Major Step Forward Today?

[Anonymous]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to talk about my experience today and get feedback. By way of introduction, I’m a 30-year-old tech startup founder in provo with a wonderful wife and 2.9 kids. I’ve always been … intellectual, but only started having doubts around when I turned 25. I think polygamy hurt first, to be solved by apologetics, then there was something else, which I got over with a fresh coat of paint to my testimony and “I’ll understand in time.”

The last 3 years though, I realized that I didn’t know if I could trust spiritual evidence. I began to think that following the steps to re-gain a testimony might just be an exercise in confirmation bias. If it’s possible that we induce our own spiritual experiences because we want them so badly, how could I ever regain a testimony? Maybe there’s a simple answer to that, but if there is, I haven’t found one in 3 years.

Today, my bishop called me in for a temple recommend interview. I’d been avoiding it, but decided it would be good to go. I told him up-front that I didn’t want to be treated differently, etc, and once I felt reassured I opened up a little. I told him that I could believe everything, but I didn’t know if the normal testimony steps would work, because they don’t give fair weight to the negative hypothesis (that the church is false). He was understanding, but assured me that to work, re-gaining my testimony would require some faith (I would have to start by assuming that “the spirit” means its true, and wanting it to happen).

Anyway, I left feeling a little misunderstood. I feel like to be valid, my testimony-re-gaining has to be a true experiment: it has to be allowed to come out false too.

Well, in church I made a realization.

I really don’t think there’s any way the church is literally True. Like, no way. There’s way too much evidence that a lot of it is made up. That doesn’t mean it isn’t inspired at all, it just means that the TBM interpretation isn’t correct.

That may seem really obvious to you, but I realized that I’d been hanging on to the idea that maybe I’d get “back” to where I was before.

I feel like I’ve finally moved on. Like now, since I admit it’s not 100%, I can step back and figure out what *I* really believe. If mormonism isn’t 100%, I’m pretty sure nothing else is, so that means God isn’t as picky as I thought, and won’t blame me for honestly trying to figure things out. I can live by the things I think I should do, and get back to trying to improve myself instead of being stuck by this testimony thing.

I was sitting in Elders Quorum, reading this forum today and ignoring the lesson, but feeling great that I’m involved in the ward. I was just called to the EQ presidency, and I can serve the people in my area and grow to know them better, be friends, etc. I don’t feel upset any more, I guess.

Is this how stage 5 feels? Am I finally coming out of the tunnel? Maybe this is just the less angsty part of stage 4, I don’t know.

[Anonymous]

embwbam wrote:

I feel like I’ve finally moved on. Like now, since I admit it’s not 100%, I can step back and figure out what *I* really believe. If mormonism isn’t 100%, I’m pretty sure nothing else is, so that means God isn’t as picky as I thought, and won’t blame me for honestly trying to figure things out. I can live by the things I think I should do, and get back to trying to improve myself instead of being stuck by this testimony thing.

I was sitting in Elders Quorum, reading this forum today and ignoring the lesson, but feeling great that I’m involved in the ward. I was just called to the EQ presidency, and I can serve the people in my area and grow to know them better, be friends, etc. I don’t feel upset any more, I guess.

Is this how stage 5 feels? Am I finally coming out of the tunnel? Maybe this is just the less angsty part of stage 4, I don’t know.

I think you’ve hit it dead on here. Took me a while to get to this place where I don’t believe everything hook, line and sinker. But still get some satisfaction out of being involved in the Ward. I think that IS how Stage 5 feels — see the definition I put at the bottom of my posts — that Stage 5 is where you no longer believe things in a traditional manner, but still manage to feel at peace with it. You said you felt happy to be with your friends and involved — in spite of the lack of traditional testimony. I think that is a good encapsulation of Stage 5.

For me, though, it ebbs and flows. There are times when I fall out of Stage 5 and into angst, but then you deal with the specific issue that put you back into Stage 4, while still maintaining some of the peace from Stage 5 in other areas of your church life. And so, you grow, and grow.

I gotta admit, I’m much happier now than I was when I fell out of Stage 3. Stage 5 is a good place to be.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for sharing that epiphany, embwbam. Hold onto that realization. It can be a powerful anchor.

Quote:

“God isn’t as picky as I thought, and won’t blame me for honestly trying to figure things out. I can live by the things I think I should do, and get back to trying to improve myself instead of being stuck by this testimony thing.”

+1

Live according to the dictates of your conscience. It absolutely can be done within the Church by focusing on the heart of the Gospel.

[Anonymous]

As a believer, who understands stage 4 very well…. too well actually. Stage 5 doesn’t have to be disbelief. Also While I agree completely that there is a dozen events or experiences that severely hurt the church’s chance of being the true church (there are explanations but you feel they are a stretch), there are also a dozens or more of things that are evidences of the church’s truthfullness. Things that are impossible to explain with also being a stretch. I think one can believe the church and not be naive. God doesn’t IMHO mount the evidence so far one way or another so that his his children can use agency and choose. That said, you are right because such a small % of God’s children are LDS he must be comfortable knowing that being in his church (in this life) isn’t a deal breaker for anyone as long as people are moving forward grabbing truth as they see it.

I think to assume the church can only be false or at least not what it claims does a dis-service to people like Richard Bushman, Teryl Givens, Brant Gardner and 100’s of thousands of others who are as intelligent and well informed as anyone. When it comes to Bushman, givens, ect… I also think each of them went through stage 4 and are in stage 5. In fact I think there are proably as many faithful believing satge 5’s as there are middlewayers and complete loss of belief.

Stage 4 is ugly and painful but nessacary to move forward. you can’t skip it and go straight to 5. it simply hurts

anyway my two cents and wish you peace as you follow your heart and mind. I mean that sincerely. your my brother from another mother.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I think to assume the church can only be false or at least not what it claims does a dis-service to people like Richard Bushman, Teryl Givens, Brant Gardner and 100’s of thousands of others who are as intelligent and well informed as anyone. When it comes to Bushman, givens, ect… I also think each of them went through stage 4 and are in stage 5. In fact I think there are proably as many faithful believing satge 5’s as there are middlewayers and complete loss of belief.

I’m sorry, I definitely didn’t mean to offend at all. I could rephrase my conclusion as: “given the evidence I know now, it seems most likely that the church is at most *more* true than other paths, but not the *final* truth”.

But, you have a good point. It’s obvious that you, Ray, and a couple others have reached a stable state by coming back to believing that it’s still God’s true church, just that things are weirder than you thought before.

Would making the realization/decision above prevent me from getting where you guys are? In theory, couldn’t I end up coming close to you by adding beliefs one at a time? I just don’t want to wait around for that to happen, especially as evidence currently seems to be pushing me away from your conclusion and not closer to it. By wait around, I mean that I struggle to develop spiritually when I don’t know who to trust.

[Anonymous]

don’t worry, you didn’t offend and that can’t be done unintetnionally in my case. Just wanted other readers to know there are other possible outcomes. I do think though your view hurts your chances of deciding it’s true at a later date. Alma 32 says we have to have a desire to believe. without it one will likely not come to a conclusion it is true. one must be willing and desire to make a few stretches… as Teryl Givens says, once you gone down the rabbit hole what is another supernatural explanation?

[Anonymous]

People aren’t just one stage or another. I think it’s more accurate to use Fowler Stage Theory to describe our attitude in specific context and time. Some days I am more stage 4-ish. In some social settings, I am more stage 5-ish.

Also, I really believe the fundamental assertion that “the Church is true” is flawed. It’s not because there are no important truths to be found in the LDS Church; but it’s a category mistake in logic. We’re just so used to hearing it that we no longer think about it. It’s like saying “I know the Church is lemon flavored.” It’s the wrong property for that category — “the church” is a very broad, abstract concept. Only specific, concrete assertions or items of information can be tested as true/false. To make it more complicated, the world of religious assertions involves many ideas that are ultimately unknowable or can not be proven.

Better positive “testimony” assertion examples, ones that contain concrete information and experiences that provide evidence (that is what a “testimony” means after all):

[Anonymous]

Good thoughts Brian. Your right our current phase is a moving target. Also by true, and hopefully I can say this once and not have to re-explain myself a lot but obviously not all will see this post, I mean real metal plates, a real Lehi and descendants writing on those plates, a real angel delivering them to Joseph, and real authority given by God to extend the ordinances of the gospel to both the living and the dead, and in some way the current President being the one on earth God will send a revelation to the world.

For me and this is only me. If I came to find the above not the case it would make the church as a certainity no more beneficial to me then the universalist church down the street. Not that there is anything wrong with any other faith, just that truth then becomes realtive to what an individual needs rather then God putting in a general guideline applicable to everyone.

[Anonymous]

First off, I want to remind everyone in the community here that we should all be examples of respecting assertions of faith. If we want respect and tolerance from people who believe more traditionally, we need to give that respect and tolerance. That which we sow, so shall we reap. Karma. Whatever you want to call it.

Our community explores practical solutions to staying connected to Mormonism in some way. One very practical solution is to believe.

DBMormon wrote:

(by true) I mean real metal plates, a real Lehi and descendants writing on those plates, a real angel delivering them to Joseph, and real authority given by God to extend the ordinances of the gospel to both the living and the dead, and in some way the current President being the one on earth God will send a revelation to the world.

If you reduce the abstract concept “the church” to this list of concrete facts, sure. Those can be explored as true or false with varying degrees of certainty. I think many of them are ultimately unknowable in the purely rational and logical sense, but human beings are not purely rational and logical beings in a knowable universe. A huge part of us is experiential, intuitive, emotional, etc. Some of the most beautiful parts of creation, of our humanity, are the things we only partially grasp — love, art, awe and wonder, sacrifice, meaning …

My personal solution to these items is to look for the value in the ideas. I am less concerned with the there being real metal plates with reformed Egyptian script, and look more towards that content of what we received from Joseph Smith via “translated” books and revelations.

[Anonymous]

I agree Brian, They are by testing and by the scientific method unproveable. Unless one has had a very specific concrete spiritual experience (as concrete as those can be, lol) confirming the church or any one of it’s claims we are left with other methods in that determination. I also agree that outside such a said experience it is more likely the church is not as it claims rather then is = Occams razor.

also so maybe you know me better

1.) let me know if you think I am coming off offensive. You won’t offend me unless I feel someone is attacking me on purpose. People can dissagree with me and life is good. CWALD is a good example. Him and I differ dramatically on our views but our conversation has been very friendly on the MDD board. Please tell me if you feel I cross the line. If that occurs, I will revisit what I said and see if I could have worded it better or better explain my point or apoligize.

2.) Please dissagree with me when you want to. I have learned so much in the last few years simply by hearing out those with different viewpoints.

3.) So far no-one here has rubbed me wrong, so don’t think that has occured. Everyone here has been super kind and considerate while sharing a different viewpoint. Having been on another board, there is an obvious difference in tone and charitable dialogue.

Thank you

[Anonymous]

Quote:

For me and this is only me. If I came to find the above not the case it would make the church as a certainity no more beneficial to me then the universalist church down the street. Not that there is anything wrong with any other faith, just that truth then becomes realtive to what an individual needs rather then God putting in a general guideline applicable to everyone.

This is really interesting, because it’s precisely those kinds of things (scientific and historical assertions) that seem least likely to be true to me. Maybe you’re right though, I guess I’m admitting that the church might not be any more beneficial than the universalist church generally.

BUT, that’s not true for me. So much of my life is tied up in the church that it’s almost definitely better for me to remain involved here instead of seeking elsewhere. So I guess I’m saying that there’s still real value in the church even after I’ve decided those things probably aren’t literally true.

Quote:

Not that there is anything wrong with any other faith, just that truth then becomes realtive to what an individual needs rather then God putting in a general guideline applicable to everyone.

I think we sometimes mistakenly conflate truth with values. Truth remains definitely absolute to me, but values seem relative. What God wants from me may be different from what God wants from someone else, while a fact simply remains a fact.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

BUT, that’s not true for me. So much of my life is tied up in the church that it’s almost definitely better for me to remain involved here instead of seeking elsewhere. So I guess I’m saying that there’s still real value in the church even after I’ve decided those things probably aren’t literally true.

agreed, What I was trying to say is that a church here by be better for John and the one over there for sally but that God didn’t have a best church for everyone if we come to the decision there is no generally “true” church for everyone.

[Anonymous]

DBMormon:

Thanks for your input. It feels like you are working to help people find a way to make it work and trying to reach out with options to make that possible. After all- this is “Stay LDS”- right?

I would be interested to hear your experience and perspective on a few things. When you say:

“Also by true, and hopefully I can say this once and not have to re-explain myself a lot but obviously not all will see this post, I mean real metal plates, a real Lehi and descendants writing on those plates, a real angel delivering them to Joseph, and real authority given by God to extend the ordinances of the gospel to both the living and the dead, and in some way the current President being the one on earth God will send a revelation to the world.”

I am hopefully not asking you to re-explain, but from your experience, given that you seem to be aware of the issues of historicity, DNA, anachronisms, etc, how do YOU PERSONALLY reconcile these things? Are you relying on a spiritual witness to know the truthfulness and reality of them? Is it sufficient that these are the mysteries of God and we can’t know all His ways? Are you basing this on the idea that there is enough ambiguity on each side of the argument that it is equally probable either way?

This is a sincere request, I would like to find a way to be able to be reconciled of things that appear to have direct negative evidence. I can’t put it back on the shelf. It is very difficult to find meaningful value in transubstantiating literal to non-literal with the same level of relevance.

Thanks in advance.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I am hopefully not asking you to re-explain, but from your experience, given that you seem to be aware of the issues of historicity, DNA, anachronisms, etc, how do YOU PERSONALLY reconcile these things?

Some of these are a stretch

Historicity – I believe the Book of Mormon is what it says it is. I do not have to believe it is what any other leaders have said it is. In other words I do not have to accept the hill where the plates were was “the” Hill Cumorah as in my mind it wasn’t. Joseph and others were reading something in the text that wasn’t there. Same with all Indians are lamanites. Not there.

DNA – Some non-LDS DNA researchers agree that this is not a way to prove the BOM false, as too many unknowns. What was Lehi’s and Ishmael’s DNA? If they were a small group entering a much larger culture what DNA would have survived if any. There also seems to be some anomalies of halpogroup X found in a couple of native American tribes. – yet to be decided in my mind?

Anachronisms – I think if we are honest w would agree that as time has passed more and more of these have been eliminated from the Anachronsim list. I know it sounds like apologetics but there is a lot of area in Mesoamerica that is unknown more importantly unresearched. I just think there is a lot we don’t know yet. Are there some items that really confound us if we take the BOM literally? Absolutely, but if the list has gotten smaller of things that don’t have any fit, then I have to expect it new things will be discovered and the list will continue to shrink.

Quote:

Are you relying on a spiritual witness to know the truthfulness and reality of them?

I have had a handful and I am only counting those that I would qualify as dramatic (no burning bosom counted here) One on one I am happy to share perhaps but at least know these are ones not easily explained.

Quote:

Is it sufficient that these are the mysteries of God and we can’t know all His ways?

Correct We can only know spiritual things by the spirit.

Quote:

Are you basing this on the idea that there is enough ambiguity on each side of the argument that it is equally probable either way? Not equally, but not lopsided either. If one allows for supernatural phenomena then I think there is room on both sides. I would say the same for most faiths

This is a sincere request, I would like to find a way to be able to be reconciled of things that appear to have direct negative evidence. I can’t put it back on the shelf. It is very difficult to find meaningful value in transubstantiating literal to non-literal with the same level of relevance.

Email me your phone # and I would be happy to call you and better explain how I think as these need more of a detailed answer then I can write.

[Anonymous]

also this board is not about apoligetics. I want to sustain that rule. I absolutely understand that others look at the same evidence and say no way… the church can’t be true. I feel I am intelligent, well spoken, very well read, take in all the info I can and I am willing if the preponderance of evidence leads me out of belief to take it but I see plenty of physical evidence that gives room for belief. I also add that to my spiritual evidence and I am left to believe.

You won’t get me saying the evidence has to lead to this answer, but am happy to share what I think and more importantly maybe, how I think.

[Author]

Posts