John Gee claims in his new book intro that there's no need for his new book

[_Lemmie]

but I think it is fair to make the argument that many people who leave do so with an incomplete understanding of Mormonism.

Only if it’s also fair to make the argument that many people who stay also “do so with an incomplete understanding of Mormonism.“ In which case, it’s an attribute across the board. Gee is not acknowledging that, however. By discussing it only in the context of those who leave, he is implying that it is a cause, and that those with a more complete understanding stay.

It’s no different than mentalgymnast’s faulty argument that Jenkins is “biased” and therefore his arguments are worth less in the Jenkins-Hamblin debate, even though he later defined bias as something everyone has.

[_Kishkumen]

Hey, Lemmie. I am absolute agreement with you on the people who stay. This is why I wrote:

"Of course, many of us can say that the LDS Church does not really facilitate an accurate or full understanding of Mormonism anyways, and that such an understanding really leads to the conclusion that the whole thing is garbage."

But I do appreciate you making the same point more directly.

[Guest]

Hey, Lemmie. I am absolute agreement with you on the people who stay. This is why I wrote:

"Of course, many of us can say that the LDS Church does not really facilitate an accurate or full understanding of Mormonism anyways, and that such an understanding really leads to the conclusion that the whole thing is garbage."

But I do appreciate you making the same point more directly.

You are missing my point then. My point was that I disagree with your statement that you “think it is fair to make the argument that many people who leave do so with an incomplete understanding of Mormonism.” If everyone has that same incomplete understanding, then it is NOT fair to allow an argument to stand that singles out those who leave, blaming it on their incomplete understanding.

In any case, it would be interesting to see how many actually do stay while knowing it is “not true,” for want of a more comprehensive term.

[_Fence Sitter]

It's a two way street. Would Gee complain when someone joins the church who is incapable of or does not understand it?

[Guest]

The Dunning–Kruger effect is alive and well among Latter-day Saints.

It sure is! From the top right on down the file.

[_Dr Moore]

Unfortunately, some in the Church may believe sincerely that their testimony is a raging bonfire when it really is little more than the faint flickering of a candle.

Spoken like a true pharisee.

[_Dr Moore]

It would be interesting to see how many actually do stay while knowing it is “not true,” for want of a more comprehensive term.

I know of a few thousand in various Facebook groups...

[_Lemmie]

It would be interesting to see how many actually do stay while knowing it is “not true,” for want of a more comprehensive term.

I know of a few thousand in various Facebook groups...

Exactly. It suggests a different reason (control) for interviews than the one Gee gives, right?

...one of the reasons we have interviews with someone else to assess our worthiness and are not allowed just to determine for ourselves if we are worthy....

Regarding the Facebook groups you mentioned, Dr. Moore, I find that an interesting development. I seem to recall when I was in that the Lds church prohibited any smaller group meetings, such as scripture study or even book groups. It seems a Facebook group violates the spirit of that rule, but not the law, technically. What an opportune loophole.

[_Dr Moore]

There are so many reasons why folks choose to stay "actively" involved with Mormonism, despite knowing through and through that the foundational truth claims are false. I couldn't even begin to offer an adequate survey of that picture.

I suppose the nuances involved for those who stay "in" are as numerous as the final straw for those who ultimately choose to get "out." It's hardly discernible to me at the edges, because whether someone falls on the "in" or "out" side of an issue, I see no difference in sincerity. It probably boils down to external factors, more than anything else.

Good point on the kibosh of "study groups." I remember that being frowned upon when I was a teenager, and to my knowledge, unofficial physical meetings of the sort are still discouraged. There are exceptions, of course.

I believe the church has acquiesced to allow certain types of online support groups, for the greater good, in cases where the ultimate goal is to find ways of remaining "constructively involved." You'll see Greg Prince and David Ostler pop in to some of these groups to comment or post, and they're just normal members in those circles. These "safe" groups have pretty clear rules of engagement (eg, disallow "cult" talk, avoid speculation, no personal attacks, and mandatory leaving the group upon resigning membership from the church... stuff like that). They are heavily moderated, but besides that, they allow safe space for open expressions of pain, struggle, frustration, and the like.

What's funny to me is that the less moderated groups may look similar on the surface in terms of most posts are folks writing the same kinds of expressions of pain, struggle, frustration... but as the group allows for openly anti-church comments, inevitably those groups seem to spawn moles and sooner or later, a group member will rage quit because some "spy" ratted them out to a family member or bishop. A person can write something in one group with no risk, because the spirit of the place is to keep you in, but risk discipline or family shame by writing the same thing in another place simply because it allows for "anti" comments. Silly, but not surprising. As a result, the "stay in" groups appear to be more enduring, like a "second ward" model, while the more open groups eventually devolve into exMo reddit, mostly transitory. That's my observation, for what it's worth.

[_Symmachus]

IHAQ, I think I understand the point Gee is making here, and I don't know that it is entirely off base. Now, we can argue about how important it is or should be that people understand the LDS gospel. We can also fairly critique Gee for perhaps implying, intentionally or not, that apostates are stupid or misinformed, but I think it is fair to make the argument that many people who leave do so with an incomplete understanding of Mormonism. I think it is also fair for Gee to point out that some people have stronger spiritual convictions than others.

Of course, many of us can say that the LDS Church does not really facilitate an accurate or full understanding of Mormonism anyways, and that such an understanding really leads to the conclusion that the whole thing is garbage.

But I can see how a deeply committed believer who knows an awful lot about Mormonism might measure the knowledge of many leave-takers as severely wanting.

All excellent points, but I would be one of those who argue that it is not, or should not, be all that important that people understand the LDS Gospel. The number one reason people leave the Church, even if they don't say so, is that it is not contributing to the quality of their lives. The Book of Abraham is a canary in a coal mine for some, but I really doubt that it matters at all for most people who stop being Mormon. I doubt few of them even know that the Book of Abraham is not in the Old Testament.

But why would it make a difference if they did know? Assuming that people leave with a shallow understanding of just what it is they are leaving, the case needs to be made why some deeper understanding is really what is needed. It's not clear that the Church even cares about doing that, and so we find what I think is a paraodox: historical problem are actually a benefit for the Church. Rather than having to be more attentive to members' needs (or perhaps more accurately: rather than reforming the institution so that it can be more attentive), they will just write off a whole generation or two as insufficiently committed without ever having to do the work of persuasion: "it's not me, it's you."

The best argument against the Church's claim that you need to stay or join, and the one that is implicit in most people's leaving, has nothing to do with Mormon scripture or Mormon history or Mormon doctrine. That best argument is: living as a Mormon sucks; it has a low payoff but a high cost.

Convince us otherwise, John Gee.

Also, what a strong and relevant addition to the scholarship of the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages at BYU.