Dehlin v. Kwaku - An Update

[ttribe]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We've been over this subject several times before, and I cited my sources.  People like to imagine scenarios which please them, rather than allowing the data and sociological analysis to tell the real story.  Moreover, those who are supposedly pious and devout are often the most shallow and insubstantial people you'll ever meet.  When such people leave their faith (from any religion), I see no reason to feel badly about it:  They never really had authentic faith to begin with.

Is this a blanket statement, or do you see more nuance than that?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Is this a blanket statement, or do you see more nuance than that?

I was disappointed when reading the bold, hope he has an explanation.

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I was disappointed when reading the bold, hope he has an explanation.

Yes, really seems to devalue the experience many of us have gone through.

[Derl Sanderson]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And no doubt many people that hide behind a “testimony” go only because they like the social scene, feel family pressure, like the feeling of being in charge of others, get off on ego trips etc. Right?

Perhaps. But that's to my point about mind reading. And you obviously are more confident in your ability to do so than I am. And I am dubious that the Church is capable of tracking the reason for those who once held recommends have left.

Edited March 2, 2022 by Derl Sanderson
expand

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Derl Sanderson said:

Perhaps. But that's to my point about mind reading. And you obviously are more confident in your ability to do so than I am. And I am dubious that the Church is capable of tracking the reason for those who once held recommends have left.

I don’t mind read for others. That was you. I was merely reflecting your repulsive rhetoric back at you. I think each individual should be able to speak for themselves.
 

as for the church,  Let me be more clear. The church has all the data it needs to determine if more long term active (defined by tithe paying status, temple recommend status, priesthood ordination timing and status, types of callings etc) are going inactive / resigning now than in the past. In addition the church is continually conducting surveys to supplement this data. Could the church prove that a particular person left for a particular reason? No, but they can draw reasonable conclusions from the data they have available. 

Edited March 2, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, ttribe said:

Is this a blanket statement, or do you see more nuance than that?

Sociologists see that as the most statistically likely scenario.  As Bahr & Albrecht put it,

Quote

Most disaffiliates from Mormonism were always marginal members, and the metaphor of drift applies to their experiences. Among the minority of former fervent followers, factors associated with disaffiliation include family break-up, intellectual apostasy, and the "push" of unmet needs or exclusionary practices.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387058?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents .

 

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I love this. So nice to see both sides of the coin presented so clearly. Both “you’d be forced to leave if you knew what I did” and the “you never had faith to begin with”. I always find it best to assume good faith and let people tell their own stories to the best extent possible. 
 

I think the success of Mormon Stories, in spite of the foibles of its founder, is that it gives a space for former believers and questioning members to tell their stories on their own terms. Members have this opportunity every week in lessons and once a month in front of the whole congregation. 
 

In spite of Dehlin’s failings as a person, people go to listen and they can say - “That describes me too!”  

Yes, and that is all to the good, in my opinion.  Hugh Nibley always said that the anti-Mormons played an essential role in keeping the faithful on their toes.  There must needs be opposition in all things -- a law of the universe.  Many years ago, a non-LDS professor closely analyzed the work of the Tanners in attacking the LDS faith, concluding that they had done no real damage to the LDS Church, but had indeed strengthened it by forcing frank reflection on it's own history and documents.   Larry Foster, "Career Apostates: Reflections on the [Life and] Work of Jerald and Sandra Tanner," Dialogue, 17/2 (Summer 1984):35-60 (the complete title is Foster’s), online at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V17N02_37.pdf , published in revised form as “Apostate Believers: Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Encounter with Mormon History,” in R. Launius and L. Thatcher, eds., Differing Visions: Dissenters in Mormon History (1994), 343-365.

[latterdaytemplar]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you sure that isn’t a rumor?  Unless I am misreading a realtor listing the house is still for sale.

https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2020/09/18/hsr-spc-realtor-for-unique-washington-city-listing-says-it-could-be-future-home-of-a-celebrity-but-not-post-malone/#.Yh4vXy1Hbi0

Well, I'll be darned. My wife will be disappointed now lol

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

Sources on believing LDS people leaving? I do not recall that.

Of course not.  The cognitive dissonance which the facts bring on is too disturbing, although it should really be liberating.

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

I wonder if you would say the same thing about someone who leaves Scientology, The Unification Church or say the Jehovah Witnesses.

Again, of course, even though some cults are so regimented and closely monitored that leaving is actually "escape," with a need for deprogramming.

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

But it is total and utter BS.  But I understand it helps you feel more righteous and superior as well as smug about such things. Comments like this are not uncommon from the overly pious.  Such opinions are needed to maintain faith that would crumble otherwise if the face of evidence and gives comfort when cognitive dissonance arises. "They were never really born again, they never had a testimony really, they were offended, the wanted to sin" and on and on.  Faith really is not the penultimate virtue and in fact causes lots of damage at times.  And if keeps people in a false belief systems as well. 

Being "overly pious" is precisely the characteristic which should set off alarm bells.  You may recall that Jesus was accused of not being pious enough.  Likewise for down-to-earth people like Joseph Smith and his followers.  The LDS faith is unpressurized and flat rather than hierarchical, functioning at the behest of self-starters.  The voluntary nature of it belies your fundamentalist notions.  The dead giveaway is your mention of Scientology and the Unification Church, which are nothing like the LDS Church.

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well you are simply wrong. There are many ex LDS and other ex whatever that were quiet faithful and invested there entire heart, might, mind, strength, time and money to their their religion and were as faithful if not more than you are.

I am just glad that most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not see themselves as super pious.  Those who may think of themselves as better than everyone else are on the high road to apostasy, as with the Daybell Doomsday Cult and the like.

You reject the conclusions of the best non-LDS sociological analysis of recent decades, which it is your right to do.  It is not at all unusual for people to reject scholarship, and it is also true that scholarship plays no important role in either affirming or deligitimizing one's faith.  People just ignore it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sociologists see that as the most statistically likely scenario.  As Bahr & Albrecht put it,

 

A study of 30 Utah’s from 1989 used to provide insight in the age of internet apostasy? Based on response to a mail survey? What is your opinion of the work on the subject that Dehlin gathered. How would you compare and contrast his study to this one?
 

As I mentioned above, most people leaving the church *are nominal members. I don’t see how that can be argued against when the activity rate is what it is. But that really just means the missionaries are out there baptizing a ton of people that aren’t converted in the first place. That’s a whole other problem from the one where long term active families decide to leave the church. 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Moreover, those who are supposed pious and devout who stay (and post on Internet forums about shallow and insubstantional people who leave) are often self righteous, self important, narcissists who stay only to inflate their own egos. Present company excluded of course. 

Yes, that is an ever present danger, particularly for those of us whose life's work is scholarship.  Confusing scholarship with piety and devotion can be a trap.  Being a hermit or monk may itself be problematic, when the mainstream lifestyle of the faithful is to be an ordinary person who is just trying to repent each day, and who knows that he needs to hear the Gospel preached regularly in order not to backslide, and who tries to work out his salvation with fear and trembling.  In that endeavor, a little bit of sincerity goes a long way, even though it counts for nothing in the eyes of the world.

[kimpearson]

If you really want to know why at least some people left, here is a site that tells you why.

https://whyileft.herokuapp.com/

 

I have talked to several thousand people who have left, mainly over the internet but many hundred in person.  The reasons given on this website are the same I have heard over and over.

[kimpearson]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, that is an ever present danger, particularly for those of us whose life's work is scholarship.  Confusing scholarship with piety and devotion can be a trap.  Being a hermit or monk may itself be problematic, when the mainstream lifestyle of the faithful is to be an ordinary person who is just trying to repent each day, and who knows that he needs to hear the Gospel preached regularly in order not to backslide, and who tries to work out his salvation with fear and trembling.  In that endeavor, a little bit of sincerity goes a long way, even though it counts for nothing in the eyes of the world.

Based on my experience which includes significant time over the last ten years seeking out personal stories of those who leave, you have your head about 30 or 40 years in the past.  You are only using sources that support your views when they are old, out of date and contradicted by numerous contemporaneous studies.  See Jana Riess's and David Ostler's research.  Spend time looking at the reasons given in my previous post.

[Robert F. Smith]

51 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A study of 30 Utah’s from 1989 used to provide insight in the age of internet apostasy? Based on response to a mail survey? What is your opinion of the work on the subject that Dehlin gathered. How would you compare and contrast his study to this one?

Sample size is not indicative of accuracy.  Scientific sampling techniques are such that small samples can give us the facts -- particularly when the results agree with a host of other studies:

See also Bahr & Albrecht, “Strangers once more: Patterns of disaffiliation from Mormonism.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28 (1989):180-200, online at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387058?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents .   Just so, Armand Mauss, "in his observations of Mormons, linked deconversion to disintegrated social bonds, such as the loss or absence of close friends in the church," and he went on to say that "some people leave the church because they believe that 'regular church goers are hypocrites' and that 'churches are interested only in money'," clearly exhibiting a paranoia not justified by the recent research of Mike Quinn    -- Mauss, “Dimensions of Religious Defection.” Review of Religious Research 10 (1969): 128-135, cited by Wright, et al., “Explaining deconversion from Christianity: a study of online narratives,” Journal of Religion & Society, 13 (2011):1-17, online at https://dspace2.creighton.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10504/64291/2011-21.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y  .

As I have previously stated on this board, scholarship has shown repeatedly that it is typically those who are already weak in the faith and who are naive who apostatize.  Well-educated members typically weather these false claims rather well (https://www.reddit.com/r/latterdaysaints/comments/4bnont/as_mormons_become_more_educated_they_become_more/ .), and Emma Green has found that "kids of certain faiths, such as young Mormons, evangelicals, and Jews, are more likely to stay in the fold than are those of other denominations " (“Keeping the Faith: How childhood influences churchgoing,” Atlantic, Nov 2014, online at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/11/keeping-the-faith/380799/ ).   Mike Ash has shown what actually goes on in his Shaken Faith Syndrome, 2nd ed. (2013).

As Lewis R. Rambo points out:

Quote

At least the studies that I’ve seen of sociologists in the United States and Europe show that most people remain in the religion into which they were born. The exceptions are people who were born to parents who had a mixed religion. Often, they will change. So, we can begin with the premise that most people stay in the family religion. Those that do change were in situations with a bit of conflict, and were perplexed about the issue.  Lewis Rambo, “The Psychology of Religious Conversion,” delivered at the International Coalition for Religious Freedom Conference on "Religious Freedom and the New Millenium" Berlin, Germany, May 29-31, 1998, online at http://www.religiousfreedom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=356&Itemid=18 .  See also his Understanding Religious Conversion (1995).

 

Quote

. . . deconversion is a perspective, a discourse, and a cultural repertoire.
* * * * *
Exit narratives told from a deconversion perspective can counter religious hegemony by using stories about the social and emotional consequences of non-conformity to unmask and potentially de-reify religious domination.
* * * * *
. . . perhaps the most significant finding and contribution of my research, deconversion was eventually a liberating experience that evoked feelings of freedom, relief, and happiness.   Lori L. Fazzino, “Leaving the Church Behind: Applying a Deconversion Perspective to Evangelical Exit Narratives,” Journal of Contemporary Religion, 29/2 (2014):249-266. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537903.2014.903664?src=recsys

Most apostates are, in any case, "young persons with quite liberal social values" (C. K. Hadaway, 1989. “Identifying American apostates: A cluster analysis.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28:201-215. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387059?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents ).  He is speaking of religion generally.

51 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As I mentioned above, most people leaving the church *are nominal members. I don’t see how that can be argued against when the activity rate is what it is. But that really just means the missionaries are out there baptizing a ton of people that aren’t converted in the first place. That’s a whole other problem from the one where long term active families decide to leave the church.

Quote

 

Rambo goes on to say

Quote

One of the rather striking things we find is that the expectations vary from group to group. Some groups expect that the conversion process be largely cognitive and intellectual. In some groups, they expect it to be largely emotional and passionate. In others, it involves much more doing particular things, and acting the rituals. Some groups will even say, we don’t care what you believe. That’s irrelevant. Do the practice and see what happens—a very different approach.

* * * *

Psychologists have been working on what are the roots of human motivation, or the springs of action that drive us. The motivational structures to experience pleasure and pain, to have conceptual systems, to enhance self-esteem, and to establish and maintain relationships, are fundamental human needs. I stress this because, when people ask me why people convert, my response is, “Let me count the ways.” There is usually no single motivation that drives people. What does happen, I think, is that each of us has different predispositions. Therefore, some of us lean into new religious options in different ways. I suspect that a lot of us in this room are intellectuals, and so we probably go into religion through our head. Some other people go through their heart, and through their emotions. We enter new religious options by different avenues.

* * * *

One of the few things that sociologists and psychologists agree upon is that, almost without exception, changing to a new religious orientation takes place through what the sociologists call kinship and friendship networks of one sort or another. Sometimes they’re very intense. Sometimes they’re minimal. In any case, people who convert or change religions usually do so through personal contact, and not through impersonal methods of communication, although that happens sometimes.

Secondly, what is very clear is that virtually all religious groups emphasize the importance of relationships with the leader of the group, and with members of the group. One of the things that is very striking when you go into a religious group is that there is enormous affection. People in some groups will even address one another as brother and sister, or other terms that communicate that relationships are very important. Living in the kind of society in which we do, with the need for relationships with other human beings, it’s no wonder that this is one of the most important attractions, as well as consequences of a conversion process.  http://www.religiousfreedom.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=356&Itemid=18

Joseph Walker, “LDS religious commitment high, Pew survey finds,” Deseret News, Jan 13, 2012, online at  http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700215244/LDS-religious-commitment-high-Pew-survey-finds.html?pg=all ,

Quote

One such finding is the correlation between religious commitment and education among Mormons.

David Campbell, a University of Notre Dame associate professor and another adviser on the survey, noted that the more educated respondents were, the higher their levels of religious commitment.

"I was a little surprised by that," said Campbell, who is LDS and who has extensively studied on the role of religion in the public square. "The more educated a Mormon is, the more likely they are to be wholehearted in their commitment to the church and its teachings."

That is different from other churches, he said, where more education tends to lead to more religious skepticism.

Edited March 2, 2022 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

35 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

If you really want to know why at least some people left, here is a site that tells you why.

https://whyileft.herokuapp.com/

 

I have talked to several thousand people who have left, mainly over the internet but many hundred in person.  The reasons given on this website are the same I have heard over and over.

That is helpful, but no substitute for scientific sampling.  The self-selecting nature of the websites is a huge problem from the point of view of sociologists.  They see it as anecdotal.  The site you rely on says this about itself:

Quote

Many people born into the LDS church have started to leave the idea behind and there are many more on the fence about it. Those who still believe often say that those who left or want to leave do so to live without morals. This is simply not true. This site is a small way to support others who are unsure about the church by stating your reason for leaving and by placing your mark. Each contribution will help others know there are more of us out there than they may think and our reasons are much more diverse and legitimate than "wanting to sin".

These are not the conclusions of any of the sociologists which I have cited, and no scientific study has reached such childish conclusions.

[Robert F. Smith]

38 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

Based on my experience which includes significant time over the last ten years seeking out personal stories of those who leave, you have your head about 30 or 40 years in the past.  You are only using sources that support your views when they are old, out of date and contradicted by numerous contemporaneous studies.  See Jana Riess's and David Ostler's research.  Spend time looking at the reasons given in my previous post.

I have read and have also attended lectures by Dr Riess (at UVU, for example), and do not find anything convincing in any of her work.  I never sought to support my preconceived views, and that is anathema to the sociologists I have cited.  Instead, what I read actually surprised me, and it seems to be a complete surprise to the habitues of this board.  Whenever I cite these conclusions, I tend to get automatic rejection.  A result of cognitive dissonance perhaps.

[strappinglad]

I wonder what it would take to bring a person who has left the church back into full fellowship. A miracle in their lives? Complete and adequate answers to their concerns? An angel's visit? A personal visit by Christ? The discovery of a " Hall of Records " in a hill in Mexico? 

All of these could be rationalized away, although some might be tougher than others. 

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course not.  The cognitive dissonance which the facts bring on is too disturbing, although it should really be liberating.

Yea right. A bit more of the pot and kettle thing. It is amazing the blinders being a true believer creates.  But you only provided sociologists that talked about faith leavers in general. Nothing LDS specific though likely such do not exist.

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Again, of course, even though some cults are so regimented and closely monitored that leaving is actually "escape," with a need for deprogramming.

Organizations vary in their level of mind control techniques. I mentioned these for a reason.

 

 

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Being "overly pious" is precisely the characteristic which should set off alarm bells.  You may recall that Jesus was accused of not being pious enough.  Likewise for down-to-earth people like Joseph Smith and his followers.  The LDS faith is unpressurized and flat rather than hierarchical, functioning at the behest of self-starters. 

Yes being overly pious is a problem. And the LDC faith is not under pressurized and is hardly flat. It is heavily hierarchical and the expectation to stay in line with the leaders is heavy. Even to the point of teaching you are not supposed to say no to any calling from your bishop because it is the same as a the Lord giving you the call.

 

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

 

The voluntary nature of it belies your fundamentalist notions.  The dead giveaway is your mention of Scientology and the Unification Church,

I used those because I wonder how far your denigration and pardigm of those who leave a religion goes. Apparently it does not exten to those that are very bad. That is a good thing.

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

which are nothing like the LDS Church.

Yea not entirely though the LDS Church does use a lot of mind and behavior techniques. While I would not call it a cult like the ones I mentioned it certainly does move down the right slope of the bell curve of mind control like behavior.

 

 

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am just glad that most members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not see themselves as super pious. 

You can't be serious.  

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Those who may think of themselves as better than everyone else are on the high road to apostasy, as with the Daybell Doomsday Cult and the like.

One can be overly pious without being part of a lunatic fringe group.

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You reject the conclusions of the best non-LDS sociological analysis of recent decades, which it is your right to do.  It is not at all unusual for people to reject scholarship, and it is also true that scholarship plays no important role in either affirming or deligitimizing one's faith.  People just ignore it.

No I do not reject their conclusions. I reject your portrayal specifically of many believing members of the LDS Church leaving over valid factual evidential issues. It is smug, arrogant and overly pious whether you want to admit it or not.

[ttribe]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sociologists see that as the most statistically likely scenario.  As Bahr & Albrecht put it,

 

Come now, Robert, are you really (with a straight face) suggesting that a study from 1989, which relies upon an "analysis of in-depth interviews with 30 former Mormons identified in statewide mail surveys of Utah" (emphasis mine), is representative of the phenomenon happening before us in a post-Internet era?  That's not good social science scholarship, and I believe you know that.

Edited March 2, 2022 by ttribe

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Come now, Robert, are you really (with a straight face) suggesting that a study from 1989, which relies upon an "analysis of in-depth interviews with 30 former Mormons identified in statewide mail surveys of Utah" (emphasis mine), is representative of the phenomenon happening before us in a post-Internet era?  That's not good social science scholarship, and I believe you know that.

It's not hard to find a link for anything nowadays.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, ttribe said:

Yes, really seems to devalue the experience many of us have gone through.

Of course he does. We just ha shallow faith or some other flaw. True believers need to paint us despicable apostates like that in order to maintain their own fragile faith.  And they especially need downplay those that were really as faithful and active as they are.  We are the biggest threat. And for Robert's info marginalizing those who leave like he does is an attribute of what members of high demand religions do.  It is a mind control attribute.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and that is all to the good, in my opinion.  Hugh Nibley always said that the anti-Mormons played an essential role in keeping the faithful on their toes.  There must needs be opposition in all things -- a law of the universe.  Many years ago, a non-LDS professor closely analyzed the work of the Tanners in attacking the LDS faith, concluding that they had done no real damage to the LDS Church, but had indeed strengthened it by forcing frank reflection on it's own history and documents.   Larry Foster, "Career Apostates: Reflections on the [Life and] Work of Jerald and Sandra Tanner," Dialogue, 17/2 (Summer 1984):35-60 (the complete title is Foster’s), online at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V17N02_37.pdf , published in revised form as “Apostate Believers: Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Encounter with Mormon History,” in R. Launius and L. Thatcher, eds., Differing Visions: Dissenters in Mormon History (1994), 343-365.

Anti Mormon never convinced me. It was more the poor apologetics and authors like Bushman and Prince.  And just the poor track record on so many issues that the church has.  Anti Mormons were a piece of cake. Especially the evangelical ones.  And I guess I could add secular critics of religion in general.

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Anti Mormon never convinced me. It was more the poor apologetics and authors like Bushman and Prince. 

Could you elaborate on your comment regarding "authors like Bushman and Prince"?  Did you find their scholarship "poor," or did you find it good but deleterious (to maintaining a testimoney of the Restored Gospel)?

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And just the poor track record on so many issues that the church has. 

I can appreciate that.  I think the Church has done quite a good job in its basic mandates.  The Church is bound to encounter difficulty in grappling with social/political "issues."

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Anti Mormons were a piece of cake. Especially the evangelical ones.  And I guess I could add secular critics of religion in general.

I think apologetic efforts are getting better and better, but in the end they will always be supplemental and ancillary.

Whether or not God exists, whether Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, whether the Plan of Salvation is God's plan for us, whether the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, whether the foundational events of the Restoration happened, are overwhelmingly matters that must - in the end - be accepted on faith.  And that faith must come through study and prayer. 

For me, apologetics comes later.  Elder Holland put it well:

Quote

My testimony to you tonight is that the gospel is infallibly true and that a variety of infallible proofs supporting that assertion will continue to come until Jesus descends as the ultimate infallible truth of all. Our testimonies aren’t dependent on evidence—we still need that spiritual confirmation in the heart of which we have spoken—but not to seek for and not to acknowledge intellectual, documentable support for our belief when it is available is to needlessly limit an otherwise incomparably strong theological position and deny us a unique, persuasive vocabulary in the latter-day arena of religious investigation and sectarian debate. Thus armed with so much evidence of the kind we have celebrated here tonight, we ought to be more assertive than we sometimes are in defending our testimony of truth.

To that point I mention that while we were living and serving in England, I became fond of the writing of the English cleric Austin Farrer. Speaking of the contribution made by C. S. Lewis specifically and of Christian apologists generally, Farrer said: “Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”[10]

...

[10] Austin Farrer, “The Christian Apologist,” in Light on C.S. Lewis, ed. Jocelyn Gibb (1965), 26.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sociologists see that as the most statistically likely scenario.  As Bahr & Albrecht put it,

 

Most disaffiliates from Mormonism were always marginal members, and the metaphor of drift applies to their experiences. Among the minority of former fervent followers, factors associated with disaffiliation include family break-up, intellectual apostasy, and the "push" of unmet needs or exclusionary practices.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/1387058?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents .

I took a quick look at this. I guess somehow I missed the LDS specifics.  What is the date of the articles?  All I can see is this: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion © 1989 Society for the Scientific Study of Religion

 

So if it is from 1989 it is out of date and a new study should be done.  That said I do not dispute that most leave for reasons other than I did as well as some others on this board and as are mentioned above.  However, I dispute that there are not quite a few leaving for the reason I did and it seems those numbers are rising.  The intellectual apostasy category. And most of them were actually quite faithful in spite of that Robert claims.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A study of 30 Utah’s from 1989 used to provide insight in the age of internet apostasy? Based on response to a mail survey? What is your opinion of the work on the subject that Dehlin gathered. How would you compare and contrast his study to this one?
 

As I mentioned above, most people leaving the church *are nominal members. I don’t see how that can be argued against when the activity rate is what it is. But that really just means the missionaries are out there baptizing a ton of people that aren’t converted in the first place. That’s a whole other problem from the one where long term active families decide to leave the church. 

Pretty much. I saw 50 people join the Church. In a state side mission.  After about five years only about 13 or 14 were active. One was a large family.  As their children aged only one, I believe, out of 5 stayed active.  And the loss of new members is very high in less developed areas.  But even where I live now, the baptism rate has dropped. And very few of those very few stay. In the late 70s and early 80s the mission where I live baptized 800 per year.  By the early 2000s that dropped to 250 per year in a good year and the retention rate of those was maybe 20%/The stake where I live was created from a split in 1985.  It has 0 growth since then and even has consolidated some unit.  But all is well in Zion.  It is just a weeding out process.