"So called" intellectuals

One of the things I increasingly noticed about attempting to maintain my belief in the church is that in order to do so, I had to increasingly ignore what science had to say about things in the world around me. The more I became exposed to what science has to say about major world events (such as a universal flood, for example) the more I had to rely on wild speculation to explain the continued belief in it, that may have been based on a tiny sliver of remote possibility, but the likelihood of which became increasingly remote the more I was grounded in reality and the more I looked objectively at what science has to say about history and the world around me.

Some of the things I have heard believers say in response to several of my objections about the likelihood of events happening the way they are depicted in the Bible and the Book of Mormon is that those events happened soooo long ago that the world could have changed significantly since those events occurred. Unfortunately, this is not likely. The world does change over time, but not that fast and not in THAT significant a fashion. When I ask about why there is no evidence of the complete and total destruction of several major cities as described in 3rd Nephi in the Book of Mormon the explanation is that either we haven't found the evidence yet, or God is hiding it. Even though the civilizations we find remnants of in South America were all built well before the events in 3rd Nephi supposedly transpired, there must still be evidence out there that the massive destruction really did happen. The more people dig, the less they find that it is likely that events occurred the way the Book of Mormon depicts, but people who believe have to remain in denial (or in the dark or cling to wild and unsubstantiated speculation about what may have happened to the evidence of such events) about those discoveries in order to maintain their faith.

When I bring up the objection that says that the Red Sea has never had rivers flowing into it, even though the Book of Mormon states that there was a river that flowed "constantly" into the Red Sea (see 1 Nephi 2:8). We know from science that no rivers run consistently into the Red Sea. So the way this is reconciled is to say that there might have been some rain water runoff that Lehi and the gang happened to stumble across...but one would think that having been from that region and all they should have known that the Red Sea area was not known for having much fresh water. Here is a great video about this here.

This is not to mention the fact that the Book of Mormon expects us to swallow that a group of families traveled on foot the distance of over 250 miles over some of the roughest terrain known to man in 3 days. I mean, I'm sure these people were tough and all, but c'mon, for realsies?

Even though thinking about the reality of a caravan of families traveling through the desert region east of the Red Sea and actually being able to survive for more than a few days becomes quite ridiculous when seriously thought about, the believer sees the unlikelihood of the events transpiring the way they are said to have in the Book of Mormon as making the story more faith promoting (i.e. God causes very unlikely things to happen all the time). I tend to see the infeasibility of the events as an indicator that they are likely not true. They are either highly embellished folk tales or they didn't really happen at all.

What I really don't like is that the more I worked to maintain my faith in the reality of what the scriptures teach, the more I found myself coming up on the short end of what scientists have discovered about the world around me. There just came a point where I had to say that science can't be wrong about so much in the world.

Of course, believers tend to point out that science seems to change its conclusions about things over time. They cite the advice about drinking a glass of red wine a day and say that science has changed it's position on that at least a few times since announcing the discovery. To this I can only respond that I would rather place my faith in science, and the attempts to try to discover the truth of things through the scientific method, than settle for what some ancient book (or old guy) assures me is true based on a "feeling".

I also wanted to throw in a link to the skeptics annotated Book of Mormon for anyone who wants to check out all the nifty stuff people laugh at in the Book of Mormon here. They also have the Skeptics annotated Bible here. Enjoy.

(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.)

I dreamed a dream

I had a dream last night where I was in a room surrounded by close relatives and friends and everyone was engaged in making comments about me. No one was really talking directly to me, but they were all making veiled jabs at my disbelief to one extent or another. Some of them were quite hurtful and made me very sad. I awoke and made some observations about what transpired in the dream. The first one was that even though everyone in the room was aware of my disbelief, no one bothered to ask the obvious question, "Chris, Why don't you believe in the church anymore?", let alone listen to my thoughtful and sincere answers. In fact, no one even bothered to ask me any questions at all to attempt to understand where I might be coming from. Everyone just assumed that what they heard (or assumed based on their understanding of what causes people to fall away from the church) about me was true.

Another observation I made was that everyone was very condescending in their attitude towards me. They would seek affirmation from others in the group in various ways (to confirm their beliefs), but their comments were designed to either put me down or make light of my situation so that it did not have to be dealt with in any meaningful way. Everyone seemed to have an opinion about my situation, but they had no interest in finding out about my situation from the person who was in the situation. I found this very frustrating. I woke up at the most frustrating point of the scenario.

When I woke up I also began to formulate a question I wish I could have posed to everyone present at that time. Of course, it was a long question that needed a lot of foundation to be established, but now that I think about it, since no one seemed to be interested in actually learning about why I am where I am at, I don't know why they would even attempt to listen to a question posed to them in the most sincere and thoughtful manner possible. I started to feel like I was the only one capable of listening and actually processing what was being said by people without applying an automatic bias to what was being said. I felt like I was a scapegoat for everyone to unload all their fears and insecurities (disguised as convictions) on. Anyway, here is the question I began to formulate to ask my relatives and friends present in my dream;

We know from the bible it is taught that God giveth to ALL men liberally and upbraideth not when we ask Him for something (James 1:5). We also know that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). We also know that Jesus taught that God desires to give us exactly what we need because since we know how to give good gifts to our children, God most certainly knows how to give the best gifts to us (Matt 7:9-11). To me these scriptural teachings mean that everyone is entitled to answers to prayers and, at a minimum, to feel the spirit when those things that are taught contain God's truth for mankind. The feeling of the spirit should be inseparably interconnected with God's truth when it is uttered.

Based on these teachings, what I continue to fail to understand is two things:

1) Why is it that if two people who both earnestly seek for the feeling of the spirit to confirm the same truths that have been confirmed to others, that one person will claim to have received that divine guidance and the other will not? Why does Heavenly Father do that to anyone?

2) Why is it that when truths are taught that we may claim to have felt the spirit about when they were originally taught don't cause us to feel the spirit the next time the very same thing is taught at a different time or under different circumstances?

Both of these questions have to do with consistency. Is it too much to ask that the things of God that are manifest actually be consistent with the teachings in who is able to receive them and that we consistently feel God's spirit when the things of God are taught even though the circumstances of hearing the truths may be different?

The problem is that the response of believers to these questions is to blame the person who is never able to receive the hoped for answers or feeling that they are seeking. They will give some variation of; the person who does not receive the feeling of the spirit must not be in tune to feeling the spirit at that time. They will then cite a litany of possible reasons for their unworthiness of being able to feel the spirit which all boil down to, regardless of how sincere the person is or how hard they try to achieve that worthiness, they are just still failing on some level. It is always the fault of the person who isn't feeling the spirit and there is always some additional requirement that can be heaped on as a prerequisite before the person will be "worthy" of feeling the spirit.

The problem is the list of requirements never ends and is also literally impossible to completely fulfill. Once you are doing everything you are supposed to do, what will inevitably happen is you will fail in being diligent with one of the other requirements. For example, I can't possibly do everything the church teaches and not falter in some other area. I can't possibly attend all my meetings and do all my genealogy and attend the temple with the diligence that is required in all those areas. It is also a case where no matter how much a person does, if they claim to not be able to feel the spirit, there must just be something more they are missing or maybe it is some sin they are committing that is making them an unclean vessel. Since nothing can be entirely isolated as the reason, the assumption is that it must just be something more that everyone is not aware of, but it is still the person's fault who is not feeling the spirit. It is never possible to consider that God might be the one to blame, because no one can ever assume He might ever be wrong.

This type of blame the victim mentality is just sickening to those who are on the receiving end of it. It is just like if a woman is raped and then she is blamed for it. It is just heinous to think about when that happens. Of course, I realize that there are probably still circles where this is an acceptable reaction towards the woman who is raped (i.e. to blame them for it), and this makes my heart sink and go out to those poor women who are blamed for something they are absolutely not responsible for in any way shape or form. (Of course, I understand that the line between consensual and non-consensual is sometimes very blurry, but in conditions where force is evident, I believe we should always err on the side of compassion towards the one who is claiming to have been raped, since they are truly the victim in such cases).

This causes me to wonder if it is even possible for some to ever see the hurt, pain and loneliness the judgments that are cast on others result in? I know the pain I have felt has been immense at so many times, but the response of believers seems to be, "Well, you deserve to feel pain you stupid, unrighteous apostate! If you just had faith and conformed to the truth of God all your pain would go away." How can people be so presumptuously callous? How can people who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus (who taught that we should love our neighbor as ourselves) be so extreme on the opposite end of that spectrum by despising those that simply don't understand why there are inconsistencies. People are condemned for thinking that they might possibly have a more likely explanation for it all? In essence I am asking here, why can't we all just get along? Why can't believers not treat those disaffected members of the church so harsh and abrasively? Why can't they try to understand the disaffected members viewpoint and actually consider some of the points they try to convey?

Unfortunately, I have to conclude that it is in our very nature to be judgmental and ostracize people who do not belong to our perceived group. Maybe we cannot ever fully overcome this tendency and there will always be pain and suffering and division amongst those who are separate from, or outside of, religious groups everywhere. I just wish people would think a little more about how the things they say may be hurtful to others who may not agree with their view or see things differently for some reason. I believe that, while I am not perfect in this, I do try to see things from the perspective of others a lot more now than I used to. The difficulty comes when my sympathy is directed towards those who have historically been the one to blame for their woes.

Shouldn't a church that claims to have all the truth of God in it's doctrinal canon have, as a result of its influence, the means to help people be able to see things better from others' perspectives, instead of bringing people up to shun and be critical of others outside the group so quickly? Why is this not the case - especially in God's only true and living church on the earth today? Unfortunately, nobody who needs to hear these things is still listening to me at this point.

My dream is that the pain that comes from the critical comments and ostracism caused by believing members of the church towards those who do not believe, for whatever reason, will cease. I also wish that we could all work to understand things better from the perspective of others without automatically assuming they are sinning (or applying any other unsubstantiated bias until the situation is fully understood). Stephen Covey said it best, I think, when he said that one of the habits of a highly effective person is to seek first to understand, then to be understood.

If anyone is listening, I am not in pain because I have sinned. I am not in pain because I deserve it. I am in pain because I have been judged and cast out by those that I continue to love without due consideration of my viewpoint. My viewpoint has only been arrived at through thoughtful criticism of what I was taught should be considered the most important questions in life. Unfortunately the answers I have arrived at are now different than what I was taught. And if you ever want to know exactly what those things are, I'll be more than happy to explain. All you have to do is ask.

(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.)

What color are you?

I just got to wondering something; why does the church in its editings of the Book of Mormon feel the need to change white and delightsome to pure and delightsome, with regard to a change in skin color of the Lamanites, but has no problem leaving in the bit about being cursed by God with black skin for being wicked? Apparently the change from dark to white skin is setting an unrealistic expectation and is problematic, but to have people go from white to dark skin is OK and the church can get behind that all day long without a problem?

In thinking about this, I think it might have to do with legal liability. The church may want to protect itself against a lawsuit from a dark skinned person who reads in the BoM that they can become light/white skinned by doing what the church asks, but the church must not have any fear that a white person who leaves the church might actually become darker skinned (due to the increased time spent outdoors enjoying life and going tanning or whatever with all the money they save from not paying tithing!) I guess there is really no fear of backlash from the wicked dark skinned people (who only appear to get darker the farther away from the church they get) as much as there is from the righteous dark skinned people who never become white. I guess I can understand that. Could there be any other reason for the change to the words in the BoM? I mean, it's not like there was an announcement over the pulpit in general conference where it was announced that the words in the Book of Mormon were going to be changed (unless I missed that particular announcement?).

I also think it must be confusing for young people in the church to learn that white people, who turn bad, end up with dark skin (as a curse as taught in the BoM), but when those dark skinned folks join the church and do everything they are told that they are supposed to do, they aren't expected to see any kind of reversal in skin color. Rather, those that are righteous with dark skin are considered "pure" instead of "white". So the obvious question from children would be "Why wouldn't God make the darkie light again, since he made the whitie dark?" Apparently it is only a one way street when it comes to skin color. We can only get darker, but never whiter. That, my young reader, is the lesson here. Don't ever do anything bad, because once you go down that Pinocchio path and start doing bad stuff, just like Pinocchio almost ended up as a donkey forever, you may end up as a black person forever. And, if you ever decide to come back, too bad, the dark skin stays and you can never have white skin again. So guard your white skin children, because once it is lost, it is gone forever! And, just look at how tough it is for the blacks! They have been fighting for equal rights for years now and they still don't have real equality in so many ways.

To me that says that having black skin is a sign of wickedness and having white skin means you are fortunate to have never been cursed, so you should protect that status in everything you do. How could I not be expected to think less of people with black skin being taught such things?

I imagine the primary lesson I might have had went something like this: A child raises his hand (after reading Alma 3:6) to ask, "So why aren't all wicked people black then?" (This is a question I guess I never really thought about until now that I am actually thinking about this stuff. Yeah, why is that anyway?) The dutiful primary teacher responds with something like, "Of course, young child, the reason is simple. Because God picks and chooses whom he will actually curse with the skin of blackness, you silly goose."

The teacher continues:

"Just you nevermind that it really has to do with the regional climate your ancestors are from, 'those' people have always been looked down upon by society and obviously God looks down on them as well (after all, to curse means to give something rotten to someone - or their kids - who have done something bad). People who are white that are doing bad stuff better watch out because, any day now, the white God will curse the bad white people with skins of blackness. In fact you may not recognize some of your friends in the next life because they might have black skin there, even though they are really white and delightsome now. In fact, come to think about it, you won't recognize a lot of people up in heaven when it is all said and done, just like members of the church don't recognize each other when they run into each other at the grocery store in Sunday." I imagine an awkward pause would follow such a statement like the one's that Johnny Depp delivers in his version of Willy Wonka.

By the way, if anyone has an explanation for why the curse/mark of Cain/Ham/Egyptus persisted for more than a few generations, I would love to hear it because from what I have read God only curses those that he really despises for only 3 or 4 generations at most, not for well over 160 generations! (See Deuteronomy 5:9, Numbers 14:18, Exodus 34:7 & Exodus 20:5)

I can think of a few explanations for the phenomena that I have outlined above;

1) Whatever the first person to be cursed with black skin did to God was pretty bad (we're talking utterly and completely severe) so that the curse was so long lasting (and the scriptures I outlined do not fit that category of uber badness). However, there is really not any indication that this was the case...unless the first murder had to be forever remembered as a really bad choice among the children of men and black people are supposed to remind everybody of that. But why would a God, who doesn't want us to have crucifixes displayed - to remember the death of His Only Begotten Son, want to have constant reminders persist among humanity of the first murder (or whatever that unspeakable act was)?

2) God doesn't have the power to lift the curse once it is given (which, I guess, could be a possibility) but that kind of throws out the idea of an omnipotent God doesn't it?

3) God doesn't ever remove the curse of the skin of blackness because it really isn't that big of a deal. I guess this is also a possibility, but if that is the case, why not just cause any teaching or reminder about the curse of black skin to be removed from scripture? If it is really not a big deal to God, why is it needed at all in the doctrinal canon? Not only that, but if it is not a big deal to God, why allow blacks to be owned as slaves? After all, I'm pretty sure this teaching was at least partly used as the justification for the whites being able to own black people as slaves (because the blacks were cursed by God and therefore not eligible for equal rights to own property and vote). I wonder what God thinks of slavery, anyway? He sure did have a lot of rules about how to treat slaves in the Old Testament (See Exodus 21, 22 & 23).

4) Those that profess that having a skin of blackness is a curse from God are full of it. This is where I am at. Since all the other reasons don't seem to hold water for me, this is my conclusion. Of course, I am open to any other reasons that may exist out there so please enlighten me. While I am waiting to hear back I'll be outside working on my skin of blackness ;-)

(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.)

General Conference

I attended a regional stake conference broadcast a while back (just a few short weeks after the LDS general conference wherein Boyd Packer let his true feelings for homosexuals show through) where Dieter Uchtdorf spoke. As I listened to Dieter Uchtdorf give a pleasant talk about tolerance and the need for love of everyone (including those we may not agree with or understand) I couldn't help but wonder how perfect some of the things Dieter said were and how they were designed to calm the waters of the uproar by supporters of the LGBTQ community (of which I am now a supporter). It seemed his words were very carefully crafted and seemed to come from the church PR department instead of the good ol' boy pilot that Dieter is. Thinking about how careful everything was worded made me wonder if the general authorities actually write their own stuff all the time or if sometimes their talks (along with some or all of the content) are "suggested" (or, at the very least approved) by a PR person. This seemed like a very real possibility to me at the time, but I haven't really thought about it much since then.

What got me to thinking about it again, was the recent blog post by Cognitive Dissenter (found here) that talked about the recent general YW meeting address by Henry Eyring wherein he selectively quoted Brigham Young about how he thought so highly of the virtue of YW. The question brought up by CD was whether or not Henry is aware of all the other crap BY had spoken over the years that would seem to nullify any credit we should apply to Brigham as a stalwart supporter of the females.

The assumption by CD was that Henry must be aware of it all and that he is therefore active in his deception by only presenting the version of history (or quotes by BY) that is faith promoting and whitewashed in his remarks. I guess I would like to think that the deception is not so active on the part of the "Lord's anointed", but I guess I might be naive.

Of course, I don't have any inside scoop on whether or not the ga's write their own stuff or not, but it would be interesting to be able to get a definitive answer on this question to be able to say with absolute certainty that the deception is really as deep as I fear it is.

On the other hand it is hard to think that people like Dallin Oaks and Boyd Packer who make statements like the following are not in on the gag:

Dalin Oaks said, "My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors."
- Apostle Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii

Boyd Packer said, “You seminary teachers and some of you institute and BYU men will be teaching the history of the Church this school year. This is an unparalleled opportunity in the lives of your students to increase their faith and testimony of the divinity of this work. Your objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now.”

“Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer.”

“There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.”

“Some things that are true are not very useful.”

“That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith — particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith — places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities. ... Do not spread disease germs!"
- Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect", 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271

So my question is, are Dallin Oaks and Boyd Packer aware of those things that are not faith promoting that they are discouraging others from pursuing? I would have to assume the answer is yes, since they are warning people about it.

So should we be lovers of truth or lovers of a cause that we should work to uphold regardless of the toll on our integrity? According to these dudes we should work to support a cause and just ignore integrity apparently.

So let's take that idea and try to apply it to government. By following that advice, only things that are useful (or helpful in getting people to be patriotic) should be revealed to the public. So wouldn't it be a shocker of the magnitude of Richard Nixon's Watergate affair if it came out that a US president was on record as saying that some things that are true are not very useful and that was their philosophy? Is there a difference between the standard we apply to political leaders and leaders of the church? Why the difference?

This idea is one that is also brought out in the book by Robert L. Millet called "Holding Fast: Dealing with Doubt in the Latter Days". This book, written to those who may be experiencing doubts about the legitimacy of the church or its claims, made me literally sick to my stomach. Even though Robert starts out by outlining the shocking story of doubt that Mother Teresa experienced, it falls back on the primary reason for keeping the faith and not doubting in the supremacy of the LDS church as being that one should not have in their mind to disappoint one's family by leaving the church. He admonishes those with doubts to think about the harm it will do to those that believe if you leave the church.

Maybe this is a good enough reason for some to stick it out, but I need more. By that same logic, if I am in an oppressive and controlling cult, I would get the same reason not to leave from there as well. They would say, "Think about how sad everyone here will be if you leave! We love you. All those others that lie in wait to deceive don't have your best interests at heart." Only thing is, they actually do. Those others, outside the cult, want you to be free to make your own happiness instead of blindly following along with somebody else's plan for your happiness. Why people cannot see this continues to amaze me to no end.

I wonder how much I will get to the point where I feel the need to yell at the t.v. during general conference this weekend. Of course, maybe if I don't bring it up I'll only have to endure the two sessions on Sunday...and maybe even for those I can find something better to do.

(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;-)

Japan

So my tbm relative that feels the need to brag about "inspiring" church news recently posted on Facebook that all of the LDS missionaries serving in Japan were safe and accounted for. I had to resist the urge to write a comment on there like, "So glad to hear that! It must have been because they were being watched out for while all the other wicked Japanese people were being swept away and killed all around them." Do people actually believe that God was watching out for a select few missionaries while deciding to kill thousands of others in the area? The thought makes me sick, but I think for some that idea might actually be faith promoting. Do people actually believe that the earthquake and tsunami were the result of wicked behavior by people in that region and that they somehow deserved what they got? Of course, no one who believes this will actually say it out loud (Thank Humanity), but I think the number that feel this way is actually pretty substantial. Makes me wonder why they don't come out and say how they feel...it's like the unspoken, but commonly understood, way things are for the believers.

Of course, then you hear about the people that feel that these are definitely the end of days because of all the natural disasters that are occurring with more frequency than ever before. Is that the case, or is it just that we hear about things more because we are more connected via technology than ever before? I think it is more the latter than the former. But, I guess I could still be wrong and Jesus and company will be back from heaven any day now. Which I might be able to get on board with if the same thing hadn't been preached on and off for about 2,000 years now. It's gonna happen any day now, though. Really. For reals this time. Any day. Just wait, you'll see. OK. Well, in the meantime, I'm sending my thoughts and donations to the people of Japan because I don't believe they did ANYTHING to bring this on themselves. And I am not going to be giving any donations to the LDS sponsored relief fund because, frankly, I don't trust those guys with money I give to them. I wonder if they will not disclose what happens with those funds like they they don't disclose what happens with everybody's tithing donations?

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?