Who needs truth?
By Stephen Carter on Mar 8, 2007
In the most recent Sunstone there’s an interesting little story in Jeff Burton’s Borderlands column. It’s about a husband and wife who are finding their way back into activity in the Church. They talk about going on a pioneer trek reenactment with their daughter:
“The feeling of the Spirit was tangible at that trek. It occurred to me to wonder if it had been some kind of ‘mass hysteria.’ Then I thought, ‘So what if it was? It was good – logical or not. Everyone was the better for it.’”
It was at about that point that the couple decided to get their temple recommends after an extended period of disaffection from the Church, “To hell with logic and past rationales and reasoning.”
This particular sentence really stuck out to me. Because in one way, it seems to go entirely against the Mormon worldview. What I mean is that, as far as I have seen, Mormons put a huge value on finding truth and sticking to it. Many Mormons I know are quite certain that their religion is a logical religion, that it has a preponderance of empirical evidence to prove its truth.
So when a Mormon runs across convincing evidence that goes contrary to the Church’s claims they find themselves in a difficult position. The loyalty to truth that Mormonism taught them insists that they follow the evidence. Staying in the Church when you don’t think it’s true anymore is to be like those poor souls missionaries tell stories about who stay in their home church even when they’re convinced that the Mormons are right.
But here, two people decide that what they feel is much more important than what they thought was true in an empirical sense. As they put it, “Our decision is bigger than our egos and our reasoning. It feels ‘delicious ‘ and so, so right.”
I admire these two people. They followed something that was delicious to them. How many people in our modern, duty bound world can claim that?
But then Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative pops into my mind, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
Reading these people’s story, I wonder to myself, “If I were instigating a universal law through an action of mine, would I prefer that everyone follow that which is delicious or that which is sound?”
I think it was Sterling McMurrin who once said something to the effect that “the Church is about much more than a book..”. Elder Packer, too has been reported as holding a view that “the truth is not always particularly valuable”. I do not mean to imply that McMurrin would have necessarily agreed with the latter’s position (at least in the context in which it was expressed), but both it seems to me, were in their own way making the point that there can be valid, worthwhile reasons for staying with the Church in spite of perceived or real problems surrounding traditional ‘truth’ claims.
To be sure, McMurrin, I suspect, would object to being paired with Elder Packer here, but I’m not sure either would accept Kan’ts imperative. For me, it is a question of degree. The extent to which one embraces truth or myth will vary from person to person and from one situation to another.
Personally, I believe in the pursuit of truth at all times, however uncomfortable the result. I do not, however, assume that we should always be bound by it’s consequences. Those who object to moral relativity invariably embrace it even if unconsciously so, when it suits their purposes. Just look at any ‘anti-Mormon’ website for evidence of that. Indeed, I think it is part of the human condition (but then, I’m agnostic).
Comment # 1 by Jonathan Maltz | Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
Sorry abou the ‘typos’. Should of course be ‘Kant’s’ and ‘its consequences’.
Comment # 2 by Jonathan Maltz | Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
The dichotomy between sound and delicious is false, I suspect. I take delight in finding and accepting the rational, sound truth. To go further, saying that sound and delicious are not synonymous is to deny how Alma 32 is used in the Church.
Instead of throwing reason to the wind, this couple could have questioned further into why they felt those emotions at that time. Is there no other explanation than mass hysteria or divine communication that could account for it? The way the story is told, they didn’t seem to think very hard about it. This situation reminds me of this quotation by J. Reuben Clark, Jr.:
“Any titular Church member who does not accept the First Vision but who continues to pose as a Church member, lacks not only moral courage but intellectual integrity and honor if he does not avow himself an apostate and discontinue going about the Church, and among the youth particularly, as a Churchman, teaching not only lack-faith, but faith-destroying doctrines. He is a true wolf in sheep’s clothing.” (When Are the Writings and Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?‘)
Comment # 3 by Jonathan Blake | Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
It strikes me that we all make compromises and settle somewhere short of the ideal that yields us the maximum marginal return (i.e. fulfillment, love, pleasure, happiness, meaning, etc) in whatever arena (i.e. career, marriage, spiritual community, etc.). We do this because we usually don’t know what yields the ideal return, and we enter into commitments along the way via the process of trial and error (i.e. dating, marriage, school, jobs) and/or inherit commitments (i.e. religion) that have a claim on us. The cost of severing those commitments (both to self and those connected to self) is often greater than the return one would receive were one to discover one’s ideal. When that happens, we adapt the best way we can. We emphasize the positive and de-emphasize or overlook the negative and make the best of the situation.
That is what I thought when I read of the couple in Burton’s most recent Borderlands article. The couple is willing to sacrifice that which strains logic/credulity because the benefits of active membership/participation outweigh the cost of severing ties to the religious community and trying to find a more ideal religious community.
Comment # 4 by Matt Thurston | Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
John M, Packer’s quote is more correctly summarized as “not all truths are of equal value”. I remember the context as being that those truths that lead you to Christ are of more value than others that lead you away. In that context, “truths” that we find regarding questions about BoM historicity would I suspect be of less value to Elder Packer.
Matt, regarding your comment “It strikes me that we all make compromises and settle…” implies that this was strictly a logic based decision. Having not read the original account in Sunstone, I have to make some assumptions. I know that sometimes there are truths that seem to be in direct conflict with each other, but some of those truths have come through spiritual means. I’ve struggled with cognitive dissonance, and have come down on both sides of some of these issues, ie reason vs faith. Yet sometimes, the spiritual manifestations, while hard to categorize and describe, take on a reality that supersedes my reason. I only wish that it happened all the time.
Alma 32 has always fascinated me, partly because of the logic and scientific method implied. Yet the key words “may be planted” implies that this is still an inexact science. Faith becomes the requirement, and this couple, having exercised some faith, felt the seed begin to grow. By their admission, it is not a perfect faith,or they would not have to set aside some of the truths that became obstacles to them, even as I have done in the past, and probably will again in the future. Reason and faith are not incompatible, but sometimes you have to make accommodations on both sides.
Comment # 5 by Kevinf | Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
Kevin,
Actually, I don’t think their’s (the couple in question) was a logic-based decision. I’m guessing it was spirit-based, and yet I think the same cost-benefit compromise applies, even if it happens on a subconscious level.
Actually (part deux), I’ll backtrack and say their decision was logic-based in the sense that they consciously determined to let spirit trump logic, at least with this decision. (Maybe someone at Sunstone can provide a link to a pdf file. I notice that Jeff Burton has not put the latest few Borderlands articles up at his For Those That Wonder website.)
I’m not saying spirit and logic are mutually exclusive, but they can be. I liken each to tools in a toolbox. Certain problems require one or the other tool, or maybe both. We get in trouble when we try to drive a nail with a screwdriver, or screw a screw with a hammer. It can be done, of course, but the results aren’t always pretty. Alma 32 is a wonderful tool for a variety of complex problems, but with regard to BoM historicity, it doesn’t necessarily provide reliable results, to use your example.
Comment # 6 by Matt Thurston | Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
Matt,
Thanks, I would have to agree with you. Faith does not always trump reason, which is a good argument for healthy scepticism. Doubt can be a popular motivation both in a positive as well as negative sense. When I hear the latest faith-promoting rumor, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t. When your only tool is a hammer, the saying goes, every problem looks like a nail.
I feel for those, though, who can’t seem to surrender to faith at all. I have sincere, caring friends that just can’t buy into the “metaphysics” of religion. I applaud the couple for having the courage to take their faith to the next level.
Stephen’s assertion that many Mormons feel their religion is logical, and see evidences all around them for it’s truthfulness, does seem to describe probably two thirds of the members that I have known. I find more of those evidences internally, and reflected back to me by the life it allows me to lead. And on some occasions, the logic we have assumed was there to support our beliefs, just gets brushed away like so much dust on the mantle.
It’s interesting that one of my evangelical friends once took me to task because “Mormons rely so much on their feelings”, implying that those inner promptings were not reliable evidences of the spirit. I suspect that sometimes that also can be true. It’s hard sometimes to differentiate the promptings of the spirit from just plain emotion. It used to strike me that rarely did I ever see a GA cry in a conference talk, when we used to see it all the time in Fast & Testimony meetings from the general membership. I came up with a “spiritual capacity” theory, but I now have noticed that more emotion seems to be evident in some of the talks we see. Faith and emotion are likely linked in many ways, yet there are multiple dimensions there as well. Perhaps there are parallel faith/reason and emotion/spirit dimensions to our lives that we use to justify our actions.
Comment # 7 by Kevinf | Mar 8, 2007 | Reply
I just inserted into Stephen’s post the link to the Borderlands column under discussion in this thread (and you can also read it here). Sorry for the delay in providing the link.
Dan Wotherspoon
Sunstone
P.S. It was a different “Dan” who made the celestial sex comment in the 15-second Mormon Doctrine thread!
Comment # 8 by Dan | Mar 9, 2007 | Reply
Sure Dan, sure…..
Comment # 9 by Elise | Mar 9, 2007 | Reply
I suppose this is why argument can be made for not committing to things to early in life - the most common heard in American society being not getting married too young. Or well-seasoned professionals telling fresh college grads to not think their first career will be their last.
It struck me in the article that the couple said their re-commitment to the church was….
It is nice for them that they both came to this epiphany together and could re-commit as a couple. Their different commitments were in line. I wonder what would have happened if one was adamently against re-committing and one was adamently for re-committing? Which commitment would have ended up being stronger, the one to each other or the one to the church? It might not feel so delicious if their re-commitment to the church had divided thier family instead of unified it. They might have had to find a different denomination where they could all feel comfortable, or they might have had to agree to disagree, or they might have split up in the end.
I guess their story seems a bit simplified to me, although I’m glad they could reconcile their family relationships, marriage, and religion peacefully.
As one who chose my husband, career, and religion (and that’s in order of commitment, strongest to weakest) all before the time I was 22, I wonder how the three commitments will play off of each other, merge, and digress over the next decade or two. Or 25 years from now, like the couple in the article. If I follow all of my feelings and the things that are delicious, I am pretty sure that I will be unhappy in the end. My feelings and opinions of what is/is not delicious change like the wind, so I trust my logic more than my feelings. My logic is sometimes flawed, but so far has followed a pattern of increased understanding and growth. My feelings about what is delicious have yet to exhibit any sort of detectible pattern.
Comment # 10 by Elise | Mar 9, 2007 | Reply
Kevinf (7) I feel for those, though, who can’t seem to surrender to faith at all. I have sincere, caring friends that just can’t buy into the “metaphysics” of religion.
Your comment stuck out to me because I’m currently reading The Great Transformation by Karen Armstrong. She discusses some of the great spiritual leaders of the Axial Age. One continuing thread throughout the book is that men like Buddha, Confucius, and Socrates shied away from metaphysics. Instead they focused on what mankind could know from mundane experience. Armstrong tries to show that the roots of world religions were very similar in the distrust of metaphysical speculation. Later distortions by the leaders’ teachings by their disciples put metaphysics back in the spotlight.
So, for me, the association between metaphysics (I realize that you were using the term loosely) and religion are no longer as automatic as they once were.
Also, depending on your definition of faith, we all must surrender to it. The Lectures on Faith got it right: because humans are finite, every action requires faith. Ours is an existence of uncertainty.
Comment # 11 by Jonathan Blake | Mar 9, 2007 | Reply
Johnathan,
I certainly agree with your last paragraph, about surrendering to faith. Even in my most secure moments in the church, I continue to sense the shadows of doubt and denial that are just lurking out there. Uncertainty is a constant traveling companion to faith, in my experience. Sometimes, walking by faith seems to me to be walking in a spotlight, surrounded by bright and comforting light. Just as often, I feel like I am holding a small candle, and holding my breath with every step forward.
I used the term metaphysics, but they use terms like supernatural, mumbo jumbo, and other less attractive terms, even while they respect my position. To their rational world view, these feelings of faith are not verifiable by the tools they currently have, and I seem unable to give them the ones I use successfully. One of my own sons falls into this category.
The comment about what can be learned from mundane experience certainly has some truth for me as well. However, the essence of Christianity is about things outside our normal earthly experience: atonement, resurrection, eternal life. Christ used mundane things to teach about these spiritual elements. The world religion teachings you refer to, from the things I have read, are indeed about how to get along in our normal mortal life. In my limited understanding of Buddhism and Hinduism as religions, their view of the world is drastically different from that of Christianity, and Mormon theology especially. To use a mundane metaphor, they strike me, in my opinion, as being very tasty appetizers with the occasional salad. The plan of salvation in the LDS church feels more like a feast. They’ve got part of it, but there is more to be had. Sometimes, it feels like starving at the banquet table.
I go back to Alma 32, and realize that even when I have some really good answers that are sweet and delicious, that doesn’t apply to all my questions. The mystical aspect is that we don’t understand how the Lord works in all situations, and certainly know that his time frame and ours rarely coincide. But I keep on, because there is enough there for me to suspend my disbelief. The fact that faith is, sometimes, inexplicably, and not always dependably rewarded, makes it possible to commit myself. The current rewards, and the hope of future rewards, outweighs for me the logical arguments against surrender to faith.
Comment # 12 by kevinf | Mar 9, 2007 | Reply
Who is to say that Mormonism, or religion in general, isn’t sound despite a lack of empirical evidence?
Mormonism’s power is to provide enhanced identity of self, community and family while promoting the best in the human soul.
Comment # 13 by Tom Grover | Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
btw, Jeff, you ran a hell of a race last weekend in Vegas in the Busch Series! What a finish to beat out Kyle Busch! #24!
Comment # 14 by Tom Grover | Mar 15, 2007 | Reply
Who is to say that Mormonism, or religion in general, isn’t sound despite a lack of empirical evidence?
Well, if you’re willing to admit that it’s mythology, then so am I.
Comment # 15 by Jonathan Blake | Mar 16, 2007 | Reply
I comment I read here about apostates spending eternity with Niel LaBute, intrigued me. I will now google and research both Niel LaBute (I know something of him) and apostate, I’m not certain how much a know about this word and it’s world wide use. Has Hilary Clinton apostitized from believing that the invasion of Irag was a good thing? Has George Will apostatized from the belief that the Cubs can win the series? Is apostacy the act of changing your mind, or only leaving the truth for error and false promise? VERITAS please from any one out there who has it? Can “mormonism” be “true” and yet Hinduism also be “true” can these facts co-exist?
I have come to belief that Heaven and Hell actually have something in common. i think that there are infinate degrees of each, and that it is really separation into groups that hold certain beliefs and actions in common. If you were relegated into a community where ever one did eactly as they pleased, and did what they wanted, would it be Heaven? …. of HELL?
Comment # 16 by steven | Mar 19, 2007 | Reply
Back to the point of the essay: I’d stick with what is sound rationally rather than what “feels delicious.” If one goes by feelings and sentiment, isn’t that a form of hedonism; doesn’ t that led to subjective view of reality and thus, ethics.
Why must Mormonism be lunmped with an instituion such as the LDS Church? (Especially since the historical evidence does not support the LDS Church’s claims about Priesthood restoration, the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or even of a First Vision in 1820.)
Why not approach Mormonism as a set of principles, myths and doctrines. For 1400 years Christianity could not be seperated from the Roman Catholic Church, thus defending, justifying and explaining away Church practices (good or bad) was seen as defending Christianity itself. With the advent of protestantism (which rejected the entire notion of one universally true institutional church), Christianity flourish as a religion–not merely a sectarian alliance.
Mormonism could be on the brink of such a change. Mormonism is going to have to be embraced as a personal religion; something greater than the LDS institutional church. Just as one can be Christian without being Catholic, one can be Mormon without being LDS.
It seems that most of the discussions here revolve around trying to defend or justify the LDS Church–the impression seeming to be that to do this is to defend Mormonism itself.
Comment # 17 by Rob Lauer | Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants defined Truth as a knowledge of things as they were, as they are and as they will be. In short, Truth is a knowledge of the FACTS. There are many facts that are not “delicious,” but which nevertheless must be accepted and dealt with if the individual is to not only led a productive and happy life, but also progress. Joseph taught that we have to learn to be Gods ourselves, the same as all Gods before us have. Doesn’t this mean tasting not only the sweet (the “delicious”) but also the bitter–what may be repellent to the taste, and uncomfortable going down?
Or was Joseph NOT on to a great truth when he wrote II Nephi chapter 2?
Comment # 18 by Rob Lauer | Mar 28, 2007 | Reply
Rob,
I think in this thread and many others, we’ve been around this bend before. Some of us, like yourself as you represent yourself, are firmly rooted in a rational world view. Others find themselves quite comfortable at the other end of the spectrum, and don’t much worry about reason and rationality. It’s one more aspect of what Robert Rees wrote about in his essay “What the Church Means to People Like Me”, where he discussed the Iron Rod members vs the Liahona members.
I applaud you for working to find space in the Mormon culture and sense of morality that works for you. I refuse to condemn those who are at the conservative, faith over reason end of things either. As I understand Sunstone and this blog, is that it is the intersection of these two extremes, a middle ground where we can discuss our divergent views.
So I agree that we find opposition in all things in II Nephi 2, and that “all things are a compound in one”. Faith informs my reason, and reason helps to guide my faith. Because I have to deal with the bitter in my life, the sweet is all that much more delicious. I find it difficult to maintain my faith without reason, and that life makes little sense without my faith.
Your paraphrasing of Joseph Smith’s statement about truth also points out that eventually we will know the truth of all things, including those historical issues that prove troublesome for many, and also knwo the true faith that allowed our ancestors and our progenitors in the church to prevail over so much “opposition”.
Comment # 19 by Kevinf | Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
I think it was Richard Poll, not Robert Rees, who wrote “What the Church Means to People Like Me.” But I’m sure Robert Rees heartily endorses the teachings of Richard Poll.
Comment # 20 by Matt Thurston | Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Robert’s comment reminds me of that bit in the King Follett discourse, “I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life that are given to me, you taste them, and I know you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life; I know it is good.”
Comment # 21 by Stephen Carter | Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Matt, et al,
Slip of the fingers. Was reading some Eugene England stuff the other night, and Robert Rees was mentioned, and I did my middle age dyslexia thing. Richard Poll is correct. My internal liahona was momentarily disabled for some reason. Anyone care to speculate?
Comment # 22 by Kevinf | Mar 29, 2007 | Reply
Although this thread is a little on the cold side, I’d like to give an opinion…. Its this very issue that I have struggled with over the last 20 years or so…..that is, the issue of faith as it relates to reason, and are the two mutually exclusive.
I believe that they are not mutually exclusive but in fact mutually beneficial. However, there must be some give and take on both sides in order for that to happen. Faith cannot be an unbending “blind faith”, and reason has to make room for things that cannot be reasoned out.
The couple in the essay may have hit upon something important without even realizing it; that is, Does it really matter if every little detail of the church is true?
It matters only if you are willing to have such a blind faith as to believe that all church leaders are infallible, that every word and action of church leaders are the word and acts of god himself. Is that the proper kind of faith to have? In my opinion, no. That kind of faith can lead you to do things like fly airplanes into buildings or murder innocent members of a wagon train.
Reason, then. Men throughout history have tried to use pure reason to verify the very existence of god, with little success. If even that, the first question, cant be settled by reason, how can we expect to prove the veracity of one sect, among the sea of sects in the ocean of human belief? It is not possible. In fact, if you try to research mormonism using reason alone, and really dig into the facts of historical events, you are going to find more contradictions and questions than answers.
So here comes the heresy. I submit that ‘the feelings of the spirit’ or the presence of god or whatever you wish to call it, are not confined within the LDS church. Evangelicals feel it, Buddhists feel it, Hindus feel it, Muslims feel it. It is the birthright of every human being to feel the presence of god. Its is gods way of saying “you are my child, and I love you”. I submit that god isn’t all the particular about the exact way in which we approach him, he is just glad when we do.
These spiritual feelings are what, against all reason, draws us to God. Reason is what gives us the ability to take these feelings and apply them to our daily lives, in the way that is most meaningful to us.
Faith without reason is fanaticism, and we have ample evidence in our world today what that can lead to.
Reason without faith denies our human capacity for spirituality, and even denies the existence of God himself.
Back to our couple - yes it feels delicious and it ought to. It feels delicious to the bushman when he engages in his spiritual rites and dances his dances around the fire. It feels delicious to the Muslim when he prays facing east. It feels delicious to the charismatic when he shakes and speaks in tongues. We are spiritual beings and it feels good when we indulge our spiritual sides.
Can we rationally prove the veracity of the church by reason? No. Can we prove the veracity of the church by faith and feelings of the spirit? I submit yes, but I submit also that so can every other member of every other church. Its a universal gift.
In the end, the details of the history of the church are less important to me than the core message of the church. I have relieved myself of the burden of trying to believe it all. It is a vehicle for compassion, service, and love. At least it should be, I believe that was the intent.
And that is faith.
Comment # 23 by Boyd | May 31, 2007 | Reply
Boyd, who could deny the beauty and the passion and the logic of what you have just written? Thank you. We have found another brother! Count me among the heretics you enumerate. Glad to have you aboard this ship of faith and courage and in the name of the God of Love.
Comment # 24 by Eugene Kovalenko | May 31, 2007 | Reply
Yikes, Boyd, I was with you all the way ’til the last sentence (or two) “It (LDS Church) is a vehicle for compassion, service, and love. . . . I believe that was the intent.” In an argument of feelings (or emotion) vs. logic your thoughts and feelings regarding the church are given very good exploration and definition here, but you run smack into the wall of reality when you describe the intent of the LDS Church if you go to it’s roots–Joseph Smith–which of course is where you have to go. An honest analysis of the man’s actions, ie: secretly marrying young teenagers, taking other men’s wives, his banking/financial dealings, his political/military aspirations, etc.–indicate he had much more in mind than compassion, service, and love. You may, but he didn’t.
Comment # 25 by Surender Olivia | Jun 18, 2007 | Reply
Surender Olivia,
What you said about Joseph Smith and the roots of the LDS church is exactly what made me finally relinquish my faith in the church. When I discovered the true character of the man, I saw no reason to stay in this religion that began on this man’s falibility. I am not as eloquent as all I have read in this forum, but it has been amazing to me that so many of you have decided to settle for the feeling you get from staying with the church instead of leaving it. Obviously, I am still playing around with my feelings or I wouldn’t be going to sites such as this. But, when I face my logical mind, I cannot understand why anyone would want to stay with something just because of a “burning in the bosom” or whatever. How weak is that?
Comment # 26 by Bonnie Lofting | Jun 24, 2007 | Reply
Very.
Comment # 27 by Surender Olivia | Jun 24, 2007 | Reply
Issues with some of the current leadership is one of the reasons I’m leaving the Church. Other reasons I could mention are the stand the Church takes on gays, blacks, and women. Plus evolution, BYU firing of history professors, Joseph Smith’s history of adultery, etc. etc. I’m of the opinion that my first duty is to seak the truth. I thought I found it in the LDS Church, but now, 30 years after baptism I’m finding I can no longer live in cognitive dissonance. I must follow my heart and do what I think is the right thing to do even if it “hurts for a little while”.
I feel a little like a hypocrite in that I can’t tell my mother I’m leaving the Church though, since she feels the Church can do no wrong and she would be devestated by the news of my leaving. I guess I prefer she live her life and I live my life and sometime in the future, maybe, she will come to the same conclusion I have and maybe she won’t….but that process is not something I want to be an instigator of. She’s a big girl now and can make up her mind about what is true just like each of us has to one way or another.
What do you people think? Should I tell her how I feel and inform her I’m leaving the Church or not?
Comment # 28 by larry fulkerson | Jun 25, 2007 | Reply
Dear Mom
I thank God that you raised me to seek truth and intelligence and to be honest in all things. I have honestly sought my own testimony of the truthfulness of the church and I have found it to be false. Now I must live an honest life that I have respect for.
Know what you do believe and why and when your mother asks you you will be fully equiped to answer her intelligently–that will go a long way.. To thine own self be true–that’s all one human being can ask of another. Good luck and God bless
Comment # 29 by Surender Olivia | Jun 25, 2007 | Reply
Surender Olivia makes a good point. If you tell her, do it with lots of love. Let her know that all of her love and time with you was worthwhile and appreciated. When I told my parents, I wasn’t very good at doing that, and I have spent a lot of time trying to heal that hurt. Let her know the things she taught you that you still believe.
Comment # 30 by Proud mama blogga | Jun 26, 2007 | Reply
“I have honestly sought my own testimony of the truthfulness of the church and I have found it to be false”
The intersting thing about putting it that way is that it makes you sound like you’re saying the church is not true in an objective sense. As though, since the church isn’t true for you, it can’t be true for anyone else.
This is what raises the hackles of the faithful most, to be told (or implied) that what they believe isn’t true. In all my talk about spiritual stuff, I always make sure to add the caveat, “for me” at the end of my declarations.
“The church isn’t true”
vs.
“The church isn’t true for me.”
Big difference in how your declaration is recieved by your loved ones, while still saying tha same thing.
In fact, you could just go entirely utilitarian and say,
“The church doesn’t help me right now.”
After all, who can tell the entire truth about anything?
Comment # 31 by Stephen Carter | Jun 26, 2007 | Reply
The truth issue is a dead end. If the church contains things that are false does that mean it is not true? It doesn’t help. Likewise, the claim that the church is the one and only true church is too vague to be useful: I am always tempted to ask what the church is true to.
The real problem for me is getting over the anger at the institution. I love the people, I love the sense of community and I live the way a Mormon is currently expected to live. I dislike the institution’s approach to the past, because it is either grossly negligent or grossly dishonest. I dislike the institution’s nod and wink approach to political issues, it doubly hurts that they support political issues that I dislike / disagree with. I dislike the indulgence on important issues to society and the institutions strict demands on matters that are not particularly important.
I want, for the sake of my marriage and my family, have a better attitude to the church but I find myself getting more and more bitter. I find reading scriptures is the most aggravating. I don’t honestly care about claims to truth, mostly because I find the claims to be meaningless. I care about promoting decency and reducing harm - position that I can only see the church as being neutral and no more or less desirable than any other church.
Comment # 32 by The Amazing Cynical Man | Jun 27, 2007 | Reply
Stephen Carter,
I don’t believe that we can know the objective truth with certainty. I’m something of a relativist in that respect. At the same time, I can’t stand to hear someone say “It’s true for me.” In the context of the claims of the church, what does that even mean? We can argue whether the Book of Mormon is historically accurate, for example, but what would it mean to say that the Book of Mormon is historically accurate for me? It would be more useful to say “I believe the Book of Mormon to be historically accurate.”
Every statement anyone makes has an implied “in my opinion” unless otherwise stated. You should read the statement in question as “In my opinion, I have honestly sought my own testimony of the truthfulness of the church. I have found it to be in my opinion false.” Let’s not complicate our communications by requiring political correctness.
If someone is talking to their mother about their newfound disbelief, they can be extra careful not to offend (perhaps this was your point?) by saying something like “I have honestly sought my own testimony of the truthfulness of the church. I don’t believe that the teachings of the church are true.”
Comment # 33 by Jonathan Blake | Jun 27, 2007 | Reply
Maybe the solution to the “the church is false” problem is to practice E-Prime.
Er, I meant to say that perhaps practicing E-Prime would solve the “the church is false” problem.
Comment # 34 by Jonathan Blake | Jun 27, 2007 | Reply
Cool JB.
And why not just be completely proactive on your own behalf. Why allow verbal wiggle room that allows others to say “oh he’s just inactive” as if you were just spiritually lackadaisical. ie: “The church doesn’t help me right now.”
And a simple aside regarding . . “This is what raises the hackles of the faithful most, to be told (or implied) that what they believe isn’t true” Does it occur to the hackled faithful that saying their church is the only true church on the face of the earth is in fact saying that everyone else’s isn’t true.
Comment # 35 by Surender Olivia | Jun 28, 2007 | Reply
WRT: “you sound like you’re saying the church is not true in an objective sense. As though, since the church isn’t true for you, it can’t be true for anyone else.”..
Let’s be honest here and say true is true–it either is or is not–as in you’re either pregnant or you’re not–there’s no “pregnant for me”.
The Church has never said it is 20% true, or 92.8% true, or true about this subject or that, but true…
and that is what differentiates it from all the others, and why you must join it to be on the most right path of right. If you allow that the church can be true for you, but not somebody else, then you have distorted the meaning of the word true and what the church means by true.. and if you can allow for true for some at the same time not true for others, you are really just allowing that there are different things that work for different people to find God. and if you can allow for that then why does the church have to be true . . .
Comment # 36 by Surender Olivia | Jun 29, 2007 | Reply
It seems to me that you’re letting the Church define the terms, though.
So what if the Church says it’s 100 percent true? Do we have to use that as a premise? If we let the Church define the terms we will be arguing with we’ll always be under its thumb.
The thing I think every person who becomes disaffected from the Church has to wrestle with is the insistence that he/she be right. I think these people are just so used to being right as Mormons that they insist that they must be right when they’re finished with Mormonism. They have to be right the whole time.
I certainly understand this attitude. Being right hamstrung me for a long time. It always put a glass wall between me and everybody else. If they didn’t believe as I did, there was something wrong with them. I was still stuck in a black and white worldview.
I realized that I had to define my own terms rather than let someone else define them for me. If someone else defines my terms, they have a basic control over how I think. And I don’t like that.
Comment # 37 by Stephen Carter | Jun 29, 2007 | Reply
Yeah, but the problem I have with:
“I realized that I had to define my own terms rather than let someone else define them for me. If someone else defines my terms, they have a basic control over how I think.”
Is that if you define your terms DIFFERENTLY than everybody else then you foster a lack of communication which can lead to distrust and / or disaffection.
I’d much rather be crystal clear in what I’m saying even though the message is going to hurt.
I’d rather search for Truth than search for God.
Comment # 38 by larry fulkerson | Jun 30, 2007 | Reply
Oh, don’t worry. I’m very clear with people when I know that I define terms differently than they do. I’m very hip on communicating clearly.
The interesting thing is, people rarely want to know what I’m thinking. They’re much more interested in telling me what they’re thinking. It saves a lot of work for me. If I don’t feel compelled to foist my version of truth onto someone else, I can just sit back and listsn, and get an idea of what that person’s worldview is like.
I only tell other people what I’m thinking when they seem to actually want to know. Which, as I said, is rarely.
Comment # 39 by Stephen Carter | Jun 30, 2007 | Reply
“I only tell other people what I’m thinking when they seem to actually want to know. Which, as I said, is rarely.”
I woke up this morning with this quote on my mind. Your writing–especially in these blog threads–generally touches me, but this comment in particular got my attention in a big way. It both convicted and inspired me.
I confess to being one of those people who is more interested in telling my story than listening to theirs. Nevertheless, I’m learning and you are teaching me. As I reflected on this quote, I recalled a recent event in my father’s home town in Ukraine, from which I have just returned.
I was with several of my cousins at the dinner table. Zhanna, an evangelical of the Campbollite tradition (a la Sydney Rigdon), was severely chastizing her daughter, Natasha, for being Russian Orthodox, while Natasha tried her best to defend herself. But Natasha is by nature a shy, quiet person and Zhanna seemed unable or unwilling to listen to her. I sat quiet in observing this stressful exchange. After a while, Zhanna’s husband Igor looked at me and asked what I was thinking. I decided to be candid.
“I think Natasha is an intelligent person”, I said, “and that she has her own reasons for being Orthodox. I honor her reasons.” Natasha looked at me with tears in her eyes, but said nothing. We had communicated and she felt heard.
Thanks, Stephen.
Comment # 40 by Eugene | Jul 1, 2007 | Reply
That’s a lovely story, Eugene.
It’s amazing how often having to be right will interfere with our relationships. It’s also amazing how far a little bit of understanding can go.
Comment # 41 by Stephen Carter | Jul 1, 2007 | Reply
Rabbi Schumley Boteach: “The key in achieving a real appreciation of religion is to understand that it is counterintuitive.” (Judaism for Everyone, p. 323)
Comment # 42 by Wendy | Jul 2, 2007 | Reply
If you are angry with the Church and seek to find fault with its past as a justification for your need to abandon it then it is probably best to do so quietly and politely. Any organisation that has to set down markers exposes itself to criticism. What I find remarkable about the Church is it rarely feels the need to defend itself and as a result attracts even more criticsm through the implication of no comment means complicity. It’s a fairly shallow way of dealing with what is a no win situation isn’t it? - the “I’m right…” “No I’m right….” argument that always ends in the words: “Because I said so!”
Comment # 43 by Pete Howlett | Jul 15, 2007 | Reply
Didn’t read all the comments, so this might have been said. I don’t think the feelings of this couple necessarily “trump” logic. In fact, logic demands an explanation for the feelings, and sometimes the most logical response is “I must have had incomplete/inaccurate information before in my analysis of this or that thing about the church.” Certainly not an iron-clad logic, but more that good enough to allow Alma’s seed of faith to take hold. I guess the other view is there’s some level of psychological manipulation happening, but I don’t think so.
Comment # 44 by PnGrata | Aug 10, 2007 | Reply
Abraham Maslow said that having a sense of belongingness is one of the most fundamental human needs. I think being part of a community is very important and a lot of people prefer that comfort to the comfort of truth and intellectual values. When I left the Church and was investigating other religions for the first time in my life, I felt the spirit in all of the churches I attended. I was amazed by this. I discovered that the Mormon church certainly does not have a monopoly on “spirit”. I think our experience is also a result of what we bring to the situation. I was told that I would no longer have the gift of the Holy Ghost as my constant companionship when I was ex-communicated. I found that to be false and a fear tactic. God is no respecter of persons. Even though Church feels VERY good (and bad, depending), I made my decision based on following Truth. There were too many problems with the foundation….lies and deceit..that, to me, did not fit the definition of the Truth I was seeking or wanted to adhere to. I knew I could never bear my testimony ever again and say with certainty and conviction that I knew the Church was true. I would be lying and dishonest. I could not respect or sustain Church leaders that did those things either…not to mention the lives that they have ruined in an effort to protect the “not so pretty” history. Devastating. It was a violation of TRUST….destroyed my FAITH. What was I having faith in? Yes, I had many confirmations of the spirit in, and out of, the Church. I believe that “all of these things shall give us experience.” It is great to have a community, such as this, to fill the lonely vacancy of my Mormon community and family. I do miss a lot of things and I still love Church history and Church doctrine. It is odd, isn’t it?! Perhaps that is what that couple was giving in to. I guess it is because it is not 100% bad either. What was lonely though was not having people who “think” to talk to. And, of course, the catch all of “Satan” having a hold of me. I hate that. I can honestly thank the Church for a lot of my development….I can speak in public with ease, put together a program in the blink of an eye, etc…..make bread if I chose to (ha!). As far as churches go, I think the Mormon church does a lot of things right….more than most…BUT…..well, you know….it does come down to how important the complete truth is. We are all on different levels and need different things in our lives. Thank God there are people like you out there! My husband says that the most important thing is to look at the teachings of Jesus….look only to what Jesus is purported to have said….he speaks of LOVE. I know the Church does a lot of things under the pretense of “love” for the members but I have a different definition of what love is. I based my decision on that as well.
Comment # 45 by Cathie Hilton | Jan 6, 2008 | Reply