Perhaps I should clarify; I was more concerned with Alan’s comment (#17) then the original post. I think it’s also fair to point out that Alan is not alone in his views about the slippery slop of unbelief. If I’ve offended, I certainly apologize. I just get so tired of hearing that I’m on the way to becoming an atheist and no one in their right mind would ever wake up one day and not believe. Neither of these statements are true for me nor do I think they apply to many of the inactive members of the LDS church.

Again, just my two cents worth…

As always, I appreciate your comments. However, you took this solely as a question of personal faith journey (as many did) when it wasn’t intended that way. Read Christopher Smith’s comments on this thread and I think you’ll see that you are misreading when you say “We even infer that they will most likely end up as an atheist. You’ll excuse me for saying this, but that’s a lot of hypocrisy in my humble opinion.”

As a missionary, we strongly encouraged people to look at their own religion, see it for what it really was, and join God’s true church. Why is it that Mormons can’t abide someone putting their own religion to the same test and determining that God works with men in a different way? In other words, we love those who investigate themselves out of their chosen religion and in to ours, but despise those who investigate themselves out of the LDS religion and into another belief system. We even infer that they will most likely end up as an atheist. You’ll excuse me for saying this, but that’s a lot of hypocrisy in my humble opinion.

As approximately 2/3rds of the church is inactive, I have a hard time believing that most are because they just can’t live the religion. While this is certainly true for some, I would guess the vast majority doesn’t believe in all the dogmatic teachings and therefore chose’s not to associate with “the saints”. I doubt too many of them are atheist, they just don’t believe the church has anything meaningful to offer them. This, of course, is just my opinion and worth what you’re paying for it. Perhaps it’s my own optimistic view that most people are good natured, caring, and God fearing whether or not they participate in a particular religion. Your world view may lead you to different conclusion and that’s ok as well…

Or you can replace them with a bunch of oranges on the ground and not build a structure at all.

Today I believe less in conventional Mormon doctrine, but I believe more in what I believe. I see no “slippery slope,” only a faith journey.

To connect this point with the orange pyramid analogy, the key is that you *can* replace the oranges after they fall, but if you want to replace them in a way where they are less likely to collapse again you will need to change the shape, or clear more space, on the table.

Other religions have their foundational beliefs which would topple the pyramid when doubted. Priesthood passed down from Peter through Popes, Mohammed spoke to God, the bible is the literal word of God, etc.

Today I believe less in conventional Mormon doctrine, but I believe more in what I believe. I see no “slippery slope,” only a faith journey.

Interesting analogy. Don’t forget though, Clay, that we aren’t just talking about Mormonism here. Do you believe this analogy applies to other religions where we see the same “slippery slope”?

Thanks for your comments on this post. Your quotes were insightful too. I particularly like the one about faith and doubt, which I believe defines faith and doubt a bit differently then many of us (including me) are used to.

Hawk,

I like your idea about life being the slippery slope. But I am not so sure this is the same thing in this case.

I think about Clay’s comment in #10. It’s obvious he thinks very highly of the Community of Christ because of their democratic process. But if Christopher is correct, this “positive” is also the death of them.

I think this slippery slope is something different then what you are referring to. (Though your point is valid also.) Once one decides that a democratic process and open interpretation is a superior way to an authoritarian approach, there are certain logical consequences — at least at the group level if not the individual level — that I believe will naturally follow.

One of these consequences is that “Cafeteria Christian” Churches don’t seem to perpetuate themselves, as per Valoel’s point in #19. You be a Cafeteria Christian with a personal vibrant living faith, but apparently not as a growing living vibrate religious movement. (Though Clay is correct that being fundamentalist hardly guarantees success.)

This is what I saw in Christopher’s comment and I think it is an interesting perspective that rings true to me, at least at some level. I’m sure it’s more complicated in real life and that this is just one factor amongst many.

I didn’t mean my comment to be derogatory in any way; I was agreeing with the word “interesting” – meaning “causing interest”. It is very interesting to me – even fascinating.

Stephen and Ray, can you please explain yourself further? I’m afraid I don’t know what you mean here. Could have been refering to anything.

Christopher,
Thanks for stopping by and telling us more about yourself. Hope it was okay for me to quote you like this. I wish more people had understood the original point of your quote before replying. It would have led to a more interesting discusison.

I’ll have to debate you on your conclusions about New Testament quotes of the Old Testament some other time.

To answer your question, I’m not and have never been a Mormon. I was raised Pentecostal. Attended seminary for 6 months or so with a high school girlfriend, though. (Stay away from those bishop’s daughters!) I’ve been interested in Mormons and Mormonism ever since. I don’t know who Jeff Needle is, but it’s probably something like that.

Yes. I believe that groups who cease to believe they are right are heading towards their own demise. What happens to an army that doesn’t think it has a moral cause to fight? What happens to a business organization that doesn’t think its product or service is any good? Religion is a sacrifice. People don’t give up their comforts now for a future they don’t really believe in much.

The LDS Church needs to be right. It has to be that way, or it won’t work.

Thank you for the additional explanation. It is pretty close (I think anyhow) to how I took your original comment. It’s obvious now that your comment could have been read in other ways that I had not expected however.

I did find it interesting that you take it as, in some cases, about a personal faith journey, which I did not foresee. But I see your point now that you have explained it more fully.

To everyone else here, I feel I probably should have mentioned that Christopher was no “TBM” (I HATE that term) and was not attacking a position but just making a comment based on his observations.

I was even thinking of pointing out that he was a religous pluralist and a “skeptic” himself based on reading his website. But the problem is that I didn’t want to speak for him and I was afraid maybe I had read him wrong. Also, I have no idea if he’s a menu Mormon or a Jeff Needle-like non-Mormon that is just interested in Mormons. He probably says somewhere, but I didn’t find it in my short review of his site.

Christopher, I really enjoyed your article on New Testament writers use of the Old Testament. It’s a point I’ve noticed myself and documented for myself, but I had never considered it a case for religious pluralism before as you advance.

What I really appreciate about your approach to religious pluralism is that you seem to entirely avoid the contradiction (which I believe to be a form of intolerance) of calling Mormons belief in being “the one true Church” immoral or arrogant by simply treating religious pluralism as a positive truth claim and advancing it as such. Kudos to you for practicing what you preach there. I was very impressed and may have to visit your site more often now that I know about it.

Pt Monson wrote about this:

“Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other.

“Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: ‘I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith.’”

I for one agree with Christopher that those who ‘chose to believe less’ are on the road to the bottom of that slippery slop and, from my experience, most ex-Mormons end up as atheists. I known of only one exmorg who ended up a Pentecostal.

The fundamentalist simply don’t allow themselves to ask the doubt creating questions, which are seen as a sign of weakness, and because of this they continue to thrive.

They probably will continue to thrive until the veil is lifted.

Thanks for highlighting this comment! I suppose I should clarify a little bit. First of all, this is based in large part upon my own experience. I am one of the “skeptical types” I mentioned, and my life story is one of wanting to believe but finding myself drifting further and further down what I called the “slippery slope”. (Of course, it’s only a “slippery slope” if we place religion at the top of it. From the perspective of someone like myself, who rather enjoys faith and faith communities, the term makes sense. From the perspective of a contented atheist, it does not. By no means am I trying to absolutize my perspective, but I must make my observations from it all the same.) On the flip side, I have watched with some fascination as my less-skeptical friends and family members seek out new layers of belief to add atop the old: eschatological schemes, UFOs, Marian devotion, etc. Mormonism is a perfect example of the drive many people feel to believe “more”: after all, Mormon does mean “more good”, does it not? So there is a sense in which I meant this to apply to individual faith-journeys (though not uniformly to all of them, by any means). But it’s also an observation about larger population groups. Liberal Christianity has never been successful for very long. It only thrives temporarily where fundamentalism has been undercut by historical/political/social/discursive factors; in a few generations, it finds itself replaced by a radical polarity with atheists on one side and fundamentalists on the other. In my opinion, this is the “slippery slope” in action. (As a liberal Christian myself, I say this with some bitterness.)

When I spoke of a “decision to believe”, by no means did I intend to suggest that belief is entirely an act of will. Obviously there is will and decision-making involved, but I also realize that there is frequently an inevitability to belief and belief that may have as much to do with biology, social conditioning, and evidence as it does with will-power.

In response to posts 10 and 12, the answer is that yes, fundamentalists are thriving. Pentecostalism, in particular, has positively exploded worldwide, and now constitutes a quarter of the world’s Christians. Its growth has been estimated at 19 million per year. It is now the dominant faith of South Korea. Bishop Spong recently lamented “the twilight of the Anglican Communion,” not because Anglicanism is dying out, but because the fundamentalists are taking over.

And what is this “slippery slope”? Isn’t life “the slippery slope”? I would suggest someone at the bottom of the slippery slope is one who hasn’t yet attempted to walk up it, which is how you get to the top and achieve enlightenment. But of course, that may not be what the commenter meant.

“Also, are fundamentalists really thriving and multiplying?”

Clay, one clarification. I don’t think he meant Restorationist fundamentalists here. Christian Fundamentalists sects are thriving from what I understand (even if that term itself now has a bad connotation and is dying out.)