One of the things that really resonate with me is the difference in church and the attitude towards the members of your ward in the “mission field” as compared to in the “center stakes of Zion.”

I grew up in Northern California and having lived in Utah and now in Arizona, it’s just different. I really can’t even put a finger on it, but it seems much more cliquey.

Anyway, thank you Chris for your impressive and awesome testimony!

But a fellowship to what? Since I have read this essay, can I prevent my tithing dollars from supporting political causes which I find odious? Do I get to attend my daughter’s wedding? Do I get to give voice to my doubts at church meetings? If I do give voice, do I get to expect my doubts will be approached with the same respect, empathy, and sincerity that I have tried to approach the teachings? Or am I more likely to expect the fates of Quinn, or the “Sep Six”, or other? If not excommunication, maybe something writ small, like mere awkwardness or judgmentalism? If I go to church expecting that this essay is a true offer of fellowship, is that a realistic expectation?

I have to think not.

If it is not realistic, perhaps the point of the essay is more in the writing than the reading. Does the author feel this is a good missionary turn done? The tone is approachable, welcoming, and sincere, even while it asks me to return to a lifestyle into which I just don’t fit (yet strangely, can’t seem to live outside of). Is that the message here? “Even your doubts are not sufficient reason to leave the church”?

I didn’t come across this saying until after I had been seeking and disturbed for long while. It confirmed my experience.

I see God gleefully clapping his hands with joy when anyone discovers this ingenious mystery of paradoxes.

Without the backing of that foundation for deeper meaning, I would read it simply as a classic progressive list of characteristics and development: seek, find, be troubled (realize how wrong previous and common assumptions are and feel “troubled” because of it), be astonished (at the new comprehension and knowledge that is gained), use that to rule. I like it and think it is a great way to express the idea it is presenting – especially when put in the full context of the original viewpoint.

I seek. I am wrong, because I am not yet perfectly in harmony with God, no yet one with Him. Therefore, I am troubled. But when those breakthroughs happen, I become astonished! That last emotion is a positive one. That is how I read it.

No, I am not going to provide the context. It would take several pages of text to give that context which scholars have done much better than I could. Read a book on Ancient Christianity and/or 2nd century gnosticism.

Confusion flees when light goes on.

Consider the following if you will: 1) Is it possible that God teaches us by purposefully confusing us? Please search out examples in all scripture about this. Think about the story of Lot of the Old Testament. Genesis 19: 30-36. Can God move his purposes forward where transgression is present? Where sin has been committed? Does that make it wrong or just confusing? Is there a reason why God would make it confusing? No way!! But is it possible???

2) Christ spoke in parables so that only the BELIEVERS would understand. In Luke 8:10 it reads: “And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.” Christ knew the hearts of the Pharisees and Sadducees- he knew that their hearts were uncircumcised and that they needed signs to BELIEVE. Belief is a choice in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary! Hebrews 11:1 reads, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” I would add that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things NOT UNDERSTOOD or NOT LOGICAL or NOT KNOWN.

3) Read in Mathew 15:22-38. Christ appeared to be “rude” to a Canaanite woman who sought that her daughter would be healed. He put her off but her faith was so great (belief, not knowledge or logic) that he relented and followed the spirit of the law. He was not sent to teach the Gentiles but made an exception for this black woman because of her FAITH. Paul and others were to spread the good Word to the Gentiles but Christ could not help himself. Why does Christ appear to be prejudiced against this black woman and other gentiles? It was a mission assigned to him by his Father to teach the Jews, and he did only the will of the Father. But he made some exceptions when the spirit dictated. I have read it somewhere by some “apostates” that some black saints were given the Priesthood by Joseph Smith in his time. They use that idea to convict him yet I BELIEVE that this information actually is supportive of him. Contradictions and paradoxes are actually a sign in a way that the Lord is doing his work. Because we cannot make sense of it at ALL!! We have to have a desire to believe in it first (even in the face of all evidence pointing to the contrary) and then he will open ours eyes and give us some Light on the subject. This Light is discernible which gives us some knowledge IN THAT THING- but we cannot conclude that everything is true and cast aside our faith…we still have many things yet to believe and gain knowledge about. But the prerequisite is that we believe. Many of us gained a witness that the BofM contains the word of God and the gospel of Christ and we WRONGLY assumed that everything else was true and set aside our faith!! We are allowed and expected to continue to have faith in all remaining principles of the gospel until we exercise it and gain Light and Knowledge about the remaining truths. We can have spiritual witnesses of Joseph Smith, the Great Flood, the Atonement (try to explain or logic that one!), Thomas Monson and many more if we desire it.

4) Please read the following account in Mark 16: 9 Now when Jesus was arisen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10 And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11 And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. 12 After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13 And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

We are not supposed to understand it or agree with it or be able to logic through it. I personally believe that he throws a lot of curve balls to force us to BELIEVE against ALL reasons to the contrary. This is true faith for me. I know all the stuff about Church History- I just see it in a completely different light. My new sight came slowly and it started with a desire to believe or at least the desire to acknowledge that I did not KNOW with 100% certainty that it was NOT true. I never considered that NOT KNOWING was an option once I found something in the Church History that offended me enough. Once I found the stuff that was TRULY WRONG, IMMORAL or OFFENSIVE I made a DECISION that I would no longer believe that GOD could bring about his purposes through Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Lot of the Old Testament, and many other things. I can see how becoming an agnostic is a real possibility for many because many things cannot and never will be explainable. Many of us Christians who apostatized from Mormonism would not entertain the ideas or logic of atheism or agnosticism because it scared the hell out of us. The fact that we cannot prove God exists is of no consequence when you have decided to believe for your own personal witnesses and reasons. You can throw all kinds of reasons not to believe and we will remain firm. But I submit that if you have to have everything proven to you about Mormonism then you may follow logic down that same road. I am no longer afraid of that road because I do not expect to find the answers- that is not how the game of life was set up by our very humorous but loving Father in Heaven.

Christ said in Matt. 21: 21 “Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.”

This is part of what I feel has been given to me through this experience and it has given me hope, faith and a desire to gain additional spiritual witnesses to things that are unknowable to the natural man. Once I was able to forgive and not convict Joseph Smith for all his sins- I also was able to forgive myself and free myself from that cage of guilt and feelings of unworthiness that I have fought against for most of my life. I remain free which I felt when I both convicted Joseph Smith at the start of this and when I let it go and put it on the altar at the end of this. Boy does it feel good to be open to all things that lead us to Christ!!

Have a great day and week.

http://mormonmatters.org/2008/08/14/the-lds-church-homosexuality-and-suicide/

Those are the videos you are talking about, right?

I was amused by Jenny’s comments. I didn’t look up the JS manual quotes, I don’t need to. JS said not to expect perfection from him. We say that, but in practice, we worship the “brethren” anyway. President Hinckley (whom I really liked) says “women! one pair of earrings!” and we make it a commandment and judge a young woman’s worthiness based on whether she “obeys” a capricious standard that has nothing to do with modesty or good character. It was the opinion of an older gentleman who didn’t like more than one set of earrings–nothing more.

We cite examples that say Joseph liked to wrestle and that some members didn’t like it but we wouldn’t dream of finding anything to reproach the current GAs.

Anyway, I like the essay a lot. Don’t change a thing. I’ve been struggling for quite a while. My husband’s attitude has been, “it’s my tribe. Two of my great-great grandfathers were in the vanguard company that entered the Valley on July 22. I can’t leave.”

I was also amused by Jenny’s counsel that we all pray more, study more and attend the temple. Some people just don’t get that this hasn’t worked for us and that it’s not our fault and we’re not going to go around carrying guilt because somehow, “it’s your fault. You’re not doing it right.”

I see in this statement a reassurance in times of struggle. Yes, the “emperor is naked” so to say. How shocking! How many times do we realize this in our lives, when we were so sure we had it all figured out. Look at our fancy clothes! “No” says God. Take another look. You’re not quite there yet.

We seek.
We find.
We are troubled.
And then when we digest and assimilate this new meal, we are astonished!

Does it trouble you? Are you troubled?

The Gospel of Thomas dates pretty close in proximity to the time of Jesus. At least the alleged author claimed to know Jesus and interact with him, unlike Paul and many of the alleged authors of the Gospels. I personally enjoy all their views.

I personally am at the margin of all of the above however. I hold a temple recommend, for years having used much of the rationale in your essay. But I don’t attend the temple … attend church pretty regularly because I like the feeling … generally love most of the people … believe in the basic living standards … have a cultural and personal Mormon heritage and tradition … and often feel running screaming from some members’ outrageous literalism, obsessiveness, and arrogance.

For me, believing in the “truthfulness” of the church is almost moot. I get something out of my affiliation, I contribute via tithing and church service, and often feel better by maintaining my membership. I suspect there might be other spiritual congregations that are more suited to me but I also know I’d find problems with them too.

Mostly I just take comfort in the belief (not knowledge) that God lives, that He loves us, and that there’s a possibility I’ll be able to live with my incredible wife forever. If she’ll have me.

And I agree that your “Why They Leave” presentation is a “must”! That was, IMO, the best Mormon Stories episode ever done – and not at all faith destroying.

It was a good, thoughtful, and sensitive overview of the issues nothing more.

Anyway, I think this essay (and entire site) totally rocks! I have not been to the temple yet (partly because I am hung up on the recommend questions) and now maybe I can see what the fuss is all about.

Please don’t make this more mainstream! It is really great as is!

I am in favor of keeping the original around as-is. I captures something important, I think so at least.

John Dehlin decided a little while ago to rethink his position on issues of faith, and became concerned that his interviews were damaging to people. He pulled everything offline. He was kind enough, after a period of time, to let us host some of the material we mutually agreed was helpful and promoted faith. Out of respect for his wishes and his work, we host only a selected list of the material.

Last paragraph above should read:

Not a suggestion, but more of a question. How do you get around the question that the Pres. of the Church is the only “person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys” if you happen to be one who does not partake in that part of the “buffet”?

I like the first person references. Makes it more personal. But if you’re trying to make the piece more academic, I would take it out.

Not a suggestion, but more of a question. person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys

1. Recognize that marital status has nothing to do with one’s intrinsic worth. Understand and accept that not everyone will be married in this life, and that there is no surety that there even is a next life, much less what that “next life” entails or involves.

2. As a single Mormon I watches as the months, years, and decades passed me by; friends in singles wards and student wards were pairing off right and left, some as a result of what I perceived as “unrighteous behavior”, yet there I stood, steadfast, obedient, multiple-times-a-week-temple attender whose prayers never seemed to generate a fiance or husband. Praying about a married life is futile. don’t fast and pray for what can only be attained by serendipity, makeup, and flirtation.

3. Lower your standards if you have to. I observed single people in my wards become stricter and stricter as the years went by–adopting an ultra-protective shell around their emotional exteriors to avoid getting badly hurt. As a consequence, these 40-somethings had never had a boyfriend, never been kissed, never been loved. Some were afraid of any contact and were rapidly becoming increasingly more neurotic. I blame rigidity and strict adherence to church standards for this ultra-prudishness. Realize that “For the Strength of Youth” and other materials for tweens and teens published by the church are FOR YOUTH–not for adults with fully developed brains, sex organs, and emotional lives.

3. Before leaving the church, I was counseled by a loving bishop to not be afraid to “make mistakes”–which I took to be tacit permission to be a sexual person. As a single adult, enjoy and own your sexuality. If you feel like confessing to your bishop–do that. If you don’t feel like it–you don’t have to. Know that you do not *have* to do anything in this life that you don’t want to, and there’s no SkyDaddy who’ll rain down thunderbolts if you don’t obey.

I miss the original author of this essay being available and doing the things he use to do. I guess for his own church membership perhaps he had been warned to “cool” it. I just want to say “Thank You” for putting yourself on the line like you did.

If you feel a need to add/change alot maybe do essay #2

There are some quotes from the Joseph Smith manual that might help… or not …. on expecting perfection from Church leaders:
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=9609b00367c45110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=da135f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

I’ve always loved Joseph’s statement quoted at the link above: “I don’t blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself.” We must not villify ourselves or others because we can’t swallow it all.

Those expecting perfection in their leaders will ultimately be disappointed in the LDS faith, or anywhere else. As a Relief Society president, I feel I’m learning at everyone else’s expense. I often screw things up royally, and I’m grateful for those who gracefully allow me to goof up and help me learn to do it better. I expect that just about the time I get a grip on this calling, I’ll be released and called to slog through a calling in the Scouts, while another sister does her time as Relief Society president, learning those same lessons. It’s all part of our eternal progression. Often, personal development seems to come at others’ discomfort. Regrettable, but true for all of us.

You may also be interested in some of the articles by Richard L. Bushman, in particular, “My Belief”, which recounts Bushman’s struggles to reconcile faith and scholarship:

http://books.google.com/books?id=l5KmMXHz8MIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=believing+history&ei=izNgSYSWC5LmyQTZmaHbAQ

I like the “Don’t freak — sit tight” tone of the article. I’ve found that keeping to the Seminary Basics, even when my faith is shaken, I always manage to keep the toehold I need to keep going. I would suggest adding a section on continuing with the basics that lead to direct, personal communion with God as essential to staying in the faith: praying, reading favorite scriptures, meditation, and attending the temple as appropriate.

I look forward to seeing your work continue!

A victim of childhood neglect who has decided you’re not going to let your parents walk all over you anymore? Don’t force your decision or your anger on your siblings. Disillusioned with the US government? Probably not a good idea to start discussing your feelings with total strangers.

Regardless of what the object of faith is–a young child’s beleif in her parents’ perfect wisdom and fairness, the power of medical science to cure what ails you (or help you lose weight), that the hard times in life will pass and things will get better–we are all, to some extent, “Buffet Mormons,” picking and choosing what we believe based upon both common sense, empirical evidence and, of course, faith. Human knowledge is a wholly, incomplete thing–even the most devoutly (I kid!) atheist scientist will tell you that she doubts the possibility of humans ever being able to know everything. Whatever omniscience is, if it exists at all, the one thing I am certain of is that I don’t have it. With that in mind, I have to keep an open, tolerant attitude towards other people’s faith, because I am not in a position to provide the answers to my own questions. I believe doubt is a good thing, and I accept the holes in my own faith.

So many people who walk away from the church are emotionally scarred by the experience. While many others find a happy existence after LDS, I believe that your essay must offer a lot of comfort to the rest and will hopefully save somebody a whole lot of needless heart-ache by giving them the chance to reconnect with something important and good.

The best line in the whole essay. Thanks for this.

If you start censoring to be more apologetic, you will lose the very audience it is intended for.

I think your essay presents a reasonable alternative to follow the strict guidelines of Mormonism without sacrificing a connection to your God, which is ultimately what is most important in any religion. Sorry if my opinion is not wanted, but thought I would chime in as an outsider!

I think you ignore the possibility that some have really seen angels, and that they believe these testimonies to be true. In my mind, intellectuals who remain active in the Church and bear testimony of its truthfulness have to reconcile facts on the ground with the whisperings of the Spirit in their hearts. Facts on the ground include ministrations of angels. I think that the GA’s generally come from the view that they KNOW the testimony of Joseph Smith is true, but how does that fit with the history?

Some may be ignorant (but I doubt that is many, if any). But others may have found a way to reconcile the two. I think that’s the key.

I doubt the accuracy of this statement. The few contacts that I have had at that “level” indicates that they are very aware. Elder Oaks is a prime example. They see these and do not believe that they stand as an impediment to the truthfulness of the teachings of the Church. I believe that they have a more “mature” understanding of the difference between a perfect God and an imperfect spokesperson of God.