Catholic World Report Asks: "Does Mormonism ruin faith?"

[smac97]

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/10/08/does-mormonism-ruin-faith/

Quote

Recently I had the pleasure of spending an evening over drinks with two former members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), also known as Mormons. Both men had completed their two-year missions, and one had served as a full-time instructor for missionaries-in-training. Both had fathers who had served as bishops of wards, somewhat analogous to pastors of individual parishes. And both, married men with children, had abandoned the Mormonism of their upbringing, but were not entirely religiously unaffiliated.

“When I die, I want my children to compost my body, because that will be all it’s good for,” one of them told me, declaring he no longer believed in God or heaven. I asked the other if he believed the same. “I’m getting there,” he told me. “I don’t need religion threatening me that if I’m not good I’ll go to hell. Being a good person is just common sense, common decency.”

I would like to see sociological data on this phenomenon.  I think most Latter-day Saints can speak anecdotally to confirm this trend, that of former Latter-day Saints who, in abandoning their faith in the Restored Gospel, decline to replace it with any other form of Christianity or theism.  I am curious as to how prevalent this is, and why it is happening.

Quote

Stephen Bullivant, in Nonverts: The Making of Ex-Christian America (Oxford University Press, 2022), has a chapter on ex-Mormons. “Nonversion,” the movement of people from religious observance to no religious affiliation, is occurring at significant levels even in small-town religious subcultures in Idaho and Utah, the beating heart of the LDS religion. Though nonversion is not as acute of a phenomenon in Mormonism as it is in Catholicism or evangelicalism, it is still an increasing problem for LDS. And similar to those who have departed other religious traditions, ex-Mormons can be more aggressively antagonistic towards their former faith than the average American who has little familiarity with the religion, aside from the occasional and casual encounter with a missionary.

"{E}x-Mormons can be more aggressively antagonistic towards their former faith than the average American."  This too is an interesting (though unfortunate) phenomenon.  Again, I would like to see sociological data as to how prevalent this is, and why it is happening.

Quote

Yet, I’ve noticed from my own experiences with former LDS members—and I’ve known quite a few—that those who have walked away don’t just have a skeptical antagonism against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They often have an opprobrium towards religion and faith altogether. When I told one of my former LDS friends that I thought some religions were more intellectually defensible than others, he cynically shook his head. According to a 2016 study, “only a third of former Mormons now identify with another organized religion.” A disenchantment with religion, one Rutgers doctoral student argued in his 2015 dissertation, is ubiquitous in the ex-Mormon community.

Why is this? I’d argue there are at least three reasons.

The linked dissertation is by "Edward Marshall Brooks III," entitled "DISENCHANTED LIVES: APOSTASY AND EX-MORMONISM  AMONG THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS."

Anyway, the "three reasons" above are as follows:

Quote

A fantastical origin story

Those with a passing knowledge of Mormonism likely know that the LDS Church teaches that Jesus Christ, after His resurrection, came to the Americas and preached to the indigenous peoples, who were themselves descendants of one of the lost tribes of Israel. The Book of Mormon claims that among these peoples were two prominent groups: Nephites, faithful followers of God who eventually became decadent, and Lamanites, warlike and wicked people who eventually destroyed the Nephites. Mormon, a Nephite, died before finishing the Book of Mormon, but his son Moroni assumed the role of narrator to complete the text.

I actually found this a bit amusing.  Outsiders looking in at the Bible would likely also consider it "a fantastical origin story."  

Quote

Fast forward many centuries to 1823, when an angel supposedly appeared to Joseph Smith in upstate New York, and directed Smith to the text inscribed on golden plates in a nearby hill. Written in “reformed Egyptian,” the plates were several years later translated by Smith—by way of seer stones or special spectacles—into English. Smith and his nascent movement then delivered to the world what is now the foremost of the Mormon scriptures.

A person can accept the miraculous events in the Bible, but not the Book of Mormon?  How does that work?  Moses called down Ten Plagues, parted the waters, struck a rock to cause it to spew forth water.  Elijah called down fire from heaven to consume his sacrifice during his contest with the priests of Baal.  Daniel survived the lion's den.  And then there are all the New Testament events.  A virgin birth?  Water turned to wine?  Multiplying the loaves and fishes?  Walking on water?  Healing the sick and raising the dead?  These are not "fantastical," but the narrative about Lehi and his family is?

Quote

There are, however, some glaring problems. Unlike controversies over the historicity of events described in the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament, there is absolutely no evidence to support the events described in the Book of Mormon. There is no archaeological information to support the claim of Nephites and Lamanites waging great battles on the American continents. There is no genetic evidence to support the claim that indigenous peoples were descendants from Semitic peoples from the Levant. And there is no record of any language called “reformed Egyptian.”

The Book of Mormon, unlike the Old Testament, is not a historical text that describes many events that have been corroborated by external historical and archaeological evidence. It is a book with absolutely no corroboration to anything described therein.

I've addressed this a few times.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Because the Bible’s historical transmission can be discerned and explained naturalistically (that is, without any necessary reliance on “divine” intervention in the transmission of the text), the antiquity of the Bible is not particularly probative of its status as scripture (any more than Homer’s Illiad is probative of the Greek Pantheon).  This is why skeptics of the Bible find little or no persuasive value in archaeological artifacts presented as “evidence” for the Bible’s status as scripture and record of miraculous events.  After all, Homer’s Illiad has a historical pedigree tracing back to antiquity, as well as some archaeological verification.  This does not mean, however, that the descriptions of the supernatural in Homer's work are factual.  As one atheist fellow put it: "The only thing all those ancient bible sites prove is {that} the Bible is a really old fraud."
 
In contrast, The Book of Mormon is differently situated from the Bible.  There is a built-in gap in its historical transmission, consisting of some 1,400 years from when Moroni buried the plates to 1823, when the plates were re-discovered by Joseph Smith, Jr.  This “transmission gap” effectively precludes a naturalistic explanation of the text’s antiquity.  

Consequently, if we someday discover persuasive archaeological or other evidence for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon, such evidence would have a more persuasive impact on the veracity of the book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.
 
Put another way, the antiquity and truth claims of The Book of Mormon are intertwined, such that evidence of the former may  simultaneously be evidence of the latter.

And here (regarding the "no evidence" claim) (same link) :

Quote

The Church's narrative as to the origins of the BOM text are, to some extent, testable.  Some questions that often arise in examining Category C include:

1. What is the credibility of the statements by the Three Witnesses?
2. What is the credibility of statements by the Eight Witnesses?
3. What is the credibility of the "informal" witnesses (Emma Smith, Mary Musselman Whitmer, etc.)?
4. How do we account for the Witnesses never recanting their statements?
5. Did Joseph Smith have the financial means, materials, skills, etc. to fabricate the plates?
6. Did Joseph Smith have the ability to write the text?
7. If Joseph Smith did not write the text, who did?  Why did they keep it a secret?  What did they have to gain?  What evidence do we have as to this theory?
8. Do Joseph Smith's personal/private writings suggest that he was mentally deluded/insane?  Or that he was conniving and dishonest?
9. How do we account for the speed by which the text was "translated?"  
10. How do we account for the internal consistency of the chronology in the Book of Mormon?
11. How do we account for the internal consistence of the geography / geospatial relationships in the Book of Mormon?
12. What elements of the BOM narrative were known or knowable by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries in the 1820s?  
13. For those elements of the BOM narrative that were seemingly not "known or knowable by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries in the 1820s," which ones are inherently and intractably "anachronistic" or otherwise incompatible with the Category C?
14. For those elements of the BOM narrative that were seemingly not "known or knowable by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries in the 1820s," which ones have been shown to be substantively accurate and/or "plausible"?
15. How many of the elements of the BOM narrative which A) were seemingly not "known or knowable by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries in the 1820s," and yet also B) subsequently shown as being substantively accurate and/or "plausible" can be reasonably dismissed as lucky guesses?

And so on.

As regarding the historicity/authenticity of the BOM text, there is nothing particularly probative about the text referencing Jerusalem and the Red Sea, as although these places are real ("accurate"), they were "known or knowable" to Joseph Smith and his contemporaries. 

On the other hand, candidates for Nahom and Bountiful may be construed as having evidentiary/probative value if A) they were seemingly not "known or knowable by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries in the 1820s," and yet also B) subsequently shown as being substantively accurate and/or "plausible."  This is where we start to look at things like metal plates in stone boxes, ancient Jews writing in Egyptian, the NHM altar and its geospatial relationship with Khor Kharfot, cement, the so-called "seal of Mulek," barley, and so on.  There are also extensive linguistic elements that merit attention.  Chiasmus.  Hebraisms.  Consistent internal chronology and geography.

In other words, "lucky guess" dismissals can only go so far.  At some point the cumulative probative value of such evidences can, or ought to, increase the plausibility of Category C.  (Of course, this reasoning goes the other way as well, with demonstrable anachronisms lending probative weight to a "naturalistic" originating-in-the-19th-century explanation.) 

Our own Robert F. Smith summed up this concept as follows:

Quote

.................  I think the Book of Mormon is situated differently from the Bible.

Because the Bible’s historical transmission can be discerned and explained naturalistically (that is, without any necessary reliance on “divine” intervention in the transmission of the text), the antiquity of the Bible is not particularly probative of its status as scripture (any more than Homer’s Illiad is probative of the Greek Pantheon).  This is why skeptics of the Bible find little or no persuasive value in archaeological artifacts presented as “evidence” for the Bible’s status as scripture and record of miraculous events.  After all, Homer’s Illiad has a historical pedigree tracing back to antiquity, as well as some archaeological verification.  This does not mean, however, that the descriptions of the supernatural in Homer's work are factual.  As one atheist fellow put it: "The only thing all those ancient bible sites prove is {that} the Bible is a really old fraud."
 
In contrast, The Book of Mormon is differently situated from the Bible.  There is a built-in gap in its historical transmission, consisting of some 1,400 years from when Moroni buried the plates to 1823, when the plates were re-discovered by Joseph Smith, Jr.  This “transmission gap” effectively precludes a naturalistic explanation of the text’s antiquity.  

Consequently, if we someday discover persuasive archaeological or other evidence for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon, such evidence would have a more persuasive impact on the veracity of the book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.
 
Put another way, the antiquity and truth claims of The Book of Mormon are intertwined, such that evidence of the former may  simultaneously be evidence of the latter.

I think this may be part of the reason some critics are so strident in insisting that there is zero "evidence" for the Book of Mormon.......................

Yes, this is exactly correct, Spencer.  Even to the degree that any strong evidence for the antiquity of the Book of Mormon simultaneously becomes, by extension, evidence for the authenticity of the miraculous claims in the Bible -- an actual "Second Witness."  I try to make that point in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, Aug 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at  http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf .

This fellow is speaking to a Catholic audience, but the utter refusal to acknowledge any evidence re: the Book of Mormon's historicity is, I think, an interesting phenomenon.

Here's the author's second explanation (re: why many former Latter-day Saints are jettisoning theism altogether) :

Quote

A tenuous theology

Then there is the theology of Mormonism. In the Mormon version of the creation narrative, Adam and Eve are commanded to multiply on the Earth, but are also forbidden from partaking of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, which would make them capable of having children. In effect, God commands man to do one thing, but punishes him when he seeks to do it. As Christiansen writes:

I was genuinely confused over why it seemed that God presented Adam and Eve with a commandment impossible to keep, commanded them not to do the one thing that would enable them to keep the commandment, and then cursed them when they broke the latter commandment to keep the former.

God is fickle, but He is also a very different kind of divine being than that found in Trinitarian Christianity.  According to LDS theology, God the Father has a physical body and has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, though doctrine regarding the latter is not widely discussed in contemporary Mormon practice. LDS thus rejects Niceno-Constantinopolitan doctrine in favor of a belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct beings; this has much in common with the ancient heresy of modalism, in which the persons of the Godhead are “modes” of the divine.

Meh.  This doesn't have much explanatory value for me.

Here's the third one:

Quote

A destructive psychology

These are hard doctrines to fathom, given their irrationality and incoherence. Thus, the emphasis on emotivism in Mormon practice. The LDS faithful are instructed to come to their belief by praying to God about the Book of Mormon and asking the Holy Ghost to subjectively confirm in their hearts that it is true. This feeling is then confirmed by constant reminders in daily LDS practice through giving one’s own testimony and listening to the confident testimony of others.

The result, for any who have sought to debate Mormon missionaries arriving on your doorstep, is a fideist and anti-intellectual religion impervious to reasoned debate.  Any critiques of LDS teaching on historical, theological, or logical grounds can be dismissed as Satanic deception. The critic of Mormonism simply hasn’t had that “burning in the bosom” experience like the LDS faithful. Personal testimony trumps all arguments and evidence, no matter how thorough or persuasive.

Again, meh.  This is just a caricature.  

He concludes with some surprisingly blunt invective (and more caricature and misrepresentation) :

Quote

For these historical, theological, and psychological reasons, Mormonism has what might be called a peculiarly cancerous effect on its adherents’ understanding of religion. Once a Mormon begins to question the obvious historical, theological, and psychological problems of his or her faith tradition, the experience is jarring and debilitating. Scripture is not something that might be grounded in verifiable historical testimony. Faith is not to be something that can be supported by sound reason. Church is not a place that welcomes honest questions or debate about doctrine and practice, but exerts coercive pressure even on those who want to disaffiliate.

LDS amounts to an intellectual and psychological strait-jacket. In the trauma of recognizing that reality, it is little wonder that so many Mormons repudiate religion altogether. Their ersatz “faith” has seriously damaged faith, and there is often little desire or energy to pick up the pieces and investigate other religious traditions. This means many things for Catholics seeking to engage constuctively with Mormon and ex-Mormon friends and acquaintances (something I’ve discussed elsewhere). But perhaps most of all it demands a gentle hand that appreciates we are dealing with deeply damaged people created in the image of God, who need our prayers and friendship just as much, if not more, than they’ll need our persuasive arguments.

Ah, well.

I have my own surmises as to why former Latter-day Saints often jettison "religion" altogether, but I'd like to hear some other thoughts first.

So, thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

I think that most members who leave don't join another religion because most of the reasons that they lost their faith in the gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints apply equally to all other religions.  

[Benjamin McGuire]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have my own surmises as to why former Latter-day Saints often jettison "religion" altogether, but I'd like to hear some other thoughts first.

I think that there are a lot of reasons, but, I'll put up my top 5 -

1: The emphasis on the notion of the "one true church." This is an oversimplification in some ways - but the use of the Joseph Smith first vision account with this comment:

Quote

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’

The criticism of the creeds, and so on - all of these things create a context where Mormons don't have much that they can build from once they reject Mormonism. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Mormonism often presents its teachings in terms of difference (I'll come back to this in a minute). So we have our understanding of certain scriptural texts that often get compared to other understandings. Rejecting Mormonism doesn't mean that you simply reject everything connected with Mormonism. It is still hard for post-Mormons to accept theology and scriptural interpretation that they don't believe - and there isn't usually any sort of need for the post-Mormon to accept a different theology or a different interpretation. In other words - to connect these two issues together - a post-Mormon isn't likely to go from believing that all religions are wrong except Mormonism, to all religions are wrong except for X. They are instead more likely to believe that all religions are simply wrong (with no exceptions). My own anecdotal experience among those who leave is that for those who wish to build some sort of spirituality into their lives, they are more likely to move towards something that is radically different - like Buddhism rather than to pick up a different flavor of Judeo-Christian belief.

2: Mormonism has a number of core doctrinal beliefs that are to some extent, relatively unique. Within the broader groups of Christian sects, there is generally much more overlap (less that is unique) which makes moving from one religious group to another easy. With Mormonism, this doesn't happen so much. I want to note in passing that neither of these first two points apply much for those that have never been deeply invested in Mormonism. Recent converts who leave shortly after conversion don't seem to have these kinds of barriers. This is also part of the reason why Mormonism has spawned so many splinter groups - a way of keeping those unique doctrines while rejecting the Church structure and authority. This comes with certain kinds of departures - but they aren't common.

3: Mormonism is a liberal religion. It is also, in some ways, very much a post-modern religion. The ways that Mormons read scripture, their approach to interpretive authority, their acceptance of authoritative continuing revelation (and what this means for past revelation), and a whole host of other issues create a religious philosophy that is quite alien within other religious traditions. One way in particular that this shows up is in the way that it defines itself through difference (rather than similarity) - and a good example of this might be the issue of paid clergy, or the way we use the cross. When it does try to draw similarities, it is to the so-called "primitive Church." To the extent that we have these liberal views in the Church, it is much more difficult for former Mormons to move back towards a more modernist (or even a pre-modernist) type of religion.

4: Mormonism has a distinct absence of liturgy. There are liturgical elements, but they are minimal (sacrament, baptism and confirmation, temple ordinances). I don't mean minimal in terms of significance, but minimal in terms of the amount of time spent participating in these liturgical elements. Mormonism replaces liturgical experiences with other forms of engagement. Moving to Mormonism from other religions can be a difficult challenge. But it is just as difficult for a Mormon who is moving away from Mormonism - I know of few Mormons who routinely visit other religious services - and many Mormons find the liturgical experience of a Catholic funeral somewhat jarring.

5: I think that most Mormons who leave don't leave quickly, but gradually. They don't start attending another Church, they just stop attending the Mormon Church. Their departure is marked as much by a loss of religiosity as by any sort of disagreement over an important point of doctrine. In families where the partners don't engage with Mormonism in the same way, we tend to have far more inactive spouses than we have spouses who are participating in another non-LDS Church or religion.

Anyway, that's my brief take on it.

[Tacenda]

I fought very hard after my disbelief after finding things unknown to me, to at least hold onto a belief of a hereafter, and a strong hope and faith that there is a God/Jesus. 

But there are a good portion of exLDS or non believer who is physically in or on record, that no longer believe in God, or the LDS God. Or a good portion that just don't know. So not too many that hold onto their belief of a God which is too bad, but I believe many find that they are better than they use to be on leaning on their own compass and loving others and doing good still.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Tacenda

[MrShorty]

The first thing I thought of was Elder Callister saying something like this. Note the similarity in the "headline" to this Church News article, "How the Church ruins its members for any other church." Of course, Elder Callister gives different reasons why exLDS seem too prefer to leave Christianity and religion altogether, but it might provide an interesting contrast to Casey Chalk's analysis.

https://www.thechurchnews.com/2019/12/15/23215755/elder-tad-r-callister-members-church-latter-day-saints

The big thing that stood out to me in Chalk's analysis was the part claiming that the Bible has more archeological evidence. I guess at some level, it is true that we have more solid archeology showing that the places and such mentioned in the Bible existed, but we have no archeological evidence of the resurrection. From what I understand, we cannot pin down any specific characters from the Bible before about King David, which leaves almost all of the "origin" stories of Christianity (the Exodus, the Flood, etc.) unverified and often disputed. My thought on how the "fantastical origins" section could explain part of why exLDS don't move into another form of Christianity is because, having rejected one "fantastical origin story," it can be difficult to shift to a different "fantastical origin story." Or, as @smac97 put it, Chalk is willing to believe miracles when they are canonized in Biblical text, but not when they are outside of the Bible.

[Pyreaux]

I don't think people leave over farfetched elements as much as a lack of feeling God. They'd willingly suspend disbelief in a Flat Earth, if God would just speak to them one time. With God all things are possible. If they never get a spiritual witness of neither the church nor God, it's not actually the church that's the problem but it simply takes all the responsibility. It's a convenient excuse, sure if there is no God then suddenly every departure from the reality you experienced seems foolish.

It's the thing Christian Anti-Mormons never understood, your kind is not the default religion. If you make fun of a man's spiritual witness, you'll get a man to doubt not only the witness, but the God that gave it to him. These are highs stake games we are playing when trying to "convert" us. We are all spoiled by the promises, we are beyond the husks of the world, we need the meat from the Father's table, and you have no substitute for our need for revelation. Mormonism sufficiently ruins our faith in lesser faiths. It's the true church or nothing. 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Pyreaux

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think that most members who leave don't join another religion because most of the reasons that they lost their faith in the gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints apply equally to all other religions.  

Right and if none of the others faiths are the right one they might take it one step further and conclude there is no God.

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding, "there is absolutely no evidence to support the events described in the Book of Mormon."

Back when I got serious about LDS scholarship, after my mission in 1975, what I call "the good stuff" would fill perhaps half a shelf.   Now I have a wall, and that is just what I have myself.  There is more that I haven't been able to fit into my budget and time.  A real problem is this:

Quote

Assimilating a new sort of fact demands a more than additive adjustment of theory, and until that adjustment is completed--until the scientist has learned to see nature in a new way--the new fact is not quite a scientific fact at all.  (Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 53)

If your basic framework presumes that the Book of Mormon is unthinkable, no information that happens to slip past the conceptual boundaries and gate keeping will count as evidence. 

Mesoamericanist John Clark explains:

Quote

The logical challenges with the first assertion, that no “cities have been located,” are more subtle. Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as “Maya,” “Olmec,” and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology.  (John Clark, “Archeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief” in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 14/2 (2005) 42-43.

Another problem is just not keeping up. For example, at the moment I am reviewing Hardy's excellent Annotated Book of Mormon.  Hardy is generally well informed and tries to be fair. But from time to time he says things like this, intending to show that he is both fair and informed.

Quote

LDS scholars came to see Mesoamerica as the most likely site for the Jaredites and Nephites, based on geography and the presence in that region of writing systems, large cities, complex government and social structures, calendars, and metallurgy, all dating to Book of Mormon times. The natural features of southern Mexico and Guatemala can be roughly matched to the internal geography of the text, including a narrow neck of land (the Isthmus of Tehuantepec) and a river flowing northward (the Grijalva), along with various highlands, coastlines, and wilderness areas (even if it requires shifting the cardinal directions counterclockwise by more than 45 degrees). (Hardy, 804)

The problem here is that while he is repeating a common critique of directions in Sorenson's model, he is not keeping up.  Here is Gardner on Mesoamerican concepts of directions, and how they diverge from what we might assume is "the plain meaning of the text."

Quote

What you’ll see at the top is this North-South axis and that really looks familiar to us because as modern Americans we conceptualize directions and cardinal directions as a plus sign. What we miss is that Mesoamerica did not. Mesoamerica did not use the concept of a plus sign whenever they described the world and the four quarters of the world. They used an “X”. So for them this is North, not that single line that we think of, but that pie, that whole piece of direction is North. It changes concepts dramatically when we have a quadrant that is Northwest, and they kind of tilt it and say that whole thing is North. So the concept of what North is was probably very different in the Mesoamerican world.  (Brant Gardner, page 8, https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2006-Brant-Gardner.pdf )  . Also for further details and implications, Brant Gardner, From the East to the West: The Problem of Directions in the Book of Mormon - FAIR (fairlatterdaysaints.org)

I've attached a figure from Larry Poulson's important FAIR Presentation that shows that the difference makes all the difference, rather the way that Kepler's elliptical orbits refined the Copernican model that originally theorized circular orbits. 

 https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

Given how old the refinement is, and what a difference it makes, the question is, why doesn't an otherwise well-informed person of Hardy's stature and reputation know this?

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen
 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[teddyaware]

After abandoning the God of true love and infinite mercy, who saves all his earthly children except for those few who steadfastly refuse to be saved, why would former Latter-Day Saints want to embrace any religion that believes in a hard-hearted God who rashly condemns the vast majority of the human family to an endless hell of unimaginable pain and suffering?

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

So, thoughts?

I thought the title of the article was more than a little disingenuous. After all, as later pointed out by the author, "[t]hough nonversion is not as acute of a phenomenon in Mormonism as it is in Catholicism or evangelicalism, it is still an increasing problem for LDS." In other words, people leaving Catholicism or evangelicalism in favor of no religious affiliation actually happens more frequently than it does within Mormonism, but let's target Mormonism for being the one that's ruining people's faith? Sorry, I think not. 

 

Quote

I have my own surmises as to why former Latter-day Saints often jettison "religion" altogether, but I'd like to hear some other thoughts first.

I think a big part of the reason why, upon abandoning the faith, Latter-day Saints tend to cool toward religion in general is probably the same as for most other people who leave their own religion: lack of belief in general.  

Also, and I think this plays a role as well, but I tend to think that most people who are in a particular religion - as opposed to a different one - have come to the belief that the religion they are currently in is actually superior to the other alternatives. I mean, it's not like Catholics and Protestants are unaware of each other. No, they are very much aware of the other, and if they thought the other were correct, that's where they would be. 

Likewise, as a Latter-day Saint myself, it's not like I'm ignorant of Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Muslims, Jews, etc. No, I have surveyed the field and found those other options wanting. And, perhaps as an added measure, I've spent more than a little bit of time defending my beliefs from those other groups to be acutely aware of their shortcomings. So why would I leave my current faith for an inferior option? If I became disenfranchised with my current faith, I very much doubt I would join one of those other groups instead. 

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by Amulek

[rpn]

Seems to me that it is inherent in becoming a member of the restored Church of Jesus Christ and then rejecting it that no other religious faith would do either.   It's kind of inherent in the doctrine.  (Though I do know former members who joined other faiths and I've heard of others becoming leaders in different faiths.)

[Maestrophil]

I have long said that if I lost my faith due to heeding the 'logic' out there based on science, anachronisms, folly and mistakes of previous leaders/founders - that same course of thinking would not allow me to consider any other belief system that wasn't completely airtight and provable - thus - none.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Maestrophil

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would like to see sociological data on this phenomenon.  I think most Latter-day Saints can speak anecdotally to confirm this trend, that of former Latter-day Saints who, in abandoning their faith in the Restored Gospel, decline to replace it with any other form of Christianity or theism.  I am curious as to how prevalent this is, and why it is happening.

Here's another anecdote. When I told my mother that I didn't believe anymore her first question was, "What church are you going to attend?" I told her that I didn't know if I was going to attend another church. Anyway, the Church does a good job of showing why all the other religions can't be the true church. Perhaps this is why some former members are hesitant to embrace them.

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Here's another anecdote. When I told my mother that I didn't believe anymore her first question was, "What church are you going to attend?" I told her that I didn't know if I was going to attend another church. Anyway, the Church does a good job of showing why all the other religions can't be the true church. Perhaps this is why some former members are hesitant to embrace them.

I've wondered about this.

For former Latter-day Saints who had an overall pleasant experience participating in the community of the Saints, I wonder if they - having become disaffected from that community - feel like other religious groups likely cannot improve upon it (or that the obligations associated with participating in such communities are not worthwhile).

For former Latter-day Saints who had an overall unpleasant experience participating in the community of the Saints, I wonder if they -  having become disaffected from that community - feel like other religious groups would likely be "more of the same."

This is just me thinking out loud, tho.  I can't speak intelligently on this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've wondered about this.

For former Latter-day Saints who had an overall pleasant experience participating in the community of the Saints, I wonder if they - having become disaffected from that community - feel like other religious groups likely cannot improve upon it (or that the obligations associated with participating in such communities are not worthwhile).

For former Latter-day Saints who had an overall unpleasant experience participating in the community of the Saints, I wonder if they -  having become disaffected from that community - feel like other religious groups would likely be "more of the same."

This is just me thinking out loud, tho.  I can't speak intelligently on this.

Thanks,

-Smac

I can’t speak for anyone else, and I don’t fit neatly into the pleasant/unpleasant dichotomy. I don’t find it unlikely that other religious groups have the same or even better sense of community. Nor do I think other religions necessarily have the same negative aspects as Mormonism (though many do).

I tried finding another religious home, but I never felt like anything other than an outsider. But the main reason I gave up on religious seeking is that I lost the ability to trust in spiritual experiences. How do you recognize the spirit when prior religious experiences confirmed things that turned out not to be true?

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

For former Latter-day Saints who had an overall pleasant experience participating in the community of the Saints, I wonder if they - having become disaffected from that community - feel like other religious groups likely cannot improve upon it (or that the obligations associated with participating in such communities are not worthwhile).

For former Latter-day Saints who had an overall unpleasant experience participating in the community of the Saints, I wonder if they -  having become disaffected from that community - feel like other religious groups would likely be "more of the same."

I can’t speak for anyone else, and I don’t fit neatly into the pleasant/unpleasant dichotomy.

I can appreciate that, which is why I was not trying to create a dichotomy, but rather two generalized areas on a spectrum ("an overall pleasant experience" and "an overall unpleasant experience").

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t find it unlikely that other religious groups have the same or even better sense of community.

I agree.  Hence my surmise that "other religious groups likely cannot improve upon" what the Church offers.

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Nor do I think other religions necessarily have the same negative aspects as Mormonism (though many do).

Agreed.

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I tried finding another religious home, but I never felt like anything other than an outsider. But the main reason I gave up on religious seeking is that I lost the ability to trust in spiritual experiences.

Notably, the author of the piece I quoted seemed pretty irritated with the notion of relying on "spiritual experiences" as a basis for religious devotion/identity.

21 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

How do you recognize the spirit when prior religious experiences confirmed things that turned out not to be true?

I am a big fan of personal revelation.  But it is not the sole means of discerning the will of God.  Consider these remarks by Michael Ash:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

If one leg of this "stool" is wobbly, if it is at odds with the other legs, then some serious introspection is in order.  For me, the one most likely to be "wobbly" is my own understanding of what I have construed to be "Personal Revelation."

In the end, though, this is all a big exercise in faith and hope.  What you here cite as a weakness (reliance on personal revelation) is also, strangely, the best part of the Restored Gospel for me.  That I have experienced it at all is pretty thrilling.  That I need to occasionally need to adjust / correct / re-visit those experiences is going to be part of the process.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Navidad]

I will reply to some of your comments with something I believe to be very important -- yeh very very important for my LDS friends to understand about those folks like me who are mainline Evangelicals. Please, when you talk about us and our churches, understand that ours is not a competition between churches since we don't believe that salvation, sanctification, the Gift of the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, come via any church or any institution. All of that comes to the believer one at a time through a personal relationship with Christ that cannot be gained through anything but a personal relationship with Christ. So, it really doesn't matter what church I attend because salvation is not found in a church. Let me say it again, it really doesn't matter what church I attend because salvation (eternal life, everlasting life, the gifts, the Gift, the way, the truth, and the life, etc.) are not found in a church. They are found in a personal relationship with Christ - one on one.

I go to church to fellowship, to minister, and to worship. I tend to choose my church affiliation by the extent that I find it meaningful to me how they worship, fellowship, and minister. And I should include, how I am taught or have the opportunity to teach. I will not go to any church of any denomination or group where I can't worship, fellowship, minister and be taught or participate in any of those. That is why we have churches, for those things and nothing more that I can think of right now. We worship the same Christ, but have a radically different idea of the the significance, meaning, and purpose of the church. When I say "we" I am talking about Evangelicals, most Protestants, and most likely most Fundamentalists.

If someone asks me tomorrow what is the greatest difference between what I found in attending an LDS ward for six years and an Evangelical church, I would not talk about salvation, exaltation, temples, the Godhead, the levels of the Celestial City, the historicity, the scriptures - - - I would say without hesitation and emphatically the difference is the ecclesiology - the doctrine of the church. It seems inevitable and evidenced in this thread that when someone who is LDS talks about the loss of faith, the conversation quickly and inevitably moves to the church, comparing churches, policies of the church, doctrines of the church, practices of the church, etc. Quite a bit of this thread ends up being a comparison of churches, comparisons of the "more" of the LDS church and the "less" of the non-LDS church.  I find that fascinating. Take care and best wishes.

[pogi]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2023/10/08/does-mormonism-ruin-faith/

I would like to see sociological data on this phenomenon.  I think most Latter-day Saints can speak anecdotally to confirm this trend, that of former Latter-day Saints who, in abandoning their faith in the Restored Gospel, decline to replace it with any other form of Christianity or theism.  I am curious as to how prevalent this is, and why it is happening.

I think Benjamin McGuire made some good points here.  

I think the teachings of the apostasy in the early church tend to stick as one of the things that disillusioned members don't question or have trouble accepting.  When they become disillusioned in the church, they find that because of teachings of the apostasy, there is no one else to turn to.   I am reminded of a talk by Elder Ballard who emphasizes this notion:

Quote

Peter responded:

“Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

...Today is no different. For some, Christ’s invitation to believe and remain continues to be hard—or difficult to accept. Some disciples struggle to understand a specific Church policy or teaching. Others find concerns in our history or in the imperfections of some members and leaders, past and present. Still others find it difficult to live a religion that requires so much. Finally, some have become “weary in well-doing.”5 For these and other reasons, some Church members vacillate in their faith, wondering if perhaps they should follow those who “went back, and walked no more” with Jesus.

If any one of you is faltering in your faith, I ask you the same question that Peter asked: “To whom shall [you] go?” If you choose to become inactive or to leave the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where will you go? What will you do? The decision to “walk no more” with Church members and the Lord’s chosen leaders will have a long-term impact that cannot always be seen right now. There may be some doctrine, some policy, some bit of history that puts you at odds with your faith, and you may feel that the only way to resolve that inner turmoil right now is to “walk no more” with the Saints. If you live as long as I have, you will come to know that things have a way of resolving themselves. An inspired insight or revelation may shed new light on an issue. Remember, the Restoration is not an event, but it continues to unfold.

I think they saw it this way when they were believers, and they have no disputations with it when they leave. 

What saddens me is how easy it is to forget the Spirit or rationalize previous experience with it away.  A prayer journal is one of the most important tools, I think, for maintaining that memory.  Whenever I read in mine, I am surprised at how easy it is to forget these experiences, even profound ones. 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

"{E}x-Mormons can be more aggressively antagonistic towards their former faith than the average American."  This too is an interesting (though unfortunate) phenomenon.  Again, I would like to see sociological data as to how prevalent this is, and why it is happening.

I think it is pretty normal and understandable phenomenon with members of any institution (including marriage) who have invested into a relationship with an individual or group, and then become disillusioned.   I also think that this phenomenon is enhanced by the teachings of many leaders of the church who have taught that it is all true or all fraud.  I think that notion makes sense, unfortunately, to a lot of people - even those who are leaving the church.   I think absolutists (which the church fosters) are more likely to become vehemently angry and bitter, while relativists are more likely to disengage in a healthier way (and even more likely to stay) without seeing the whole thing as evil or necessarily fraudulent.   The church paints it in very black and white terms, and many ex-Mormons maintain that black and white mindset.  That is why fundamentalists, and many ex-Mormons are so hostile.  We are either black or white.  Relativists and those who view us as a weird sect, but none-the-less Christian, are not as invested in seeing us or fighting against us as "evil'. 

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by pogi

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

44 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t find it unlikely that other religious groups have the same or even better sense of community.

I agree.  Hence my surmise that "other religious groups likely cannot improve upon" what the Church offers.

I think you are saying the opposite of what jk said…his “don’t” and “unlikely” cancel each other out to go to ‘I do find it likely they have the same or better’ whereas yours is “likely cannot improve”.

Or should I just skip the board today because my brain is too wonky (it feels wonky enough for this to be the case)?

[InCognitus]

Back in the late 80's and 90's I conversed with a few ex-members of the church that were also self proclaimed atheists, mostly through them posting anti-Mormon arguments from Jerald and Sandra Tanner on message boards.  It seemed to me at the time that these people lost their faith in God because they were aware that the same arguments used by the Tanners could also be used against Protestant Christian ideas and the Bible (i.e. changes in the scriptures, fallible prophets and apostles, church leaders having opinions that aren't God given, hypocrisy in members, so called "false prophesies", etc. etc.).  They idolized Jerald and Sandra Tanner for showing them the "truth", but I think it was the attitude of criticism that destroyed their faith in God completely. 

[The Nehor]

From Elder Ballard’s talk:

Quote

If any one of you is faltering in your faith, I ask you the same question that Peter asked: “To whom shall [you] go?” If you choose to become inactive or to leave the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where will you go? What will you do? The decision to “walk no more” with Church members and the Lord’s chosen leaders will have a long-term impact that cannot always be seen right now. There may be some doctrine, some policy, some bit of history that puts you at odds with your faith, and you may feel that the only way to resolve that inner turmoil right now is to “walk no more” with the Saints. If you live as long as I have, you will come to know that things have a way of resolving themselves. An inspired insight or revelation may shed new light on an issue. Remember, the Restoration is not an event, but it continues to unfold.

Do they though? How long do you have to live before that starts happening?

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think you are saying the opposite of what jk said…his “don’t” and “unlikely” cancel each other out to go to ‘I do find it likely they have the same or better’ whereas yours is “likely cannot improve”.

Or should I just skip the board today because my brain is too wonky (it feels wonky enough for this to be the case)?

You are correct. I am quite sure that other religions offer the same kind of community that Mormonism does and that the negative aspects are not unique to Mormonism.

And for the record, I did not, and never would, say that reliance on spiritual experience is a “weakness.” Smac’s response seems to have missed every point I made. 🤷‍♂️

Edited October 9, 2023 by jkwilliams

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Back in the late 80's and 90's I conversed with a few ex-members of the church that were also self proclaimed atheists, mostly through them posting anti-Mormon arguments from Jerald and Sandra Tanner on message boards.  It seemed to me at the time that these people lost their faith in God because they were aware that the same arguments used by the Tanners could also be used against Protestant Christian ideas and the Bible (i.e. changes in the scriptures, fallible prophets and apostles, church leaders having opinions that aren't God given, hypocrisy in members, so called "false prophesies", etc. etc.).  They idolized Jerald and Sandra Tanner for showing them the "truth", but I think it was the attitude of criticism that destroyed their faith in God completely. 

A lack of an attitude of criticism is why we have so much affinity fraud.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

37 minutes ago, pogi said:

Whenever I read in mine, I am surprised at how easy it is to forget these experiences, even profound ones. 

I’d say “forget” is the wrong word. I’d say reinterpret. It’s a paradigm shift. Once unlocked it’s hard to see it the same way.*
 

*Speaking only of my personal experiences - by their very nature spiritual experiences are internal and subjective and can’t really be shared or understood by anyone else. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

From Elder Ballard’s talk:

Do they though? How long do you have to live before that starts happening?

If by, resolving he means issues become not as troubling because one shifts points of view, sure, I think this is common if you stick around.  In my case I developed a high comfort level with the Church making even major mistakes.  I tend to agree with him….my inspired insight being the Lord is okay with fallible leaders making major mistakes in order that we rely less on them and more on him.  

I think a lot become okay with putting off getting answers until the next life when it’s not that long of a wait and in other ways they have been served well by their beliefs and involvement in the Church, so there’s trust.

Now if he means the problems themselves are resolved—that they are no longer problems because they have been corrected or because I was inspired to figure out they weren’t actually problems—not so much. Though a massive one was removed itself doctrinally and in practice (the Priesthood Ban), its effects and beliefs associated with it still linger in significant ways.  

Temple sealings have become much closer to what seems to me the most sensible, consistent with the purpose of creating a web of celestial family relationships as well as the most loving structure, but not fully so.  There is still a lot of distress involved that could be removed if leadership put down on record at least what they are allowing to happen already and have for a long time, a living woman having two marriage sealings active at the same time.

But I have 25 years potentially yet to go before my source of any insights becomes a bit more direct (at least I hope they do in the next life, if they don’t, what a pain, we will need eternity to figure out anything).

Edited October 10, 2023 by Calm