![\"Pie](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/186\/2016\/11\/A-WhyImExMormon2.png\")
<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n
Someone shared this little pie chart with me the other day.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Now, there\u2019s no question that some people have lost their faith because of learning things about the history of Mormonism<\/a> that they didn\u2019t know how to reconcile with belief. \u00a0Sometimes true things. \u00a0Sometimes incorrect things.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n It\u2019s a cute little chart. \u00a0But anyone who takes it seriously must, necessarily, be either uninformed or in need of remedial logic. \u00a0Here\u2019s why:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n First of all, it\u2019s factually untrue that nobody ever leaves the Church because he or she simply never had faith. \u00a0I know several people personally who fall into precisely that category. \u00a0I also know people who apparently never cared much, who seem not to have prayed much (if they prayed at all), and whose departure from the Church was a painless drift rather than a traumatic rupture. \u00a0Moreover, there are definitely folks who left the Church without having searched the scriptures very much; I\u2019m personally acquainted with ex-Mormons who wouldn\u2019t be able to find 3 Nephi even if they spent all day searching for it in the New Testament. \u00a0I know lots and lots and lots of people whose lifestyle (\u201cwanted to sin,\u201d \u201cwas disobedient\u201d) took them out of the Church. \u00a0I\u2019m related to quite a few of them; they like their coffee, enjoy the occasional beer, prefer to spend their Sundays hunting, and so forth. \u00a0And, of course, there are more serious sins that lead some away from church attendance. \u00a0Finally, I\u2019ve met people who, once active, stopped attending because they were offended. \u00a0It\u2019s flatly false that nobody ever becomes an ex-Mormon for such non-intellectual issues. \u00a0In fact, I would guess that most<\/em> who leave church activity do so for non-\u201cacademic\u201d reasons. \u00a0Most of my inactive relatives, I suspect, if they ever think about it, probably think that, yes, the Church is probably true. \u00a0They just don\u2019t think about it very much and don\u2019t particularly care.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Second, the inference that we\u2019re supposed to draw from this little graphic, I think, is that serious study leads of Mormon history<\/a> leads to loss of faith.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n But that idea is easily disproved.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Consider, for example, the standard rule of basic logic known as modus ponens<\/em>, which may be expressed as follows: \u00a0If p<\/em>, then q<\/em>. \u00a0Given p<\/em>, q<\/em> follows.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Obvious illustrations of modus ponens<\/em> are easy to\u00a0come up with:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n If this is the ocean, it will be wet. \u00a0It\u2019s the ocean, therefore it\u2019s wet.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n If Sheila is dead, she\u2019ll have no pulse. \u00a0She\u2019s dead. \u00a0Thus, she has no pulse.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n If Balthazar\u00a0shows up, the party will be dull. \u00a0Balthazar has shown up, so the party\u2019s going to be dull.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The implication of the pie chart above seems to be Studying Church history destroys faith in Mormonism. \u00a0Bob studied Church history. \u00a0Therefore, Bob lost his faith in Mormonism<\/em>.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n But, as a matter of empirical fact, this rule simply doesn\u2019t hold up in the matter of studying Mormon history.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n I could use myself as an example. \u00a0I know quite a bit about Church history. \u00a0I\u2019ve been reading it seriously since my mid-teens. \u00a0But I remain a believer. \u00a0Unfortunately, since many critics know me to be shamelessly dishonest and to be obviously motivated by mercenary greed \u2014 as a member of the faculty at Brigham Young University I\u2019m indirectly an employee of the Church, and I know where my self-interest lies! \u2014 I wouldn\u2019t be a convincing counterexample. \u00a0I\u2019ll return to my own case in a moment, but let\u2019s look at some other instances:<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Leonard Arrington<\/a>, often regarded as the dean of Mormon historians and the founder of modern Mormon historical study, remained a faithful believer until his death in 1999. \u00a0Thus, it would be false to say that Leonard Arrington studied Church history and, because of his study, lost his faith in Mormonism.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Richard Bushman<\/a>, eminent Mormon historian and, among other things, author of biographies of Joseph Smith, has served as a bishop, a stake president, and a patriarch, and gives every appearance of being a believer. \u00a0His study of Mormon history seems not to have destroyed his commitment to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n For many years, my wife and I have belonged to a monthly reading group that includes the former Assistant Church Historian James Allen<\/a> as well as\u00a0Professor Thomas Alexander<\/a>, both of whom are emeritus holders of the Lemuel Hardison Redd, Jr., Professorship of Western American History at Brigham Young University. \u00a0It also included, until his death in 2007, Davis Bitton<\/a>, who was a professor of history at the University of Utah and a former Assistant Church Historian. \u00a0None of the three has ever given any indication that they\u2019re anything other than the believers they claim to be.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Richard Lloyd Anderson<\/a>, the preeminent authority on the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, is very plainly a believer, as is his brother Karl Anderson<\/a>, who, although not trained as a historian, has made himself one of the Church\u2019s leading experts on the Kirtland period of Mormon history.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Milton Backman<\/a> was definitely a faithful Latter-day Saint. \u00a0So was Stanley Kimball<\/a>. \u00a0So is Kenneth Godfrey<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Gerrit Dirkmaat and Michael Hubbard Mackay<\/a>, whose work I strongly recommend, are pretty plainly believing Latter-day Saints. \u00a0So, I can testify, is Alexander Baugh<\/a>, a former president of the John Whitmer Historical Association. \u00a0So is Steven Harper<\/a>. \u00a0So are Richard Bennett<\/a>, Douglas Alder<\/a>, and Carol Cornwall Madsen<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Brian Hales<\/a>, a Utah physician (and a friend of mine) who has become a leading authority on early Mormon plural marriage<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 not, perhaps, the most obviously faith-promoting subject \u2014 is both the immediate past president of the John Whitmer Historical Association and a committed and believing Latter-day Saint. \u00a0Another authority on Mormon polygamy (see here<\/a> and here<\/a>) is my friend Craig Foster<\/a>, who is also a faithful member of the Church. \u00a0(My friend\u00a0Ugo Perego<\/a>, a geneticist who has devoted considerable attention<\/a> to the same subject, currently serves as a bishop in Rome alongside Pope Francis.)<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n My friend and longtime colleague Jack Welch<\/a> has published extensively on Mormon historical issues and has long been a central player in Latter-day Saint scholarship of all kinds. \u00a0The founder of the Foundation for Ancient Studies (FARMS), the chairman of Book of Mormon Central<\/a>, and the longtime editor of BYU Studies<\/a><\/em>, he\u2019s most definitely a believer.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Mark McConkie<\/a>, who has gathered up an enormous quantity of historical testimonials about Joseph Smith<\/a>, is a believer. \u00a0Gordon Madsen<\/a>, who has devoted years to studying the legal issues surrounding Joseph Smith and the legal cases in which he was involved, is a committed Latter-day Saint. \u00a0Dallin H. Oaks<\/a>, who did important work on Joseph Smith and the law and on the trial of the Prophet\u2019s assassins (e.g., this<\/a>), seems likely (given his membership in the Council of the Twelve Apostles) to be a believer.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n