I’ve tried to articulate one particular problem I have with Mormonism, and it never seems to go over very well. The topic came up on one of my favorite blogs, Dando’s Mormon and Evangelical Conversations, and while discussing it (and being accused of spouting ridiculous nonsense), I decided to try explaining it using a strictly Mormon point of view, and I think I did a pretty good job (although nobody has responded to it, so I might be dead wrong):
Mormonism stresses the importance of gaining a testimony of critical principles of the Gospel, right? That testimony is theoretically gained by praying for a manifestation from the Holy Spirit of the truth of something.
Lets say I’ve read the Bible and I want to know if Jesus is really my savior. According to Mormonism, if I pray and ask God, he’ll tell me, and I’ll have a testimony of it, right? Now, that testimony is sufficient to infer the truth of the bible, because history places Jesus squarely in the middle of it. Sure, I could also pray to know that the Bible is true, but I don’t need to. Because if I know that Jesus is the Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost, the that means the New Testament must be true, and since the New Testament affirms the Old Testament on a number of occasions, I can also therefore infer that the Old Testament is true. I certainly don’t need to pray for a specific testimony based on a spiritual witness of each book of the Bible, each apostle, each epistle, and each prophet, do I? Again, I could if I wanted to, but it isn’t critical. If God has witnessed to me the truth of Jesus Christ’s divinity and mission, then the rest can be reasonably inferred.
But my testimony of Jesus Christ alone doesn’t let me reasonably infer the truth of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, or the Latter-Day church.
In order to know those things, I also have to pray to ask if either 1) the Book of Mormon is true or 2) Joseph smith was a prophet of God. Mormonism teaches that once I know either of those things, I can reasonably infer the rest: if I know that the Book of Mormon is true, then I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. If I know that, then I also know that the D&C and PoGP are true. I also know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is true, that the Priesthood was restored, and that the church is still led by a prophet, that the plan of salvation as laid out in the LDS church is true, that the Word of Wisdom is true, etc.
I can get individual spiritual confirmation of each of these if I want or if I’m having a particular struggle, but the standard answer is that I should be able to get a testimony of just the one thing (either the BoM or the First Vision) and reasonably infer the rest. Latter-day prophets have taught that, and the missionaries teach that all the time.
If all I had was a spiritual witness of Jesus Christ, I could in the same way infer the truth of the Bible and the Biblical prophets, and even reasonably infer the truth of the early Christian church, based on their historical connection to Jesus Christ, either before or after. A testimony of Jesus would be enough to let me be a faithful Protestan, Catholic, Orthodox Christian. But a testimony of Jesus alone isn’t enough to convince me of the truth of Mormonism.
To be a Mormon, I would at the very least need to get a separate testimony of The BoM or Joseph Smith. And I find that problematic because to me it places them on the same level as Jesus in terms of where our faith is placed.
What I find more problematic is that many Mormons don;t have a separate testimony of Jesus and BoM/JS, but that instead they begin with a testimony of the Book of Mormon or JS and infer the rest, including inferring the divinity of Jesus, the existence of God, and the truth (or at least general reliability) of the bible.
That means for many Mormons, the lynchpin of their faith is not Jesus Christ, but Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon. Either that or they have two equal lynchpins, only one of which is Jesus.
If your faith is built on anything but Jesus Christ, you have a house built on sand. I think that’s why it seems that most people who leave Mormonism become atheists: their faith was ultimately grounded in the Restoration, not in Jesus, and when they lost faith in the Restoration, they lost faith in everything.
Put in non-Mormon terms, one problem I have with Mormonism is that it requires separate and independent faith in something other than Jesus Christ. As a non-Mormon, I can begin with faith in Jesus Christ and then because of his place in the Biblical text and his context in history, I can infer pretty much the rest of Christianity, without having to exercise actual faith in anything else. But because the Book of Mormon and the latter-day Restoration occur outside of the continuity of Jesus’s historical and theological context, I actually have to at least exercise separate and independent faith in them, from which I can at least reasonably infer the rest of the truth of Mormonism.
Alternately, and this is the unfortunate path taken by all too many Mormons, I can ground my faith in the Restoration or the Book of Mormon and use that faith to infer Jesus’s divinity along with the rest of Mormonism.
Either way is troubling because it elevates something other than Jesus to at least the same level as Jesus, if not to a higher level, in terms of our framework of faith and belief. Essentially, in Sermon-on-the-Mount terms, that is building a house on sand instead of rock, and it’s why Mormons os often lose faith in everything when they lose faith in Mormonism. Their entire belief system was grounded in Joseph Smith and/or the Book of Mormon instead of in Jesus Christ.
Sailing to Byzantium 
I like the way you put it. “That means for many Mormons, the lynchpin of their faith is not Jesus Christ, but Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon. Either that or they have two equal lynchpins, only one of which is Jesus.”
A non-biased observer could also put it thusly:
That means for many sects of Christianity broken off from Catholicism, the lynchpin of their faith is not Jesus Christ, but their particular denominations founder or their favorite translation of the Bible. Either that or they have two equal lynchpins, only one of which is Jesus.
How quaint.
Hmm. That’s not really necessarily my experience in Protestantism, though. And Protestants aren’t encouraged to have faith in (or pray to know the truth of) Martin Luther or Jean Calvin. Certainly the analogy to Mormonism isn’t clear- Protestant denominations don’t put their founders in anywhere near the same theological position of prominence as Mormons put Joseph Smith.
On the other hand, I do think that Protestant Christianity is rife with Bibliodolatry, putting their faith in the Bible and inferring Jesus Christ instead of putting their faith in Jesus Christ himself.
Either way, the difference is that for Protestants, it’s a bad habit (or sin) that they often fall into. For Mormons, its a requirement of the religion.
As a non-Mormon, I can begin with faith in Jesus Christ and then because of his place in the Biblical text and his context in history, I can infer pretty much the rest of Christianity, without having to exercise actual faith in anything else.
I don’t see it as tidy as all that. First, it just doesn’t jive with reality to say that Christianity can be inferred from the Bible. There have been too many heresies come and gone whose only fault was losing a political war. Their positions where no less theologically valid than the current hodge podge of Christianity, the politically fittest survivors.
As an atheist looking from the outside, I don’t see much difference between a Mormon learning about Jesus from the BoM and finding faith and a Christian doing the same through the Bible. Each person will vary, but I’ve known some who read the BoM and thereby found faith in Jesus, independent of Joseph Smith. This is no different than reading the Bible and finding faith through that avenue. It takes faith to believe in the accuracy of either text because of the strong evidence to the contrary for either scripture.
How is it practically possible to have faith in Jesus without using the Bible or some other book as the linchpin of you faith? What do you first know about Jesus except what someone has told you?
The practical reason for faith in Joseph Smith is to have the person decide to be Mormon instead of some other denomination. You are currently trying to decide which denomination should be your home. Why is faith in Joseph Smith’s prophetic call less worthy a consideration in a person’s search for a church than the others you have been citing here?
I agree with your analysis of the foundations of Mormon belief. However, in my own case, I don’t remember specifically praying to know if Jesus was the Christ. That belief stemmed from my belief in and love of the Book of Mormon. Over time, I felt that conviction grow into a personal relationship with Christ.
I don’t think the strength of our “testimonies” necessarily depends on the way in which we acquire them. Strong convictions are cultivated over time.
I have left Mormonism and become an atheist. While your analysis may be true in some cases, I don’t think it describes me. I did feel a personal relationship with Christ at one time. For a long time after I had given up on Mormonism as exclusively true, I maintained my belief in Jesus.
I think the main reason that many ex-Mormons become atheists is that when we realize that one pillar of our faith is false, it leads us to skeptically examine the other pillar(s) as well. I ultimately applied the same critical thinking process to my faith in Christ. It was lack of evidence that led me to atheism, not lack of conviction.
I respect your decision to believe and enjoy reading about your journey. But I think we both realize that believing in Christ requires a leap of faith. You don’t need to have faith in spite of the evidence — as in Mormonism — but you need to have faith nonetheless.
I should qualify my last statement. While Jesus as a historical figure is more removed than Joseph Smith, many aspects of Christian theology do not seem to mesh well with the world as understood by science. An honest belief in Christ does not require one to ignore, whitewash or cover up history in contrast to Mormonism, which does. However, the belief in a personal God who intervenes in human affairs requires one to assume things about the world that are not supported by science.
That is why I am an atheist.
Hi, Eric. I respect your journey, and appreciate the skepticism you bring. We should all think critically of our beliefs. I wish more people did this.
I’m not sure if you mean that science is the ultimate arbitor of what is knowable, or if you just mean there are specific claims the Bible makes that you don’t see evidence for.
If the former, I’d ask is this statement that all things knowable must be testable by science itself testable by science? If you mean that there are specific claims of the Bible you find aren’t supported by evidence I can point you to evidence for them if you are interested.
if I pray and ask God, he’ll tell me, and I’ll have a testimony of it, right?
Actually this is the root assumption or lynchpin.
If you believe that spiritual witness trumps real-world evidence in terms of discovering what is true and real, then prayer might lead you to have faith that Jesus or Mohammed or Krishna or any number of other figures were inspired by God. If by contrast you insist upon evidence, you will not have faith in any of them.
If you think that basing one’s on Joseph Smith instead of on Jesus is the reason for the number of exmo atheists, then how do you explain all of the ex-Christian atheists? You seem to be suggesting that ex-Mormon atheists are more common than ex-Christian atheists (proportionally to the total number of Mormons vs. the total number of Christians). That may well be true, but I’ve never seen any data to back it up.
Let’s suppose it’s true that among atheists ex-Mormons are disproportionately represented (that is to say, let’s suppose that ex-Mormons are far more more common among atheists than Mormons are in the general population; or that a Mormon has a higher probability of ending up atheist than a Christain does). This has not been statistically demonstrated, but let’s suppose it’s true. There can be any number of explanations for it: (1) Mormonism is currently losing members faster than other sects, and more deconversions leads to more atheists (2) Mormons may have a higher average level of education than the general population; atheism is correlated with education (3) founder’s effect: Mormons and ex-Mormons communicate with one another through various channels and some exmo atheists are influencing other wavering and ex-Mormons (4) something else (5) all of the above.
Haha,
I have to agree with CL Hanson here. Of course, I agree with Kullervo’s analysis of the situation *given* the validity of the prayer-testimony, but the assumption that prayer and subsequent spiritual feelings are to be trusted or elevated over other evidences is indeed the first assumption of Mormonism in these terms.
…the assumption that prayer and subsequent spiritual feelings are to be trusted or elevated over other evidences is indeed the first assumption of Mormonism in these terms.
Honest question: what then is the basis of Christian faith if not spiritual feelings?
The only reason I phrased in in terms of testimony is that I’m trying to appeal to a Mormon audience.
Jonathan, don’t be too quick to accept the Mormon version of early Christian history. I’m no expert, but I’ve been led to understand that the early councils were much more unanimous than the Mormon version of the Great Apostasy would have you believe. Ask an Orthodox Christian about how much is known about early Christian tradition sometime.
As far as your honest question goes, I can’t answer for other people and I’m still trying to get things figured out myself, but I do understand that the testimony-based-on-spiritual-feelings of Mormonism is not regarded highly in the rest of Christendom as a reliable basis for faith.
“You seem to be suggesting that ex-Mormon atheists are more common than ex-Christian atheists”
I am suggesting no such thing.
What I am saying is that it seems to me that ex-Mormons are more likely to become atheists than they are to remain/become Christians.
I highly doubt that ex-Mormon atheists are more common than ex-Christian atheists. Since the rest of Christianity outnumbers Mormonism by probably at least a factor of a hundred, I think it would be highly unlikely.
Jonathan, don’t be too quick to accept the Mormon version of early Christian history. I’m no expert, but I’ve been led to understand that the early councils were much more unanimous than the Mormon version of the Great Apostasy would have you believe. Ask an Orthodox Christian about how much is known about early Christian tradition sometime.
Actually I’m basing my statements not from a Mormon understanding but from the Byzantine history that I studied in an honors seminar given by a charming British professor who pronounced it BAI-zan-tine the whole semester. Christian history is littered with heresies. Not all of these heresies centered around niceties of Christology. If the political situation surrounding those heresies had been different, Christianity might look quite different today. To characterize the course of Christian doctrine through history as straightforward is to ignore the facts of that history.
A heresy always started with a disagreement in the Christian community. Eventually one or the other side would win out and become established as the orthodoxy. The one common denominator among all of those who won their battles wasn’t an inherently better theological position but rather who had more political power. The shape of modern Christianity, including the Eastern Orthodoxy, was formed in large part by politics.
The Gnostic Christian tradition, for example, has been largely lost to us because it was a minority sect. The Gospel of St. John (one of my favorite books in the Bible) barely made it into the biblical canon because it was suspected to have been written by a Gnostic author. Is modern Christianity more valid because Gnosticism had fewer adherents?
I suppose you could believe that God has been guiding the political landscape through history, but it seems an awkward, roundabout way to get there. If I assume this to be true, he seems to be trying very hard to make the Bible difficult to accept for those who study its history.
I do understand that the testimony-based-on-spiritual-feelings of Mormonism is not regarded highly in the rest of Christendom as a reliable basis for faith.
I know that there have been efforts to find rational reasons for belief in God, but most of these historical efforts were abandoned. Many of those who tried realized that the arguments don’t hold up. The Eastern tradition in fact seems to prefer to couch God in paradox. Any definite statements about God are bound to be wrong. God, for them, can only be found therefore in paradox.
Anyway, I’m honestly left wondering what’s left if not rationality or emotion?
I don’t necessarily believe that science is the ultimate arbiter of what is knowable. It is entirely possible that God could make himself known to me in a dream or vision, and for this revelation to be “true” absolutely. However, given humanity’s history with dreams and visions, it is not very likely.
The problem is, once we start claiming that one person’s spiritual worldview is valid, how do we demonstrate that all conflicting worldviews are not? They all rely on many of the same assumptions, and each is subjectively perceived by its adherents as being absolutely true.
In my comments on belief above, I wasn’t referring to strict fundamentalist adherence to the Bible. Certain Biblical teachings — young-earth creationism, Adam and Eve as our first parents, a global Flood, the ages of the patriarchs, etc. — are demonstrably false. If being a Christian required accepting these teachings, then there would be very few Christian scientists (lower-case!).
I think there is a middle ground which accepts the Bible as (mostly) inspired and Jesus as divine, that uses the Bible for moral instruction while glossing over the more immoral aspects. This is what I referred to by “an honest belief in Christ.” I may not agree, but I acknowledge that this is a rational possibility for some people.
Based on my discussions with other Christian friends, I agree with Kullervo that most Christians (in stark contrast to Mormons) do not regard feelings alone as reliable evidence. For most Christians, it seems that the Bible is the foundational authority. But how do you maintain faith in the infallibility of the Bible when many of its claims about the natural world have been proven false? If what the Bible says about Adam and Eve is false, how can I trust what it says about the divinity of Jesus?
Ultimately, though, it is the utter lack of evidence for a caring, intervening God that decided me. I could accept the Book of Mormon, Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita and Urantia Book as myths but still believe in God if I saw his fingerprint in the natural world. But I do not. What I see, instead, is a vast, incredible cosmos and a rich, evolving biosphere governed by the laws of physics and the process of natural selection.
If there is in fact a Master Designer, he has kept himself well hidden. This does not sound like the compassionate God of the New Testament, and even less like the angry, vindictive God of the Old Testment.
I highly doubt that ex-Mormon atheists are more common than ex-Christian atheists. Since the rest of Christianity outnumbers Mormonism by probably at least a factor of a hundred, I think it would be highly unlikely.
I think C. L. Hanson was questioning whether there are disproportionately many ex-Mormon atheists in the atheist community, given the relative numbers of Mormons to all other faiths.
It would be interesting to find out if ex-Mormons tend to become agnostics or atheists more often than Christians. If that is true, one factor might be that many Mormons don’t have good friendships with other Christians. Another is probably that many of those who leave Mormonism only find a reason to do so once they have also lost faith in God. In other words, most ex-Mormons aren’t attracted to other Christian faiths. It takes a real crisis of faith to dislodge Mormons from Mormonism. Many Mormons are also ignorant of the larger world of Christianity. They may not realize what it has to offer them.
Even if what you suspect is true (it seems that way to me, too), I don’t think we can immediately conclude that it is because Mormons lack faith in Christ. That’s a pretty prejudicial conclusion.
Sorry for the comment spam, but I just realized how ambiguous my statement was, and I don’t want to fall back into confusion.
It would be interesting to find out if ex-Mormons tend to become agnostics or atheists more often than ex-Mormons become Christians.
Check this link from my site. It fits the topic.
http://ldstalk.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/joseph-saved-me-from-getting-hung-up-on-christ/
To answer Jonathan’s question, I think evidence is a completely valid way to find Christ. I’d recommend “Reasonable Faith” by William Lane Craig.
To answer Jonathan’s question, I think evidence is a completely valid way to find Christ. I’d recommend “Reasonable Faith” by William Lane Craig.
Mormons and mainstream Christians seem to use evidence similarly. Mormons do talk a lot about the sufficiency of a spiritual witness, but the truth is that many Mormons (if my experience isn’t rare) also rely on evidence to bolster faith.
I haven’t read Christian apologetics extensively, but from what I’ve seen, the average Mormon or Christian uses selected evidence to create a space for faith. They don’t use evidence like scientists who theoretically take all evidence into account before making judgment. Mormons/Christians find lit bits of evidence that allows them to say “Well maybe faith in X isn’t so crazy after all.” I, for example, didn’t start to believe in Mormonism until I read a book by Hugh Nibley, a Mormon apologist, that gave me enough evidence that I could begin to suspend my disbelief. Selective awareness of evidence thereafter leads the believer to incorrectly see their beliefs as strongly supported by evidence when the evidence is actually inconclusive at best.
Perhaps some Christians are not characterized by this, but my personal experience with Christians in life has led me to believe that most Christians and Mormons are.
To be honest, it seems like there’s a lot of sibling rivalry between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity. They’re both more similar than either wants to admit. They’re fighting a turf war over who gets to claim to be the true Christianity. For me, the distinction has little significant difference behind it.
I’ve noticed that we in the ex-Mormon club are probably too harsh in our criticism of Mormonism. Many of us pay a high price to join the club and we need to justify the price we paid. We justify our membership in the club by painting an overly negative picture of Mormonism. Don’t get me wrong. Mormonism deserves a lot of criticism, but to be intellectually honest we need to carefully avoid being too liberal with our criticism.
Eric, thanks for sharing your point of view on this. From your perspective as a geologist, I appreciate that you reject a young earth, as do I. For the record, the age of the earth is not in the Bible, and the minority of Christians who reject science and geology are not representative of all of Christiandom.
For the marks of God on creation I see his fingerprints every day in things like joy, color, beauty, intimacy, relationship, goodness, seasons, animal life, children, math, music, and many others. God as a designer is a relatively new way of conceiving of him. For most of history people have conceived of him as artist, author, ruler. In reality he is something utterly different from all these; he is God.
As for the central claim of Jesus, it is the resurrection. Everything rests on this. I do not think being a follower of Jesus means we reject our reason. On the contrary we should expect to have to engage our mind to the utmost as we are dealing with the most intelligent person in history. Jesus’ way is simple, but immensely profound.
Aaron,
I greatly appreciate your perspective. Seeing God in love, beauty and goodness is the most healthy of way of conceiving of him. It reminds me of the words of Jean Valjean in Les Miserables: “To love another person is to see the face of God.”
I agree that the resurrection is one of the most beautiful, hopeful teachings of Christianity (and Mormonism). But beauty is not a sufficient reason to believe something is true. It is impossible to prove the historicity of something that happened so long ago and was (apparently) witnessed by so few people. And I can’t bring myself to believe the inerrancy of the Bible, for the reasons described above. So, barring additional evidence, I don’t find the arguments for Christianity compelling.
It has taken Christianity almost 2,000 years to begin to shed its fundamentalist, antiscientific beginnings and move towards the more open-minded approach you describe. This did not happen until science and medicine began to question the infallibility of the Church. If God really does want us to know the truth (John 8:32), why didn’t he insert a few laws of physics into the Torah or the epistles of Paul?
This is a rhetorical question, of course. Don’t think that because I’m questioning your beliefs I don’t respect them. A few years ago, I would have agreed with you. Ultimately, I think agreement is impossible because of the different emphasis we place on the means of verifying truth.
Thank you for your insights and for getting me to think more deeply about my own beliefs.
Sorry for the extra emphasis on my last comment. Careless HTML has a way of coming back to haunt you… 🙂
No problem; I fixed it.
But beauty is not a sufficient reason to believe something is true. It is impossible to prove the historicity of something that happened so long ago and was (apparently) witnessed by so few people.
It’s impossible to PROVE the historicity of anything (Washington crossing the Delaware for example). What we need to seek is not 100% proof but reliable evidence. I believe that evidence for the resurrection is there for anyone who want to investigate it.
Eric, you should consider the book The Historical Jesus by Gary Habermas. He takes a look at the evidence for the resurrection without assuming the Bible is infallible.
For me, I find it immensely compelling that we have sections of scripture including 1 Cor 15: 3-5 which contain the resurrection and date to within 3 – 6 years of the event.
Dando and Aaron,
I will admit that someone setting out to find reason to believe in Jesus can find scraps of evidence here and there. Put together, this evidence will comfort the believer and sooth the pain of cognitive dissonance, allowing them to discount contradictory evidence. It adds an air of truthiness to their cherished beliefs, and they will be content to continue life as it was.
But this is apologetics, not scholarship. If you’re impressed with Habermas (no, I haven’t read it), you should really try Nibley. He does an excellent job giving Mormonism a scholarly respectability. Many obscure sources cited and tapestries of evidence woven. But again, it isn’t real scholarship if you are trying to justify your preconceived notions.
If you’re loyal to the truth, you must first shed your attachment to your own beliefs:
Thank you for the reference, Aaron. It looks interesting, and I have added it to my (rapidly growing) wish list on Amazon.com.
Like Jonathan, I relied heavily on Hugh Nibley growing up for my testimony of Mormonism. I read Lehi in the Desert at 15 and was hooked. I think that having Nibley in my early years made me rely more on evidence than I would otherwise have done, something which proved disastrous for my faith later on.
If you are interested in an alternative presentation of history, you may enjoy Doubt: A History by Jennifer Michael Hecht. The book is ambitious but even-handed and places Jesus in the context of the world’s great doubters, from Socrates to the present.
I’ve read Nibley. He’s nothing like Craig and Habermas. I think you make a mistake to assume that sense you’ve been duped by one faithful scholar, that all faithful scholars are dopes.
I love that quote by the way. I think that’s an ethic I’ve taken to my faith.
I’ll take your word on Craig and Habermas. Right now I’m feeling burnt out on apologetics. I feel like I’ve spent most of the first part of my life under its sway. I’m loath to devote much of the second part of my life to it. Yes, anyone using the Shroud of Turin as evidence for the resurrection (in the case of Habermas) is an apologist. The evidence for the shroud is at best inconclusive.
I agree that not all faithful scholars are untrustworthy. One example from Mormonism is Richard Bushman, author of Rough Stone Rolling. That particular book is not an apologetic work.
I applaud your desire to follow the evidence wherever it leads. A good test of your devotion is to ask yourself if you would give equal credence to an apologist for Islam, for example. If someone was putting together evidence that the angel Gabriel actually visited Muhammad or that he flew to Jerusalem on a winged horse, would you truly heed him as much as Habermas?
Thanks for the book recommendation, and I’ve done the same. I hope to read the book sometime this year.
Thanks for sharing about your experiences with Nibley. I can understand how having relied on him would color all your views of biblical scholarship. I hope that as you heal from that you’ll consider other evidence for faith in Jesus.
A very interesting post, I think I need to read it again.
Thanks, TT.
Toward the middle of the comments there was a brief discussion of whether Mormons might be disproportionately represented among the ranks of atheists (for example, Mormons make up about 2% of the U.S. population, but maybe 5% of atheists). I don’t know whether that’s true or not. I doubt that it is. But it’s an interesting idea. C.L. Hanson brought up some interesting reasons why it might be the case.
As a sociologist of religion, I’m always sensitive to the fact that religion isn’t just about intellectual and spiritual pursuits, but that it is intensely social, has tremendous social motivations and social implications. It IS true that Mormons are more likely than any others to become irreligious (note that this is different from atheist). An in-depth study of religious switching published by a sociologist friend of mine showed this to be the case. A sociological explanation is that Mormonism is a “quasi-ethnic” faith, like Catholicism, Judaism, and Lutheranism in some parts. It is more than a religion for Sundays, it’s an entire cultural system with tremendous social implications. Leaving Mormonism, then, carries with it a significant social price, and many find it easier to leave religion altogether rather than join another church. I do believe that this is a major reason. I also believe that people come up with intellectual and spiritual reasons to help explain the social ones. I don’t doubt that the intellectual and spiritual ones are important – they were extremely important to me – just don’t underestimate the social ones.
Here’s a personal hypothesis. Mormonism is like Christianity version 1.5 (Protestant reformation-based denominations would be 1.2, 1.3 and so on). Mormonism is like Christianity Plus, Christianity on steroids. And while I don’t believe in the Mormon message anymore, I nonetheless find the rest of Christianity bland and uninteresting, really incomplete. Let’s face it – Mormonism is theologically rich and fascinating, close to Universalism in its view of the afterlife, thorough in its vision of eventual fairness to all, and compelling in its promise of godhood. Let me repeat lest you think me an apologist: I am a non-believer. But as far as theology goes, Mormons have it pretty good. Thinking about joining another Christian church after leaving Mormonism is like trying store-brand white bread after coming from an artisan bakery.
Kullervo, I mean no disrespect for your sampling of Episcopalianism. You need to find your own religious home. I’m speaking generally about why Mormons might have a hard time with other churches after leaving.
Keep in mind that I’m not sold on Christianity myself. But… honestly–and I’m going to put it pretty bluntly, so apologies in advance if I offend–the reason why the rest of Christianity is bland to you is probably because you don’t actually know anything about it at all.
I’m going to assume you grew up Mormon, or if you were a convert that you didn’t have that deep of a relationship with Christianity before being baptized Mormon. If so, your perception of Christianity at large is probably tainted heavily by Mormonism’s disdain for it. Mormonism sets up a neat straw man to represent the rest of the Christian world, but what that means is that Mormonism is still trying to have a debate with nineteenth century frontier Presbyterianism, Baptism, and Methodism. And even those weren;t a very good representation of all that Christianity has to offer.
Christianity has 2,000 years of richness to its theology and practice. I promise you there’s a lot more to it than you realize. It’s not store-brand white bread; it’s the whole bakery.
Mormon theology is honestly pretty shallow. It answers the deep theological questions of nineteenth-century frontier revival protestants in fantastical ways, and that all sounds good and cool. But all of those doctrinal “revelations” lead down some strange paths if taken to their logical conclusion.
Seriously, if you think two hundred years of Church-hierarchy-monopolized Mormon theology can hold its own against two thousand years of diverse and rich Christianity, you simply don’t know the players as well as you think you do. At best you’re thinking of Mormonism’s straw man, and filtering everything you learn about or encounter from non-Mormons through Mormonism’s disdainful lens.
Seriously, have you read Karl Barth? Have you read Dietrich Bonhoeffer? G. K. Chesterton? Origen? St. Augustine? Thomas Aquinas? Thomas à Kempis? John Calvin? George Fox? Charles and John Wesley? Charles Spurgeon? Niebuhr? N. T. Wright? Athanasius? John Chrysostom? Brian McLaren? Simone Weil? Jonathan Edwards? Arminius? Hans Küng?
There’s nearly two millenina’s worth of Christian theology, from a staggering array of viewpoints, philosophical stances, cultural frameworks, worldviews, and religious denominations. Mormonism’s got nothing. It’s sound and fury signifying nothing.
You’ve matched my exaggerations with your own. And thanks for saying I know nothing about Christianity (that’s sarcasm). So you’ve turned against Mormonism, too! So many of the ex-LDS, post-LDS, leaving LDS bloggers I see are so incredibly negative about the church and so amazingly critical. Not to mention bitter. I really get tired of it. I see it in you now, too, and it makes me sad. I just have better things to do then be bitter and nasty about the church.
Look, I can appreciate Mormonism even though I don’t buy into it. I do think Mormon theology is rich and interesting. I just think that after the last section of D & C was recorded there hasn’t been much since, and the current environment of the church is incredibly conservative and unimaginative. But the original stuff was pretty creative and pretty rich.
I really appreciate you assuming that I know nothing about Christianity because I happen to find Mormon theology rich (sarcasm again). And you said I am “filtering everything you learn about or encounter from non-Mormons through Mormonism’s disdainful lens.” Um, didn’t I tell you that I am I non-believer? What part of that don’t you understand? Didn’t I tell you in another comment elsewhere on your blog that I am still drawn to Christianity? Why can’t I express an opinion without being called an idiot?
I was excited to come across your blog given our similar situations, but I was disappointed by the reception I got.
Admittedly, my last comment was harsh and probably uncalled for. I just get tired of coming across blogs that I think I’ll be really interested in given my own situation, and then just finding that there just venues for bitter rants against the church.
Maybe it’s because my wife is still active, maybe it’s because I’m actually mostly thankful for my LDS upbringing, maybe it’s because I don’t want to think that my life has been a waste, or maybe it’s because ultimately I’m just agnostic, but I continue to be convinced that the church, like any other church, has both its good and bad, and that to slam it and slam it is too self-serving and simplistic. Likewise, defending it blindly and without attention to the facts is also too self-serving and simplistic.
I do hope that somehow you (and myself, too) can have a measure of admiration and respect for the church and those who sincerely try to live by its teachings. I know too many good people in the church to do otherwise.
Trying to articulate my problems with the Church is being bitter and nasty? Of course I’m upset and frustrated. It’s ridiculous to expect people to just walk away from the church with a smile, especially when they’ve invested so much of their lives into it.
Yeah, there is some good in the Church, but there’s a lot of bad. Ultimately, I think that if the Church isn’t true, then on the whole it is more bad than good, because of the level of control it exerts, the level of commitment it demands, and the false premises that those demands are based on.
And you don’t have to still be a believer to remain tainted by Mormon ways of thinking. Mormonism is an entire worldview, and saying “I don’t believe it anymore” doesn’t just make that go away.
I know a lot of people are happy in the Church, most of my extended family included. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to feel what I feel and think what I think, especially here on this blog.
I will remind you that although I have made this blog public, it is not a public forum. This is where I put my thoughts into words and keep a record of them. Generally, I like feedback from other people, and thus the public accessibility and the open comments.
But this isn’t a discourse, or an ongoing conversation with anyone but myself. I have no need to be civil here–that’s the whole point.
If you want dialogue and conversation and give-and-take, I advise you to go over to http://ldstalk.wordpress.org . It’s a great blog where the whole purpose is to discuss Mormonism and Christianity from multiple viewpoints. Your input would probably be very valued there.
If you are interested in continuing to read my blog you are free to do so. However, if you intend to continue commenting, I would advise you to read all of the “About” pages, and keep the blog’s purpose in mind. I have absolutely no qualms about deleting comments and blocking commenters when they do not further those purposes.
Furthermore, I would ask that you respond to particular comments or posts in that post, instead of aggregating everything in one comment. It’s just confusing.
Stephen Merino,
I compare the bitterness and anger that you see are the birthing pangs of a new person. To confuse the metaphor, it’s like when you’re a teenager and you start asserting your individuality apart from your parents. This individuation sometimes manifests itself as anger, but this anger is part of the natural order of things. It helps us to create our individuality by breaking with the old. The same with Mormonism.
Some of us go through an angry stage that helps us leave Mormonism behind. Some of the bitterness that you saw on my blog recently was temporary. Maybe we will see Mormonism with a more temperate attitude in the future, but to refuse to be angry about the bad things in Mormonism (when that’s what we feel) will only delay the maturation of a post-Mormon person.
I just hope that I don’t get obsessed and intoxicated with my anger. I hope that Mormonism (the bad parts of it anyway) can play an increasingly insignificant part in my life.
“Because if I know that Jesus is the Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost, the that means the New Testament must be true, and since the New Testament affirms the Old Testament on a number of occasions, I can also therefore infer that the Old Testament is true.”
This doesn’t follow for me. (I’m an ex-Christian, now a Unitarian with some fairly hard-to-summarize beliefs.) Try to apply the same logic to a non-religious situation: I read a biography of an admirable secular person — Abe Lincoln, say. Enough Lincoln’s character shows through that I “get” Lincoln. I understand what he was about and can imagine what he would say in current situations. Does that mean that the biographer had everything 100% right? Of course not. And if the biographer referenced some other book, that book might not be 100% right either.
What I’m trying to say is that when you look at the experience that the phrase “Jesus is the Christ” refers to — a powerful presence in your life today — you really can’t infer much from it. It is what it is. It means there is SOME truth in the Bible. But it really doesn’t follow that the New Testament is a revelation from God. Much less the Old Testament.