Why They Stay

Very nice, MH. Sounds like a book I should get. I stay because I try to overlook people’s faults. As I hope they overlook mine. I love Restoration theology, which serves as the core of my beliefs. I have embraced Jesus as my Savior and I know He wouldn’t want me to give up on His Church because someone does or says something dumb. Even a leader. Because at some point in time that leader will be replaced by another. My eternity and that of my family is more important than that one small moment. Even if you strung all those small moments together.

Ultimately, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is more important thing.

I asked that question for a long time. When I realized that there wasn’t a satisfactory answer I left.

My wife and I had this conversation last night. We can certainly try and find good in Church membership – and frankly at the Ward level I think there is plenty of it. Still, the issue for me has to always come down to whether the Church really has the power it claims. It doesn’t appear to, so the cost of allegiance is too expensive.

My kids. I could easily live as a lukewarm Mormon, if being lukewarm Mormon was like being lukewarm Catholic. However, if I choose to go to Church, and have my young children (5 and 2 yrs) go to Primary, I am actively endorsing an indoctrination of allegiance to Church leaders. The so-called “basics” taught in those Sunday School lessons are not about “getting a testimony”, but rather about as matter of fact declarations that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, President Monson is, and that “safety and peace” come only through following their counsel. Testimonies and faith are not confirmations and perspectives that come through thoughtful inquiry, but are rather traits and perspectives that we “must” have and/or get. My boy should spend his youth preparing for mission, and my daughter must spend her time preparing to marry in the Temple. If we stay, we would be effectively submitting our children to the Church’s authority – and frankly that is not the life I would choose for them. That is the cost.

As a person who did not stay, and who feels personal benefit from having adopted a nondenominational/agnostic lifestyle, I appreciated this post. I remarked to a friend not long ago that I’m conscious of a disconnect that has developed between me and my Mormon friends and family over the years. My objections to the faith abide, but like some of the people quoted above, so does my affection for my cultural roots in Mormonism. So it’s good to be exposed to the above perspectives, to be reminded of other viewpoints. Thanks for sharing them.

Boy what a topic!! I’ve asked myself this over and over and over again. In fact, I’m struggling with it again now.

Re Cowboy-
I absolutely agree with you. I feel very much the same way. My ward is nice, and there are good people in it. But the way youth are taught in my ward just doesn’t feel right. I think this is primarily a function of the LDS church and less a function of Mormonism. And that makes me a little sad. I don’t blame you at all for your position.

Re MH-

I think for me the better question is “Why should I leave?” I haven’t come up with anything to justify that.

This is the question I always keep coming back to. So what if I don’t believe everything. So what if I don’t agree with the church on some things. I’m Mormon, and feel at home here. Why should I leave my home?

Now, I confess that this attitude really means that I’m subjecting myself to a lot of internal strife and torture. It’s not clear to me that the strife and torture is of an unhealthy variety. I appreciate being challenged on my ways of thinking.

Re Childe Jake-
I have not yet answered your email (don’t worry I will), but maybe there is part of a response in this comment. Like you, I have deep affection for my Mormon roots, and I just haven’t yet come across a good enough reason for me to leave.

At the end of the day, I think the good outweighs the bad. I want to be a part of good things. Could the same be said of Catholicism, Lutherans, Baptists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.? Absolutely. But I’m Mormon!! And until the church decides it doesn’t want me, I’ll most likely continue to make life a living hell for it (in the nicest way possible of course)!!!

Oh, and Joseph Smith was undeniably a prophet of God. And if you believe the words in the D&C were from Heavenly messengers to him, what else can you be but Mormon?

You can have all the complaints you want about the Church, but it is either true or false. It is either an elaborate lie, or it is honest truth. And if it is the truth, it finishes all other religions ultimately.

I stay because I know it is the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

Glass Ceiling, I don’t know how much you know about the Orthodox Church, but if I did choose to leave, I think the Orthodox Church might be an option for me–I wouldn’t call them “too Catholic” at all. They still baptize by immersion, and their doctrine of theosis has amazing similarities to exaltation. Frankly, they have some pretty cool theology if you ask me. I’d also consider CoC, because I think I would miss the Book of Mormon, and they allow a bit more freedom of theology than our church, so I think I could take the parts of my LDSisms that I like with me. I also like the fact they they are trying to make “a prophetic people”–a really cool goal if you ask me. But I am quite happy where I am, so I have no plans to change.

Mai Li, I think Lavinia would come back into the fold in a heartbeat. The option to come back is not up to her. She says that when she got her excommunication letter, she asked what she needed to do to get re-baptized, and they did not give any instructions.

I certainly can’t speak for Cowboy, but I’m gonna give my response to Jeff and MH. At the end of the day, I actually end up seeing things much like MH describes which is part of why I’m willing to let my kids go to Primary and be okay with it, particularly if I get to offer my “deprogramming” afterward.

The part of me that sees Cowboy’s point is in the recognition that the U.S., parents, etc. DO make mistakes and we actively acknowledge that. I don’t tell my kids that I received revelation from God and that they must obey me to obtain salvation (I think we call that unrighteous dominion), and neither does the U.S. gov’t. We don’t teach our children that they have to agree with the U.S. gov’t, and I don’t teach them they have to agree with me. In fact, in our country, dissent is welcome, especially if appropriately demonstrated. I apologize to my kids when I make mistakes, and the U.S. gov’t also tries to apologize to classes of people it knows it has wronged. While I know the church claims it realizes its fallibility and that of its leaders, as you all know, our culture belies that.

What bothers me about Mormons who leave and are offended by testimony is that so many leave having never read the books. They often don’t know what they left when they left it.

I have no problem with people who leave and are offended at my testimony, as long as they know what they know what are rejecting.

But there is a reason for everything. There are reasons why the Grateful Dead sold out large stadiums for over three decades. There are reasons why everyone swears by Subaru these days. There are reasons why, through constant mistreatment, the LDS Church survives and grows. And there are reasons why a Mormon testimony cab be uniquely powerful.

For anyone who has left without knowing why the Church claims to be so special, you’ve missed something. It’s all in the books. If you have not read the books, you don’t know Mormonism.

The post and comments are of great interest to me. Until a few years ago, I thought most members were active for the same reason I am.

I’m amazed that so many are active out of habit, for family, for social activity, and etc.

I wouldn’t spend 10 minutes at church for any of those reasons. If the Lord hadn’t answered my prayer in June of 1966 with the kind of manifestation he did, I wouldn’t be here today.

For all those who are active in the church for any other reason than testimony, I suggest you pay the price to obtain a testimony.

Why, because having the companionship of the Holy Ghost gives you access to the Father and the Son. I regularly experience this access and I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

The claims of the church are incredible. And the best part about it, they are all true! In a few short years all of us will be dead and will have a better understanding of things.

Those who take the opportunity of “wrestling” with the Lord in this life, until they obtain the blessing of knowing for themselves that the restoration of the God’s work through the prophet Joseph is true, will be eternally grateful in the world to come.

If you can’t honestly say you’ve done everything possible to obtain such a blessing then you don’t have a leg to stand on. If you have, and haven’t received one, then God will eventually square things up with you.

Obtaining a manifestation from the Lord isn’t going to happen by studying church history or the vast majority of the material written about in the nacle. The Book of Mormon is the best source for learning how to obtain revelation.

Anyhow, that is my answer to the question asked in this post, “Why do you stay?”

Cowboy,

“I’ll try and be a little less cynical – though Jeff’s comment kind of irks me. I wouldn’t care if the Church leaders weren’t “perfect” (I guess depending on how one defines that), so long as they could demonstrate that they are “Prophets”. ‘

I didn’t mean to irk you, but I just wondered why you would apply the same standard to yourself that you apparently apply to Church leaders?

How do they not demonstrate that they are Prophets? As far as I know, there is only one Prophet to the Church. I know we sustain them as Prophets, Seers and Revelators but I think that only applies to their administrative duties as delegated by the Prophet. President Monson is really the only one who can declare doctrine to the whole Church.

The real problem in Primary is not so much what the Church teaches but how the Primary in any particular Ward presents it.

Jeff:

“I didn’t mean to irk you, but I just wondered why you would apply the same standard to yourself that you apparently apply to Church leaders?”

Fair enough, sorry for being irked. As for your question, I would say because I don’t put myself into the same class. I suppose if my children wanted to challenge the claim that “I am their father and this is my house”, that I would need to furnish some proof to that effect.

“How do they not demonstrate that they are Prophets?”

The best answer is, “how do they prove that they are”. I suppose they could do this by putting forth some kind of major Prophecy that would be hard to doubt. They could part the red-sea or do some other major supernatural thing. God could visit and do his best to persuade me – I’m sure he could posit some evidence that would be hard to doubt.

A common trend has been to challenge this kind of “sign seeking” – but I find that very convenient for those making tall claims. Afterall, what good is a Prophet if he is only “right” at the same rate as everyone else, and fails to part the red-sea at least once in a while?

“The real problem in Primary is not so much what the Church teaches but how the Primary in any particular Ward presents it.”

Only partially – the manuals are all the same.

I don’t wanna pretend I am a valiant member of the Church. That would be an untruth. I have struggled more in the last three years than I have in a very long time, maybe ever. This blog and others are actually very helpful for me in this way. They remind me what I so easily forget, so often.

I understand the struggle with prophets. I just wonder if we would follow President Monson if tomorrow he said to go to Jackson County with only your food storage, or to now live the law of consecration. Would we do it?

I want changes in the singles program badly, and I don’t know who to blame. But it is the way it is. I’m waiting for the word from Utah, but until then… I still have to support my leadership as altruistically as I can or I cheat my own experience. Besides, I am hardly even doing the things that Church leadership asks me to do now anyway.

Here was another thought: many people thought JS was a fallen prophet for much if his life. I think it is easy for us to love JS because he is ten feet tall in Church History books, and the fact that he is dead. Its must have been harder when he was alive.

Thank you Roger. Touche. Very well written.

MH,

That is an incredible quote. And may I also say that your OP is very important. I wish more people were participating. It’s a timely and fascinating subject. I mean it.

I think that change in the Church often comes from the bottom, up. I also believe that to whatever level that the Q12 appear out of touch , it can largely be attested to lower and middle management . In any large organization, there is the tendency to seek to impress higher-ups as opposed to telling them like it is.

I’ll offer two reponses. First to Hawkgrrrl and MH regarding the Old Testament. I invoked the example of Moses parting the red-sea, not because I believe it actually happended, but because entertaining for a moment that it did – thousands of years later we can debate it, but the Hebrews who would have witnessed it would have had no reason to doubt. It is convenient to defend Mormonism in the context of a the Bible as literal history, but it often appears like we are defending fantasy with fantasy. “After all, since we all know that leprechauns live on the other side of the rainbow, why couldn’t there be unicorns.” So, I am consistent in that I believe that the Bible is under just us much suspicion as Mormonism.

Regarding Prophets – Just because there is not a strong biblical precedent for Prophets proving themselves, doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be. The allegation is that God delivers his instructions to Prophets, who then are responsible for telling the world how to live. The consequence for rejecting the Prophets is the threat of mortal unhappiness, and some form of Eternal misery. If one believes a Prophets claims, then the rational course is to follow their words to the letter. So naturally the allure of this kind of position of authority would tempt many to fraudulently pass themselves off as a Prophet. Unable to produce any real evidence, naturally they will need to develop an explanation for why their position isn’t at all obvious. At this point I hate to sound cliche`, but in order to protect ourselves from being duped, the smartest policy for anyone to adopt is completely counter to the religious argument. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. So, while it is convenient to argue that God speaks in the ambiguous still small voice, I’d prefer to give heed only to the whirlwind.

Jeff:

I think it is easier not to believe, but I reject the implication that is therefore just the easy way out. Even still, agenda’s aside, the issue isn’t whether it is better/easier to believe or not believe, rather it is to honestly assess why we believe or not believe.

I stay because I know that I can find more good and do more good in the church than I can elsewhere. I want to be an example of a faithful latter-day saint who has questioned and chose to remain. I have deep cultural roots in Mormonism and I think it’s a pretty good place to have a family. Mostly though, I think it makes me a better person.

I found when I made my religion about me and not about what other members said or thought or what the greater church agenda was, it became an easier, but also more meaningful experience.

Lauren,

“I found when I made my religion about me and not about what other members said or thought or what the greater church agenda was, it became an easier, but also more meaningful experience.”

That is a very important observation…

Brian,

To each his own

Jeff:

I’m not following your comment. You initially argued that it is easier not to believe because over time, individuals who don’t believe have fewer expectations placed upon them.

How does sharing a religious point of view in common with my family mean that I live to a lower standard? Furthermore, perhaps I have squandered my ability to live Eternally with them…but then again, mabey not. I’m thinking not, and that’s the whole point. If I don’t believe it, why would I fear it. Lastly, my ability to serve is not determined by the Church. Most of what we call “service” in the Church, is debatable anyway. I’d call a lot of it just “interacting”. Not that there is something wrong with that, nor that there isn’t any “real” service activities in the Church – but this notion that the Church is a giant service organization is a bit inflated. We can debate that I suppose, but what we can’t debate very well is whether I or anyone else can easily find service opportunities outside of the Church.

By the way – the Elder Quorum President and I are good friends, and he knows that he has an invitation to invite me to any service activity he wants – move ins/move outs, Christmas tree, etc.

MH – That’s fine. I think your post was useful all the same. I don’t see my view of Prophets in being extreme in the slightest. I do see it as being specific, which is why I struggle with perspectives like that advocated by Mauss. He argues that the Church is of divine origin, but human progression. Sometimes the things the Church does, or Prophets say, are divine. Sometimes their not. In my mind that is unnecessarilly generous. Still, I could live with that kind of response if he could offer an explanation for how he tells the difference.

“He was just giving an example of what he feels is service outside the Church. I’m glad to see you’re snarky and contrarian to everyone, and not just me.

Have a nice day, Mike

Cowboy,

“How does sharing a religious point of view in common with my family mean that I live to a lower standard?”

You seem to keep migrating to the point that somehow I am either saying you’ll keep a lower standard or that you were taking an easy way out. I haven’t meant that nor have I stated that.

but, for those of us who are beleiving members of the Church, we would be remiss if we did not think of the consequences of your non-belief, as far as the Gospel is concerned.

“He seems to be stating that non-belief is “easier” and therefore inferior, because we don’t live according to certain expectations.”

Never said inferior. One must make decisions that meets their own needs. but, having said that, it is not without consequences.

We may all find out you are right and we are all wrong. or visa versa. it all remains to be seen.

Unbelief is much easier than all the effort we all must make to beleive and participate.

And I am glad you are open to help when asked. That is a good thing.

Re MH-

Well Cowboy, I’ve done my best persuading I could. It seems you prefer to take an extreme view of prophets/revelation, and aren’t very fond of scriptural precedent. I’m out of ideas here. (You know me–moderation in all things–I’m not fond of extremism in anything.)

I’m just curious, what do you find extreme about Cowboy’s view of revelation and prophets? And, if you find it extreme, do you have an alternate definition that has substance and isn’t just as applicable to Suze Orman as it is to Pres. Monson? If I’m being honest with myself, the only way I find Pres. Monson a prophet is in that we say he is and have given him that authority in the priesthood sense. Aside from the list of prophets MH listed I’d say this covers most “prophets.”

I guess, for me, the bottom line is that I agree in part with Cowboy, perhaps just not to the same level (which means I fall in the same camp as MH). But I don’t see his view as extreme at all.

Cowboy:

You’re more polite than I, but when I read comments like this:

“Unbelief is much easier than all the effort we all must make to beleive and participate.”

All I can think about is how wrong that is. Unbelief may be easier in one context (i.e. a believing Mormon context), but there’s an incredible amount of complexity involved in adopting that worldview. I’m a recent convert to unbelief (i.e. hopeful agnosticism), after many years of trying to convince myself to go along with the believing status quo. I would argue that while my new mindset is more palatable with my persona, it’s hardly easier. It’s just different.

To believing LDS, though, I’ve noticed a penchant for glorifying work/labor and telling others how much harder it is to believe than disbelieve. As a former believing member, I don’t think it’s that hard to believe. You’re given the answers from birth, you’re told not to question authority and follow the manuals without outside resources. You know where you’re going, why you’re here and what you’re supposed to be doing. Just ask a missionary, they have all the answers.

When you step outside that paradigm into one of uncertainty, there’s nothing easy about it. You’re giving up a life of “knowns” for a life of “unknowns,” fully cognizant of how the average LDS member now views you (i.e. a heathen, apostate, etc).

When you take your burdens and square them on yourself, it’s a unique ride whether you can do that as a believer or an unbeliever. We kid ourselves into thinking one is easier than the other…

And, MH, I don’t believe Cowboy’s take on prophets is all that extreme either. If they are who they say (or who the LDS membership says) they are, then it’s not extreme to want something to verify that. I actually admire Cowboy’s take, and it appears he’s given plenty of thought to his stance. To either accuse him of extremes, or that he’s taking an easier route, is to discount what has been a very real process for him and one that he no doubt struggled with.

Jeff:

As I stated before, giving up one’s long held beliefs is not easy, but it is the last remaining hard point. Once it’s done, it’s all easy.

You don’t have to believe anything, therefore, you don’t have to do anything, and if you don’t have to do anything, you are no longer accountable for anything.

Sounds easier to me than adopting any belief system, not just LDS, that requires a certain amount of effort.

That’s a pile of hogwash and entirely founded on erroneous beliefs. I’d use a more appropriate term, but expletives will be left out of this. Leaving a religious institution (or beliefs) in no way implies that one is leaving morals or some code of ethics behind. Hell, for that matter, all you’re doing is clinging to the mistaken notion that Christianity is about ethics – you’re too caught up in a system that is about little more than rewards and punishments.

Leaving a church compels no one to simply abandon their life and become a murderous, adulterous whore.

It’s funny that the route you chose to take is the most nonsensical one out there. Sure, it might mean giving up Mormoncentric beliefs (drinking, etc), but one is still accountable to oneself.

Being a good person is independent of religious upbringing, no matter how much you want to cast it as a religious issue.

I hate to get into this, but most of my family has left the Church for that other road. And I know no one on Earth who left the Church who didn’t adopt that easier lifestyle. It just appears to go with the territory.

I am with Jeff on this one.

No, I agreed that one claims they are a prophet, they are making a tall claim. Do the scriptures define a Prophet, or do they just record the words of alleged Prophets and some stories. True, from scripture we only get a detailed account of the face to face encounters, in a few select places. However, all of the writings attributed to the Prophets more or less contain prophecy. In other words, men like Daniel/Jeremiah/Amos/etc, were forecasting the future. The general belief is that there insight was given to them by God. The easy test is to wait them out and see if they’re right. Modern Church leaders do not prophecy, at least not in any meaningful way (yes, GBH “foresaw” small Temples, and then had them built) – so, how do they get off calling themselves Prophets?

“Cowboy is changing the definition of prophet against what is scriptural. He’s using an extreme definition.”

Except it seems like most active members are also using this “extreme” definition — the last two months I’ve heard multiple members in F&T meeting stand up and testify that they “know that Pres. Monson talks with God regularly”

I’m pretty sure they don’t mean ‘talk’ figuratively — the average member does, in fact, believe that modern prophets DO literally talk with God regularly.

Of course, the interesting part is that modern LDS prophets have never actually claimed to talk with God directly. Pres. Hinckley admitted as much in his 60 Minutes interview, and Pres. Monson admitted as much in his Sunday morning talk just two weeks ago.

Maybe someone needs to give a conference talk on what exactly a ‘prophet’ is according to the scriptures so we don’t have so many Church members misunderstanding and holding on to ‘extreme’ beliefs.

President Monson is a prophet. He is running a worldwide church, however, and probably does not feel the need to tell the world every single thing he does and every dignitary he talks to. His mission is different than JS or BY because the Church has changed.

Mormon Heretic:

Respectfully (and I really mean that) – your argument really says nothing at all. So far, you haven’t really made a strong biblical case either. All you have stated is that the Bible specifically mentions only a few instances where a Prophet spoke face to face with God. Still, most (all I think?) of the recorded Prophets wrote their revelations, where the implication is that they were literally shown visions by God. In his presence or not, the revelations are thought to be the direct word of God.

You say that many members have a “naive” understanding of what a Prophet is. You defend this by appealing to the authority of Armand Mauss who argues that literal experiences are “rare”. Articulate and prolific as Mauss may be in Mormon circles, his domain of expertise does not lay in the field of qualifying the divinity behind Church activities. He may have an opinion derived through a sociological lens, but when he comments on the divine origin of the Church, he is doing so from a place of faith. His comments may be useful to those who share his point of view, however his criticisms of those who don’t are on the wrong track. It isn’t helpful to call someone “naive” on subject as questionable as the reality of a specific religions truthfulness. In order to show that I, or others are naive, you and Mauss will need to first demonstrate that Mormon or Biblical Prophets, actually are what they claim. You will have to rationally define what it means to be a Prophet, and why we are wrong or naive in thinking/expecting otherwise. So far we just have the classic pat on the head criticism that we’re just naive. Why? Because we expect that people who claim supernatural powers, such as the Priesthood to heal the sick, or revelation to see the future, can’t demonstrate these powers. No, expecting a demonstration would somehow be tempting God, right? The last thing he would want to do is really prove himself, because then I wouldn’t need faith. Afterall, the need for faith (hope for those things which are not seen) is so self-evident that any need for explanation just exposes our naivete.

Re #79 Jared

The individuals I have a problem with are those who lie to obtain a temple recommend.

I agree, I cannot endorse that.

I’ve heard the argument that they are being noble by so doing because they end up doing “good” for someone else: a spouse, children, parent, etc.

I think what you’re getting at is people who really don’t wanna stay, don’t believe, aren’t trying anymore, but still act the part. I agree, they might be better off leaving. Though I still claim that if they are sincere in staying because they know it might end their marriage, and hurt their children, they are noble for it. I can’t imagine a god who insists someone leave his church despite willingness to stay if it results in the pain and suffering of children and other family members.

But maybe that is the God you believe in.

In advance I would like to apologize for belaboring this post. I also think that Mormon Heretic provided us with a great topic worth discussing.

I want to rehash this notion of defining Prophets, particularly from the scriptures. I think it is rather something we have to infer from the Bible, though the Book of Mormon is far less obscure. So, let’s ask first off, what do Church leaders claim to be? I would submit that every six months we attend conference where among other things, the general membership is left to a sustaining vote that the presiding leadership constitutes 15 men who are sustained as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. Furthermore, Joseph Smith set a precedent as a Seer, by translating the Book of Mormon through the aid of a Seer Stone. Similarly, the Book of Mormon itself states:

Mosiah 8:13 – 18

13 Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.

14 And behold, the king of the people who are in the land of Zarahemla is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God.

15 And the king said that a seer is greater than a prophet.

16 And Ammon said that a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God.

17 But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known.

18 Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings.

Nowhere in modern observation are these mighty miracles clearly evident – specifically, to know of things past, present, future – among the teachings and activities of todays presiding leadership.

Jeff:

Might be better to define it before you start believing it. FPR had a great writeup a year or so ago about what a prophet meant inthe OT context. LDS believe something entirely different and have redefined the very meaning where its now an office as opposed to a gift (D&C 107)…

Douglas,

Thank you. My feelings articulated.

Jeff:

The request was to offer a scriptural interpretation of “Prophets”. I have done that using the only scriptures of which I am aware, that even attempt to define what that means. The claim since the beginning of the Church is that the windows of heaven are not shut, and God has not stopped calling prophets. That in fact, we today have a Moses in our midst. That is the claim made by Joseph Smith, and has been perpetuated since. So, other than the fact that we know they can’t do it, why should we not expect something akin to parting the Mississippi – as you say. They still use the title “Seer”. The Book of Mormon tells us what a seer is, but then I am accused of “redefining” the role of Prophet to suit an agenda of making it impossible for Mormon “Prophets” to stack up??? I didn’t claim to be a Prophet, they did. So, if they don’t stack up it isn’t because I set the bar too high. Again, at the expense of sounding cliche`, the logic of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” isn’t at all unreasonable.

I wonder how many people stay in the church using Pascal’s Wager as a reason.

Bishop Bill: at least one of my 5 brothers tried to use Pascal’s Wager to get me to stay a member. I very gently said this was well-trodden ground (he’s 19 years younger than I), and that this line of argument is not persuasive in the end.

Pascal’s Wager preys upon a cognitive defect in human reasoning: that we inherently and instinctively tend to give equal weight to two uncertain alternatives. Combine this with fear or torture (torment) or destruction, and you have a powerful compliance technique.

A similar cognitive dichotomy is at work in snake oil sales: we know that it is 99% suspect, but the outcome is so wonderful, we’re willing to make the wager.

To escape this cognitive trick, expand the question. For example, add Zeus to the mix instead of the more recent Great Judge who separates sheep from goats. Or imagine how you should respond to Harold Camping if he poses the End-of-the-World version of Pascal’s Wager.

This is a powerful defect in our reasoning instincts, but it can be remedied.

PS It is a mistake to accuse a stayer or a leaver of “taking the easy way out”. Top-level decisions about what in the World are reliable signposts of truth and reality… these are not susceptible to quasi-moralistic attacks of being “easy” or “hard”. That’s a trivial and worthless attack. Stay or leave, life is hard. Period. Leaving The Church or realizing that “Scripture” is arbitrary and not worth of belief is very hard, but is it harder than staying in a belief or religion you have realized is a gigantic sham? Granted, that’s just one person’s viewpoint. But when that realization permeates your entire being, then following it sincerely is just as important to the Former Mormon as “staying” ever was to the Still Mormon.

Jeff Spector wrote: “As I stated before, giving up one’s long held beliefs is not easy, but it is the last remaining hard point. Once it’s done, it’s all easy.”

“You don’t have to believe anything, therefore, you don’t have to do anything, and if you don’t have to do anything, you are no longer accountable for anything.”

“Sounds easier to me than adopting any belief system, not just LDS, that requires a certain amount of effort.”

“I am speaking from my own experiences as well. So don’t think I am applying this just to you. I am not.”

That is some of the most blind, unperceptive analysis of The Other that I have seen. It’s amazing to see such naked contempt for the struggles of other people. What a fantasy you seem to have created of a complete “lack of beliefs” involving… imagine!… easy street, no effort! Do you actually KNOW someone who’s struggled and finally left behind their lifelong indoctrination? I know people think this *inside*, but it’s quite telling to see this in writing. Complete lack of empathy and deep narcissistic confidence in the writer’s viewpoint with utter dismissal of those who have tried it and found it wanting.

Beyond the complete absurdity of the accusation of a life “without responsibilities” just because some have found Mormonism incomplete and unsupportable… it’s also completely beside the point. What does effort (particularly perceived effort in your eyes) have to do with whether a belief is worthy of our investment? Or any idea? This is self-serving jibber jabber.

No… I don’t believe in systems of infinite reward. So in my finite time, I don’t think I need to investigate more of them than I already spent in my life up until now.

Doesn’t have to be Zeus with infinite punishment. I’m just trying to move it out of an area where the discussion participants have already bet on a particular horse. It doesn’t really matter whether you score the non-believer 0 and believer +infinity. Or the believer -infinity and the believer 0 or +10. I think it amounts to the same thing.

It may be that decision theory has been applied this way… I think it’s a mistake, neither persuasively descriptive (Predictably Irrational, Dan Ariely,…) nor… definitely not… normative. (All the utopian systems I mentioned above.)

Except maybe IRA, SEP, 401K, 403B… I totally believe the vivid tales about the glorious benefits of saving for retirement. 😉

Kent Francis says:
When I was a young man growing up in the Church I knew how to fly paper airplanes and write in the songbooks. When I was first challenged by my seminary teacher to actually read the Book of Mormon, I stayed up all night entranced; and asked God to validate the promise of Moroni 10:4-5. I then knew that the Book of Mormon was a true scripture about real people who received revelation from God; and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. As I studied and prayed over the years I came to understand that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was His Church; established to publish His Gospel throughout the world, to perfect the Saints, and to provide through the Priesthood the ordinances that would allow me and all His children to return to Him. As my knowledge of Science and the world has grown there have been many challenges to my faith. As I have interacted with narrow minded people in the Church I have often had my feelings hurt. When I recently expressed my opinion in a class about God living in the center of the Galaxy and knowing our thoughts and prayers thru lepton entanglement, I was called into the Bishop’s office and asked to stick to the manual. My wife wanted to know if we were going to have to move again {8^). Over my 50 years of Church leadership and teaching assignments I have seen hundreds of miracles and received not only inspiration but actual interaction with my Father who has asked me to stay in The Church and contribute as I am able to building it up and serving my brothers and sisters… so I stay and do as He has asked me to because I love Him.

Jeff: It is strange and intellectually rude–bordering on philosophical narcissism–to suggest that the particular swath of humanity *you* belong to is the honorable, hardworking, moral swath, and the other swath of people *over there*… “The Other”… because they have different opinions about the nature of reality than you do… are the morally slack, poorly self-exerting, intellectually lazy ones.

I’m not sure if you were simply using a sort of shorthand because of constraints of comments sections.

This is a transparent ego defense: lazy thinking and a form of intellectual immaturity or naivety. This kind of viewpoint — at least as you’ve worded it here — lacks basic self-reflection.

Yes… we all have in-group drives and instinctively prefer our own, but a reflective life requires us to at least make an effort to transcend these basic ego defenses (or group defenses). Otherwise, the kind of self-serving and self-flattering judgment you’ve offered anecdotally here is as tainted with the “scandal of particularity” as is any more political jingoism. (“Our country is the moral one, that country is the lazy one”; “our family is the good one, other families are the weak-minded or -spirited ones”: that sort of thing.)

Most of my posts were dialog on the post itself. You may be a great guy, I’m criticizing the intellectual rudeness in your post here. I’m not attacking you. I’m sorry you thought it extended beyond the words you’ve used here.

The acrimony of some of these exchanges is perfectly illustrative of why it is so tempting not to stay. It gets hard to want to meet together often and renew covenants when sweet reason departs from any kind of meaningful dialogue.

Roger: Out of curiosity, may I ask if you find it acrimonious at church, too? The reason I’m asking is to get a better picture of your experience, which sounds a bit different from mine.

Before I left The Church, disagreements seemed muted at church, certainly on big things like the nature of reality — mostly doctrine-based agreement there. And off in the fringes of doctrinal conjecture, there didn’t seem to be any basis for *sharp* disagreement, since any disagreement was out on a limb with no hope of an authority to settle the question.

At social gatherings — away from the covenant-renewing meetings — on rare occasional I may have experienced disagreements (on politics or personalities). But mostly people kept these to themselves… and they all seemed politely contained during Sacrament Meeting or even Priesthood or Sunday School.

Maybe because my experience at my wards was so benign, I couldn’t use the word ‘tempted’ to describe my motivation to stay or go. I left because I was persuaded about the unreliability of spiritual experiences (“witnesses”) to confirm anything outside the experiences themselves. My confidence in LDS teachings went from, say, 95% to 0%.

If one’s reasons for leaving are at the core of The Church’s philosophy rather than particular social interactions, it’s harder to imagine staying.

Hi Jeff, since you took exception to my characterization, I went back and read everything you wrote in this thread. Please, can we start over? Please allow me to use your precise words and simply tell you honestly how they come across to someone outside your group.

You actually state and restate the intellectually rude point about 5 times, but here is the most direct jab:
“As I stated before, giving up one’s long held beliefs is not easy, but it is the last remaining hard point. Once it’s done, it’s all easy.”
“You don’t have to believe anything, therefore, you don’t have to do anything, and if you don’t have to do anything, you are no longer accountable for anything.”
“Sounds easier to me than adopting any belief system, not just LDS, that requires a certain amount of effort.”

In re-reading, I see others have taken you to task for the rudeness in this thread (maybe wording their critique differently), so perhaps it was excessive — piling on — for me to criticize you, too. Sorry about that.

Intellectual rudeness is a subtle form of personal attack — also an unfair discussion maneuver — where you paint those who honestly disagree with you (here, those who leave) as physically, mentally, or morally sick or weak (“you don’t have to do anything” and “no longer accountable for anything”).

The problem with intellectual rudeness is this: it privileges the viewpoint of the speaker or writer (over other viewpoints) by the power of insinuation, stereotype, or slander. This is unkind and unfair.

In your words here, you seem to state a belief that you can speak for the *generic non-believer*: “I am speaking from my own experiences as well. So don’t think I am applying this just to you. I am not.”

Again, this is a well known and well established form of rudeness. The subtext is, “I know exactly where you’re coming from because I used to be like you”. The implication is, “I thought like you when I was more weak, morally lazy, or foolish. Then I found The Truth and became a responsible, accountable person who doesn’t just do the easy thing.”

I gather that you don’t intend your words as an attack, and that you don’t *perceive* your words as an attack. I regret to say that this is how it comes across when you write that people with different viewpoints only do “easy” things, and are “no longer accountable for anything.”

Perhaps it’s a mistake for those who feel attacked by you to criticize your discussion tactics in turn. It raises the temperature of the discussion, which makes many of us uncomfortable. But it’s important to understand that you punched people in the face here – verbally — and promoted your own viewpoint with an unfair tactic.

Perhaps it’s a mistake to take offense at your rudeness here. Offense comes when we identify personally with the target of another’s attack. As it turns out, the stereotype you offer here (of people who leave) is so glib and exaggerated that it seems to apply to no person I know. I don’t actually know *anyone* without “a belief system”. But you clearly intend to include people like us in your slam:
“You don’t…believe anything…. Sounds easier to me than adopting any belief system, not just LDS, that requires a certain amount of effort.”

Without any exception I can think of, *all* of my friends who are non-active, non-LDS, or non-theists are extremely responsible and accountable to their fellow man and woman. And they work very hard to live moral lives and fulfill their responsibilities.

We answer not to you or your theology, but to our family, friend, neighbor, and country… also to the stranger, the foreigner, and to our stewardship with animals and plants.

And not only to these, but also to larger principles which bind us together. They just aren’t exactly *your* principles.

SM–since I really haven’t attended on a regular basis in around 30 years, I am spared the acrimony—like you, had I continued to experience spiritual confirmations I might have toughed it out—although I do have direct recollections of experiences that could/should have been so interpreted.

I have sat in priesthood meetings, both in Utah and outside of the Zion corridor, where I’ve both experienced and observed very acrimonious put-downs and arguments over the priesthod ban, whether the Church has a position on capital punishment and evolution; just to name a few yopics. I have some horror stories from Gospel Doctrine class experiences that are almost too painful to recall–and won’t burden you with them now.

I don’t suppose it is any different in other denominations–in fact I know so. I watched as a very good friend was basically run out of teaching a Baptist bible study course for incorporating vignettes from the life of St. Francis.

Frederick G. Williams (of the original First Presidency) was correct, when he said at the time of his excomunication, “it is all madness.”

At the same time, I think it would have been very salutory for a number of us to have been in a ward where we could hear the talk on Testimony that is printed over in the current issue of By Common Consent.

Jeff,

For what it’s worth, this sounds like the same crap I used to get from certain friends and family before they had the benefit of twenty years of hindsight to correct their initial reactions to my profession of non-belief:

“You don’t have to believe anything, therefore, you don’t have to do anything, and if you don’t have to do anything, you are no longer accountable for anything.”

C’mon. And keep in mind that I’m not impugning *your* character. If anything, I’m suggesting that you’re a smart enough guy who surely knows better.

Uh… No. Contemplating leaving meant trying to figure out how to carry on being an ethical person inside a different framework that I took years constructing during the scarce downtime available while performing Mormonly duties like BYU and mission service. If you’re saying now that your quips were all just joking asides about insider Mormon experience, well, OK, I’ll stop feeling like you were out to denigrate my post-Mormon trajectory.

That said, speaking of jokes, I hope access to new in-group humor wasn’t one of the reasons you converted to Mormonism. That wouldn’t offend me as a fifth-generation Mormon, but as a comedian, it does.

Hey Jeff,

Is it easier? Sure. Now it is. But no thanks to the kind of wild speculation you’re bringing here. Can I take it? When I parted ways, I figured I was giving up my inheritance, my family, the whole kit and kaboodle.

For what it’s worth, the exmo thing can be pretty funny, too.

As I mentioned over at r/exmormon, every Mormon group blog seems to have a Jeff. Or a Mike Tannehill. Or an Alison Moore Smith. Whatever their names, it’s all the same trainwreck and we’re all rubbernecking for the same reason.

As long as we’re doing the copy pasta thing, Andrew: No, I don’t treat individual bloggernaclers like piñatas. And I don’t treat Mormons like piñatas. And if folks like Jeff, Alison or Mike choose to treat exmos like that, it’s on them, not me.

On a more serious note, are you really suggesting that Jeff is your most serious guy? Or that Alison Moore Smith is somehow more serious than Kristine Haglund or Russell Arben Fox or whoever T&S and BCC have got on their bench? And Mike Tannehill? Seriously?

C’mon. I’m not saying drop these clowns, I’m just suggesting it’s nuts to adopt their weird outlier framing when defending them.

Jeff and I initially hashed this conversation out, and whether he is truly being rude or just making an observation is sometimes hard to tell.

On the one hand, I have already agreed that naturally he is right that it is easier to drop a regimented religious code. However, that largely depends on ones views of the ROI. If you doubt the quality of the investment, it is irrational to expect a person to want to persist in adhering to an intrusive and cumbersome lifestyle. Conversely, if a person believes in the faith, while adhering to it may be more difficult, the expected payoff justifies the action. Therefoe, both sides follow the same costs vs rewards logic of seeking to maximize their personal benefit. We are just economizing religious decision making in the vein of “homoeconomicus”, as the economists like to say.

So with that observation, what is the value of pointing out the obvious. I am willing to give Jeff the benefit of the doubt, but the way the comment reads is too simple and ineffectual to furthering an argument based on the simplistic explanation offered by Jeff or Andrew. The natural tendency rather, is to try and draw an implication that furthers a point. In which case, I, Sentient Meat, etc, each came to the same conclusion, ie, that “easy” equals “lazy/etc”. Furthermore, I took the implication even further to mean, “therefore”, I don’t believe “because” it’s easy. Whether this is what is intended, based on how it’s worded, that is what comes across. That I think is a poor point of view that does amount to meaningless insult.

Andrew, I suspect you lack the experience of working full-time for well-intentioned people in the church who happen to have very wrong ideas about what would help the institution thrive.

For what it’s worth, the incompetence bothered me more than any online slights ever will.

Jeff,

Good luck with characterizing my participation here, as if it really matters in the larger scheme of things where your church is concerned.

As it turns out, we share a similar motivation for commenting: I noticed a lot of unwarranted criticism and availed myself of the opportunity to say my piece.

Rock on.

Got to admit, it’s kind of weird to be talked about….. 🙂 or written about in such a way.

Not wanted to open up a can of worms, but my “easier” comment has it’s genesis with the many less active members I have visited with over the years.

In many cases, the folks just got out of the habit (or routine) of going to Church on a regular basis. So they would say, “the longer we didn’t go, the easier it became to not go to Church or particpate.”

But, I do have to admit, as I said on another post, I do not understand the term “intellilectual rudeness.”