The disaffected Mormon problem

[_Runtu]

Hi Runtu, I hope you are well.

What specifically do GA's do that constitutes their 'work'?

Thanks

Each General Authority in Salt Lake has a responsibility for overseeing a different church department. When I was working there, our GAs in the Curriculum Department were Joe Christensen and Rex Pinegar. They worked just as you would expect a department head to work, but then they often had assignments on weekends, such as stake conferences. Elder Pinegar told me that the church had conducted a study that showed that the average General Authority worked 104 hours a week. I suspect that the expansion of the quorums of seventy is probably a result of that study.

The apostles also have their responsibilities. As I recall, Monson was over Materials Management back then. Of course, apostles travel a lot, and it's almost never for a vacation. They may go to exotic places, but they're in meetings most of the time. One of my colleagues was in the same ward as Hinckley and Monson. She said she knew both wives pretty well but had never met their husbands. She said that on the rare occasions they were at home, they had to sit on the stand and preside. I once saw Robert Hales in the elevator at around 7:00 at night one week when I was working late. I knew he had just had open-heart surgery, and I asked him why he was in so late. He replied with a chuckle, "My doctor told me to work half-days, so that's 12 hours."

As I said, they have the entire month of August off. David B. Haight had a cabin in Idaho where he would go, and he made sure he didn't have a telephone. He's rumored to have told the other GAs, "Unless the prophet dies, do not interrupt my vacation."

GAs outside of Utah are mostly involved in running the different areas. This includes supervising all the ecclesiastical work, building projects, missionary work, temples, family history. Anyway, they travel a lot as well.

I hope that answers your question.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Like I said before most who recognize the LDS church is not true tend to be more skeptically minded.

This really doesn't make any sense. If ex-Mos are so skeptically minded, why did so many stay in the church for so long?

In a sense, Mormons are actually very skeptical people, just not about their own beliefs. Mormons have no problems being skeptical about Pentecostal faith healing, the leadership of Protestant churches, the motivations of Catholic church officials, junk nutritional science, homeopathy, etc. When dealing with those issues their skepticism tends to track that of the general populace.

Put another way, everyone tends to be skeptical about things they don't already believe. The question is why do people decide to direct their skepticism onto LDS church claims when they did not do so before?

Finally, I think this attitude is one of the least endearing aspects of ex-Mormons. There is a strong tendency among many ex-Mos to attribute their loss of belief to some desirable personality trait that TBMs lack. The narrative is that ex-Mos are more skeptical, or more intelligent, or can spot BS better, or they are more scientific, or more individualistic, etc. Whatever an ex-Mo tends to value most magically ends up being the factor that got them out of the LDS church.

The problem is that I think there is a widespread modern attitude of skepticism that modern humans naturally imbibe. The question is, on what are they going to unleash their skepticism? For reasons that are probably fairly random, some people turn it on Mormonism and become ex-Mos.

[_MCB]

I was just reading an old Catholic publication, and it said that the Book of Mormon (and by implication, Mormonism) contains so many theological inconsistencies that the individual, rejecting it, becomes so confused, that they would rather reject all religion. Pretty acute, coming from around 1844.

[_Rambo]

Put another way, everyone tends to be skeptical about things they don't already believe. The question is why do people decide to direct their skepticism onto LDS church claims when they did not do so before?

In my experience I did not question Mormonism until I found out about it's dirty little history. Then I was Christian for a short time. I thought since I got fooled by Mormonism that maybe I should look into the claims of Christianity as well. So really leaving Mormonism was a catalyst for me to question every religion.

[_just me]

Is there a Christian religion that does not contain inconsistencies? I mean, if you use the Bible it seems like you wouldn't be able to avoid them.

[_Themis]

Like I said before most who recognize the LDS church is not true tend to be more skeptically minded.

This really doesn't make any sense. If ex-Mos are so skeptically minded, why did so many stay in the church for so long?

I think they tend to be more skeptically minded, and the reason it can take a long time is that they did not find out certain details of their own religion until later in life. The internet I believe is helping in ways I never could have found in my younger days.

In a sense, Mormons are actually very skeptical people, just not about their own beliefs. Mormons have no problems being skeptical about Pentecostal faith healing, the leadership of Protestant churches, the motivations of Catholic church officials, junk nutritional science, homeopathy, etc. When dealing with those issues their skepticism tends to track that of the general populace.

True for LDS as it is for all groups, but within each group you will find that not everyone is at the same level of being skeptical or analytical in there thinking. I remember many faith promoting stories that some members will wholeheartedly believe while other members will dismiss as just faith promoting. On this scale, the more skeptical are more likely to change beliefs when confronted with evidence against their beliefs.

Put another way, everyone tends to be skeptical about things they don't already believe. The question is why do people decide to direct their skepticism onto LDS church claims when they did not do so before?

Many reasons, but one of the best is new information. It can take some a long time to digest it while others only a short time. That is simplistic, and I don't mean there are not many other reasons or factors involved.

Finally, I think this attitude is one of the least endearing aspects of ex-Mormons. There is a strong tendency among many ex-Mos to attribute their loss of belief to some desirable personality trait that TBMs lack.

I am just calling it as I see it. It reminds me of this

Second, in my experience I have rarely met an ex-Mo who can give me a cogent summary of arguments, evidences, and problems dealing with generic faith isues and/or Christian issues.

I don't see less skeptical people as dumb, but yes I do think a healthy amount of skepticism and analytical thinking is a positive attribute, and that it does come into play here. I don't think it is conceited to recognize this.

The narrative is that ex-Mos are more skeptical, or more intelligent, or can spot BS better, or they are more scientific, or more individualistic, etc. Whatever an ex-Mo tends to value most magically ends up being the factor that got them out of the LDS church.

I would never say more intelligent. Smart people can believe dumb things, and I am not immune to this. If though, the church is not true, then I think it is logical that certain positive traits would help those who have them in abundance to recognize this.

The problem is that I think there is a widespread modern attitude of skepticism that modern humans naturally imbibe. The question is, on what are they going to unleash their skepticism? For reasons that are probably fairly random, some people turn it on Mormonism and become ex-Mos.

While some may, I don't see being random at all. It really is based a lot on people coming across new information. It helps if they are already unsure that the LDS Epistemology is a very good way of determining objective truth claims.

[_madeleine]

I think there’s a certain amount of truth here, but none of these address the core issue. In my opinion, the core issue is this: going from Mormonism to Christianity is simply going from one type of mythology to another type of mythology. In the end it’s all just mythology. I’d like to know what other people in this forum think.

Sure. It's probably some combination of all of the above. Being the only true Church, we are at the pinnacle of Christianity so nothing less can satisfy. Either the LDS Church is true or no religion is true. I would hazard that LDS who can remain Christian after leaving the Church are general the liberal type who never accepted the Church's truth claims literally.

I don't think that would be a very good guess. :) In my parish, I'm involved in teaching people who are converting to Roman Catholicism. Being in Utah, each year about 1/3 to 1/2 of the group have a Mormon background. It's a mix of people, liberal and conservative.

People here tend to focus on the history of Mormonism as the "gotcha" subject. I don't see that as the major factor for people who are in the process of converting to RC. It might be a contributing factor, but the main vein is, they never experienced God in Mormonism as they do in Catholicism. That is the draw for them (as it was for me). I can't tell you the number of times that a convert from Mormonism has told me that Psalms 42 speaks to their experience, and their need. People are hungry for God, is about as blunt as I can put it, and that hunger was not satisfied in Mormonism.

[_MCB]

Is there a Christian religion that does not contain inconsistencies? I mean, if you use the Bible it seems like you wouldn't be able to avoid them.

Extensive exegesis resolves those inconsistencies. In Mormonism, they are so blatant that the result of trying to resolve them is hostility and more chaos (see D&D)

[_Corpsegrinder]

…in my experience I have rarely met an ex-Mo who can give me a cogent summary of arguments, evidences, and problems dealing with generic faith isues and/or Christian issues.

Likewise, I have yet to meet a believer whose arguments do not fall apart when the discussion moves from “generic faith issues” to specific points of debate. The devil, as always, is in the details. Example: What makes the Resurrection Narrative any less improbable than the First Vision?

Does anybody happen to know the proportion of ex-Christians who, upon leaving Christianity, become atheists or agnostics? I’m pretty sure this isn’t something that only ex-Mormons do.

[_son of Ishmael]

The same tools former Mormons used to dissect the Church can be used to dissect Christianity. Once you have become skilled using those tools on Mormonism, it isn't hard to apply them to Christianity and other religious traditions.

I did this for Mormonism and Christianity and decided that the most persuasive evidence (archaeology, anthropology, textual criticism, etc., etc.) points to the conclusion that God isn't really a part of either one. It is just made up.

This is the same thing that happened to me. Once I turned my mircoscope off of the Book of Mormon and started looking at the Bible I saw the same problems with it and could only conclude that the Bible could not be trusted either. After that I became agnostic. If there is a god he/she/it has not made him/her/itself known to us. Possible god is waiting for us to evolve enough where it can communitcate with us without our crapping all over ourselves. That should only take a couple of 100,000 years or so.