There is a theory in science developed by Karl Popper that instead of using inductive reasoning, one uses empirical falsification to prove a hypotheses. For example, verifying the claim “All swans are white” would logically require observing all swans, which is not technologically possible. In contrast, the observation of a single black swan is technologically reasonable and sufficient to logically falsify the claim. So instead of trying to prove something true, you can look and see if the claim is falsifiable.
Relating this to religion in general, and to Mormonism in specific, we can look at lots of truth claims and categorize then as either falsifiable, or non-falsifiable.
The religious belief in a supreme being, or God, is non-falsifiable. One can believe it of not. But it cannot be falsified. It cannot be proven there is no God. There are also lots of claims that are falsifiable. For example, the claim that the Book of Abraham is a translation of ancient records written by the hand of Abraham is falsifiable. So what to the apologist do? They move the goal posts, and claim the papyrus was just catalyst for Joseph Smith to receive revelation and write the Book of Abraham. Now this becomes Non-falsifiable.
Apologist will move to more non-falsifiable claims as the falsifiable claims are proven wrong. Horses in the Book of Mormon? Falsifiable. BofM people used the word horse for a tapir, which is found in the Americas; non-falsifiable. The BofM is a true history of people in Americas, with two million people killed in a single battle (Ether 15:2); Falsifiable. [1]. The BofM should not be used as a history book, but as a spiritual book of gospel teachings; Non-falsifiable. The Word of Wisdom is a health code; falsifiable. The Word of Wisdom is a law of obedience; non-falsifiable. Pay tithing, reap worldly wealth; falsifiable. Pay tithing and store up blessings in Heaven; non-falsifiable. Garments provide physical protection; falsifiable. Garments provide spiritual protection; non-falsifiable.
You will notice a trend. The physical, real world benefits, when proven falsifiable, are then re-framed into spiritual benefits. Is the Mormon Church more falsifiable because of its relatively recent origin and thus more historical evidence is available, or maybe the boldness of its truth claims? What things do you see in the church that have been redefined from falsifiable claims to non-falsifiable?
[1] Two million casualties would make it the biggest battle in the history of the world, even surpassing the Battle of Stalingrad (1.8 million). Also, how would you provide food, waist management, etc. for two million people? Getting food alone would decimate the local forest of plant and animals in just a few days.
Image by John Hain from Pixabay
Wheat & Tares 
I really like your take here on the difference between falsifiable and non-falsifiable claims. As they say: “you can’t prove a negative”.
But the thing about Church history is you can prove that the basic truth claims of the Church are false because they are tied so closely to events that almost certainly didn’t happen the way they were claimed originally. There are way too many examples to choose from. Most Christian churches don’t have the luxury of linking truth claims (Like our First Vision, Priesthood Restoration, BOM Translation, BOA Translation, etc.) to specific events the way we do. So when the events or series of actions are demonstrated to be false, the truth claims themselves are probably false. Luckily it’s much easier than proving a negative.
Note: I realize the M Priesthood restoration doesn’t have a claimed date for the event. That in of itself is very problematic because it leads to the very obvious conclusion that it was invented after-the-fact.
(1) growth – When I was growing up in the 80’s and 90’s a big component of the Church’s “proof” that it was the One and Only / Church of God was its enormous growth, and there was constant talk of it one day filling the earth and that this was in fulfillment of both biblical prophesy (stone cut out of the mountain) and Joseph Smith prophesies (so also used as proof that he was prophet).
Now the Church has changed the definition of the Church will grow / fill the earth with members (absolute numbers and falsifiable) to the Church will grow / fill the earth with faith (non-falsifiable) … conveniently around the same time it has changed the way it reports (or declines to report) numbers as those numbers probably no longer show the growth they once did.
(2) miracles – healings and miracles and manifestations of spiritual gifts were actually an important part of the restoration and reason why many early saints joined and believed that JS was a prophet. I don’t know if you could call those falsifiable, but in a way they were? Like, if someone got a blessing and got better … no that doesn’t prove that the blessing actually healed them, but at least it was something and at least we made the *claim* that blessings of healing were a thing. Now conference talks are much more likely to talk about blessings of non-healing and the faith to accept non-miracles. It’s all totally circular logic – you either don’t get healed because you didn’t have faith or because you did have faith and it wasn’t God’s will or because [reasons] but either way the church is still true and the priesthood is real and it’s definitely not the priesthood’s fault. Anyway, this one is trickier to pin down and maybe not a good example but I definitely think the way we describe priesthood power / healing / miracles now has become so wishy washy as to essentially claim *nothing* so that it’s certainly non-falsifiable. It’s probably not the type of claim that could ever be falsifiable though.
3 – as with WoW, I think I pretty much every commandment gets reframed as spiritual. Tithing for example – obviously not everyone who pays tithing is rich, so we reframe as a spiritual law. I actually think that’s right (even though I think church has a lot wrong about tithing, and I don’t tithe to the RMN and DHO Show), but it’s definitely an example of spiritualizing a temporal-seeming law.
@josh h, I am curious about your comment that most church history claims have been proven false. How would you argue that, for example, the first vision or priesthood restoration account has been disproven? I would say that if you put the burden of proof on the proponent of the account (which is where it belongs), that burden certainly hasn’t been met – but I’m not sure I would go so far as to say they’ve been affirmatively proven “false.” I think in some ways those kinds of spiritual claims are, like the existence of God, non-falsifiable as well. But curious for what you mean by that.
The Q15 are defiantly moving the goal posts regarding logic around prior doctrines.
Furthermore, what about our common lived experiences. These are only a few of hundreds of examples, I could document. Does the Q15 even think before they talk ? D0 they realize they are creating more self inflicted wounds. If they are leading how they be unaware of what is happening in the church.
If you keep up with the news and remain informed, you have to realize the Q15 speak for themselves, not as God’s spokesmen.
1. “These missionaries have felt that inviting people to be baptized the very first time they meet them demonstrated the missionaries’ faith and supports their thinking that inviting people to be baptized early is what is expected”. Church leaders don’t know where these practices began, but “it was never our intention to invite people to be baptized before they had learned something about the gospel”. Ballard 2019.
as a missionary in 1989 I was told to invite people to be baptized on the 1st discussion.
2. We’re in the midst of incredible growth……..but a week ago Thursday we created 15 stakes, and we are doing that más o menos every week, more or less. It might not be 15, but its… the week before it was 12, sometimes it’s 8 or whatever and it’ll be a little uneven, but the point is we are talking double digit stakes every week. Every week of our lives—-Holland 2016
look at Matt’s blog— https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/. Find any week of 8+ stake growth.
3.BBC 2012 Interview——- Among Sweeney’s questions were several relating to whether U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney would have pledged to cut his own throat or disembowel himself before revealing the secrets of the LDS temple ceremonies. In edited footage, Holland said, “That’s not true”.
all of us, prior to 1991 promised this….as did Mitt
4. This is a link of history I recently learned. I was a missionary in late 1980’s. Not only did Utah Mormon’s pay for the BOM, but the first few months of the program, we were told to sell the BOM for $1. No lie. Our mission president had a sell the Book of Mormon. Few purchased and then we went to giving them for free. https://exploringmormonism.com/ezra-t-benson-and-the-marketing-gimmick/
We sold the Book or Mormon in 1990 for those who think Missionaries have never asked for Money
5. We are not a wealthy people but we are good people, and we share what we have- Anderson 2018
Giving Anderson leeway, he may not have known about Ensign Peak.
6. Oaks replied, “Let me say about electroshock treatments at BYU when I became president at BYU that had been discontinued earlier and it never went on under my administration.”- University Virginia 2021
was Oaks aware of what was happening on his own campus in 1975 ?
7. In the same talk at University of Virginia, 2021; Oaks, self admits that they give one message to church members and other message to non-members
This is my final point. The Q15 tell us one set of information and another set to non-members. Oaks admits this himself. They are not “dodos” they just play to their audience.
If you want to follow Christ and be at peace, use your own intuition and not follow the Blind.
To me, this “moving of goalposts” proves the LDS restoration narrative is not to be taken literally. My observation is that up until very recently the leaders pounded the pulpit concerning the Church’s truth claims and veracity of events. From the JS era until into the 21st century, few if any faithful members were talking about catalyst theories, spiritual metaphors, second sight visions, loose or tight translation etc. It was all claimed as literally true. Even Paul was a little more careful when he says “whether in the body or out I cannot tell.” Not our peeps.
I am thankful they took it just a little bit too far so that we now can see cracks in the logic, history, statements that conflict. But I don’t see this exercise occurring in church meetings. The reframing mostly occurs in scholarly/academic circles.
And this is where I (and I guess many of our readers of this blog) sit. Trying to get some sense of spiritual nourishment or community while having it reinforced and “testified” to us over and over again that it really is literally true in the face of all the actual evidence. Based on what? A hope? A feeling? A desire to be the right religion? It’s why I find little “worship” of the divine occurring in our meetings and do not gain much spiritual value.
Elisa: excellent comments as always. And your question to me is very fair. It was a little presumptuous of me to claim that the Church’s history claims have been proven to be false (thus the corresponding truth claims are false).
Let me explain it this way:
1. First Vision: we were taught the official version (1838). Now we are told there are multiple versions including one in JS’s own handwriting that contradict the official version. Only one visitor. No mention all churches being untrue.
2. BOM translation: we were taught that JS used the plates and a U&T to translate the BOM. Many GC talks and official art depicted as much. Now we are told (as of 2015) that a rock in a hat was employed. I wonder if Joseph Fielding Smith was turning in his grave when RMN demonstrated this on video.
3. BOA translation: we are still taught by the intro to the BOA that this is a product of Abraham’s actual handwriting via some scrolls. Now we are told that the actual papayra has nothing at all to do with Abraham (this the missing papayra theory vs the catalyst theory).
In each one of these cases, there was an original claimed historical event that was modified as evidence proved it incorrect. Maybe I was exaggerating when I said these events were proven to not have happened. Then again, you can read the Gospel Topic Essays (which I’m sure everyone here has already) and decide for yourself.
The Church’s explanations for its own
history have changed. That history is tied to very important truth claims. Thus, the truth claims are on very shaky ground.
I once talked to my bishop about my faith crisis. After not being able to answer some of my issues, he tried changing the topic by bearing his testimony. I then asked him how he got his testimony and he told a story about how his Dad got a priesthood blessing and it healed him of his cancer. I then asked: if your Dad wasn’t healed would that mean the church isn’t true? He replied that it wouldn’t, and in fact his Mom got a similar blessing and died later. It’s like he thought spiritual experiences can only ever prove the church is true and can never prove it wrong.
We later got on the topic of what it would take to regain my faith. After telling him my epistemological standards, I asked him what it would take to make him believe the church isn’t true. For example, what if God himself appeared to him and said the church wasn’t true? His response: such a thing couldn’t happen and it would be inconceivable for the church to not be true. I responded that I would be willing to try to do whatever God told me, and if he didn’t then I couldn’t trust him.
More generally speaking, the church has a problem: they don’t teach a consistent epistemic method for knowing the church is true. While they do have Moroni’s challenge which appears straightforward, most members I’ve talked to don’t experience an immediate spiritual confirmation that the Book of Mormon is true. The trust test of the church seems to actually be “if you have any sort of spiritual experience or spiritual blessings for any reason, then that means the church is true.” The church also makes little effort to teach members how to distinguish between the spirit and their own thoughts; I struggled with this my whole life and wanted to get better at this on my mission, but all I got was a devotional from Bednar that literally said to “quit worrying about it” and that anything that prompted me to do good missionary work was from the spirit. One problem with this is that people who believe in the church for bad reasons often leave the church for bad reasons; when a member leaves the church because they got offended, everyone else acts like that makes no sense. But if that member’s testimony was based on having good feelings at church that they no longer have because they don’t feel comfortable anymore, then their reasons for leaving make sense. The church may try to make everything non-falsifiable, but that often doesn’t work on members.
Another comment: There’s Mormon message about a guy who didn’t receive an answer that the church was true until he asked many times over many years. I can’t help but notice how similar this is to Martin Harris’s story where he kept asking Joseph to let him show the BoM manuscript to his wife after repeatedly being told no. Maybe it makes sense if people could tell the difference between getting a “no” and a “no answer,” but I definitely don’t.
The most important thing about a restorationist movement is that the restoration has to be true for everything else to rest on a firm foundation. None of us were there in the 1800s so none of us can answer for it unless we find a firsthand source where someone like JS wrote “here’s why I’m telling it this way” in a diary. And I don’t think that’s going to happen. That leaves current leaders in a difficult spot of having to address a question they can’t answer because they just don’t have that information
I think the Q15 are acutely aware of the problem and are actively seeking a way to not break people who are good people but could become unmoored from morality if they lose that faith. But I’m not convinced they have a way to do that without fueling enemies of it.
@josh h that makes sense. I think you’re absolutely right that the narrative most of us were taught about the first vision and BoM translation has been changed (and so in that sense, that original narrative could be said to be admittedly false). I get what you mean now.
Whether or not some *other* version (the version now being peddled) is false up for debate, although credibility is certainly diminished based on the shifting narrative. Again, I don’t think the proponents of even those versions (and as you alluded to, the priesthood restoration for which there is no evidence and a lot of contraindicating evidence) can establish their veracity and *they* bear the burden since it’s impossible to prove a negative (we can never conclusively prove they did NOT happen – like even if Joseph Smith later stated they didn’t happen, an apologist could always claim he was under duress or whatever).
Another feature is how things are defined.
The first place that multiple accounts of the first vision were publicized was in the BYU education week lectures by Kevin Hinckley.
They were promoted as very faith affirming. You can read more on Kevin’s website.
These days, people a priori define variations in the presentation as hostile to faith.
It is a fascinating thing because it is a matter of predefined conclusions being imposed on the same facts.
The Pirate—I appreciate your comment and it got me thinking:
1. A restoration movement does not HAVE to be true to have a firm foundation. But when it CLAIMS to be true it certainly is damaged by contrary evidence. I can conceive of a restoration movement that is focused on bringing back principles and teachings without making a claim of historical legitimacy.
2. We have plenty of firsthand sources from folks right in the action during JS life, and their statements give clear indication of how the doctrine/teaching was expressed and received. For example, Heber C. Kimball wrote to Parley Pratt in 1842, “ Bro Joseph Ses Masonary was taken from preasthood but has become degen[e]rated. But menny things are perfect.”. I think there’s a lot of this with core doctrines and practices, and we don’t have to guess much with how they understood and taught them.
3. I truly doubt our top leaders have a nuanced view of our truth/historicity claims. For one, they grew up during the time JFS and BRM were answering every question by reference to scripture or other GA. They teach at conference a very literal interpretation of the gospel and church history. If they know they are fibbing, they are scoundrels, but I don’t think they do. They have largely succeeded in their personal and professional lives to where the Church road map has worked for them, and they have risen up the ranks in leadership thus reinforcing their views.
4. Our leaders describe what is happening as a FAITH CRISIS of certain members. The more accurate description is that our church now has a TRUTH CRISIS based on evidence and information being discovered/released. This shifting of the burden of proof is important. Putting blame on members is misplaced and very harmful to the person and, as we are seeing, to the institution.
@the pirate, there are a lot of problems with your assertions (which demonstrate the infantilization of church members that we’ve been discussion in previous posts).
(1) you seem to believe that unless someone experienced the events of the restoration themselves, no one can know whether or not they happened. That would basically mean no one can know anything without first-hand experience. That’s simply not true. That’s why we look at evidence to determine whether historical events happened, to make scientific determinations, etc.
There is plenty of historical, documentary *evidence* that one can look at to make a reasoned judgement as to whether it is more likely than not that the first vision took place, that the Book of Mormon is an actual historical document translated from gold plates given to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni, and that the priesthood was restored to Joseph Smith by Peter James and John (oh, and that an angel with a flaming sword commanded Joseph Smith to marry 14 yr olds). We make those sorts of judgment calls all the time. It’s part of living life. While I agree that we can’t get inside of Joseph Smith’s head and understand why *he personally* did or said the things he did or said or whether he personally believed those things happened, we can make a reasoned determination whether we think they are more likely to have happened than not. That’s what juries in court do literally every day. Sometimes they get it wrong, but our entire legal system is built on the belief that they usually get it right.
(2) you also seem to assert that in the absence of conclusive evidence, we should just go along thinking they did happen (which is what we do in the church) because otherwise, we’d lose our morality. I’m also a bit confused by this. My morality has literally nothing to do with whether or not Joseph Smith actually saw God or not, let along following someone who may have claimed to be speaking for God in doing things like, as mentioned above, secretly marrying 14 yr old girls against the wishes of his own wife and claiming it was because God told him so.
In fact, I think it’s quite immoral for Church leaders to withhold information from the Church membership because they think they know what’s best for us, and I think it’s also quite immoral for Church leaders to tell Church members to do things like oppose gay marriage, or decline to admit that racist Church doctrines were mistakes and not from God. Church leaders do not have a monopoly on morality by any stretch of the imagination.
***
I agree that Church leaders are in a difficult spot, but I strongly disagree about what the moral answer is, and I also strongly disagree that there is simply no way to understand what happened in the 1800’s. Sure, we can’t definitively reach a conclusion, but we certainly aren’t without resources here and the Church deliberately misleads in the way it presents history. I think the difficulty of the spot has more to do with their interest in preserving institutional authority than what is actually the moral thing to do – which is telling the truth and honoring moral agency and dignity of the members.
For my money, the claims of the BoM’s historicity and origin are not only falsifiable but have been thoroughly debunked. It’s less like the black swan analogy and more like recordings of Bigfoot sightings. If so-and-so claims they have a legitimate recording of Bigfoot, and evidence is presented that proves it’s a hoax, then that’s it. It’s fake. It doesn’t disprove the existence of Bigfoot but absolutely disproves that the film in question is an accurate depiction of Bigfoot or that it gives us any useful information about Bigfoot at all.
Deutero-Isaiah alone is enough to sink the historicity claims about the BoM. And there’s substantial evidence that Joseph Smith or a contemporary authored it based on details he would have been familiar with (KJV, JS Sr’s dreams, contemporary theories about Native Americans’ Hebrew origins, etc). It’s over. There never were Nephites. Not in the Americas, not in Indonesia, not in Africa. Not anywhere.
And moving the goalpost for the BoM makes zero sense. Joseph Smith said it was historical. Full stop. He didn’t say it was a revelation—he said it was a translation of a physical document from an actual civilization delivered to him by one of its actual authors. I’m with GBH in that the book’s primary value is in establishing JS’s legitimacy as a prophet. And it doesn’t. It just falsifies a very falsifiable claim.
@elisa I think you are making some jumps that I didn’t intend.
In 1, you say that I’m saying that people can’t know whether something happened. What I said is that we cannot know without some kind of evidence WHY a story is different from other tellings or other accounts and why a less accurate version became the officially taught version for so long. In this I should have been more clear and I apologize for my lack of clarity on this one.
In 2, I didn’t mean it in that way at all. I mean to suggest that it can be bad for people to throw the baby out with the bathwater but that for some people, one historic discrepancy can lead to a big domino effect that rocks their world. How the information is presented makes a big difference. You seem to be assuming I am saying the Q15 know the church is not true, when all I’m saying is they know there are things to fix in the historical record and they know that fixing them has risks for people under their care.
The church is very hierarchical so of course they need to preserve authority but I think most of them would gladly step down and retire from their service if they thought it would fix the problem without upsetting the structure.
@the pirate – thank you for clarifying. That makes sense.
I actually think we do know a lot about why different versions were told at different times (quite fascinating really) but I do agree it’s complicated.
I also think the Q15 mean well, although I disagree with their approach.
Genuine questions after reading the comments- ( I recognize that I am coming from an uninformed and naïve position- which is why I am asking these questions, I want to learn and become informed. And I sincerely am not trying to offend anyone with these questions) If you conclude that the truth claims of the LDS church have been proven false- where do you go from there? What is the impact that has on your spiritual religious/practices? What do you continue to believe, or not believe, and how do you choose what to believe?
Additional questions (a non-exhaustive list, which may be offensive, but isn’t meant to be)- Do you continue in the LDS church and just hold on to the teachings that do resonate with you? Do you find other Christian churches to be less falsifiable/less problematic? Do you look inward to a set of moral values to guide your life? Do you become Athiest? Do believe that God is everywhere, just giving pieces of truth to everyone through imperfect messengers? Or Something completely different?
That’s a lot. Sorry. And sorry to be so nosy with something so personal and likely painful- I’m really genuinely interested in a non-judgemental way. And that’s just what went through my head after reading the post.
@elisa I think we are in the ballpark of the same page on these things even if not perfectly aligned.
aporetic1, one can love & appreciate the Church, and even be quite active, without believing a word of the founding narratives. In this scenario one generally finds the male hierarchy tedious, the membership (especially women) pleasant, engaging and sometimes wonderful, and programs like genealogy simply magnificent. There is much to admire and emulate. It is no insult to Jos to consider him a great religious genius. I’m w/ Harold Bloom on this.
Faith is not belief. As long as LDS are unable to differentiate faith from belief, we will be vulnerable to any number of beliefs and belief systems. Our inability to discern between faith and belief makes doctrine messy. If doctrine is simply “beliefs,” then almost anything goes.
Past and current LDS (false) belief systems:
That Priesthood is racial. That the Book of Mormon can be proved if we dig up the continent (FARMS). That we “get” anything except knowledge from temple liturgy. That the sacramental liturgy “renews” the covenants of baptismal liturgy. That celestial, terrestrial, and telestial glory refer to “places to go” and not to bodily resurrection. That Zion is built rather than cultivated. That rich LDS are justified in their wealth. That store-bought-GMO-enriched-white-flour “bread” constitutes an acceptable emblem/offering. That Jesus likes boy-shaved faces on grown men. That the “good name of the church” is more important than the people whom it serves.
LDS faith is usurped by LDS belief: they are not the same. A LDS can have strong beliefs and little faith, or, a LSD can have strong faith and little belief. We can move from faith to ordinance to covenant without a single belief system.
The so-called faith crisis is really a belief-crisis. LDS false belief systems make perceived doctrine untenable; the institution that runs the Restored Church is responsible for the disorder and harm caused to the congregation: but the institution cannot fix the harm, because it relies on belief systems to enforce, subjugate, and exercise dominion.
Initially, I interpreted josh h’s introductory comment as heading down the path of Sagan’s “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” statement. I wish everyone would evaluate the Mormon church’s creation story with that axiom in mind, because I think it reveals a great deal about both religion generally and Mormonism specifically. It also casts a bright light on why it doesn’t matter a whit whether we were around in the 1800s at the creation. It does matter a great deal, however, that authority figures taught a certain version of a story with an awareness of alternative versions of certain facts that undermine the story. if one is presented with documented, historical events as evidence of the truth of something, and then it turns out those stories are implausible, the truth is also undermined. I think it’s practically mathematical, particularly where more than “historical discrepancy” is really essential to the conversation, as I think it is with regard to Mormon church truth claims.
I’m not sure it is all that difficult to know why a particular version of a story is taught versus similar versions with telling differences in detail. In short, one version suits the institutional narrative. Why is any one creation story selected over others? Because it supports the organization’s presentation of itself as true, chosen, correct.
The Mormon church’s claims are so extraordinary that few people as a percentage of the world population who hear the claims give a moment’s thought to joining the religion. This was true even when growth was touted as indicative of truth. In large measure, that is because the church utterly and completely lacks extraordinary evidence. Honestly, the evidence is really so flimsy that it is virtually a requirement now for devout members to have been born and raised with the indoctrination required for retention. The problem, I think, for anyone who follows a particular thought for a bit, is that is becomes impossible to dismiss one person’s emotional experience of truth confirmation without also dismissing that person, in essence their humanity. The conversation becomes one of tribal ideation more than truth confirmation.
The only evidence is the warm, fuzzy feeling one may get when asking for confirmation. If the Mormon church is true and a person receives spiritual confirmation of that, then no such confirmation should come regarding other faiths. But we know that it does. One may also get similar spiritual confirmations regarding the brilliance of Vivaldi’s Four Seasons or the elevated presentation of friendship in the Shawshank Redemption. I know that spiritual confirmation works for many, which is absolutely fine, but it is a poor substitute for the kinds of archaeological, historical, genetic, linguistic, and anthropological evidence, which truly would have been extraordinary, the church once fairly boasted of and members believed was just over the horizon.
By segueing to non-falsifiable assertions of truth, the Mormon church will have a harder time retaining members who did not grow up in the cultural and familial indoctrination of the religion, but I don’t know that they have any other way to approach it.
aporetic1—answers to some of your questions, from my personal perspective
1. The only thing I know for sure is that I don’t know anything for sure. My life and experiences are limited and subjective. So I try to remain humble and open to change when warranted. My radar goes berserk when the Church does the opposite.
2. I choose to be critical of the Church but also to give grace to those trying to live their best lives. I don’t force a truth crisis on anyone. That limits my ability to have deep discussions with everyone now. Which is why this forum has been a blessing.
3. Even in my most faithful TBM years, the community aspect of the religion was not a draw to membership. I never liked scouting as a youth or parent, never wanted to plan or attend church activities, loved the occasional “week off” from church attendance. My wife and kids are on the same page. We went through this together over the last five years. Our parents are not so happy but do not shun us at all. We are truly lucky compared to other’s experience, which I am very aware of. That tends to color my current ability to not fret with a loss of community.
4. I was mostly persuaded to church activity in prior years due to the truth claims, some fear of displeasing God, and wanting to be true to my pioneer heritage. Coming to a conclusion that the church is not true in the sense they proclaim has caused me to reframe a lot about God, purpose of life, how religion fits in my life, boundaries, etc.
5. I have been able to use A Christmas Carol as analogy to help this. I don’t have to believe Scrooge was a real person to receive “truth” from the message of that story. I am moved by the human experience of redemption, love for mankind, repentance/becoming better, living life in the now before it’s too late. I call those principles “truth.” The Church and the scriptures hold a lot of truth in that sense for me. But I don’t stand up every December and say “I know A Christmas Carol is true,” or “I know Charles Dickens was a prophet because he wrote it.”
6. I separate (in my mind) the Venn diagram of church institution and gospel of Christ spheres. There is much less overlap than in the past. Sunday meetings, conferences, firesides, etc. have been really disappointing to me as a result. There’s much more institutional worship than Gospel worship in my opinion. But I give space to others who use those meetings to be better, connect with others, live Christlike lives, find opportunities to serve humankind. I have a lot of extended family doing that. It works for them.
7. For now, I struggle with engagement on Sundays. I find other things to be spiritually uplifted. We talk and teach in our family daily. We explore what is good, moral, practical, and we give space to be wrong and reset. It’s great! We may return to more regular activity in the future. COVID and our Stake/Ward policies have given just enough room to be away for the last two years.
8. I believe in God and it’s comfortable and useful to describe him as a Heavenly Father but I am not tied to that notion. If it’s something else in the hereafter I am willing to accept it. I believe that God is involved in all of his children’s lives however possible, through whatever religion, culture, or mechanism available. I see people from all walks of life enjoying God’s grace and love. I don’t feel a need to claim I am more blessed or special through Church membership.
9. I actually REALLY value my limited time on earth now more than ever. It has made me love harder, prioritize better, and maximize the needs of my family.
Hope that helps!
“Also, how would you provide food, waist management, etc. for two million people? ”
Atkins? Paleo? I know I struggle.
😉
Great thread. W & T is on a roll lately. Sorry I’m late to the party, but after reading the comments, a couple of things struck me:
1. A fair amount of commenters have mentioned the moving goalposts and I think that’s a really important thing to point out. As an English teacher, one thing I try to teach my students is that while specific stories and narratives are often highly detailed and specific, the conceptual aspects of narrative and storytelling are infinitely malleable. The church knows this and uses it to its advantage. One of the comments above, the one by Stephen about his utterly brainwashed bishop demonstrates how well the malleable narrative strategy works for some folks. There was literally no scenario in which the bishop could be convinced that this wasn’t the true church. One of the (intended) consequences of using malleable narratives and shifting the goalposts constantly is that you teach many faithful members to do the same thing. Stephen’s bishop was so well indoctrinated that even stories or events with diametrically opposed outcomes were interpreted in such a way as to illustrate the exact same “truth”. This whole sort of re-framable narrative is extraordinarily difficult to talk people out of. We see the same thing with many of the anti-vaxxers or Trump’s “rigged” election supporters. One thing the church has figured out is that propaganda is much more effective than the truth when it comes to convincing at least certain groups of people to do your bidding.
2. Along with the malleable narrative idea, Mormonism also has this baked in notion that subjective responses are more sure ways of determining truths than actual objective, empirically observed facts. Loren C. Dunn said (I can’t cite the talk right now) that a felt witness of the truth of Christ’s church and of Christ’s role in it was actually a “more sure” testimony of truth than if we had had visual confirmation from Christ himself. That’s a load of extraordinary nonsense, of course, but it was Dunn’s way of trying to keep people from reaching after facts, from being objective about church history and stories and from thinking their way right out of the church. What’s extraordinary about this is that the church has managed to take the most subjective, most biased personal responses to supposed “truths” (the Holy Ghost? Our own emotions? vague thoughts or feelings? Who knows?) and turn them into the gold standard while simultaneously excommunicating, shunning, pressuring and punishing people who ask honest questions about church history and doctrine that the church simply cannot answer them. And the church cannot answer them because the church has no answers.
These are two reasons, I think, why, for a certain kind of believer, the whole moving the goalposts thing is so effective. It defies all logic, but appeals to some desperate need to believe in something and thus ratifies the church’s falsehoods.
@jaredsbrother, for me it’s not so much that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but that claims that are used to coerce people into taking action require such evidence. In other words – it’s not so much the supernatural aspects of the claims (although I agree, those seem to warrant scrutiny) but the fact that they are used by Church leaders to tell Church members to submit to biannual faith audits, give ten percent of our income, show up to every meeting, accept all callings, sustain them as prophets, stay home and have babies if we are women, not get married if we are gay, etc etc etc etc.
If someone wants to claim to have a supernatural experience and then share it with the world (like for example Julian of Norwich) – well, I don’t know whether I believe it happened, but she didn’t start a church and try to get a following and tell people what to do and take property and money – and wives – from people on the basis of those claims AFAIK. So, whatever.
But what Joseph Smith, and current leaders, have done with his claims is quite different. So yes, I agree with you that – for many reasons – they bear a heavy burden of proof for those claims because of what they ask of us that’s associated with those claims.
I also agree that it’s not hard to determine why different accounts were used at different times, including by JS himself (when you like at the historical context when different accounts were given).
And yes to what @brother sky and @stephen pointed out. Somehow the Church has convinced people that feelings are more reliable than evidence / facts and that we can interpret diametrically opposed events to lead to the same conclusion. It’s very common to hear members say that there’s essentially no set of circumstances that would convince them that the Church isn’t true. If RMN got up and admitted it wasn’t, they’d just think he was a fallen prophet. And as has been discuss in other threads, this whole feelings-trump-facts we’ve taught members has really come back to bite us.
@aporetic1, I don’t think your questions are offensive at all. I think there are a lot potential answers to your question depending on the person such as: family, community, belief in some of the historical narrative but not the way it’s been taught, no better church out there, etc.
The God I believe in does not look like the one (or two ;-)) Joseph Smith described but I do believe in God, do believe God’s primary concern is that we care for one another (and that caring for another is one of the best ways we connect with God), and do believe Church congregations can be a community that gives us opportunities to do so. Plus I personally live in Provo and have an active spouse some active kids and am personally 40 yrs invested in this thing and spirituality is important to me, although I don’t read a lot of correlated Church materials for my spiritual practice!
Elisa, thanks for drawing that distinction. I think it’s a very important one. The church could present the evidence, argue the evidence, and let people use their God-given faculties. They, uh, don’t usually choose that path.
See 1st comment by Counselor above about reframing – I fell out of my chair when Elder Soares tested the waters of BOM as revelation in his conference talk April 2020.
To me what is dishonest and not innocuous is now the Church can digitally add a few words here or there to introductory notes to the Scriptures (among the ancestors of the American Indians) without the requirement of informing us – my TBM wife was a bit startled when I was explaining Moses and Abraham and catalyst theories a few weeks ago. I would like to propose a 5th Sunday meeting for the whole Church based on this post by Bishop Bill !!
BTW, tithing nets out about the same as not paying it economically. So it doesn’t come up as something you can claim to effectively falsify.
On the other hand, it does not seem to matter which church it is paid to. I’m really wondering if someone can get financing for a tithing study for atheists or the Church of Satan.
This of course leaves out the consideration of the possible spiritual benefits as they are not within the normal scope of falsifiable outcomes.
Thank you everyone for your responses. My perspective has changed a lot over the past year and I’m not sure what I think or what I’m going to do with it. So hearing your perspectives and ideas are helpful.
@P yes, I agree with that.
@counselor- I like your Christmas Carol approach. One thing that I believe is that basically all religions that teach us to do good contain truth- and that includes mormonism. So although the goalposts keep moving and some things may not be demonstrably true, I can still find the good and the truth that is there.
@Elisa Thanks for your comments. I think it’s okay to notice some of the unpleasant things along the path, but still consider it to be the best path to follow when considering one’s situation.
Chet—
I too wondered if Elder Soares might be hinting at something close to affirming “middle way” Mormonism. But looking at the following two quotes from the talk and I just don’t think it’s what he was intending. Still affirms a historical record and a translation of ancient language, just not with the method scholars would use. Those of us looking for something interesting might be reading too much into his statement to see nuance.
“ The Book of Mormon’s translation marks yet another essential miracle. This sacred ancient record was not ‘translated’ in the traditional way that scholars would translate ancient texts by learning an ancient language. We ought to look at the process more like a ‘revelation’ with the aid of physical instruments provided by the Lord as opposed to a ‘translation’ by one with knowledge of languages.”
“The historical facts and the special witnesses of the Book of Mormon testify that its coming forth was indeed miraculous. Nevertheless, the power of this book is not based only in its magnificent history but on its powerful, unparalleled message that has changed countless lives – including mine.”
@aporeric1, you might be surprised at how many people still participate at some level but have very unorthodox beliefs or participate as nonbelievers. They just don’t tend to announce themselves right away in gospel doctrine ;-). I’m 10+ years in fairly unorthodox but totally active although admittedly only the last four or so years has that taken a more significantly unorthodox turn (coincides pretty closely with Nelson’s presidency, he’s not my favorite) and my participation during Covid has been spotty but that is a partly attributable to my ward not taking Covid seriously. While a lot of the online groups are mostly post-Mormon and don’t still participate, you can find some groups who do and try to make a middle-way work.
And I wouldn’t be surprised if there are many in your situation who are trying to figure things out over the last year or so. Seems to have been a real shift for many. I’ve got close family members who I’m pretty shocked at where they are now based on where they were just a year or two ago.
@counselor agree. I think they are reframing translation because it wasn’t an actual translation of text and characters since he wasn’t actually looking at text and characters, he was looking at a rock in a hat – that’s an *absolute fact* and they have to reframe the narrative there. I think Nelson even did some kind of demo sticking his face into a hat during a recent conference or face to face.
I do *not* think they are ceding ground on the historicity of the BoM, the existence of plates or Moroni, etc. Translation as revelation and historicity are totally separate issues; they can redefine one without ceding ground in the other (even if they cede some ground, like saying “among” the ancestors of the American Indians instead of saying “principal”).
I think progressives get excited when they hear shifts like this but I think that for the most part church leadership is quite fundamentalist and literalist. I don’t think this is laying groundwork for some massive change – just shifting language to account for information that’s already out there. If I were a betting woman, my best bets for less literal leaders would be Uchtdorf, Gong, Renlund, Christofferson, and I think that Eyring and Holland are closeted in faith crisis but in denial over it 🙂 and sticking to their literalism. But I still bet ALL of them believe in Nephites. I just don’t see how you stand up there as an apostle and don’t say anything otherwise. Would be so, so fraudulent.
My goodness, why haven’t I thought of this before?
” I can conceive of a restoration movement that is focused on bringing back principles and teachings without making a claim of historical legitimacy.”
Counselor: me too. Look at Buddhism, for example. The “religion” of Buddhism is filled with miraculous stories of Siddhartha Gautama performing dazzling feats that awe and inspire his followers. But the truth is, most Buddhist scholars agree that he never wanted to form a religious movement, but sought only to figure out a way to reduce the suffering/dissatisfaction that people feel in this life. The historical religion of Buddhism – which incorporates many teachings borrowed from Hinduism – does not interest me or most Westerners, at all. It is the wisdom, philosophy, and practices that is fascinating and helpful; and seems to line up well with 21st century science in many ways.
It’s interesting that at the time of Joseph Smith there were many restoration movements in the U.S. that desired to get back to the basics of Christianity. But much like the many Baptist offshoot churches in the South that claim to be the only ones who correctly teach biblical “Christ only, and Him crucified”, deciding what those basic, essential, restored principles and teachings that need to be brought back unvarnished has proven to be difficult.
Elisa—
Great takes and intriguing bets on likely apostolic nuance.
I expressed to my wife just yesterday during our Sunday spiritual “walk & talk” how I expected the generation of apostles leading in 50 years to be quite different than present apostles because they will have grown up with the access to information, experience with family/friends’ specific concerns, social media’s effective spread of animosity towards TBM beliefs, and a need to find new ways to speak about and teach LDS doctrine.
I keep wondering when Pres Eyring is going to speak up. His father was a world-class chemist. Probably Nobel prize worthy. By heritage, Eyring the younger certainly has the ability to explain science to the Q15 and the membership. But instead he gives eminently forgettable talks in GC. He could fill the shoes of Apostle Widtsoe. Instead he has chosen to stay in the background and let Presidents Oaks and Nelson control the narrative.
“The Gathering of Israel.”
It was supposed to be a literal gathering in the New Jerusalem. Now it’s a very symbolic gathering that can occur on Facebook.
I’m well acquainted with Popper’s falsifiability framework and have always been surprised when apologists invoke Popper in defense against the so-called “scientism” (a boo word for secularists who have the gall to say that Mormon truth claims aren’t true). I’ve long interpreted Popper’s thinking as working even more strongly against extraordinary claims such as the ones that Mormonism and its apologists bring forward. For Popper seems to posit that the falsifiable hypotheses are the only ones we should place stock in; theories and ideas that can rise and fall on evidence, and for which we can use evidence either to prove or disprove. Non-falsifiable ideas can be anything that people pull out of thin air and can neither be proved nor disproved, and therefore not reliable nor trustworthy.
Popper was, of course, well aware that his hypothesis was used and abused by religionists of all persuasions, and thought little of the folks who distorted his philosophies and tried to attach themselves for their own gain to him and the stature that he had achieved in the discipline of philosophy. I’m quite certain that Popper never validated the teachings of Mormonism, nor would he have had he ever been confronted with the question as to Mormonism’s validity.
I find this topic to be both sad and maddening.
Here we are as former and current members with varying degrees of belief, discussing what is false about the church and whether the 15 Fools on the Hill fully believe in the truthfulness of the church or knowingly continue the deception.
An organization many of us grew up in and were taught we belonged to the “One True Church.” The only one with ALL the truth, which made us special.
An organization led by a “prophet” who lies as he claims he will always tell us the truth, regardless of how that may affect his popularity.
The church does indeed have a truth crisis and has had since its inception. And we played their game. And that has left many of us lost – shame on them.
I wish I had never known the church and regret having raised my family in it and having brought many Ecuadorians to it.
If I weren’t so old and curmudgeonly and pissed off, I’d cry. I want to. I may, yet.
@TC I guess it’s a matter of what you want. I don’t want to take away from something that is giving people happy and fulfilling lives, but I also don’t want to be dishonest. To me, it’s important to keep track of what’s going on with it all because I still have friends and family in the church, but it’s also useful to me to remember why I moved on without getting bitter. One thing the church is absolutely right about is that people who leave the church tend to turn vicious towards it, which I think is bad for families and communities/friendships with mixed faith after that departure.
People who have left typically understand the frustrations you describe, but few seem to process it with any level of grace and it often affects their relationships to everyone’s detriment. Coming to terms with it for oneself is important, but we still have to know how to interact with people who do still believe it all. Some are married to a faithful member, some have children or parents. Some have employers or employees. Friends and neighbours. I cannot fathom turning all those relationships into adversarial ones and expecting it to benefit anyone, including yourself.
@the pirate, where’s your data for this claim:
“One thing the church is absolutely right about is that people who leave the church tend to turn vicious towards it”
I don’t know that that’s true. I think a lot of people who leave leave pretty quietly. Sure, if you were to bring the church up in conversation they might not be super hyped about it, but they’ve just moved on with their lives. That is certainly true of the vast majority of friends and family members I know who have left. It’s just the vocal minority who get the attention who are seen to be vicious but they are just that – a vocal minority.
The church wants us to think that people who leave are bitter and vicious because it wants to sow discord between current and former Mormons because it sees happy, healthy former Mormons as a massive threat to its existence (second only to happy, health gay couples). The Church actually loves the angry exes. They fit its narrative. I don’t think it’s healthy to perpetuate it.
To the extent there are some angry folks, many of them are that way because of the way the church and believing friends and family have treated them because of their exit.
@the pirate: Thanks for the lecture – off-base though it may be.
And what Elisa said.
The Pirate:
Firstly, leaving a high demand religion that you devoted your entire life to is extremely difficult. For many, it’s a traumatic experience that involves grieving the loss of something you once held dear, and anger that you were not told the entire truth about something that impacted every single decision you made in your formative years, all mingled perhaps with a desire to help others not suffer your same fate by offering some level of informed consent. I think for most, intentions are good, but the emotions involved on both sides lead most of these conversations to get out of hand. So if people don’t leave with grace, I think that’s fine. They are doing the best they can. Please practice empathy in recognizing that processing what the elders call a “faith crisis” is extremely difficult. It’s an entire worldview shift.
And to be fair, I try to remind myself this same thing on the other side. It’s just difficult all around.
But the church doesn’t help the conversation when they throw around words like “lax disciple” “lazy learner” or “sad heaven.’ The church could be more charitable to families where some members are “active” and some are not.
Also what Elisa said.
@Elisa It’s a personal observation. If your experience with people who have left has been different, I’m glad to hear it. Like you, I don’t think it’s healthy to perpetuate. I also didn’t say always or usually. I said “tend” and my comment was meant specifically to refer to the comment I was referring to, not to imply a majority, as well as to allude to internet groups that tend to become echo chambers for people looking for more reasons to stoke their anger.
I’m enjoying checking out this site, but I’m starting to feel like you don’t want me here. If this is the case, we should either find a solution or I can leave if it’s going to be a problem. I’m starting to feel like I have to be super-careful every time I want to post, and that’s just making me less inclined to spend time here. Please let me know what we need to do to resolve this.
@the Pirate, please stick around! We all get some downvotes and pushback now and then, but in my experience most people on here are interested in contending with ideas, not poo-pooing on the people who express them.
Personally, I don’t think leaving the church should be expected to be done gracefully. Diplomatically? Sure. But, as has been mentioned, there are some strong emotions wrapped up in this that need to be processed and expressed. Pillows will be punched. Brigham Young will be cussed at. It’s healthy. Sometimes my feelings towards the church are nothing but sympathetic. Other times, I feel a level of anger that might be called vicious—particularly when thinking about the worst harm done by the most powerful in the church. But I’m still fully capable of having a chat with my dad about RMN’s strengths or reminiscing with old mission buddies about spiritual experiences. Any frustrations can be vented later in a different setting.
@kirkstall Thanks! I’m just trying to express some of my opinions and experiences without making people mad and it seems to work less well than I often hope. I suspect that perhaps there is (justifiably) a tone some people ascribe to new names that is less charitable than that given to posters who have been around for a while.
My point was never that people should be quiet and secretive and constantly conciliatory about it, but rather that you probably won’t benefit much from lighting the fuse, and if you’re trying to move forward, being angry and bitter can hold you back. My feelings tend to be sympathetic but at the same time frustrated. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve spoken up for the members at other events, including a church potluck where I was already the “new guy”. I may not have found myself happy with it all for life, but I do think I am a better person for being raised with it than I probably would have been without it.
@the pirate, if your comment is directed to me personally not wanting you here, then I’m sorry if you feel that way. I disagreed with your claim, that’s all. It sounds like that’s not even a claim you intended to make. Even if you had, I personally have no problem disagreeing with people’s ideas and opinions (and have no problem with them disagreeing with my ideas and opinions) without it being personal. For all I know, we’d be besties in real life. I argue with besties about opinions all the time and we still like each other as people just fine. I imagine that the others commenting here would say the same thing. It’s quite rare to see personal attacks here at W&T.
As for the “people who leave” stuff, I agree that many who leave have a lot of trauma and that can lead to some anger that needs to be processed. The way loved ones respond can make it worse. But like I said, I’ve seen many who leave and it’s been just fine. In my immediate family, for many years, we were about half in half out. We all get along great. It’s possible. I should say more of us are out-ish now (either out, or with a really different relationship to activity in the Church than a few years ago) – so again, goes to show maybe the Church doesn’t want people who are in to get along super well with people who are out. If you build a barrier and entrench on your side, you may be more likely to stay in because we bond over a common enemy.
@elisa Makes sense. Text has no tone and it’s easy to forget.
The Pirate. You are very welcome here.
This paragraph of yours hit me hard: “I’m enjoying checking out this site, but I’m starting to feel like you don’t want me here. If this is the case, we should either find a solution or I can leave if it’s going to be a problem. I’m starting to feel like I have to be super-careful every time I want to post, and that’s just making me less inclined to spend time here. Please let me know what we need to do to resolve this.”
It hit me hard because this is how my church experience has been for about three years. I don’t always attend, but sometimes I do, because I miss it. When I take a chance and attend, I too feel like I can’t share how I really feel (and I’m not talking about being critical of the church, even things like how I view “worthiness” for example being different than the mainstream). Because this has created much anxiety and sleepless nights for myself, the thought that any of us made you feel that way is not good, and I contributed to that, I apologize.
@chadwick Don’t sweat it. I’ve been avoiding socially participating anywhere LDS-adjacent for a good while and I don’t want to ruin anyone’s good thing. Listened to some podcasts for a little while and found that also wasn’t for me, as the focus was more negative than I wanted. Posting here, between getting a whole lot more thumbs down than expected on what I thought at the time were innocuous posts and a few fairly critical responses that were in regards to things I either didn’t mean by what I said or things I didn’t assume I’d need to specifically cover, I wanted to make sure I wasn’t just an interloper in an established group that wasn’t really after new blood. I’d have been fine with that if that were the case. I’ve had groups online where we’d occasionally run into a new user who just was not a good fit.
My last couple of years of intermittent church participation were similar to what you describe. I won’t pretend I was helping matters, as I stopped trying to “look the part” and I was definitely not comfortable chiming in on anything anymore. The paragraph you cited wasn’t intended to make anyone feel bad so much as to just get a straight answer on whether I’d inadvertently walked in somewhere that was happy as-is. That’s not an easy post to make since some people could see it as confrontational when all I really wanted to do was ensure I wasn’t throwing something destructively off balance or hitting notes that had gone sour before without realizing it. There is literally NO way to make that post without risking what you describe, and I still debated whether to post it.
@pirate:
“One thing the church is absolutely right about is that people who leave the church tend to turn vicious towards it…”
Actually, this is another thing the church – and you – get absolutely wrong.
This was a misguided and aggressive statement, and the way your sentence used “tend” did imply the majority, not merely my comment. I guess your comments and references lacked a level of grace and, I would think, may affect your relationships.
You made a lot of assumptions. Don’t.
As far as my relationships go with TBM’s, all is well – no adversarial battles have been waged and no losses have occurred.
What did I expect from the church? The truth.
What did I get from the church? A lot of lies woven into manipulation, blame, and guilt.
What do I want now from the church? The truth.
What’s something we may never get from the church? The truth.
Stupid me.
(I think @chadwick does a good job explaining things – post at 3:51).
That’s a great example of a post that makes me not want to participate here. Someone telling me what views I may and may not express, and putting words in my mouth. Guess I was right to ask.
Pirate, consider that TC still has considerable pain and anger associated with church association and credit the comments to that experience, not you personally. I think at least a few of the regulars have made it clear that new voices are welcome. There is no guarantee that you won’t anger someone and have to deal with a forceful response. If you’re not up for that, you’ll probably self select.
@jaredsbrother I didn’t say he’ll deter me, just that I’m glad I asked and got an honest answer from Mr TC. The majority seems fine with a new voice, and it’s up to me who to take seriously. But he did illustrate quite well the kind of post that would make a new user ask such a question and feel unwelcome. I can live with angering people and getting a “forceful” response that I’ll probably just ignore if it’s that targeted. Reflects more on the person posting it than on me.
Just to point out TC is also a new voice here (leastways not one I am previously familiar with). It would be a shame if a disagreement between two newbies were to drive anyone away.
@pirate:
Reread your first response to me. Do you not think your assumptions and implications were harsh and judgmental? Even a bit presumptious? I did and I called you on it. Nothing more. Perhaps my last post hit you like your post hit me…
I don’t think my post was that way at all, but I do think you’re trying to start a fight and that’s of no interest to me.
I agree with Hedgehog. Both TC and The Pirate are relative newcomers here, and both are certainly welcome. Up and down votes are usually related to one cherry-picked statement in a longer paragraph that either strikes the reader as particularly salient or outrageous. We’ve all gotten up and downvoted in our day.
I believe the downvoting of the characterization of ex-Mos as bitter is a valid reaction for those who either disagree or who personally feel they’ve been mischaracterized. I’m with Elisa in seeing that the majority of those who’ve left the Church did so in a relatively quiet and friendly way, but there are certainly many who slammed their door and flipped the bird on the way out. I didn’t see the statement as inflammatory, even though it’s not a statement I agree to be true on average. I’ve seen it, but it’s a vocal minority rather than a majority. Implying that the Church was prescient to predict the bitterness of those leaving sounds a lot like Burger King calling their customers “lard ass.”
@angela c I would say there’s a good chance that most people I have known who left either I never found out they left or never knew they’d been members. As I’ve said before, the post was based on my personal perception, which is a limited personal pool in addition to what is likely the vocal minority you mentioned.
My faith transition wasn’t related to the church, but what may be a more traditional way – when a difficult life experience was outside the bounds of my previous theological explanations. It was a god crisis.
One thing I came to recognize is that I essentially went through the stages of grief as I left behind a large part of my identity, and forged ahead, trying to rebuild my life foundation without what used to be simple assurances.
Anger is a stage of grief. The source of the anger may be varied, with betrayal being one of them, as others have noted. At a deep level, I felt like god had betrayed someone close to me. I don’t know what I believe in that arena now, though looking back, god felt more like something I believed as a child, but I suppose for me, has become falsifiable.
One time I sat in a Sunday lesson on answers to prayer, knowing that it was no longer something I believed in. It had been taken away from me. Since the belief crisis I had moved from sitting near the front, almost to a back corner. I was silently crying, angry that my tears gave me away. I wiped them away frequently. No one seemed to notice.
A sympathetic confidant once suggested that a church faith transition takes roughly 1 year for every decade in the church. That rings fairly true for me, but I’m finding it is messier when well-meaning relatives try to cure me.
For a very long time (still tbm), when I heard something surprising to me (maybe like evolution is not compatible with the gospel, or that Muslims are vengeful, and don’t know what is in their scriptures), I ponder it, explore what aspects of it bother me, find ways to understand it (and them) better, and try to fiormulate a way to respond that may be received by another person when it comes around again. Through the years, I have found that it does come around again.
I like this forum to explore ideas, sometimes be validated, sometimes be challenged, largely to understand things better.