MIW Comments on Foster's Stages of Grief

Craig Foster, a research specialist at the LDS Family History Library in Salt Lake City with master's degrees in history and library science, delivered remarks at the recent 2003 FAIR Apologetics Conference, expanding on an essay published elsewhere (see link above). In the essay, he likens the emotional response of those who leave the LDS Church to that of people who pass through four stages of grief on losing a loved one, which he identifies as denial, anger/frustration, depression, and acceptance/reconciliation.

While Foster's credentials support his research into 19th-century "anti-Mormon" pamphleteering, there is no evidence that his ideas about the emotional or mental states of those who exit the LDS Church are anything more than the kind of armchair psychology most adults engage in every day. Nor does Mr. Foster show any awareness of how condescending or demeaning his remarks appear to those who do not share his unquestioning devotion to the LDS Church. Consider how a Mormon would view a Christian minister who likened the conversion process when joining the LDS Church to falling in love, with the key point being love is blind and only blindness could possibly explain a Mormon conversion.

Both these metaphors amount to a one-dimensional model that captures none of the complexity of real three-dimensional people and their relationship with God and their religion. Mormon conversion is not like falling in love�it is people investigating Mormon beliefs, giving prayerful consideration to what they read and observe, and developing faith in the religious claims made by the LDS Church and its leaders. Likewise, exiting the LDS Church is not like losing a loved one�it is people investigating Mormon doctrine or history, giving prayerful consideration to what they read and observe, and changing their religious convictions. Stereotyping either of these processes is a clever apologetic tactic but leads to poor analysis by ignoring any facts that don't fit the simple (and clearly biased) model.

Furthermore, Foster seems to adopt the personal attack vocabulary that has become all too common in apologetic religious articles authored by Mormons. Christians don't discuss or disagree with Mormon doctrine, they are described as "attacking [Mormon] doctrine and history." Those who exit the Church don't share their personal experiences or reasons for leaving the Church and joining another Christian denomination, they "publicly criticize the Church." Only someone with a permanent chip on their shoulder views every disagreement as an attack and every public statement by former members as a criticism.

FARMS and FAIR writers should exercise more discretion in throwing around their loaded apologetic terms. By the yardsticks these writers use, LDS missionaries are clearly "anti-Christian" for preaching that the creeds of all Christian churches are wrong and people should "join none of them" (JS-History 1:19). By such a measure, the LDS Church is clearly "anti-Catholic" in holding that "there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil" (1 Ne. 14:10). Outspoken modern LDS apostles have been even more explicit, plainly identifying the Catholic church as the "great and abominable church" described in such detail by Nephi (see 1 Ne. 13:6, 26, 34; Bruce R. McConkie's statements are nicely summarized in an online article by Michael Ash who, it should be noted, argues that these passages are not actually anti-Catholic).

If FARMS and FAIR writers are not willing to characterize Mormon missionaries or themselves as anti-Christian or anti-Catholic, they should refrain from labeling every Christian or Mormon writer who doesn't share their fundamentalist and exclusionary view of the gospel as anti-Mormons, apostates, or "purveyors of anti-Mormon literature" (another of Foster's terms). Rather than embracing and adopting the tactics displayed by the least-principled critics of the Church, Mormon scholars should take the high road and stick with defensible arguments instead of name-calling and demeaning allusions.