Mormonism -> Atheism, Why?

[_Sethbag]

Jersey Girl - add to the mix the fact that Mormons grow up being taught to consider non-Mormon Christianity to be vacuous and illegitimate. A lot of my time prepping and being a missionary was spent deconstructing competing religious claims - so, in some respects, I had dismissed those well prior to leaving the Mormon church.

Yes this does happen. You are correct that LDS do convince themselves that other religious claims are wrong. However, it seems logical to revisit those claims since the reasons they were rejected are no longer valid after one decides the LDS church is not true. Yet, most do not seem to do this.

I don't agree. In my own particular case, I did in fact look around me as I lost my faith in the LDS church, though I will admit I wasn't really looking to find truth in some other religion. I was mainly comparing and contrasting beliefs and claims, and methods for identifying truth. It's how I judged other religions to be plagued by some of the same epistemological problems as the LDS church.

As part of my realizing that the LDS claims weren't true, I came to believe that the Bible was literally nothing more than mythology of various sources, mingled with some near-Eastern history. In revisiting my view of other religions, if I perceive that they are basing their claims on the words of the Bible, then I judge them to be basing their claims on mythology - just like every other manmade religion out there.

You may have dissed me and said you're not interested in my opinion on religion, and yet I'm precisely one of those people who has apostatized from the LDS church and have become an atheist. I'm trying to tell you why, because you keep asking the question. But I'm not sure you really are paying attention to the answers I am others who are exactly the ones you're talking about are giving you.

Yes, I do look at the Bible literally. I think it's entirely justified. It's written by people who either claim that the Creator of the Universe told them some things, or some people who claim either to have interacted with such, or to be familiar with their stories in other ways. These are strong claims. Either these people really did interact with the Creator of the Universe, or they did not.

If they did, then I find it awfully strange that the Creator of the Universe would allow his/her or its message to Earth to be mixed in with a bunch of bronze-age mythology. It's difficult to conceive of why this Creator would do so, if they expected people with critical thinking skills and rational minds to take it seriously.

If they didn't, then it's just the philosophies and mythologies of men from a more barbaric age, and I don't think they merit the kind of worship and respect that they are commonly given.

These may be just my opinions that you don't want to hear, but if you listen, I'm telling you exactly the kinds of attitudes about scripture, the Bible, Christianity, other religions, and so forth that I left Mormonism with, and which I reject - leaving me atheism as the default position. I can't speak for all apostates turned atheists, but I can speak for this one.

[_The Dude]

This is what I am seeing from thews.

1. The universe is beautiful and "just right" for us, therefore it must have come into existence because of a creator, God.

But the creator, God, is also beautiful and "just right" for us, so he/it must also have been created (by the same logic).

2. No, God just exists.

Well, if "God just exists" then why not say "the universe just exists"? (by the same logic)

Using one type of logic for the existence of the universe, but another type for the existence of God, without a reason or explanation for the switch... well it only makes sense to people who need it to make sense.

Do you get it now?

[_Aristotle Smith]

I don't agree. In my own particular case, I did in fact look around me as I lost my faith in the LDS church, though I will admit I wasn't really looking to find truth in some other religion. I was mainly comparing and contrasting beliefs and claims, and methods for identifying truth. It's how I judged other religions to be plagued by some of the same epistemological problems as the LDS church.

Yes, many other religions are plagued by some of the same epistemological problems as the LDS church. I'll go even further, a few have almost exactly the same epistemological problems as the LDS church.

As part of my realizing that the LDS claims weren't true, I came to believe that the Bible was literally nothing more than mythology of various sources, mingled with some near-Eastern history. In revisiting my view of other religions, if I perceive that they are basing their claims on the words of the Bible, then I judge them to be basing their claims on mythology - just like every other manmade religion out there.

And here is where your journey out is different than my journey out. This by the way is the crux of why I am asking this question, my journey out seems to be fairly unique, in that I am neither an atheist nor am I attracted to conservative/fundamentalist forms of Christianity. Yet, I still desire to be a Christian. I think the difference is that my journey out was through higher biblical criticism, so I developed a critical understanding of the Bible. This alienates me from the conservative EV crowd who want to see the Bible as infallible while also alienating me from atheists like yourself who dismiss the Bible as "nothing more than mythology." Now, I am not saying I am superior, I simply experienced something different on the way out. I really would like to know why my journey out seems different than others, i.e. why do most seem to gravitate towards atheism, with a small minority attracted to EV Christianity, and very few attracted to mainstream Christianity.

You may have dissed me and said you're not interested in my opinion on religion, and yet I'm precisely one of those people who has apostatized from the LDS church and have become an atheist. I'm trying to tell you why, because you keep asking the question. But I'm not sure you really are paying attention to the answers I am others who are exactly the ones you're talking about are giving you.

I still am not interested in your opinion on religion because it's tangential to what I am after, an understanding of why the majority of ex-Mormons as a group tend toward atheism. Your argument seems to boil down to "that's why smart/informed/logically thinking people do." And since ex-Mormons are obviously smart/informed/logically thinking people, that's what they do. The problem is that I don't think that it's correct. It strikes me as similar to the argument that believers make about the triumph of Christianity in the 4th century, "It triumphed because it is true, Duh!" That answer tells one a lot about someone's view of Christianity, not much about why the Christian church triumphed. Similarly that view about atheism tells me a lot about what you think, not much about why ex-Mormons become atheists as a group.

Yes, I do look at the Bible literally. I think it's entirely justified. It's written by people who either claim that the Creator of the Universe told them some things, or some people who claim either to have interacted with such, or to be familiar with their stories in other ways. These are strong claims. Either these people really did interact with the Creator of the Universe, or they did not.

Your view of religion is entirely fundamentalist. This is not surprising because Mormonism is so rabidly fundamentalistic in its worldview. By the way, I am not meaning this as an insult. Fundamentalism is just a category, not a denigration. I do think this accounts for why many Mormons do not consider religion after Mormonism, after all, why trade one fundamentalism for another? If that is the only option, then atheism is an entirely justified and rational conclusion. I think if more people were exposed to a non fundamentalistic worldview on the way out, less would choose atheism. I'm not sure how many less, maybe only 1% less, but it would give people another live option. Because I 100% agree with you that after Mormonism a fundamentalist religion is NOT a live option for most ex-Mormons.

These may be just my opinions that you don't want to hear, but if you listen, I'm telling you exactly the kinds of attitudes about scripture, the Bible, Christianity, other religions, and so forth that I left Mormonism with, and which I reject - leaving me atheism as the default position. I can't speak for all apostates turned atheists, but I can speak for this one.

I don't mind hearing them, but I've heard them way too often and I think you have set up a false dichotomy.

Mormons have such a simplistic and quite frankly stupid view of textual interpretation. It's even worse than most fundamentalist religions. Hell, even those groups think you should get some sort of training to read the Bible intelligently. Quite often what passes for training in those camps is completely stupid, but at least there is the idea that one needs to be a little bit sophisticated in textual interpretation. Mormons have the gall to think that a 12 year old deacon with the "spirit" and the Aaronic priesthood is more qualified to give metaphysical insight into a 2500 year old text than is someone who learns the context, the languages, the history, etc., but who happens to be outside the LDS church.

Again, if that is one's view of textual interpretation, I think it completely correct to become an atheist. I just think it is a shame that Mormonism gives such a stunted view of what the Bible is and what other religions are that atheism is seen as the only real option for thinking adults.

And that is my real question, what is it about Mormonism, specifically the Salt Lake City variety, that causes that?

[_MCB]

Can you explain further? I'm wondering what the story is here. Thanks!

I thought he was either Native American (reference to the MMM) or from Missouri/Illinois area. I could be wrong though.

Both Native ancestry and raised in Hancock County Illinois.

[_Jersey Girl]

And here is where your journey out is different than my journey out. This by the way is the crux of why I am asking this question, my journey out seems to be fairly unique, in that I am neither an atheist nor am I attracted to conservative/fundamentalist forms of Christianity. Yet, I still desire to be a Christian. I think the difference is that my journey out was through higher biblical criticism, so I developed a critical understanding of the Bible. This alienates me from the conservative EV crowd who want to see the Bible as infallible while also alienating me from atheists like yourself who dismiss the Bible as "nothing more than mythology." Now, I am not saying I am superior, I simply experienced something different on the way out. I really would like to know why my journey out seems different than others, i.e. why do most seem to gravitate towards atheism, with a small minority attracted to EV Christianity, and very few attracted to mainstream Christianity.

Hmmm...I thought that I addressed this in the lengthy post where I listed characteristics of apostasy and outcomes. On the surface, your story doesn't seem unlike that of Briah J. Mackert who spent time studying the Bible and saw in it something different than what he was taught in Mormonism. His background is that of a child raised up in polygamy, so you would think that once rejecting that, he would have run for his life from anything that remotely smacked of religion.

With approx. 30 years of interaction with LDS, I cannot fathom for the life of me, how anyone "unlearns" Mormonism. It's that rare and as you say, many trade one black/white for yet another black/white.

Perhaps if you discuss here the biblical approaches you employed or were the receiver of, it would further the discussion.

You decide.

[_Jersey Girl]

I just found a youtube video of Brian J. Mackert (polygamy kid on the boards) giving his account of his exit from Mormonism. I first encountered Brian J. perhaps 10 years ago online and was stunned by his testimony because I'd never seen or heard anything like it before. I love his honesty.

This man lived under conditions of extreme religious based controls. If anyone ever had a right to shift to atheism, it's Brian J.

But he didn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DcEHBgxFLI


Website with his written (more detailed) testimony:

http://www.mormondoctrine.net/testimonies/Brian_Mackert.htm

[_thews]

This is what I am seeing from thews.

1. The universe is beautiful and "just right" for us, therefore it must have come into existence because of a creator, God.

But the creator, God, is also beautiful and "just right" for us, so he/it must also have been created (by the same logic).

You're attempting to be infinite through the sarcasm if I'm reading you correctly, but aside from the "just right" part of it regarding God, I've not now nor ever attempted to define where God came from. This would be attempting to form an infinite sense of logic from a finite thought process.

2. No, God just exists.

Well, if "God just exists" then why not say "the universe just exists"? (by the same logic)

Because I don't believe the universe "just exists" using your logic.

Using one type of logic for the existence of the universe, but another type for the existence of God, without a reason or explanation for the switch... well it only makes sense to people who need it to make sense.

Do you get it now?

Do I get what? ...your logic? No, I do not get your logic, because the arguments as you are phrasing them isn't what I said or meant. I am not infinite and therefore cannot ever from an opinion regarding who/what "made" God or God's origin, and as a limitation of my brain's finite capability acknowledge that fact. In this domain, matter exists and its properties can be defined. In the next dimension, its properties may have nothing to do with the existing universe's properties, which the scientific method is held to. Regarding the belief in either science or religion forming an explanation to the origin of matter, I can only conclude science will never (yes I said "never") come up with a theoretical explanation of nothing becoming something, because "nothing" would then have properties that could change to become something. If you're holding out hope for this theory... good luck with that.

[Tpearl]

Yes, many other religions are plagued by some of the same epistemological problems as the LDS church. I'll go even further, a few have almost exactly the same epistemological problems as the LDS church.

Thanks for recognizing this. I understand you to be saying, or implying, that the religions which have these same epistemological problems are the ones who take things more literally, teach more "spiritual witness" stuff, or something like that, whereas your own religious ideas are based more on a particular way of reading the Bible and gleaning meaning from it. I'll comment more on this in a minute.

As part of my realizing that the LDS claims weren't true, I came to believe that the Bible was literally nothing more than mythology of various sources, mingled with some near-Eastern history. ...

And here is where your journey out is different than my journey out. ... I think the difference is that my journey out was through higher biblical criticism, so I developed a critical understanding of the Bible.

I think you're answering your own questions here. Part of you thinking your way out of Mormonism was developing and accepting a theology that was incompatible with Mormonism's. Part of thinking my way out of Mormonism was undermining the very standing, in my mind and worldview, of theology itself. I would bet money, if this could be tested, that you would find most other exmos who turn to atheism did this too.

I'm sure we've both experienced EVs, for instance, who can launch into long tirades of anti-Mormon stuff that is entirely based on arguing with Mormonism's take on various verses in the Bible - in other words, arguing theology. Most Mormons (including myself) find this sort of argument very easy to dismiss (probably with good reason), for right or wrong. I guess what you're saying is that you don't dismiss theological arguments against Mormonism as readily, and in fact have come up with your own. Ok. It seems that is a huge difference between you and most exmos I've run across. Again, it seems you're answering your own question here.

This alienates me from the conservative EV crowd who want to see the Bible as infallible while also alienating me from atheists like yourself who dismiss the Bible as "nothing more than mythology." Now, I am not saying I am superior, I simply experienced something different on the way out.

I can see how you would have a hard time with either the EV crowd or the atheists. I will readily admit I am a scriptural literalist. Either the Creator of the Entire Universe intended for his message to get out to everyone on Earth by talking to some people thousands of years ago and causing them to write this down and propagate it from thence to the rest of us, or he/she/it didn't (or don't even exist), and what has been thus propagated is a product of the human mind. I have a very hard time with attempts to paint the Bible as something other than these alternatives, mainly because if one steps away a single inch from "product of the human mind" toward "product of the Creator of the Universe's attempt to tell us all his important message", it becomes extremely difficult for me to accept that such a Creator would allow his/her/its message to be so admixed with and confused with the blatant mythology and fiction that exists in the Bible that it becomes impossible to tell from actual, 100% human-created fiction/mythology.

Apparently you don't have a problem with this. It would be interesting to hear (or read) you explaining on what basis you find such a problematic method of communicating with the world to be plausible for an omnipotent and all-loving Creator. At any rate, I think you are fairly unique amongst exmos for finding a way to rationalize all of the blatant fiction and mythology in the Bible and still come out of it recognizing the imprimatur of the Creator of the Entire Universe.

I don't think many exmos manage this, and that can, if true, explain the question you are asking in this thread.

I really would like to know why my journey out seems different than others, i.e. why do most seem to gravitate towards atheism, with a small minority attracted to EV Christianity, and very few attracted to mainstream Christianity.

I think you've pretty much answered your own question, to be honest. I think that for many if not most exmos who "think their way out of the church", part of rethinking their testimonies and giving them up involves undermining the claimed provenance of the advice and teaching given in the Bible (and all of the LDS scripture) and things like the Holy Ghost, revelation, and whatnot. Once one has done that, atheism is pretty much all that's left.

Your argument seems to boil down to "that's why smart/informed/logically thinking people do."

I think that is what most smart/informed/logically thinking people who "think their way out of the church" do. That doesn't mean that leaving the church for some other reason (like your reasons) implies that one is not smart/informed/logically thinking. You yourself have acknowledged that there seems, at least in the venues visible to us (online forums and whatnot), to be a preponderance of exmos who have turned against theism.

A lot of smart/informed/logically thinking people stay believers in the church, for that matter. And a lot of smart/informed/logically thinking people stay believers in other religions. There are absolute TBMs who are much smarter than me.

I don't think apostasy via undermining LDS epistemology is some sort of litmus test of intelligence. I am left to speculate, therefor, how so many really smart people manage to remain believers. And I must, in light of you and your experience, extend that to how a smart person such as yourself manages to give up the LDS testimony and yet retain a fundamentally religious worldview.

I don't really know, and can only speculate, and I guess this is really off topic, so I'll limit my comment on this to just this: I think very smart people who retain belief, or, like you, retain belief in belief develop ways of thinking about things which involve a certain level of rationalization, and of confirmation bias.

Yes, I do look at the Bible literally. ...

Your view of religion is entirely fundamentalist. This is not surprising because Mormonism is so rabidly fundamentalistic in its worldview. By the way, I am not meaning this as an insult. Fundamentalism is just a category, not a denigration.

I will agree that my view of religion is fundamentalist. That's one of the reasons the FARMS apologia so offended my sensibilities and lead to the tipping point, after which my testimony was doomed.

I think there are some yes/no questions that justify a certain fundamentalist approach.

Is there a Creator of the Universe? Yes or no.
Does this Creator of the Universe have a message for us? Yes or no.
Is it plausible that this Creator of the Universe would employ a method of communication with us humans on Earth that would be unreliable, prone to spoofing, and in general unable to be differentiated, with credibility, repeatability, and reliability, from all of the various forms of superstition and mythology that humans on Earth have created and enforced upon each other for thousands of years?

You obviously do think that the Creator of the Universe would use something like the Bible to communicate with us and tell us his all-important message. You apparently think it is quite plausible that this message would be true, and real, and actually come from the Creator of the Universe, but be so hard to read and understand "properly" that one must receive some kind of formal training in doing so.

Do you really not understand why so many exmos would find this not to be very plausible? You ask your question as if this is some great mystery, but do you really find this to be so?

I think if more people were exposed to a non fundamentalistic worldview on the way out, less would choose atheism. I'm not sure how many less, maybe only 1% less, but it would give people another live option. Because I 100% agree with you that after Mormonism a fundamentalist religion is NOT a live option for most ex-Mormons.

Mormonism teaches that the Creator of the Universe has a message, we need to hear that message, and there is some credible way to receive this message, which is to be found in the Mormon scriptures, and in following the advice of Mormon prophets. I think the problem here is that the non-fundamentalist religions seem very wishy-washy on this to a Mormon's sensibilities. The non-fundamentalists just make a case that is not very plausible in the minds of people conditioned to take the Creator of the Universe and his/her/its putative collected literature seriously.

I don't mind hearing them, but I've heard them way too often and I think you have set up a false dichotomy.

I don't really agree, naturally. Mormons are conditioned to accept "truth" because God said so, or some Prophet who has a direct line of communication from God said so, or some Prophet who wrote down what we now regard as "scripture" said so. The non-fundamentalists have, in contrast, exactly what sort of authority for their opinions? We accept something as true because Spong said so? Or because the prevailing opinion at some liberal seminary says so? I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong here: you asked why most exmos who are visible to us on these boards tend to go to atheism rather than something like liberal Christianity. I don't think this is really much of a mystery. It's probably for these kinds of reasons.

Mormons have such a simplistic and quite frankly stupid view of textual interpretation.

You are probably correct in this. So what? Are you arguing, or at least do you believe, that it is plausible that the Creator of the Entire Universe would communicate with us in a way that absolutely depended upon 7 billion Earthlings all possessing highly-refined textual interpretation skills? And do highly-refined textual interpretation skills lead to a reproducible, and credible, unified view of this Creator's message? What do you do when smart people of considerable facility with textual inrepretation don't agree on what this Creator's message to us is? On what do you fall back to resolve this?

Again, if that is one's view of textual interpretation, I think it completely correct to become an atheist. I just think it is a shame that Mormonism gives such a stunted view of what the Bible is and what other religions are that atheism is seen as the only real option for thinking adults.

Can you help out this conversation by giving us a sort of in-a-nutshell explanation of what you think the Bible is, in order that we can contrast this with what exmos are likely to think, and so answer the question you posed in this thread? I think it would help, and be very illuminating. Again, the point isn't to argue over who is right, but rather to figure out likely reasons why the internet-savvy exmos tend to go atheist, which is your question.

[_harmony]

Mormons have the gall to think that a 12 year old deacon with the "spirit" and the Aaronic priesthood is more qualified to give metaphysical insight into a 2500 year old text than is someone who learns the context, the languages, the history, etc., but who happens to be outside the LDS church.

That 12 year old deacon has more spiritual power than any nonmember and every female member. You know this is true. Quit kicking against the pricks.

[/sarcasm]

[_beastie]

I can’t add much to what others have said, but I do want to add one thing. Mormonism isn’t just a religion – it is an identity. Exmormons have had to face the abyss in that we lost a significant part of our identity and had to start over from scratch. Once you’ve done that, you become fearless in a certain way – fearless in regards to being willing to question the most deeply held convictions that make us who we are. You know you can survive after losing an entire identity.

In the US, our cultural identity tends to be Christian. We are largely trained, from birth, to accept certain claims that outsiders would find implausible. Sure, some of these claims have to do with peripheral theological questions and debates over literal versus liberal interpretations of the Bible, but some of these claims are basic to Christianity and belief in God. If we transplanted an alien from another country to the US and presented the most basic claim of Christianity – that God’s son was killed, and this act somehow “saves” the rest of us – that alien find the claim as crazy as most people would find the claim that Joseph Smith translated an ancient document with a magic rock. It’s crazy in that it doesn’t capture the essence of how we know the world works from our experience. In a very specific way, exmormons become aliens – we become people outside the previous identity. Even more basic to Judeo-Christianity (as well as some other major religions) is the idea that there is a God who is personally interested in the lives of human beings, interacts with human beings, and in some unique way, conveyed his ideas to a small chosen group of human beings. I don’t see any more reason to believe this claim than I do to believe that Joseph Smith translated with a magic rock in a hat.

In my view, the existence of a godbeing presents so many complications that the only reason one would be justified in drawing such a conclusion would be if the absence of said godbeing is even more unlikely and presents even more complications.