matt 16:16-17,

Quote

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/6/2017 at 7:53 PM, Teancum said:

You and Ash are the ones in lala land and need to tell yourselves this to confirm your own biases.  

Ash provides a full discussion and sources in his book.  I do the same in my work.  If you disagree, please do likewise.  It will become readily apparent whether you are merely expressing unsupported biases and prejudices or making learned, rational arguments.

[Teancum]

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes therefore you have no basis for your truth claims that Mormon truth claims are false.

And you have no basis for claiming my claim that Mormon truth claims are false are false as well.   

What a fun game this is. 

[Teancum]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is true that most believers in the LDS faith do so for other than intellectual reasons, and it is also true that many very intelligent people accept that faith. Indeed, contrary to your intuitive negative approach, the higher the level of education a Mormon has, the more likely he is to believe and be active.  Yet you claim that those who leave the faith do so for intellectual reasons, and that it's history and historical claims are basically false.  You are contradicting yourself.

Correct.  The missionaries appeal to inspiration of the Holy Spirit in their proselyting, and always have.  The powers of the intellect can be immense and valuable, but are seldom used in either entering or leaving the Mormon faith.

One does not need to argue for any sort of intellectual plausibility of Mormon history or theology in order to proselyte.  Although Mormonism can hold its own in any intellectual debate, the strongest argument on behalf of the LDS faith is always inspiration via the Holy Spirit.  That may seem "low end" to you, but it is ultimately biblical and the sort of argument preferred by our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ.  Matt 16:16-17,

 

I agree that many and likely most leave the LDS church for other reasons than intellectual reasons.  But some do.  And the number seems to be growing.   And I disagree that those who claim such a reason have not given the intellectual rigors needed to make such a decision nor do they do so in ignorance.   Many such were extremely devoted members for much of their lives..  

t 

[Robert F. Smith]

22 hours ago, california boy said:

I think you are mistaken.  Other religions are also being held accountable.  Perhaps this is why all christian faiths are loosing members.  The question is more like why would the Mormon church be immune to not having it's history examined and found wanting just like other religions.

You are right on target, california boy.  Mormonism is not immune.  And those other religions have long since been the object of close examination by well qualified intellectuals, who have determined that they are very poorly based.  Mormonism should certainly be closely examined as well.  However, in such case (provided we can get examination by well-qualiified scholars, such as non-Mormon Jan Shipps), it is very likely that Mormonism will weather that close scrutiny much better than those other religions.  That has so far been the case.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I agree that many and likely most leave the LDS church for other reasons than intellectual reasons.  But some do.  And the number seems to be growing.   And I disagree that those who claim such a reason have not given the intellectual rigors needed to make such a decision nor do they do so in ignorance.   Many such were extremely devoted members for much of their lives..  

t 

Devotion has nothing to do with intellectual rigor (universities such as UCLA require rigor, and devotion will not get you good grades there), so I would be very interested in knowing about the books, articles, and blog comments by these intellectual giants you refer to -- though their numbers be few.  Who are these great intellectuals who have left the LDS faith for valid intellectual reasons?