New Pew research shows LDS retention rate worsening for those raised LDS

[I Have Questions]

As someone who still respects Christianity as a whole, I find it troubling that Mormonism drives people straight out of religion entirely.

In large part it’s because there is minimal room within Mormonism for reasonable nuanced belief. You’re constantly subject to lectures about fictional history, lectures about anti-LGBT morality, and subject to interrogations of your loyalty to the organization.

I don’t blame former Mormons for throwing away religion entirely but there is a whole other world of more tolerant religions out there that don’t ask you to leave your brain at the door.

I think organised religion that seeks to control its members is always problematic in some way. And with that organising element comes politics, leadership foibles, and opportunity to manipulate and abuse. Having religion without being part of some arbitrary group that tells everyone that they know best, or that sets themselves up as some kind of authority in your life, seems far healthier to me. And should be encouraged.

[Physics Guy]

Some amount of control may be fine, though. A group of people dedicated to healthy living may work on encouraging each other to go to the gym regularly, for example. If somebody misses a workout, their buddy may check on them. Even without that, the sense of being in it together with the other people in the group may make the difference in getting members out of bed and into the gym on a lot of mornings. That's control from the group, not very different at all in how it operates from the kind of peer pressure that some religious groups exert on their members.

Lots of groups are like that, and it's a big reason why people join groups. Maintaining one's place in the tribe is a strong human instinct, and people who want to change or control their own behaviour may well want to exploit that instinct in order to achieve their own goals: they want support from a group to achieve self-control. It can easily go deeper than behaviour alone, because in many cases, part of changing behaviour is changing one's thoughts and feelings. People may want to belong to groups that encourage them to maintain particular patterns of thinking and feeling, and resist others. Twelve Steps programs offer this, for example.

Some amount of group control is also important if a group is trying to achieve some shared external goal. If you join a political party, for example, hoping to influence public policy, you may well be expected to turn out on time for rallies, staff information tables, make signs and flyers, or spend mornings knocking on doors. The group will naturally encourage everyone who joins it to remain with the cause and pull their weight in supporting it. Any individual who really desires the goals of the group will be glad that the group imposes some discipline, because it makes the group more effective in achieving the goal.

So if people really want to change themselves or just sustain a desired pattern of behaviour, or if they really want to get something done in the world, then joining a group that does exert some kind of control over its members is a powerful tool that people may want to employ. I think it's impractical to call group control bad in general. It goes against a basic human instinct for group solidarity. Becoming part of a group that includes some form and amount of control is a human right, and it can be perfectly healthy. It can be a great idea.

The problem isn't control. It's control that is bad in some way, such as by being strict beyond the degree that serves a healthy purpose, or by failing to serve a healthy internal or external purpose at all, and instead serving only a few individuals, or even just serving a group that has no purpose beyond maintaining itself. Those are bad things, all right. They're not bad because they're control by a group: they're bad because they are bad group control.

[Dr. Shades]

I think organised religion that seeks to control its members is always problematic in some way. And with that organising element comes politics, leadership foibles, and opportunity to manipulate and abuse.

The problem isn't control. It's control that is bad in some way, such as by being strict beyond the degree that serves a healthy purpose, or by failing to serve a healthy internal or external purpose at all, and instead serving only a few individuals, or even just serving a group that has no purpose beyond maintaining itself. Those are bad things, all right. They're not bad because they're control by a group: they're bad because they are bad group control.

Isn't that what I Have Questions just said?

[Limnor]

As someone who still respects Christianity as a whole, I find it troubling that Mormonism drives people straight out of religion entirely.

In large part it’s because there is minimal room within Mormonism for reasonable nuanced belief. You’re constantly subject to lectures about fictional history, lectures about anti-LGBT morality, and subject to interrogations of your loyalty to the organization.

I don’t blame former Mormons for throwing away religion entirely but there is a whole other world of more tolerant religions out there that don’t ask you to leave your brain at the door.

I think organised religion that seeks to control its members is always problematic in some way. And with that organising element comes politics, leadership foibles, and opportunity to manipulate and abuse. Having religion without being part of some arbitrary group that tells everyone that they know best, or that sets themselves up as some kind of authority in your life, seems far healthier to me. And should be encouraged.

I think I’d make some distinctions between church government and ecclesiastical control. I can see a legitimate role for church governance in the administrative management of shared charity, maybe common work, and holding one another accountable.

It also doesn’t seem be too much of a stretch to expect a church to have some degree of orthodoxy as a condition of belonging to the group. But I’d want those teachings to remain open to challenge, argument, and correction rather than being treated as unquestionable simply because an authority figure declared them. I suppose when the orthodoxy exceeds conscience it’s probably time to leave.

Where I’ve become most uncomfortable is sacramental control. The idea that some institution or its leaders have control over a person’s access to God is unacceptable to me.

[I Have Questions]

I think organised religion that seeks to control its members is always problematic in some way. And with that organising element comes politics, leadership foibles, and opportunity to manipulate and abuse. Having religion without being part of some arbitrary group that tells everyone that they know best, or that sets themselves up as some kind of authority in your life, seems far healthier to me. And should be encouraged.

I think I’d make some distinctions between church government and ecclesiastical control. I can see a legitimate role for church governance in the administrative management of shared charity, maybe common work, and holding one another accountable.

It also doesn’t seem be too much of a stretch to expect a church to have some degree of orthodoxy as a condition of belonging to the group. But I’d want those teachings to remain open to challenge, argument, and correction rather than being treated as unquestionable simply because an authority figure declared them. I suppose when the orthodoxy exceeds conscience it’s probably time to leave.

Where I've become most uncomfortable is sacramental control. The idea that some institution or its leaders have control over a person’s access to God is unacceptable to me.

Can you think of an example of an organised religion that meets your criteria but which avoids the problems that I have outlined?

[Limnor]

Can you think of an example of an organised religion that meets your criteria but which avoids the problems that I have outlined?

Not really, no. At least not in the physical, institutional sense that most of us would recognize as “the church.” I don’t have a “join this church” answer, particularly in the Christian sense. Some things might fit well into a Buddhist model, for example, but not all. Like the idea of the church being the “body of Christ.”

“Where two or three are gathered in my name” is a line I think about when considering where I “fit.” Maybe I’ve oversimplified it, but that kind of model still allows for teaching and accountability without requiring someone to stand between you and God.

So maybe it matters less which physical church you join than whether you are actually participating in the body.

There are probably two or three heretical things I’ve just said, but those are my thoughts about what a church is and is and could be.

[I Have Questions]

Can you think of an example of an organised religion that meets your criteria but which avoids the problems that I have outlined?

Not really, no.

And that’s my point.

At least not in the physical, institutional sense that most of us would recognize as “the church.” I don’t have a “join this church” answer, particularly in the Christian sense. Some things might fit well into a Buddhist model, for example, but not all. Like the idea of the church being the “body of Christ.”

“Where two or three are gathered in my name” is a line I think about when considering where I “fit.” Maybe I’ve oversimplified it, but that kind of model still allows for teaching and accountability without requiring someone to stand between you and God.

So maybe it matters less which physical church you join than whether you are actually participating in the body.

There are probably two or three heretical things I’ve just said, but those are my thoughts about what a church is and is and could be.

Holding a personal belief in the afterlife that drives a person to be a better family member, a better member of society, a nicer neighbour etc is fine. When you start adding a label to it “I’m a Christian” “I’m a Muslim” etc you get tribalism creeping in. You get “I’m right and you’re wrong”. You get people taking charge and telling others what to believe etc. Organised religion poisons the very thing it’s supposed to enhance. And simply pointing out those times when an organised religion does something beneficial to others doesn’t negate the point, in same way that a wife-beating husband doesn’t offset the harm by bringing flowers home occasionally. Jimmy Savile (a now-deceased UK radio and tv personality) raised millions of pounds for charity. Lots of examples of good deeds. People lauded him for it. He was also a serial child sex abuser. Abusing the most vulnerable in society. Do his good deeds offset the harm he did?

[Kishkumen]

Holding a personal belief in the afterlife that drives a person to be a better family member, a better member of society, a nicer neighbour etc is fine. When you start adding a label to it “I’m a Christian” “I’m a Muslim” etc you get tribalism creeping in. You get “I’m right and you’re wrong”. You get people taking charge and telling others what to believe etc. Organised religion poisons the very thing it’s supposed to enhance.

How do human beings overcome tribalism? Is it possible? I have yet to meet a group or individual that escapes this problem. It seems akin to asking how human beings can stop being human. Is it desirable that they do so? Possible? I want to see more groups trying to do better, even if they don't succeed nearly as much as I would hope. If we give up trying to do better, where does that leave us? If people will always gather around irrational ideas, maybe it is not so bad for them to gather around relatively less harmful irrational ideas. I don't see the possibility of perfection, but I will take better than it otherwise might have been instead of perfection.

[I Have Questions]

Holding a personal belief in the afterlife that drives a person to be a better family member, a better member of society, a nicer neighbour etc is fine. When you start adding a label to it “I’m a Christian” “I’m a Muslim” etc you get tribalism creeping in. You get “I’m right and you’re wrong”. You get people taking charge and telling others what to believe etc. Organised religion poisons the very thing it’s supposed to enhance.

How do human beings overcome tribalism? Is it possible? I have yet to meet a group or individual that escapes this problem. It seems akin to asking how human beings can stop being human. Is it desirable that they do so? Possible? I want to see more groups trying to do better, even if they don't succeed nearly as much as I would hope. If we give up trying to do better, where does that leave us? If people will always gather around irrational ideas, maybe it is not so bad for them to gather around relatively less harmful irrational ideas. I don't see the possibility of perfection, but I will take better than it otherwise might have been instead of perfection.

Are religious societies “better” than secular societies? That doesn’t seem to be the case. Scandinavia is reportedly one of the best places in the world to raise a family, it’s also reportedly an area with very secular societies.

[MG 2.0]

As someone who still respects Christianity as a whole, I find it troubling that Mormonism drives people straight out of religion entirely.

In large part it’s because there is minimal room within Mormonism for reasonable nuanced belief. You’re constantly subject to lectures about fictional history, lectures about anti-LGBT morality, and subject to interrogations of your loyalty to the organization.

I don’t blame former Mormons for throwing away religion entirely but there is a whole other world of more tolerant religions out there that don’t ask you to leave your brain at the door.

The LDS Church does not have a lot of resources for intellectual members.

But resources are available. Benjamin Park has published some good stuff and has a great podcast. He's just one. Steven Peck (I think he's still at BYU) is another. There are quite a few folks out there that I think appeal to those that are more intellectually minded. I'm not sure that the church sees it as its mission to provide a LOT of resources for those that consider themselves to be intellectuals.

Its curriculum is dull, and it does not foster open discussion.

The curriculum is mainly focused on Conference Talks and the scriptures. In an international church I'm not surprised that the lessons might seem...to you...to be "dull". In a certain sense, I would agree with you though. Fostering open discussion? I think you're probably right on that one. Although I would say, that the church sees itself as a vehicle to lead its members to Christ. They may see open discussion which might produce doubt/questions to be counterproductive to that endeavor.

Hope all is well with you Kishkumen! I'm dropping in for just a bit and will probably be on my way again when I see things...as you say...get "dull".

Absolutely no AI was used in the construction of this post. You have my word on that.

Regards,
MG