Everyone Has Faith; That is the Only Option

[Morley]

As I've talked to people leaving the church over the years, there are lots of reasons people leave the church, but I've found two that are almost completely consistent. One of those is a poor understanding of what faith actually is. How it applies in their life, and what it looks like to have faith.

John, please drop the other shoe.

[JohnW]

I appreciate that. I understand that some people have a great draw to what they consider spiritual experiences. I guess my question centers on two things. How do you know those experiences are divine? If not do you care if they are?

How do I know? Frankly I can't really know for sure. Spiritual experience is, by necessity, an experience involving the brain's interpretation of our senses. Unfortunately, it is fairly easy to fool ourselves. The brain is an amazing organ that can warp reality in incredible ways. Just talk to people with various types of mental health issues if you disagree.

Do I care? Most certainly. That is the crux of the issue.

I can try to explain my thinking but it may not be very satisfactory. I start with the fact that intuition exists. There are a gazillion scientific studies on this. Most scientific studies try to explain intuition as our complex brains processing multiple inputs of information in ways that aren't obvious. In other words, our brains can intuit solutions to highly complex problems which we cannot sit down and write out how to solve using regular math or physics. Sometimes, you will even see studies that prescribe a certain level of trust in intuition: if we trust our intuition too much, we fool ourselves; if we completely ignore our intuition, we hamper our creativity.

If intuition exists, the question I ask myself is do I personally believe God is part of that process? If a god were to exist, it would seem plausible that he would use our intuition as a method of subtle communication with us. How would I find out personally if God is using intuition to communicate with me? I don't think that is easy to answer. How do I describe whistling to someone who doesn't know how? It isn't easy. Whistling takes practice. It takes hundreds of failures until one day you hit that barely audible, one-note breakthrough that gives enough hope to continue on in the learning process. That is a description of how I came to believe God was communicating to me through these spiritual experiences. A few hundred seeming failures until I hit a couple breakthroughs that may have been described as communion with deity. I really wasn't sure, but at the very least, those first experiences gave me hope to continue on as I tried to learn how to spiritually communicate with God. I wouldn't say I'm at the spiritual equivalent of whistling dixie, but I am definitely past the point of wondering if I will ever learn how to communicate with God.

[JohnW]

As I've talked to people leaving the church over the years, there are lots of reasons people leave the church, but I've found two that are almost completely consistent. One of those is a poor understanding of what faith actually is. How it applies in their life, and what it looks like to have faith.

John, please drop the other shoe.

Ha ha. Sorry, I meant to mention the other one. Pride is the other common underlying issue I observed with people who left the church. Another way to describe it could be certainty in their convictions or that they felt they didn't need the church. It may just be that by the time they got to talking with me, they were already set in what they wanted to do. It may be that people who strongly feel like the church can't help them aren't all that open to the idea that the church can, in fact, help them. Either way, by the time I would talk to people they were not very open minded. I don't really blame them, I think I was the same way, to a degree, when I was struggling with my testimony a couple decades ago. I thought I knew so much--way more than was commonly discussed in church. In my case, graduate-level physics crushed my ego pretty effectively. Math wasn't always my strong suit, and graduate-level physics is when you go through all the same topics again but in all the gory mathematical detail.

The hardest task in the world has to be changing the mind of someone who doesn't think their mind needs changing. Usually all I could do was commiserate with them and wish them well on their spiritual journey. For completeness, pride was the most common problem in the active members of the church as well. There are so many people out there that are entirely certain about almost everything. Without sidetracking the thread, I see this as the major (potentially fatal) problem with LDS apologetics.

[Rivendale]

I appreciate that. I understand that some people have a great draw to what they consider spiritual experiences. I guess my question centers on two things. How do you know those experiences are divine? If not do you care if they are?

How do I know? Frankly I can't really know for sure. Spiritual experience is, by necessity, an experience involving the brain's interpretation of our senses. Unfortunately, it is fairly easy to fool ourselves. The brain is an amazing organ that can warp reality in incredible ways. Just talk to people with various types of mental health issues if you disagree.

Do I care? Most certainly. That is the crux of the issue.

I can try to explain my thinking but it may not be very satisfactory. I start with the fact that intuition exists. There are a gazillion scientific studies on this. Most scientific studies try to explain intuition as our complex brains processing multiple inputs of information in ways that aren't obvious. In other words, our brains can intuit solutions to highly complex problems which we cannot sit down and write out how to solve using regular math or physics. Sometimes, you will even see studies that prescribe a certain level of trust in intuition: if we trust our intuition too much, we fool ourselves; if we completely ignore our intuition, we hamper our creativity.

If intuition exists, the question I ask myself is do I personally believe God is part of that process? If a god were to exist, it would seem plausible that he would use our intuition as a method of subtle communication with us. How would I find out personally if God is using intuition to communicate with me? I don't think that is easy to answer. How do I describe whistling to someone who doesn't know how? It isn't easy. Whistling takes practice. It takes hundreds of failures until one day you hit that barely audible, one-note breakthrough that gives enough hope to continue on in the learning process. That is a description of how I came to believe God was communicating to me through these spiritual experiences. A few hundred seeming failures until I hit a couple breakthroughs that may have been described as communion with deity. I really wasn't sure, but at the very least, those first experiences gave me hope to continue on as I tried to learn how to spiritually communicate with God. I wouldn't say I'm at the spiritual equivalent of whistling dixie, but I am definitely past the point of wondering if I will ever learn how to communicate with God.

It takes hundreds of failures until one day you hit that barely audible, one-note breakthrough that gives enough hope to continue on in the learning process]

Classic conditioning. Athletes do it, actors do it, it isn't a task that is regimented to religious ideas. You are right it isn't a satisfactory explanation. Evolutionary biology gives concrete answers as to why living things tend to repeat behaviors. Don't you find it bizarre that a supreme creator would have you rely on these lifelong failures/successes to somehow gain credibility with his/her will? Intuition is such a deceptive character. There have been physics problems I have had in the past that I couldn't solve and I kept hammering at it for weeks sometimes months. Then one morning I woke up and there it was.....I had the answer. That subterranean brain is a resilient, tireless sometimes way off the mark juggernaut. Again, such a strange bewildering method of communication, borderline abuse.

[Morley]

John, please drop the other shoe.

Ha ha. Sorry, I meant to mention the other one. Pride is the other common underlying issue I observed with people who left the church. Another way to describe it could be certainty in their convictions or that they felt they didn't need the church. It may just be that by the time they got to talking with me, they were already set in what they wanted to do. It may be that people who strongly feel like the church can't help them aren't all that open to the idea that the church can, in fact, help them. Either way, by the time I would talk to people they were not very open minded. I don't really blame them, I think I was the same way, to a degree, when I was struggling with my testimony a couple decades ago. I thought I knew so much--way more than was commonly discussed in church. In my case, graduate-level physics crushed my ego pretty effectively. Math wasn't always my strong suit, and graduate-level physics is when you go through all the same topics again but in all the gory mathematical detail.

The hardest task in the world has to be changing the mind of someone who doesn't think their mind needs changing. Usually all I could do was commiserate with them and wish them well on their spiritual journey. For completeness, pride was the most common problem in the active members of the church as well. There are so many people out there that are entirely certain about almost everything. Without sidetracking the thread, I see this as the major (potentially fatal) problem with LDS apologetics.

Where would you put yourself on these faith and pride scales?

[Fence Sitter]

Ha ha. Sorry, I meant to mention the other one. Pride is the other common underlying issue I observed with people who left the church. Another way to describe it could be certainty in their convictions or that they felt they didn't need the church. It may just be that by the time they got to talking with me, they were already set in what they wanted to do. It may be that people who strongly feel like the church can't help them aren't all that open to the idea that the church can, in fact, help them. Either way, by the time I would talk to people they were not very open minded. I don't really blame them, I think I was the same way, to a degree, when I was struggling with my testimony a couple decades ago. I thought I knew so much--way more than was commonly discussed in church. In my case, graduate-level physics crushed my ego pretty effectively. Math wasn't always my strong suit, and graduate-level physics is when you go through all the same topics again but in all the gory mathematical detail.

The hardest task in the world has to be changing the mind of someone who doesn't think their mind needs changing. Usually all I could do was commiserate with them and wish them well on their spiritual journey. For completeness, pride was the most common problem in the active members of the church as well. There are so many people out there that are entirely certain about almost everything. Without sidetracking the thread, I see this as the major (potentially fatal) problem with LDS apologetics.

Your description here is exactly what I have encountered when trying to engage with most members in a open discussion about the claims of the church. So, if members also suffer from the same problems how can you say it is what contributes to why others leave the church?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

...Most people aren't using the Book of Mormon as a historical text. They are using it to draw closer to God...

I find this to be an incredible statement, completely outside of my experience having grown up in the LDS church.

Could you clarify--are you referring to investigators? Or LDS members? Or people overall?

It’s outside of my experience, too. John is weasel wording a bit here. Believers aren’t “using the Book of Mormon as a historical text” because it’s de facto a historical text to them, as it purports itself to be. He claims people leave the church due to ignorance and pride, but in my experience those are irrelevant points. The church is literally not “true”, and to argue otherwise leaves you in a tough spot. You have to twist your brain into pretzels to justify all the nonsense found in it, from its dishonest actions and policies to its ahistorical reality.

- Doc

[Rivendale]

I would like a bullet list on just exactly what it means to draw closer to Christ. Just exactly how does the Book of Mormon (a demonstrably fictional book) accomplish that?

[Dr Exiled]

I would like a bullet list on just exactly what it means to draw closer to Christ. Just exactly how does the Book of Mormon (a demonstrably fictional book) accomplish that?

Try using a little motivated reasoning, and voila, you are suddenly closer. I believe real hard, therefore it becomes my reality, regardless of how baseless.

[Res Ipsa]

Hi John. I have a question about this part of your post on pride:

It may be that people who strongly feel like the church can't help them aren't all that open to the idea that the church can, in fact, help them.

Help them in what way? If, for whatever reason, a member comes to the conclusion that the LDS church is not what it purports to be (the restored Church of Jesus Christ), how do think the church can still help them?

Thanks in advance.