Why am I sad?

Sometimes I feel very sad. I feel sad because it is so difficult for my family members to relate to how I feel about the church now. I don't feel listened to any more. I don't feel like the people that I care about the most are really interested in what I think about things any more. I feel like my loved ones want to just put me in a box and ship me off somewhere until I see things the way I used to. It saddens me that I feel this way. It makes me even more sad to think that, if people that I care about read what I am saying here, I think they might revel in my sadness and see it as punishment for me not believing as they do any more. I don't understand why people who claim to be followers of a man, whose primary teaching was to love everyone - especially the outcasts and dregs of society, choose to be so cruel in their application of those teachings. Of course, what I don't know is if they are even able to see the sadness they have conjured in me. If they don't even see it, shouldn't I be able to forgive them for it?

I have really tried to help my family understand why I feel the way I do. However, when I try to make the attempts, I feel like barriers go up and a defensive posture is assumed. Why can't people try to understand me without assuming I am going to personally attack them? I have been told that I just need to get over feeling this way, and I have often asked myself why it is so difficult for me to do so. Could it be that the sadness and the defensive posturing is all originating from me? That people truly don't care what I think enough to burden themselves with putting me out to pasture? I suppose this is possible. I suppose I make some of these things out to be more serious and pronounced than they actually are. So then I have to ask myself, why this is? Why is it that I am so dead serious about wanting to explain my current stance on the existence of God or what I feel are deceptions put forth by the church? I guess part of it is because I want to be listened to. I want to be heard and understood. I want to feel the way I used to feel when I was the spiritual leader in my home and everyone hung on my every word as I pronounced the veracity of things that I now sincerely doubt were ever there in the first place. However, maybe there is something more.

I think the reason these things are, and have been, so vitally important for me to understand and relate to others is because I have been taught that they ARE JUST SO VITALLY IMPORTANT! After all, if there IS life after death and, if our station in that life after death is PRIMARILY determined by what we believe, and do, during this life here on earth, then this life is pretty important indeed! That idea is what motivated me for so long. I figured that if my ETERNAL existence was going to be SO heavily weighted by what I do here and now, then, by golly, I had BETTER do my BEST! If I didn't do my best, my soul would be tormented for ETERNITY by all of my shortcomings. All the home teaching I didn't do, all the missed opportunities to attend the temple, all the priesthood sessions of general conference that I missed would all haunt me ETERNALLY! I would be so filled with regret...which would be further enhanced by the knowledge of what I could have had, if I had been more valiant, that my misery will know no end. Who wants to be miserable forever? I certainly did not.

So, now I am at a place where I have given up on that thinking. I think I needed to give this thinking up for my sanity. To relieve myself of all the guilt I could easily pile up on myself for not doing EVERYTHING I was taught that was essential for obtaining everlasting life with God the Father in His celestial glory. However, even though I think I have given up on that thinking, I still have to wonder if I actually have? The question of the existence of God and whether or not God has ONE true church, that He fully endorses in place upon the earth today, is still a very important question to me. Is it possible that I have maintained my absolute thinking about the importance of this question and just moved my position from one of belief to one of non-belief? To be honest, now the question of the existence of God (and the origination of life and all of the attendant questions that seem to follow from it) is not important to me any more, but the need to be understood and be correct about it IS still immensely important to me!

If I had to guess, I would say that this is likely the reason that I would classify myself as more atheist than agnostic, or that I don't identify with the sentiment of being spiritual but not religious, now. I am not concerned with spirituality because I cannot sufficiently identify with it in terms that can be easily understood by everyone. We all have had differing experiences with spirituality and, when we attempt to describe those experiences to others, to me, they come across sounding more like bragging than anything that can be mutually beneficial. I cannot escape this thought now. Whenever someone says to me that they had a spiritual or moving experience it grates on my nerves because I cannot help but think what the consequences of that experience being real (in the context of my religious upbringing) must be. I am not irritated because they had the experience, I am irritated because of the fact that this person is essentially reminding me of everything that I am not any more. If, in fact, their spiritual experience is valid, and is actually from God, then that means that my previous thoughts about the ramifications of such things must also be valid to them and I am left to wonder how screwed up that person thinks I will be in the afterlife. After all, I am not active in church, and I don't do any of the stuff the church teaches is essential for eternal life (i.e. all that enduring to the end stuff). How can they not see me as some sort of heretic? At the very least as someone who will be relegated to a lower kingdom of glory where they may, at some point, decide to grace me with their presence every once in a while. Why? So they can remind me how much more glorious and better their eternal residence is than mine? How can people feel good about teachings that have built in mechanisms for looking down on others who do not conform?

How did I decide to devotedly follow such teachings for so long without paying any attention to what affect my beliefs might have on others that disagree with me? How could I have been so self centered? I feel really bad about that, but I wonder how it happened? I mean, when I was on my mission and talking to people who adamantly disagreed with what I believed, not because they simply didn't know what I believed, but even if they knew what I believed and yet still chose to deny it was true, how did I deal with that? I think I just concluded in my mind that, even though they claimed that they had some idea about what I believed, they must not actually know what I did. My knowledge was always superior to theirs...unless, of course, they agreed with me...then their knowledge would likely exceed my own, that is, if they seemed to know what they were talking about and it was in line with the teachings of the church as I understood them. Don't get me wrong, I met a bunch of people that I would consider totally wacky, even in the church, that now I ask myself what could have possibly compelled me to feel good about the fact that we would be spending eternity together?

I think something that might help in answering my question is something I have learned about human behavior. We tend to agree with, sympathize with and look up to people that we either associate with or have things in common with. I know out in the mission field I could tell how relieved I felt to be in the company of members versus non-members of the church. With non-members I had to make sure my words and actions were at their most impressive to make a good impression and get them to agree with me and my beliefs and eventually join me at church. However, with members, I could relax, enjoy the food, the company and not be worried that my behavior might reflect poorly on the church. I felt secure with those that I had the church in common with. It is definitely true that we feel more at ease and comfortable around those that we share some bond with. In social settings where both members of the church and non-members are present, the members will tend to congregate together since they share a bond that seems to transcend the other purpose of the gathering. The church creates a bond in people that is immediate and larger in scope than anything else. Of course, this tendency has been used to great effect in Utah where pyramid schemes and multilevel marketing tends to dominate the landscape. But, what is it about the church that readily brings people together that other groups seem to lack? I'm sure a book could be written to answer that question (or I'm sure there already has been one written).

My point in saying all of this is that I feel that I have now lost this bond with my family. Even though I haven't resigned from the church, I am a disaffected, inactive member of the church, who can actually be somewhat hostile towards members of the church (well, not really to most ward members, but I think I come across that way to my family quite a bit) when talking about things that are church related. So why am I so hostile? Because I know the perceived benefits that can be enjoyed when one is "in" the group and I am no longer really able to be considered "in" the group. I am now an outsider. Again, maybe this is all just going on in my head and I just need to not worry so much about it. But that response just feels wrong to me. I know how I felt towards non-members as a believer and I can't help but think that others must feel the same way I did...even if it isn't a conscious or deliberate sentiment towards me, I know it is there. As much as everyone wants to deny it or pretend it is not real, it is real because I have experienced it first hand.

So how did I really see people who didn't believe as I did? I saw them as outsiders. I saw them as ignorant and missing out on what I got to enjoy. I had the truth and the truth was going to bring me eternal happiness that others could only dream of. How naive I was! When I rejected these notions of an afterlife of judgment, misery and glory, I began to see everyone as valuable. Everyone has, not only a contribution, but importance and worth, regardless of their conformity to the church. Not because they are divine in nature, but because they are human and have feelings just like me. They want to belong to something bigger than themselves, just like I do. They are all relevant and I now feel that they all should be listened to and trusted for their unique experience. When people say that they have been hurt by church policies, I will now choose to believe them. And instead of asking how they can better be marginalized to conform to the infallible policies of the church, I might actually decide to denounce those policies in favor of more tolerance and trust of people who may disagree with leaders of the church. And, right now, I don't see how it is possible for me to stay in the church and maintain this view.

So, maybe I have been taught to be an absolutist from my youth, and maybe I still am in the way I see the world, but this is who I am and how I think. If I am going to change from it, I need some help. But, I'm pretty sure that the way I thought about things as a believing member of the church, or trying to get me to go back to that way of thinking, is not going to get me the help that I need. I am looking for a better way. I hope I get there, for my sake and for the sake of my loved ones.

General Conference - No ordinary bore

This last Sunday our Home Teachers came to visit. I pretty much don't say much when they come over...I just kind of feel sorry for them since they feel it is their duty to come and spend time in our home when they could be relaxing or spending time with their own families.

So, as I sat there feeling sorry for them, wondering if they might ever get to a point of asking me where I stand in my beliefs (I have not been open with them about where I am at) and wondering what exactly I might feel the need to say if they ever actually did, I also geared up for attempting to tame my anger that would invariably be aroused from their "spiritual" message for the day.

The message given on this occasion was actually cracking me up inside to the point where I could barely contain myself. The message they gave came from Dieter Uchtdorf's First Presidency message for the month. Dieter talked about the blessing of General Conference. He started out by telling a story about a conversation between an LDS member and a non-member. The subject of general conference apparently came up and the member said that conference was a time when the leaders of the church (called as prophets of God and, therefore, representing those authorized to receive and impart instruction directly from God to the people of the earth) impart messages - supposedly received from God - to the world in their conference sessions. In response to this remarkable claim, the non-member asked the member to give some examples of what these "prophets" said at the last general conference. Unfortunately, the member could not think of one single thing they could recall being said at the last conference. Dieter then goes on to tell us that the member was chided by the non-member who likely said something to the effect of, "Well, if you can't remember anything these spokespeople for God said was a message from God, what good is that?"

While Dieter, I'm sure, would likely be quick to point out that the fact that the member could not remember any of the messages presented at the last general conference were due to his inability to remember any of those "super speshal structions straight from God's eternally inspiring mouth", I had a different thought. My thought was, what if the poor soul couldn't remember anything that was said because there was really NOTHING remarkable said at conference to be able to remember, let alone something WORTH remembering?

Instead of Dieter being up front and admitting that conference is actually very boring and pretty much devoid of anything that could be labeled as inspirational or remotely memorable (at least for more than a few minutes after something is said, anyway), the implication of the message received among the members of the church is that they need to do a better job in paying attention to the messages of general conference. I can back this up by noticing that in his piece he goes on to list 3 things that members can do to get more out of general conference. This is compared to the one very short comment that might be construed to pay some lip service to the idea that conference is actually boring at times (he said, "We all know how hard it is to remember every message of general conference, and I’m confident that we need not be embarrassed if we don’t remember everything." I can't believe how condescending this is. It is even worse than I originally thought. Anyway...).

I find it humorous and troubling at the same time that if there are things said at general conference that are not remembered that it is the members who should fix that by remembering better and not the leaders/speakers themselves by saying things that are more memorable. Granted, most of these men did not move up in the ranks of the church because of their dynamic speaking ability so you can't expect them to wow us with charisma and an engaging speaking style. However, is it too much to ask that they actually give us useful and memorable content delivered in that boring monotone style?

So, in the spirit of my observation, let me make 3 recommendations to Dieter (and all those that will be speaking at general conference):

1. Speak the truth
Saying that it is important to tell the truth kind of loses it's meaning when there are things hidden behind just about everything you're saying. Tell the truth because that is infinitely more interesting than your continued attempts to whitewash everything in the interest of keeping the faith of the members strong.

2. Come up with some actual revelations
While the stories told in conference are all touching and borderline inspirational, receiving revelations on the tough issues that face the students of the doctrine of the church would be largely advanced by some actual statement's on what is considered to be the current doctrine of the church. Instead of coating everything said in terms that only lead to more questions, lay down the gauntlet. Give us some meat for a change. Tell us exactly how life in the eternities will be. Tell us who exactly will actually be in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom and what we will be doing for ETERNITY. Re-affirm the doctrinal validity of polygamy and the law of consecration. Announce when the gathering to Missouri will be taking place and what we should be doing to prepare. Or just go out on a limb and tell us exactly what to expect when Jesus comes again. Give us all the details so we have something to talk about instead of painting everything in ambiguous terms that we will all disagree on (and not have any good answers to) until the next sessions of general conference where the cycle will just continue.

3. Don't just teach people to be like Jesus, be like Jesus yourselves
Don't tell us all to give to the poor while you build multi-billion dollar malls in downtown Salt Lake City. Don't insist that we pay a full tithing and not even give a 10th of that revenue to charitable causes around the world. Better yet, tell us exactly where all the tithing dollars are going so we can feel good about contributions to the only institution fully sanctioned by Jesus Himself. Teach the members to love and forgive everyone...even those that leave the church because they don't feel like they can be honest and support the church anymore in its current form. Teach them to be more tolerant and not continue to hold prejudices against those that are homosexual by insisting that their tendencies are a choice and not a part of who they are. Tell Thomas S. Monson to not continue to prosecute a homeless man for stalking him, but instead, do what Jesus would do and, give him a place to live, food to eat and the help he needs somewhere outside of a Utah corrections facility.

I testify that if you will do these things, not only will you receive peace to your souls, but you will also gain the affection of so many that have left your halls because they just can't stand the duplicity of everything you do. I say these things to anyone that will read them, Amen.

(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)

The apologetic way

For some reason I keep re-engaging in my thoughts on the problems I have encountered with Mormonism. I almost feel like I am getting ready to depart from this endeavor of expressing my thoughts in response to Mo-ism. It seems like there is less and less that I find compelling enough to blog about anymore. To be honest, my target audience for my blog changed not too long ago. You see, I started out just throwing out all my feelings and figured that whoever encountered what I wrote would have a better understanding of where I was at. My secret hope was that orthodox members of the church in my family would encounter my words and have a better glimpse into what I was going through. I sincerely hoped that it would lead to a better understanding of where I am at and would cause them to research the issues I brought up. However, what ended up happening is those people may have read a snippet or two of a few entries (or never even bothered with my blog at all - even though it is not really hidden - I have a link to it in my Facebook profile), but then they turned it off and tuned me out.

No serious consideration is given to what I am saying because what I am saying is quickly categorized as "anti-Mormon" and thus many members of the church find it easy to quickly dismiss what I am writing.

Frankly, I don't understand this. I guess I am left with the ultimate reality that I just care enough about this stuff so much that I wanted to take it seriously. Was that my problem? Did I just fall for the joke and believed it? Was I wrong for believing that what I was taught my whole life by my parents, and re-enforced by my grandparents, friends, leaders and peers was actually THE way to live? Was I wrong when I actually believed that the LDS church was the ONE and ONLY TRUE church on the face of the earth? Was I wrong to expect that the church could provide an explanation for every single question that I might encounter in my life? Did I miss something? Was I absent the day they said, "Oh, just kidding, you don't really have to believe all this stuff in any kind of literal sense. It's just literary and is all just somebody's opinion."

I've never heard this until I pushed the question about where I went wrong. When I address the cognitive dissonance head on, this is where it ends up. Nobody knows what will happen in the next life, or if there is even a next life to look forward to. However, they tell their children to say "I know the church is true, I know Joseph Smith was a prophet, I know Thomas S. Monson is the prophet today". How sick is this?! Why do people tell their children to say they know something they don't even know themselves?!

This post is not going where I intended it to go. I wanted to give a review of the way apologists work. Exposing their methods is what I wanted to write about here. Instead this has turned into a rant about my situation.

I really just have one thing to say about apologists, they are way too wordy and nobody can understand the points they try to make. When I was going through my crisis of faith, I tried really hard to believe what I read as rebuttals to my questions by apologists. As I did so, I quickly discovered several things. Apologists utilize one of several methods (or all of them) to respond to challenges. They are as follows:

1. Kill with wordiness. Apologists generally tend to want to try and lay a lot of groundwork in their responses to tough questions. They lay groundwork after groundwork, all the while they keep asking you to bear with them while they promise to eventually address the question at hand. The problem is, they never seem to actually get to addressing the question at hand. They cite some obscure example and then another and then at some point (if they ever get to the point) they proudly announce that all of their distraction points have indeed addressed the question posed! How wonderful. When I was trying to get faithful responses to the question of the mistranslation of the Book of Abraham papyrus, there were no simple, let alone short, answers. The apologists that I read would try to start outlining similarities between a few Egyptian words and those "divined" by Joseph Smith. As if a few similarities in words makes up for everything else he got wrong! I had a simple question. My question was, why do the Egyptian characters on the facsimiles (i.e. the pictures contained in the Pearl of Great Price) not translate the way Joseph claimed? I mean, those drawings (including the Egyptian characters contained in them) have survived. We have a copy of them in every copy of the Pearl of Great Price published by the LDS church. Apologists want to try to re-define what it means to translate in order to address this question.

When reading apologetic responses, I usually would get bored and start looking for the readers digest version, but there is none. All the believers who attempt to respond to my question, refer back to the apologists. It's really funny, because if you ask a believer how they understand an issue brought up, they might respond with some ideas, but then they will go on to say, "you should read the apologists response to this, I'm sure they have addressed everything you are bringing up." I would love to ask if they have read the work of their apologists and if they could give a summary of just the main points they bring up, they never can. If you insist on getting a good answer to your question, they just start blaming you for being so concerned and inquisitive about this one thing. Don't I have a right to be concerned and inquisitive? Yes, just as long as I don't reveal my concerns to anyone who believes, then, sure, I can question to my little heart's content.

In congress, this method utilized by apologists of being wordy, is known as filibustering. Just like members of congress take the floor (and don't yield their time to anyone who wants to call for a vote on the issue until the time to address the issue runs out) use an administrative loophole to keep things from getting accomplished, apologists do the same thing. Apologists take the floor with their claim to have all the answers and then talk until you get bored and get tired of seeking the answer to your question or get so zoned out so that it is easier to just admit that your question wasn't really a very good one in the first place, instead of having to endure more of their talking.

Aside from being very wordy and attempting to resolve simple questions with extremely lengthy responses,

2. apologists engage in re-directing. This is known as "twisting" in the financial world. Meaning they take your question and then bring up something not really related, but since they can resolve that issue, it must mean your question can get resolved too. Since the unrelated issue is out there and seems just too good to be true, your question must be insignificant or irrelevant. They are essentially telling me with this response to "try again, retard."

The mental gymnastics required to keep up with these people is mind blowing. And, of course, the longer I am in this place I am in, the clearer it all becomes to me.

Frankly, I am tired of it all. I think I am about ready to just move on and accept that all this is out there and not devote any more time or energy to it. But, just when I feel like I can get comfortable in that place, something draws me back in. I guess that is the way it goes. Peace.

(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)

Force, coercion and manipulation

In thinking about the idea of forcing people back to heaven, versus inviting or enticing them, I wanted to outline the various ways it could be accomplished. However, before I can begin to talk about how it could be accomplished, I need to outline the ideas and behaviors that would make up such control mechanisms.

What are the various forms of control over people and how are they manifest?

Based in my experience, control can be exercised in one of several ways:

1. Physical force. This would be causing another to engage in a behavior because one party is physically controlling another to do something. An example of this would be if I hold your arm and drag you up the stairs to bed while you are crying because you don't want to go to bed. The circumstances necessary for this kind of control to exist are one party being physically stronger than the party being controlled and the controlled party allowing, to some extent, themselves to be controlled physically (or not being able to understand, willing to obey, things to that point that it would necessitate the control being administered).

My children often either run up the stairs on their own or try to run away from me when they suspect I am getting to the point that I am ready to drag them upstairs to bed. The reality is, however, this kind of force is only necessary (and remotely practicable) when children are large enough to walk on their own but young enough to feel the need to disobey their parents. When children become physically able to resist such force, it usually becomes ineffective.

Physical force is also justified when attempting to correct children because their behavior being engaged in may harm them. Like pulling their hand away from a campfire, for example. Physical force is never justified when it is solely intended to cause injury to another. The only exception to this, in my opinion, is when having some form of injury is risked in order to prevent some other, more severe, injury. For example, pushing someone out of the way of an oncoming car, may result in some injury, but it would be caused in order to prevent being hit by an oncoming car. It is presumed, however, that physical force is rarely justified among persons who have the ability to think and act for themselves because they are not in a state where the care of another is necessary. Children are said to be in the care, custody and control of their parents or guardians. In other words, parents are the only one's who are allowed to utilize physical force for correctional/instructional/disciplinary purposes. I suppose a very long debate could be started over the kinds of physical force that are allowed to take place by parents with their children (or those that have been placed in responsibility for children by their parents), but I am not prepared to try to outline all of that.

2. Threat of physical force or inflicting injury. This would be control that is exercised by threatening that if a particular behavior is not engaged in, then the person fears that they will experience physical pain or injury that will be inflicted by the one exerting the control over another. The circumstances necessary for this kind of control are one party having the physical ability, weapons or resources to carry out this injury or harm to a party that does not have the physical ability, weapons or resources to protect their self.

I do this all the time with my kids. I say, "You better eat your peas or you will get a spanking." I don't really say this, by the way, I only threaten to spank for much more severe disobedience, like talking back.

This is a form of control that is utilized by parents with their children all time, even though we may not be aware of it. The threat of physical injury is a very real concern for little people who are at the mercy of big people around them. Many times parents may be threatening physical injury and not even realize that they are doing it. For example, sometimes, just getting angry, yelling or moving quickly towards a little person can cause the fear of physical injury for the little person and cause them to alter their behavior.

I have even experienced this misunderstood fear on the part of others first hand. I used to live next door to a lady that was kind of paranoid. She was a single, fully grown, woman that lived alone. She lived in a house that overlooked the road leading up to it and she insisted that no plants or fence be placed in her backyard because she always wanted to be able to see the road to make sure her ex-husband wasn't on his way to "get" her. I assume she feared that he would come and inflict physical violence on her - which fear I am not discounting, because apparently when leaving a physically abusive relationship, is when people are at the highest risk of being killed by their abusive partner - however what she did one day did lead me to believe she was kind of paranoid. One day I was working in my yard on a warm sunny day. I had been working on some landscaping for a couple of hours and had gotten some sun. I was red in the face, apparently, and my two year old son wandered over into her back yard (because there was no fence) to chase a cat that was on her back porch. I yelled over to my son to come back over to our side of the property. My son didn't immediately respond so I started to walk over to retrieve him. Eventually he wandered back over to our property and we all continued about our business. The next day the police showed up at our door. They said they had received a complaint from our neighbor who said I was all red in the face in her backyard carrying a shovel and yelling. She was afraid I was digging up, and taking my anger out on, some weeds in her back yard and thought I was coming for her next, I guess (she never pulled her weeds, so I could have easily gotten very upset that I had to look at them all the time). The police said they were sorry to bother us, but said they had to make sure I was not a real threat and get our side of the story. I could not believe that she would call the police on me! Needless to say, we were not on much speaking terms after that.

My neighbor apparently felt threatened by me being red-faced, yelling over to my son and carrying a shovel. I feel bad that some people live in such fear that a slight misunderstanding causes them to feel the need to call the police. I guess I cannot discount people, or their bad experiences with physical harm being inflicted by another, but I do think it can get to a point of being unjustifiably paranoid. This further illustrates that sometimes the threat of harm can be interpreted to one person where no threat to someone else is evident. It makes me wonder what can be done when one party is constantly accusing the other of threatening physical violence when that is not their intent and no physical violence has ever been committed?

Threats of violence as a means to control others can be used by so many different parties in so many situations. It can be used by children against their parents, parents against children, spouses against each other, neighbors against each other, communities and, most visibly, countries against each other. As to the merits of this form of threatening to inflict injury to control others, I am also not prepared to write about that. What I will say, however, is that the threat of physical violence as a means to control should diminish as people show that they have no intention, or ability, to carry out the threat.

3. Threatening to inflict physical injury on oneself if a certain behavior is not engaged in. We would say this is pretty foolish because it is based on the assumption that if someone we care about hurts their self the other party will care enough to not let that happen. Sometimes this is a pretty big assumption. Usually when someone hurts their body intentionally, I just laugh. Of course, the laughter becomes more awkward the more it becomes evident they might be causing such injury to their person that it could threaten their life. However, even at that point, I sometimes just can't stop laughing.

On my mission, we were with our zone leaders going to a members house for dinner and, on our way into the house, my zone leaders companion found a fire ant hill. Where I served my mission in south Texas there are a lot of fire ants. We all joked about how these fire ants could literally cause a lot of pain if someone were to be bitten by them. So this Elder says, "I'll stick my arm on the ant hill, and see how long I can keep it there, and see what happens." Of course, after a while, the ants came out and started climbing on his arm and biting him. About 2 or 3 seconds after he put his arm on the ant hill, I started laughing uncontrollably. It turns out, he started to experience an allergic reaction to the ant bites and had to be rushed to the hospital. It was sometime on the way to the hospital that I finally stopped laughing...even though I couldn't help but let out a little chuckle every now and again when I thought about how stupid a move it was that he made.

4. Emotional manipulation. This is when one party attempts to make an appeal to the emotional center (or response) of another person to move them to engage in a behavior. I think forms of emotional manipulation are extremely numerous. Suffice it to say that it involves attempting to arouse an emotion in one party and then telling them that the emotion they are feeling is evidence that they should engage in a certain behavior. Threat of violence and threat of violence to oneself, are forms of emotional manipulation because the fear of harm is the emotion that is utilized to invite a behavior that would otherwise not have been engaged in by the other party.

Aside from fear (which I think is the most common tool of emotional manipulation), other forms of emotional manipulation may involve; security, love, lust, compassion, conformity, sadness, sexual arousal, conviction and dependency.

What I think it all comes down to is everybody is potentially motivated (ergo controlled) by either fear or pleasure. We either fear something bad will happen if we do or don't do something or we do or don't do things because we think it will bring us pleasure.

I wonder which of these methods Satan would have used in his great plan of no-choice to bring us all back into God's presence?

Physical force? At that point we would have basically been robots being physically controlled by another entity. I wonder if we would have ever been able to resist such a force? What would have happened then? Would we eventually become so conditioned in certain behaviors/actions, that the force could eventually stop and we would not be able to act in a manner that worked against the will of the force because it became engrained in our being? A lot like muscle conditioning and ingrained memories allow us to engage in certain behaviors without even thinking about them (like riding a bike, for example). Large elephants can be restrained by a tiny chain that they could easily break. How is this possible, you may ask. Well, it starts when the elephant is a baby and it is chained up. At first the elephant tries to break free, but once it realizes it is of no use, it gives up and never tries to break free again. This is a form of control through conditioning of physical force. That may have been a good plan for us too. Tell us that it isn't possible to break free of a behavior or belief for long enough and, after a while, people will stop trying.

How about the threat of physical force, harm, injury or death? This would be a fear based form of control. We would comply because we would fear death or some other form of physical pain or injury as a consequence. We would be told repeatedly that we should comply or else. We might be subjected to seeing or hearing others having the physical pain or injury inflicted on them so that we become convinced of the power of the controlling entity to administer such a punishment on us. And as long as the controlling entity maintains the power to administer such judgments/punishments, we would remain in compliance because it would remain in our best interests to do so in order to avoid the pain or suffering. I also think this form of control could be very effective on us as human beings.

What about Satan threatening to harm himself if we did not comply? I don't think this form of control would be very effective...if we placed Satan in a position that is equivalent to how most people see him today. However, what if he were promoted to being equivalent in status to a world leader or Jesus? Would we work to avoid allowing pain to come to (or feeling the need to inflict pain on himself) if we highly revered his character? Maybe to a point, but our sympathies, I think, would quickly wane as the threat of harming himself continued. We might get to a point where we would welcome the threat of violence towards himself being carried out so we could be rid of him. This would quickly be seen as selfish and would therefore not be effective for very long. This probably would not be a good form of control for us.

This brings us to emotional manipulation. I believe emotional manipulation would be an excellent form of control to be exercised by Satan to keep us in control. He would constantly be appealing to our emotions to get us to do his will. He would constantly be telling us how the emotional response he just elicited in us was clearly an indicator that we should follow him. He would point out that the emotional response is the ultimate indicator of truth for us and that our emotions should be relied on in every case (that is, as long as they are used in a manner that remains in conformity with his agenda). He would tell us to ignore any emotional response that is received outside of the controlled emotions elicited inside his programming because these are obviously deceptions designed by his enemy to distract us or lead us astray. Any emotional independence would be highly discouraged because emotional dependency would be the only way maintain control. Subjects would be told that within their group is the only place such heart-warming emotions are able to be experienced and that seeking for them outside the group setting is a waste of time because they are never experienced.

The tools of emotional control would also need to be implemented throughout a large group of God's children. For that reason, the emotional control would need to be implemented throughout some sort of organization. A strictly hierarchical organization would likely be utilized. Peer pressure would be used to encourage conformity to the "correctness" of behavior by God's children. People would be told about all the bad things that will happen to them if they ever decided to leave the group, however, since leaving or not participating would simply be absolutely prohibited, these appeals to our emotions elicited when thinking about being separated from the group would be absolutely essential. Basically, no one would be permitted to leave, but they might be made afraid to leave by constantly being reminded about how miserable anyone is that ever decided to leave the group. The reasons for leaving would be considered irrelevant. The misery and, almost certain, loneliness of those that leave the group would be the constant mantra of the believers...err, I mean, subjects.

Of course, as part of that emotional manipulation, fear conditioning would be utilized to try and ingrain a fear of seeking information that originates outside the group-think standards of information. Satan's subjects would be told that to seek information from outside Satan's organization would be tantamount to heresy and would be strictly forbidden. Those enticed by such outside information would quickly be discovered because everyone would be taught to turn in those that are guilty of being exposed to, or searching out, such things. Subjects would be told that all other sources of information originating outside the group are false and are only designed to deceive and misinform. Any possible consideration of such information would quickly be dispelled by accusing the author of the information of attempting to lead others astray.

In addition, emotional control would be exercised by telling us our bodies are something to be ashamed of and that our body represents an enemy to the will of our noble leader. Simply because anything that is not directly controllable through fear or some other form of emotional manipulation (like our body) is a threat to the power of the leader and needs to be quickly put in its place as something to be feared and placed under strict and constant supervision for any deviant behaviors. Deviant behaviors would be quickly made out to be bad, forbidden and quickly dealt with through some form of punishment (or fear of punishment).

Anyway, I think you get the idea of what things would be like if Satan's plan had won the day in the pre-existence and one, or all, of the above forms of control were utilized to keep us in line and force us to return to God's all knowing and all loving presence. Thank goodness Satan is not our ruler and our God today. I can only imagine how terrible the world would be if that were the case.

P.S. My thanks to the Stake Presidents blog for my inspiration on these thoughts found here.

(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)

The Quest for Knowledge

I learned something new over the weekend. I learned that the back brakes on my car are different to work on than the front brakes even though they are the same kind of braking system. For a while there, I was frustrated and confused about why the back brakes did not respond to the same technique for replacing the brake pads that was used on the front brake system. It is a very simple difference really (on the front, the brake piston is pushed back to its starting position, while, on the back, it is twisted), but not being aware of a simple difference in technique would have meant the difference between being able to finish the job or not. I am glad I didn't just give up without searching the internet for the solution to my dilemma because that would have cost significantly more money to take my car to the shop and have them finish the job. Ignoring important information, especially information that I need to make my life better, could end up costing me in many different ways. One way is my pocket book, but another way is the safety of my family while driving our car.

I simply do not understand why people would deliberately choose to stay in the dark when it comes to learning new things or being exposed to new information, however, this is exactly what some people choose to do when it comes to information that does not promote their faith in God or the church. I am fully confident that I can judge when information is beneficial, dangerous, useless or does not fit with what I already know, but apparently these folks do not have that same confidence in their ability. The only reason I can postulate for why this is would be that either; A)There is some knowledge out there that is just too scary (designed to make you afraid), too dangerous (designed to hurt you) or not condoned by God (designed to prevent you from keeping the commandments of God) or B) There is a fear that some people are just actively trying to deceive you and, while on the surface their information may seem to make sense, it is really designed to trick you into believing false and deceptive things.

While these reasons for avoiding information may make sense to some, I am not sure how these kinds of judgments can be made about any information prior to actually becoming aware of, and considering as a possibility, as much of the information that is available as presented by both sides of the question.

While I was searching for clues and examples of how to finish the work on the back brakes on my car, I had to weed through lots of information that was actually irrelevant to my specific situation and brake system, but with each article read and video watched I came closer to the needed information I was looking for. I wonder why there are so many in my acquaintance who, when exposed to new information, choose to look the other way, ignore or immediately discredit the information, (or the source of "my" information) without even actually considering the information being presented?

I wish these people understood what it says to me when they choose to react like that. If I have some piece of information I choose to share with them, that I have taken great pains to find and verify the authenticity of in the first place, that is summarily dismissed as not important, relevant or pertinent to them in their situation, this is very hurtful. When they choose to ignore or dismiss information I am sharing, they are really dismissing all of my efforts to weed out information that is irrelevant, or possibly incongruous or illogical, and my ability to discern when information is accurate, useful or possibly very important. Aside from essentially labeling me as someone who is unable to figure things out on their own, or process information in a way that is beneficial, it is very frustrating and effectively impedes effective communication from being able take place. Once I have been labeled as someone who provides inaccurate or deceptive information, it is easy to then dismiss everything I say as such. It is amazing to me how quickly this label is applied to me nowadays without even checking to see if what I am saying is indeed accurate!

I had an interesting conversation with my father on Saturday night over dinner. My brother was there and he brought up religion for some reason (he is now an evangelical Christian and thinks of it as his calling to save all the Mormons from themselves). I don't recall all the details of the conversation because I was really only half listening to what my brother was saying, but it was apparent he was saying some things that were getting my father pretty upset. Of course, to be fair, if I were still a believing Mormon some of the things being said were pretty sacrilegious (to Mormonism, at least) and probably would have made me upset as well, or pretty embarrassed. I tried to refrain from jumping on the bandwagon, but then my father said that Joseph Smith never said that God was once a man like us and as God is man may become and that the information my brother was presenting was not true. I couldn't refrain any longer. I had to jump in and say, well, actually Joseph Smith did say that as God is man may become and as man is God once was. It was the whole subject of the King Follett Discourse delivered April 7, 1844 at a General Conference of the church. However, no matter what I said, my father insisted that it was never said and that I was mistaken. The trust in me as a potential source of information was completely abandoned when I was perceived to be going along with what my brother was saying. While there was nothing he was saying that was untrue, it was apparently offensive to the point where we could easily be discredited in his mind.

It was actually kind of funny because my dad went on to talk about how a discovery was made near the red sea that contained writings in Egyptian, written about a Pharaoh who talked about an evil leader who led the Israelite's across the red sea and that all of Pharaoh's army perished when the water came down on them when they followed. My father was using this information to point out that what you believe all depends on your perspective. This is very true. If I had been able to present a comeback to that information, I would have asked if it was possible to actually translate Egyptian? If so, I would have asked what the translation was of the papyrus the Book of Abraham was supposedly written on and how that compares with Joseph Smith's version? I guess that would have only led to further argument.

The good news is that I wasn't nearly as angry as I have been in times past when talking religion with my parents. I think I am finally letting go of the need to convince others that I am right. It is difficult to let others have their beliefs, even when I have studied those same beliefs at length and come to the conclusion that they are false.

I cannot think of any instance where, if someone came up to me claiming to have information that might be important for me to have, (because they were well versed in the subject matter) I would decide to dismiss it without first at least evaluating the information being presented for myself. Am I really that much different than so many people in my life?

(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)

Too much pain

I am really in pain folks. It just hurts too much. I feel like I have nowhere to turn. Last night I had a moment to talk to my son about his upcoming ordination to be a deacon. He will not turn 12 until this summer, but I felt I needed to at least talk to him about it. I started out by asking him if he understood where I am at with the church. He said, "Yeah." I said, "So where am I at?" He said, "You don't believe." So I said, "Do you understand that kind of makes it difficult for me to be able to give you the priesthood since I don't believe?" He said, "I guess so." I could tell at this point that he got really sad and didn't want to say any more. Now, he may have thought that this meant he wouldn't be able to receive the priesthood at all (a thought that had not occurred to me until later when I talked to my wife about it and she brought that to my attention.), which may have contributed to his sadness. I tried to convey my unconditional love and support for him and what he wanted, but that I just couldn't perform that ordinance and be able to live with integrity. At one point I asked him if he were in my shoes, would he just do what he wanted me to do and perform the ordinance in spite of where I am at? He said, "Maybe."

At this point I can't help but point out that I may be the worst father in the world and that I am placing a huge burden on a young man that he doesn't really deserve to bear. However, I think that deep down my son is capable of understanding what I am going through (at least I hope anyway). It is so difficult to be where I am at. When I try to think back to when I was his age and what my reaction might have been to the kind of news I was trying to relate, how would I have felt? It would have been awkward, confusing and hard for me, I think. I don't know why I continue to insist on living with integrity anymore. I feel like I am sort of worthless because outside of believing that the church isn't true and that God may or may not exist in any form that we can relate to, I can't offer much. My belief system right now pretty much consists of no belief. My thinking right now is that, if this is the case, and I truly don't have an alternative belief system that can drive and motivate people to do good because of the prospect of a hereafter, what harm is there in tacitly supporting the belief systems of my wife and children to contribute to their happiness? After all, I don't know for sure that they are 100% wrong. I do know that most of it is crap and mostly made up, but I am not 100% sure of this (99.99% sure, but not 100%).

Sometimes I think I am just being selfish. Why can't I just go to church and be the good Mormon father that does everything the church teaches that Mormon fathers should do. I think realizing I could just be a cafeteria Mormon would be helpful and maybe I could just try to focus on my family and the good things that belief in something, even though I can see is messed up, is better than belief in nothing at all. My former beliefs have brought me a lot of good things in life. I wouldn't have my wife and children if I wasn't active in the church as an RM around the time we met. I wouldn't have my current job if I weren't active in church at the time I met my present boss, I wouldn't have been able to enjoy so many friendships with people (that just seemed to come automatically at times) because of my activity in the church through the years.

On the flip side there is that whole living with integrity thing. I am beginning to think that living with integrity is overrated. I really believe that a lot of people get ahead and are able to enjoy fabulous opportunities on this planet because they are able to justify things to some extent. I mean, looking at corporate executives, wall street bankers and politicians, it seems that as long as you perfect the art of speaking out of both sides of your mouth you can really get ahead in this country.

I have felt for the last couple of years that I really didn't want to go to church because I was standing for some ideal. It was the principle of integrity that I clung to. I also excused my lack of attendance by saying that it was because church just infuriated me and caused me to be someone that took out rage on my family. Now I feel like there is potential for me to not be so angry if I go to church, but I just don't know how long this will last. Part of me wonders how long it will take for me to become enraged and that maybe the reason I have been able to let go of some of the anger is because I haven't been going to church. I wonder if it would be possible for me to ever get over it and just focus on the things that I can find that are praiseworthy.

I don't know if I can ever get to a point where I am able to pray or actually perform ordinances at church, but at least I would be there to support my family. So, I don't think it solves the problem of me feeling like I am letting down my son in his desires to ordain him, however, at least he would see me there and coming to church to offer some stability in his life. Would I be a total hypocrite if I went to church on Sunday, but secretly didn't believe any of it? What will my children think of me when I tell them that I never really believed but I decided to go to church anyway? Do I want them to have an example of someone living contrary to their beliefs to please others? This is what I have kind of been also hanging my hat on as far as a reason for not going to church. I want to show my children that I have integrity regardless of how meaningless it may seem. I want them to be true to themselves regardless of how much others tell them to be someone else. Can I teach that while not living it myself?

Maybe I am just blowing much of this out of proportion right now and the lessons I think I am teaching are just not that important if they drive family members away from me. Maybe the pain I am causing my wife and children is far outweighed by any future potential for them to realize that I had integrity and lived according to my beliefs, regardless of how shallow they may seem. Can I still teach my children to be true to themselves while pretending to be active in church for their sake? I wish I had more answers. I really need some advice. Unfortunately, my desire for advice is balanced by the understanding that where ever I turn for advice, that is the advice I will get. If I ask believing (and some not believing) members of the church what I should do, the answer will be clear that I should go to church. If I ask the postmo community, I suspect that the answer will be to stick to my guns.

I already did receive some advice on this question from an old friend from high school. She is agnostic and pretty much said, "Would it be so difficult to sacrifice for your family to go to church?" She said she has gone to church for friends (for special occasions) and granted there is much time spent rolling the eyes and trying to stave off the boredom, but, since it was important to that person, it was important to her. Maybe I just need to focus on that. I so wish I were not in this position, but here I am. Any thoughts would be most appreciated.

Self Talk

I have so many thoughts right now. I am hoping that by attempting to write about them it will help to order my mind somewhat. Right now I am really struggling with the fact that belief in God is so polarizing. I am very sad that civil discourse between those that believe with those that don't is so difficult to find, let alone engage in. My wife and I have resorted to simply not talking about so many things because of the resulting "debates" and "arguments" that seemed to invariably occur anytime one of us brings up something religious. I know I win the debate each time, but it seems like I usually fail to convince anyone of anything (that and my wife doesn't like to debate, apparently). This makes me really sad. I have a very hard time being sympathetic to her views and she doesn't want to go where my searching has lead me, so we are at an impasse.

For this reason, sometimes I just hate the church and what it has done. While I want to blame the church for my present difficulties, I also hate to admit that if I had not gone against the teachings of the church and read "forbidden" "anti" Mormon things, I may not be in the situation I am in. However, I cannot accept that line of thinking because what really started me down this path was not because I was going quickly to forbidden "anti" literature. What started me on this path was studying and pondering the content of the the Book of Abraham! I was literally trying to understand my beliefs better and feel like I got the short end of the stick because of it. I now see that Joseph Smith left a lot of clues to be able to discover the extent of his deception. The problem is, the only way to find them is to begin to look critically at church history and doctrine. Many cannot even get to that point. Where there is no ability to be critical of a doctrine, or set of beliefs, there is no possibility of ever being able to deny it's truthfulness. The problem is the church teaches that truthfulness is most important while ignoring the fact that it is not being truthful with its members in presenting its history.

The other thing I have been thinking about (as a result of listening to a motivational seminar by Brian Tracy on a recent road trip) lately is the power of our self talk. We all have internal dialogue that takes place all the time. The power contained in our self dialogue is pretty immense and can affect our lives dramatically over time. While I want to look more into this to learn more about it, I understand that what we hear and say contributes to the responses we receive from our subconscious and the quality of the self talk that takes place all the time within us. This self talk usually consists of our conscious mind asking questions and our subconscious mind providing answers based on what we are asking. Therefore, the quality (and content) of our questions (or self talk) are what contributes to the response of our subconscious. The focus of our subconscious mind ultimately becomes our reality. Of course, Brian Tracy says this inner dialogue can be manipulated by saying positive things about ourselves to ourselves over and over. The more emotion we attach to these messages, the more powerful and convincing they become to affect change in our lives. The ability to change our inner dialogue is a difficult process and can take some time to actually accomplish, but doing so can really create change in our lives.

I believe this to some extent, but I hate to think that my beliefs changed because I asked different questions and focused on different things! I know people who know the same things that I choose to label as deal breakers in my belief in the church, yet they still believe in spite of the knowledge they have of the problems. They just choose not to label them as deal breakers, I guess. Then again, the ability to see these issues as problems can really be affected by our self talk when responding to the issues in our mind. I believe the ability to isolate and minimize the issues to prevent acknowledging the big picture is a direct result of internal dialogue that is constantly minimizing the issues or their larger implications. I also think some people use the implications of religion not being accurate as a quick reason to simply avoid going anywhere near there automatically. People say, "I don't like where this is going, so I am just not going to allow myself to go there."

I know that my self talk did change gradually as I made conscious decisions in regard to various aspects of my set of religious beliefs, but it took time because each part had to be analyzed and addressed on a case by case basis. However, sometimes I wonder (if this idea of being able to affect our self talk with what we say and hear is really true) what would happen if I went back to church for my family so I could make them happy when they go to church. I worry that maybe my self talk would change, because of what I heard, so that I wasn't so opposed to what the church asks and I would eventually get to a point where I could ignore all my issues. Would I eventually get to a point where I could participate in church without any reservations? I honestly think my self talk would drive me crazy pointing out all the inconsistencies, deception and troubling aspects and this would lead to anger and frustration that I end up taking out on my family. Right now, not going to church seems to keep the peace, so that is where I am at.

I know a couple of people pretty well who participate fully in church (out of consideration for their family) that say they don't believe. One has a temple recommend but tells me (in private conversation) its all a bunch of crap, but pays minimal tithing and just figures that since people want to believe, he is not detracting from that and allowing them to do so. Keeping peace in the family is the primary reason this person says is why they keep going to church. I worry that this response for me would lead to too much cognitive distress and anger. It is certainly less peaceful for my family when I go to church because I have been so angry afterwards, it makes for not very happy times at home on Sunday afternoons/evenings. I wonder if this response of mine could ever change. Is it just a matter of my focus right now? Since I am focused on the problems, have I made them out to be bigger or more serious than they actually are?

The other person close to me does not believe and does not have a temple recommend or pay tithing, but goes to church and tries to point out difficult issues whenever they come up in lessons. I have heard from others, in the ward they attend, that people think that this person's attendance at church tends to distract from lessons because they insist on pointing out the problems whenever they come up. I have a hard time with this because I think if I am going to church, it means that I am sort of giving up my right to dissent. Church is a place for believers to go to be strengthened in their belief. I don't think it is a place for non believers to go and try to tell the believers why they are messed up in their beliefs.

This idea of trying to correct the church from within, I think, is like swimming upstream. It is always going to be difficult and the reality is the group is not going see the opposite view of things because the church has many systems setup to keep people focused on ignoring or always putting the problems out of their mind. I think that no matter how many things you show believers to cast doubt on their beliefs, they will always find a way to gloss over or minimize or completely ignore the issues being brought up. I guess this is simply a matter of their focus. I just wonder if it is so simple a thing that if you just focus on one thing that you want to be true, that people can successfully ignore real challenges to their beliefs if they do that. I guess it is happening all over the world, so I have to assume it is that simple. So, why do I not feel like if I just changed my focus that I could go back to believing in the church and be able to participate without being angry? Is this just what I want? I want to be respected enough to have my assertions challenged and to be shown why I am wrong. I don't want people to blindly follow what I say. I want to build from a foundation of integrity and let integrity guide me when setting up a belief system for myself.

I think I also take for granted that I have faced the fear that goes along with questioning beliefs about God and the hereafter. These are extremely difficult things to challenge because there is so much fear (which I think is built up quite a bit by religion, however) surrounding an acknowledgement that beliefs in God may not be true. I also wonder if many people are simply not capable of facing this fear, of things not being the way they want, and therefore they are truly not capable of ever focusing on other possibilities. Facing fear, I think, is extremely difficult, but I think it is worth the effort. I can say that I feel so much better for having begun to address my fear of the non-existance of God and an afterlife. It has made my life all the more rich and meaningful. I appreciate my life so much more. I am more inspired by nature than I ever was before. I am also a little more cynical on some things, too, but I think this is OK. I am a realist. I live in the present and I focus on reality and I think I come away more inspired and more motivated to learn and take advantage of my time here on this planet than I ever was while believing that I had an eternal afterlife to be able to catch up in my understanding of things.

However, I know lots of people, who have not faced the fear, will find that statement extremely difficult to believe. How can I show them those things are true if they never want to go there? I guess by being an example of integrity and moving forward with a focus on the here and now instead of the hereafter. I think I struggle with wanting to help others understand what I think I know. I really want others to see what I see. The hardest thing for me to accept is that there are those (probably many, actually) that will never get to where I am at. I guess I just need to keep telling myself that and maybe one day I will accept it?

Going to church

For the first time in a couple of years I went to church (LDS) last Sunday and actually stayed and attended Sunday School and Elder's Quorum. I had become very accustomed to attending Sacrament meeting with my family and then ducking out to the car to read or whatever to pass the time until my wife and kids came out from church and we could finally go home. I also tried not going at all for a while, which made me very happy, but the shame and disapproval conveyed by my family was very difficult.

I have come to realize that my disaffection from the LDS church is very much a process I am going through and is a very real grieving process. I am just beginning to recognize and deal with the stages I have found myself in. The first stage is shock and/or disbelief, which I do not think lasted very long for me. The second stage is bargaining. I don't think this stage lasted very long for me either. There really was no way to bargain with my bishop because it was either his way (following his suggestions that I take one principle and live it to gain a testimony of it and go from there) or the highway (Don't get me wrong, my bishop is a wonderful man whom I respect immensely). I have thought about bargaining with my wife about going to church (or the church teachings), but it was just easier to either not go there or just go for Sacrament meeting and skip the rest.

The stage I have been in the most (and seem to return to frequently) has been the anger stage. This is where I have been for at least a year or more. My wife has been very understanding and forgiving, but she is just not able to relate to what I am going through. I try so hard to help her see what I see, but it is just pointless. Every time I try, it turns into an ugly argument and we have to take a step back and repair the damage. Sometimes the damage is pretty severe. I sometimes wish my wife could see what I see and for once just say, yes, you have a good point. Instead it is a fight every step of the way - at least until I stop and say, OK we just have to agree to disagree (but truth be told, I hate this so much because it leaves things unresolved in my mind).

In any case, I swallowed my pride last Sunday and stayed in Sunday School and Elder's Quorum. My wife was happy, but I didn't let that last very long. The funny thing is, when I was in there, I actually participated and didn't attempt to get people to question their beliefs with my comments. I just toed the party line and gave my honest opinion when it wouldn't serve to try and shake anyone's testimony up. I was amazed at how naturally I was able to put on appearances, get back into that "mode" and not let my anger show through. And then I realized, maybe I am moving into the next stage of grief! Maybe I am at a point of acceptance. I know I have been through the depression stage, but that hasn't lasted very long for me either.

The stage I seem to keep coming back to, though, is anger.

I was fascinated by my behavior in church, but then I was curious about the aftermath. When I came home I just couldn't resist the urge to try and start an argument with my wife. I just couldn't hold it in. I had to let it out. This resulted in more hurt feelings and more walls being built. What I am most interested in is the trigger. It seems to me that going to church and staying and trying to swallow or bury my true feelings only resulted in a major angry release at my wife (this time the kids were even included in my tyrannical rant - so sad indeed. This was the first time I actually saw my son coping in a way that was similar to my wife's. Why does the church have to keep people in so much intellectual darkness?!? whoops, I am getting angry again...)

My wife made an interesting observation, however, and that is that my increased frustration may have been from the fact that I attended church for all 3 hours. I think she may be right. It may be best to just remove myself as much as possible for the sake of my sanity and my family. Will it eventually get better if I just keep going to church every week up and work through things or will it get worse? I don't know. It seems like some have been able to go back and they seem to have adjusted well, but then I hear others say that a clear breaking point must come at some juncture. Frankly, I don't know what to do or what is the best path to take.

To go or not to go...that is the question.