Existential Punch from the 12th Dimension

I wanted to write a blog to process through all of my baggage after I stopped believing in Mormonism. I went back and forth on the idea for years for two particular reasons:

1) I didn't feel like it would do any good for me or anyone else. Talking about personal religious or non-religious convictions has drawn out a lot of beauty and ugliness in me, my family, and friends. A regular, public blog would require me to agitate those relationships regularly.

2) It seems like everything that can be said about Mormonism has been said. There are plenty of scholars who have spent their lives documenting and synthesizing every corner of Mormonism. Anything I have to say would feel like a puny derivative.

Regardless, I do have a story to tell about the past few years. However, instead of pontificating, I have decided to just repost the several dialogues I've had with friends and family. The following exchange took place after I reached out to my friend, Kolby, to ask what had been troubling him. I was a BYU student, 6 months away from graduating. Kolby was in the process of a divorce, and was planning on moving up to Provo to go to BYU. He forwarded to me a lengthy correspondence between him and his uncle, which I will omit from this post. Please forgive the formatting quirks.

-----

"James,

How are you, my friend? I hope well. I'm pretty ticked these last few days, I can't seem to resolve this whole truck dilemma in a reasonable timeframe. Sunova! I really, really wanna get up to Provo and get situated. Plus, it will be great to be able to hang with you more often. We will get some dates, my friend. I mentioned on the phone the other day that I wasn't sure where I wanted to go with the site I've been working on. The following e-mails between my uncle Bryan and I will hopefully give you a reference point for why this is the case. I am absolutely still interested in pursuing the site, I am just unsure how I want to frame it. A source for early LDS historical documentation? Perhaps. The whole idea behind "The Anti-Anti" was to counter-act the misinformation spread by most anti-mormon publications. But the more I study the available historical documentation myself, I am afraid I would also be countering the church's views as well - and I do not wish to place myself in opposition to the church. It is a dillemma for me, as you will understand by reading the forwarded dialogue. Please start at the bottom and work your way up. For your reference, I have also attached my uncle's essays he mentions in his most recent e-mail, and here is the link to the first part of Nibley's "Leaders and Managers" (if you haven't already heard it):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI6ti0iZdZ8

I am interested in your thoughts as much as I am my uncle's (whom I haven't heard a formal response from yet). I want you to know I value our friendship as ever and look forward to plenty of fun times and long discussions in Provo. If you have any counterarguments or points you wish me to elaborate on, make them known and we can continue the conversation. Once again, I hope all is well with you. As for me, I am doing very well (truck frustrations aside) and am happy. Peace, brother!

Kolby

Kolby,

I'm really glad you shared this correspondence with me. I value the thoughts, feelings, and experiences you shared. A main point that was driven home to me was that God wants each of us to experience Gethsemane to come to know Him. There is no shortcut, inasmuch as we might sometimes desire it. It would be really great if God would walk among all mankind His glorified state, and tell us the pure Truth face to face, so that we might ascertain it without having to sort through the mess of culture, history, and outright deception which obstructs it. But His wisdom dictates that we endure a certain terrible suffering before reaching His presence. I am prone to be annoyed with that fact, but will submit to it nonetheless.

None of what you expressed really shocked or disappointed me. I know that you are a spiritually sensitive and active individual, and thus am not immediately disposed to take any stance but that which is juxtaposition to yours. I don't view myself as the "righteous, active member" of the church that needs to reach out to your soul in some way to save it. I think you're doing a good enough job following the Truth as you discover it, and relying on Christ throughout the process.

My only regret is that I could not be of any help these past three years. It was apparent that you were suffering, but I didn't want to risk my decency by prying and offering encouragement when it wasn't asked for. I had my reservations about you and Heather getting married, but felt like it would be incredibly rude for me to question your choice. I began to feel like somewhat of an outsider. All of the "real" stuff you were experiencing was filtered to me through Lansan, who, bless his heart, can be dramatic and biased. I was getting tired of having my friendship with you and Blake be mediated by a third party. That's when I emailed you a few months back, trying to describe what I was going through.

While this reply does not represent the sum of my thoughts and feelings, I understand your time constraints and will cut myself short for the time being. I'm thankful you shared this with me, and hope you don't hesitate to do so in the future.

James Davis

Hey, James.

Thanks for your timely response. Your sympathy meant a lot to me and I am glad you are willing to take my thoughts at face value. In the future, however, please never censor yourself again. Haha seriously! Time is my largest commodity these days - I have condensed my shrinking pool routes into two four-hour days and am no longer working at FedEx. In fact, I may have even more time on my hands soon, due to an annoying recent setback. Anyway, unless you are lacking the time to fully respond, I am always interested in hearing more of your thoughts.

I think perhaps I may need to clarify a few things before we continue our conversation, however. You noticed I have been working through some struggles over the past several years (basically since my mission), which I also noted for my uncle. You were right to wonder about me spiritually and emotionally, particularly as Heather and I became engaged in a serious relationship. I do wish more of those who felt as you did had been vocal about their concerns. Another close uncle of mine, Jeremy, made some pointed remarks at the time that, regrettably, I did not give due consideration to. My parents also tried to talk to me, but our relationship was very rocky at that time and I would not listen. On the other hand, I completely understand why you withheld your opinion. I would have most likely done the same. Romantic relationships quickly become a very complicated matter, one that represents a personal investment for both parties and therefore any comment thereon seems to automatically become inherently personal to the participants. So if you would have said something, there is a chance I might have taken it the wrong way. I'd like to think not, but when the blinders are on, they are on. So divest yourself of any regrets in that regard.

You should also know that despite my life struggles over the the last few years, this most recent change in my religious stance was not apparent to me until only a month or two ago. So please don't feel I have been sheltering you or dishonest about my real feelings in any way. I was perfectly frank in stating my desire to defend what I believed when I approached you about TheAntiAnti. But since pursuing that course, I have had some spiritual experiences and intellectual realizations that prevent me from sustaining what I have previously held as absolute truth. Since that time, I feel my mind has been opened to a continual flow of epiphanies, revelations, or whatever you want to call them. And further more, I am beginning to experience the atonement in greater abundance than I ever have previously. I have tried to be cautious about how I share my thoughts with you, Blake, and Lansan - I do not wish to disparage or disrespect any of you in your beliefs. So while my thoughts have been a part of Blake, Lansan, and I's discussion over the last few weeks, you are still hearing it from me within a relevant period of time and I hope you'll be an active part of the discussion. The idea you mentioned about the "righteous, active member" that needs to reach out and redeem my soul never crossed my mind. I would never think of you that way because I know you are actually aware of my situation and are cognizant of my thoughts (particularly now, having been updated by the forwarded correspondence).

So I respectfully ask that you forget any kind of apprehension you may have for fear of coming across as self-righteous and speak your mind openly. My primary interest in a discussion with you, my uncle, and the guys is to check myself against any possible errors or oversights on my part. I am a human being and am therefore fallible. While I believe I am progressing in truth and doing what is right, I will not live in a vaccuum. If I have missed something, I need to know I am wrong. Despite the cliche, it is in fact my soul that is on the line as well as yours, so I think our views on this subject merit deep conversation, debate, etc. And in the end, you may very well be the righteous one who reaches out to save me, if indeed I am gone astray. If on the other hand, I have discovered error where it ought not to be, then I may be of help to you. I am not advocating aggresive argument and am not of the opinion that we must all come to an agreement. Lansan and I agree on many things, but we also disagree on many others. It is the same for Blake and I, and will likely be the same for you and I as well. And that's okay in my view, to have differing perspectives. But if the ultimate pursuit is truth, an open discussion of the facts can only lead to truth's triumph. So there it is, I am excited to widen the discussion. More minds provide for better guards against fallacy. Plus, as a close friend, I am particularly interested in your point of view.

Thanks again for giving me credit as an intelligent, spiritual person. If I fall short of that, I am at least trying my best. Relying more on Christ now is a must in what has otherwise been a pretty lonely time in my life. So thanks for being there and everything. I agree with what you said about not taking shortcuts and how in our own small but significant ways, we too must take up the cross like Christ did. But I don't personally believe we must experience Gethsemane ourselves to come to know him. In my view, that is why Christ did it for us - because it was impossible for us to go there ourselves. This has been a revelation to me, and suddenly I understand Paul's grace theology. But perhaps we can discuss this more later. Haha hey did you get a chance to read my uncle's essays? Or listen to "Leaders and Managers?" What about the former Bishop's letter to Elder Holland at i4m.com? I know you said you're familiar with all of the points I brought up, but I am interested in your opinions on any of these things. Looking forward to hearing from you, buddy.

Sincerely,

Kolby

Ahhhh,my mental light bulb just turned on. I kept my response brief because I misunderstood your text, which read, "Feel free to get back to me via e-mail, text, or phone (although it'll have to be brief, I'm short on minutes lately)." I took minutes for literal time, not phone minutes.

I gave Nibley's talk a listen, but haven't gotten through the other attachments. I'll have to read them and let 'em simmer before I offer some thoughts there.

As a clarification on my Gethsemane remark, I meant it the way CS Lewis talks of "little Christs." We suffer through little Gethsemanes, not in any way to pay for our sins, but to better know Christ. I do understand that element of the atonement, that we need not suffer as Christ did. But it seems that each time I hear of a person drawing close to God, even being in His presence, it is often after great sacrifice and suffering, yet it is spiritually enjoyable. Paul articulated it well when he said he glories in his suffering for Christ's sake. I think that is a doctrine that is deficient in most latter-day saints' spiritual diet. We scrutinize ourselves under the lens of perfection, to the point that we burn under the focused rays of God's glory. We forget that we are to become the magnifying glass through which God can shine, and instead mistakenly often try to magnify ourselves. I hope I'm not getting too off-track or ambiguous with these metaphors; I'm just a visual thinker. If you're not already familiar with a certain Brother Richardson at the MCC institute, you might have some enriching discussions with him on grace and Paul and the book of Romans and such.

I too am somewhat frustrated with the biased view that the church offers on Joseph Smith and the gospel in general. It is painted as a very black and white story, Joseph being the white hero, and any who opposed him as the black evildoers. Closer study reveals all the missing shades of gray. Indeed, reality is composed of varying degrees of spiritual grays. I can sympathize with the idea that we are coerced into having testimonies, and faith and belief is marginalized. For example, one cannot say after an endowment session, "I know for a fact that everything I just did was absolutely inspired from God, and necessary for the exaltation of all mankind," based on their belief that the Book of Mormon is true. Each of the temple ordinances has a complex history, and is far beyond our ability to gain a sure testimony of their veracity without in-depth study and experience. Yet people go, thinking, "Well Joseph and Brigham put the ordinances together, and all the prophets down the line have fine-tuned them, and so I trust in the temple experiences because I trust in the prophets." I had a Catholic lady in my mission ask me why we slid our fingers across our throats in the temple, symbolizing that we would not speak of temple ordinances outside the temple under penalty of death. I said we didn't do that, and said her sources were wrong. Well come to find out, that was a part of the endowment many years ago, likely a Masonic addition. It troubles me to know that preachers of other faiths were spoken of as merely a shill for Satan in the endowment. Why have the temple ordinances become so altered over the years? Is it to streamline and institutionalize the process? Despite my understanding of doing temple work for the dead, I can't help but wonder why God places the imperative on the living to do temple work for the dead. It makes sense that our temple preparation is mostly conceptual, but we aren't even given any resources to educate ourselves on its historical significance. We are just told it's all biblical.

Ok, that whole last paragraph was a jumbled mess. I guess I'm just saying I feel ya. I'm writing a proposal to the head of the department I work for at BYU, detailing the relationship between organizational transparency and individual trust, because employees for BYU's Information Technology do not trust their superiors. I feel like the church is in much the same situation. Obviously, there are things the church won't be transparent on, like inside the temple; but there are a plethora of other areas, namely history, that the church does not elaborate on. They don't necessarily hide it, but they don't make it readily available. It is for this reason I find my trust in the church a bit lackluster. They need to bring history to the table, and encourage scholarly discussions among the masses. I think they don't because they judge the average member to be more simple minded, not fully capable of understanding things that FARMS and SHIELD produce. So they sweep it under the table, not necessarily the rug.

I wish I had the time and ability to respond to each of the points you mentioned in such a succinct and understandable manner. Keep in mind that as these open dialogues continue, my responses will likely come incrementally.

James Davis,

Haha dude that’s hilarious. I guess I should have caught that – my bad! Looking over our last correspondence, I noticed I also forgot to tell you what that unfortunate setback actually was. Here it is. I sold my truck to somebody who wanted it shipped foreign. So I was very skeptical at first, until I got a check in the mail for 8500 more than it was worth: $19,000 total. The excess cash was supposedly from another transaction that went bad for them. So I deposited the check and to my surprise it went through. The entire sum was available. So I started looking at their instructions: they wanted me to money transfer the 8500 to them in Hong Kong. It was already a red flag, but when they heard I had received and deposited the check they started high-pressuring me to get the money transfers done pronto. Boy am I glad I didn’t because at the end of the week the money in my account was all gone – the check had bounced after an initial electronic confirmation! Black Magic!@#! Dude, seriously these guys send bogus checks with excess amts hoping people will send them money before the banks/victims figure its a fraud. Those bastards. Anyway so now my boss thinks I’m about to leave (because I gave him my two weeks notice) and is looking for a replacement. What a pain, amirite?

Hope you liked Nibley’s talk. He is a very witty speaker with some brilliant points. Regarding my uncle’s essays: you’re welcome to read them for context, but I wouldn’t bother with most of it. You’re well aware of the stuff he brings up anyhow. Thanks for elaborating your thoughts on the Gethsemane remark. Your metaphor is a brilliant one that I agree with wholeheartedly, too. So often we become so self-involved trying to meet the proto-perfect spiritual standard that we forget that God and Christ are the only source of true perfection. I truly believe that if we want to find real happiness in life, we must forget ourselves and “focus” on the Lord. In doing so, we have the peaceful promise of redemption through him and can experience the refining influences of the Holy Spirit making us instruments in His hands. I didn’t mean to pick at what you were saying, but from where I stand I can see that in the past either I myself misunderstood or those who taught me had a fundamental misunderstanding of humanity’s duties in relation to discipleship. I agree with your comments on the merits of sacrifice, to a degree. It is true that the Lord will test us, try our patience, and require us to accomplish certain tasks before an outpouring of blessings. But what you and I have traditionally been taught goes beyond this, in my opinion.

Take for example Joseph Smith’s maxim (or Sidney Rigdon’s, depending on which camp you fall in) from the Lectures on Faith: "A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.” Add to it the words of one of my absolute favorite authorities on the gospel. Neal A. Maxwell says: “The submission of one's will is really the only uniquely personal thing we have to place on God's altar.” Therefore, we are to forsake the world. Sure. But according to these doctrines, if we ever can hope for salvation we must unconditionally offer the one thing that humans are inherently incapable of offering – absolute submission of will, total obedience. If it were possible for any us to sacrifice this ourselves, there would be no need for a proxy sacrifice. But indeed there was a need, Christ came to do what we could not do for ourselves. Hence by taking the burden of absolute sacrifice upon ourselves, I believe we sacrifice Christ afresh. I should emphasize that I am not suggesting willful rebellion against God’s commandments nor am opposed to honest, introspective self-accounting. But I do not believe that we must sacrifice our wills completely to receive salvation in this life. We must accept Christ’s sacrifice for salvation and let his atonement transform us beginning with the change of mind. Someday, maybe eons into the afterlife (as Joseph speculated), we will become truly one with him. But for today, we must simply turn to Christ and learn to follow him as best we can. I think some folks get this in the church and some don’t. All I’m saying is that it is a new understanding for me. I know there are counterarguments to this thesis, like those with 2 Ne 25:23 as a basis. But this stance better gels with Paul’s teachings and with my own experiences personally. What do you think?

Thanks for sharing some of your concerns with me. I don’t want to say I’m glad to hear you’re frustrated with these things, but I am glad somebody else is also paying attention and weighing these problems considerately. Like you, many of these issues I was aware of from the apologetic perspective or had heard them spouted off by anti-mormons, so I faithfully dismissed them in the past. But as I came to learn how inconsistent Joseph’s successors have been regarding doctrine, I was flummoxed. When I started seriously investigating doctrinal lapses and practical inconsistencies in our history from the actual historical records, my first instinct was to fall back on Joseph. So maybe Jehovah really was the Father. That seemed to be Joseph’s understanding, or at least that they shared the divine name (I am avoiding the idea that he ever believed they were one in the creedal sense. Maybe he did). Perhaps our spirits really are eternal, and God isn’t actually paternally related to us, but is instead a “Father figure.” Along the way, I have learned that a lot of the details are after-developments, musings of later leaders who were trying to paint a more cohesive picture. There was a good month or two when I was ready to abandon our modern flavor of Mormonism in favor of simply being a disciple of Joseph - a Josephite if you will. But the more I studied Joseph’s teachings, the more I saw inconsistencies there, too.

His doctrinal developments seemed to have a trajectory at least. His ideas of deity changed dynamically from 1831 to 1835 to 1839 to 1844. I have often wondered since: What if Joseph had lived for another decade? Twenty years? Thirty? Can you imagine it? Would we even be able to recognize the concepts he may have evoked? If Joseph believed that God was an Almighty Spirit, Jesus was embodied, and the Holy Ghost was simply an emanating power in 1834 (which he did), and ten years later he believed that God was also embodied, but not necessarily Almighty, Jesus the same, and the Holy Ghost was actually a disembodied personage awaiting a physical body, how different would our conception of the Godhead have been if he had been permitted to tarry? I do not necessarily know which position is correct, but I respect his willingness to explore new theological grounds. The point is, I do not believe Joseph was receiving revelations that these things were so (despite his claims). He studied, he pondered, and he postulated. Could we tolerate that kind of progressive thinking in the church today? I’m not sure we could. I am learning that all of these prophets, Joseph included, whom we have looked to as beacons of truth are men like you and I who tried the best they could to channel the faltering, flickering Spirit’s flame. Those early restoration events were amazing - I believe they were divinely designed. But afterwards I see (mostly) good men just trying to find their way. There is no crime in this. The crime is that I must believe the orthodoxy of my day to be in good standing with the church (and supposedly with God), nevermind past prophets, apostles, and authorities who, if they had lived in a common time period, would likely have condemned each other to hell!

Suddenly, I look on the Fundamentalists, the polygamists, the Adam-God theorists, the reformationsists, the reorganites, the Rigdonites, the Stangites, etc., etc. with grave sympathy and compassion. I feel the same as you: would to God that he would reveal his truth plainly, in the flesh! Even with the veil as a required barrier, devotion to our leaders as a source for revelation proves to be a stumblingblock, often for those both past and present. If I believe as I am told in 1852, I will trust Brigham Young and practice polygamy when he says: “[This] doctrine, a small portion of the world is opposed to; but I can deliver a prophecy upon it... It will sail over, and ride triumphantly above all the prejudice and priest-craft of the day; it will be fostered and believed in by the more intelligent portions of the world, as one of the best doctrines ever proclaimed to any people” (Deseret News, Extra, 14 Sept. 1852). With such foolishness lurking in our not so distant past, how can I with confidence follow contemporary counsel without the suspicion that in fifty or a hundred years I will also be made to look the fool. It seems that our more recent leadership has caught on to this dilemma. However, it appears they would like to have it both ways. They have largely eliminated the prophetic utterances and quotation marks to prevent embarrassment, but still require ultimate obedience in devotion and practice of their teachings. Bah, it’s a mess.

You bring up some interesting points about the temple. My dad told me about some of the changes he had seen in his lifetime when I received my own endowment. The changes are a strange curiosity given how the endowment is treated today. The entire ceremony is rote, memorized – like the sacrament prayer. If the presiding elder representing Peter misspeaks, he is corrected by a witness. So it is with the sacrament between the bishop and the priest. If the ordinance for the sacrament is the same as it was in Christ’s time (ala the BoM), why has the endowment been repeatedly modified at the whims of leaders at the time? I was hinting at this when I mentioned the “Lecture at the Veil” in my letter to Bryan, it being the addition which Brigham Young instituted expounding his Adam-God doctrine at the Manti temple just prior to entry into the Celestial room. I really enjoy a lot of the symbology of the temple experience, but the fact that the highest covenants we make there are tied to total obeisance to the church is unsettling. Regarding the punishments’ origin in masonry, if I am not mistaken, the entire endowment is borrowed from 19th century masonry (retrofitted with LDS theology). It is an interesting subject because the masonic tradition is older that masonry by far, and leaves its imprint in nearly every world culture throughout history.

I have also wondered about the significance of temple work for the dead. It seems strange that God would require us to be so infatuated with them for our own salvation. But the practice at least has more biblical support than other, more troubling doctrines in my view. Still, I definitely get what you’re after. Congrats on your proposal man, I hope it goes through alright. I couldn’t be more in agreement with you when it comes to transparency in the church. If you haven’t already, read Bob McCue’s open letter to Elder Holland. I’ve attached it below this e-mail. I think some of his points may resonate with you; I know I am in total agreement. I like the approach he takes, as it is similar to my own. I still want to be part of the church, but I feel the church needs to recognize some things before I can take the leadership seriously. Most of the stuff I’ve mentioned in this e-mail is doctrinally-centric. There are many more ethical problems having to do with Joseph’s personal life and the practices that followed that are equally concerning to me. Then there is the cultural aspect that has been such a burden to Lansan for so long. I am saddened that his experience with these things has caused him to question his faith in God as a whole, but I also understand. When you have been taught and instructed to look to a specific source for your relationship with God, it seems natural to abandon ship when you learn of corruption in the crew. But I think he’ll come around to Christ.

All I feel we can do is look to Jesus Christ. We can look to these fallible sources and sift the good from them if we like, but sticking to the scriptures and to our own revelatory experiences is key, I believe. I feel the same about communal worship as I have in the past – it is good to attend worship services and to discuss the scriptures and our experiences. So for this reason I continue attending church occasionally, and other churches nearly as often. I really enjoyed the Rigdonite church on Maple & Broadway. Both my dad and I attended; we agreed it felt something like you might imagine the church would have been like in the 1830’s. Regardless, I will continue spreading my branches ecclesiastically and looking for good fellowship.

Looking forward to hearing more from you, buddy.

Kolby

Bob McCue’s letter:

[I removed Bob's letter because it's too long. Pretty easy to find on Google though]

Freakin scammers! What a crock. I really want to bring people like that to justice, Batman style. So will that setback leave you stuck in AZ? And is your boss willing to let you keep your job a bit longer? I'm hoping the best in your finally being able to mobilize.

I've had a busy weekend, so I haven't been able to respond in full, and probably can't get to it today either, but I'll fit in what I can. I was kind of aghast when I read Bob McCue's letter, because I just mentioned to you the whole "shades of gray" idea just prior to reading his letter, which articulated the same thing! Uncanny. And then again, not. There are likely multitudes of people coming to these similar unspoken conclusions. I appreciate the opportunity to get these issues on the table and elaborate on them. It's sad that such things could be considered apostasy.

Before I offer a "correction" to you, I want to say that it's awesome that your are looking for correction. Whatever advice I offer, know it is offered in my subjective views, and that I could very well be misunderstanding what you're saying. That said, I just have a minor word of caution regarding an idea you conveyed to your uncle: "I have lived a moral life, have attained spiritual maturity, have committed myself to endure in the pursuit of truth in the Lord, and have exercised faithful patience to this very day." I'm not saying that you haven't, but it seems audacious to assert one's own spiritual maturity. I understand that your stating that was in response to your uncle's implications that you might be spiritually immature and weak. His opinion of your maturity may be based on ideas expressed in this portion of your email, "As I have been learning and gaining greater understanding, it has simultaneously been a very dark time in my life. It feels like the elements are combining against me – my parents are most likely getting a divorce and it is a very sad affair, I am striving to course correct on a marital decision that was made for a combination of bad reasons, and perhaps most frustratingly of all, I have discovered that the church is not what it claims to be, that the truth has in fact been “mingled with the philosophies of men,” and that I have been living under a false delusion of codependent depression." (I realize it was sent after his last letter to you, but I'm sure he was aware of the situation before the email) Sorry to be copying and pasting and sounding nit-picky. I'm not suggesting that these dark times were brought on by your decisions. It is a testament to the atonement and your spiritual strength that you've been able to overcome these things. But people are prone to attach a stereotype to young, divorced people. He may be assuming that the divorce, coupled with the depression, has clouded your mind, when in fact, it seems that it is because of these situations that you have progressed so much in your spiritual understanding.

In hypothesizing where your uncle is coming from, I am not adopting the ideas myself. I try to be as objective as possible, but am not sure how much I actually am. I absolutely welcome whatever correction and clarification you can offer.

I do intend to focus more of my comments on questions of Christ, church doctrine, practice, and life generally. I have so much to say and to ask, and so little time to do it. Thanks again for sharing all your thoughts, and for pointing me to some good resources to read up on.

James,

Not sure what the immediate future holds, buddy, but fortunately Tyler says I can help out with my routes until I can get my truck sold. I am just about prepared to shortsell the sucker just so I can get the Sam-H out of here. I feel like I’m going crazy about it – like I’m stuck in Limbo! Haha good to hear from you though.

I’m glad you took the time to read the open letter to Elder Holland. I had a similar reaction when I discovered it. It’s a real shame that many who have problems with the church choose to leave and antagonize rather than stepping back and exploring the problems/potential solutions like McCue does in his letter. It is my understanding that the church is struggling right now with serious new member retention problems – if it weren’t for the high reproductivity rate amongst legacy member families, our numbers would be waning. I believe, like McCue, that this trend has coincided with the advent of the internet and the Free Information age, meaning that more and more new converts are coming across information that the missionaries didn’t disclose while they were investigating. I also believe, like McCue, that open discussion can only lead to greater understanding. It could be a boon for the church in this regard, like it has been for me. For this reason, I hope to explore all types of religious thought and analysis between the two of us.

You bring up an excellent point, James. There are all sorts of problems at the root of my “spiritual maturity” statement. First of all, what is spiritual maturity? When does one reach it? Is it a relative achievement or a universal checkpoint? Who can say, beside God, whether one is spiritually mature? It is a topic often addressed in conference by authorities trying to discourage inactivity and impatience with the church. I’m not sure I have a concrete answer to any one of these questions myself. I agree from a certain perspective it seems outright arrogant to assert self-maturation. Perhaps I got a bit carried away in trying to defend my state of mind. But if we cannot know our own spiritual standing and stature, who can? Can others look at me and read my devotional barometer based purely on my actions. Possibly. But then I think to myself, if spirituality is primarily composed of a personal relationship between myself and God, am I not ideally positioned to gauge the situation? Alas, I have forgotten the terrestrial truth – I am fallible man. Thus, I reach a conclusion: the ultimate test transcends both of these superficial measurements. “For the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). Although I feel justified in the statement, let God judge me accordingly.

I am in total agreement with what I understand to be the core of your point, however. When people leave the church, they must be in sin, for “by this you may know they are under the bondage of sin, because they come not unto me. For whoso cometh not unto me is under the bondage of sin” (D&C 84: 50-51). This erroneous mode of thinking results from the false equation: Church = God (similar to our discussion of church = truth). It amounts to one of the most grievous issues I have with our religion – the deification of institution. Regardless of my irritation at the peripheral logic, I believe that abandoning truth to live carnally is a real possibility and temptation for men. To that end, I have tried to be as honest with myself as possible throughout this process – to do the “due diligence” so to speak. The first thing I considered (being a lifelong member) is the last thing I want: scrutinizing and becoming critical of the church to justify a sinful lifestyle. In some ways it likens itself to the idiom, “Which came first? The chicken or the egg?” One man abandons his beliefs to live in sin, and another changes his beliefs, thereby freed from “sin.” Was the difficult period in my life that led to serious depression and my eventual divorce a determining factor in my change in philosophies, religious and otherwise? Or did my steady departure from activity in the church and my close scrutiny of its foundations allow me to reach a point where I feel compelled to abandon my commitments (to Heather and the church) in the pursuit of doing what is right?

My considered answer is... Yes. I made mistakes with Heather obviously. Mistakes that clouded my thinking and hindered my judgment. I know the way people look at an individual in my position, because I am also guilty of judging likewise. Trying to do right by Heather (and by me) meant getting a divorce rather than trying to force something that never should have been. I tried for a year and a half to make it work, but as soon as I knew it would not, I was haunted by the vision of Heather and I twenty years from now: miserable and bitter, with children obscuring things and so much time lost! I have tried to do the right thing with the least amount of collateral damage possible, understanding that I cannot change the past. I can only correct the future. That being said, I know that the divorce and the situation with my parents has influenced me. My decade-plus experience of striving to meet standards (cultural, personal, and religious) to varying degrees of success has also influenced my thoughts. Hence, I endeavor to take a real accounting of my sins, my choices, and to weigh the thoughts of my heart. Do I honestly feel I have misled myself into apostasy to justify my mistakes? No, I don’t believe it. My new religious stance brings lifted burdens, true, but it also presents challenges like none I have ever had to face before. I am excited, but also nervous. May the Lord bless and guide me as I seek him. May he bless us, as we pursue truth, my friend.

Thanks for listening,
Kolby

Existential Punch from the 12th Dimension

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

2/24/12

Out of Plato's Cave