In this thought I ran across John Dehlin’s Mormon Stories site. I started to download many of the podcasts which I appreciate very much. John, I just want to thank you for all you are doing. You are doing a great service for people like me who need help in finding answers the many of these questions. I do not know where to turn to find credible answers to many of the questions regarding Mormon History i.e. Money Digging, Polyandry, actual physical evidence of happenings in the Book of Mormon, revised First Vision accounts, Witnesses to the Book of Mormon credibility, transition of power from Joseph to Brigham, etc. There are many issues that must be dealt with at some point. I really do not like the “anti-mormon” sites, but I find the apologists answers also troubling. I think it was B.H. Roberts who said that he was afraid the church was passing many of these issues of history to be dealt with by future generations, well here we are.

The common answer in todays Mormon culture is to follow the Brethren, they will not lead you astray. I don’t believe the would purposefully lead us astray. I believe these are good men who really are doing the very best they can. I do believe that God can and does speak through them at times. But I would have to ask: is this culture of strict obedience really what God intended in the Church? Would we really get a free pass in doing something we do not know, in our heart, is truly right or wrong. The principle of moral agency in my mind trumps the principle of obedience. Though obedience should not be minimized.

To me the Church is at a cross roads, they can try to deal with some of these issues with a frontal assault (the brethren), in trying to help us understand from a faithful perspective. Or, the can continue to in minimize these issues at the expense of those (like myself) who are trying to find answers to legitimate questions.

I think that represents a dramatically divided loyalty, Stephen. The Mormonism of Joseph Smith is hardly even the same religion as modern LDS-ism. Even Harold Bloom could see that, as noted in his comment at the end of the PBS documentary, “The Mormons.”

I’m not terribly integrated into the culture, but I think my view is about being loyal to the vision Joseph Smith had and what the Church is.

how prayer is the answer given that throughout history the answers have been so different and varied reminds me of Hebrews, about how God has spoken to every age and people.

Something that struck me is that with discipline and strong desire people can make contact with the infinite and receive knowledge from and of the Holy One. How far it takes them varies. One can take a Harold Bloom gnostic approach that there is an underlying Spirit that true prophets tap into that guides them in certain patterns (it is how he explains the authentic parts of the Church that he recognizes that are in sync with prior generations).

Or, one can take the approach that God speaks through the light that permeates the world, that for the most part what is important is how we react to that light, but that in some areas ordinances actually matter. How much? A great deal in some ways, hardly anything in others. That is the effect of the lens of the world.

2) John’s podcasts are informative and inspiring. I give his indefatigable efforts and sacrifice much credit for keeping me in the church when every waking moment of my life was consumed with cognitive dissonance about how the church and my inner gut feelings differs. John’s podcasts, along with some other material, have helped me to be at peace again and refocus on the Savior.

It has been a wonderful experience for me. Enriching my beliefs and deepening my understanding of God. I am SO pleased to be a member of the Church, after all I have read & heard. Joseph was a marvelous man, doing an incredible work.

I clearly see, now that I have somewhat of an understanding of psychology, archaeology, history, science and comparative religion, that truly faith IS the first principle of the Gospel. Just as I was always taught.

I know, I’m too happy.

See here for just a few of the early examples: http://mormonstories.org/?page_id=46

I’m all about helping people figure out a way to stay — even when they feel inclined to leave.

See here as well: http://mormonstories.org/HowToStay.html

When leaders write talks, or make decisions in meetings, or create programs, or create press releases, or write teaching materials… they humble themselves before God and seek true spiritual inspiration beyond their own failings. They pray for guidance and because the effects of their actions affect so many good people, God will inspire them in the right direction. Thus, the things that come from leaders should be honored as if directed by God.

This modern imperative for loyalty and obedience is extremely strong and important in the LDS church. That is what differentiates us from Jews and other Christians when it comes to studying out the Old and New Testament to see these fallible prophets. Other faiths that revere those texts can handle the reality because they do not live on a foundation of institutional authority. The personal relationship is paramount to them.

In my opinion, your view involves some of that casting off of Mormon culture and loyalty that I mentioned.

I really think that everyone needs to begin their study of the gospel, once they’ve gotten past the basics, with a review of the Old Testament. That should help them learn the implications of fallible leaders and imperfect prophets.

Then you are ready for Paul’s confrontations with Peter over hypocrisies, over dramatic changes in what everyone thought were doctrines (such as unclean meats) and the entire revolution that is the New Testament.

It is unsettling to recognize that such times are not behind us, but that they are always with humanity.

What I’m driving at is to take ownership and responsibility for what you believe and what you do. If you will believe in God, have a personal relationship with Him, so that you have solid reasons for believing everything you say you believe. I personally feel this requires the courage to cast off some of our Mormon cultural traits and possibly even some institutional loyalty. I plan to explain that in my next post.

I didn’t have that choice. When I was a teen, my best friend, whom I had known since birth (literally) decided to investigate the church for a variety of reasons. His parents were not members and had never been interested but he had always spent a lot of time with my family, so I suppose it is not surprising that he eventually became more curious. Of course it took an evangelical Christian preacher spouting hate-filled rhetoric about the ‘evil Mormons’ to get him to really look into it. Anyway he decided to start asking me a lot of questions, so I started questioning myself. So I did what I should have done–I started taking my prayers and scripture study seriously. I learned a LOT. I also picked up a lot from seminary. That, combined with the fact that dad taught middle eastern history and was always talking about it, gave me a pretty good background knowledge.

When dad got sick, I dug even deeper, so that by the time dad was fully diagnosed with cancer, and we knew he was dying, I was very certain of the church. Prayer and scripture study can do a lot to give you a lot of quick insights into the gospel without really understanding the ins and outs of church history. All the time I learned little snippets of anti-Mormon pieces. You can’t avoid it in central Kentucky, after all. The evangelicals are pretty vociferous there.

By the time dad passed away in 1995, I was only 18, but I had permission to go the Temple before he died. Some people have different experiences there. Mine was poignant and bittersweet, but very powerful. I cannot honestly say, however, that I can separate the emotions of the Temple that day from the emotions of seeing my dad there for the what was my first time and his last time. That was August, and he died October 1. I recieved my mission call in either February or March of 1996 and served from May of 1996 to May of 1998 in Tuscon Arizona then Lisbon Portugal.

When I got back I started school at a small liberal arts college where the local religion was ‘anything but Mormon’ and drove a considerable distance to attend a singles branch two towns away, where I met my future wife nearly a year later. While at Berea College, I slowly became more and more exposed to the anti-Mormon arguments, both the false accusations and the twisted truths and the inconvenient truths. Additionally I became increasingly acquainted with the idea that the records themselves were poorly kept for much of that time (which is why the church obsesses with records at this time, I think).

I served as EQ president for a time, but ultimately asked to be released when my second shift job kept me from being able to fulfill the calling. That job damaged me spiritually and in reflection I would recommend that anyone in the church who is working in certain jobs should be extremely careful to make sure that you are extraordinarily careful to stay grounded in the scriptures as you do so.

I then started graduate school, where I encountered even more things that made me wonder. I have struggled. Until recently. I’m still not where I want to be, but recently those things that bothered don’t impinge on my testimony the way they used to. Here’s why: one of the bishopric in our new ward (we recently moved) asked me to give a talk on why I believe. I almost said no when I heard the topic. I struggled, then I realized that yes, despite everything I do believe, and it is simply because despite what modern science says about empiricism (and trust me when I say, as a PhD candidate in Industrial Psychology, I understand empiricism very well, and I understand statistics extremely well), and despite what psychology says about eyewitness testimony and Occam’s Razor and all of that, I have had certain experiences that I cannot deny. I have felt the Spirit, and I cannot deny the power of the Priesthood in my life.

So when I start to doubt, I do what I think Clay is driving at: pray. God, I think does provide answers. Sometimes we are given answers that are meant to be kept private about things that we don’t need to share. There’s a great verse in the BOM about that–about being given to understand mysteries privately as long as we keep them private (somewhere in Helaman, I think), but if we take it upon ourselves to expound them to the church as doctrine or anything MORE than merely speculation, then we are in danger of losing access to the insights we have been given. The reason for this is to teach us about trust, I think. We are given a mystery, and if we show we can be trusted, we are given another, then another. Eventually we show ourselves that we can be trusted with whatever the Lord gives us and we realize that because of that we are worthy of far greater experiences. That is when those things happen. When we constantly blather about the insignificant insights into whatever minor detail of the gospel that we find amusing that the Lord has given us, however, we betray that trust, and then we show that we are not to be given any other trust, and I believe we are then denied any major trust, left to dabble in insignificant mysteries.

I’ve got more I could say, but now this is an insufferably long post, and so I’ll shut up.

Thank you for your post. This is my favorite post since Mormon Matters “converted” to the group blog format. I look forward to your next post!

Bruce, NM Tony said:

“If I had read posts like this before I actually lost all faith, I wonder if I would be where you’re at now. Nevertheless, I have no regrets for my decision and feel very at peace with where I am.

I also agree that John Dehlin’s Mormon Stories are valuable, and it was/is a big part of why I continue to attend church with my family and avoid confrontation with the true believers around me”.

This is a testimony to me of John Dehlin’s necessity in modern Mormonism. It is reassuring to me that John Dehlin can take people whose traditional testimonies have been shattered and help them stay connected to Mormonism. You don’t want to kill the messenger, do you? It is always more helpful to learn the facts about Mormon history in a venue where the organizing force (in this case, John Dehlin) is a devoted Church member and sympathetic to those with legitimate questions. Exposure to the facts Clay mentions is very disconcerting, no matter from whom you hear it.

I think the mission of the site was to have truly open discourse about Mormonism through people simply telling their stories. I would not say MS was what affected my testimony, but rather that the issues existed at all. MS served to be a way for me to acknowledge the issues, and I also think John’s approach made it easier to handle them in a healthy way.

In my view, “healthy” is to face them completely and seek for understanding. I see apologetics and the anti or exmo style as being unhealthy, at least in the long term. I keep my mind and heart open to the possibility of any given principle being true or good, but I also am open to any given principle being false or bad.

This shocked me a little. I had always assumed you had explored some of the more controversial aspects of Mormonism on your own and Mormon Stories had helped you stay in the Church. To find that it actually “de-converted” you, so to speak (pardon the label that I’m sure doesn’t really fit, as no label ever does), was not what I expected. Doesn’t that sort of go against the mission of that site?

ITA. How many times have we all heard that even if a priesthood leader is wrong, we should still be obedient, and will be blessed for our obedience? Or that our leaders will never lead us astray, but if they do, it will be on their heads not ours, so we should just do as we are told. When the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done, ect.

Clay,
I think it’s ok to be angry, or go through an angry phase, as long as you decide that you aren’t going to be angry forever. It’s a natural part of the grieving process, and denying it can only lead to more confusion and angst. You have to grieve what you have lost to move on, even when you choose to stay in the church.

What a great post and thank you for the honesty! The parallels between our stories, based on what you’ve written, are uncanny. It is also interesting that we’ve gone in different directions. I assume that you still have faith in God, whereas I do not. If I had read posts like this before I actually lost all faith, I wonder if I would be where you’re at now. Nevertheless, I have no regrets for my decision and feel very at peace with where I am.

I also agree that John Dehlin’s Mormon Stories are valuable, and it was/is a big part of why I continue to attend church with my family and avoid confrontation with the true believers around me. I still love the people of my ward, still have a respect for the importance they place on family, and have fond memories of my mission. Mormon Stories and this blog has also helped me maintain a respect and cordiality for things LDS, keeping me in touch with some church-related issues.

Nick,

Unfortunately, I think you are right. I know that when I did believe, I never prayed to see if the president was right. He was, after all, the mouthpiece for God. If he said it, it must have been true.

While Mormonism doesn’t claim infallibility on the part of the president of the church, let alone other leaders, modern LDS culture certainly does. By both precept and social pressure, LDS members are taught that if they believe the Holy Ghost tells them something different than what their priesthood leader has said, they have “been listening to the wrong spirit,” and are clearly wrong. Despite the counsel of early Mormon leaders to seek spiritual confirmation of leaders’ words, modern LDS culture considers it axiomatic that the Holy Ghost will confirm what priesthood leaders have said. In fact, with many “iron-rod saints,” praying for confirmation of what the LDS president has taught is very nearly seen as an act of rebellion, as if it is presumptuous to even conceive that a different answer could result.