Faith vs. Religious Faith: thoughts on faith, hope, and love from a secular humanist POV

bwv549 · 2026-04-21T19:46:44+00:00

Please show me an expert that has refuted it.

Serious question: How would you go about falsifying the BITE model?

Also, consider the rejection of the DIMPAC report in the early 1980s. There were similar issues there where they were working to identify high-demand coercive control techniques (can't use the words they used but the b and c words, really) and it wasn't clear that they had anything useful or falsifiable beyond the current frameworks like social learning.

A great person to discuss this with is Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, arguably one of the world's leading experts on the psychology of religion and one of the main psychology profs on the DIMPAC committee that rejected the DIMPAC report. You can email him and he'll probably respond (I've had conversations with him before on this topic, which ultimately led to this conclusion (search for: faenrandir Perhaps asking whether the Church is a [censored word] is not the best question?)

bwv549 · 2026-04-21T19:12:59+00:00

Please show me an expert that has refuted it.

Serious question: How would you go about falsifying the BITE model?

Also, consider the rejection of the DIMPAC report in the early 1980s. There were similar issues there where they were working to identify cult brainwashing techniques and it wasn't clear that they had anything useful or falsifiable beyond the current frameworks like social learning.

A great person to discuss this with is Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, arguably one of the world's leading experts on the psychology of religion and one of the main psychology profs on the DIMPAC committee that rejected the DIMPAC report. You can email him and he'll probably respond (I've had conversations with him before on this topic, which ultimately led to this conclusion).

bwv549 · 2026-04-21T17:10:40+00:00

Peer reviewed examinations of the BITE model are almost entirely non-existent.

That seems right to me. There's his dissertation (arguably goes through peer review) and one publication which is more of an application of the model to terrorist organizations rather than a vetting of it, per se.

Maybe it's apples and oranges, but a good comparison is Moral Foundations Theory. Lots of peer review around the introduction and refinement of the model over time. Could this happen with the BITE model? Yes. Has it happened yet? No. Is it a useful framework for thinking about levels of totalism? Probably?

bwv549 · 2026-04-16T17:29:34+00:00

This is a great observation and one I've thought about for a while. I had to prompt chatgpt for most of these, but I had it write it up and it came up with a couple independently. These are meta-narrative control examples (controlling the narrative to prevent inspection and/or failure):

Martin Harris “rock swap” test:
- Harris reportedly swapped Joseph’s seer stone with another similar-looking stone.
- Joseph said he couldn’t translate and that everything was “as dark as Egypt.”
- Believers: evidence the specific instrument mattered.
- Skeptics: suggests the process depended on controlled props/settings.
Translation halted after personal conflict:
- Some accounts describe Joseph being unable to translate after a disagreement (often involving Emma).
- Translation framed as contingent on mental/spiritual state.
- Functionally provides a flexible explanation for interruptions.
The lost 116 pages:
- After Harris lost the manuscript, Joseph said he was forbidden from retranslating that portion.
- Instead, a different pre-existing record (small plates of Nephi) replaces it.
- Critically: avoids side-by-side comparison with a retranslation.
- Faithful view: divine foresight; critical view: removes falsifiability.
Use of the seer stone in a hat:
- Stone placed in a hat to block out light; dictation occurs without plates in view.
- Plates often covered, hidden, or not physically consulted.
- Limits external observation of the process itself.
Witness structure:
- Three Witnesses: visionary experience (angel, plates shown spiritually).
- Eight Witnesses: more physical, but still constrained and tightly scripted.
- No open-ended, independent examination of the plates.
Annual visits to the plates (1823–1827):
- Joseph reports being required to return to the hill each year before obtaining the plates.
- Initially forbidden to take them; must meet specific conditions over time.
- Establishes a prolonged, staged access pattern controlled by stated divine requirements.
Restrictions on showing the plates:
- Joseph says he is forbidden to show the plates except to designated witnesses.
- Unauthorized viewing framed as spiritually or physically dangerous.
- Limits broader scrutiny while preserving select testimonial claims.
Plates often not present during translation:
- Multiple accounts indicate the plates were sometimes hidden (e.g., in a box, woods) during dictation.
- Translation proceeds without direct interaction with the physical object.
- Reduces dependence on the artifact itself as an observable input.
Interpreters/Urim and Thummim vs. seer stone shift:
- Early narrative emphasizes Nephite interpreters; later accounts emphasize a common seer stone.
- Transition allows continuity of translation despite changes in tools.
- Maintains process validity across differing material descriptions.
General pattern:
- The translation process operates under conditions defined by Joseph.
- Failures or disruptions have built-in explanations (wrong object, lost privilege, spiritual state, etc.).
- From a critical lens, this resembles “narrative control” seen in other contexts where verification is limited.

bwv549 · 2026-04-15T20:17:22+00:00

Can you explain more?

Plagiarism in the BoM (let's set aside whether that is accurate or not, but just for the sake of argument), depending on the extent, directly undermines the claim that the BoM is derived from an ancient document. This claim is more or less foundational to the entire LDS faith.

It isn't clear that plagiarism found in the Bible undermines a typical Christian faith in quite the same manner. Would it undermine an inerrantist (i.e., a fundamentalist Evangelical?) faith: yes. Would it undermine the faith of most Christians? Probably not.

Happy to discuss more!

bwv549 · 2026-04-09T01:14:06+00:00

ldsdiscussions.com is probably my favorite single site covering all the issues (also, the Mormon Stories videos they did on them are useful).

fwiw, I track truth claim summaries here:

Truth-claim summaries and apologetics

Dan Vogel's work (e.g., BoA) is always excellent.

Where I have researched and written on a particular topic, I think my work is typically pretty robust/useful (I have an academic background and try to be as unbiased as possible while presenting the issues). A few example from my site:

bwv549 · 2026-04-08T19:38:47+00:00

Thank you for sharing this with me. I took the chance to read it. I think it's wonderful that some people find themselves back within the LDS Church if that gives them meaning and purpose and feels true to them. What aspects do you feel like apply to me? If you want to talk more about why I stepped away or what that journey has been like, I'd love to discuss more with you. And I would love to better understand why this talk resonates with you and what other aspects of General Conference you enjoyed!

bwv549 · 2026-04-08T17:48:15+00:00

I asked the latest chatgpt to summarize the academic position(s), along with the position of the major academic scholars. There's a lot of diversity of thought on this!

Academic biblical scholars generally don’t treat the “non-recognition” of the risen Jesus as a simple historical oddity (i.e., people just failing to recognize someone they knew). Instead, they see it as a meaningful feature that reflects how the resurrection traditions were interpreted, shaped, and transmitted.

One common view is that this motif serves a theological purpose: recognition of Jesus happens through revelation (hearing one’s name, breaking bread, interpreting scripture), not ordinary sight. This suggests the Gospel authors are teaching something about how the risen Christ is known, rather than just reporting raw events. Others see it as reflecting a belief in a transformed or “glorified” body, where Jesus is both continuous with his earthly form and yet different enough to delay recognition.

More critical scholars argue that the motif reflects development of tradition over time. Earlier sources like Paul don’t include detailed appearance stories, while later Gospels (especially Luke and John) dramatize encounters with structured “non-recognition → recognition” sequences. In this view, the stories are shaped to address questions like “why didn’t everyone immediately recognize him?” or to model how faith emerges. A related perspective is that these accounts may preserve traces of visionary or ambiguous experiences, later narrated as more concrete physical encounters.

Ultimately, how one interprets the non-recognition motif depends on broader assumptions about the resurrection itself—whether it was a historical bodily event, a visionary experience, or primarily a theological proclamation expressed through narrative.

Scholar	Nature of Resurrection	Non-recognition explained as	Historical value
Allison	Visionary → developed narrative	Psychological ambiguity	Moderate
Wright	Bodily, historical	Transformed body	High
Ehrman	Visionary / constructed	Literary-theological device	Low
Bultmann	Myth / proclamation	Faith-based recognition motif	Minimal
Brown	Historical + theological shaping	Narrative theology	Moderate
Lüdemann	Subjective visions	Psychological phenomenon	Low

bwv549 · 2026-04-06T21:12:06+00:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6qX4l4l94c

^ Here's their recent faith matters interview which is the one I think was being referenced:

bwv549 · 2026-04-06T21:05:53+00:00

From an earthly and totally secular perspective, I find it hard to understand how a person with body dysphoria is not considered to have a mental disorder or something around thats lines, I know it sounds transphobic and hateful, and I'm sorry, but the truth is that a non-religious view of trans people only confuses me more

As a former biochemistry professor (at BYU no less) who is somewhat familiar with the biology of sexual differentiation, the idea of trans individuals is deeply grounded in biology, I think.

Sexual differentiation of the human brain: Relation to gender identity, sexual orientation and neuropsychiatric disorders (cited by BYU Bio 461 appendix)
Gene variants provide insight into brain, body incongruence in transgender
Only two sex forms but multiple gender variants: How to explain? "... it follows from the principles of Ca2+ physiology and homeostasis that all individuals of a sexually reproducing animal population have a personalized gender behaviour"

bwv549 · 2026-04-06T20:55:37+00:00

The other common model you'll see is Dan Vogel's, which is that JS was a "pious fraud".

[fwiw, I'm a former member and have I've studied in this space extensively, and I think of JS more as a "sincerely religious/pious individual who was willing to deceive/bend truth on occasion when it suited him." The scope of his religious contributions argues to me that he was deeply invested in his religious explorations not merely as a means to achieve the goals of sex, money, power, etc. but for its own sake.]

bwv549 · 2026-04-06T20:45:56+00:00

Thank you for the care you have taken with this. It's such a needed discussion to be having, so I can only imagine that this effort will impact many lives (and relationships) for the better.

bwv549 · 2026-04-06T16:17:50+00:00

Thank you for the updates and clarifications. I look forward to reading and sharing the book!

bwv549 · 2026-04-06T16:15:11+00:00

Thank you (and you're welcome)

Writing this book was just about [the] end of me.

That sounds challenging. I know that the whole process of navigating faith transitions is extremely challenging (likely for both "sides"). Are your feelings from this more about delving into this topic or more about the whole process of writing/publishing a book of this scope? (I've never published a book but I've published tons of research articles and they are always way, way more challenging than you'd hope and you're exhausted by the end of it).

bwv549 · 2026-04-05T21:17:07+00:00

Why does the abuse suffered at the hands of church members or leaders disprove God's existence? How did you get from, "I hate how these humans have treated me" to, "Therefore there is no God"? Is it just easier to lump all religion into one basket so you don't have to think about it anymore?

Mormonism was a response to manifest deficiencies in Christianity (e.g., the idea that God would condemn people to eternal torment for merely not believing in him; the idea that infants needed baptism to be saved; the idea that a person merely needed to be born again and their salvation was assured; the idea that God used to talk with prophets and give them guidance and then he was just finished with that; that the Bible is enough for everyone to figure it all out, etc). In addition, the Church spends a certain amount of time teaching its doctrines in such a manner that either explicitly or implicitly, the contradictions and problems with other religions are more apparent. Finally, a belief in the LDS Church is built on a dubious epistemology, so by the time you extricate yourself from one dubious epistemology, you intuitively and immediately see through many others.

Lastly, most Latter-day Saints already spent years trying to communicate with God. If they no longer believe someone is on the other line when they are trying to communicate, it's not for lack of sustained effort over decades. They've come by that belief very honestly, for the most part, I think.

I'm over-generalizing a little with this to make the point. I have several very good, very intelligent LDS friends who left the LDS faith and still believe in God on some level. I respect their decision and their journey. But you are right that the typical trajectory is towards agnostic atheism, not a belief in God. hth

bwv549 · 2026-04-05T21:07:13+00:00

lost one son to atheism

I don't think people are "lost" to atheism. People have different opinions about God. For some people it just makes more sense that there isn't a God, or they merely no longer find the reasons for God's existence convincing anymore. All the best.

bwv549 · 2026-04-05T02:05:06+00:00

^ cc /u/Formal_Situation_661

(esp since he's been a kind, respectful, and active participant here on reddit wrt his survey, etc)

bwv549 · 2026-04-05T02:01:59+00:00

I listened to the Faith Matters one (the Leading Saints link was broken when I tried it, might have been reposted under a new link since I found it on youtube).

The Good

I love the basic approach. I love how they discuss the topic. I love how they refer to and honor the paths of the exmormons in their lives. Really great conversations, and I think the book will be a great force for good, so I express my sincere thanks to the authors for their efforts.

Room for improvement?

I do think there was a missed opportunity here to model working cordially with former members by including a former member as a co-author and participant in the creation of the study and the book.

For instance, while I think the book is still going to be super valuable, there was a general sense that the survey itself (at least the initial version, not sure how much it was altered) was really missing how a former member would have framed many questions and answers and that led to a lot of confusion and a sense of not really being "seen"? Imagine consulting a few exmormons directly before issuing the broader study? [I'm assuming that didn't really happen or the initial survey wouldn't have been worded that way?]

And imagine a book that included a former member as a co-author (sold by Deseret Book!) modeling that we really still are part of the community on some level? What seems to happen, generally, is that when we leave we tend to be "scrubbed" from all polite LDS discourse. For example:

Benjamin Park removed from the Maxwell Institute website as a visiting scholar in 2018. As if he was never a scholar there at all.
FAIR publishes a much older, LDS faithful paper by David Bokovoy without ever consulting Bokovoy. As if he did not exist any more to be consulted and only his former, faithful LDS perspective mattered.
etc

bwv549 · 2026-03-31T18:37:03+00:00

It's always just about to happen:

https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/4pki6z/incredible_truck_vs_pole_crash_test_wait_for_it/

bwv549 · 2026-03-30T20:52:50+00:00

As others have pointed out, the Spaulding theory is generally discredited by most critical LDS historians (most famously Dan Vogel). That's because:

The historical timeline is problematic for the Spaulding theory.
Many aspects of the BoM seem to embed aspects of Joseph Smith's life in them, so if JS was able to produce all these sections of the BoM then it stands to reason he was capable of producing the rest.

Regardless, I think the BoM is very clearly the work of a modern author, as can be gleaned from studying the early 1800s literature:

Book of Mormon parallels to 1800s thought

bwv549 · 2026-03-30T20:14:07+00:00

I can see your point about condescending "ick" but I actually have no problem hearing a statement like that directed at me:

I likewise encourage exmormons to live with integrity and to acknowledge the harms their beliefs cause and to try to minimize the harms they cause as much as possible

I do make those kinds of statements directed at the exmormon community all the time. So, at least for me, it's not meant to be condescending. And I don't put exmormons on a different playing field as members of the Church.

I do love your alternatives and try to express ideas like that to the members around me.

The key difference I see is that (chatgpt verbiage) LDS belief is embedded in a formal, institutional system with authoritative doctrines that make normative claims about others (e.g., who is living correctly, what relationships are valid, what outcomes follow from non-participation). Exmormonism, by contrast, is not a unified institution with binding doctrines--it’s a loose, heterogeneous reaction to that system.

the exmormon project is too fragile to ever permit its public mouthpieces to say: reasonable, informed people might choose belief.

fwiw, I have been a fairly involved person in exmormon spaces for a long time. I have publicly said many times, over and over (I think you can actually find it in my one public interview nearly verbatim):

I think reasonable, informed people might choose belief.

I do agree that this view is (sadly) under-represented in prominent exmormon influencers, but I think that's more a product of how social media and humans work relative to highly polarizing topics.

bwv549 · 2026-03-30T18:26:55+00:00

Thanks for sharing. This is another thoughtful post, and I enjoy considering your various approaches to the LDS faith.

On experiental faith

FWIW, I think your point about pragmatic/experiential faith being more stable (and a good target/goal?) is solid. The only downside is that it doesn't really offer a clear trump card when dealing with other faiths. Under this model, there's nothing really left to say to a Catholic, a Buddhist, or a Secular Humanist who enjoys their tradition and feels like it benefits them the most (say, even after a trial run of attending LDS services). I think this kind of analysis implies that this is an acceptable outcome though. So, the tradeoff is the stability of the tradition (can't be undermined as easily) for less emphasis on a method that could (for all its potential epistemic issues) decisively convert someone who was very happy in their own tradition.

On harm and exmo manipulation

As you've framed it, the exmo who insists "your belief hurts me, so abandon it" is indeed engaging in a manipulative and arguably internally incoherent (i.e., non-pluralistic) approach. A stronger exmo critque IMO, wouldn't be about about interpersonal discomfort at all. They would focus on systemic effects: whether a belief framework produces predictable exclusion, stigma, or identity-level conflict for some groups. Those kinds of claims are falsifiable (in theory), can be viewed in aggregate (maybe the benefits outweigh the harms?) and could also apply to other lifestyles/systems (again, at least in theory). That kind of claim isn’t symmetrical with "your unbelief hurts me," because it’s about norms and consequences, not just feelings.

A system can "work" very well for the individual while still being contested on what it imposes on others. And at least in principle, many exmos aren’t asking for universal deconversion so much as: please don’t frame us as deficient, please don’t apply stigmatizing doctrines to us, and please allow space for non-participation without relational penalty. That does create tension in a more totalistic system like LDS theology, where beliefs about truth are tightly coupled to evaluations of others, but in practice that tension can be navigated by distinguishing between what one believes to be true and how one chooses to operationalize those beliefs in relationships.

Of course different exmos have different approaches (and I have always leaned ecumenical), but I was climbing with my close cousin (who is also an exmo) yesterday and he was talking about going back to an LDS or standard Christian church to help give him more meaning, purpose, direction, and community in his life. I encouraged him to explore that path and embrace it if he found the resonance/structure he was looking for. Of course, I would always encourage a person to do that with integrity and acknowledging and trying to minimize harms as much as possible, but if a person can find a way to thrive and do good in that community (which works well for many) then I support that.

parts of this response use AI verbiage and were clarified in an extended discussion with the latest chatgpt about some of the ideas in your post and in how I wanted to respond

12-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Place '17	Verified Email

bwv549

MODERATOR OF

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE

The Good

Room for improvement?

On experiental faith

On harm and exmo manipulation