RIP Anti Mormon Literature

[california boy]

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think religion has changed. Honestly most of these topics were hot topics in the 19th century.  Rather what's seen as appropriate for religion has changed for some groups.

About the only thing that wasn't there was the issue of abortion (which was only illegal after "quickening"). The main problem with abortion was that the people attempting it weren't terribly good at it so it wasn't really seen as an issue until the AMA tried to push a life begins at conception movement. Even then they built upon religious opposition to social ills like alcohol or prostitution yet didn't really get going until the end of the 19th century. (We should note that medicine really wasn't in the 19th century too) So abortion is just by technology alone primarily a 20th century issue. But even acknowledging it as a 20th century issue it's not like it wasn't a big issue 50 years ago.

Also I think that were it only about conflict between religion and particular political views we'd simply be seeing people leaving conservative Evangelical groups and flocking to more liberal mainline protestant groups. But that's precisely what we don't see. Indeed despite having more overlap over these political issues the mainline protestants are dying quicker than ever.

People aren't flocking to any religion.  They are leaving religion.  In the last couple of years 7 million people have left organized religion.  Honestly, you haven't noticed that the Republican party has been hijacked by the religious right?  This started by Jerry Falwell founding the moral majority in 1979 which changed the face of the Republican party and continues on today.  It has gotten to the point that even in the Mormon church being a Democrat is seen as some kind of anomaly that should be questioned.  How much more political could a church or politics be?  And the Mormon church is by no means alone.

The church is seeing 70% of it's young people leaving the church.  That is a huge unparalleled number ever in the history of the church.  You just have to read the reasons they are giving for leaving the church.  It is not an attitude outside the church that is doing this.  It is an attitude within the church that is doing this.

You think this is an abortion issue?  You think the mainline protestant religions are not identified with the Republican party?  You really think that religion has not changed in it's political activism?

You are completely ignoring the surveys on this issue, including the one sited in the article.

Quote

they are more concerned with behavior and political views than with orthodox belief

That is the issue the survey identified.  And that is the issue that so many who have left the church have identified.  The church just chooses to ignore it.  It is hardly just an abortion issue. It is behavior and political views issue just as the survey results are reporting.  Both of those issues are so blatant in the Mormon church, how can you not see that?

[YJacket]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

People aren't flocking to any religion.  They are leaving religion.  In the last couple of years 7 million people have left organized religion.  Honestly, you haven't noticed that the Republican party has been hijacked by the religious right?  This started by Jerry Falwell founding the moral majority in 1979 which changed the face of the Republican party and continues on today.  It has gotten to the point that even in the Mormon church being a Democrat is seen as some kind of anomaly that should be questioned.  How much more political could a church or politics be?  And the Mormon church is by no means alone.

The church is seeing 70% of it's young people leaving the church.  That is a huge unparalleled number ever in the history of the church.  You just have to read the reasons they are giving for leaving the church.  It is not an attitude outside the church that is doing this.  It is an attitude within the church that is doing this.

You think this is an abortion issue?  You think the mainline protestant religions are not identified with the Republican party?  You really think that religion has not changed in it's political activism?

You are completely ignoring the surveys on this issue, including the one sited in the article.

That is the issue the survey identified.  And that is the issue that so many who have left the church have identified.  The church just chooses to ignore it.  It is hardly just an abortion issue. It is behavior and political views issue just as the survey results are reporting.  Both of those issues are so blatant in the Mormon church, how can you not see that?

Unfortunately, we have this modern white-washed view of religion in the past, i.e. political issues and religion didn't intersect at all and that only now we are seeing people leaving religion b/c of political views.  

The church (or religion) has always been political; we just like to think of it as not political in today's modern society.  Religion is a philosophy on life, a belief system on how one should conduct themselves in daily life.  Religion is more than just a belief in a Supreme Being. The idea of separation of Church and State has been severely polluted in today's society. After the Revolutionary War and Independence actual States had official religions.  The States themselves came from (mostly anyways) religious communities, Congregationalist had New England, Catholics Maryland, etc. Separation used to mean simply that there was no official branch of religion; the idea that a school couldn't offer a public prayer was ludicrous 100 years ago-why, b/c religion permeated everything. To not offer a prayer at school was ridiculous.

What we are seeing is the effects of what happens when religion is relegated just to Sunday affairs in the public sphere and not to life in general.  There is less religion involved in politics and everyday life than at any point in the US's history. When religion does not permeate every day of your life then eventually it gets weeded out.

The reason youth are dropping out of the church and religion has nothing to do with the church itself; it has to do with how they are being raised. 1962 prayer was taken out of school.  In that time period religion was talked about seen as part of everyday life-it was important. No one feared discussing religion in public. Over time, religion and references to God in the public sphere have slowly but surely been removed.

Just look at the hours, a child will spend approximately 8 hours a day 5 days a week, approx. 40 weeks in a year over 12 years in a secular teaching environment that teaches everything except about the most important (i.e. a philosophy on life).  They go to church for 3 hours once a week for 52 weeks over 18 years.

From which are they going to learn more, from which are they going to form their opinion on life?  How many teachers and authorities figures are teaching secularism vs. not?

It's pretty easy to see why the Church is losing 70% of the youth-and it's not the church's fault and modifying the message won't do a bit of good.  Quite simply and plainly, it is an unbelieving generation. The scriptures are full of examples of unbelieving generations.  

They have it so good that they don't need God.

[Bobbieaware]

34 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Unfortunately, we have this modern white-washed view of religion in the past, i.e. political issues and religion didn't intersect at all and that only now we are seeing people leaving religion b/c of political views.  

The church (or religion) has always been political; we just like to think of it as not political in today's modern society.  Religion is a philosophy on life, a belief system on how one should conduct themselves in daily life.  Religion is more than just a belief in a Supreme Being. The idea of separation of Church and State has been severely polluted in today's society. After the Revolutionary War and Independence actual States had official religions.  The States themselves came from (mostly anyways) religious communities, Congregationalist had New England, Catholics Maryland, etc. Separation used to mean simply that there was no official branch of religion; the idea that a school couldn't offer a public prayer was ludicrous 100 years ago-why, b/c religion permeated everything. To not offer a prayer at school was ridiculous.

What we are seeing is the effects of what happens when religion is relegated just to Sunday affairs in the public sphere and not to life in general.  There is less religion involved in politics and everyday life than at any point in the US's history. When religion does not permeate every day of your life then eventually it gets weeded out.

The reason youth are dropping out of the church and religion has nothing to do with the church itself; it has to do with how they are being raised. 1962 prayer was taken out of school.  In that time period religion was talked about seen as part of everyday life-it was important. No one feared discussing religion in public. Over time, religion and references to God in the public sphere have slowly but surely been removed.

Just look at the hours, a child will spend approximately 8 hours a day 5 days a week, approx. 40 weeks in a year over 12 years in a secular teaching environment that teaches everything except about the most important (i.e. a philosophy on life).  They go to church for 3 hours once a week for 52 weeks over 18 years.

From which are they going to learn more, from which are they going to form their opinion on life?  How many teachers and authorities figures are teaching secularism vs. not?

It's pretty easy to see why the Church is losing 70% of the youth-and it's not the church's fault and modifying the message won't do a bit of good.  Quite simply and plainly, it is an unbelieving generation. The scriptures are full of examples of unbelieving generations.  

They have it so good that they don't need God.

Excellent post! And I'm sure you agree that if the Church did liberalize to conform with the "standards" of the secular world that it would lose even more members. There are many reasons why member retention in a secularized LDS Church would grow even worse, but for now I'll share just two of those reasons: 1) Many conservative families would go inactive or leave altogether because the Church would be viewed as being in a state of apostasy. 2) Secularized kids would have little motivation to attend a liberalized LDS Church because secular humanists aren't normally interested in the things of God, the reason being that in the progressive worldview an idealized socialist state, as a sort of modern version of an iidolatrous deity, steps in to take the place of the God of heaven.

[YJacket]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Excellent post! And I'm sure you agree that if the Church did liberalize to conform with the "standards" of the secular world that it would lose even more members. There are many reasons why member retention in a secularized LDS Church would grow even worse, but for now I'll share just two of those reasons: 1) Many conservative families would go inactive or leave altogether because the Church would be viewed as being in a state of apostasy. 2) Secularized kids would have little motivation to attend a liberalized LDS Church because secular humanists aren't normally interested in the things of God, the reason being that in the progressive worldview an idealized socialist state, as a sort of modern version of an iidolatrous deity, steps in to take the place of the God of heaven.

Thank you!  Excellent points and yes I agree on both points.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, YJacket said:

Unfortunately, we have this modern white-washed view of religion in the past, i.e. political issues and religion didn't intersect at all and that only now we are seeing people leaving religion b/c of political views.  

The church (or religion) has always been political; we just like to think of it as not political in today's modern society.  Religion is a philosophy on life, a belief system on how one should conduct themselves in daily life.  Religion is more than just a belief in a Supreme Being. The idea of separation of Church and State has been severely polluted in today's society. After the Revolutionary War and Independence actual States had official religions.  The States themselves came from (mostly anyways) religious communities, Congregationalist had New England, Catholics Maryland, etc. Separation used to mean simply that there was no official branch of religion; the idea that a school couldn't offer a public prayer was ludicrous 100 years ago-why, b/c religion permeated everything. To not offer a prayer at school was ridiculous.

I don't disagree that society is much different than it was 200 years ago.  Women aren't burned at the stake any longer for practicing medicine or branded with a scarlett letter for having an affair while the the men got of scott free.  There are more reasons that just public prayer not being said in school.  People used to accept every single word in the Bible as if it was uttered by God himself.  People would argue whether the comma was in the right place.  Religion lost a lot of credibility when science started to reveal the factual errors that the Bible contains.  Suddenly God or Religion could no longer be trusted as a place of truth.

2 hours ago, YJacket said:

What we are seeing is the effects of what happens when religion is relegated just to Sunday affairs in the public sphere and not to life in general.  There is less religion involved in politics and everyday life than at any point in the US's history. When religion does not permeate every day of your life then eventually it gets weeded out.

The reason youth are dropping out of the church and religion has nothing to do with the church itself; it has to do with how they are being raised. 1962 prayer was taken out of school.  In that time period religion was talked about seen as part of everyday life-it was important. No one feared discussing religion in public. Over time, religion and references to God in the public sphere have slowly but surely been removed.

While prayer was officially taken out of public school in 1962, it had not been a part of most public schools for decades before that.  I certainly never heard a prayer uttered in class.  And I would say that not discussing religion in social settings has also been around for decades.  Other generations went through school without prayer and did just fine.

 

2 hours ago, YJacket said:

Just look at the hours, a child will spend approximately 8 hours a day 5 days a week, approx. 40 weeks in a year over 12 years in a secular teaching environment that teaches everything except about the most important (i.e. a philosophy on life).  They go to church for 3 hours once a week for 52 weeks over 18 years.

From which are they going to learn more, from which are they going to form their opinion on life?  How many teachers and authorities figures are teaching secularism vs. not?

Do you have any real evidence to support your opinion?  Have there been studies that say school influences children more than their parents?  I certainly have met my share of "recovering Catholics" that attended Catholic schools but no longer want anything to do with the Catholic church.  They not only got their religion taught to them 5 days a week at school, but also on the weekends and special camps, Bible retreats, etc.  

 

2 hours ago, YJacket said:

It's pretty easy to see why the Church is losing 70% of the youth-and it's not the church's fault and modifying the message won't do a bit of good.  Quite simply and plainly, it is an unbelieving generation. The scriptures are full of examples of unbelieving generations.  

They have it so good that they don't need God.

This is the first generation that finds themselves in a church that actively worked to take away the civli rights of gay couples.  It is the first generation that finds themselves in a church that fires teachers at their schools for supporting the right of gay couples to marry.  It is the first generation to find out that Joseph Smith didn't translate the golden plates, but from a stone in a hat.  This is the first generation that knows Joseph Smith married 14 year old girls and other husbands wives.  It's the first generation that knows the earth is not 7000 years old or that Adam and Eve were not the first humans or that there was never a world wide flood.  It is the first generation that has learned that not everything coming from the prophet is true or necessarily the word of God.  Yet you blame it on them for "having it so good" or that they spend too much time in school.  They aren't abandoning God, they are abandoning the church.  And they are not alone for many of the same reasons.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Excellent post! And I'm sure you agree that if the Church did liberalize to conform with the "standards" of the secular world that it would lose even more members. There are many reasons why member retention in a secularized LDS Church would grow even worse, but for now I'll share just two of those reasons: 1) Many conservative families would go inactive or leave altogether because the Church would be viewed as being in a state of apostasy. 2) Secularized kids would have little motivation to attend a liberalized LDS Church because secular humanists aren't normally interested in the things of God, the reason being that in the progressive worldview an idealized socialist state, as a sort of modern version of an iidolatrous deity, steps in to take the place of the God of heaven.

People spend their time where they see value or enriching their lives.  They spend their time doing what they love to do.  Everyone makes these choices.  Those that think they are getting value out of continuing to attend church stay, sometimes even when they no longer believe it to be true.  But certainly people that find the church to be a negative influence in their lives and not a place of truth are going to have a much more difficult time rationalizing the amount of time that church takes.

 

[clarkgoble]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

People aren't flocking to any religion.  They are leaving religion.  In the last couple of years 7 million people have left organized religion.

Yes, but I was responding to the idea that this was due to religion changing. It seems like religion is pretty similar and people are just rejecting it not because it's changed but because of what it is.

Quote

 Honestly, you haven't noticed that the Republican party has been hijacked by the religious right?  This started by Jerry Falwell founding the moral majority in 1979 which changed the face of the Republican party and continues on today.  It has gotten to the point that even in the Mormon church being a Democrat is seen as some kind of anomaly that should be questioned.  How much more political could a church or politics be?  And the Mormon church is by no means alone.

I'd dispute it's been hijacked. If anything I think that while the religious right makes up a significant portion of the GOP base, that the GOP has tended to do relatively little for them. Ask yourself what the major policy achievements by the religious right have been at the federal level since 1980 -- nearly 40 years ago. You can't same DOMA since that was bipartisan and pushed by Clinton. The end to partial birth abortion maybe, although again that was pretty widely disliked. Beyond that? Not a whole lot beyond a lot of failures.

What the GOP has largely done (and sadly they've done this for most of their coalitions) is yell a lot about how much they agree with them and do nothing for them.

Now if "hijacking" means rhetorically talking about the fall of morals and how bad abortion is then I guess you might have a point. The question though is whether that's going on more now than it was under Nixon and the rise of the silent majority. I'm really, really skeptical it is. If anything I'd suggest the opposite. And that was more than 50 years ago.

Quote

The church is seeing 70% of it's young people leaving the church.  

Could you be more specific about what polls you're talking about and which church? I've not seen any poll suggesting that number.

Quote

That is the issue the survey identified.  And that is the issue that so many who have left the church have identified.  The church just chooses to ignore it.  It is hardly just an abortion issue. It is behavior and political views issue just as the survey results are reporting.  Both of those issues are so blatant in the Mormon church, how can you not see that

Again it's not clear what poll you're talking about Jana has a Next Mormons Survey but I don't think that's what you're referring to. In the comments people referred to the Pew and Gallup polls. I suspect you're thinking about that - likely the Nones and what they are reporting as their problem. However my point is that these aren't new things in religion, not that Nones don't feel that way. I've written about how they do feel that way. 

Edited July 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[YJacket]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

This is the first generation that finds themselves in a church that actively worked to take away the civli rights of gay couples.  It is the first generation that finds themselves in a church that fires teachers at their schools for supporting the right of gay couples to marry.  It is the first generation to find out that Joseph Smith didn't translate the golden plates, but from a stone in a hat.  This is the first generation that knows Joseph Smith married 14 year old girls and other husbands wives.  It's the first generation that knows the earth is not 7000 years old or that Adam and Eve were not the first humans or that there was never a world wide flood.  It is the first generation that has learned that not everything coming from the prophet is true or necessarily the word of God.  Yet you blame it on them for "having it so good" or that they spend too much time in school.  They aren't abandoning God, they are abandoning the church.  And they are not alone for many of the same reasons.

That's a bunch of non-sequitur statements and you know it.  1st sentence-totally false. First off you can't take something away if you've never had it. Homosexuals didn't have the "right" to marry for centuries. The secular world deemed it a "right" only a couple of years ago.  The Church going against the natural man and the secular world. . . hmm that sounds like religion to me. The Church hasn't changed it's stance on homosexual behaviors but b/c the world changed and the Church stayed the same "This is the first generation that finds themselves in a church that actively worked to take away the civli rights of gay couples". That's a bunch of hyperbolic malarki simply designed to gain sympathy and support for a wicked position.  It tugs at the heartstrings with a totally false narrative.

It more sounds like the World becoming more wicked.

The rest is a bunch of bull.  I knew about JS at the hat way before the internet. I knew about JS and polygamy way before the internet.  

Yes it absolutely is because they have it so good.  You don't need to pray to God for rain when you have an app that can forecast the weather.  You don't need God to pray to when you know how to get high-yield grain. When was the last time society has a whole had to worry about actually getting food.  People today can be fat, dumb and happy without ever having to lift a finger.  100 years ago, you didn't work, you died.  You didn't have charity, those who couldn't work died.  Every bit of information is available at one's fingertips . . .but wisdom (which the world is sorely lacking) is nowhere to be found.

Look at all the modern conveniences we have . . .when do we need God?  Look at where the vast majority of religious growth is coming from?  West Africa . ..why? b/c they understand we need God. They couldn't give a rip about whether the Earth was 7000 years old or 10 million, why b/c they need God today.

They are absolutely abandoning God.  When do they pray?  When was the last time you saw a significant amount of people pray over their meal in public?  There is a big, big difference between believing that God exists and having a understanding that you need Him in your life.  

The difference is an unbelieving generation. That has progressed over time.  100 years ago religion was weaved into the fabric of life, then it became just a Sunday affair, now it's is just a general belief in God (but it doesn't change anyone's life), those who have a general belief in God-do they read scriptures, pray everyday or do they just simply ignore the parts that conflict with the secular view on life?

Yes, we are living in a time period where it is a spoiled rotten unbelieving generation.  We have it too good.  

Don't worry though, this may continue for a time-but eventually God will humble us.

[YJacket]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

People spend their time where they see value or enriching their lives.  They spend their time doing what they love to do.  Everyone makes these choices.  Those that think they are getting value out of continuing to attend church stay, sometimes even when they no longer believe it to be true.  But certainly people that find the church to be a negative influence in their lives and not a place of truth are going to have a much more difficult time rationalizing the amount of time that church takes.

I agree with this people spend their time where they see value.  Religion provides the proper perspective in life.  If one asked a 5 year old if he wanted to eat ice-cream every day, he would say yes and if you allowed it he would do it.

[clarkgoble]

17 hours ago, Honorentheos said:

The Church itself has essays on lds.org that a decade ago would have been largely dismissed by the faithful.

I'm not sure that's fair at all. Certainly some faithful, yet ignorant, might have dismissed elements of them. But certainly in the BYU region much of this was pretty well known by a large number of faithful.

Quote

The Givens are praised for making cafeteria Mormonism acceptable, where it matters less what one believes so long as one is striving in a direction that aligns with the Church.

Again I'm not sure that's fair. First I'm not sure I agree with your characteristic of cafeteria Mormon (nor the degree to which it is acceptable). But I'm also not quite sure the Givens have much to do with all this.

But by and large I think it's long been the case that the Church doesn't care what you believe (outside of the temple questions) so long as you don't go around teaching it. There's long, long been a presumption that if you're at least striving to head in the right direction that the spirit will lead you over time to learning the correct doctrines.

Quote

Hardy's stance that belief the BoM is historical is not necessary for exaltation would have gotten a person excommunicated long after the Godmakers had become campy farce even to ex-Mormons.

Umm. No. I think people who think it is not historical are wrong. I personally have troubles with them in leadership positions. But no one ever saw that as an excommunicable offense that I know of.

Quote

I think she fails to acknowledge that information as medium has changed dramatically in a world where diffused communal information sharing has higher value than singular expert opinion.

That's an interesting point. I think it a huge problem right now that leads to things like Trump or conspiracy theories. But I do think you're right there. A closely related phenomena is the ability to find some community on the internet that believes similar to you so that your ideas are never really seriously challenged. This isn't just a challenge for the Church but for the country. 

Quote

One doesn't just find information on the internet which renders books less necessary, one finds community discussion and the exchange of information. Marshall McLuhan would probably have viewed the idea the decline of a particular medium means the death of the content it carried as naïve. The message that there is more to the truth than the Church is telling you is alive and doing very, very well.

I think you're right to a degree although I think you miss the most critical component. This is all only loosely connected to truth. (Witness InfoWars or similar movements on the left) Rather group identity becomes key so that some elements are fixated on to the degree they support group identity and policing of group boundaries. Group rather than truth becomes the focus. (And reddit groups are good examples of this)

 

Edited July 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Honorentheos]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure that's fair at all. Certainly some faithful, yet ignorant, might have dismissed elements of them.

The question is why were people ignorant? Why did it take the essay on polygamy for people to stop arguing that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with anyone other than Emma? Why did it take the essay on the Priesthood and Race for the issue to be answered as, "Yeah, that doesn't seem to be God at work. Oops." The first vision accounts? Not exactly making it into GC regularly or Sunday School discussions.

It's very fair to say that something has evolved in the last decade or so. The Church has evolved it's stance in relation to it's own history and how it presents it. I'd argue that the internet made it necessary because it couldn't remain hidden. If you want to argue the church wasn't hiding history, we'll go right to the story of JFS and the 1832 account of the first vision and slay that dragon. So please, don't.

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

But certainly in the BYU region much of this was pretty well known by a large number of faithful.

I lived in Utah County blocks away from BYU for a while. Helped Reed Benson's daughter move, rubbed a few elbows. I don't buy this. Most LDS were not widely aware of the issues, and certainly had problems with positions the essays acknowledge. Even Rough Stone Rolling, when it came out, was praised for being brave yet didn't address the multiple first vision account issue. Too early in the timeline, I'd argue. If Bushman wrote it today it would probably be an entire chapter.

Whatever we say about the decline in the number of books on Mormonism that take a critical stance, one has to look at the books that take a faithful stance and recognize there are many that contain topics previously reserved for the critical literature.

[clarkgoble]

32 minutes ago, Honorentheos said:

The question is why were people ignorant? Why did it take the essay on polygamy for people to stop arguing that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with anyone other than Emma? Why did it take the essay on the Priesthood and Race for the issue to be answered as, "Yeah, that doesn't seem to be God at work. Oops." The first vision accounts? Not exactly making it into GC regularly or Sunday School discussions.

I think people still are ignorant. So while I find the essays extremely helpful, I don't think they've changed the situation on the ground significantly. I'd lay really good odds that less than 10% of the American church has read any of the essays. Probably a lot less.

Quote

It's very fair to say that something has evolved in the last decade or so. The Church has evolved it's stance in relation to it's own history and how it presents it.

I definitely think Hinkley changed things as prophet and towards the end of his life even brought Pres. Packer along. So I think the Church's stance regarding faithful history has definitely changed.

Quote

I'd argue that the internet made it necessary because it couldn't remain hidden. If you want to argue the church wasn't hiding history, we'll go right to the story of JFS and the 1832 account of the first vision and slay that dragon. So please, don't.

I'm skeptical the internet made as big a difference as some portrayed. But I definitely suspect the fear of the internet changed how certain prominent figures saw the problem.

Quote

I lived in Utah County blocks away from BYU for a while. Helped Reed Benson's daughter move, rubbed a few elbows. I don't buy this. Most LDS were not widely aware of the issues, and certainly had problems with positions the essays acknowledge. Even Rough Stone Rolling, when it came out, was praised for being brave yet didn't address the multiple first vision account issue. Too early in the timeline, I'd argue. If Bushman wrote it today it would probably be an entire chapter.

Rough Stone Rolling goes through things in passing in a fairly quick pace. It's still a long book to cover everything. But long before RSR came out there were plenty of essays in the Ensign on the multiple versions. I'm not sure it made that big a difference because frankly most people don't read the historical essays in the Ensign.

I'm really skeptical of your later point.

Quote

Whatever we say about the decline in the number of books on Mormonism that take a critical stance, one has to look at the books that take a faithful stance and recognize there are many that contain topics previously reserved for the critical literature.

I think we have to distinguish between the heyday of anti-Mormon stuff. The CES Letter stuff was probably the culmination of that with nothing coming close sense. However I think those who mentioned YouTube or podcasts like Mormon Stories are right that what really happened is the nature of criticism changed. I'd also add that many books are still very critical but just don't have the chip on their shoulders that critical naturalistic writing in the 90's had. (In that sense both critics and apologists have matured a bit since the silly "wars" of the early 90s)

Edited July 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Honorentheos]

It's clearly a matter of opinion as to what extent the shift in LDS discussion of it's history has affected either the knowledge of the issues by the lay person or the nature of belief among members. The evidence for how the Church presented it's history a couple of decades ago to today is less a matter of opinion.

Now personally I'd put the CES letter in the current phase of Mormon critical media which is composed on online content. It is almost entirely an electronic product distributed on the internet, shared through the internet, and discussed on the internet. In Sacred Loneliness is more of an example of a book I think represents the late phase of critical printed media. While widely discussed and since extracted into digital media, I suspect most people who really ever read it did so using an actual book.

[california boy]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, but I was responding to the idea that this was due to religion changing. It seems like religion is pretty similar and people are just rejecting it not because it's changed but because of what it is.

I'd dispute it's been hijacked. If anything I think that while the religious right makes up a significant portion of the GOP base, that the GOP has tended to do relatively little for them. Ask yourself what the major policy achievements by the religious right have been at the federal level since 1980 -- nearly 40 years ago. You can't same DOMA since that was bipartisan and pushed by Clinton. The end to partial birth abortion maybe, although again that was pretty widely disliked. Beyond that? Not a whole lot beyond a lot of failures.

What the GOP has largely done (and sadly they've done this for most of their coalitions) is yell a lot about how much they agree with them and do nothing for them.

Now if "hijacking" means rhetorically talking about the fall of morals and how bad abortion is then I guess you might have a point. The question though is whether that's going on more now than it was under Nixon and the rise of the silent majority. I'm really, really skeptical it is. If anything I'd suggest the opposite. And that was more than 50 years ago.

Could you be more specific about what polls you're talking about and which church? I've not seen any poll suggesting that number.

Again it's not clear what poll you're talking about Jana has a Next Mormons Survey but I don't think that's what you're referring to. In the comments people referred to the Pew and Gallup polls. I suspect you're thinking about that - likely the Nones and what they are reporting as their problem. However my point is that these aren't new things in religion, not that Nones don't feel that way. I've written about how they do feel that way. 

Clark, I read your article and I pretty much agree with what you are saying.  So perhaps we are talking past each other.  The only numbers I would disagree with you on is this statement.

Quote

Within the US though, I think our retention is still quite good, varying between 65%-70% depending upon what you look at.

Wondered where you got these statistics?  I got my 70% young people leaving the church from the church records that were part of the Mormonleaks info.  It has been talked about quite a bit.

I also disagree with your feeling that the Christian right has not taken over at least the rhetoric of the Republican party.  There does seem to be more lip service to that group than actual legislation.  But I find both parties to be pretty ineffectual in getting anything passed these days.  Certainly Trump has made significant executive orders that are directed at the Christian right as well as his Supreme Court nomination.

 

[california boy]

12 hours ago, YJacket said:

That's a bunch of non-sequitur statements and you know it.  1st sentence-totally false. First off you can't take something away if you've never had it. Homosexuals didn't have the "right" to marry for centuries. The secular world deemed it a "right" only a couple of years ago.  The Church going against the natural man and the secular world. . . hmm that sounds like religion to me. The Church hasn't changed it's stance on homosexual behaviors but b/c the world changed and the Church stayed the same "This is the first generation that finds themselves in a church that actively worked to take away the civli rights of gay couples". That's a bunch of hyperbolic malarki simply designed to gain sympathy and support for a wicked position.  It tugs at the heartstrings with a totally false narrative.

You do realize that the California Supreme Court specifically ruled that gay couples had the civil right to marry in the state of California.  It was absolutely legal and their right to marry prior to Prop 8.  Prop 8 took away that civil right in the form of an amendment to the California constitution.  So yes it is a FACT that homosexuals had the absolute right to marry in California.  The church's heavy involvement in Prop 8 took away that civil right until the case was appealed the the Supreme Court of the U.S.  Sorry you are completely wrong.  And yes, this is the first generation that finds themselves in a church that actively worked to take away the civil rights of gay couples.

 

12 hours ago, YJacket said:

It more sounds like the World becoming more wicked.

The rest is a bunch of bull.  I knew about JS at the hat way before the internet. I knew about JS and polygamy way before the internet.  

Yes it absolutely is because they have it so good.  You don't need to pray to God for rain when you have an app that can forecast the weather.  You don't need God to pray to when you know how to get high-yield grain. When was the last time society has a whole had to worry about actually getting food.  People today can be fat, dumb and happy without ever having to lift a finger.  100 years ago, you didn't work, you died.  You didn't have charity, those who couldn't work died.  Every bit of information is available at one's fingertips . . .but wisdom (which the world is sorely lacking) is nowhere to be found.

Look at all the modern conveniences we have . . .when do we need God?  Look at where the vast majority of religious growth is coming from?  West Africa . ..why? b/c they understand we need God. They couldn't give a rip about whether the Earth was 7000 years old or 10 million, why b/c they need God today.

They are absolutely abandoning God.  When do they pray?  When was the last time you saw a significant amount of people pray over their meal in public?  There is a big, big difference between believing that God exists and having a understanding that you need Him in your life.  

The difference is an unbelieving generation. That has progressed over time.  100 years ago religion was weaved into the fabric of life, then it became just a Sunday affair, now it's is just a general belief in God (but it doesn't change anyone's life), those who have a general belief in God-do they read scriptures, pray everyday or do they just simply ignore the parts that conflict with the secular view on life?

Yes, we are living in a time period where it is a spoiled rotten unbelieving generation.  We have it too good.  

Don't worry though, this may continue for a time-but eventually God will humble us.

I disagree with your opinion and stand by what I wrote.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 7/17/2017 at 11:29 AM, boblloyd91 said:

http://religionnews.com/2017/07/11/rip-anti-mormon-literature/

Jana Riess wrote an interesting article about the sharp decline in Anti Mormon literature being published. Her theories are that with Mormonism's slowing growth, declining Evangelical concerns about "right theology" and other factors. Others pointed out that in the U.S. Evangelicals are declining as well. It's an interesting article and would love to hear others thoughts. 

Anti Mormon literature never did anything to stop the growth of the church. In fact, Anti Mormon literature may accelerate the growth.  

[strappinglad]

To suggest that joe public or joe Mormon knows much about what "everyone should know about history"  , either secular or religious, current or ancient, is wishful thinking . Watch youtube with any one of the ' man on the street answering simple questions ' videos like " Jay walking " or "Waters World "or " Talking with Americans " to witness the utter obliviousness of most folks when it comes to historical facts. Now if they  were asked what Kim Kardashian wore to the latest film debue , perfect answers all around.

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Anti Mormon literature never did anything to stop the growth of the church. In fact, Anti Mormon literature may accelerate the growth.  

That was true under limited circumstances in the pre-internet era. Typically where there were sufficient members around that people actually knew Mormons then anti-Mormon materials led to discussions which led to an increase in conversions. But that was in the days when anti-Mormon material was primarily Evangelical and handed out by them or shown via ridiculous movies. Now anti-Mormon material tends to arise primarily from atheists or secularists and is disseminated by the internet. It's hard to know whether that still has the effect it did with Evangelical anti-Mormon materials in the 80's or 90's.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That was true under limited circumstances in the pre-internet era. Typically where there were sufficient members around that people actually knew Mormons then anti-Mormon materials led to discussions which led to an increase in conversions. But that was in the days when anti-Mormon material was primarily Evangelical and handed out by them or shown via ridiculous movies. Now anti-Mormon material tends to arise primarily from atheists or secularists and is disseminated by the internet. It's hard to know whether that still has the effect it did with Evangelical anti-Mormon materials in the 80's or 90's.

but I am confident that the church will keep growing. 

[clarkgoble]

16 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

but I am confident that the church will keep growing. 

Yes but we may need to adjust our methods. In a certain way a lot of our success, despite the missionaries, came passively as people were curious about us. These days people answer their curiosity with the internet. And as we've seen not only with Mormonism but with Islam, people can easily be trapped up in conspiracy theories and bad information. Figuring out how to combat this is non-trivial. Having up our own internet presence undoubtedly helps. But I think the more interesting question is how, in areas of many mixed Mormons and non-Mormons (i.e. most places outside of Utah and southern Idaho) can we best get people to ask us about our Mormonism. It's my guess that question, much more so than people seeing us as wrong do to critical internet sources, is the biggest reason missionary work is dropping in effectiveness. 

[mfbukowski]

On 7/19/2017 at 4:35 AM, YJacket said:

Unfortunately, we have this modern white-washed view of religion in the past, i.e. political issues and religion didn't intersect at all and that only now we are seeing people leaving religion b/c of political views.  

The church (or religion) has always been political; we just like to think of it as not political in today's modern society.  Religion is a philosophy on life, a belief system on how one should conduct themselves in daily life.  Religion is more than just a belief in a Supreme Being. The idea of separation of Church and State has been severely polluted in today's society. After the Revolutionary War and Independence actual States had official religions.  The States themselves came from (mostly anyways) religious communities, Congregationalist had New England, Catholics Maryland, etc. Separation used to mean simply that there was no official branch of religion; the idea that a school couldn't offer a public prayer was ludicrous 100 years ago-why, b/c religion permeated everything. To not offer a prayer at school was ridiculous.

What we are seeing is the effects of what happens when religion is relegated just to Sunday affairs in the public sphere and not to life in general.  There is less religion involved in politics and everyday life than at any point in the US's history. When religion does not permeate every day of your life then eventually it gets weeded out.

The reason youth are dropping out of the church and religion has nothing to do with the church itself; it has to do with how they are being raised. 1962 prayer was taken out of school.  In that time period religion was talked about seen as part of everyday life-it was important. No one feared discussing religion in public. Over time, religion and references to God in the public sphere have slowly but surely been removed.

Just look at the hours, a child will spend approximately 8 hours a day 5 days a week, approx. 40 weeks in a year over 12 years in a secular teaching environment that teaches everything except about the most important (i.e. a philosophy on life).  They go to church for 3 hours once a week for 52 weeks over 18 years.

From which are they going to learn more, from which are they going to form their opinion on life?  How many teachers and authorities figures are teaching secularism vs. not?

It's pretty easy to see why the Church is losing 70% of the youth-and it's not the church's fault and modifying the message won't do a bit of good.  Quite simply and plainly, it is an unbelieving generation. The scriptures are full of examples of unbelieving generations.  

They have it so good that they don't need God.

Great post- check this out- it is a different way of seeing "secularism" acknowledging that even non-theists need "religion".  It is seen as mostly a political position and  mostly agrees with most of what you have said here though the author is a non-theist.  https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006R8PH1G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Definitely an interesting read for $10. and a free download of kindle software

I think, paradoxically at first blush, perhaps, that if we truly understand secularism, it would be possible to communicate about God with secularists as a concept seeing him in a theistic Humanist way- as the Ideal Human, and patterning one's life based on the best characteristics humanity has come up with, like regarding others as their brothers and sisters, doing unto others as they would like, etc.

If the idea of Humanism is seen as creating the best possible humans, I do not see that as that different as the Mormon belief in becoming like the Best Human- Heavenly Father and Mother.

As I have said elsewhere when God is seen as a Human, humanism becomes theology.

If we could preach that and reach "secular" humanists, and if they could accept that paradigm of God as an archetype for the Ideal Human, I think we could reach millions.

Edited August 22, 2017 by mfbukowski

[SamuelTheLamanite]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes but we may need to adjust our methods. In a certain way a lot of our success, despite the missionaries, came passively as people were curious about us. These days people answer their curiosity with the internet. And as we've seen not only with Mormonism but with Islam, people can easily be trapped up in conspiracy theories and bad information. Figuring out how to combat this is non-trivial. Having up our own internet presence undoubtedly helps. But I think the more interesting question is how, in areas of many mixed Mormons and non-Mormons (i.e. most places outside of Utah and southern Idaho) can we best get people to ask us about our Mormonism. It's my guess that question, much more so than people seeing us as wrong do to critical internet sources, is the biggest reason missionary work is dropping in effectiveness. 

Yes you are right! i created a new topic on that 

[hagoth7]

On 7/17/2017 at 0:29 PM, boblloyd91 said:

http://religionnews.com/2017/07/11/rip-anti-mormon-literature/

Jana Riess wrote an interesting article about the sharp decline in Anti Mormon literature being published....

I read an article in a Christian magazine last month that was the exact opposite of anti.

A number of uber-interesting things are in motion.

[hagoth7]

On 8/21/2017 at 4:49 PM, clarkgoble said:

...And as we've seen not only with Mormonism but with Islam, people can easily be trapped up in conspiracy theories and bad information....

Not sure what you mean by conspiracy theories, but anyone who actually believes the BofM knows that actual conspiracies have been the downfall of governments in times past, and that stark reality was preserved for us to encourage us to be vigilant in the latter days.

 

As to Islam, I've been of the outspoken opinion for years that 9/11 was a farce.

Attended a mosque last month for the first time.  Spent from before sundown to ca. sunrise discussing/learning faith-related things of importance there.

Of all of my inter-faith experiences over the last few decades, I consider that evening my most sacred inter-faith experience.

 

A life interacting with and learning from/with people of different faiths is highly recommended. There's a lot of joy and love to be had there.

Edited August 23, 2017 by hagoth7

[clarkgoble]

18 minutes ago, hagoth7 said:

Not sure what you mean by conspiracy theories, but anyone who actually believes the BofM knows that actual conspiracies have been the downfall of governments in times past, and that stark reality was preserved for us to encourage us to be vigilant in the latter days.

Conspiracy theories usually don't look at evidence that might falsify them and usually is hinged on misleading or limited data. Also it's the classic example of confirmation bias where people only look at the things that confirm the theory and rarely things that go against it.

Of course there are actual conspiracies. It's not hard to find recent ones ranging from falsifying emissions for diesel cars in Europe to pushing to sell opioids to drug addicts by drug companies. 

The problem is that typically those aren't the conspiracies conspiracy theorists are interested in.