Uplift movement

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Discovered something new today. Apparently there is now a support group for "faith crisis survivors" who I assume are individuals who stopped short of full faith deconstruction and were rescued back by faithful scholarship from church historians. I find it interesting that Stephen Harper (Church history is like Santa Claus analogy guy) is the historian who brought the founder of this group back.

http://www.ldsliving.com/How-an-Atheist ... bt/s/90112

I would love to see an interview with this guy by Bill Reel or John Dehlin, but I'm guessing that would be akin to an AA member visiting a bar or something.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/UpliftStudyGroup/

[jfro18]

LDS Living loves these kinds of articles. It's not fair to attack the guy's honesty as to what Steven Harper told him and where he was in the journey (and isn't it amazing how the article doesn't address ANY of the actual problems he had?), but for every one that comes back to a "believing" member (and the article puts some serious qualifiers on his church status today), there are thousands who will never be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

But LDS Living loves this stuff and who can blame them - it gives believing members another area to be like "See... those problems are not real because that one dude came back after talking to a church historian."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

LDS Living loves these kinds of articles. It's not fair to attack the guy's honesty as to what Steven Harper told him and where he was in the journey (and isn't it amazing how the article doesn't address ANY of the actual problems he had?), but for every one that comes back to a "believing" member (and the article puts some serious qualifiers on his church status today), there are thousands who will never be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

But LDS Living loves this stuff and who can blame them - it gives believing members another area to be like "See... those problems are not real because that one dude came back after talking to a church historian."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I tried watching his buddy's power point presentation on coming back to the faith and it was hard to stay focused. What I sense from these folks is that they tip toed into fowler stage 4 on one major issue (IE biblical scholarship for the power point guy) resolved it and either retreated back to 3 or jumped to 5 immediately.

[Palerider]

LDS Living loves these kinds of articles. It's not fair to attack the guy's honesty as to what Steven Harper told him and where he was in the journey (and isn't it amazing how the article doesn't address ANY of the actual problems he had?), but for every one that comes back to a "believing" member (and the article puts some serious qualifiers on his church status today), there are thousands who will never be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

But LDS Living loves this stuff and who can blame them - it gives believing members another area to be like "See... those problems are not real because that one dude came back after talking to a church historian."

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I wasn't convinced he went all the way back to full believer in the church. I had the feeling he was back to believing in God and that for the time being, ldscorp is his favorite or most familiar brand. He stated that he felt "alone" in the church and that few understood where he was and where he had been.

[jfro18]

I tried watching his buddy's power point presentation on coming back to the faith and it was hard to stay focused. What I sense from these folks is that they tip toed into fowler stage 4 on one major issue (IE biblical scholarship for the power point guy) resolved it and either retreated back to 3 or jumped to 5 immediately.

I just skimmed it and there's no way I could watch that. It's like 6-10 slides and over an hour long... that's not happening.

And the problem is that from the slides it looks like a lot of it is "choosing to believe" in spite of what caused you to leave in the first place. I don't think they'll address problems but just give you reasons to either ignore them or to re-frame them, which I just have no interest in considering how many people who have left the church that are incredibly well educated on the church's history and doctrines.

Just listening to people like John Hamer and Dan Vogel make it crystal clear this church is no closer to God than my border collie mix, so I have no interest in supporting it. I'm too far gone - I dove off the boat and it's long out of view.

[jfro18]

I wasn't convinced he went all the way back to full believer in the church. I had the feeling he was back to believing in God and that for the time being, ldscorp is his favorite or most familiar brand. He stated that he felt "alone" in the church and that few understood where he was and where he had been.

Exactly! The amount of caveats he seemed to put on his status makes it pretty clear he is still far from a "true believer," but the article is for those who will either see the headline or skim through it and take what they want from it which is that doubters are wrong and would come back if they'd just look for honest answers.

LDS Living is awful that way - it's like the BuzzFeed of LDS websites.

[Palerider]

LDS Living is awful that way - it's like the BuzzFeed of LDS websites.

Total propaganda arm.

Here...eat a cookie and you'll feel better.

[Corsair]

I would love to see an interview with this guy by Bill Reel or John Dehlin, but I'm guessing that would be akin to an AA member visiting a bar or something.

Neither the institutional LDS church nor LDS Living want to be in a situation where there is the remotest possibility of having an outcome where the LDS church is not the winner. I just don't think this will happen. John Dehlin has talked about this phenomena. Apologist groups and even more pastoral apologists like Terry Givens simply don't return his calls any longer. I would honestly love to hear from someone who lost their faith and came back. There are a few like Don Bradley who was Brian Hales' research assistant. I did not find his explanation very compelling.

I suspect that there are two problems with talking about doubters who returned. First, there simply are not that many of them. QuitMormon.org has six full stakes of former believers, and it's a pretty sparse list of people who have returned.

The second problem is about exposure. Showing people who have left might unintentionally highlight the reasons they left and the institutional church does not want anyone dwelling on those points.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/UpliftStudyGroup/

Sigh... I will probably take a look out of mild interest. Certainly I have an honest acknowlegement that some line of reasoning could return me to full belief in the LDS church. But I'm skeptical and I am intrigued about what they have to say.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

I would love to see an interview with this guy by Bill Reel or John Dehlin, but I'm guessing that would be akin to an AA member visiting a bar or something.

Neither the institutional LDS church nor LDS Living want to be in a situation where there is the remotest possibility of having an outcome where the LDS church is not the winner. I just don't think this will happen. John Dehlin has talked about this phenomena. Apologist groups and even more pastoral apologists like Terry Givens simply don't return his calls any longer. I would honestly love to hear from someone who lost their faith and came back. There are a few like Don Bradley who was Brian Hales' research assistant. I did not find his explanation very compelling.

I suspect that there are two problems with talking about doubters who returned. First, there simply are not that many of them. QuitMormon.org has six full stakes of former believers, and it's a pretty sparse list of people who have returned.

The second problem is about exposure. Showing people who have left might unintentionally highlight the reasons they left and the institutional church does not want anyone dwelling on those points.

https://m.facebook.com/groups/UpliftStudyGroup/

Sigh... I will probably take a look out of mild interest. Certainly I have an honest acknowlegement that some line of reasoning could return me to full belief in the LDS church. But I'm skeptical and I am intrigued about what they have to say.

Sorry Corsair, I must be a masochist for sharing this fb group. The psychology is so interesting though. I look forward to your findings.

[Hagoth]

If someone can succeed in fully removing the blinders and seeing the big picture about the church in clear technicolor detail, and then going back into full activity without cognitive dissonance I say more power to 'em. There are a lot of us who have had moments when we wished we could do that.

In my experience, people who "come back into the fold" either retrospectively inflate the magnitude of their disbelief for dramatic effect (the "I read all of the anti-Mormon stuff and found the answers when I became humble enough to repent" syndrome) or they are highly motivated to believe, either to save their marriage/family, or because they have formed a new relationship with a believer.

The Christian analog is the person who talks about how they were once the most adamant atheist before they found Jesus, when in truth they were just a normal person living a normal life without any particular interest in religion until they had a conversion experience.

[Reuben]

Hagoth, there are people over at StayLDS who wouldn't find themselves represented by your generalizations. That's not to say that people who take off the blinders, crash, and stay active and engaged of their own free will are common, just that they exist.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Oh man, I have been trying to follow the dialogue on uplift and it is more than I can stand. It is a very strange brew of academic types who love to answer in nuance and show off their literature and pissed off people who ask a lot of hard questions and stay unsatisfied with the answers from the academics and apologists. Kind of a circus.

[Corsair]

Oh man, I have been trying to follow the dialogue on uplift and it is more than I can stand. It is a very strange brew of academic types who love to answer in nuance and show off their literature and pissed off people who ask a lot of hard questions and stay unsatisfied with the answers from the academics and apologists. Kind of a circus.

Yup, that's what it is. It was not hard to get in this group and I will likely not say anything. I looked over their presentations and was unimpressed. The slides on returning to faith are largely the Fowler Stage 5 kind of faith you would expect. It's kind of thin on evidence and epistemology.

There is one slide in this "Transition to Faith" presentation that really confuses me and hints at a misunderstanding of the faith crisis of many different people. It starts off well showing that "bad experiences", "lack of answers", and "Critical scholarship" are common steps to initiate a faith crisis. I agree with those.

But the way out is apparently "Fasting and study", and multiple "Leaps of faith" which lead to "Good experiences", "Added understanding", "Joy", and "Perspective". I don't want to burst his bubble, but I truly got all of those good things without any of the recommended "Fasting and study". My enjoyment of coffee, rated R movies, and a general disregard for the temple should have thwarted me by his process. My conclusions on "Joy" came partially because I no longer worried about ticking off an angry god because I play video games on the Sabbath or wear the same underpants as everyone else in the ward.

If anyone wants a copy, let me know. I don't think this will be the start of Transcendence Road that the Uplift Study Group thinks it is supposed to be.

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

Oh man, I have been trying to follow the dialogue on uplift and it is more than I can stand. It is a very strange brew of academic types who love to answer in nuance and show off their literature and pissed off people who ask a lot of hard questions and stay unsatisfied with the answers from the academics and apologists. Kind of a circus.

Yup, that's what it is. It was not hard to get in this group and I will likely not say anything. I looked over their presentations and was unimpressed. The slides on returning to faith are largely the Fowler Stage 5 kind of faith you would expect. It's kind of thin on evidence and epistemology.

There is one slide in this "Transition to Faith" presentation that really confuses me and hints at a misunderstanding of the faith crisis of many different people. It starts off well showing that "bad experiences", "lack of answers", and "Critical scholarship" are common steps to initiate a faith crisis. I agree with those.

But the way out is apparently "Fasting and study", and multiple "Leaps of faith" which lead to "Good experiences", "Added understanding", "Joy", and "Perspective". I don't want to burst his bubble, but I truly got all of those good things without any of the recommended "Fasting and study". My enjoyment of coffee, rated R movies, and a general disregard for the temple should have thwarted me by his process. My conclusions on "Joy" came partially because I no longer worried about ticking off an angry god because I play video games on the Sabbath or wear the same underpants as everyone else in the ward.

If anyone wants a copy, let me know. I don't think this will be the start of Transcendence Road that the Uplift Study Group thinks it is supposed to be.

Yes the impression I get is that this individual started accessing certain reward centers from his prior conditioning through re-engaging in certain mormon practices and exercises in confirmation bias that he once did that provided those dopamine dumps. His tribal instincts rewarded him for going back to the tribe. One example he stated was teaching with the sister missionaries and engaging in a discussion with a man who happened to know the same biblical scholarship topics this guy had studied and been obsessed with. Classic confirmation bias for the shared hobby taken as a sign of divine approval.