I clicked on a link at FPR that allowed access to the audio of the explanation Dr. Richard Sherlock gave of his conversion from Mormonism to Catholicism.  I listened to the explanation and the Q&A a couple of times, and I have to say that I am particularly unimpressed by it all.  Of course, there may be deeper issues that I do not get, but to summarize his 4-point explanation:

1 – Catholics have a better approach to theodicy or the problem of evil.  I have a hard time with this explanation.  It seems his approach is to ignore the problem and say there is not such thing as evil.  Said another way, trust God.  This is very ironic to me given that Sherlock makes such a point of the intellect instead of emotion.  I feel that Mormonism provides the most fertile intellectual ground available for theodicy.  Am I missing something here?

2 – Catholics have a better approach to the big bang.  Sherlock does not seem to like eternal matter, or a material God, or a God who did not create the entire universe ex nihilo.  I feel that Sherlock overstated a scientific consensus regarding big bang theory, particularly ignoring multiverse theory.  I know very little about this, but it seems his explanation was lacking.  The important part to Sherlock seemed to be that if God did not literally create everything, then there is no fundamental purpose to anything.  I disagree with this.  I think you can still have purpose to organizing chaotic matter, even if the matter is eternal.  I also think there is plenty of wiggle room in big bang theories.

3 – Catholics maintain a large, fundamental ontological gap between God and man.  Sherlock seems to prefer an absolute God who is entirely ‘other’ from man.  This is fine, if this is how you feel.  But it also seems to me to make things more mysterious and emotional, rather than intellectual.  Which is counter to much of his explanation.

4 – Anti-intellectual sentiment within Mormonism.  Well, okay, there is something to this.  But there is room for thought within Mormonism.  Sherlock himself was proof of that.  Look at Blake Ostler and others.

I know I am a novice at this stuff, but I am quite disappointed in the explanation.  It seems shallow and inconsistent for someone of his background.  It also seems ironic with the whole head and heart theme he cast his explanation with.