Peterson Misleading Again

[Guest]

Weird.

I'm recalling the many friends and acquaintances I have who have left the church and I can't think of one who didn't leave because of serious issues with doctrine/belief/teachings.

I'm sure there are those (although I do not know of any) who are inactive because they don't like church and it doesn't benefit their lives, (I don't see this as a sin by the way), but in terms of disbelief, virtually everyone I can think of has disagreements with the fundamental teachings/doctrines/beliefs.

Hmmmmm. Either your experience and mine differ wildly, or we're talking past one another.

I've been quite careful to refer to people who've dropped out of the Church. I haven't been restricting myself to those who actually ask their names to be removed from its records.

My extended family on my maternal side -- those on my paternal side aren't Mormon at all -- is chock full of the former types. In fact, that just about exhausts my (Mormon) extended family. I know them well. I grew up knowing them, in both Utah and California. I like them. I have never heard any of them raise any theological or historical issue. Very rarely, I've heard several of them express a vague belief in "the Church," but they aren't sufficiently motivated to put a tie on and attend, or to put down their beers. There are many such. In Utah, where all or virtually all of my uncles' and cousins' friends are similarly nominal Mormons, I've met scores of them. If you push them, they believe. They just don't care much, and they never think about it. (I have one crusty old maternal uncle who may possibly be an actual atheist, but I've never quite been able to tell. He has, by the way, always been my favorite uncle.)

Dan, would you agree that LDS people leave (disbelieve) their religion for the same reasons other believers stop believing in their various faith traditions? Or do you think LDS believers are different.

I don't think they differ fundamentally, although the Church demands a higher level of participation than many other denominations do (one doesn't simply sit passively in the congregation while a professional clergyman handles everything) and somewhat stricter behavior (e.g., Word of Wisdom, sexual morality, etc.), which makes the cost of being a communicant Mormon typically a bit higher (and sometimes substantially so) than being, say, a communicant Catholic.

My understanding of Christian doctrine is that all have fallen short of the glory of God and are therefore in need of the Atonement. If this is the case, anyone who leaves the LDS Church is a sinner, just as anyone who stays in the Church is a sinner.

Obviously.

It seems to me to be too convenient, therefore, when LDS people attribute to others sin as a reason for their having left. Unless someone specifically says, "I left because I could not keep the commandments and did not want to try or to repent," maybe it is best to leave the sin box unchecked on the "reasons for leaving" form.

It can be too convenient, yes. I, at least, am not "checking the sin box" in that too convenient way, though. Though several here seem powerfully motivated to assume that I am.

After all, as beastie argues, disbelief in the LDS Church can lead to different lifestyle choices. It is not necessarily the sin that lead to the disbelief or departure.

Obviously.

It would seem to me to be safer to withhold judgment, in any case.

I've offered no judgment on any specific case, and always think it wise to be cautious (at a minimum) in such judging.

Too often I have seen LDS people look for the sin first, as it is the only explanation that seems to make sense to many of them.

You're not seeing me do that.

Does a failure to believe the basic Joseph Smith story count as dropping out for "ideas" or "sin"? What about discovery of "unsavory" or "shocking" facts related to Church history or doctrine?

Ideas.

Sorry, but you'll probably have to choose some other angle of attack for your next assault on me.

[_antishock8]

In my experience, most people really don't drop out of activity because of "ideas." They do so because they prefer waterskiing on Sunday, like a cool beer in the evening, get pregnant out of marriage and simply fade away, want to sleep in, etc. This seems to me so obvious as to be wholly uncontroversial. You can try to portray it as reasoned dissent from Mormon teachings, but it doesn't seem to me genuinely to rise to that level.

Does a failure to believe the basic Joseph Smith story count as dropping out for "ideas" or "sin"? What about discovery of "unsavory" or "shocking" facts related to Church history or doctrine?

Yeah, I guess my having perfect attendance in seminary, being an Eagle Scout, served in all my youth capacities, served a mission faithfully in Peru, married faithfully in the Bellvue temple, served faithfully in various callings during my 20's, paid my tithing, etc... I guess all of that just didn't do the trick. Schucks, and now I have most Mormons thinking I just wanted to sleep in on Sundays, or "drink a cool one" *snort*.

To any Mormon lurkers who are sitting on the fence; you're not alone. The Church simply isn't true. It isn't what it claims to be, and nothing you'll ever do will change that reality for you. There is never a reason good enough to leave the Church. Period. You'll never win with Mormon family members, friends, or associates. It's just the way it is, but it doesn't change the fact that it isn't true. There's nothing wrong with YOU for feeling that way. You're the one that's actually thinking clearly, and you don't need to ignore that.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't expect poor antishock8 to understand what I'm saying, of course, but I hope and trust that some of the others here can.

Just as you don't want to be stereotyped, don't stereotype me.

[_Trevor]

To clarify, in my statements below, I was not accusing Daniel of jumping to conclusions on the reasons why particular people have left the LDS Church. Only he knows whether the specific instances he is personally familiar with warrant that judgment, if he were to proffer one. I do not challenge him on that. My sole purpose is to point out that members of the Church very often jump to the conclusion that sin must be the root cause of a person's inactivity or leaving. I was not under the impression that we were disagreeing on that, but we may be.

My understanding of Christian doctrine is that all have fallen short of the glory of God and are therefore in need of the Atonement. If this is the case, anyone who leaves the LDS Church is a sinner, just as anyone who stays in the Church is a sinner.

Obviously.

It seems to me to be too convenient, therefore, when LDS people attribute to others sin as a reason for their having left. Unless someone specifically says, "I left because I could not keep the commandments and did not want to try or to repent," maybe it is best to leave the sin box unchecked on the "reasons for leaving" form.

It can be too convenient, yes. I, at least, am not "checking the sin box" in that too convenient way, though. Though several here seem powerfully motivated to assume that I am.

After all, as beastie argues, disbelief in the LDS Church can lead to different lifestyle choices. It is not necessarily the sin that lead to the disbelief or departure.

Obviously.

It would seem to me to be safer to withhold judgment, in any case.

I've offered no judgment on any specific case, and always think it wise to be cautious (at a minimum) in such judging.

Too often I have seen LDS people look for the sin first, as it is the only explanation that seems to make sense to many of them.

You're not seeing me do that.

[Guest]

Duplicate (premature) post.

[_Daniel Peterson]

My sole purpose is to point out that members of the Church very often jump to the conclusion that sin must be the root cause of a person's inactivity or leaving. I was not under the impression that we were disagreeing on that, but we may be.

We don't disagree on that. Believers often stereotype unbelievers and ex-believers, just as unbelievers and ex-believers often stereotype believers. And both sides, as one would expect, often do it to make themselves feel better about themselves and their respective positions.

[_Mister Scratch]

Does a failure to believe the basic Joseph Smith story count as dropping out for "ideas" or "sin"? What about discovery of "unsavory" or "shocking" facts related to Church history or doctrine?

Ideas.

Sorry, but you'll probably have to choose some other angle of attack for your next assault on me.

I didn't mean it as an attack, or as a "set-up" for an attack. No need to get touchy. It was just a simple question. You know: I might add that I have on a number of occasions offered a kind of "cyber-handshake" in your direction, offering to kiss and make up, as it were. You have blown me off each time.

[_Trevor]

We don't disagree on that. Believers often stereotype unbelievers and ex-believers, just as unbelievers and ex-believers often stereotype believers. And both sides, as one would expect, often do it to make themselves feel better about themselves and their respective positions.

Agreed. Whew!

[_beastie]

Hmmmmm. Either your experience and mine differ wildly, or we're talking past one another.

I've been quite careful to refer to people who've dropped out of the Church. I haven't been restricting myself to those who actually ask their names to be removed from its records.

My extended family on my maternal side -- those on my paternal side aren't Mormon at all -- is chock full of the former types. In fact, that just about exhausts my (Mormon) extended family. I know them well. I grew up knowing them, in both Utah and California. I like them. I have never heard any of them raise any theological or historical issue. Very rarely, I've heard several of them express a vague belief in "the Church," but they aren't sufficiently motivated to put a tie on and attend, or to put down their beers. There are many such. In Utah, where all or virtually all of my uncles' and cousins' friends are similarly nominal Mormons, I've met scores of them. If you push them, they believe. They just don't care much, and they never think about it. (I have one crusty old maternal uncle who may possibly be an actual atheist, but I've never quite been able to tell. He has, by the way, always been my favorite uncle.)

This conversation was specifically and obviously about "apostates". So why are you including inactives - who may even still possibly believe - in this discussion?

Mik -

I agree with the Muslim example you provided, sure its true. From both sides of the discourse I think it is true. From the believing Muslim I see nothing wrong with continuing to believe that sin has caused the apostasy. In the alternative, from the nonbeliever I can affirm and recognize that she thinks her family is ridiculous and sin had nothing to do with it. Both can be consistent, both could be right, both could be wrong and one or the other could be wrong, but both are consistent positions. Viewing the world from completely different fundamental positions creates just that. It is only when one or the other insists that the other is foolish, lying and/or intellectually dishonest or in denial and insists on the other recognizing this that any problem arises (of course this assumes one side isn't being dishonest), and that is the problem I see with your and Daniel's discourse. Why would you think that you could convince him otherwise? And, why would either of you think the other is dishonest or insincere?

Because, mik, in the particular case I cited, that of the Muslims, the individuals did NOT leave due to sin. They changed their lifestyle because they no longer embraced the religious moral code.

I think your statement could be considered more accurate if we were talking about whether or not the apostates were "sinning" - that is something that is dependent upon world view. But someone's reasons for their loss of faith are not dependent upon world view - they're dependent upon the reality of what resulted in the loss of faith. It's a cause/effect confusion. I didn't lose faith in the LDS church because I wanted to drink wine one day - other than a sip of communion, it took me two years to drink wine (and sadly, I no longer drink it at all today due to the fact that alcohol disagrees with me). I didn't lose faith because I didn't want to pay tithing. I stopped paying tithing because I lost faith. Why should I pay ten percent of my income to the church when I don't believe in it?

by the way, I don't think I can convince Daniel otherwise. I also don't think that he's being dishonest or insincere in this conversation. I think that, despite the fact that he says there's no "drumbeat" that "apostates leave due to (fill in personal sin or flaw), it actually is a teaching that permeates Mormonism, and so is a fundamental part of the LDS worldview.

I think the deeper and more interesting position for me is the one regarding "sin". We do all sin, even you keep a moral compass that absent a deity still allows for you to stray from it. My interest lies in, do our beliefs stem from our actions or the other way around or the more probable - both? I don't think you hold all your beliefs because of pure intellectual rigor, nor do I, nor do I think DCP does. Many of our beliefs are just there, because of how we live, I think the Mormon position, even if it is expressed cartoonishly at times expresses this reality. This is why I would answer your query of "motivated reasoning" as - sure you bet, and what is wrong with that? I think all utilize it.

I largely agree with what you've said here, with the exception that simply due to the fact that we all engage in motivated reason means that there is nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with that, in terms of logic, reason, and ascertaining the accuracy of certain claims. Maybe there is nothing wrong with it in terms of meeting our emotional needs. The quintessential example of motivated reasoning is the smoker who is extremely skeptical of the medical studies that show the harm that smoking does, and instead focuses on all the smokers he/she knows who have lived long lives. All human beings engage in motivated reasoning, but that doesn't mean there isn't anything wrong with that. While the smoker may be emotionally satisfied with this application of motivated reasoning, in reality that smoker is at higher risk of certain health problems, so, in the end, his/her motivated reasoning does not serve well.

Now, I think a positive Mormon belief should carry an understanding and an affirmation that one can and does at times leave or lose faith due to purely intellectual reasons. My perspective of this, which can be agreed upon or not, is that many people have either not placed themselves in the appropriate environment to recognize the spirit and develop genuine spiritual skill in attunement, recognition and resonance with the spirit. A way that that individual can develop this skill is by learning and living completely without it, and by learning what the spirit is 'not' can lead to what it is, and this could take years. Conversely, many a Mormon could learn from the likes of you and others on how to develop their critical thinking skills and this need not be a faith eroding exercise.

I do affirm critics often can be viewed as not letting the other speak for themselves, I am saddened by that fact and wish it weren't true.

You say communication between the two sides is hopeless in your opinion. I really wish you would reconsider that, both sides stubbornly not viewing from the others position creates hopelessness. There are points of just fundamental disagreement which shouldn't be confused with offense.

I'm sorry, mik, I just can't agree. If a belief system leads people to conclude that because I lost faith in Mormonism, that means I have some inherent character flaw, I take offensive to both the belief system and the people expressing it. I think Mormons have the right to feel the same way when they're accused of being brainwashed robots.

It's taken me years to get to this point, but I do believe communication between the two sides is usually hopeless. There are some exceptions, and I've always viewed you (and a couple others) as exceptions, but these exceptions prove the rule. Mormons and exmormons are usually like two exspouses who went through a long, bitter, acrimonious divorce. The deliberate destruction of ZLMB is a good part of what provided the final nail in that coffin, at least for me.

[_Daniel Peterson]

For what it's worth, I have had (and continue to have) good, substantive discussions about Mormonism with non-believers and former believers.

I don't believe that such discussions are impossible. I know, in fact, that they are not.

But I'm not sure that they're possible here, and I don't think that they're possible with all non-believers and former believers. (I can't imagine a civil, substantive conversation with antishock8, for instance, or with Infymus, or with any of several others of that type.)