A Response to "The Alarming Truth Behind Anti-Mormonism"

     Early last week I saw an article on Facebook that one of my relatives linked.  It's called "The Alarming Truth About Anti-Mormonism" and he said that this article contains some profound truths and he encouraged everyone, Mormon or not, to read it.  I was curious and so I read it, and in it I recognized why people in our country have a fear and distrust of atheists: it's because of many things that this author talks about which, rather than being profound truths, are actually fundamental errors.

     Here's the article:  http://federalistpress.com/the-alarming-truth-behind-anti-mormonism.php

     Last night one of my brothers linked the same article to me from the website above and asked me what I thought of it.  I told him I would write to him my thoughts on it.  I told him it would be pretty long unless he'd like the Reader's Digest version, and he said that an in-depth response is better so he can know more about my personal views as an atheist.  So that's what I gave him, and I've copied and pasted my response here with a few changes like removing my husband's name, adding this introduction and conclusion to this blog post, correcting spelling and grammatical errors, and adding sentences and a topic that I forgot to mention in my response to my brother.

     I should preface my response by saying that there are belligerent idiots in all groups of people: theists, atheists, Mormons, anti-Mormons, professors, church leaders, even scientists.  There are people who keep their opinions to themselves or who voice them honestly but civilly, and there are people who can't seem to help but bash others over the head with their beliefs.  I'm sure everyone has heard some atheist say things like, "Of course there's no way God can possibly exist, what's wrong with you morons?!  Wake up, Sheeple!!"  When I'm referring to atheists in general, I'm referring to reasonable people within that group who are motivated by knowledge and who remain civil, not the belligerent jerks you see on the internet.

     Alright, here is my response to my brother (and now the public) about this article.

* * * * * * * * 

     First I want to point out that his title feels like a bait-and-switch tactic. He starts off talking about anti-Mormonism, but then very early on in the article he finds a weak way of turning anti-Mormonism into atheism and then he spends the rest of the article talking about atheism. Atheism has no goals, no platform, no overall purpose, nothing like that---atheism is simply an individual's personal disbelief in god(s), or the lack of belief in god(s); slightly different outlook but basically the same thing. Anti-Mormonism, on the other hand, is very different from atheism: anti-Mormonism is an active feeling against or attack on the LDS church; it's people's inner hostility toward or outwardly bashing of the LDS church's history, its doctrine, its practices, or any combination of those things. The author should have re-titled his article "The Alarming Truth Behind Atheism" because that's the focus of his article.  Again, I think it was done on purpose as a bait-and-switch tactic.

     (I should also point out that no atheist can honestly say "I know for certain that there is no God" because there is no definitive proof anywhere that that's the case, at least not yet. The most anyone can say in that direction for now is "I think there is an extremely high probability, based on what we know of ourselves and our world and the universe, that there is no God.")

     Now I'll talk about each of his 5 points.

Point #1

     He lumps together people who leave the Church into one group and one mindset when he shouldn't. Some members were born into the Church and thus have grown up with an LDS set of beliefs, and others joined later in life and so they have a couple of different views. Some members don't take the Church too seriously—they can take it or leave it and it doesn't matter much to them either way.  If they feel that they have a personal relationship with God or that God created the universe, then they are more likely to remain theists and they are more likely to seek God in another religion. Others take the Church very seriously—they fully believe it and they base their lives around it.

     Members of the LDS Church are taught over and over again that all religions have some light and truth, but the Church has all the light and the truth. My theory is that those who take the Church more seriously as well as those who were born into the Church are more willing to believe that statement and are even willing to look into the faults of other religions as proof that they're not God's true church. If the author's claim is true—that most ex-Mormons become atheists—then it's likely because those people fully acknowledged while they were Mormons that no other religion was God's true religion. And so when they leave the Church, even if they were willing at first to look into other religions, they go into it already acknowledging the faults of that religion; they come into it with an LDS bias.

     It's also important to realize that people leave the Church for many different reasons. The examples the author gives are about one of those reasons: Joseph Smith's character and actions. Many people who leave the Church do have issues with Joseph Smith and what he did. But many people who leave the Church have no beef with Joseph Smith; some have issues with what modern prophets have said or done, they have issues with Mormon culture, the business side of the Church, doctrinal inconsistencies, clashes with science, etc. The example the author gives is extreme: "You see, at first they decide that Joseph Smith couldn’t have possibly been called by Christ. Then they find that they can no longer believe that Christ is really the Son of God." That's a HUGE leap from one idea to the other. People's reasons for leaving the Church and their feelings of a personal relationship with God will determine how much they seek out other religions and if they remain theists, and for many people the path from Mormonism to atheism has many steps to it. To say that the only alternative to Mormonism is atheism simply isn't true for everyone, and even if it were true for all those who leave, it doesn't happen overnight like he suggests that it does.

     I did become an atheist, but it took a little over 3 years after leaving the Church. When I decided that the Church wasn't true, I spent about the first year just dealing with anger that I was feeling about certain things. I was one of those people who took the Church seriously and who fully believed it was true, and I felt betrayed and lied to and deceived, and that takes a while to get over. Then I looked at other religions to see what they had to say. What things did they have in common with the LDS church; what were these "partial light and truths" that I'd heard about in the Mormon church? So I looked into them, and I soon decided that none of them were God's true religion either.

     Through all of this, though, I still believed that God existed.  I'm trying to remember when and why I came to decide that God probably doesn't exist, but I can't remember at the moment. But it wasn't until I had been out of the Church for at least a year, maybe a year-and-a-half. And actually for most of that time I considered myself an agnostic: that there isn't enough evidence for or against God's existence, that we can't know for sure either way and so it's an unknowable answer. It wasn't until a few months ago that I read a book which showed me a different outlook on agnosticism vs. atheism that made me realize I'm actually an atheist, and I'm okay with that label since it's more accurate to my beliefs. So for me, my path to atheism was definitely not a two-step process, and that's true for many people who leave the Church as well.

     Two more things about Point #1. Toward the end he said, "So, for LDS members (particularly RMs and life-long members), Christianity itself hinges upon the question, 'Was Joseph Smith really a prophet?'" (italics are his), and he's just flat-out wrong about that. He tried to use his previous reasoning to come up with that statement, but it's completely wrong. For LDS members, MORMONISM itself hinges upon the question "Was Joseph Smith really a prophet?" Christianity hinges upon the question "Was Jesus of Nazareth really the Son of God, the Christ who saved us from our sins and made Heaven attainable?" His reasoning was flawed and his concluding statement is wrong.

     And the last thing I want to mention about Point #1 is in his last paragraph when he says "Once you’ve tasted the sweetest and most perfect form of Christianity, where else will you go when you leave?" In the most recent General Conference, M. Russell Ballard gave a talk about that, called "To Whom Shall We Go?" (linked here: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/10/to-whom-shall-we-go?lang=eng) and it makes me mad because it's a scare tactic.

     People are naturally scared of the unknown; we feel more comfortable in familiar situations even if we're not completely happy there. That's one of the reasons why abused people stay in an abusive relationship: they believe and sometimes are even told "Where else will you go?" That's especially true for the person who is financially dependent on their abuser. And so when I hear that coming from a Church member like this author and from a general authority, I recognize it for what it is: a scare tactic used to prey on people's fear of the unknown and make them stay in the Church. It leads the hearer to think, "I may have doubts about the Church, and I may not agree with this, this, or this about the Church, but at least it's better than the unknown," or in this author's case, "but at least it's better than atheism."

     I see statements like "Where else will you go?" as a scare tactic, and I don't like it one bit, especially since the option isn't black and white. There are other religions; there is your personal relationship with God that can extend beyond a specific religion; and there are comforts that can be found in science if you listen to people who know what they're talking about (Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, and even Charles Darwin are excellent examples).

     Oh, and he's wrong about Mormonism being the most perfect form of Christianity.  Perfect Christianity would be a strict adherence to the Bible, and there is some pretty objectionable stuff in there!  Mormonism, like all modern Christian denominations, teaches the "good parts" version of the Bible.

Point #2

     He is right when he says this:

There are many critics who love highlighting the Latter-day Saints who choose to leave the Church. They say that the rest of us are in denial, that we belong to some kind of crazy and fraudulent cult and have our heads too deep in the sand to see how many people are drawing that very conclusion. They want us to look at our friends and family members who are leaving the Church and feel alerted to the idea that there is something wrong with the Mormon Church.

     However, this section is where he switches from talking about anti-Mormonism to atheism, but he shouldn't for this argument. Not all anti-Mormons are atheists, and not all atheists are anti-Mormons. The critics he describes here fall into the anti-Mormon camp; neither their religious affiliation nor their theistic views are relevant—the actions and goals he describe are anti-Mormon in nature.

     He's probably right when he says that Christians across all denominations in the USA are leaving the religion they were brought up in and that faith is declining.  And as a former Mormon and now atheist, I don't see that as the "problem" he claims it is.  Church leaders across denominations are freaking out about young people leaving their congregations, but I see nothing wrong with letting go of faith in favor of evidence.  There's nothing wrong with the question "What's your evidence for that?"

     (By the way, the scripture Hebrews 11:1 says "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," and it's brought up in church all the time.  If you have somewhat of a mental roadblock when reading that, it's because you recognize that the definition of faith here is wrong.  Faith is a belief in something when there is no evidence to support that belief.  I should add that faith is also a continued belief in something even in the face of evidence to the contrary.)

     Before modern science it was easier to live on faith because there was no evidence or explanations to contradict the scriptures or the clergy.  But now that science has figured out so much about ourselves and our world, religious explanations for things hold less water and we're left realizing that their evidence is too weak to validate their claims.  The dependence on faith is being replaced by a desire for evidence, and that's a strength in a person, not a weakness.

     In this section he also says "So, to be clear, it’s not that we have discovered new information about Joseph Smith that has suddenly changed a lot of people’s minds about the Restoration. The criticisms you hear today are the same criticisms that have been peddled for decades and longer." In this he is correct but only to a point.

     It's true that people have been leaving the Church for decades and longer and they've been criticizing it for just as long. However, for decades and longer any information against the Church has been labeled as "anti-Mormon propaganda" and "hate group propaganda" and Church members have been told by the leaders that they are not to read those books or websites.  It's even a requirement for a temple recommend that you're asked about in the interview: "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"  ( http://www.lds-mormon.com/new_temple_questions.shtml )  And that kind of information used to be harder to find anyway—you really had to make an effort to find it. Information is a lot easier to find now that we have the internet, and it's easier to seek information about topics or questions or doubts you may have. And with social media, often you don't even have to go searching—it appears right in your news feed (that's how I come across current LDS topics nowadays).  That's probably why it's largely Millennials who are leaving their religions: they're the generation who grew up with the internet and they're the ones who are most used to surfing the web for anything that piques their interest.  They're also probably the age range that's the most active on social media right now.  Information about Joseph Smith in particular and what he did and said is new information to most members today. And that does change a lot of people's mind when they've heard one version in church, sometimes for their whole life, and then they come across another version or more information from other sources. . . and more recently from the Church itself.

     From 2013-2015, the Church released a series of essays on its website regarding various Church topics. There are 11 essays total and they are all approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.  Here's the link to the main page: https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng  and the individual essays are linked on the right side of that page.  Most of the topics are familiar to everyone in the Church, but there is information in many of them that was previously only available in anti-Mormon books and websites, things that the Church always said was "propaganda" and shouldn't be read or taken seriously by faithful members, and that of course never made it into the Church curriculum. Many of the topics cover issues that contribute to most ex-Mormons leaving the Church: race and the priesthood, polygamy, multiple First Vision accounts, etc.

     While I can appreciate the greater transparency and honesty of the Church regarding these topics, I do not like that the Church leaders make no apology for keeping this information from their members until now.  Members, if they're told about the essays at all, are supposed to accept the information they read there and they're expected to deal with issues on their own that arise because of that information which, while not new in itself, is new to them. The Church leaders have done a very poor job of training bishops and teachers on how to address these essays when they come up in church, and most members probably still don't know these essays exist. But this is the Church's way of coming clean about undeniable facts that too many members are finding out about on the internet.

     My last point about this section is concerning his last two paragraphs:

So, why might the Adversary lay the foundation for plunging Western society into Atheism? The reason goes deeper than you may have ever expected.

Now that we understand the central role that Atheism is playing in the crises of faith for both Mormons and other Christians, it’s time to understand the profound implications.

      First of all, Atheism does not play a role in the crises of faith—atheism is often the end result of a crisis of faith, but it's never a cause. And second, he just equated Atheism to The Adversary. This is the only time in the whole article that he mentions Satan specifically, and he went right back to talking about atheism after that.  He is saying that Atheism is Satan. Church doctrine says that Satan plays an active role in your crisis of faith, but instead of saying that, he says Atheism plays that role.  He does the same thing later on in Point #4 as well.  Satan—Lucifer, The Devil, The Adversary, whatever you'd prefer to call him—is a supernatural being who is pure evil and is hellbent (pun intended) on the destruction of the soul of everyone who's ever lived on the face of the Earth. Atheism, again, is an individual's personal belief that God does not exist. They are not even close to being the same thing, and he's wrong to use them interchangeably.

Point #3

     I am very glad to see him say, "To be clear, people who become Atheists don’t suddenly become moral monsters. Their moral views shift, but they probably have more in common with the moral beliefs of their religious friends than they have in contrast." That is true, and it touches on a huge fear that non-atheists have about atheists. But I start to take issue with this paragraph:

. . . most Atheists have had a religious upbringing and live in an environment that has been deeply influenced by Christianity. It is one thing to reject revealed religion, and another to abandon mindsets, attitudes, and values which you don’t even realize have been socialized into you since birth. Thus, many Atheists don’t realize that while they have rejected God, everything about the way they see the world is still deeply influenced by religion.

     I would not say that atheists abandon mindsets, attitudes and values, at least not at first. We reevaluate them, and we keep the ones that we find are universal and good for the welfare of ourselves, our family, our community, and ultimately our species. We abandon religion-exclusive values and continue to hold fast to universal ones. I can't speak for all atheists, but I can definitely speak for some when I say that I absolutely realize that everything about the way we see the world is deeply influenced by the religion we grew up in and the most popular religion in our country. In fact, those Mormons who leave the Church are more likely to realize that their worldview has been based on LDS doctrine because they're now looking at the Church and the world from outside the Church, not strictly from the inside. And atheists are more likely to realize just how much of our country's national and local laws and policies are influenced by and favor Christian lobbyists and churches, even though our Constitution is strictly secular.

     Here he starts to use the term "post-modern atheism" but he doesn't define what it is. I found a definition that seems right: "Modern atheism began about 150 years ago, when all the factors came together to make a lack of belief in a deity seem intellectually sustainable." (that was when Darwin's "The Origin of Species" was published in 1859).

     I would say that he is correct when he says that most people who identify as atheists, especially those who used to be religious, don't want to believe something that cannot be studied or confirmed by scientific inquiry. He goes on to talk about what philosophers have to say about humanity and the direction that atheistic beliefs will take society. I don't know about philosophers' views; I haven't looked at things from their point of view much. Instead I've been looking into what scientists have to say about things like that, particularly atheist scientists.

     (Just to be clear, philosophy and science have different purposes and outlooks on life, and it would be an insult to both fields to lump them into the same category.)  ;)

     Where I start to disagree with the author and his philosophers' views is the direction that society will go if religion and theism were to die off. I've been listening to videos and debates with a prominent evolutionary biologist and atheist named Richard Dawkins, and I've recently finished reading his book The God Delusion (that's where I realized that I'm an atheist and not an agnostic). He calls himself a Darwinian, meaning that he believes that what we know about our world and ourselves can be explained by Darwin's discovery of evolution. In his book he devoted an entire chapter to the question of morality: it's called "The Roots of Morality: Why Are We Good?" and he has very good arguments for the roots of morality being not in religion but in our evolution as a species. In arguing that morality comes from our evolution and from an instinct for the survival of our species, he has a positive outlook for our species and he argues that we might actually be better off without religion (and of course he backs up his arguments with scientific data and reasoning).

     I agree that the push for same-sex marriage is probably about respect. Not being homosexual myself and not being part of that same-sex marriage movement at all, I can't really say for sure, but it sounds plausible.

     Here is where I have another huge problem about his labels:

The consequence [of rejecting moral codes] is that society begins to gravitate around radical equality. That is, people will fight and fight until society cannot and will not recognize that any choice is better than another, that any lifestyle, belief, or action has more moral merit than another. (Of course, equality is an important social value, but Christian equality looks very different from Atheistic equality for reasons listed here.) Post-modern Atheist philosophers, following the logic of Atheism, say that all differences, such as gender and family hierarchy must be eliminated in the process. They claim that once the forces of radical equality are unleashed upon the old system of traditional morality and institutions, our world will be transformed into something that even they cannot fully conceive.

     I followed the "listed here" link ( http://happiness-seekers.com/the-difference-between-christian-and-atheistic-equality/ ), and here's what it says. I'm copying and pasting the whole thing because this Alarming Truth article was originally on this website but it's no longer viewable, so I'm spelling it out here in case this page becomes inaccessible, too:

To understand the difference between Christian and Atheistic equality, we must understand the difference between what I call “Christian progressivism” and “Atheist progressivism.”

Christian progressivism is the struggle to bring society in line with truth that God has revealed. The long history of Christian abolitionists who opposed slavery on the grounds that it is an affront to the laws of God is an example of Christian progressivism. Christian progressivism has been at the forefront of this type of social progress since Christianity’s inception (which means since the days of Judaism).

But when Christians fight for equality, human dignity, and love, it is to ensure that all Humans are empowered to fulfill the purposes that God has ordained (in scripture) for Human existence. So, the guiding force for Christian progressivism is the desire to serve, obey, and learn of God’s will for His children.

This means that Christian Progressivism pursues values such as equality within the framework of truth that God has revealed in scripture: the purpose of Human existence, gender roles, prohibitions on certain sexual behavior, etc. So, while treating Blacks as equal citizens helps society to better live up to Christian teachings about love and equality, instituting same-sex marriage or legalizing abortion may be contrary to the safeguards established by Christianity (God).

Atheistic progressivism is deceptively similar to Christian progressivism because it professes to retain Christian values such as equality, love, and human dignity.

But it rejects the idea that our pursuit of those values should be guided by either God or beliefs about human purpose, the immortality of the soul, or other transcendent truths (because, like God, none of these concepts can be scientifically studied or confirmed).

This has key consequences: While Christian Progressivism moves toward equality within the structured context of God’s revealed will, Atheistic Progressivism is free to reimagine equality outside of any meaningful restraint.

This is why the Atheist pursuit of equality leads to radical equality that seeks to eliminate differences in general."

     First of all, his claim that slavery was against God's laws is inaccurate. The Old and New Testaments never condemn slavery.  In fact, God gives specific instructions through Moses on how the Israelites were to treat their slaves (Exodus 21:20-21 and 26-27, Leviticus 25:44-46, to name a few), and the New Testament isn't any better on slavery (Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Titus 2:9-10, to name a few).  Modern humanistic values, not adherence to the Bible, led to outlawing slavery.  So for him to say "Christian progressivism has been at the forefront of this type of social progress since Christianity’s inception (which means since the days of Judaism)," this shows he hasn't read the New Testament very thoroughly.  Again, I suspect he's only going off of Mormonism's "good parts" version that members are taught in church.

     Second, every non-Christian resents the idea that equality, love, and human dignity are solely Christian values, that somehow Christianity is the only one who has a claim on those virtues and that an atheist can't possibly feel those things of themselves.  Here, I believe, is where people get the idea that atheists are immoral.  The reasoning goes like this: if God is the source of morality, as theists claim, then it must be that someone who rejects the idea of God and becomes an a-theist also rejects the morals that originate in Him and therefore they become a-moral as well.  This is where theists are wrong and the important argument for the origin of morality comes into play.  Theists argue that morals and ethics come from God and so to reject God is to reject morality; atheists say no, morals and ethics come from us as a species and from our societies to help society function, and the morals we have are simply not dependent on belief in a supernatural being.

     Third, I have an issue with the last two sentences of his explanation. Scientists, especially evolutionary scientists, absolutely recognize the need for distinction between the males and females of our species. Atheists are more likely than theists to embrace science, especially evolutionary science, and so atheists as a whole absolutely see the need for differences between the sexes. Those last two sentences and his claims about radical equality are not a description of atheism, but of FEMINISM.

     If you want to know what's been going on with modern feminism, and especially if you have a son, then you should read the book by Christina Hoff Sommers called The War Against Boys: How Misguided Policies Are Harming Our Young Men.  Modern feminists in the United States are the ones who say there is a "Patriarchy" in our country that must be dismantled; that women can do anything a man can do; that women should pursue careers and that having children is beneath them—that women who want to be a wife and a mother have internalized misogyny. Feminists are the ones who demand that schools not only provide equal opportunity for girls to play sports but that there must be equal participation as well, and that men in society have squashed girls' desire to play sports just like the boys do. They say that women should be as free with their sexual promiscuity as men are and that those women should be just as respected as men despite their number of sexual partners. Feminists are the ones who deny our basic physical differences, the different ways that men and women think, the ways we reason, and the ways we react to things. They are the ones who want to erase the gender differences by claiming that all gender differences are completely social constructs, that gender is all "nurture" and no "nature".  Biologists embrace our differences while feminists want to erase them.

     Theism and atheism play a role in that debate, sort-of.  Both views say that there are and should be differences between the sexes.  Theism says there are differences because God made us that way, and the differences should stay there because God says so.  Atheists in general lean more toward evolutionary biologists who say that there are differences but it's because we have males and females in our species and our species cannot exist any other way; we've survived this long because of our innate biological differences. Individual cultures determine to some extent what the gender roles of men and women will be in their society, and those role expectations are often reflected in their religion. But I say that atheists are more willing than theists to recognize that our gender differences and our sense of morality are natural in origin (from evolutionary growth), not supernatural (dictated from God).

Point #4

     This deals largely with LDS doctrine, and as someone who grew up in the Church I'm very familiar with these passages of scripture.  Reading them now, to me they sound a lot like philosophy, something you have to take time and energy to wrap your head around. I do have a comment about it, though: the part where it says "[But] man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by one or the other." (He's quoting 2 Nephi Ch. 2.)

     Atheists believe there is no God, and so they do not believe that there is both God and Satan constantly enticing you to do one thing or another. We realize that our thoughts are our own, that our good thoughts come from within ourselves and that our bad thoughts come from within ourselves as well. In that sense I feel freedom, that my mind and my free will aren't being fought over by two supernatural beings, and that in fact I can act for myself. It puts me in charge of my own actions and actually makes me feel more accountable for my actions. It's easy enough to say "the Devil made me do it" or "that good thought and act came from God, he's just working through me." As an atheist, I understand that I'm responsible for my own thoughts since they all come from my brain, not from one of two supernatural forces outside of myself.  If I make a mistake or do something wrong that hurts someone or breaks something, I seek to make amends not because I have God who will judge every unrepentant thing I do, but because that will make things right with that person who I will have to live with or see again, and it's the right thing to do. The author doesn't seem to think that atheists have a sense of morals, of good and evil, right and wrong; but he's wrong.  heh.  ;)  Atheists have a sense of right and wrong, but it comes from within ourselves and our societal norms and values, not from God and Satan.

     Next he makes an outrageous claim, and this is the other place where he uses the word atheist when he should be using the word Satan, according to LDS doctrine: "The goal of Atheism, however, is to destroy the moral distinction between choices. Or, in other words, the goal of Atheism is to destroy the agency of man." I don't know the name of this logical fallacy, but it's where "if B is true of A, and C is true of B, and D is true of C, then A must be true of D."  In this case, Atheism is A and destroy the agency of man is D.  While his chain of reasoning via those scripture passages might make sense to him, the end result is wrong and he's been using this fallacy throughout his article.   Atheism isn't an organization with goals, it's a lack of belief in God. If you flip his statement around, you can see how incorrect it is: "Theism's goal is to uphold the agency of man." No it isn't. Theism is belief in a personal God and a creator of the universe; theism in itself has no goals. Individuals, religions and churches have goals, and Mormonism spells it out with its Threefold Mission of the Church: https://history.lds.org/event/three-fold-mission-of-church?lang=eng .  But theism and atheism as a whole are the belief and disbelief in God, respectively. So he's got a logical fallacy going on here and it's poking holes through his arguments.  And he seems to be twisting the meaning of those verses to take Satan out of the picture, which is a big no-no for Mormonism: Satan absolutely belongs in the picture!

     I also found it interesting that right here at the end of this section is the only time since Point #1 that he refers again to anti-Mormonism in addition to atheism, and again he interchanges the two when they should remain distinct.

Point #5 (finally!)

     I don't have much to say about most of this section because it's his personal imaginings. The only comment I have is where he says,

I have personally experienced overwhelming doubt. In my darkest moments, when I felt like I was losing touch with reality—no longer knowing what was real and what was true—the only thing that enabled me to hold on a little longer, was what I just finished sharing in this article.

     So what he's saying is that the only thing enabling him to hold on a little longer. . . was his fear of atheism. It was his confusing modern feminism and anti-Mormonism for atheism; it was his equating atheism with Satan himself; it was his belief in philosophers who say that a society without religion will break down and basically fall into anarchy and we as people will devolve into primal savages.

     I can understand the feelings of panic, of despair, and of feeling like nothing matters. For the first two years or so I had many of those same thoughts and feelings myself. But those feelings eventually pass for most of us who have left the Church.  What has given me hope and purpose more recently has been studying science, specifically evolutionary science. It's been exciting to learn how we evolved (we didn't evolve from apes—both humans and apes evolved differently from a common ancestor).  While things like consciousness are still beyond the scope of scientific explanations, I take that as something to look forward to: someday we will know what causes consciousness.

     The main question that haunted me since leaving the Church was "What is my purpose?" I feel comfortable saying that all atheists ponder this question at some point. The Church claims to have the answers, and faithful Mormons feel comfort knowing that their Happily Ever After awaits them ( https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/04/your-happily-ever-after?lang=eng&_r=1 ). Those who have left religion, especially more recently, might be going through serious depression while trying to figure out what their purpose in life is, since they no longer believe that earthly life is a place to prove themselves for rewards in an afterlife.  The way I look at it is that science has done a pretty good job of explaining where we came from and how we got to where we are today as a species. And my purpose in life: it's what I make of it.

     My current purpose has a limited scope but it's something I feel very strongly about: helping my little family be more self-sufficient. We live on a very large and dangerous earthquake fault line, and my husband shared this article with me last year about the state of our country's power grid:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/lights-inevitable-failure-us-grid-230000502.html?nhp=1 
And it asks a good question: what will you do when the lights go out? I don't agree with the author's opinion that getting food storage is a waste of time, but the article did make me realize how dependent we are on a daily basis on electricity.  We've already had a few power outages at our house in the past year-and-a-half because of wind storms and so I know what it's like to be without electricity for over a day. So I want to help us be alright when, not if, we lose power for a long period of time. I also want to teach my children as much as I can about the natural world around them—I want their eyes to be open to the wonders of our planet and our solar system, the magnificence of the human mind and body, the amazing things that science has discovered and continues to try to discover, and the morals and ethics that are universal and that are for the well-being of society and our species. Those things give me purpose, even if only a temporary purpose for the short time that I exist.  And as times goes on I will find other things that help me feel fulfilled and that make me feel like I've contributed in a positive way to my fellowman.

     So I feel for this guy in his grasping for any concept that will help him feel better; I just think it's a shame that he based his reasoning on faulty comparisons, logical fallacies, and black-and-white options.

* * * * * * * *

     Well, there you go.  As a lifelong Mormon until three-and-a-half years ago, and as a recently-realized atheist, these are my opinions on this author's article.  Atheism is not the threat that he and most clergy and atheism-philosophers think it is.  Our society here in America does have some serious problems, but the rise of atheism isn't one of them (the real causes are another topic for another time).  Trading faith for a desire for evidence is never a bad thing and it's certainly never a weakness.  There are moral and immoral people in every religious and nonreligious group, and atheists as a whole are not immoral nor do they seek the destruction of morality and ethics in our society—they simply do not believe that morality and ethics come from God.  Furthermore, they do not believe that religious holy books are a pure source of morality; in fact, we look at holy books as evidence of how far many of our societies have come in our ethical treatment of one another (outlawing slavery and no longer viewing women as second-class citizens and as property) and especially how far we've come in our understanding of the natural world.

     And last but certainly not least, I'm grateful to my brother who questioned the validity of this article enough or at least valued my opinion enough to ask me about my views on it.  :)