- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m going to try to make this short, as I should be going to work soon. Over the last couple weeks, I have essentially been “cleaning house” on my beliefs, trying to sort out things I actually believed from tradition. I’m trying hard not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but I’m realizing that my pre-mission faith crisis was never fully resolved. Last night, as I was trying to sleep, it seemed to re-awaken.
I’m finding it necessary to sort out cognitive dissonance. There are things that bother me about the church- mostly regarding inconsistencies, apparent contradictions, culture, shame tactics (though I believe the leaders mean well in what they do and do not intend to shame), prudishness, and the temple making women seem like second-class citizens.
I find that the core doctrines of the church are largely self-consistent. Culture, tradition, history, and policy- not so much. I also realized that my core religious beliefs are somewhat circularly dependent (I guess that’s what faith is for…), and that sort of bothers me. I’ve had plenty of spiritual experiences, sure, but how do I know they were from an outside source and not my imagination? I’ve never been able to answer that one; I just shelved it in the past.
If God loves us and is real, why does he hide from statistics and other empirical attempts at proving his existence?
Why must I dial down or eliminate skepticism? Isn’t the whole point of the church to converge on some sort of truth? (Skepticism is one such method)
The simple solution to all of this is atheism/agnosticism/deism, as that would eliminate all the assumptions that lead to this cognitive dissonance. It seems like it would be simpler to disavow my religion and seek my own path. However, I have decided for now, for the sake of balance, to continue to go to church and hold a TR until this is resolved completely one way or the other. It also keeps my parents from worrying and holds together ties that I would not want to lose, perhaps unless I left the church.
I realized that within the church at large, there isn’t really a safe place to talk about a faith crisis. This is pretty much the only place.
Beefster wrote:
The simple solution to all of this is atheism/agnosticism/deism, as that would eliminate all the assumptions that lead to this cognitive dissonance. It seems like it would be simpler to disavow my religion and seek my own path. However, I have decided for now, for the sake of balance, to continue to go to church and hold a TR until this is resolved completely one way or the other. It also keeps my parents from worrying and holds together ties that I would not want to lose, perhaps unless I left the church.I realized that within the church at large, there isn’t really a safe place to talk about a faith crisis. This is pretty much the only place.
I could put the entire passage above in bold, like DA does, indicating the parts I agree with…
That is where I have come to rest — agnosticism about the church. I don’t deny my spiritual experiences. I don’t throw out the doctrines as false. But I also reserve judgment on whether I believe them wholeheartedly for the time being. I paid the price in terms of seeking knowledge — a three day fast, serving a mission, living the commandments fully for decades, serving an honorable and successful mission, reading and praying about the Book of Mormon 10 times in my lifetime so far.
I did have spiritual confirmations, but also had such confirmations outside of the church — once in a Catholic church called St. Anne de Beaupres, and more. more powerfully than ever experienced in the LDS church, as a member of a little known Church outside the United States. And this was with the coaching of the minister I was working with at the time.
But crises in the church, leader behavior completely inconsistent with the gospel, tendencies toward temporal choices over spiritual ones, and unapologetic leadership abuse has affected my commitment and faith. And now, with these new eyes I feel more enlightened than before. It’s amazing how the inconsistencies seem more powerful and clear when you are free of the cog dissonance. Until God intervenes to convince me otherwise, I believe I am on the right path in keeping the good and modifying my life to minimize the effect of the bad. Keep deciding what you believe, and worshipping God according to the dictates of your conscience.
But there are costs — you have to keep your mouth shut locally. You have to deal with the feelings of “inauthenticity” some have reported here, and that cause them distress. Not so with me fortunately, as I partly see my experience in the church as an interesting role playing exercise now. But you must be able to keep your mouth shut locally if you are to keep walking the LDS path there. If you have family members who are traditional believers, you need to navigate those alligator-infested waters. I am fortunate that so far, my traditional believing family members are tolerant of my agnosticism, provided I don’t share my concerns about the church with them.
Outwardly, I’ve had leaders say they want me back in leadership again as a result. And I feel I could go back if I have yet another life-changing experience that pushes me off the centerline between belief and disbelief, back toward full belief again.
You are right that there are few safe places to talk about issues and this is one of them. I see some of your comments are still in an “all or nothing” mode. It’s not all or nothing, you don’t have to believe it all to be a member in good standing – but as SD so eloquently points out you do often have to keep your mouth shut about what you do and don’t believe. I spent a log time not going to church because I thought it was all or nothing and that’s not the answer.
It might help to label things as “doctrine,” “policy,” “tradition” or “total crap.”
FWIW, I do take a deist view of God and I do talk about that at church. I don’t use the word deist but I fairly frequently point out that scripturally God interacts with people very little – very few have seen Heavenly Father and even then He didn’t say much, and it’s not always clear if it’s God the Father or God the Son they’re talking about anyway. This idea and that we “see through glass darkly” are usually well understood and accepted by others.
Fwiw, I am completely active – to the extent I choose to be. I attend Sunday meetings and anything else I want to attend. Before being with the YSA now, I was a High Counselor. I have held almost every position possible at the local level – except Bishop and Scouts, thank God.
I am a temple worker and coordinator.
I have a current, valid temple recommend gained by answering the questions honestly – even if my interpretations are different than some of the people asking the questions. “Yes” and “No” work fine.
It is possible to be authentically different (heterodox) and still be fully active – and, eventually, at peace with that combination.
There are many things we don’t know, and may never know. One of the biggest struggles I’ve had with my own faith crisis, is coming to admit that fact, and be at peace with it. It’s also perfectly fine to be wrong, as long as we’re willing to make course corrections when we are in error. When it comes to religion, politics, and even science, I find myself asking “What would it look like if _______ was/wasn’t true”. I am a lover of Bayesian Probability, which teaches us that as we recieve more information, the probabilities change. When looking at the bible, the BoM, the Church, and religion/science as a whole, it’s important to recognize that everyone is trying to figure out their place in the universe. Back a 1000 years ago, it was perfectly reasonable to assume the world was flat, and thinking we were the center of the universe brought a measure of peace. Now, we know better. As far as God is concerned, the ideas concerning the Abrahamic God have evolved drastically over time; and the claimed authorities who “speak for God” vary so widely in their perspectives and consistancy, I think it’s impossible to come to any definite conclusion. You could pray about it, but we’re not the first religion to come up with the “pray, and ye shall recieve the truth” mantra, and such prayers point people in all sorts of directions (including very dangerous territory).
My point is, sometimes it’s worth believing in something, even though it may or may not be true. If belief in the fundamentals of the gospel bring you greater peace and happiness, it’s alright to believe in them.
Abraham Lincoln wrote:“It is better to be only sometimes right, than at all times wrong; so soon as I discover my opinions to be erroneous, I shall be ready to renounce them.”
I am reminded of the following quote: Quote:We are like sailors who on the open sea must reconstruct their ship but are never able to start afresh from the bottom. Where a beam is taken away a new one must at once be put there, and for this the rest of the ship is used as support. In this way, by using the old beams and driftwood the ship can be shaped entirely anew, but only by gradual reconstruction. – Otto van Neurath
You are inspecting the “beams” of your faith. Maybe they are “support beams” but if they are supporting something that is not feeding you spiritually, maybe they are not worth the effort to maintain.
I believe that there is enough in the LDS church that is “virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy” to give me reason to stay on the merits. (BTW, I am also seeing much that is good outside the church) I do not need to drag around extra beams that have lost meaning for me. The extra weight is clunky, restrictive, and unresponsive. As JS said, “It feels so good not to be trammeled.”
Thanks for the thoughts. I guess I really have to keep in mind that it isn’t all or nothing. I guess I still believe Joseph Smith saw Heavenly Father and Jesus… so that complicates things. 
Okay… Now I have some more time to go into the specifics.
I’ve been open to the idea of nudism (I haven’t joined ldssd, but I am intrigued by the forum and how it reconciles the garment issue- more or less my only apprehension with the practice of nudism as a lds) and I decided last night to try to sleep naked for the health benefits. I’ve tried it a few times in the past, but I’ve never gotten through a whole night. For some reason or another (I don’t know whether it was because I was naked or because I was reading one of hawkgrrl’s articles on women & garments among some other things), my mind began going into full skepticism overdrive and I was hoping putting my garments back on would shut up my thoughts. It didn’t.
I’ve been living in my own apartment, by myself, since Saturday night, so maybe that had something to do with it. I’ve also been a little bit nauseous most of the day. I’m not sure why.
While it did hit me pretty unexpectedly, I think I have an idea of what might be triggering this.
Dating. Marriage. Sex.
Frankly, I have no idea whether I want to be married for the sex, for the companionship, or to be a father. All are important things I look forward to, but I don’t know which of them I want most right now (I suspect it’s probably sex). But the thing is, I’m (supposed to be) looking for an
eternalcompanion. That’s a lot of pressure and I feel it may be getting in the way of my ability to bond meaningfully. Add to that the fact that I have maybe100 active lds women to choose from within the Denver metro area. My ward currently has around 3 single girls I’m physically attracted to (about on par with other YSA wards). I was thinking the other day, “why not date non-members?” That would probably scare the pants off my mom due to her experiences with my sister dating a convert and not inviting anyone to the sealing. I would like to take that special someone to the temple and I guess it probably would work out that way eventually with a nonmember (hopefully before having all our kids- if I am to believe my Patriarchal Blessing, which says there will be children born in the covenant). At this point, I don’t know whether that would be because of my family, because I’ve never been much of a personal fan of the temple. It often raises more questions than it answers. It also freaked me out the first time I went through. Then again, I feel that way about the church in general. I think it’s a good institution that does a lot of good for a lot of people, but it’s not particularly good at answering questions. I’m often left with more questions than answers most of the time. What truth does it bring to the table for me? Ultimately, not much. It gives a really full, detailed picture of who Christ is and what he does for us, but I find that sometimes the church spends so much time on the difference between our faith and mainstream Christianity that it criminally underemphasizes the 90% overlap. Most members don’t really ‘get’ the atonement IMO, so the church ends up being more about checklists than about attitudes.
I have essentially realized that the orthodox LDS theology makes God out to be this petty guy. Someone who holds it against you if you drink coffee in the morning, or wear a bikini to the beach, or take off your garments to sleep naked. Someone who insists you stay married to someone you would rather not be with for eternity. Someone who revokes your revelation privileges because you don’t read the BoM every day.
I don’t think that is an accurate description of God. Not in the slightest.
I believe God will save just about everyone (i.e. in the CK). I don’t believe He’s going to hold it against my aunt for committing suicide due to her extreme depression. I don’t believe he condemns my cousin for OD’ing as a result of his childhood leading him to drugs. I don’t even think that transgender individuals will be getting the hellfire and brimstone treatment- even those born in the church like my one friend- because He recognizes the reality of gender dysphoria and the cultural pressure to transition. I don’t believe he will send the skeptics to one of the lower kingdoms just because he made them smart. I believe in a personal, understanding, merciful God who wants nothing more than to bring his children home. Even in cases where it may seem like a conscious choice, God understands. He still condemns that sort of behavior (you shouldn’t be making excuses for yourself to do those things, but some people have very powerful tendencies to those things that may not actually be possible to overcome in mortal life), but he does understand what motivates it and will judge us accordingly. All ordinances that still need to be done will be done in the millennium. This probably includes divorces.
I guess it comes full-circle to my original issues: dating/marriage/divorce. I hope I don’t have to deal with divorce in mortality due to it being legally painful. But there is a very real chance that I choose someone who is only right for me for a little while. I don’t want us to be stuck with each other for eternity due to the sealing being painfully difficult to cancel unless she remarries. Thing is, with eternity out of consideration, it takes a considerable amount of pressure off me, as I will only need to find someone who is right for me for this life… But I don’t want that to mean I will be barred from exaltation (I personally don’t think it works like that- I think most everyone will have a chance to marry/finalize marriage before judgement day (I suspect there is no more divorce after judgement day, but that’s because everyone will already be in a stable, happy state where no change on that front is actually necessary or desired), so long as they didn’t count on it). It would definitely keep things simpler for family trees to keep the one marriage, but in cases of widow/remarriages, we just seal them all anyway, so what’s the difference? We typically handwave it by saying it will all be worked out in the eternities.
I guess I sort of freaked out about my mind exploding in insomnia.
There are still other things. A recurring thought I had last night was that staying in the church purely for social/family reasons is dumb. I need to do some soul searching to make sure I’m doing this for me and not for other people. And if doing it for me means leaving the church, that makes things complicated with my mom because she’ll feel like I’ve been lost or something. She is still pretty sad about my sister. I think there is still a chance, especially in the grand scheme of things.
I also, on a somewhat regular basis, sometimes wish the church wasn’t true so that I could have premarital sex and masturbate without feeling guilty. Coffee would probably be nice (though I suspect I’d hate the flavor), and I’m quite curious how much alcohol I’d be able to take (I suspect quite a lot) and what kind of drunk I’d be. I could also swear all I want. (I sort of already can, but I still feel bad about it for some reason) I’d probably still avoid porn and be very selective about the women I have sex with, but I wouldn’t feel so prudish and sexually repressed. Oh yeah, I’d also definitely be a nudist.
This deserves its own thread, but I’ll mention it. Over the past few years, I have noticed a sort of “Gospel of Extraversion” within the culture of the church. People almost treat it as if it were a sin to keep to yourself or prefer being alone. I recognize that you should get out of your comfort zone every once in a while, and that making friends is a good thing, but you don’t need to be an extravert to be a good member. Yet people seem to think you do. It bothers me.
That was me pretty much regurgitating the contents of my mind onto the screen. Hopefully it isn’t too hard to follow.
Beefster wrote:
If God loves us and is real, why does he hide from statistics and other empirical attempts at proving his existence?Is that an apologetic approach to defining god, start with preconceived conclusions about god and find ways to make the evidence fit? Is god hiding from statistics and other empirical evidence or can those things help us refine our concept of god?
Beefster wrote:Why must I dial down or eliminate skepticism? Isn’t the whole point of the church to converge on some sort of truth? (Skepticism is one such method)
Do you have to dial down or eliminate skepticism? I get that extremes are bad, you probably wouldn’t make it far in life or be fun at parties if you were always skeptical about everything, but it may be worth the effort to identify where the voice that says “eliminate skepticism” is coming from. Is it a warning voice that prevents you from progression towards an extreme or is it a voice that is coming from a subconscious desire to keep god confined in a box?
Skepticism can help us grow. What if Joseph Smith wasn’t skeptical of the many religions vying for his patronage? Would Joseph Smith’s restoration happen without some degree of skepticism on Joseph’s part?
Beefster wrote:The simple solution to all of this is atheism/agnosticism/deism, as that would eliminate all the assumptions that lead to this cognitive dissonance. It seems like it would be simpler to disavow my religion and seek my own path. However, I have decided for now, for the sake of balance, to continue to go to church and hold a TR until this is resolved completely one way or the other. It also keeps my parents from worrying and holds together ties that I would not want to lose, perhaps unless I left the church.
I think that’s why we see regular advice here to take things slow, find balances along the journey.
Here’s the thing I have trouble with… not a problem with what you said, a problem that I have with me: “resolved completely one way or the other.” I don’t know that I’ll ever be able to resolve things completely, one way or the other. I’ve found that I enjoy a little wiggle room. I like it when life has its mysteries.
Beefster wrote:This deserves its own thread, but I’ll mention it. Over the past few years, I have noticed a sort of “Gospel of Extraversion” within the culture of the church. People almost treat it as if it were a sin to keep to yourself or prefer being alone. I recognize that you should get out of your comfort zone every once in a while, and that making friends is a good thing, but you don’t need to be an extravert to be a good member. Yet people seem to think you do. It bothers me.
😆 You don’t want to get me started on that subject. When I was more orthodox I was
convincedthat extroversion was a part of the commandment to “be ye therefore perfect.” Most of the hallmarks of being successful within church culture are related to how successful you are at being outgoing/extrovertive… at least that’s how I once interpreted it. I found myself caught between a rock and a hard place. Push myself to be more of an extrovert because I believed that’s what god wanted me to do, and I felt miserable doing it because, “everybody is a genius but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” On the flip side, if I didn’t make the attempt I felt miserable because it was a sin of omission. I felt miserable going and coming. Others can correct me if I’m wrong but I think JS started out as a universalist… and I’m not referring to the three degrees of glory covering the bases. From a certain perspective all the three degrees of glory did was create two more hells for people to go to… or two more heavens, take your pick… but the culture treats the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms as undesirables. But I
thinkJoseph, maybe Jr. and Sr. were universalists – before the concept of kingdoms evolved. I like the philosophy. One of it’s strengths is that it can help people develop empathy.
Beefster wrote:
I have decided for now, for the sake of balance, to continue to go to church and hold a TR until this is resolved completely one way or the other.
The beginning of my faith reconstruction in earnest began the moment I realized matters of faith will never be resolved completely. It is uncertainty and ambiguity that make faith possible. Certainty is an enemy of faith, the desire for certainty destroys faith. In our mortal state learning and progression comes through “letting go.” We must be willing to lose our “life” to find it.
I guess when I say resolved, I don’t necessarily mean to eliminate uncertainty. What I want to eliminate is cognitive dissonance. I’m stuck in this position where I have either let go of things I was taught or let go of my unorthodox desires. It’s hard to know which to do without some sort of experimentation, which usually ends up making me feel like an apostate. 
It feels like a really big leap to me to let go of orthodoxy and embrace heterodoxy. Part of me feels this constant need to justify doing unorthodox things, with one trigger-issue being sleeping naked. So far, the fruits have been good- I woke up this morning more invigorated with less sleep than usual and hit the mini-gym in my apartment complex before work. I have to justify it about a million times to myself, but I believe I was being respectful to my garments and following the covenant associated with them- I even folded them and placed them on my dresser, something which is in stark contrast to past times I tried to sleep naked (where I kicked them off and left them somewhere under the covers). In making the decision more deliberate, I feel I have done something better than before.
I have this fear that I am slipping into apostasy (fear tactics, I suppose). I want to do what’s right by God, but I see issues with some aspects of the orthodox way of thinking/living. I find it hard to tell whether I’m doing things because I want to or because I believe it to be acceptable or right. Do I feel the need to justify what I do because it’s wrong or is it because it’s different than what I was taught? It’s a hard question for me to answer.
That’s the sort of cognitive dissonance I want to resolve.
I have made some progress- I resolved one thing (which ultimately wasn’t that big of an issue for me, but it bothered me nonetheless):
The history of the church becomes trivial to reconcile if you remove the assumption that God is leading it in every aspect. He’ll never let it wander too far off course, sure, but it still wanders and implements things that are not necessarily His will and teaches things that are not 100% in line with truth or His doctrines. It may over- or under- emphasize the wrong things. The brethren are, understandably, cautious in trying to tease out what was done by men and what was done by God- which is why things change so slowly. That, and cultural pressure for status-quo. That comes with the territory of a gerontocracy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.