Anonymous, I can’t speak for Jonathan, but I can tell you how I and others feel. I don’t expect you to understand this, but people who are enlightened out of their convictions of Mormonism still have to deal with feelings of betrayal, loss of community, with lingering dissonance, even some continuing affection for aspects of Mormon culture. Often, they’re still surrounded by Mormon family members and friends. It’s not something that everyone can just switch on or off.

In my case, I don’t talk much about the Church anymore, but it was the ability to work it all out on a public forum and finding others who felt similarly that ultimately helped me to heal and to not feel embittered (for the most part).

I somehow thought that I’d already scared away almost all of my believing LDS readers. Well met.

To me it seems as though you are not only a “non-believer”, but you are also Anti-Mormon. It’s too bad that you can’t believe what you believe and allow others to do the same.

So you can leave the Church, but you can’t leave the Church alone.

First, I support everyone’s right to believe whatever they choose to believe. I would never wish to use force of arms to enforce a particular system of belief. I hope, however, that everyone would choose to place their beliefs in the marketplace of ideas as Elder Hugh B. Brown suggested:

Be unafraid of new ideas for they are the stepping stones to progress. But you will respect, of course, the opinions of others [but be unafraid to dissent if you are informed.]… Now I mention the freedom to express your thoughts, but I caution you that your thoughts and expressions must meet competition in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth must emerge triumphant. Only error needs to fear freedom of expression. Seek truth in all fields, and in that searching you’re going to need at least three virtues: courage, zest, and modesty. The ancients put that thought in [the] form of [a] prayer. They said, “From the cowardice that shrinks from new truth, from the laziness that is content with half truth, from the arrogance that thinks it has all the truth—O God of truth, deliver us.”
(Hugh B. Brown, Man and What He May Become, BYU Speeches of the Year, 29 March 1958)

I regret that so few members of the LDS church really venture into the marketplace. I wish that the Green Oasis could be part of that marketplace to help us understand each other. I wish people would challenge me on my posts more often. I’m not omniscient, after all.

What does it mean to be Anti-Mormon? If it means that I support critical thinking and self-determination, and that I therefore criticize elements of Mormonism—the religion and culture—then I’ll own the label.

If it means instead that I hate Mormons or that I center my life around criticizing Mormonism, then I don’t think the label really fits.

It seems as though it’s your mission to convince others that what you feel is true and what they feel is not true. Otherwise, why this blog?

If someone had a blog about their experience with Mormonism, shouldn’t they try to convince others to believe Mormonism? It would be their missionary duty. This blog arose from my experience leaving Mormonism. I believe certain parts of Mormonism harm its adherents. I believe that its history and doctrine have not been examined closely by most members. I believe that my experience can help others. How could I love my neighbor and keep silent? “…it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor.” (D&C 88:81)

I think it is pretty clear why you left the LDS church – one blog accomplished this explanation. Now you are just on a rampage to proove that you are right. You will never be able to do that, just as any person who tries to argue with you about their religious beliefs would not be able to produce any hardcore evidence.

I recognize that it is impossible to prove one way or the other, hence the self-appellation “agnostic atheist”. It is possible, however, to build up a preponderance of evidence. I believe the evidence points strongly in certain directions, even if the evidence isn’t absolutely conclusive. Are you certain that Santa Claus doesn’t live at the North Pole?

Go ahead, have a blog about Atheism. But the fact that you are continally posting blogs about why “Mormonism” is wrong just shows that your goal is be argumentative and condesending, and perhaps there is a need to proove to yourself that what you believe is true. A confident man, firm in his belief, would have the intellect and dignity enough to belive what he believes and allow others to do the same.

I have many reasons why I blog so much about Mormonism. Primarily I write about Mormonism because of the huge role it played in my life. Although I have confidence in my beliefs, I’m still processing the change. As John suggested, I have a lifetime of memories from the viewpoint of a Mormon that I still sort through on a daily basis. I can’t change on a dime and suddenly it’s as though those decades of my life never happened. This blog is like writing therapy for me.

This post, for example, helped me to examine a small portion of my former beliefs from my new perspective. I tried very hard to be fair to the Mormon missionary in this dialog. I tried to give his best arguments. I didn’t feel condescending as I wrote. If the post seems condescending, it is because I don’t think the Mormon point of view has a firm foundation.

Perhaps you’re right: perhaps I am trying to convince myself a little bit. I’m turning over ideas in my mind, trying to see them from other angles, other viewpoints. (How often does the average Mormon consider things from the perspective of the church’s critics?) I ask myself “Am I right?”

Does this questioning betray a lack of confidence? Yes. But if anyone is absolutely confident about anything, then they are not open to being corrected. I have a problem with the cult of absolute confidence in Mormon culture. Doubt is good and healthy. I see too little of it in Mormon culture.

The idea that Mormons “know” the truth is unjustified. Subjective experience is not perfectly trustworthy. Subjective experience is the basis of a Mormon testimony. Therefore, Mormon testimony is not perfectly trustworthy.

If I have been unfair to the Mormon perspective, please give me a good response to the question “How do you know that?” and I’ll update the post to reflect your perspective.

“to perceive or understand as fact or truth…”

So in this case, the Missionary was perceiving the Mormon gospel as fact, and therefore he “knows” that it’s true, (for him alone).

It seems that there are always good arguments about believing or not believing anything.

Since we’re on the topic of circular reasoning, a question I’ve never seemed to find an answer to is: From where did the first bits of matter come that set the earth in motion (if you subscribe to the Big Bang Theory or Darwin’s Theory of Evolution)?

“To regard as true beyond doubt…” Also Dictionary.com. (Midway down the page).

Anna, you bring up a good point about the need to define “know”. Some people will use the word “know” more loosely than others. There’s a wide difference between “I know 1+1=2″ and “I know that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God”. The method of the knowing in those examples is different.

In this post, I’m not objecting to Mormon beliefs per se. I object to the confusion behind saying “know” when we really mean “believe strongly”. The distinction is important. A Mormon (or anyone else) calling their convictions a “testimony” and saying “I know” implies that their reasons for believing are beyond reproach. “You can’t contradict me because I know. Any evidence you have is wrong because I know the truth.” It causes them to overestimate the strength of their position. It would be better if they admitted the weakness of their own beliefs.

Which brings me to your question:

From where did the first bits of matter come that set the earth in motion (if you subscribe to the Big Bang Theory or Darwin’s Theory of Evolution)?

That’s an excellent question which I would personally rephrase as “How did there come to be something instead of nothing?” I don’t know. I don’t feel bad admitting that because I don’t think anyone has a good answer. I personally believe that it is strictly impossible to answer that question. Saying, for example, that God created matter doesn’t really explain much. It only raises the question of where God came from. Why does God exist instead of not existing?

I think I may have given the wrong impression when I said:

Does this questioning betray a lack of confidence? Yes.

Let me qualify that. I am more confident in my current beliefs than I ever was as a Mormon. I only meant to say that I recognize that I could be wrong. I’m not perfectly confident.

I hope that I never see myself as condescending to the level of others. I believe that I’m right, and I believe that my reasons for believing that are pretty good, but we are all human beings subject to making mistakes.

It’s too easy for people on all sides of a question to be sucked into thinking “Those other guys are so stupid. We are the best!” That’s the kind of camaraderie that I can do without.

(Is it bad when I comment three straight times on my own blog?)

My heart aches for you and your convictions. I hope you are able to get to a place in your life where you allow yourself to doubt and can learn to live with uncertainty.

Namaste.

The closest I ever came to meeting someone like you on my mission was a guy who tried to explain quantum theory to us. It was the first and only time where I truly cared more about someone else’s message than my own.

Let’s do more of that.

There’s nothing wrong (in my opinion) with belief and faith. In fact, from a Christian perspective, all that we’re asked to do is believe- we’re never told that we have to, should, or even can know.

Do I know that Jesus is God incarnate? Of course not. Do I have doubts? Of course I do. Huge ones. And I try to be honest about them. But I do believe, even if it is only a little bit, and I do try to have faith, to trust what I believe.

In pretty much every Christian denomination, what I’ve just said would be considered more than sufficient. But not in Mormonism.

The real credit should go to tobe38 who wrote the post which inspired this one. He turned me on to the simple formula “How do you/I know that?” which helps illuminate the foundations of our knowledge.

It’s like when toddlers incessantly ask “Why?” until we’re forced to admit we don’t know why. As we try to answer how we know something, we gain a greater understanding of the basis for our beliefs.

Kullervo,

I sometimes wonder how Mormonism’s emphasis on knowing evolved. I’ve heard rumors that it as David O. McKay or some other prophet who said admonished the church members to replace “believe” with “know” in their testimonies. Sounds plausible, but I have no references.

In any case, I think this emphasis on knowing serves to protect the community. Mormonism has always been a minority religion and needed to set firm boundaries to keep people faithful. It’s hard to buy into strange myths and teachings which aren’t the strange myths and teachings of the majority of your peers. It requires a strong conviction, even if the strength of the conviction is artificial.

The emphasis on knowing is also a strong selling point to those looking to escape uncertainty. Missionaries saying that they know rather than believe brings in more people, I’m sure, than if they were more honest with themselves.

As I pondered your comment, I realized that ironically Mormonism’s insistence on knowing rather than believing contributed to my present lack of religion. This is one attitude that has remained unchanged: I still find faith—in the sense of believing in something with little objective supporting evidence—undesirable. Mormonism is highly skeptical of other truth claims. I just happen to have turned that skepticism back on Mormonism itself.

Some may see that as a poison pill (Mormonism or no religion at all), but I’m grateful for Mormonism’s emphasis on transcending faith.

What I experience as reality is different than what you expereince, therefore we disagree and think we both know what is real, whereas we may both be utterly incorrect.

That’s one tricky thing about life: we may never know what the real truth is.

I made it this far, in blog reverse chronological order, of course..

I haven’t commented, thus far, because I have so much to share/say that I’m not sure where to begin.

The first thing that is interesting to me, is that there seem to be many LDS readers/comments here, that go against everything we are taught as Latter-day Saints, too. We are not to (insert word that escapes my thoughts right now) with apostates.

So, why am I still reading? Why am I even commenting?

Because I agree with you.

Before I dig into my own knowledge, history, confusion, or understanding, I feel inclined to ask a question (or many?).

In your open letter to “your” bishop, you stated you were entertaining your children and your wife was a speaker.(?)

What is your personal feeling about the teachings that the church will be teaching your children?

I ask this in a very friendly tone, as I encourage my own children to attend church, mid-week activities, youth conferences, dances, church sports, scouts, and seminary.

I am thankful for my knowledge that has allowed me to feel that I’ve moved from one side of the fence to the other. I firmly believe that my children must form their own opinions. They can only do this with continued learning of different concepts, whether spiritual, religious or secular. I don’t believe in blind faith, but I do believe in open questions and answers.

It doesn’t take a teen very longer to recognize when something isn’t sitting well. I prefer that they learn these things on their own, in their own time, in their own understanding.. whether its in regards to family, politics, or religion. (and in an environment that isn’t exactly too negative for their own level of life, right now.. with confusion not being considered negative at this point. (except perhaps in a bishop’s office but my son has also sought the Stake President to learn how to sustain his bishop without agreeing with him! Impressive for his age.))

I am tossed with my feelings of sincerity for my ancestors who sacrificed much so I would even have religious knowledge/freedom. I have often felt that their sacrifices built my own integrity many years before I was born. But I can’t let any confused feelings interfere with the idea that there are no answers for some questions and yet we are only guided to not really ask them. That is not acceptable to me as an intelligent person.

(forget the idea that the LDS church, today, is NOT what Joseph Smith established! I can accept modern revelation if it wasn’t given with OMMISSIONS. I’m pleased that although we do not follow the mosaic law, we can read about it and learn what it was!)

With all of this said.. I’m not feeling that there is no God, either. I don’t really know why, though.

I appreciate all of your “I don’t know” answers. Its refreshing to have such an honest answer to questions that most would rather avoid.

I hope I can find my way back here to see if you reply. The email I’ve entered is real, though.

We can only blog about what we know. Being born and raised in the LDS church (but without active family) is what I know. Its not so absurd to think that you don’t have to be anti-Mormon to be anti-prior-understanding..

I guess the reason I’ve recently turned a different cheek, back to church and my scriptures is because for right now, in my life, as a parent, its better than nothing at all. And after understanding as much as I do, today, I’m not sure there is another “religion” for me.

That’s a sticky question. I currently believe in free thought. For me that means unfettered contemplation and learning about the world. A child should be allowed and encouraged to question everything. They should be allowed to form their own ideas and asked (lovingly) to justify them. They should be allowed to think whatever they want within the confines of their own mind. I don’t want to put undue pressure on them to conform to my way of thinking. Rather, I want to help them develop critical thinking skills so they will be well armed to make up their own mind.

As you can probably tell, this conflicts with many LDS methods (and I suspect many other fundamentalistic religions’ methods as well). Presenting certain beliefs as facts when they are really just hopes taints a child’s ability to think for themselves. It is indoctrination.

People who think they have the right answers to life’s tough questions feel like they’re doing the right thing when they do this, but it doesn’t materially change what’s going on. A child’s voracious mind is filled with probably false data with no other justification than hopes, wishes, and false certainty.

Why the rush to indoctrinate them so young? Because it is an open secret that people who are raised Mormon are more likely to stay Mormon. Mormonism isn’t easily believed if presented after the child develops rudimentary critical thinking skills. “Golden plates, what?!”

If the church respected personal agency, it wouldn’t pressure children to get baptized at eight (it’s not a scriptural commandment to get baptized that young, by the way), it would preferably either wait for the child to express interest in baptism as a sign of readiness, or it would present a true choice: “Do you want to get baptized?”

Let me put it this way. If the LDS church were committed to the truth rather than to increasing church membership, it would require all those who are thinking about joining to spend a suitably long period in studying Mormon doctrine and history. This time would also serve to make investigators truly understand the gravity of this commitment. Children wouldn’t get baptized until they could demonstrate suitable understanding of the gospel, and people probably wouldn’t be able to join the church for at least six months, possibly a year.

Some Mormons might object that this just gives Satan more time to work on the potential converts before they receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, but the abysmal retention rates show that dunking everyone who consents within two weeks of meeting the missionaries doesn’t really provide much protection.

People who join are not given the requisite time to learn about Mormonism, nor are they given anything resembling the full truth. I would be impressed if missionary discussions honestly handled polygamy, racism, Adam-God, Book of Abraham, etc. But the powers that be aren’t interested in the real history and doctrines of Mormonism, just in a whitewashed version designed to get people into the baptismal font.

They probably justify this to themselves by saying that they know this is the truth, so whatever gets people to the truth is justified. According to their own doctrine, this is a horrendous abrogation of free agency. God could not exalt Adam and Eve until they had partaken of the forbidden fruit and become as gods, knowing good from evil. What makes these philosopher-kings in Salt Lake think that they can withhold knowledge when God could not?

Here someone might object that investigators should receive milk before meat. That’s fine. Give them milk at first, but wouldn’t it be better if investigators had fed on the meat before they made a lifelong commitment? As it stands, some in the church never learn the truth. Always milk, never meat.

Anyway, the reason that I said your original question was sticky is because I was committed to indoctrinating my children until I stopped believing. So I have to strike a balance between my wife’s wishes and my strong distaste for LDS methods.

I am tossed with my feelings of sincerity for my ancestors who sacrificed much so I would even have religious knowledge/freedom.

My ancestors walked across the plains for what they believed was the truth. Would I honor that sacrifice by holding on to something I believe to be a lie?

I guess the reason I’ve recently turned a different cheek, back to church and my scriptures is because for right now, in my life, as a parent, its better than nothing at all. And after understanding as much as I do, today, I’m not sure there is another “religion” for me.

I think the best thing that the LDS church provides is a community, even though the community is a mile wide and an inch deep. The LDS church isn’t the only supportive community around. The choice isn’t between Mormonism and nothing. That’s what the philosopher-kings want us to believe, but what I have now after leaving Mormonism is much more than nothing. I have a glorious world full of new things to learn and do that had been closed off to me before.

From what you’ve said, I think you would like Parenting Beyond Belief. It primarily about how to raise your children without religion, but it also covers how to help your children be freethinkers.

There are also religious communities who fully recognize that they don’t have a monopoly on The Truth. They can provide nurturing communities while avoiding dogma. Just my thoughts.