Can’t believe it happened to me

[Anonymous]

I just realized I never came back and said thanks and responded to the comments like I said I would. Hopefully it’s not too late, but here goes.

shoshin wrote:

eyedempotent,

I have presented myself as a believing member on this site but I also love science. I would be glad to discuss the gospel and science if you want to hear my views. I like thinking about this topic.

I appreciate that but I’m not sure it’s so helpful to me at the moment. For the longest time I took pride in being able to straddle that line, to love science and not shy away from it but in also having a strong testimony. Then I got (what I feel was, at least) better and better at critical thinking and started applying it to other areas, like feeling the spirit. Anyway, at the moment the only way to reconcile some of these things (Adam and Eve, flood, BoM historicity) is through some impressive mental gymnastics. It has the ring of really wanting to believe something and finding reasons to rationalize it, as opposed to simply going where the evidence leads. I’m not saying it’s not true, just that in some ways it doesn’t help, and maybe the members who keep the two separate have the right idea in how to stay faithful. There’s been a lot written by some very smart people on the topic and I’ve tried reading some of it, so far it hasn’t satisfied much. Parts of Reason for God were good and helpful though, parts of The Language of God were good, but overall it’s left me really lacking and wanting more full explanations.

[Anonymous]

eyedempotent wrote:

I just realized I never came back and said thanks and responded to the comments like I said I would. Hopefully it’s not too late, but here goes.

shoshin wrote:

eyedempotent,

I have presented myself as a believing member on this site but I also love science. I would be glad to discuss the gospel and science if you want to hear my views. I like thinking about this topic.

I appreciate that but I’m not sure it’s so helpful to me at the moment. For the longest time I took pride in being able to straddle that line, to love science and not shy away from it but in also having a strong testimony. Then I got (what I feel was, at least) better and better at critical thinking and started applying it to other areas, like feeling the spirit. Anyway, at the moment the only way to reconcile some of these things (Adam and Eve, flood, BoM historicity) is through some impressive mental gymnastics. It has the ring of really wanting to believe something and finding reasons to rationalize it, as opposed to simply going where the evidence leads. I’m not saying it’s not true, just that in some ways it doesn’t help, and maybe the members who keep the two separate have the right idea in how to stay faithful. There’s been a lot written by some very smart people on the topic and I’ve tried reading some of it, so far it hasn’t satisfied much. Parts of Reason for God were good and helpful though, parts of The Language of God were good, but overall it’s left me really lacking and wanting more full explanations.

Another way to reconcile what you’re talking about is just to consider the things you mentioned as allegorical or metaphorical (you’ve probably heard this before, though).

I just accept that there are some things science can disprove about a particular religious teaching/claim or historical event. For these things (Adam and Eve, the flood, etc.) I view them as allegories or metaphors (depending on the teaching/history) and accept that some of the fundamental teachings of religions, such as the existence of God, is still something science does not address and is not within science’s realm to address.

Regarding the history of the universe: yes, this is within science’s realm to address. The existence of God: No, that is outside of science’s realm.

Deciding what you want to hold onto and what to discard can be difficult. It often does come down to also separating critical thinking and feelings. There are reasons and appropriate times for critical thinking (an engineering problem), just as there are for feelings (expressing love to family); applying either one universally into every aspect of our life will likely lead to problems.

[Anonymous]

Deepthinker wrote:

Another way to reconcile what you’re talking about is just to consider the things you mentioned as allegorical or metaphorical (you’ve probably heard this before, though).

I just accept that there are some things science can disprove about a particular religious teaching/claim or historical event. For these things (Adam and Eve, the flood, etc.) I view them as allegories or metaphors (depending on the teaching/history) and accept that some of the fundamental teachings of religions, such as the existence of God, is still something science does not address and is not within science’s realm to address.

I definitely agree that’s helpful. Personally with the amount of science in favor of evolution, against a global flood, etc. I think that’s the only approach that makes sense. The problem I’m having is that nobody in the church talks about these things as even possibly being allegorical. It’s not only that all church discussions of these things involve literalistic interpretations, it’s that even putting forward the idea that it’s only allegorical is enough to get you branded unorthodox and potentially someone less desireable.

Deepthinker wrote:

Regarding the history of the universe: yes, this is within science’s realm to address. The existence of God: No, that is outside of science’s realm.

I think that depends on your definition of God. The God of the scriptures I think science has an awful lot that it can say about. But if you’re talking about some vague higher power, then yes, it’s hard to disprove that.

Deepthinker wrote:

Deciding what you want to hold onto and what to discard can be difficult. It often does come down to also separating critical thinking and feelings. There are reasons and appropriate times for critical thinking (an engineering problem), just as there are for feelings (expressing love to family); applying either one universally into every aspect of our life will likely lead to problems.

This is also something that I keep coming back to. I don’t want to just be an automaton/Spock type character. I want to experience emotions. And, to be honest, I am a fairly emotional person. But the issue is I love my family no matter what, I don’t think I’ll throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I appreciate where you’re coming from though. These notions have helped me in the past. Seem to be helping less now, but they still do to some degree. I think I need to work on seeing the positive at church as well, and not focusing on the negative. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

eyedempotent wrote:

Deepthinker wrote:

Another way to reconcile what you’re talking about is just to consider the things you mentioned as allegorical or metaphorical (you’ve probably heard this before, though).

I just accept that there are some things science can disprove about a particular religious teaching/claim or historical event. For these things (Adam and Eve, the flood, etc.) I view them as allegories or metaphors (depending on the teaching/history) and accept that some of the fundamental teachings of religions, such as the existence of God, is still something science does not address and is not within science’s realm to address.

I definitely agree that’s helpful. Personally with the amount of science in favor of evolution, against a global flood, etc. I think that’s the only approach that makes sense. The problem I’m having is that nobody in the church talks about these things as even possibly being allegorical. It’s not only that all church discussions of these things involve literalistic interpretations, it’s that even putting forward the idea that it’s only allegorical is enough to get you branded unorthodox and potentially someone less desireable.

True most people don’t talk about it – but that doesn’t mean they don’t think it. I think you might be surprised how many believe some things to be allegorical, but your point is well taken in that since they don’t talk about it how do you know? Like you, they are probably not saying publicly because of fear. In the end, it doesn’t matter which way one thinks – we all get the same gist or moral of the story. It doesn’t matter to me that I don’t believe Adam & Eve to be real individual people (I believe they are symbolic of all of us) while the person next to me thinks of them quite literally – the story and the outcome of the story are the same. Also, I think there are different kinds of thinkers at church, but that the majority don’t think about things much at all (perhaps out of fear in some cases) and are simply parrots, repeating that which they have been taught all their lives or “church lives.” Some of the deeper thinkers still parrot because they don’t want to be outed – sometimes because they want people to listen to them so they can make subtle changes over time. There are still other deeper thinkers who will speak out, but often with reserve. I have said here before that I have found benefit from listening to what people DON’T say, especially in prayers and testimonies.

Just a couple other points to your comment above. Don’t confuse the God of the scriptures with the God that’s taught in the church – they are not necessarily the same.

I don’t think Deepthinker was saying we shouldn’t feel any more than that we shouldn’t think. In rebuilding my own faith, I have described it as bricks and a building. When my faith collapsed there was a pile of bricks there. When I rebuilt the beautiful building that is now my faith, it was different than the old one because I didn’t use some of the old bricks and I added a few new bricks. The main bricks, however, were stronger ones from the old and are used. While initially I did throw the baby out with the bath water (that’s where “don’t dump all at once” comes from), I did eventually rescue the baby. Emotions are a part of the church and are closely related to spiritual experiences – you should have them. There are parts of church teachings you can have with or without emotion, while there are others that are dependent on emotion – making the decision on which bricks to keep and which to put on the other pile needs to include both thought and emotion.

[Anonymous]

eyedempotent wrote:

I definitely agree that’s helpful. Personally with the amount of science in favor of evolution, against a global flood, etc. I think that’s the only approach that makes sense. The problem I’m having is that nobody in the church talks about these things as even possibly being allegorical. It’s not only that all church discussions of these things involve literalistic interpretations, it’s that even putting forward the idea that it’s only allegorical is enough to get you branded unorthodox and potentially someone less desireable.

You will actually find that the majority if not all LDS apologists are considered very unorthodox. Not that I’m suggesting you become an apologist 🙂 , just saying there are many members that would be considered unorthodox in their beliefs.

Just look at the latest Book of Abraham essay on LDS.org, which now gives members a choice in how to view the translation, such as allowing members to subscribe to the catalyst theory and not requiring members to believe it was a literal translation. I think the church is changing gradually. It just may not be at a fast enough pace for many of us.

eyedempotent wrote:

I think that depends on your definition of God. The God of the scriptures I think science has an awful lot that it can say about. But if you’re talking about some vague higher power, then yes, it’s hard to disprove that.

Actually, most if not a majority of people consider God in the supernatural sense, so that is what I was referring to. Science only deals with the natural, so anything considered supernatural is outside of its realm to even address. Here is a good summary of some of the things science doesn’t do (the site is a little “cartoonish”, but it does provide a good explanation of the limits of science):

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Main points from the link:

Quote:

Science doesn’t make moral judgments.

Science doesn’t make aesthetic judgments.

Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge.

Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations.

Many people forget that there are limits to science, perhaps even some scientists.

eyedempotent wrote:

I appreciate where you’re coming from though. These notions have helped me in the past. Seem to be helping less now, but they still do to some degree. I think I need to work on seeing the positive at church as well, and not focusing on the negative. Thanks.

Everyone has emotions, and I think they are overall a useful part of us for learning and growth.

Just a suggestion, but maybe try to view your involvement in the LDS church as a way to fill in some of the areas outside of science/logic, such as the support for a moral structure, support to be a good husband and father, and for some sort of emotional (even if you don’t view it as spiritual) growth, including to provide opportunities to serve others. Try to see those at church as needing the LDS church for these things, that it is their emotional/spiritual identity, culture, and/or heritage. It is what I try to focus on and helps me be more accepting of others at church who view things differently or believe different things than I do. Of course, I’m still working on it.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

The problem I’m having is that nobody in the church talks about these things as even possibly being allegorical.

It is easy to reach that conclusion, especially if you live in a highly traditionalist area, but there are many members who see a lot of things (especially Old Testament things) allegorically and symbolically. For example, most of the writings about the temple that would be considered “official” by orthodox members describe what is depicted in the temple as figurative and symbolic.

Most regular, everyday people are not philosophers, and most regular, everyday people are not explorers. That’s neither good nor bad; it simply is. I know quite a few really intelligent people who just can’t think outside a straightforward, literal paradigm – who are literalists not by choice but (literally) by nature. Thus, most discussions of things that could be presented literally (as if a story was factually, historically accurate), allegorically, figuratively, mythologically or symbolically are going to be presented literally – since the people who interpret things differently still can do so without it blowing their gaskets, while those who see things literally often would be shattered and adrift if they were forced to try to leave their literal default settings. (Also, interestingly, many of those people who see things literally, even the very intelligent, educated ones, would not distinguish between all the other perspectives I just listed – since they would tend to lump them all together in one big, non-literal pile.)

I often talk about things I see non-literally in literal terms for no other reason than seeking for understanding of what I say. Sometimes, depending on the audience, I will say upfront that I view the story as symbolic, mythological, allegorical, etc. – but I generally do so only when that interpretation yields a different perspective that is important to me – and I often add a preface like, “I don’t know for certain if this story is a literal account or mythological, but I like to consider all the possibilities when I think about how I can liken it to myself.” That Mormon tool (likening things to ourselves) allows for a lot of flexibility that others can appreciate and accept more readily, so I use it (or a similarly speculative framing) when I know I am pushing others’ boundaries, so to speak.

[Anonymous]

Wow…I was perusing before posting my introduction, but I feel like I may as well just repost yours and sign my name. It felt good to see someone who’s experience is so like mine, but at the same time, I am mourning your loss along with you. I was also raised in the Church, served a mission, served in elder’s quorums, and was even called to the High Council at 29 yrs old. I am also 36, been married 13 yrs and I too have 3 kids (my oldest is 12 and expecting me to ordain him). I have born powerful testimony to others in the past that has helped keep them in the Church….and yet here I am, wondering all the same things you are wondering about where to go from here. I love the life path my LDS background set me on, and the moral compass it has given me. I don’t think I would change that if I could. But I am struggling with what level of participation is best, ‘knowing what I know.’

My profession also breeds skepticism, albeit perhaps of a different bent…I’m a cop. It’s also a profession that makes being actively religious difficult anyway. But it definitely has given me a nose for ‘BS’ and the outlook that if it seems far-fetched, it probably is. I too am struggling with the all or nothing reaction that ‘if Mormonism ain’t true, ain’t nothin true.’

Some of my past spiritual experiences are easier to dismiss than others though, and my wife has reminded me of a couple pretty powerful moments that I can still hold on to as at least plausibly miraculous. So I guess at the moment you might call me agnostic.

I am very happy not to be ‘alone’ in my experience though. And I hope you and I both find some fellowship here that might help us reach a state of peace. Thank you for sharing.

–Joe

[Anonymous]

Thanks so much for posting Joe. I can relate. Forums like this can be very helpful. I’ve found lately that in person visits or phone calls can be even more helpful. Feel free to PM me if you ever need someone to talk to. And just because our experiences are so similar don’t let that deter you from posting an introduction.

[Anonymous]

eyedempotent wrote:

If I “leave” how I do that (some level of reduced activity, no temple recommend, name removed, etc.)?

I rarely recommend leaving, because you don’t know if you’ll want to come back in full fellowship again. Name removal is hard to reverse, less activity or non-TR holding status are easy to reverse.

Quote:

1) what will happen to my local ward friendships (I tend to get lonely easily),

I have found that the really, really GOOD people, who have a long-term perspective,and prue love, remain loyal and kind even when you share a litany of reasons for why you don’t like the church. The rest — some get offended, if they are stake leaders, and you were in leadership under them — they forget about you and are no longer interested in even social interactions. In their case, you are no longer useful to achieving their personal and organizational goals, so you just blend in. And it does affect your friendships. Something to consider.

Quote:

2) what will happen when my over-bearing father-in-law finds out (and my siblings)? I don’t know if I can live with myself intellectually if I stay and I don’t know if I can be happy socially if I leave. Feels like a no-win situation. It also feels very lonely, I guess part of what I want with this group is to know that I’m not alone in my doubting. I wish we could discuss it more in church, I have one good friend who talks to me about it who left and another friend who stayed who I really get along with, but he moved out of town and we haven’t kept in touch much. My bishop has mentioned other people in the ward who struggle with some of my same doubts but I don’t know them.

I have found relationships outside of the church. Guys in a band, my work colleagues, and friends in a non-profit. They are my social circle now. Plus my family. I get involved in serving people outside of the church and it makes for a whole new set of relationships.

Also, you have to do a cost-benefit analysis regarding close family. Those relationships are often important to people, so you have to look at the damage to the relationship peace versus the peace you feel in being authentic, or away from church. I have chosen to do what is necessary to keep my family happy.

Quote:

Next question is what to do about my daughter’s baptism. My wife’s family makes a big deal and they all travel here. I just don’t see how I can answer those first few temple recommend questions in the affirmative one more time to be worthy to baptize her. Part of me feels guilty, like she’ll feel less loved (I baptized the older two girls), and part of me feels like I’ll be doing her a favor. I was relieved to see that recently the policy allows a dad to baptize even if not strictly temple worthy, although at the discretion of the bishop. I think my bishop would allow me to, at my currently level of activity, but I don’t know if I can keep up the charade another 2.5 years.

I would get past the feeling its a charade. There are “shades” of belief, and as long as you are on the continuum somewhere, I say answer the questions the right way, and do the ordinances. Make sure you are living the commandments, though, letting your conscience handle those gray areas. If you come out with all these doubts and share your authenticity, you’ll just create more headaches and stumblingblocks in the church. Your Bishop (current, or future bishops) will react widely to statements of doubt. Some will put you out on the plank, while others will be accepting and forgiving — and their possible totalitarian attitude may even put you further into doubt and maybe even lack of commitment.

Quote:

I just can’t believe this happened to me. I had such a strong testimony that I never doubted. I’ve just come to look at the world through the lens of science and what I considered testimony building experiences I feel can be described as coincidence or self-generated, I just don’t see evidence for a God, at least not one like is described in the scriptures. I saw a recent email from FAIR-LDS describe the books one should read before leaving, I figure I owe it at least that much of a try and I’m reading Shaken Faith Syndrome now. But I’ve tried to reason and argue the “pro” points all along and I’m afraid the evidence against just hit a critical mass in my mind.

I had the same thoughts years ago. Came home from my mission on fire about the gospel. I met a Buddhist who was always challenging my thinking (he got a kick out of influencing beliefs, and wasnt’ necessarily taking aim at Mormonism), and I told him I figured I’d always be active. He said “maybe”…and then commented on how life experiences change things over the long term.

Well, he was right. I guess I’m still active but only minimally so. But you know what, life’s a heck of a lot more interesting and unpredictable now that I’m taking the road less travelled in the church.

[Anonymous]

Good post, Jeff. Also…it sounds like it hasn’t gone well talking to your spouse or your friend. Because of that, you may not want to force further discussions. I know it is hard, and you wonder if others know what you know, and you want to open up…but for a while…these online forums may be your best place for that. I have found it tricky to get others to understand me. But over time…I have found how to express myself right, and filter my thoughts too. You said it best about time healing wounds and also to focus on relationships. Don’t force the discussions. It doesn’t go well.

[Anonymous]

jeff wrote:

I have hope that things will ultimately work out. If time heals all wounds, then their must be some sort of applications for this situation too!

Do hold on to that hope. And I don’t think it is just time that will heal this (somewhat), it will take some studying on your part. I wouldn’t have understood someone saying what I say now, “I am working to have faith in Joseph Smith, a person that was DEEPLY flawed.” Some days I can’t even say that, but other days I am comfortable saying that (but not at church of course).

[Anonymous]

jeff wrote:

Bottom line for me right now is that I refuse to let the church (quite possibly a made up church) to get in the way of what is most important to me. That is my family relationships. Whether that is a marriage or a priesthood ordination. I agree with the way in how to approach the TMR questions and it doesn’t really matter how anyone else feels about my “worthiness” other than myself and God. I have found some hope with this site with the essay on how to stay in the church. Like I said earlier, I am no where near being in a good place with any of this, but I have hope that things will ultimately work out. If time heals all wounds, then their must be some sort of applications for this situation too!

I think you have a great bottom line. Family relationships are important. My stake president told me once in a private conversation that he believes the laboratory for loving our neighbors is in the family – they are both the easiest and hardest to love and are our closest neighbors.

[Author]

Posts