This is one case where our policy of temporary, amateur, unpaid “clergy” bites us in the butt.

I accidentally "voted up" your post, yet did not wish to, nor did I wish to vote it down. Instead, I wanted to add my opinion, which is that unpaid amateur clergy are no worse off to handle a faith crisis of another person than are the highly educated and paid clergymen in other churches. I believe that we must all work out our own salvation, and not reply upon a full-time or temporary clergyman to save us and to clear away any and all doubts. At any time, any man in the congregation can become the new Bishop, so all must continually be enduring to the end, and not rely upon a Bishop to drag him along for the ride.

You can always take back your “up” vote, just tap it again. While you are correct that we are each ultimately responsible for our own actions, we are also a community that are supposed to support each other. “A person standing alone can be attacked and defeated, but two can stand back-to-back and conquer. Three are even better, for a triple-braided cord is not easily broken.” And it isn’t a matter of the clergy of other churches being highly educated but of having SPECIALIZED training. Granted, specialized training in matters of JCLDS faith would be difficult given the lack of formal theology and the ever-expanding archeological discoveries in the Americas (especially since we aren’t even really sure where in the Americas the Book of Mormon takes place). Still, I suspect most bishops have no real self-training at all.

Two can stand back to back and conquer, true, but I don't what the guy that has my back to be a guy that I pay to be there. I believe the temptation is too great for the paid clergy to determine my value based on the amount of tithing I put in the coffer. Paid clergy isn't going to fix this problem.

I didn't say we should change how we choose our bishops, stake presidents, etc., we shouldn't. I just pointed out that like everything else it comes with downsides.

Fourth reason people leave Mormonism - they discover the lies that have been used to dupe them into joining. For example: Mormonism claims to be Christian and presents itself as such, yet it teaches that the god of the Bible is one of many gods and that worthy members (those who do what they are told) can become gods as well, hardly an orthodox Christian teaching.

Just shows that you really can't fool all the people all the time, eventually the lie is exposed.

Question: Do people who leave the church provide true reasons why they left?
A Thought: Perhaps they leave because they want to sin or are lazy to keep commandments or were offended, but instead claim another reason altogether for leaving.

Question: Why are local Bishoprics supposed to know how to deal with faith crises?
My Opinion: Bishopric members are regular members one day, and then the next they are supposed to stop people from leaving the church? Members are responsible for their own faith, their own salvation. Simple as that.

Questions for Thought: Do people who leave the church leave Christianity altogether? Do people who leave the church continue to live righteous lives, or do they reveal by their actions that they did wish ti sin, or that they were lazy to keep commandments? Or, do they perhaps doubt that some commandments are truly commandments? And, if this is the case, which commandments do they doubt?

Whenever I see "Every X should read this book," I know that it's a book that no X will ever read.

People read for confirmation bias, not to be challenged.

It would be great if we had some research similar to that cited in the article to back up this claim..."Those are three of the most popular “reasons” that current members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints tend to use to explain why an increasing number of people are leaving the Church or losing their faith." I feel like the majority of active members of the church are a bit more sophisticated and nuanced in their understanding of the reasons people leave than we're often given credit for. Certainly the population of leaders in the church is beyond blaming sin and laziness as the main causes. But the point of the article is still directionally right on.

Blah blah, apostate babble

I think there are a few aspects of this situation that Dr. Riess' article touched on, but did not emphasize. (? Perhaps the book did not get into these?)

That's the idea of "how did these bishops (et al) 'know' why these Mormons left? What was the source of their "knowledge"?

It would appear that in fact they had no real knowledge of the reasons these individuals left. Rather, they appear to have made up reasons that would be satisfying to the LDS authorities.

The first obvious question that raises is, "why?" My guess is that the "answers" were very satisfying to all concerned, and reinforced their ideas about LDS beliefs and culture.

And I think this situation raises another interesting question: is there any in-depth curiosity among LDS authorities about these matters? My guess is that they learn quickly that curiosity is not a good characteristic!

Or, perhaps those who left did not provide the "real" reason they left. Bishops are aware of many situations, but not al, and have no way to determine if anything they are told is the true and real issue, versus a distraction from or scapegoat for the true and real issue.

Your response presumes there is an inquiry by the bishop into a person's reasons for leaving. My experience, and plenty of others anecdotally, is neither most bishops nor most members want anything to do with that conversation. After tireless and faithful service of 50 years, my wife and I resigned. Except for a brief visit from a leader, crickets for years after. We've remained cordial to those we bump into once in a while. All those people who used to come up to us and tell us how much they loved us on Sunday? Not so much.

It seems that cognitive dissonance is mistaken for a "loss of the Spirit", rather than for what it really is--two mutually incompatible ideas vying for the same space. Just one example of many: Claim: Joseph translated the gold plates using the Urim and Thummim. Dissonance: No, Joseph used a seerstone he placed in a hat. The same seerstone he used when convicted of being an unruly person (bilking neighbors through treasure-seeking). More dissonance: Wait, we weren't taught about a seerstone in a hat in church. Why don't ANY of the church illustrations use in ANY programs show him with his face buried in his hat? And, if he was able to use the seerstone, then why did God make Moroni lug his abridgment around to hide it from the Lamanites?

You resigned. That was your choice and the people who I don't believe ever came up to you and told you how much they loved you... well, from my perspective it just seems to me that they respected your decision.

It seems that your cognitive dissonance came from a poorly sourced education. You may not know this, but I think, in reality, you don't care, the Urim and Thummim are just stones. They aren't clear and a seer does not look through them, He looks at them. But the reason I accuse you of not caring is that little tidbit of information doesn't matter. It's not the reason you left, if you are even the person you claim to be. For all we know, your just one of a dime a dozen critics who is creating a character in order to provide poorly sourced information while throwing stumbling blocks in the path. But thanks for your examples anyway.

Yes, served a mission to African continent, married in the temple, seminary teacher for 4 years, 100 scripture mastery scriptures memorized, counselor in bishopric, high counselor, multiple EQP, scoutmaster, etc. Yep, been there, done that.

Your dismissive tone doesn't particularly bother me. Neither does the implied insult that an all-encompassing religion that shaped my world view for decades, upon which I based my most important decisions, was something I walked away from based on "poorly sourced education." Whatever.

I've reviewed the evidence, read original sources, tracked down at least some of the footnotes the unattributed, but church-approved, essays use for reference. Bushman's "Rough Stone Rolling" was very interesting. He's a believing member of the church and cannot be written off as an axe-grinding critic. Fawn Brodie was excommunicated in the 1940s for her work about Joseph Smith in "No Man Knows My History". Yet, history has since vindicated her regarding many of the points she made.

It's interesting that yesterday's scurrilous anti-mormon lies are today's admissions by the church, if somewhat grudgingly and opaquely conceded.

As I suggested to B, below, you might want to review your own church's admissions before dismissing the very few points I made as "poorly sourced". Which are only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Try to expand your horizons past FairMormon. You know, Plato's Allegory of the Cave, and all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

It turns out the internet is a big and exciting place full of information. Any organization that tells you to only examine it based on its approved sources, well, sounds kinda like a cult.

It's also full of misinformation. But I highly doubt we'll ever really know why you left the church if you ever were a member. I'm not aware of any "approved sources" but I can tell a critic when I see one. If only they would come up with something original...

"...if you were ever a member."

That folks, is a somewhat subtle ad hominem attack, and a way to deflect from the substantive issues I raised previously. It's what many Mormon apologists do. Question the questioner's integrity, don't answer the question.

What do you want for proof of my former membership, Hello? Do you want to hear my new name when I first took out my endowment and for me to recite the name of the Sure Sign of the Nail? Health in the navel, marrow in the bones, blah blah, more quasi Masonic babble to follow.

Yes, I am a critic. I based many of my important decisions based on what is now demonstrably untrue. Evidence is like tiles in a mosaic. Enough tiles, and one can figure out the picture. Tiles painting the Mormon Church as uninspired and deceptive in its historical narrative, are many and varied. But the listener has to be willing to hear. There is a fair amount of research into why facts don't matter to those with deeply held beliefs.

Regarding your snark on originality, it's more effect to first refute the argument, then get snarky. Otherwise, you've again just avoided the issue which then suggests it's a much harder question to answer than you infer. Like I said, the original example I provided is just one of legion problems the Church has.

Danny, the stone-in-a-hat story was disposed of by Joseph and Oliver as early as 1834, but lately revisionist historians resurrected it as if it is a new discovery. Joseph and Oliver consistently and persistently explained that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates when he translated. The stone-in-a-hat story apparently comes from a demonstration of the process that Joseph provided to satisfy curiosity. People inferred it was the actual translation, but Joseph never said that and no one said he did.

B, do you regard your own church as revisionist? You might want to review the essay published by the church and posted on an official website. (link pasted below) From the essay:

"The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or “seer stone.” As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure. As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture.

Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather than the two stones bound together to form the interpreters. These two instruments—the interpreters and the seer stone—were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term “Urim and Thummim” to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters."

And later in the essay:

"The scribes who assisted with the translation unquestionably believed that Joseph translated by divine power. Joseph’s wife Emma explained that she “frequently wrote day after day” at a small table in their house in Harmony, Pennsylvania. She described Joseph “sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.”

https://www.churchofjesusch...

It appears to me that you are saying "the bishops" (and by extension the church, as a corporate body) does not know the reasons.

That is the point I was making.

No matter how often you say this, it doesn't make it true.

Please prove to me that God exists. Oh, you can't? Well, then by your logic, all religions that believe in God are cults that deserve to die.

God has already proven He exists.

https://downtownministries7...

Re David Tiffany's reply, below: WOW! Talk about circular reasoning!

And a propos of whether god exists, afterlife, etc: I suspect it's no accident that it is impossible to falsify every one of them.

"former Latter-day Saints cited other reasons, including the sense that the Church was a judgmental place and they could not trust its leaders to tell the truth about controversial or historical issues."

This is the reason for anyone to question or leave any religion or religious denomination. Nothing else matters or should even be discussed. Religious leaders are either truthful on real matters or they are not. If they are not, bail out.

There is no way that any church leader or church can reveal everything about everything. First, they don't know everything and second, they don't know what you don't know. The idea that a church leader is intentionally hiding information or misrepresenting it is fallacious. It assume they have all knowledge and they don't.

What happens in situations like this is the person receiving the communication believes he is being lied to regardless of whether or not he is. It is his perspective that matters and nothing else and there is nothing that the person sending can do to fix that perspective because he doesn't have all knowledge. Most of the time, the person receiving this offensive information is getting it from a third party who is intentionally coloring the perspective and the person originating the communication has no way of defending it or explaining it. It is entirely up to the receiver to find out what the problem is, but sometimes, that person is not willing to make that effort. For some reason, his sensibilities are offended and in my opinion, based on that, the person who is willing to accept this colored communication is, in reality, looking for an excuse to leave; anything will do.

The problem isn't the information or the work involved. The problem is that the person doesn't hear the music, he only knows the steps to the dance and has been going through the motions. It's just too difficult to keep going, so they stop and rest.

This article was specific to Mormons. My comment is general to all young people in churches or religions who are emancipating from their parents' homes. I believe each of those should take a clear-eyed look at whether their churches appear to be acting truthful on REAL issues or whether the churches and their doctrines look like fog. If it is the latter----bail out.
Churches do not deserve blind support. They deserve to be dragged into speaking real truth because of losing members if they don't.

Well, often the answer is I don't know. If that's foggy to some then I don't see an issue with bailing. But I'd have to ask, why is it an issue worth bailing out over. I"m not sure what you mean by controversial or historical issues, but I have found none that ruffle my feathers, but more to the point. There is no way that every leader that every "youth" might ask is going to have all the answers. It just isn't going to happen and for someone to base the eternal future on what they think is a foggy answer, seems a little harsh. They would be basing their faith on the ineptness of one individual who, in reality, is no more educated than they are on historical or controversial issues.

No matter what church you belong to, the very nature of religion requires some kind of "blind support". It's called faith. That isn't enough for some people, but call a spade a spade and don't coat it with vagaries like "fog". It's simply a lack of faith.

Maybe we should try it like this. A lot of Muslims are following the traditions now led by an Iranian Ayatollah or a Saudi king, both supporting terrorism. A lot of Jews are following the pugnaciousness of Netanyahu. A lot of Russian Christians are enamored with Putin. A lot of American Christians are completely hypnotized with Trump and Trumpism. Some of the Catholics like Steve Bannon better than they like the Pope. Any church people finding themselves delighted with these leaders are in "fog" so deep they do not know they are in it. They either got it at their "church" or their "church" at a minimum failed to steer them out.
I say, be clear-eyed. If one is in a group dwelling on "blind support", run away as fast as possible. It's quite possible to have more and better FAITH after escaping group tyranny.

There is no perfect religion or religious denomination. The grass is not always greener on the other side. Humans are in charge of all churches, and humans make mistakes. After Jesus returns to the Earth, then we can rely upon Him as the perfect and sinless leader of His church.

I'm gonna stick with "If your church leaders do not seem to be telling truth on real, tangible, issues----bail out". For me this is not advice "for LDS people" any more than it is advice for people in Judaism, Islam or any Christian denomination. It is not worth it to hear dudes talking about what they think is "scriptural truth" if they won't be honest and balanced about----for instance----- health insurance. Listen to them on the "real things" that absolutely matter to all actual citizens in this country in 2019. If they are only about dodging and blowing smoke on the hard subjects, don't trust them to be your spiritual guides.

My opinion is that today more than in times past Mormons are reaching a faith crisis due to the internet. What information was easy for Mormonism to keep hidden in the past is now available to anyone within a few moments.

It is also my opinion the reasons leaders are not trained to deal with these crises is because they too would have to look at the same information and as a result would have their own faith crisis.

https://downtownministries7...

I agree. You're right about the internet raising the level of faith crisis issues, but I don't know how you can prove that the church was ever hiding anything. I believe the church also uses the internet to help dispel the misinformation that we can so easily find on the internet and while doing so is also using the internet to expose a complete history of our church, and specifically about Joseph Smith. I'm sure, over time, we'll move on to expose everything we know about Brigham Young and others.

If a person wants the truth, he can find it. But as one other poster here has stated, most people read for confirmation, very few actually read to be challenged - well I believe the original post was making an absolute statement, but I'd rather believe that there are people who really want to know the truth.

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is just that. Are you honestly suggesting Bishopric members have no clue about information that is claimed to have caused faith crises? Bishoprics are not that naive.

And where do you suppose the bishops get the time, and perhaps other resources, to learn the truth?

I'm pretty sure the bishops do not spend time interviewing those who are leaving--the bishops themselves do not have the time, they are working at their jobs.

And as far as I am aware, no one else in the church pursues those apostates to learn the reasons they leave.

And I'm pretty sure those leaving have no interest in discussing their reasons with the authorities.

In an earlier post I thanked Dr. Reiss for this interesting and informative review.

Now that I've thought a bit more about this phenomenon, it seems clear to me that the church is in some difficulty, and the ability to change is very problematic--especially given that the current top ranks of the church will rise further, and do not have much insight into these matters.

My best guess is that as unhappy as people can be when they believe there is some problem with their religion, they become even more unhappy when those problems are discussed publicly.

And the LDS church has made it clear that it in particular is very averse to change, in general, and even more averse to admitting past problems.

The Internet exacerbates these matters, since people can post their true feelings about anything without fear of reprisal, and can find others--the "you, too? I thought I was the only one!" phenomenon..

Clearly, bishops--indeed, probably 90% or more of those in the LDS hierarchy--are clueless about the real feelings of members and the real reasons they leave.

At the very least, it's gonna be extremely interesting to see how the church deals with this book, and this matter in general.

Dr. Riess. this is an excellent piece. Interesting and informative.