A Mormon Just Believes

One of the many discoveries made by those coming out of Mormonism concerns the fundamentally flawed nature of Mormon epistemology.  Mormons often claim to "know" certain things about their religion.  During the first Sunday of each month, a portion of church services is dedicated to allowing members to get up in front of the congregation and "bear their testimonies."  Now, this "testimony" is nothing like what is normally associated with that word.  To a lawyer, for instance, "testimony" is typically an assertion of personal knowledge, belief, or opinion that someone makes under oath.  If an assertion is mere belief or opinion, it must be distinguished from knowledge. Knowledge must be based on your own sensory perception and cannot be based on hearsay (subject to certain exceptions).

For Mormons, a testimony is a statement of their "knowledge" of the truthfulness of the church or some aspect thereof.  So during this "testimony meeting," you will hear Mormons get up and say "I know the church is true" or "I know Joseph Smith was a prophet" or "I know that the Book of Mormon is true."  The problem with all of these knowledge assertions is that they conceal the mechanism by which the Mormons allegedly gained such knowledge.  You see, Mormons (and perhaps all religious/spiritual people) believe that they can deduce knowledge/truth by way of feelings.  They will often pray to God, or engage in some church-related activity, and simultaneously have some kind of inward feeling of peace, joy, or serenity.  This emotional experience can be interpreted in a number of ways, but in the Mormon context, it invariably will be seen as a confirmation of the "truth" of some proposition.

So when a Mormon gets up and says "I know the Book of Mormon is true," they're being intellectually dishonest.  They don't "know" the Book of Mormon is true in the same way that you know that you're staring at a computer screen right now, or that you know you had fruity pebbles for breakfast this morning.  Their "knowledge" is not based on objectively observable evidence, as is the case for virtually all acceptable claims to knowledge.  Instead, their "knowledge" is based on the interpretation of a subjective feeling.  To make an honest statement, they would have to describe the mechanism by which they allegedly gained their knowledge, such as "I was reading the Book of Mormon last night and had a strong feeling of peace and serenity.  I interpreted that feeling as coming from the spirit of God, and I believe the feeling signifies that the Book of Mormon is true."  It's important to note that this honest statement uses the words "interpret" and "believe," not "know."  All that Mormon really knows is that he/she had a feeling while doing a particular activity.  Anything beyond that is necessarily a reflective process of interpretation and belief.

I tried to illustrate this important distinction recently with one of my sisters.  During a road trip, she asked me what my thoughts were about the church (I recently "came out" to my mom regarding my disbelief, and thus word had gotten around).  I told her that I no longer believed it and that I viewed all religions as man-made.  A few more hours transpired on the road trip without further discussion on the topic, but when we were almost to our destination, my sister asked if she could "bear her testimony" to me.  I of course said yes.  She then proceeded to assert knowledge of various things, such as the truthfulness of the church, the gospel, and so forth.  When she was done, the following conversation took place (roughly paraphrased):

Me:  How do you know?
Sister: Because I feel that it's true.
Me:  How do you know those feelings signify that something is true?
Sister:  Because the spirit of God confirms it through feelings.
Me:  How do you know the spirit of God confirms the truth of things through feelings?
Sister:  Because I believe . . .
Me:  Exactly.  What you have is belief, not knowledge.

Now I didn't engage in this little Socratic exchange for the purpose of tricking my sister.  I did it for the purpose of making an important point: ultimately, Mormons just believe.  Mormons are not accustomed to having their claims to knowledge (testimonies) challenged; at least, not past the first level.  But the regression incited by a series of "How do you know" questions will ultimately result in an admission of belief, not knowledge.

Many readers might be thinking "Well of course, all religious claims require faith/belief."  True!  But in that case, call it what it is.  Don't claim to have knowledge of something when all you really have is belief.  That is dishonest, confusing, and even a little arrogant.  If I claimed to "know" that Alex shot Bob, but then upon further inquiry it is revealed that my basis for knowledge is that Carl told me that Alex shot Bob, then you would rightly resent my initial misleading statement.  All I know is what Carl told me.  Anything beyond that is, of necessity, belief.  (Even worse, what if my claimed knowledge was based on a feeling/hunch!)  Similarly, if Mormons claim to know that Jesus lives, then I would hope their basis for knowledge is that a bearded guy with marks in his hands and feet walked across their swimming pool, introduced himself as "Jesus," shook their hand, and then turned the water in the pool into wine.  If their claim to knowledge is simply that they had some kind of emotional experience while praying or thinking about Jesus, then all they have is belief, and that is all that they should claim.

As the following video hilariously illustrates, a Mormon just believes.

On Being a Mormon Male: the Priesthood

In the Mormon church, the men are given what is called the "priesthood."  The priesthood is believed to be the power/authority of God to administer church ordinances (sacraments), perform miracles, heal the sick, heck even create worlds.  Mormons believe that this power was given to the apostles by Jesus, but was lost from the earth when all the original apostles died.  They believe that it was then restored to the earth through angelic visitors (first, a reanimated John the Baptist, and later, Peter, James, and John) to Joseph Smith, the church's founder.  The "priesthood" is a pretty big deal to the church and they take it very seriously.  Needless to say, the actual events of the priesthood "restoration" are highly dubious, as discussed here.

Nevertheless, the priesthood plays a major role in the Mormon church today.  Only men receive it.  Women are (conveniently) assigned the task of child bearing and rearing, so that is their equivalent function.  Mormons believe that the priesthood is required to receive special revelations on behalf of the church or congregations, and thus church leadership is dominated by men only.  There is the concept of "honoring" one's priesthood, which essentially means serving in the church, doing what you're told, and following the rules.  Mormon men will ascend the ranks of church leadership to the extent they are believed to "magnify" and honor their priesthood responsibilities.

Authorities in the church are highly respected.  A bishop, for example, is a man called to oversee a single Mormon congregation (termed a "ward"), much like a pastor.  He is generally highly esteemed by his members and other congregation leaders.  Above a bishop is a stake president, who oversees a cluster of wards.  He, in turn, is even more highly esteemed and respected by the members of these wards.  Above the stake president are regional authorities, area authorities, and then the top echelons of church leadership: general authorities.  These men are called "seventies" (of the first and second quorums of the seventy) and above them, apostles (the quorum of the twelve apostles).  These men are revered and practically worshiped by faithful church members, many of whom believe that these men are in frequent, direct communion with God or Jesus.

Because church leaders are so respected, there is latent competition to aspire to leadership positions.  This competition is reinforced by many Mormon women, who are taught from a young age that they should only marry a "worthy priesthood holder" who can take them to the Mormon holy temple for eternal marriage.  Thus, Mormon women will often demand, either openly or privately, a mate who "honors his priesthood."  (If you browse any Mormon dating websites, you will see language to this effect.)

Now all of this would be well and good if "honoring" the priesthood was the equivalent to being a good person.  But that is not the case.  Now, to be fair, there will be substantial overlap in the Venn diagram of "Honoring Priesthood" and "Being a Good Person," but the overlap is not complete.  The two are not one and the same.  To be a good priesthood holder, you must attend countless meetings which take away from time with your family, or time better spent fostering meaningful relationships with friends or the community.  You will also be expected to frequently attend the Mormon temples, where "service" is done for dead people.  (That's right: service....for dead people.)  You will be expected to fulfill church assignments that may or may not be productive, needed, or useful (e.g. visiting people who have no desire to be visited).

One might object at this point and say that all the "negatives" I just mentioned are simply in addition to what it takes to be a basic, good person.  A Mormon might say that honoring his priesthood means doing all the good things in the "Being a Good Person" circle in the Venn diagram, and then some.  In their minds, perhaps, the "Honoring One's Priesthood" circle fully encompasses the lesser "Being a Good Person" circle.  For the reasons stated above, I disagree.  There is only so much time in the day, and aside from basic responsibilities such as work and living, a Mormon man will have a relatively small budget of time with which to do other things.  Often, he will be forced to choose between tasks required to honor his priesthood responsibilities, or activities that might strengthen his bonds with family and friends.  He cannot be in two places at once, so a choice must be made.  And, needless to say, church assignments are not categorically more worthy of one's time than family activities.  They also are certainly not automatically better than many other activities not related to family at all.

On a separate but related topic, the Mormon priesthood allows Mormon males to develop a certain aspect of their personality that is of limited practical value, but which still enjoys high artificial value in the minds of Mormons.  This can be illustrated in the competitive world of mate selection.  In the real world, men will compete for the attention of women based on looks, intelligence, personality, and sense of humor.  All of these factors play a role in the Mormon world, as well, but there is one "trump" factor in the form of spirituality and the priesthood.  A man may neglect to develop other real-world facets of his persona that might make a normal man attractive or competitive in favor of one that is only valuable within the Mormon religious context.  So who cares if the Mormon man has let himself go physically and has the personality of a wet towel: at least he's spiritual and attends all his priesthood meetings!  If Mormons were completely isolated from the real world, perhaps this warped values system would work out just fine; but they're not.  And to the extent these less useful characteristics are reinforced and propagated to the next generation, they serve as a great disservice to Mormons trying to function in the real world.  Outside of the church, no one cares that you attend your priesthood meetings or have hundreds of scriptures memorized.  Such skills have little practical value.

I have often thought of Mormonism as a big bubble, just waiting to burst.  People toe the line and keep reaffirming beliefs because they see everyone else doing it.  The value attached to honoring one's priesthood is similarly a bubble.  As more and more people come to realize how tenuous and preposterous this priesthood notion is, the bubble will eventually burst.  Lord have mercy on the Mormon men at that time who have sunk so much capital into this worthless asset.  For them, it may be too late to develop the skills and character necessary to make it outside of the church.

"Church Leaders Aren't Perfect"

Critics of past or present Mormon church leaders are often met with this retort by believing Mormons or apologists.  It is variously put as "Prophets are imperfect men when not speaking under the power and inspiration of the Spirit" or "the church is perfect but its members/leaders aren't."  Okay, I agree that no Mormon "prophet" has ever been perfect.  However, I don't know that this excuse has the explanatory power commonly attributed to it.

This justification might account for inadvertent mistakes.  For example, a miscalculation of how long it might take to cross the plains, or how much food would be needed for the journey.  That could be a product of well-intentioned but erroneous thinking.  Another more 'innocent' mistake might be found in Joseph's loss of the 116 pages.  He certainly didn't intend for them to be lost, but he ultimately ignored his reservations and allowed Martin Harris to take them; sure enough, they were never seen again.

But many (perhaps most) of the criticisms leveled against these imperfect prophetic personages do not involve innocent or inadvertent (negligent) mistakes.  Rather, they are deliberate and calculated actions for which no apology is offered or expected.  These are not "oops" moments.  They are not "I used my best judgment, but things went awry" situations.  You don't accidentally or carelessly marry 14-year-old girls.  You don't mistakenly order the slaughter of hundreds of men, women, and children.  You don't accidentally concoct a bunch of nonsense and call it a literal translation of ancient Egyptian papyri.  You don't mistakenly ban the priesthood from a certain race for over 150 years.  You don't accidentally teach false notions on the origin of Adam and God.  Indeed, when it comes to spiritual matters, this is supposed to be the domain and expertise of the Lord's anointed.  If there is documented proof that prophets taught concepts that are now declared false doctrine by the church, how does one trust anything else said prophet ever declared?

This excuse should never be used as a blanket get-out-of-jail-free card.  Each incident should be evaluated individually to determine whether the man in question made an honest mistake in judgment, or whether he usurped his authority and deliberately did something deplorable.  Some situations may be a combination of the two.  This notion, like many others in the church, serves as a substitute for critical thinking and keeps naive Mormons in blissful ignorance.  It needs to go the way of the dodo.

Two Problems with Christianity

During my journey out of Mormonism, I briefly courted the idea of reverting to regular Christianity.  (Mormonism is a form of Christianity, although it is a topic of heated debate as to whether the church sufficiently focuses on Jesus.)  This may have lasted a month or so.

But I found Christianity to be almost as easily dismissible as Mormonism.  (And this was before I read books about how the New Testament was compiled and who the historical Jesus actually was.)  Christianity, as I understand it, relies on a central premise that all of us sin and thus become unworthy to be in God's presence.  To remedy this, we have to repent and forsake the sins.  But for some reason, the Christian God either cannot or will not forgive sins without someone else suffering for them.  And that's where Jesus' suffering and death come in.  Apparently God needed to punish Jesus (or himself, if we're supposed to make any sense of the trinity) in order to be able to forgive mankind their sins (including the "original" sin of Adam).

If this is true, that God cannot (or will not) forgive sins without punishing someone innocent, then what does that say about him?  Perhaps that he is petty, immature, cruel, and unjust?  How is it that God, the all-knowing, all-powerful ruler of the universe, requires the punishment of an innocent person to "atone" for the sins of others?  Why can't he do what we regular mortals do all the time: forgive and forget.  Or, if a law has broken, sentence the wrongdoer to a punishment that is proportional to the wrong, and once the sentence is served, he/she goes free.  If you wrong me, and then ask for forgiveness, I'll probably give it to you (depending on the wrong).  Maybe I'll require you to make some sort of recompense in the process, but hey, that's fair, right?  What I won't do is take out the "pain" of your wrong on some innocent third person, like my neighbor or my dog.  If I can forgive without making anyone else atone for the "wrong," then why can't God?  If God is concerned with our sins, there is nothing preventing him from just telling us the right way, and then independently deciding to forgive us (and/or punish) when we do wrong.  No middleman necessary.  Because Jesus is thus unnecessary, I don't believe he is a "savior" of anyone.

Mormonism tries to explain the need for an atonement by claiming that God's justice cannot be "robbed" by mercy.  Apparently, there are some cosmic laws of justice God is subject to that not even he can abrogate.  But in that case, God is no longer omnipotent, and how can we trust that he'll be able to "save" us at all? The Mormon explanation also seems to ignore the question of why God can't simply satisfy justice by punishing us directly and individually for our sins.  Would that really be so hard?

That's the first problem I see.  The second is hell.  Traditional Christianity teaches us that hell is a place of endless torment for those who sin or don't believe in Jesus.  Setting aside the criteria that determine whether one goes to hell or not (which I think is an unnecessary discussion, given the following), consider the concept of hell itself and how it squares with a just God.  Our mortal existence is indisputably finite.  But Christianity would have us believe that our souls will live forever.  Therefore, being sent to hell represents an infinite punishment.  That means that an infinite punishment is inflicted for actions/thoughts which are, by necessity, finite.  That doesn't match up.  If there is some system of morality that dictates the gravity of "sins," then theoretically there should be some corresponding system of punishment commensurate with the severity of such sins.  It doesn't matter what sins you committed during your lifetime.  Even Hitler's atrocious actions, while incomprehensibly abhorrent, were still finite.  Thus, not even he deserves an infinite punishment.  Surely there would be some punishment that would be commensurate with his bad acts.  Maybe it requires him to suffer in hell for an equal amount of years as the cumulative amount of life that he took.  God could figure out a proper number (he's all-knowing, after all).  What is certain, however, is that a just God could not possibly sentence someone to any degree of infinite punishment for wrongs that are, by definition, finite.  Thus, traditional hell is out of the question, and so is traditional Christianity.

Again, Mormonism tries to get around this obvious injustice by creating the three degrees of glory and then outer darkness.  But that really doesn't solve everything.  First of all, outer darkness would basically be the Mormon equivalent to Christianity's traditional hell.  So again, if anyone goes there (indefinitely) for deeds done in this life, it flies in the face of justice and must be rejected.  Also, the lesser degrees of glory don't really solve the problem, either.  Mormonism believes that once you're sent to one kingdom, you cannot progress to any other.  Thus, you are essentially "damned," in the literal sense of the word.  It makes no difference that apparently the lesser kingdoms are still places of glory and wonder.  They represent an infinite punishment for thoughts and actions done during a finite existence.

So there you have it.  Two of the central doctrines of Christianity are faulty.  It seems perfectly clear to me now, but when you're caught up in the system, you don't think to critically examine fundamental doctrines in this manner.  In the Mormon church you'll hear people talk about how the atonement is such a mystery and is difficult to comprehend.  The reason for this is, presumably, that it's such a deep doctrine.  Well that's not the case at all.  It's difficult to comprehend because it doesn't make any sense.  It's counter intuitive.  It doesn't match up with our real world experience.  It's nonsense.

Why a Rational Thinker Leaves the Mormon Church

I read the following letter/essay the other day:

http://pearceonearth.com/why_i_left_the_mormon_church.pdf

As I was reading this letter, I almost felt like I was reading my own thoughts.   The first issue he tackled was the unreliability of "spiritual" experiences as indicators of objective truth.  "Exactly!" exclaimed my mind.

And then on down the list of many of the bigger issues that expose Mormonism as a fraud.  He made a few minor exaggerations here and there, but by and large I thought his treatment was fair.  The letter wasn't long enough to give in-depth treatment of the issues, but he summed it up pretty well.  I've been working on my own list of "issues" I have with the church.  Maybe later I'll post them all.

In a past life, I might have looked at the similarity of thought patterns and conclusions between myself and this author and thought "Wow, there must be some guiding force [God] to our thoughts.  This is inspiration!"  I would often think things like this when reading the Ensign and seeing the apostles say certain things that I had previously thought up independently.  I saw this as evidence of the Holy Ghost speaking the same thing to our independent minds.  Now I think that people who think about the same topics long enough will come up with similar "inspiration" related to those topics.  So now, when I read this letter, I just think "This must be how rational minds think their way out of the church."  It makes sense that the rational path out of the Mormon church (or any religion) would be similar for most people.  Conversely, it makes sense for the irrational path into the Mormon church (or any religion) to be similar for most people.  This is the brilliance behind testimony meetings.  Have people get up there and share their stories (which will often be highly similar to the stories of many others in the congregations), and you get a crowd of people thinking that they're interconnected by some higher being.  Not at all.  They're simply thinking in similar ways about similar topics.

Dumbo's Magic Feather

People on the inside (of religion) would look at me now and assume that I must be miserable, having given up an active belief in God.  Surely they would dismiss my claim to being happier now than I have been in years.

But I really am glad to be done with all the contrived guilt and nonsense.  When Mormons do things they are taught constitute "sin," whether by commission or omission, they experience guilt.  Even when no one has been harmed by the "sin," they will feel guilty.  Because after all, they've hurt Jesus, right?

Mormons are experts at contrived guilt.  Consider the guilt a Mormon might feel for not having been to the temple for awhile.  The temple is a place where Mormons perform vicarious ordinances for dead people, who allegedly need them to get into heaven.  Such guilt is utterly contrived, for no one has been harmed by that person's failure to do some "service" for the deceased.  Or consider the guilt of LDS parents who have some children that have strayed from the church. How they must agonize over what they did "wrong." Their children could be leading happy, productive lives, but they still feel guilt and anguish. For what? It's all entirely unnecessary.  Or how about the guilt a Mormon might feel after masturbating? Again, no one has been harmed by this private act, but the Mormon is taught that his/her sins hurt Jesus. He/she now thinks that he/she is "unworthy" of the priesthood and/or holy spirit. Therefore: guilt, fear, repentance. It's all in the mind, and it's very silly.

Guilt is proper when you've genuinely harmed another. That is the time and place to feel guilt, for that may prompt you to apologize, foster better relationships, and otherwise create goodwill. This kind of guilt may have productive effects. But contrived religious guilt is practically useless.

Not only is religious guilt useless, it can be highly counterproductive. Mormons who feel intense guilt over their "sins" may be much less effective at work, in their social interactions, relationships, school, etc. Compromised performance in those areas, at certain critical times, can have devastating effects. Mormons might feel that because of their sins, they are unworthy of the holy spirit (which they believe to be a constant guide, strength, and companion, when worthy of it) and thus God won't support them. They might entertain self-fulfilling thoughts of failure. It's just like when Dumbo lost his magic feather and then thought he could no longer fly. Fortunately his little rat friend made him realize that he was the one with the power; it had nothing to do with magic feathers (God). 

I personally find this reorientation of control to be an empowering perspective. For years my participation in the church was half-assed so I always felt unworthy and unable to reach my true potential (this because I was still a believer). Now that I've abandoned my belief in magic feathers, I feel like I've reclaimed a part of myself. That's why I consider myself happier now than I have been in years. 

I wish I could help some people see this.  They are the ones with positive energy, good attitudes, and inspiration.  They are the ones responsible for this, not God.  They don't give themselves enough credit.  Many Mormons will often say things like "I don't know where I'd be without the church."  They attribute everything they are to the church and/or God!  It's a classic example of externalizing one's locus of control.  Take it back, I say. 

God is Lazy

April 27, 2012 7:22 p.m.

I’ve been reading Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” lately.  He makes an interesting point in one of the chapters (I forget which one).  Scientists will see something mysterious that they can’t immediately explain and will get very curious.  This curiosity impels them to action and investigation.  The religionist sees a mystery and stops his inquiry there: it’s a mystery--ascribe it to God.

I think this may illustrate a major difference between personality types of the religious and non-religious.  In short: God is lazy.  Godly thinking is lazy.  Cryptic declarations such as “Everything happens for a reason” or “God’s ways are not our ways” or “We will only understand that after we die” are highly unproductive.  They represent the end of inquiry, not the beginning.  End of discussion.  They are a cop out for real thinking.  It’s lazy to examine moral questions and quickly conclude that “God just said so.”  Claiming God endorses any particular course of action is a dangerous shortcut.  It is much easier to look at things in black and white and use hard and fast rules to decide what is right and what is wrong.  Good and evil.  Them vs. us.  In contrast, it takes energy and effort to painstakingly examine the moral implications or ramifications of any given act or category of acts.  Seeing the world in shades of gray is difficult.  The problem is that the wide spectrum of human experience doesn’t fit neatly into any religious worldview.  Mormonism clumsily tries to cope with the issues and problems of a modern world.  But much of the counsel in its scriptures is inadequate, at best.

Could it be that religion self-selects for less rigorous minds?  That isn’t to say that there are no truly intelligent and religious people--at best my theory might just shift the bell curve to the left a bit.  Perhaps the vast majority of people remain under the “fog” of the limited thinking and relative superstition of their day until the particularly scientific/curious outliers pave the way for more progressive thinking and greater open-mindedness.

But it seems that religion provides a simplified alternative to viewing the world.  A very religious person doesn’t have to dwell on the implications of obliteration.  Their minds are safely insulated from that scary proposition.  

The lazy cognition that pervades religion also manifests itself in lazy outward actions.  Religions stress repetitive rituals which can be done almost mindlessly.  Mormonism has one ceremony where people change their clothes around and watch a movie for a couple hours (and do some weird handshakes with each other), and they call it “service” for dead people.  It really doesn’t get much lazier than that.

Science, on the other hand, requires meticulous attention to detail and results.  It cannot be done mindlessly.  You cannot “go through the motions” in a scientific endeavor and expect meaningful results.  It, too, can be repetitive, but for different reasons: to achieve reliable and consistent data that can better explain whatever phenomenon they are studying.  

Mormonism touts the principle that God helps us “after all we can do.”  So wouldn’t it make more sense to only look for God’s hand in our lives after we’ve eliminated every plausible alternative explanation?  Science looks for solutions.  Religion looks for reaffirmation of what it already believes.

Dreadless

April 15, 2012 12:04 a.m.

One of the best things about leaving Mormonism behind was relief from a lurking sense of “dread” in my life.  During my inactive but believing days, I would often stress out about getting my life “back in order” and repenting and getting myself temple worthy again.  I would experience poignant feelings of dread and distress at the prospect of going through all that.  What an unnecessary source of stress.  It feels really good to leave all that behind.  I no longer worry about being off track or not going down my life’s “true” path.  I no longer stress about getting married and starting a family.  If it happens, great.  If not, no big deal.  I’m trying to live my life honestly, responsibly, and enjoyably.  I understand that having kids is both a source of happiness and stress.  Not having kids would probably have similar trade-offs in the opposite ways.

The other day I told my cousin that I was agnostic.  It didn’t come as a surprise to him--he had already suspected as much, and he said that his dad did, as well.  I imagine others in the family probably do, too.  It’s fine.  We talked a little bit about some of the issues I have with the church.  It’s apparent that he is at least basically familiar with most troubling church issues.  But he seems to be taking an apologetic stance.  He also expressed some pretty outlandish views on what this life is all about (something about this life being an imperfect projection/translation of something more perfect).  He admitted that he’s kind of a hippy in this respect.  My opinion is that while he has become superficially familiar with the problematic issues, he hasn’t really critically thought through them, or considered their real implications.  With the BofM and BofA, for example, he said something about how his background in translation helps him understand how those issues can be explained.  Again, it smacks of ridiculous apologetic rationalizations, but he didn’t elaborate enough for me to call him out on it.  Toward the end of our conversation (this was on gchat), it seemed like he was trying to understand “all” my issues, just to make sure he had heard of them all.  I guess he has compartmentalized these issues off to the side and marked them “resolved” in his mind.  I think he’ll eventually make his way out of Mormonism.  He’s too much of a free thinker to maintain the kind of narrow-minded orthodoxy the church requires.  He may still retain a lot of his spiritual views, though (which is fine).

Lurking Disbelievers in Our Midst...

April 6, 2012 11:15 p.m.

I recently disclosed to both of my non-believing siblings (both are sisters) my current state of belief (or lack thereof).  They were both overjoyed at this news.  Neither of them have believed in the church for several years now, so they were happy to have the older brother on their side.  We somewhat jokingly speculated on strategies to “free” the rest of our siblings.  I don’t know if it will happen.  One sister seems pretty entrenched; she’s even a temple worker from what I hear.  Another sister is terrified of her boys becoming corrupted, so I doubt she’s going anywhere.  And my brother...well...he might just need the community, or he’d have no social circle whatsoever.  Maybe sometime in the future when their circumstances have changed.  No need to precipitate a crisis of faith for anyone.

Today I found out that a friend of mine, an old coworker at UPS, also no longer believes.  Apparently he and his wife found out a lot of the negative things about Joseph Smith and that did it for them.  That’s really all it takes.  I think if all church members became aware of the really deplorable things he did, most would disaffect.  It’s a religious faith maintained by ignorance.  But then, what religious faith isn’t?

In contrast, the other day I had a talk with a girl I dated about a year and a half ago.  She is LDS, but almost completely inactive.  In the course of our conversation, I let slip that I no longer believed in the church.  That didn’t go over well at all.  She blasted me for lacking faith and taking the “easy way out.”  I tried to share some of the issues that caused me to lose my belief, but she basically dismissed them as lies or otherwise rationalized them.  It’s interesting how even inactive members will cling to a belief system about which they know so little.  She is tragically ignorant of her own faith, but doesn’t realize it.  

It’s interesting.  Back during my faithful believing days, particularly on my mission, I would get these flashes of gospel “insights,” which I would record in a journal.  These, I thought, were personal revelations from the Holy Ghost.  Now that I’m an infidel, I still get these flashes of insight, but as to subjects that are either unrelated, or run contrary, to the doctrines and teachings of the church.  This tells me that it wasn’t the spirit at all, but just my own mind.  My own mind comes up with “insights” that are compatible with my current belief system and thought processes.

Today I became very curious to know how many more of my friends might be closeted apostates.  Maybe someday I’ll do a thing on facebook and ask all of my mormon friends who no longer believe to message me privately, just so I can get a sense of the numbers.  I know they’re out there.

An update as to my own beliefs: I no longer put much stock in Christianity.  I read a book or two on how the original NT gospels came into existence, and the significance of the discrepancies between them, and the house of cards crumbles even further.  Beyond that, though, is mainstream Christianity’s views on those who are never given the chance to “accept” Jesus.  If such are automatically consigned to hell (or punished in any measure), then Christianity fails on that ground alone.  I’ve settled into agnosticism.  Hopeful agnosticism, perhaps.  I hope there is some kind of afterlife or continuation of existence after death, but I personally have no evidence for it, and thus cannot claim any knowledge on the subject.

Why People Stay

January 19, 2012 6:38 p.m.

What makes someone like me different from someone who remains in the church?  I’ve come to think that most (if not all) rational-minded people, when confronted with all the evidence of what the church really is and how it came to be, will leave.  If, after being confronted with all the issues, they still stay, I think it has more to do with other pressures.  Maybe they are afraid their family will fall apart or they’ll be ostracized if they leave.  Maybe they need the financial support.  Maybe their job depends on their church membership.  Maybe their social life is so tied up in the church that to leave would mean they would lose their entire community.

For myself, none of these factors were an issue.  When I lost my faith, I was all alone in California.  My family is hundreds of miles away, so there is no real need to keep up appearances (and I probably wouldn’t, even if I still lived in Utah).  There aren’t tons of Mormons around here so I didn’t need to stay passably Mormon to stay socialized.  Heck, I’m not even very social, so I didn’t even have much of a community to lose.  I just stopped going to the ward I had been frequenting (of which I wasn’t even a member and kept a low profile).  I’m not dating anyone that would want me to be an active member, so that also wasn’t an issue.

On that last point, however, I wonder if I could bring myself back into church activity for the right girl.  Could I do it?  Would the pressure be too great? I think that I could probably do it. I certainly wouldn't be orthodox or anything, but I could go back and participate meaningfully in a local congregation. It does provide a worthwhile community at times.

Anyway, as for an “historical” update.  I went home for Christmas and had a good time with the family.  I think I am starting to drop clues to my family that I’m no longer active.  They must have noticed by now that I don’t wear garments, so that’s a big one.  Also, on the night before I left to go back home, my mom suggested we have a family prayer, and asked that I say it.  I said a prayer, directing it to “Heavenly Father,” not asking for anything (only expressing gratitude in a general way), and ending it with a simple “amen.”  Not ending in the name of Jesus Christ is clearly unorthodox in Mormonism, so that was another clue to them.  This came a few days after my mom asked me directly how I was doing “spiritually.”  I told her “fine” in an attempt to assuage her, but the whole prayer thing kind of blew it.  I’m presently not entirely sure what spiritual means anymore.

As for my beliefs, my view of the church as being man-made has pretty much solidified.  My journey down the rabbit hole may result in a rejection of Christianity and religion altogether.  I don’t know if I’ll slide all the way into atheism.  I think at most I might become agnostic.  Currently I think of myself as a deist: I think there is some sort of supreme being/prime mover, but I can’t say that I know much about it.  I’ve all but abandoned the Mormon methodology for determining spiritual truth: reliance on one’s feelings.  The journey continues...

"Wanting" to Believe

December 3, 2011 8:46 p.m.

During the year leading up to my mission (1999), the internet was just starting to catch on (at least, as far as I was concerned).  At that time of my life, I was highly focused on gaining knowledge of the church’s teachings (the gospel) so that I would be an effective missionary.  Also during that time period, I started participating in LDS chat rooms and discussion boards.  Often I would engage in “debates” with those I termed “anti-mormons” at the time.  Typically they were current or former church members who had lost their belief in the church for one reason or another.  I became a bit of an amateur apologist during that time period.  Possessing only a high school education, the apologist explanations for many of the problems I encountered with the church were sufficient for me.  (Not coincidentally, I also very much wanted to believe that the church was true; and I operated on a presumption of its truthfulness in everything I heard or read.)

Sometimes I would correspond via email with some of the people I met on these boards.  There was one man I spoke to who insisted that God had led him out of the church.  He appeared very sincere in recounting his spiritual journey.  I took his story seriously, and it bothered me.  I recall wondering if God would really lead someone out of his true church for some reason.  I speculated that perhaps God might do that to allow someone to gain some necessary perspective, but then eventually lead them right back into his fold.  I see now how powerfully I was dominated by presumptions in favor of the church’s truth claims.  During that time, I could hardly fathom someone having a genuinely spiritual experience that actually led them away from the “truth.”

Now, of course, I see things differently.  I acknowledge that people of all cultures and religions have experiences which they perceive to be spiritual, the same way that Mormons do.  Because such experiences are inherently personal and subjective, there is no way to independently determine their validity with any level of confidence.  If there is a God, I have no doubt he would grant spiritual experiences to all his children if they seek him honestly.  This explanation makes sense.  Before and during my mission, I had to do exhausting mental gymnastics to explain away the spiritual experiences of people not in compliance with the church’s teachings.  Now I don’t have to.

Mormon for a Reason?

October 10, 2011 11:21 pm

I just read something on a message board that I found very interesting.  One of the participants remarked that he thinks he may have been born a Mormon because God meant for him to be a Mormon, or at least strongly consider it.  He also believes that there are many paths leading to God.  He cited the story of David O. McKay who, during his mission, saw inscribed on a stone the following: “Where e’er thou art, do well thy part.”  He applies this to himself in that he is in Mormonism, and he will act well his part.

Could it be that most people in the world are born into a particular belief system that may best be suited to their individual needs?  It may not be a universal principle, since people can go through so many paradigm shifts within their lifetime, but it’s something to think about.  I know I don’t feel comfortable out in the world.  Even if I abandoned Mormonism altogether, I know that I don’t have a compatible personality with many worldly ideas, principles, or practices.  This is a very fascinating way to look at my practicing a religion.  If adopted, it may assist me in living the “passably” Mormon life that I can easily imagine for myself.

Stirrings

10/8/2011   11:16 pm

It’s been several years since I’ve written in my journal, and my handwriting is as bad as ever, so I will try to begin keeping some sort of log here.  I’ve maintained a blog for several years, but that’s public so not everything can go there.

I thought I would give a general update on my life and some things that I’ve been reading and learning lately that continue to shape and evolve my worldview.

First, the mundane: I attended law school from 2006-2009, took the bar exam, passed, and was later hired at a law firm in 2010.  I continue to work there doing primarily business and real estate litigation.  I’m not dating anyone exclusively at the moment, although I’d like to think that could change at any time.  Then again, I always seem to think that.  I’ve learned better than to mention any specific names, since dating is so fleeting and transitory.  I do desire to have a lasting relationship.

Now, on to the spiritual.  I haven’t been too active in the LDS church for several years.  A little over one year ago, I decided it was time to go back, and made some initial steps in that process.  It didn’t last, however, because while I was in the process of meeting with my branch and stake presidents, I met a girl and started dating her.  The next step in that process would have been a disciplinary council of some sort, but it never got that far.  I last met with my former branch president on my 30th birthday.  We had a short discussion wherein I indicated that I wasn’t in a position where I really wanted to “repent” at that point and would prefer to continue coming to church on my own terms and feeling the spirit and slowly growing back into that desire.  After some additional attempts by both him and the stake president to continue meeting with me, I started going to another ward.

It’s been nearly two months now since I’ve been to that ward, and during the past two months I was invited to an online discussion board.  It’s a group of 200-some individuals who were/are affiliated with the LDS church to some extent, but also possess various levels of disbelief or unorthodox views of general LDS historical and doctrinal claims.  After joining this group, I became exposed to various ideas and facts that I had either shelved long ago (during the days before my mission when I first encountered “anti-mormon” literature) or had never heard at all.  This exposure renewed my interest in topics relating to church history, the historicity of the book of mormon, the life of Joseph Smith, the evolution of church policies/practices and doctrines, the function and purpose of the modern church, the present leaders, etc.  Therefore, I began reading various articles, blogs, and stories.  I’ve listened to dozens of podcasts of interviews of various mormon and non-mormon scholars, critics, apologists, and historians on the above issues.

While I hesitate to jump to conclusions, I will describe the direction my investigation is taking me.  I am no longer inclined to believe that the LDS church is the unique salvatory vehicle for all mankind.  Issues surrounding the production and origin of the book of mormon, along with serious doubts as to the reliability of the testimony of the three and eight witnesses, has led me to strongly question its authenticity.  More and more it is starting to appear to be a product of Joseph Smith himself.  This doesn’t mean I think it’s the equivalent of any other novel.  I am starting to view it more as inspired fictional literature.  Jesus constantly taught correct principles through fiction by way of parables.  Could not the book of mormon be a giant parable of sorts?  It is replete with anachronisms and impracticalities that one wouldn’t expect in a true historical record.  The lost 116 pages are problematic: if they were truly translated, why couldn’t they just be retranslated?  The technology of that time period would not have easily allowed Joseph’s “enemies” to alter the manuscript without detection, so that “reason” for not retranslating that portion is unconvincing.  The much more likely explanation is that Joseph knew he wouldn’t be able to dictate those pages again verbatim and that any variations thereof would entirely impeach his credibility.

Later, Joseph got into polygamy and polyandry, which simply strike me as repugnant.  They were later promoted and enshrined by Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff, who declared the practice to be necessary for exaltation.  Of course, it was “abolished” in 1890, but church-sanctioned plural marriages continued to be conducted until something like 1904.  Entire books have been written on this subject, so I won’t pretend to give it anything more than a token mention.  Suffice it to say that the concept bothers me and I don’t believe it was ever from God.

These are just a couple points among many.  Church history is full of unsavory facts, and they become even bigger issues when the church either intentionally suppresses and/or mischaracterizes such information, or at least excludes it from official church narratives.  Thus, when faithful members stumble upon it 30 years down the road, it comes as a great shock.  Here is a church that is not at all what they thought it to be.

Like I said, there are many, many issues that challenge the view that the LDS church is the “one and only” true church on the face of the earth.  Most of these issues I see as natural side effects of the foundational cracks in Mormonism, which indicate that a substantial portion of the church and its teachings are most likely man-made.

However, I cannot deny that I have felt what I perceive to be “spiritual” experiences through my involvement with the church.  The facts and issues with which I am now besieged have caused me to go back and reevaluate these spiritual experiences.  The pertinent question is now “Do such experiences support the inference/conclusion that the church (or BofM, or Joseph Smith) is “true” (or a “true” prophet)?  I don’t think that conclusion is entirely warranted.  Thinking back to all my church experiences, I don’t think I can say with certainty that any of them (including those on my mission) require such a conclusion.  Rather, I believe there is a certain pattern of righteous and virtuous behavior that draws one nearer to God, as generally taught by Jesus Christ.  Engaging in such behavior and following such principles will result in the experiences we perceive as “spiritual,” whether inside or outside the LDS church.

I don’t intend to share these thoughts/opinions with my family immediately.  I’ve told a few friends, but that’s about it.  I think it’s good that I’m here in California while my family is in Utah, so that my “apostasy” is remote and remains undetected.  Unless I see a family member going through a very hard time which appears to be brought on directly or indirectly by the church, I don’t see the immediate need of sharing my doubts as to the authenticity of the church’s claims.  I also think that such information could be very distressing to some in my family.  My worldview hasn’t been too dramatically impacted because I’ve already been “outside” the Mormon community for some years now, not living the principles of Mormonism or participating actively with other members.  I don’t really have much of a “community” at all, so there wasn’t much to lose in that respect.  One positive effect of these “discoveries” is that I no longer feel so pressured to find a nice mormon girl to marry.  I don’t feel that my life need ultimately return to a level of full church activity.  If it does, I think I’m okay with that.  I’m pretty sure I could live a passably mormon life, even if I do not believe in many of the church’s truth claims.  I still believe it is “a” vehicle by which many people can be drawn to God/Christ--but I do not believe it to be the only vehicle.  Another good thing is that I no longer worry about two of my sisters, both of whom have fallen away from the church, but still lead good and happy lives.  I perceive that to be a burden lifted, and I realize that my mom would love such a feeling.  If I know my mom, I’m pretty sure she continues to be burdened by the “waywardness” of her children, and most likely she blames herself for having done something wrong in our upbringing that brought about such a result.  That is, of course, entirely false.  Her children are thinking adults and will make their own decisions.  However, many members of my mom’s family are devout Mormons, and she maintains close ties with them, thus I don’t think a weakening of her faith would necessarily lead to greater peace.  It might replace one burden with another.  It’s something I’ll have to think about further.

I’ll continue this later, I hope.  I at least wanted to make some official entry as to the recent evolution of my beliefs and worldview.  

My journey out

I decided to start an anonymous blog regarding my thoughts on religion, spirituality, and other topics.

In short, I was raised a Mormon, and now I'm agnostic.  I started a private "journal" of sorts several months ago to track my thought processes as I opened my mind to the possibility (and later realization) that the religion of my upbringing was not what it claimed to be.

I'll try to keep it interesting, but no guarantees.

***

Here is some background on me:

I was born into the Mormon religion.  I served a mission in Brazil.  I graduated from Brigham Young University.  I'm the oldest of six kids. My parents and three of my siblings are active, believing Mormons. The other two siblings are not active and are more or less atheist/agnostic.  

As a child and teenager, I was a hardcore believing Mormon. For the most part, I grew up in a very insulated part of Utah. In high school I was very focused on mission preparation. During my sophomore year, one of my seminary teachers mentioned to me that Thomas Monson had once promised that if you memorized a scripture a day for a year, you would gain a photographic memory. I thought a photographic memory sounded useful, and it would double as good missionary prep, so I took him up on it. I actually kept it up until the start of my mission, so I ended up memorizing well over a thousand scriptures. I think it did improve my memory, but I wouldn't say it's "photographic." (I share that mainly to illustrate my dedication to the church/gospel during that time of my life.) 

I had a mission full of good and bad (yet always growth-inducing) experiences. I still appreciate its value to my personal development. After my mission, I stayed relatively faithful for slightly over a year before descending into varying stages of inactivity. At this point I didn't stop believing or attending church, but I allowed my behavior to slip a bit. For the next several years, I waffled in varying stages of inactivity. After moving to California for law school, I became even less active and more disconnected from the LDS community. Deep down, I remained a believer and thought I had a pretty strong testimony, but my behavior became even less consistent with church rules. I still attended church occasionally, but no one knew my name and I never met with the bishop. (He was cool and never pressured any kind of meeting.) I was a back row, sacrament-meeting-only church attendee. 

This continued for the next several years until I made a lukewarm resolution to get my life "in order" again. This was in mid-2010. I went and met with my branch president and fessed up. This led to a couple meetings with the stake president, who indicated I would be subject to some type of disciplinary council either at the stake or ward level. I told them I was agreeable to that, but then didn't hear from my branch president for a couple months. During that time, I "strayed" again, so to speak, and took another little break from church. When I returned a few months later, I met again with my branch president, but indicated that I no longer felt ready for a disciplinary council. I started ward hopping after he persistently sicked his clerk on me every Sunday to try and meet with me. I also ignored calls from the stake president's secretary. 

Another several months went by. One day I was chatting with a friend on facebook and he asked where I stood with the church. I told him I still believed it, but that behaviorally I wasn't on track. Being single, I told him that I thought it would be great to find a less active woman in similar circumstances and perhaps we could go back to church "together." He invited me to an online group of liberal-thinking Mormons and ex-Mormons. Through my participation there, I became exposed to various aspects of the church that I either had not encountered before, or had long-since shelved through (now unsatisfying) apologetic rationalizations. 

The last time I had encountered literature negative toward the church was roughly 12 years previously, shortly before my mission. This was the late 90s and the internet was just starting to really take off. I remember reading something about the kinderhook plates and having quite a scare. I think I must have read an apologist's response somewhere saying that JS never really translated them--it was just a scribe's entry. Wanting to believe, I latched onto that and probably said a fervent prayer thanking the Lord for providing an answer. At that time, I made up my mind that the "anti's" must be liars and that there would always be a satisfactory response. With that mindset, I somehow brushed aside many of the criticisms leveled at the church which nowadays bother me considerably. 

Anyway, this time around when I encountered the many evidentiary and reason-based criticisms leveled at the church, its doctrines, and its history, my legally-trained mind could not dismiss them so quickly. I saw things in a whole new light. Perhaps I was more cynical and not as willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. Maybe my understanding of human nature had sharpened and occam's unforgiving razor demanded a more obvious interpretation of polygamy/polyandry. The BofA issues were huge (those I actually hadn't heard about before). The multiple accounts of the first vision, and the sketchy "restoration" of the priesthood struck me as wholly unconvincing. The anachronisms and embarrassing plagiarisms in the BofM struck home. Brigham Young absolutely repulsed me.  And of course, there is much more.

Losing my faith was a little depressing at first. I had always thought the Mormon afterlife was particularly exciting. On the other hand, I was relieved to be able to stop worrying about my wayward siblings. It was also a relief to not always be wondering if my friends or coworkers would make good Mormons, or feel that I simply had to marry another church member. I was thankful that I didn't find out about all of this 10 years down the road, a faithful Mormon wife and two kids later. 

And now....here we are.