What the heck is this? Why do we need this?
When Mormons lose their testimony, more often than not, they become atheists or agnostics. In the rare case that they remain spiritual, it is often in an Eastern philosophy like Buddhism.; but most are unlikely to return to Christ. That doesn’t need to happen! There is a real alternative that can resonate with those coming from an LDS mindset: the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church actually delivers on all of the promises that the LDS church makes but does not and cannot deliver on.
In 2008, only 25% of LDS young adults were active, and the number continues to shrink.
36% of those born LDS leave the church.
Since 1981, LDS retention has fallen to 46%.
Of all religions surveyed in North America, LDS had the highest percentage of members thinking about leaving the church.1
According to a 2019 University of Utah survey, 61.5% of students who grew up LDS left the church while attending school. The majority of these students became agnostic, atheist, “spiritual but not religious,” or “nothing in particular”.
What kind of content can I expect?
I plan to post every week on Wed morning at 8am. I will begin by writing about my personal journey from the LDS church to the Orthodox church and things I’ve learned along the way that I felt were significant as a former LDS.
I will delve into an exploration of doctrinal differences, similarities, and early Christian history to illustrate that there is a Christian alternative that can resonate with the LDS mindset, and as I progress, I will gather and create resources.
Is this free? Is it a subscription?
Due to the economy, My wife won’t let me do anything for free anymore, but that’s another story!
Most articles will be posted first to paid subscribers, and then become free for 4 months to everyone. Some articles that I think are broadly applicable and that are non-personal will be free by default. After four months, articles go into the Archive, which is only for paid subscribers. Additionally, the Dialogues series will be for paid subscribers only.
Commenting will also be restricted to paid subscribers in order to help prevent this from turning into another ex-mormon / anti-mormon online forum.
Readers will be able to follow my journey step-by-step, read about critical insights that I’ve obtained, gain access to resources that I’ve found helpful, and have discussions aimed at the LDS mindset. I will also publish articles to help you understand Orthodox material in LDS terms. For example, LDS members speak of Salvation, but much of the rest of the Christian world speaks of Soteriology. I hope to bridge the divide!
My plea for support of this ministry / calling.
This isn't just a newsletter; it's a shared space carved out for a journey few understand. For those of us navigating the profound transition from Latter-day Saint to Orthodox Christianity (or even Roman Catholicism), finding voices that resonate, answers that clarify, and a community that understands can feel like discovering an oasis in the desert. Latter-day Saint to Orthodox exists to be that oasis for you. If you've found yourself nodding in agreement, feeling understood in the intricacies of this path, or gained even a flicker of light from these words, then you know the deep value of this shared space. It’s sustained by readers like you who recognize the importance of this niche community. Becoming a paid subscriber is more than just accessing extra content; it's becoming a partner in this journey, a guardian of this unique conversation, and a vital part of ensuring this oasis continues to offer solace and guidance for all who seek it. If this resonates with your heart, I invite you to become a paid subscriber today. Your support truly makes this possible.
Is this anti-mormon?
Let me be clear from the start: this is not an anti-Mormon publication. I served an LDS mission (as did both my children) near the “Concerned Christians” organization in Mesa, Arizona —an anti-Mormon group known for confrontational tactics—and I spent years involved in LDS apologetics. From that experience, I developed a strong distaste for most anti-Mormon and ex-Mormon websites, as well as “counter-cult outreach” groups that often come from evangelical or Baptist backgrounds. My experience is that these sources frequently mix a little truth with a lot of distortion. What they typically do is set up straw men using commonly held LDS cultural beliefs or opinions that are demonstrably false and then knock those down while proclaiming that the LDS church must then be false. While there are well-researched critiques of the LDS Church, these are typically found in academic works that, due to their level of technical depth, rarely reach wider audiences.
You won’t find content like the CES Letter here, nor will I typically link to it. I have family members (wife and children) who are still faithful Latter-day Saints, and I have no desire to tear down anyone’s beliefs. My goal is not to attack the LDS Church but to explore its history, theology, and narratives with honesty, respect, and nuance.
However, I do not shy away from topics that challenge official or widely held LDS perspectives—especially when LDS scholars or historians support those challenges. (And you will find that most of my footnote references and scripture references are typically to the LDS Church website.) When I discuss sensitive issues, I strive to present the facts objectively. Whenever I share my personal opinions, I will make that clear, and you are free to ignore those opinions. I strive to provide thoughtful, respectful commentary that helps those questioning their faith find a path forward —ideally within a Christian tradition that aligns with the values and mindset they cherish.
LDS Apologetics and Scholarship
While I may occasionally reference LDS apologetics and scholarship when I find their arguments interesting and compelling, I generally avoid relying on them. During my years of struggling to maintain my LDS faith, I closely followed the work of various apologists, hanging on their every word in search of answers. Over time, however, as I became more objective1 in my approaches to apologetic, Mormon scholarship, and anti-mormon material, I came to see that many of their methods are problematic. Too often, they rely on selective quoting, quote mining2, creative editing, and omission of vital context to frame historical sources in ways that support their narrative while excluding interpretations that might challenge their conclusions. These tactics aim to influence the average LDS member, who typically knows little about ancient Christian history. They are essentially designed to take advantage of ignorance around topics the LDS church does not educate on3. As a result, I approach LDS apologetics with caution, prioritizing balanced, well-contextualized sources over arguments designed to defend a predetermined position.
Who are you? Why should I listen to you?
Honestly, you shouldn’t take my word (or anyone else’s) for anything without doing your own research. I encourage you to explore the sources I reference and draw your own conclusions. Ultimately, no amount of intellectual argument or historical study can produce genuine faith—belief in God comes through personal experience with Him. However, I do firmly believe the following is true:
“Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.”
Austin Farrer (British Theologian and philosopher) and Neal A. Maxwell (LDS Apostle used this quote in his book A More Excellent Way.)4
Here are a few reasons why my perspective might be worth considering:
• Educational Background: I have an academic background in religious studies, the anthropology of religion, and Mormon studies. I’ve also spent over a decade deeply engaged with LDS apologetics, thoroughly exploring their arguments and perspectives and using them to combat “Anti’s.”
• Orthodox Perspective: I am a recently baptized and catechized Orthodox Christian, though I am not a theologian, and I have not been to an Orthodox theological seminary. While I strive to present Orthodox teachings accurately, I may accidentally misunderstand or misrepresent certain aspects, though I do attempt to validate my understanding as best as possible before publishing it. If you spot any errors, I welcome your feedback so I can correct them.
My goal is to offer thoughtful, respectful insights grounded in both study and experience, not to dictate what you should believe.
I hope this answers all your questions!
I used to unquestioningly accept and believe what the LDS Apologists and religious scholars published. I no longer do that. I now typically find the apologetics weak and manipulative. I’m not the only one to notice this, you’ll see similar criticism coming from the following post-mormon places:
John Delin (Mormon Stories Podcast)
Rebecca “bibliotheca” and Landi (Mormonish podcast),
Steve Walter (Radio Free Mormon),
John Larsen (MormonThink),
D. Michael Quinn is a Former BYU professor and historian said “LDS apologetic history often whitewashes uncomfortable or contradictory aspects of Mormon history, focusing only on evidence that supports a faith-promoting narrative while ignoring or downplaying problematic evidence.”
Kerry Shirts (former LDS apologist aka the backyard professor.), I used to watch a ton of his video’son youtube. He does not have a religious studies educational background (I believe he has an MBA and a business undergrad) but he was incredibly well read, taught LDS institute, and reviewed very dense technical religious/historical academic works that would put me to sleep. IRC, at his peak he had over 50K (maybe as high as 100K) subscribers, (which was notable for an LDS apologist at that time.) However, reviewing some of his material now, I see how it fits the LDS narrative but often misunderstands early christian though and patristic teachings. He would read, review and disseminate a lot of LDS apologetic material and scholarship in an easy to follow format. Then suddenly in the early 2000’s he lost his testimony and disappeared from the apologetics scene for over a decade, publishing only educational videos about Chess, only recently re-emerging and appearing on other LDS podcasts and youtube shows.
Jan Shipps is a highly respected independent (is not and never was LDS) sociologist of religion. While less directly accusatory of apologetic "manipulation," Shipps' work implicitly and sometimes explicitly critiques the tendency within Mormonism (including its apologetics) to present a simplified and idealized version of its history and identity. She highlights the selective ways in which Mormon history is often remembered and taught, often emphasizing continuity and downplaying periods of change, conflict, or theological evolution. Her sociological perspective allows her to see how these selective narratives function to maintain group cohesion and identity.
Shipps' analysis also points to the selective nature of religious group narratives, including Mormonism, and how these selections serve specific purposes, which can be seen as potentially manipulative in maintaining a particular group identity.
Grant Palmer was a former seminary and institute instructor for the Church Educational System (CES), giving him an insider perspective on how Mormon history and doctrine are taught and defended within the Church. In his book (An insiders view of mormon origins) and subsequent work, Palmer directly challenges the apologetic narratives surrounding Mormon origins, particularly the First Vision and Book of Mormon translation. He argues that apologetics often presents a sanitized and inaccurate version of history, deliberately avoiding or misrepresenting evidence that contradicts faith claims. He details how, in his view, apologetics selectively emphasizes faith-promoting stories while downplaying or ignoring problematic historical details. Palmer's work directly argues that Mormon apologetics is manipulative because it is selective in what historical information it presents to maintain a specific faith narrative.
Brent Metcalf (independent historian argues that Mormon apologetics is manipulative in its attempt to create a veneer of scholarly support for Book of Mormon historicity through selective evidence and flawed reasoning)
Fawn Brodie (Granddaughter of David O. McKay) She was not a religious scholar (she had a BA in english literature,) but her early work on a Joseph Smith biography (No Man Knows My History) was novel and groundbreaking in it’s critical approach at the time it was published in 1945. Needless to say it was highly controversial. Particularly because it was the first critical analysis done of Joseph Smith, and because she was from a prominent mormon family and in her biography she did a fairly meticulous examination of historical sources and pioneered critical approaches to Joseph Smith. She used many primary sources available in her day and had access to archives that were not generally accessible at the time. While he approach is not without criticism, particularly in her attempts to psychoanalyze Joseph Smith using Freudian ideas, and there were some small factual errors where she may have misinterpreted sources or relied on less reliable sources (she’s not a historian) and she relied on the Spaulding-Ridgon theory for an explanation of the origins of the Book of Mormon (which theory is now largely discredited.)
Richard Bushman (former LDS historian and author of Joseph Smith biography - Rough Stone Rolling) and other prominent post mormon figures and academics have developed similar opinions.
Quote mining is the practice of selectively extracting words or phrases from a source in a way that distorts the original meaning or context to support a particular argument or agenda. This technique often involves removing surrounding text that provides essential context, resulting in a misleading or incomplete portrayal of the author’s intent. Quote mining is commonly used in debates, polemics, and apologetics to make an opposing viewpoint seem weaker or more extreme than it actually is. In scholarly and ethical discourse, it is generally regarded as a deceptive and intellectually dishonest tactic.
For example. From a religious studies perspective, the best way to understand the origin, growth and development of a religion and it’s beliefs, is to understand the social, cultural (sociocultural) and religious environment that the new religion, sect or denomination arose in. The LDS faith came out of the Second Great Awakening period (generally 1790-1840.) Most LDS doctrines, beliefs and the Book of Mormon itself can be best understood within the sociocultural and religious milieu of this period which saw a prominent rise of restorationist movements.
When I took a mormomism class as part of my religious studies classes, we spent a couple of months at least) studying the second great awakening time period in America. The Second Great Awakening was a Protestant religious revival that took place in the United States from the late 18th century to the mid-19th century. It began around 1790 (at the end of the First Great Awakening), gained momentum by 1800, and peaked between 1820 and 1840.
This period was marked by widespread revivals, emotional preaching, and an emphasis on personal salvation and moral reform. It played a significant role in shaping American society, influencing movements such as abolitionism, temperance, women’s rights, and social reform. The Second Great Awakening also contributed to the growth of denominations like the Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians, as well as the emergence of new religious movements, including Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), founded by Joseph Smith in 1830, The Stone-Campbellites, The Plymouth Brethren, Church of Christ, Adventists (Seventh-Day Adventists and Adventists,) Jehovahs Witnesses, Millerites, Shakers and Oneida Community (founded in Oneida, NY 80 miles from Palmyra, who also experimented with Spiritual Wifery, polygamy, open sexual relationships within the entire community - with approval from leadership, and a form of eugenics, but abandoned all of this by the late 1870’s.) These groups span the continuum of marriage from total celibacy (Shakers), to traditional marriage (Millerites) to full and open swinging within the entire community (Oneida community.)
https://www.ldsscriptureteachings.org/2020/07/rational-belief-and-creating-a-climate-where-faith-can-exist/
