I read (and enjoyed) your friend’s said post a couple weeks ago. I was impressed by how well-received it was here at Mormon Matters. Thanks for the suggestion, though.

Thanks for your time, Adam. Take care.

Sometimes, the logical conclusion seemed to be too much on the apologetic side of things, so it wasn’t satisfying. Sometimes, I have had some sort of comfort on an issue so that it didn’t bother me as much. Other times, I have had neither, i.e. no comfort and no logical conclusion that is satisfying. I HAVE had to shape what I believe the church and the gospel to be, however. I.e. I DON’T think that the church is free from error by any means. It seems that many people who leave the church are disillusioned because they believe that this or that MUST be the case in order for the church to be “true.”

I do think, however, that feelings and reason should be used together–perhaps even equally. I don’t like either extreme of those two aspects.

So my question is, “If your reasons for believing aren’t meant to convince others of Mormonism, why should they convince you?”

As for my background: I was raised LDS and was a faithful member until only a few years ago. I left the church over many of the same issues that occasionally bother you. I am now an agnostic atheist–that is to say that I neither know whether a god or gods exist, nor do I believe that they do exist.

I’m confused about what you’d have to shelve with leaving the faith. Could you elaborate? I suppose you mean that you’d have to deny your positive (and spiritual) experiences within Mormonism. Yes and no. In leaving the church, it’d be difficult to participate in the symbolism and community in Mormonism. Granted. But you wouldn’t have to deny your spiritual experiences. You don’t have to deny that you had such experiences; rather, you only need to deny what those experiences mean. Perhaps I was presumptuous with what you meant, Adam.

You claim that on balance, you’d be “shelving” more with leaving the faith than with staying with it. But again, what you’d lose with leaving Mormonism aren’t reasons for Mormonism. You’d lose the symbolism, community, etc. These are not reasons for believing in the church; at best, they are reasons for wanting to believe in the church.

What does it look like to put something on the shelf? In the way I’m using that figure of speech, to shelve an objection is to (at least initially) acknowledge its existence but willfully ignore its implications. To some extent, everyone does this. Nobody is wholly rational or logical. But that fact, however, does not justify our shelving objections to our beliefs. To the extent that you understand that you’re shelving objections to Mormonism, it is within your power to take those objections off the shelf, dust them off, and give them a fair reading.

Thanks for the timely response. I hope to hear from you again soon.

Re-reading my post again, I also said I was not making an argument FOR believing in the church, only for MY belief. On that end, I make a fairly convincing case to myself.

I suppose we may have different orientations to matters like this though. I am usually not a “true or false” black and white type of thinker.

I would also like to thank you for your challenging comment… it spurs me to think about refining some things. At the same time, if you ARE an atheist, I don’t think you will ever “get it” – I DO NOT mean that in a harsh way, but only from experience talking with friends and acquaintances who have tried VERY hard to understand, but cannot. The one exception I have found was with my sister, who is also atheist, and seems to understand somewhat, but she’s also a shrink.

I’ll stop now, and wait for a response if you are still interested.

Question for you: What would “justify” any belief? Also, from what faith/no faith background are you coming from? This is important because if you are atheist or agnostic, this conversation will be different than if you are a believer in some form.

So, regarding a justification, if you mean justify to others why I believe, I suppose that is not possible, just like no one else can justify to me something that is spiritual.

“it does seem like your shelving valid objections to the church and letting faith supersede reason”
Fair enough, but we may just have to settle on disagreement there. One of my points was that if I left the faith, I would have to “shelve” a lot of things too. So, adding up the good and the bad, without shelving any of it, it makes more sense to me to keep the faith, rather than reject it.

Question: What does putting something on the shelf look like, and is it possible to NOT do it?

What do you think?

But still, I don’t think your post explains how you justify your belief in the church. I empathize with your wanting to stay with the church–that you enjoy the symbolism, the rituals, the community. But those issues have no bearing on the truth or falsity of Mormonism. Just because you want the church to be true doesn’t make it so. So ultimately, it does seem like your shelving valid objections to the church and letting faith supersede reason.

I apologize if you have answered this concern elsewhere in the thread. I haven’t read the entire discussion; I only perused it.

Jeff, ok, I understand that, but I think that in fact, your answer does have parts of what brjones and I are trying to say. You would have never joined another church other than the LDS church…because the other doctrines and practices of those other churches did not make sense to you.

So, my question is…did you choose for LDS doctrines to make sense to you? Could you just choose for them to not make sense, or for other churches’ doctrines to make sense to you? My contention is that you did not choose this. Nevertheless, because they do make sense to you, your choice to join and participate in the church is justified. So, as per your argument, yes, you could join any other church even though you say you “would have never”…I do not deny that possibility of choice, but I ask: would such a decision make sense to you? I don’t think it would, because those other concepts didn’t make sense. You were not inclined to them. It could be that you were not ready for them, perhaps, and that in the future, you might. Regardless, you did not believe in them nor did you have faith in those concepts.

Frankly, I can’t see it any other way. My own experience tells me that we make the choice to believe or not to believe based on our expediences. Even if some things ring more true to us than other, we still make choices between them. For example, I would have never joined another Church other than the LDS Church even though all Christian Churches are based on the fact that Jesus is the Chosen Messiah of the World. This is because the other doctrines and practices of those other churches I was exposed to did not make sense to me. The LDS Church did and so I joined it.

I dunno, Jeff…I just think it puts too much to choice, when really the choices we make are strongly influenced…some can best be described as “false choices.”

I mean, you say choice is the overriding factor in almost everything we do, but to me, I have to ask: why do we make the choices we make, and what does it say about the value of our choices. and to me, I can’t accept just a sheer gungho “force of will” model. This kind of model is what so many people internalize, making them think that they need to stay in repressive environments they don’t believe in because hey, they have to “endure to the end,” or if they just “desire to believe” (even though you can’t FORCE desire), then sooner or later, they’ll stop being the equivalent of theological failures (since the theological “success” is to read the BoM or the Bible, get a spiritual confirmation, and go about your way as a happy, successful, faithful member. If you don’t have these things but you still buy into that model, you will always think yourself not good enough because you can’t have the experiences others seem to be having).

So, in my opinion, once again, we need to look at why people make choices, because the reasons why can justify a different choice. If your choice to believe or choice not to believe means the difference between people who stay despite having doubts, not having confirming experiences, etc., vs. the people who leave because of those things…then I would say that you are describing not a choice to believe…but in fact just a choice to stay or not. Rather, the believing is the setup. The faith is the set up. Having confirming experiences is something that strikes a person…not something they choose…and if they have confirming experiences or if they have an inclination to faith, then that justifies their staying. if not, then they need something else, or there is not justification.

It’s kinda the question on homosexuality. Sure, it’s a choice to have sexual relations or not. But this makes the equation too simplistic…really, at the base of that choice is an unchosen desire and inclination. So, really, we’re looking at, “Is a choice justified? How long is it justified for? Would a different choice be justified with different base conditions?” It’s not so easy as to say “choice is the overriding factor.”

“#75 – Jeff, I think it’s interesting that you didn’t account for people who want to believe but who either don’t have the faith or lose that faith. You seem to be saying that those who don’t believe have chosen not to believe. I don’t know if that’s what you meant, but if it is, it seems to be a bit judgmental.”

I am not in a position to make a judgment about individuals but I would say for me personally, I choose to believe because of the faith experiences I have had. I could just as easily deny those and choose not to believe. Do I think some folks just choose not to believe, yes, I do. Choice is the over ridding factor in almost everything we do or don’t do. but, I am not in a position to judge another.

#102 Ron Madson
Thanks for adding more! I really appreciate your comments, and I can totally see your point on not having confidence in “any man” to mediate your faith. Your second comment was very clear, thanks again.

#53 brjones
“It is not easy to be an apostate from the Mormon faith, and I expect there will be some tough times ahead.”
I am glad that you are comfortable participating here. I wish you the best, and hope things don’t go too roughly.

#55 jjackson
“in order to not mess with other people I generally stay silent now in lessons”
This is interesting because I sometimes feel I can’t express what I want. Granted I generally can, but I have to pick and choose carefully what I say. For example, in my marriage class I teach, I led a class discussion when the issue of “presiding” came up, rather than give them all my cynical thoughts on the matter, (It actually turned out better than I thought though, and I learned a few things). I wish there was more room for diversity of thought and belief in the culture. It can work, I think, and conversations like this prove it.

# 65 brjones
Thanks for the book recommendation. Last year I read “The God Delusion” – well listened to it. I didn’t quite finish it because listening to Dawkins THAT long just became overbearing, but I will look into this one, by Sam Harris. Granted I have a hard time with polemics (same with apologists) because they are SO incredibly biased, and they think that admitting that makes it okay to go on with the book. It’s on my list now though, thanks!

#69 brjones
”Why are instances of blessings or prayers only significant when they turn out miraculously, while those that don’t produce a miracle are glossed over or classified as answers, just not the answers the person was looking for.”
Confirmation bias, and keeping the cognitive dissonance down. We seek out things that confirm our views, and distort, deny, or reinterpret things that don’t. Great question, that’s my psych answer.

#73 Jared
“I see those among us who are “former Mormons” in a mirror image of AdamF. He believes but is troubled by some things, while others disbelieve but are troubled by some things.”
Just keepin’ it balanced! My Joker to their Batman, uh, I mean my Costello to their Abbot, or something. Really though, I do appreciate the diversity here, quite a bit. Perhaps even more there is really a lack of aggression in this thread, and I VERY much appreciate that. Thanks everyone, it means a lot. We completely disagree on some things, but do so in a peaceful way.

# 80 Cowboy

But I don’t think we should be so focused on making them think like us that we insulate them in a false hope of protection, from engaging issues. Some examples of the extremes here would be the debates regarding theories of evolution or ID in schools. Sexual education, including homosexuality, religious diversity, etc, would also be examples. If you read my prior comments you will note that when the Church teaches a point I don’t agree with, I will engage that issue with my children, so I don’t pass off the indocrination to the Church.

Well said Cowboy, and I agree. I refuse to “pass of the indoctrination” as well, not the least of which is because often those who are doing the “indoctrination” are other ward members, whom I may not agree with on any of the issues you mentioned above, for example. Like if my son gets taught in Sunday School that Darwin was evil, he will surely hear my view, and why I think the way I do. I realize authority figures have a huge influence on the opinions of children, but I will try (overtime) to teach him to decide for himself.

# 86 Jared & # 87 Andrew S
Re: atheists in foxholes – Actually, to keep the jjackson influence going here, there are psychological explanations for the foxhole thing. I’m not a death expert (I mostly just study attachment and relationships) so I don’t have it in front of me, but it seems there are more ways to interpret these experiences.

# 90 Andrew S
I just think it’s imprudent of you to worry or have such concern.
This is something I have changed on over the years. I used to give myself ulcers (okay, not literally, sorry for those who have them!) over friends who left or were antagonistic to the church. In a huge experience of irony (hope I’m correctly using that word), it something out of Mormon Doctrine (that I had remembered reading years earlier) of all places that calmed me down and helped me to not be so concerned. It said something about all good people being led eventually to the gospel. Fitting that into my own spiritual schema, I now believe, and have for quite a while, that all good people will be led to where they need to go. In fact, disparaging them or even putting up emotional resistance only hurts things in the long run. It is a huge relief to feel that way.

I am completely aware that religion is a most influential force. But I recognize that its pervasiveness is not a function of its truth or of any external or objective quality to it, but a testament of human subjective experience. For example, let’s talk about language and culture. If you think about these things, these are also pervasive. Every group of people develops some kind of culture, and every group of people develops some kind of language. And languages also can have the interesting quality of following certain frameworks (at least, it is very rare that we find this paradigm is broken, as one person thinks it has with a tribe of people called the Piraha)…but what is this really telling us? Is this saying that language has some kind of external, objective quality or framework to it? Or rather is it telling us something about what’s inside humans, perhaps how we have developed over time to value social interaction, and that sort of thing.

But it transcends languages, cultures, and times. It is the common thread among the entire human race throughout time.

Surely it can be (and has) been argued both ways … just seems there is a lot of evidence it is beyond a western judeo-christian culture thing. It seems pretty universal, and even with all our advances in medicine and science, religion of some kind remains the most influential force for humankind. (not for everyone but for more people than not).

I think the pressing part of brjones post was not talking himself out or not, but the idea that we can have deeply ingrained customs and practices and default to these things sometimes. It doesn’t make these practices indicative of anything grander.

Most specifically, we do grow up in a society where language and ideas about god permeate culturally and socially. So, it’s easy to imagine how that becomes a deeply ingrained idea, without giving any credence to the idea

One could argue that your 1st reaction is most telling, before you talked yourself out of prayer.

I’m mormon because I’m the 5/6th generation of them. Have had incredible experiences in my youth, college and on my mission. I don’t think those will ever not be a part of me.

I got shocked a little with a recent traumatic event at home, shook my faith, and received no answers or comfort from church, prayer, or scriptures. Studying church history on the internet opened my eyes to many things that I can’t reconcile. After months of studying, I don’t think I’ll ever reconcile except that it seems I’m starting to be ok with it. Things JS or BY said or did don’t seem to bother me anymore. It hit me when I took a youth in my ward who is struggling, and took him out for ice cream and spent time with him talking and it felt good. Dissecting the past is interesting and provides a mental workout for me, but doesn’t satisfy me.

Reading GAs talks on the plan of salvation and Christ make me feel good. The more I serve in my calling and try to love others, the more that fills me.

I still believe the church was restored by God. I am letting go of some of my mormon-centric ideals I used to hold, and accept others in other religions are just as good as I am, mostly better, and God will take care of good people.

I have confidence in the attributes of God. I accept earthly flaws in prophets, church leaders, and written material obtained through mortal vessels. I can focus on love and good things and have faith all things will one day make sense to me.

I feel going forward I need to be more open minded to the world outside of mormon-land, and find the good from all places. I don’t know how far that will take me, but I doubt I will ever leave the church. I don’t believe any other religion would be any better. The first principle is faith, it is apart of religion. Therefore, there will always be some things difficult to understand but enough spiritual guidance given to me to move ahead without fully intellectualizing it.

Currently, polygamy is the most difficult thing for me to grasp, but I don’t fear I will leave the church over it. I respect others who choose to do so.

What keeps bringing me back is simply God’s love. That’s my story.