- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
It’s been quite a while since I’ve participated here. I’ve lurked occasionally, but just have tried to take a break. My temple recommend recently expired, and I didn’t renew. This has caused quite a bit of strife with my wife, who loves the temple and can’t understand my reasons for doubt/unbelief and why the temple bothers me so much. In fact, a neighbor just texted my wife yesterday, inviting us to go do sealings with them this weekend. That opened up a big wound for her, and made me feel like a dirt-bag husband.
In spite of my unbelief/skepticism, I still attend church every week (although I really struggle to make it through almost every week). I hold a calling, keep the word of wisdom, and in almost every other way, I’m an “active” member.
My bishop approached me last Sunday and asked how things were going, and I hesitated to try to find the words to express how to answer that. He asked if I’d like to meet with him this week and I agreed.
My bishop is a good man, but he is 100% a believer. I’ve opened up to him before about my faith crisis, and he has been pretty understanding, but we haven’t talked about it in over a year. We met earlier this week and after some discussion of the challenges we’re facing with family relationships, he started asking questions about where I was with my faith. Trying to be careful not to reveal too much, I tried to tell him that not much has changed, except instead of trying to gain a testimony of truth (which has been fruitless and depressing), I’ve tried to focus on what is good and beautiful in the Church. He knows that I didn’t renew my temple recommend, and that I came home early from a mission. I also have an inactive son, who was a priest (and active) while he has been bishop.
I know he has a good heart and the best intentions, but I really he thinks that a lot of our family problems are a result of my doubts and steadfastness in the Church. He asked a few bizarre questions (like “Have you found anything better?” or “Have you considered resigning from the Church?”)
The real question he asked me that I’ve been grappling with is whether I can set aside my doubts and questions, choose to have faith, and be “all in.” This is where I would like your help. I’ve resigned myself to accept that I will never have satisfying “answers” to my questions and doubts about the history or current doctrines/practices of the church. But can I be “all in” in spite of that? That would certainly help with my relationship with my wife.
Can you be “all in?” Or if not, how do you make it work, especially with a believing, orthodox spouse?
There’s probably a lot of overlap with discussions on cafeteria Mormonism but shooting from the hip… no one at church is allin. There aren’t enough hours in a day. So you magnified three callings.
You cleaned the building on Saturday.
Helped with that move.
Spent 6 hours indexing during the week.
Took the missionaries to their appointments on Wednesday night.
Baby sat for enrichment night.
Did an endowment session on ward temple night.
Read scriptures every day for an hour.
Ah… but you watched the commercials during the Superbowl. Gotta be all in with the Sabbath observance.
On a more serious note, I’d want clarification on what “all in” meant. I wouldn’t ask the bishop for clarification, but what does it mean to you to be “all in?”
Me? Being “all in” sounds too much like living according to someone else’s expectations of you. There has to be some boundaries in any healthy relationship.
FaithfulSkeptic wrote:
The real question he asked me that I’ve been grappling with is whether I can set aside my doubts and questions, choose to have faith, and be “all in.”
This reminds of President Uchtdorf’s phrase “Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith”. It’s one of the very few things I disagree with him on. I think doubts are important. VERY important.
There is a “principle” called Bayes Rule. Julia Galef, who is the President for the Center of Applied Rationality, released a few video’s on the topic, which I think explains the principle and why it’s important, very well. (
video 1video 2video 3Beliefs should be grayscale. They should be based on an aggregate of factors. Your confidence in them should change as you learn new things. I would absolutely be weary of anyone, your bishop included, who has 100% confidence in anything. You can, and should, be willing to change your mind as new evidence presents itself.
Can you be “all in”? Sure. But I don’t recommend it. How do you make it work with your spouse? Everyone is different. There was a blog post a couple months ago on lds.org, which had some interesting insights.
Who Do I Choose -God or my Husband?dande48 wrote:
I would absolutely be weary of anyone, your bishop included, who has 100% confidence in anything. You can, and should, be willing to change your mind as new evidence presents itself.Doubt invites continued revelation, 100% confidence kills it.
Put another way, how are we going to receive revelation if we genuinely believe we already have all the answers?
nibbler wrote:
There’s probably a lot of overlap with discussions on cafeteria Mormonism but shooting from the hip… no one at church isallin. There aren’t enough hours in a day. So you magnified three callings.
You cleaned the building on Saturday.
Helped with that move.
Spent 6 hours indexing during the week.
Took the missionaries to their appointments on Wednesday night.
Baby sat for enrichment night.
Did an endowment session on ward temple night.
Read scriptures every day for an hour.
Ah… but you watched the commercials during the Superbowl. Gotta be all in with the Sabbath observance.
Great point. Everyone is a cafeteria Mormon. (notice my inappropriate use of the term “Mormon”)
nibbler wrote:
On a more serious note, I’d want clarification on what “all in” meant. I wouldn’t ask the bishop for clarification, but what does it mean to you to be “all in?”
Because of your point above about cafeteria Mormonism, I think being “all in” to me is more about commitment. In spite of everything wrong with the Church or its doctrine or history, it’s about sticking with it through good and bad. Maybe it’s like a marriage relationship – “for better or for worse.” Just as in marriage, you don’t always have to agree with your spouse or never have arguments or have your own opinions or feelings. But you do have a commitment to love and support each other throughout your life (or through eternity).Good marriages have trust and respect. I’m certainly lacking in trust right now with my relationship with the Church, and I could certainly use some marital therapy to remain “all in.”
FaithfulSkeptic wrote:
Good marriages have trust and respect. I’m certainly lacking in trust right now with my relationship with the Church, and I could certainly use some marital therapy to remain “all in.”
I’ve put this out there a few times before: Don’t be married to the Church. In marriage, it’s far too easy to take others for granted, to be overly critical, to have expectations set unreasonably high. In friendship, there’s no obligation, so people tend to behave. They expect less and forgive a whole lot more. I’ve found things are better with the Church, if we stay “just good friends”.
dande48 wrote:
This reminds of President Uchtdorf’s phrase “Doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith”. It’s one of the very few things I disagree with him on. I think doubts are important. VERY important.
I agree with you. I resonate with almost every talk that the Silver Fox has given, but this is not one of my favorites.dande48 wrote:
Beliefs should be grayscale. They should be based on an aggregate of factors. Your confidence in them should change as you learn new things. I would absolutely be weary of anyone, your bishop included, who has 100% confidence in anything. You can, and should, be willing to change your mind as new evidence presents itself.
Thanks for the info and videos on Bayes Rule. The world we live in is not binary and this is good reasoning to be continually questioning what you believe, based on new evidence. People who are “all in” are much less likely to do this.dande48 wrote:
Can you be “all in”? Sure. But I don’t recommend it. How do you make it work with your spouse? Everyone is different. There was a blog post a couple months ago on lds.org, which had some interesting insights.Who Do I Choose -God or my Husband?
I really like that blog post. Can someone send it to my wife? (she would not appreciate it coming from me). My bishop even mentioned this post as we were talking this week (he is related somehow to this couple).I realized I can’t be all in when at the most basic fundamental level I simply don’t believe. It felt too fake going every week and pretending to be orthodox. However, when I was still attempting this, I found the following website to be very helpful.
Here is an unorthodox believer who seems to be all in. His nuanced approach works for him and I had high hopes that it would work for me. Ultimately I couldn’t make it work but I haven’t shut the door completely. If I were to be “all in” again, this is the approach I think I’d have to use.
I am all in – but I define those terms for myself and don’t care if others define them differently. I agree with Brother Sunshine. I try to not complicate my beliefs & my doubts. It’s difficult to do sometimes.
Old Timer wrote:
I am all in – but I define those terms for myself and don’t care if others define them differently.
Curt, I’d like to be all in on my own terms. Can you share what some of those terms are? PM me if that is more appropriate.
DoubtingTom wrote:
I realized I can’t be all in when at the most basic fundamental level I simply don’t believe. It felt too fake going every week and pretending to be orthodox.However, when I was still attempting this, I found the following website to be very helpful.
Here is an unorthodox believer who seems to be all in. His nuanced approach works for him and I had high hopes that it would work for me. Ultimately I couldn’t make it work but I haven’t shut the door completely. If I were to be “all in” again, this is the approach I think I’d have to use.
DT,
Thanks for this. I think you and I are a lot alike. My belief is not binary, but I think it leans more toward non-belief (and skepticism) than belief.
I think the only way I could be “all in” is to have a very nuanced view of how the church is “true” like Richard Bushman, Adam Miller, Greg Prince, Patrick Mason, or the author of the churchistrue blog. I hope that I can have such a testimony someday, but right now, I don’t.
FaithfulSkeptic wrote:
Because of your point above about cafeteria Mormonism, I think being “all in” to me is more about commitment. In spite of everything wrong with the Church or its doctrine or history, it’s about sticking with it through good and bad. Maybe it’s like a marriage relationship – “for better or for worse.” Just as in marriage, you don’t always have to agree with your spouse or never have arguments or have your own opinions or feelings. But you do have a commitment to love and support each other throughout your life (or through eternity).
I think healthy relationships have elements of give and take. You might go on a camping trip even if you don’t enjoy camping but your spouse enjoys camping. You might watch Superbowl commercials even though you don’t like football or commercials because your spouse enjoys them. Etc. And it’s not just you doing things for others, it’s also other people do things for you.
I’d say that as a more orthodox/traditional narratives believer my relationship was very out of balance. I tried to do everything to satisfy the demands of the church and my needs came in a distant second. The thought process was, “Of course I’ll do it, it’s what god wants me to do.” As an orthodox believer I locked myself into the expectations of the church. After a faith crisis I allowed myself to find my balance.
That’s easier said than done. Hypothetical: maybe my balance includes not speaking during sacrament meeting. Eventually the time will come where I’m called upon to speak, I’ll have to enforce that boundary. The person making talk assignments may try to test that boundary. “Why won’t you give a talk? Can’t you be all-in?”
For what it’s worth, I don’t view that scenario as them being manipulative. When I project myself back to my more orthodox days I recognize that’s how I would have viewed things. I’ve got to do
everythingI’m asked to do, otherwise I’m not “all-in.” But that’s letting someone else (I’ll call it the culture) dictate what it means to be all-in, do everything that’s asked, always. But when I define my “all” in, it is unique, it is mine, I own it. I may not be able to go back to a time when things were out of balance in my relationship with the church, doing everything I’m asked to do, but I can engage where I’ve found a balance. Maybe that means attending SM once a month and that’s it, maybe it means everything but the temple, it will be different for everyone, but no matter what it is there will likely be someone that views it as not being “all-in.” I try to ignore that these days. As I said earlier, no one at church is truly all-in.
Relationships are give and take. Maybe attending SM and/or the temple is your camping trip that you don’t enjoy but you do it because your spouse enjoys it. Bright side, it only takes up half the weekend, not the full weekend, and fewer bug bites.
No, you can’t. Partly because there are varying definitions.
Good to hear from you FaithfulSkeptic. I was just thinking about you the other day as my wife actually traveled to where you are. I wish things were going better for you. I have found that I look at “doubt your doubt
beforeyou doubt your faith” as more like, “don’t make a rash decision”. I do think that makes sense as I find it a bit odd those that are TBM all their life and one Monday they read the CES letter and then they resign before church the next week.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.