Letter to my parents

Here is a copy of a letter that I found that I wrote to my parents back in May 2009. I never sent it to them because I had a discussion with them shortly after that pretty much went over most of the things in the letter. For your reading enjoyment here is my letter:

Dear Mom & Dad,

I wanted to let you know what has been going on with me over the past year. 3-4 years ago my co-worker (who is LDS) and I got into some lengthy conversations about the church. He basically told me that he didn’t believe in the church anymore and I tried to give him every response I could muster to respond to his concerns. I thought I did pretty well and I remained satisfied with the answers I had come up with to his questions and we ultimately decided to agree to disagree. Well, about a year ago things started to bubble up a little bit for me. On my own, I began formulating questions to things that had been nagging me for some time. Of course, I had become very good at ignoring or putting on the shelf things that were uncomfortable or that did not add up for me. Until one Sunday I was pondering the pictures that had been taken from the Egyptian papyri discovered and printed in the Book of Abraham.

I really sat and pondered those pictures and began to have doubts that they were really representative of the life of Abraham as Joseph Smith had represented. I began to wonder if they might actually have a different meaning. I wondered if there was any other interpretation of the facsimiles and the hieroglyphs contained in them that might go against what Joseph Smith had taught or if he was accurate in his translation. Well, looking through the illustrated book of Egyptian archeology we got for Christmas a few years back (I think from you, actually) the same elements of the pictures in the Book of Abraham have been found in other places in artifacts and what not. I also learned that scholars are now able to read Egyptian with ease thanks to all the historical work done, artifacts unearthed and the discovery of the Rosetta stone back in 1799. What I found was that there was very little accuracy to the translation that Joseph Smith presented in the Book of Abraham of the facsimiles. This discovery, of course, led to questioning the authenticity of the text of the Book of Abraham and to Joseph’s ability to translate altogether. The shadow cast in my mind was very dark and very deep.

Needless to say, this question led me on a quest to find out everything I could to formulate a better understanding of who Joseph Smith really was and whether or not all of the foundational events in church history could be called into question. Well, about a year later, I have ultimately arrived at my answer.

I want to point out that, as you know, I do suffer from an acute case of foot in mouth disease and I certainly do have a tendency to be deliberate and hurtful with my words (as Mrs. Facsimilogos well knows) so I want to mention that even though I would love to convince you of everything I have discovered and try to spell it all out here that I will refrain from doing so. I will refrain because such a work would require volumes to relay my findings, notes, etc. (Not to mention addressing any specific questions or perspectives that would come up as I went along). Instead I want to share with you my feelings and hope that you will begin to understand where I am coming from and that you will not think of me any differently because of a change in my beliefs.

As you can imagine, my new understanding and perspective places me in a very big bind. I am not sure what the future holds, but I know that I am 100% dedicated to my children and to doing whatever it takes to make their lives productive, comfortable and peaceful. I certainly could not see myself out of their lives, nor do I wish to be.

Mrs. Facsimilogos and I do not agree on much of what I believe as she is still very much a strong believer in the church. In fact, it was a conversation with her that has led me to write this letter. You see, she got so fed up with me and my questions one night a few days ago that she called her parents to tell them what I was going through and to ask them for advice. I figured it wasn’t fair that her parents should know where I am at and you not know.

Anyway, my new beliefs cause me to be confronted with tough decisions and to be torn in many directions. With our son’s baptism, he wants me to do it…and I probably will do it, but I now find praying to be an empty, rhetorical experience. I think my mind has been very powerful at helping me to believe what I wanted to believe in the past, but now that I really want some objective experience to latch onto, there is nothing but dead air. I will probably have a hard time hiding my true feelings and will probably not be able to do the expected “special” confirmation blessing, although in thinking about it, I could probably say some nice things that would hopefully be helpful to my son, but they probably wouldn’t fit in with the church’s party line. I may go ahead and ask Mrs. Facsimilogos’ father to be voice for his confirmation, we’ll see. (I ended up confirming my son, but was painfully told later that it was not the blessing my son was "entitled" to)

I now struggle with the thought of whether or not to continue to enforce the belief structure as laid out by the church (even though I don’t believe it is 100% healthy) because it is a good moral foundation for the kids or do I begin to introduce ideas of independent thought that would move them towards non-reliance on the church for their identity. This is a tough call…Hey, where is my parenting manual anyway? Of course, this question is only for me to speculate on in my mind, since Mrs. Facsimilogos continues to insist on bringing the kids up active in the church and I must continue to support that.

Getting to where I am at was not easy and will continue to present challenges; HOWEVER, I can honestly say that I am at peace and feel renewed and refreshed in my conscience. The feeling is so exhilarating, yet also troubling when confronted with the reality of what family and friends think because of where it is that I have come from and was brought up with. This is probably the most difficult part; however, most people in the church take solace in just figuring it is a phase I am going through and that I will come back eventually. I don’t see this as being the case, but I guess anything could happen. On the other hand, I think it is unfortunate that this idea of the lost sheep eventually coming back into the fold has been taught over the pulpit. The arrogance of the leaders of the church and their viewpoint surrounding the choices of others does not cease to astound me. In my opinion, people should be encouraged to do what they feel is right for them (even if it is something outside of the church) and not have to be condemned at every turn for deciding  their own happiness.

This is where I am at; I go to sacrament meeting to be with the family, but that is about it. I didn’t go for a while, but it was too much for me to handle. I skip out of Sunday school and priesthood because I can’t stand it (that and it is so boring and nobody wants to hear what I now think). I won’t accept a calling (because I can’t in good conscience) and I don’t pay tithing. Of course, it goes without saying that I don’t have a temple recommend. I have been in to talk with the bishop so he knows where I am at, but as far as helping me, he tried for a little bit, but then sort of gave up on me telling me how he had a good friend who left the church to go be a polygamous fundamentalist. He said the church is still good because of what it does to keep kids from doing bad stuff later in life and that is essentially why he still supports it. However, from what I have seen from our family, church activity is no guarantee that kids will never do anything bad. In my opinion, kids are going to do what they want to do and all I can do as a parent is teach them right from wrong as best I can and trust that they will do the right thing…that and continue to love them unconditionally, right? As far as requesting to have my name removed from the church, I don’t see any point. I don’t care if people from church contact me and I think it would probably be the final nail in the coffin for my marriage if I did make that request. I also continue to wear garments because it helps give Mrs. Facsimilogos something to hang onto. Of course they are pretty worn out, so I am going to need to do something about that one of these days.

You may think that my confession here means that I don’t want to talk about the church any further; however, nothing could be further from the truth. My mind is more open now than it ever has been in the past. I am just drawing conclusions based on my life’s experience and what I think I know. I am open for discourse and would welcome any and all rebuttals to my points. Of course, you should remember that I can be quite belligerent and always think I am right so there’s that to deal with. I hope we can talk about things going forward and I welcome any thoughts or questions you may have.

I hope this isn’t going to rock you to your core(s). I hope it does not make you want to give up all hope in me and my ability to do the right things. I am still that person, I just have an expanded view of the world and I am taking it all in. I am still forming my viewpoints and learning new things all the time. Unfortunately, it is true that the more I reject the teachings of the church the more I see error and fallibility in the things that are taught. Don’t get me wrong, the church is filled with really good people that I really admire, I just wish so much that more people could open their eyes and see what I now see. I will openly condemn any organization that teaches obedience to a hierarchy over independent thought and individual accountability. Boyd K. Packer taught in an infamous address that there are things from the church’s history that, while they may be true, are not very useful. I reject the notion that my exposure to events from church history necessitates being screened and edited until they become faith promoting and useful. The result is lies that are intended to deceive and increase the power and influence of the church. As Gordon B. Hinckley said, it is either all true or all false, there is no middle ground. I accept that and have pretty much concluded it is all based on the ideas of men…granted they may be considered by many to be some pretty good ideas, but they are the ideas of men nevertheless.

I’ll close by telling you that I am sorry to be telling you all of this, but I think it is better to get it out in the open instead of continuing to allude to it all the time when we get together. Please forgive me and don’t hesitate to talk to me. I am still very open to seeing the error of my ways. Thanks in advance for your patience and any advice you can offer. I would really value your feedback.

I hope things find you well. Thanks for your love.

Most Sincerely,

Facsimilogos

Faith, knowledge and emotions

In the New Testament book of John chapter 20 verse 29 we get the message that Thomas was blessed for seeing the resurrected Jesus and believing in him, but we also get the message that even more blessed are all those who believe without seeing Jesus resurrected and in person. For me, this scripture was the basis of feeling that faith in Jesus, without having seen him in person, could be even more powerful than actually having seen him to verify his exalted state. This was interpreted by me to mean that the knowledge that comes from faith in the unseen is more noble than knowledge that comes from our own senses.

Perhaps this is why I got so much blow-back from believers in the LDS church that are my friends when I posted the following quote on my Facebook wall, "The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty." by Ann Lamott. This rubs members of the LDS church the wrong way. We are so conditioned to believe that the knowledge that comes from faith is superior to knowledge gained from observation that when the very nature of faith (as a principle that is not knowledge, but a tool that can be used to obtain knowledge) is pointed out to us, we feel threatened and attacked.

To have faith in things that are unseen is viewed as a virtue in a religious context, however, why don't we feel the same way when it comes to book learning? One thing I never could figure out is why there was such a difference in the way I was taught things at school versus how I was taught things at church. For example, Sunday school teachers would teach things and then "testify" of their truth at the end of the lesson. My teachers in school never did that. My science teacher never taught me about some scientific theory or idea and then closed with some variation of, "...and I want you young people to know that I have a testimony of these things..." Why not? What is the difference between knowledge gained in church versus at school? I think the difference is pretty clear.

Faith is the foundation of what is taught at church and knowledge is the foundation of what is taught in school. Teachers in school don't need to "testify" of what they teach, because they have the scientific method backing up their position. If it is possible, they want to be proven wrong and, in some cases, they are.

I remember watching an interview with Brian Greene, the physics professor at Columbia University who popularized string theory in books and PBS television specials. He was asked, "What will you do if it turns out that (a certain aspect of) string theory is not accurate?" His answer actually surprised me since it seems like he has a pretty vested interest in seeing string theory become an accepted scientific principle. His response was something to the effect of, "that would be great, because then we would be one step closer to knowing more about how things actually are in the universe!" I'm sure people can find scientists who don't share this outlook on the future of scientific discovery because they have a heavily vested interest in seeing their view of things become the accepted standard, but  I think (maybe I simply hope) that these folks are in the minority.

However, teachers at church don't want to prove anything except what they have been taught and accept on faith as truth. Learning at church is a simple exercise in agreement. Every part of the institution is set up to confirm what has been taught at one time or another as a self evident truth. While there are references to experiments and ways of finding truth in the Book of Mormon, these are really just lip service. The faithful don't really want anyone to perform experiments to find out just how beneficial prayer can be, for example. They want allegorical or anecdotal evidence to confirm their pre-existing beliefs of what they have been told is the expected outcome.

To suggest that someone has performed an experiment on their faith with any scientific objectivity is considered insulting to the faithful. To even bring it up means being met with an argument from compartmentalization. Meaning, you will be told that science (i.e. objective observation to confirm or deny the most logical explanation [theory] for something) and faith are simply incompatible. I have been told several times that one cannot prove spiritual things with science and that science will not ever be able to prove spiritual things.

While that may be true to some, science can explain the cause of experiences that we may be tempted to attribute to a "spiritual" experience. Imagine that one has some sort of spiritual epiphany that brings one closer to the deity they imagine. If we can ask the person to describe what they feel at that time, we might find that it is some sort of euphoric, warm, tingly or happy feeling. So the question is, could that same set of feelings be reproduced under different circumstances? My guess is they could. I get those feelings, that I used to attribute to spiritual communication, at very odd times, with no apparent explanation at all. Usually the feeling comes when I talk with someone I care about and desire to help them in some way. But it is not a feeling I can reproduce at will. Even if I try to duplicate the circumstances as completely as possible, there just won't be the same feeling come. There is very little in the way of a pattern or predictability for it. It comes when I don't really expect it. Much like other emotions we experience, usually there is some environmental stimulus for them, but other times they may be the result of hormonal or chemical imbalances or seem to be completely random in nature. Those emotional responses that are based on hormonal or chemical imbalances can be reproduced and experienced at will given the right set of circumstances being reproduced in the body or brain if we could measure and alter those things in a precise manner (for the most part).

So, if I am genuinely interested in establishing whether or not these spiritual experiences are coming from some deity somewhere (Where exactly, no one seems to know. On a side note, the physical locations in the known universe that God could be existing/hiding in are pretty remote at this point. About the only place God could possibly exist is in other dimensions - which we have yet to prove exist with any certainty - or at some sub, sub, sub, sub atomic level that we don't have the ability to observe yet) or being generated as a simple, and somewhat predictable, emotional response, I would begin with a hypothesis.

That is; feelings of euphoria, peace, love, joy, happiness, goodness (internal sense of right and wrong) come from an unseen deity or they are merely appendages of the continuum of emotions we all experience in our human experience.

It would seem pretty simple to show that if any of the emotional responses we experience in everyday life overlap anywhere with what we might label as "spiritual" experiences that would be pretty damning to the belief that they originate from God. However, let's say that God IS found in all the mundane and petty details of our lives that stimulate emotional responses - i.e. God is the source of ALL of our emotions. If that is the case, then there is no way to differentiate between those feelings that are beneficial - and intended to bring us closer to God - and those that are just part of the everyday human experience. If that is the case, then it seems pretty meaningless to attach meaning where no meaning can be objectively derived. If God is the source of ALL emotion (and He very well could be), my conclusion is that emotional responses are not a good indicator of the existence of God or as a tool that should be used to gauge effectiveness in living a life worthy of God's approval. It is also safe to say that such emotional responses do not contain any explicit set of instructions or interpretations to go along with them (at least mine don't anyway but, then again, I may be a defective unit). This is especially troubling when we realize that emotional responses can be triggered through manipulation.

If someone tells me that someone close to me has died (and I trust them to the point that I don't think to question their information) then that could easily elicit a strong emotional response in me. In that case, my outpouring of feelings expressed at such news would have been generated by false information. If God is the source of all our feelings, why does He rely on such an unreliable medium to convey what could be seen as, arguably, the most important information we need (i.e. knowledge of the plan for being able to determine our ETERNAL station related to God)? To quote Boyd K. Packer, "Why would God do such a thing?" It really makes no sense.

So, until someone can explain why God would choose to place so much emphasis on such an unreliable mechanism for determining truth, I will maintain my position that faith is only useful if it brings us to knowledge (that is real, provable and able to be duplicated under any differing circumstances through objective experiment) otherwise, faith in things that can be repeatedly dis proven is not a useful mechanism to lead us to knowledge and deserves to be discarded in favor of something better (a better faith).

By the way, faith is actually a pretty useful tool in science, although it doesn't receive nearly as much airtime in science as it does in religious circles. Something that has really helped me understand the place of faith in the world of science is that faith is what motivates the performing of experiments to validate a belief in how the world works. If someone comes up with an idea about how they think things ought to work they try to develop a hypothesis (i.e. a statement about what they believe so that it could become a law to guide future scientists). Once a hypothesis is arrived at, a scientist - having faith in their hypothesis - attempts to come up with experiments to prove or disprove their hypothesis. Faith certainly drives the scientist to keep going when the going is difficult, but the ultimate courage (and test of faith) comes when the experiment reveals the truth or falsehood of the hypothesis. In that moment, faith is either strengthened or diminished in that belief (hypothesis). Of course, it is kind of odd to think that if faith is strengthened, that means it is actually going away because it is leading to knowledge. This is the way it should be. Faith either leads us to knowledge (where knowledge displaces our faith in something) or it leads to a revision of our hypothesis and faith in something different.  Faith is a tool that is useful as a stepping stone to knowledge, but that's it. It's not really good for much more than that.

To maintain faith in something that can't be proven through experiment seems pretty silly. In fact, I wonder what God would say to people who advocated maintaining their faith in Him in spite of lots of observable evidence to the contrary? Will He reward those who do not test and try to disprove their faith? Or how will He look on those who tried to find the best possible explanations for the world as we know it and tried to eliminate those ideas that turned out to be contradictory, unreliable, or non-universal in nature? I would like to think that God will look kindly on those that challenged their faith and relied on logic and reason to determine ultimate truth. I don't think God wants blind followers, I think God wants people who can think and reason and make tough decisions (even if that means they see that abandoning faith fits with experiment and observations in piecing together the big picture of who and what we are as people). People who have to come up with other things to base morality on besides tradition and ancient mythology. I hope God sees those people as deserving of great rewards in the afterlife believers cling to. Otherwise, I'm screwed, but I'm OK with that.

The Catch-22 of Belief

This is the story of Joe and Fred. Joe believes in God and believes that God endorses the religion he belongs to. Joe believes that there will be a day that will come, after we all die, where God will judge Joe for his actions. Joe knows that God will also be judging everybody else that has ever lived as well. Joe hopes that God will be kind and forgiving to all those that did not believe in God while they lived on the earth, but Joe has also been told in the texts, regarded as sacred and originating from God by his religion, that God is a jealous God and is very capable of punishing those who do not believe in God.

Joe meets Fred.

Fred doesn't believe in God at all. Fred believes in evolution, the big bang and in the discoveries that science continues to make about our existence. Fred is very open to new ideas, but comfortable with his beliefs. Fred also knows quite a bit about the religious teachings of the church that Joe belongs to.

As Joe and Fred come to know each other they both have thoughts about the other. Joe thinks Fred doesn't do some of the things that he ought to. Joe thinks Fred should go to church or read the books that Joe thinks are sacred, from God, and will help us all to fare better when it comes time for God to judge us. Joe attempts to tell Fred this when the occasion permits but, for the most part, Joe decides to honor Fred's wishes that he not push his religion on him.

However, Joe is concerned.

Joe worries that if Fred doesn't change his "sinning" ways at some point then he will have to pay a heavy price when the judgment day comes. Joe cannot honestly accept Fred the way he is. Joe clings to the belief that Fred will see the error of his ways at some point in the future. In fact, Joe is promised this will be the case by the leaders of his church so Joe should not worry so much about Fred - although, Joe is told, he should still be concerned enough to never give up on Fred. Joe waits patiently for the day when Fred will finally come to his senses, see the error of his ways, and be open to what Joe has been trying tell him. Joe is sure that someday the spirit of God will be poured out on Fred and he will be touched in a way where he will not be able to ever deny the existence of God again.

Joe wants to be friends with Fred, but he also wonders if Fred may be a bad influence on him. He wonders if hanging out with Fred might cause him to someday lose his belief in God. Joe is told by people at church that he should limit his association with "sinners" because they will most assuredly drag him "down to hell" with them.

Joe likes Fred. They have much in common and really enjoy doing things together. Joe is torn about what to do about being friends with Fred. Joe can't really tell Fred what he is going through, worrying about his future with God and all, although he tries to on occasion. Fred just listens to what Joe has to say and chalks it up to his opinion. While Fred accepts Joe and doesn't allow his ideas about believing in God stand in the way of their friendship, he also knows what Joe's beliefs are and senses the struggles that Joe seems to be going through. Fred tries to tell Joe not to worry and everything will be sorted through in the afterlife. Joe hears this and thinks, that's right, in the afterlife you will come to your senses and will believe as I do and we will be even happier together living with God.

Joe, however, can't get past these thoughts of concern for his friend. Joe knows that his beliefs are true. Joe wonders why Fred can't see it and what exactly the devil has done to cloud his mind so he can't see the truth that Joe knows. Fred tries to share some information with Joe about the history of his religion and tries to show why the scriptures don't make sense in places. Joe refuses to listen. Joe has been taught to never question the foundational principles of his beliefs and never does. Fred can't seem to get through to Joe and Joe can't seem to get through to Fred.

Fred doesn't think anything is wrong with Joe. If Joe is truly happy in his beliefs, then Fred is happy. Fred isn't mentally always looking for ways to try and change Joe to his way of thinking, Fred is honestly trying to find what makes the most sense. Fred doesn't fret about the afterlife or the judgment of some God he has never met. Fred can accept Joe without reservation, even though he may think he is wrong about things. Of course, Fred thinks Joe's ideas of some things are a bit weird and illogical, but Fred realizes that he has some pretty strange ideas himself sometimes as well.

So here's the catch-22. Joe cannot ever truly and fully accept Fred the way he is unless he "converts" to his way of believing. Fred can truly and fully accept Joe for who he is and what he believes because his beliefs are open to the possibilities, but grounded in the world we can repeatedly observe around us. The only way that Joe can truly and fully accept Fred for who he is, without Fred converting, is for Joe to deny his belief that his religion represents the truth of what or who God is. Joe cannot have it both ways. It is either that he always sees Fred as deficient in some way (or as a "sinner") and maintains his belief in God or he fully accepts Fred and accepts that his own religious teachings are false. This is why I think religion is very polarizing and causes divisions. The religious mind cannot fully accept people unless they convert to their beliefs and in some way attempt to follow what they, the religious, believe.

What makes this situation all the more difficult is when a person like Joe becomes like Fred and has to try and communicate this to his loved one's who still believe as Joe once did. Marriages are lost over this, relationships between parents and siblings become strained because the believers fear for the eternal well being of their spouse or loved one. They are afraid because of their belief in God. Their belief in God, while permeating so much of who they are and how they think, is just too difficult to abandon.

I am one who was once like Joe. I am now like Fred. I have taken the plunge into the real world and found it to not be as bad as I once thought it was. Now I find the most difficult thing to deal with is the fear that others have for my eternal well being. I fear as well. I fear what my wife and children honestly think of me as they continue to follow their beliefs in God and the afterlife. Do they pity me? How do they deal with the knowledge that I don't believe as they do? I honestly think the only way they can begin to accept me, is to hope that I will see things the way they do someday. I fear that they will think less of me as they pursue the teachings of their church and come to learn (or be reminded) that I am not fully as happy as I could be unless I believe as they do.

This is a lie.

People find their own happiness and can have as much happiness as they want and it doesn't require a God or a religion to have all they desire right here, right now. I can accept this. Religious people who believe they have the truth about God and the afterlife cannot accept this unless you convert to their way of thinking about these things. Their happiness for you is always conditional on your belief. Mine is not conditional. Mine is based on whatever it is that brings you happiness. If it brings you happiness, I am happy, whatever that may be (as long as it doesn't harm me in some way). My happiness does not require you to believe as I do. My happiness is sincerely based on what I find that brings me happiness and allows you to have your chosen happiness and what you find for yourself, truly, regardless of what that is. I am not happy only if you believe, I am happy. Period. If you are happy, great. I am happy for you. No strings attached. My happiness does not require that you change, or find the "true" path, or accept Jesus or anything else.

What is required for you to be truly happy and truly and honestly and fully be able to accept people in life, as they are, without hoping they will come around some day?

I think there are some whose beliefs will prohibit them from being able to honestly answer this question the way I would hope. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. If the believers are right and God is as they suggest, I hope your God shows me some mercy. However, if I'm right and this life is it, I will have been able to accept you as a human being with all your flaws and truly been able to see them as evidence of your uniqueness. Your mistakes or preferences would not serve as proof that we will not ever be able to be together again to enjoy eternal life with God. No. You are your own guide to happiness. It is truly possible for people to be happy without God in their life. I accept this to be true. What do you think?

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.

Happiness

I have been thinking recently about happiness. What is happiness? Is happiness laughter? Is happiness physical pleasure? Is happiness derived from social interaction or a sense of belonging? Does happiness come from knowing that you are in a social majority? Does happiness come from a belief in God?

I will endeavor to answer each of these questions. Is happiness laughter? I feel happy when I have a good laugh. I believe laughter is good for the soul. However, unless I can forget about everything else in my life, laughter does make me happy and it probably contributes to my overall happiness, but it is not the sole source of happiness itself for me. I do know that I could use more laughter in my life.

Is happiness physical pleasure? This is one area where I obviously must hesitate to share as much as I would like to, but I will say that, being a man, seeing a lovely woman does make me happy. The more I get to see, the happier I become. However, while this may be a source of much happiness, I cannot say that I would be able to enjoy a full measure (like my mo jargon?) of happiness if my life consisted of nothing outside of this (although I would be willing to give it a shot, for the sake of science, of course ;)

I have also discovered that I feel loved when I am touched. Touch, to me, is the ultimate form of feeling love and happiness. It has been difficult for me to come to realize that others feel love and happiness through means other than touch. My wife feels love through what she sees. Others feel love through what they hear. The words, "I love you" are the most meaningful to them. We tend to give the most in the area of love that we want to experience because we want to receive that form of expression in return. In my opinion, this is a common area of discontent in intimate relationships (i.e. communicating that you love your partner in a different fashion than they would like to receive).

I'm also pretty sure that love and happiness are two different things, but I think one cannot have happiness without feeling loved. I also realize that many like to break up physical pleasure and love and claim they are two different things, however, I would argue that physical arousal and pleasure is such an important part of love that it cannot be taken away and still be considered love. Love is a hard word to nail down though. It is a huge umbrella of emotion that is much too broad to tackle in this post.

Is happiness derived through social interaction or a sense of belonging? I really think this is one area where I have suffered somewhat since I have stopped attending my regular Sunday meetings. I really enjoy my time at home during that 3 hour stretch on Sunday, but I do feel somewhat selfish. I think selfishness can contribute to happiness, but I also think it comes with a price and can be hollow. The best advice I have heard given to post-LDS is that we go out and give of ourselves to diminish selfishness (*Not that I am ready or willing to do this so much right now, because I am selfish, but I can spout it with the best of them - I am at least trying to be sincere). But I also wonder if there can come a point where we are giving so much that it doesn't bring us happiness anymore. I don't know if this is an excuse I use to not give so much or if it is the way it is. I know there have been times when service became a drudgery and stopped being fulfilling. The trick, I guess, is to get out (of the service project) just before (or maybe just after) this feeling comes. I also believe strongly that we can be happier when we are doing what we enjoy. And doing what we enjoy can sometimes be viewed as being selfish, but that is OK.

Social interaction and feeling of belonging is the major reason that religious people in the US, it is claimed, are noted to be happier than the non-religious. I think there is something to this. We are social creatures and need social interaction to not only survive, but thrive.

I am really not sure that I know what true happiness is. Maybe I am not capable of feeling as happy as I would like. I thought I knew what happiness was when I was a believing member of the church, but now I'm not so sure. I think it came from having everything about my existence packaged in a nice little box I was handed at church. All the answers were in the box. There was never any need to venture outside the box. Now that I have ventured outside the box, the world is so big and kind of scary, but really not so much all at the same time. I feel tentative and like I am looking for happiness but not really finding it. I almost think that I am not as happy as I once thought I was...or was I really that happy? Maybe ignorance truly is bliss and bliss is truly happiness? I guess I would rather be smart and unhappy than ignorant and happy, but sometimes I have to wonder. Happiness feels to me right now like it is fleeting and I cannot grasp it. But I also understand this is likely more due to my current circumstances, which contribute to insecurity, than a belief in the divine would cause. I wonder if my definition of happiness has been warped and permanently damaged by my disaffection from the church.

My dilemma as of late is that I see many people in the church who appear to be genuinely happy. I wonder why this is? I know they are trapped in a delusion, and yet, they seem to be OK with that. Many seem to be more than OK with it. The one thing they have in common, though, is that they either don't know much about the history of the church (outside of the correlated history that is) or they know some of it but refuse to fully acknowledge it or pursue it. Is having a mental roadblock to certain information a key to happiness? It appears that it can be.

Sometimes I find myself wishing that I could put the genie back in the bottle and just go back and forget everything I now know and have decided about the church. Things would be so much easier for my family, for my status with those that I see as my peers in my community. However, I can't just forget. I can't just flip a switch and make it all OK. Why did I have to question? Why did I have to insist on finding the answers I thought I wanted? Why can't God just answer my friggin' prayers and make everything right again?!

I have been very fond of the quote that says that happiness is not a destination but a mode of transportation. I used to think this quote was great, but I feel like it has lost some meaning. I have heard some say that happiness is a decision and it is as simple as that. That may be true after all, so what am I deciding?

Does happiness come from knowing that you are in a social majority? This is a very interesting theory that comes from studies that show that the happiest people in the world are found in Denmark. In 4th place (for overall happiness) is the Netherlands and in these northern European countries the religious are not in the social majority. It could be drawn that the correlation between happiness and religion in the US may stem more from the idea and comfort of being in a social majority (and having ready made avenues for social interaction through church) than from anything contained in the teachings of religions themselves. However, it may also have nothing to do with religion and more to do with the fact that the governments in this region place more emphasis on providing and taking care of the social needs of the people (such as health care, unemployment, vacations and retirement).

Finally, does happiness come from God? Honestly, I have to say that I do not know the answer to this question. However, I do not believe that believers in God can really answer it with evidence any better than I could. They would have to acknowledge the constant presence of guilt that a belief in God creates and I think guilt is a destroyer of happiness. I think this is why Jesus is so popular, He can remove guilt. Just wipe it all away. It's all gone. Jesus is so nice.

This goes back to what I have said about subjective evidence in an earlier post. I don't think any objective evidence can be found that definitively places God as the source of happiness. For all I know, God may be the source of all happiness in the universe, but this same God hasn't given me enough information (that I can classify as objective) to be able to say so one way or the other. For some, the studies that say religious people are the happiest is enough. And it may just be that simple...or it may not be. The problem with being a skeptic is sometimes you just don't know stuff, but I am OK with that and regardless of what any believer may say, I am happy with that conclusion. I wish I could convey that thought in a way where people who believe in God could actually accept it, but here we are, just trying to get along and pursue happiness wherever we may think it is found. I wish we were more tolerant as to allow this (speaking of myself as well as those who may disagree with me).

As I have thought about the source(s) of happiness, and my happiness in particular, I am convinced that happiness may not be experienced all the time. But that we may be genetically disposed to the level of happiness we have. Happiness appears to come from lots of different sources, but the biggest indicator of happiness is how well we listen to ourselves to figure out what will bring us the most happiness. I think even those that claim to receive that insight from God, are actually receiving it from themselves (and they would claim that I am actually receiving it from God), but it does not matter which of us is right. It only matters that we listen and not give up seeking, and recognizing, our best happiness possible. Stay happy my friends.