Why do LDS more likely to become atheist after losing faith

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

Firstly -The all or nothingness we teach, sets up the fall. If the Mormon Version isn’t than how can any other version be viable. Plus Science wins so often its safer when the religious is nebulous. If the leadership had chosen to build our spiritual scaffolding on the idea of “finding truth from any source” – Ala Joseph Smith, many of us would have had a wider net of belief, and the crash of conviction may not have been so steep..

amateurparent wrote:

As a people we were taught that JS was told none of the existing churches were correct. A new true church had to be brought forth. When someone decides the the LDS church isn’t true, they tend to keep their bias against other churches.

Sadly, to completely leave religion is somehow more acceptable in LDS culture than to attend another denomination. Even TR interview questions are set up to allow non-attendance more than attendance with “the competition”

+1

[Anonymous]

I can only talk about my own experiences as a former believer and current Atheist.

For starters, I do want to point out that while Atheists and Agnostics are often mentioned in the same breath, the difference between the two is substantial. It’s not like the difference between LDS and RLDS beliefs; they aren’t simply two variants of the same concept. Atheists have a very specific, definable, and active belief. Agnostics do not. It’s always discouraging to me to hear someone associate Atheism with a person who “doesn’t believe”. Not believing is an Agnostic thing. Atheists do believe, it’s just that what they believe is different from what others believe. I don’t like terms like “skeptic” “doubt” or “non-believer” because these are all trying to define Atheism by comparison to what it is not.

When I had my faith crisis, it was like the wind got knocked out of me. It wasn’t a matter of changing perspective; it was a new and frightening horizon. I thought briefly about finding a Chistian church to belong to, but it couldn’t be. In that case, I think that the teachings of the Church had been pretty well cemented: that there was no church other than the LDS Church that could be seen as God’s Church. What my FC added was the phrase, “and not the LDS Church, either.”

So, I made a go of being a Christian without a congregation. But that’s tough because the pull of organized religion (and in this case, I don’t use that term disparagingly) was missing.

For me, spirituality had been sucked out of the equation and religion became a fact-finding mission. I wish it had gone in another direction. Had spirituality been the goal, rather than truth, I could have found my way in Christianity, I’m sure. But I felt burned by belief in my religious traditions, and it was impossible to find something else without being skeptical. In all, I think that once the bottom dropped out, there was no logical settling place until I had hit the end of the road: Atheism.

Now, I find myself still connected to my organized religion, but am an Atheist in terms of belief. Spiritually, I’ve been able to carve out a niche on the face of this cliff. But it’s a bit of a hermit lifestyle, because I’m an outlier both Mormonism and Atheism.

[Anonymous]

Thanks OON. I was actually hoping you would weigh in. I think I get some of what you are saying. I am trying to stay a Christian. We will see if I go for spirituality vs truth. Thanks

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

I am trying to stay a Christian. We will see if I go for spirituality vs truth…

I don’t know that it needs to be a question of either truth or spirituality. To me it looks like the actual truth is that any specific beliefs regarding whether God exists or not are nothing more than a guess at this point. Also, it seems like faith, hope, and charity will typically work just as well in practice regardless of whether the other associated religious beliefs of whatever sect are true or false. For example, I have heard some Christians apply some variation of Pascal’s wager and basically say that even if they are wrong and it turns out that this life is all there is it still would have been worth it to live their life as a believer because they felt like that was already its own reward here and now.

Sure Pascal’s wager is an oversimplification but personally I think Pascal had the right idea as far as openly facing what he saw as the most likely possibilities and considering whether he could live with the consequences if it turned out he was wrong in each case. I think this is one weakness of the Church as far as trying to defend it against whatever relative appeal secularism has; basically it seems like most Church members and leaders typically only seriously consider one possibility as acceptable and repeatedly tell themselves this is true no matter what so it’s like they are putting all of their eggs in one basket only to get crushed by the first real challenge instead of recognizing the leaps of faith involved in different doctrines and policies and evaluating whether they are reasonable assumptions to make or too much to ask for as far as many people are concerned nowadays.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

LookingHard wrote:

I am trying to stay a Christian. We will see if I go for spirituality vs truth…

I don’t know that it needs to be a question of either truth or spirituality. To me it looks like the actual truth is that any specific beliefs regarding whether God exists or not are nothing more than a guess at this point. Also, it seems like faith, hope, and charity will typically work just as well in practice regardless of whether the other associated religious beliefs of whatever sect are true or false. For example, I have heard some Christians apply some variation of Pascal’s wager and basically say that even if they are wrong and it turns out that this life is all there is it still would have been worth it to live their life as a believer because they felt like that was already its own reward here and now.

Sure Pascal’s wager is an oversimplification but personally I think Pascal had the right idea as far as openly facing what he saw as the most likely possibilities and considering whether he could live with the consequences if it turned out he was wrong in each case. I think this is one weakness of the Church as far as trying to defend it against whatever relative appeal secularism has; basically it seems like most Church members and leaders typically only seriously consider one possibility as acceptable and repeatedly tell themselves this is true no matter what so it’s like they are putting all of their eggs in one basket only to get crushed by the first real challenge instead of recognizing the leaps of faith involved in different doctrines and policies and evaluating whether they are reasonable assumptions to make or too much to ask for as far as many people are concerned nowadays.

That isn’t far from a bit how I am feeling. Thanks for the comments.

[Anonymous]

For me, I would find it hard to belong to any other religion whole-heartedly. This one seemed to make so much sense, and hold so much promise..and now that it has proven so far short of expectations, I don’t see any other religion working for me. I get more support being less active than I would being a Buddhist, from my family as well. If I went off into another religion, it could mean the end of my family.

Also, the experience has left the idea of dedicating my time to a legal entity that is religious has me skittish. Not only do you have to worry about your own rigtheousness and development, you have another layer of imperatives imposed by men. And then, there is the drudgery of the organization’s policies that can interfere with your own personal growth, as it has mine, as well as their expectation that you serve in positions for which you have no passion any longer, over and over and over again.

I feel it’s better to have your own personal philosophy and then go about doing good whereever such good is needed. For me, starting my own entity (non-profit, non-religious, but service oriented) where I can express my talents and grow at the same time is very engaging. And if something’s not right I have no one to blame but myself because I set up the big structure for it.

And by the way, that is going very well right now. I have finally found where I belong spiritually — as a visionary and doer for a little non-profit meant to give real-world experience to high performing career changers, while serving blighted communities at the same time. I am growing in leaps and bounds, and although there are frustrations, I am happier than in any other organization to which I have belonged. Not possible in the church where the existing hierarchy dictates so much of what you can, and cannot do with your service hours.

[Anonymous]

What I hate is the way the church lumps all doubts together. Doubting the existence of a loving God or supreme

organizing force is on a level with doubting that John the Baptist and Peter, James and John literally returned to earth and conferred the priesthood. Or the existence of Nephites, or the angel with drawn sword. Do other religions do this today? Insist on bundling all products together? We’re not allowed to lose faith in restoration claims and openly remain in good standing while we see what’s left of our faith in God.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I feel it’s better to have your own personal philosophy and then go about doing good whereever such good is needed. For me, starting my own entity (non-profit, non-religious, but service oriented) where I can express my talents and grow at the same time is very engaging.

I totally agree with SD on this! +1

I would be happy being an atheist if I had friends and groups that got together as atheists and we all did good work for humanity together, made our community a better place. Just as I would be happy in those terms as muslim, buddhist, or another christian faith.

I don’t think I would be non-spiritual.

I just would find a good story that helps me feel the rapture of being alive, and go experience it.

Quote:

People say that what we’re all seeking is a meaning for life. I don’t think that’s what we’re really seeking. I think what we’re seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonance within our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive. That’s what it’s all finally about…

Joseph Campbell

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

What I hate is the way the church lumps all doubts together. Doubting the existence of a loving God or supreme

organizing force is on a level with doubting that John the Baptist and Peter, James and John literally returned to earth and conferred the priesthood. Or the existence of Nephites, or the angel with drawn sword. Do other religions do this today? Insist on bundling all products together? We’re not allowed to lose faith in restoration claims and openly remain in good standing while we see what’s left of our faith in God.

Agreed. I am finding the more I study it hard to figure out what the church’s position/doctrine is to start out with. This reminds me of this great talk that was given. I wish this could be given in general conference.

http://rationalfaiths.com/you-belong/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://rationalfaiths.com/you-belong/

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

Ann wrote:

What I hate is the way the church lumps all doubts together. Doubting the existence of a loving God or supreme

organizing force is on a level with doubting that John the Baptist and Peter, James and John literally returned to earth and conferred the priesthood. Or the existence of Nephites, or the angel with drawn sword. Do other religions do this today? Insist on bundling all products together? We’re not allowed to lose faith in restoration claims and openly remain in good standing while we see what’s left of our faith in God.

Agreed. I am finding the more I study it hard to figure out what the church’s position/doctrine is to start out with. This reminds me of this great talk that was given. I wish this could be given in general conference.

http://rationalfaiths.com/you-belong/” class=”bbcode_url”>http://rationalfaiths.com/you-belong/

Thanks for sharing that talk LH.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

I do want to point out that while Atheists and Agnostics are often mentioned in the same breath, the difference between the two is substantial. It’s not like the difference between LDS and RLDS beliefs; they aren’t simply two variants of the same concept. Atheists have a very specific, definable, and active belief. Agnostics do not. It’s always discouraging to me to hear someone associate Atheism with a person who “doesn’t believe”. Not believing is an Agnostic thing. Atheists do believe, it’s just that what they believe is different from what others believe. I don’t like terms like “skeptic” “doubt” or “non-believer” because these are all trying to define Atheism by comparison to what it is not.

Good point about the differences between Atheists and Agnostics. I’d never really thought about it this way. I consider myself to be Agnostic (at least at the moment). For me, belief is a spectrum with Belief in God on one end and Atheism on the other end. Agnostics lie somewhere in the middle.

Belief in God <

---

Agnostic

---

> Atheist

Does anyone else see this differently? I’d like to see a place in Mormonism for anyone along this spectrum. But it certainly is harder the closer you move toward the Atheist end of the spectrum.

[Anonymous]

Here’s how I see it:

Belief in God <

---

> Atheist

---

Agnostic

---

If the scale at the top is a belief scale, then Agnosticism doesn’t fit on it anywhere.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

Here’s how I see it:

Belief in God <

---

> Atheist

---

Agnostic

---

If the scale at the top is a belief scale, then Agnosticism doesn’t fit on it anywhere.

Hmm. I always understood it to be that agnostic was more “I don’t know if God does or does not.” It sounds like you think the Belief in God / Atheist scale to be more of a binary – you are one or another.

I do get that Belief in God is a Belief, well – in God, and Atheism is Belief that there is NOT a God. I have generally put Agnostics as those that believe it is impossible to know.

Interesting.

So where would you consider someone taking Pascal’s wager?

[Anonymous]

My only point is that Agnosticism isn’t some sort of mythical half-way point between believing that there God and believing there is no God. You’re right that the way I talked about it above is a discreet (and binary) scale.

Really, an analog scale should probably be represented this way:

Belief <

---

> Agnosticism

Where belief could be either in God or in no God (Atheism). The opposite of belief/knowledge (gnosis) is the lack of belief/knowledge (agnosis).

Parenthetically, because I’m a geek about that kind of stuff, I’ve always enjoyed how GNO from gnosis has worked it’s way into later languages…GNO… COGNOSCERE (Latin)… KNOW (English, but try it the old school way of pronouncing the ‘k’)… CONOCER (Spanish)… CONNAITRE (French)… CONOSCERE (Italian).

LookingHard wrote:

So where would you consider someone taking Pascal’s wager?

With Agnostics. Pascal’s Wager is fundamentally flawed in my mind because it suggests that a person should live a godly life in case there is a God. My approach is that it’s even more powerful to try to live a godly life with neither the expectation nor the hope of reward. I’m choosing it entirely of my own volition not out of fear that someone might be watching me.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

My only point is that Agnosticism isn’t some sort of mythical half-way point between believing that there God and believing there is no God. You’re right that the way I talked about it above is a discreet (and binary) scale.

Really, an analog scale should probably be represented this way:

Belief <

---

> Agnosticism

Where belief could be either in God or in no God (Atheism). The opposite of belief/knowledge (gnosis) is the lack of belief/knowledge (agnosis).

That makes sense. Using my definition of “know,” I know virtually nothing. I’m very comfortable with that, but not in this church. I’m reading a book I found on the bargain table called, “Must a Jew Believe Anything?” I think it’s going to address some of the pitfalls of agnosticism.

[Author]

Posts