Over the past few weeks, I've had dozens of conversations over meals, over the phone, via email, Facebook, etc. In many of these dialogues, there are very frequent questions that pop up. I thought I'd take a few moments to answer some of them.
Why dissent? Why not follow the prophet?
This is a big one. The vast majority of the conversations I've had over the past few weeks have been with faithful members of the LDS church. This question comes up just about every time, phrased in one of a dozen different ways.
What I have experienced, and what other folks who question and doubt have had to deal with, is that this question is often not the real question. There seems to be an inability on the part of many Mormons to believe that any member of the church who is keeping the commandments could question the word of a prophet. So they use this question to really probe for something else.
What that means is that when many (though not all) people ask me, "Why question? Why doubt?" what they're really asking is:
Why dissent? Why not follow the prophet?
This is a big one. The vast majority of the conversations I've had over the past few weeks have been with faithful members of the LDS church. This question comes up just about every time, phrased in one of a dozen different ways.
What I have experienced, and what other folks who question and doubt have had to deal with, is that this question is often not the real question. There seems to be an inability on the part of many Mormons to believe that any member of the church who is keeping the commandments could question the word of a prophet. So they use this question to really probe for something else.
What that means is that when many (though not all) people ask me, "Why question? Why doubt?" what they're really asking is:
- "What sins are keeping you from getting the right answer? Pride? Gambling? Word of Wisdom issues? Sloth?"
- "What important activity (fasting, reading scriptures, attending church, praying) are you not doing hard enough, long enough, correctly?"
I think it's important to state that most people who doubt are not looking for a convenient way to hit the bar with a clean conscience. They're not making a big stink because they can't wait to break the law of chastity. They haven't forgotten that the Book of Mormon exists or how to study it. Rather, these doubts are personally shattering and have been the subject of countless hours of thought, prayer, and study. This doubt isn't something doubters wanted to happen. They would have loved to continue to be an orthodox believer with the comfort, certainty, and lack of complications that entails.
Because this isn't the real question being asked, this moment in the conversation is also often the defining moment. It goes a little something like this:
I can't tell you how many times I've had this exact discussion in my life and especially in the last few weeks. I think that period of silence after the explanation is telling. What friends and family members of doubters often expect with the question "Why dissent?" is a variation of the answer: "Shoot. Now that you ask me that, I guess there's no reason!" In the friend's mind, there is no good reason to dissent or question or doubt. Thus, when the doubter begins the long list or emotional response that characterizes this answer, the friend or family member is a little stunned. Unable or unwilling to actually engage (or even acknowledge) the issues the doubter has brought up, they shift to the autopilot they have been taught can solve everything.
The only problem is, it doesn't.
- Friend or family member: "Why are talking about this? Worrying about it?"
- Doubter: Explanation (often a very personal and vulnerable experience).
- ForFM: Silence. Launch into testimony.
I can't tell you how many times I've had this exact discussion in my life and especially in the last few weeks. I think that period of silence after the explanation is telling. What friends and family members of doubters often expect with the question "Why dissent?" is a variation of the answer: "Shoot. Now that you ask me that, I guess there's no reason!" In the friend's mind, there is no good reason to dissent or question or doubt. Thus, when the doubter begins the long list or emotional response that characterizes this answer, the friend or family member is a little stunned. Unable or unwilling to actually engage (or even acknowledge) the issues the doubter has brought up, they shift to the autopilot they have been taught can solve everything.
The only problem is, it doesn't.
When you bear your testimony to us in this moment and end it with a period and a expectant pause, don't be surprised by a non-response. Don't expect a "Oh, snap, praying about? I hadn't thought about that! Thanks!" That's a little sarcastic, but think about how you would respond if, after a probing conversation, you were asked to share a very emotional and difficult group of ideas, only to be responded to with, what seems to you, a non sequitur and automated response. What if after you shared struggles with health or addiction or abuse, your listener responded with, "Well, do you think it's going to snow?" Switching to small talk is meant to disguise discomfort or diffuse a charged situation, but it also signals that you're done with that topic. Similarly, bearing your testimony is likely meant to "bring the Spirit" to solve all this mess, but what it really signals to your listener is "I don't think this is a conversation I want to have after all. I'm going to let God take over here and slowly back away."
So, instead of asking "Why dissent?" you may want to ask yourself "Am I listening?" And if you're not ready to listen, don't put yourself in a situation where you demonstrate the opposite desire.
Two really helpful links I recommend before speaking to friends and family who doubt:
Why blog about this?
This is a fair question that I get regularly. Basically, these individuals are asking why I am choosing to be so public and so permanent with my questions.
The answer here is two-fold. On the one hand, what other space is there? We are discouraged from doubting publicly and privately. We cannot speak about it in church, and there is no safe place outside of church to do so in a "sanctioned" way because doubt is viewed as a viral disability with pandemic potential among the purified flock of a ward or stake.
Similarly, many of us who doubt have no one to turn to privately. Our family and friends, even those with the best intentions, are unprepared, unwilling, or unequipped to engage with us. Additionally, we harbor our own self-doubts that we might "infect them" or "hurt them" with our pain and hurt. The result is a terrible loneliness, one that has driven far too many of my fellow doubters to extreme (and sadly, sometimes final) solutions.
Thus, the internet is a huge blessing. It is a way to connect with a huge number of other human beings with a vast array of opinion and experience. I have several Facebook groups where I gather strength and learn that I am not alone. I don't know where I would be without them (shout out especially to fellow ATFers!). But FB posts are not the place for long-form thought. Thus, a blog. A blog that continues the many connections made possible by the marvelous interwebs and allows me to express and put my thoughts into (semi-) coherent streams.
This blog has been everything I hoped for. It has sparked conversations, both reactive and supportive. It has given hope to some who were hopeless. It has pushed me to be honest and vulnerable in my perspective. Because a real struggle and part of my journey, I have no qualms with it being permanently etched into the internet databanks. Which leads to another very common question...
Why are you so angry in these posts?
This is a question that surprises me. I get it in about half the conversations I have. What's surprising is that the other half often ask the exact opposite: "How do you maintain a steady tone when talking about your personal struggles with doubt?"
I'm not scientist, but I'm going to extrapolate from the data that the issue here might not be my tone. It might be my readers.
On the one had, writing is notorious for being a minefield for authorial intention. Tone is perhaps the most difficult aspect of verbal conversation to convey. In the 18th century, Jonathan Swift wrote a little piece called "A Modest Proposal" in which he advocated the consumption of Irish babies as a means to steady the population growth and modulate famine in Swift's native Ireland. As a result, Swift was nearly pushed from the emerald shores of his homeland in a fit of spontaneous public outrage. Only problem was, "A Modest Proposal" was actually a biting satire aimed at shaming Britain's nonchalant attitude to Irish sufferings. Whoops.
If a writer as supremely talented as Swift could be misinterpreted, it's little wonder it happens in this blog. I am not angry. But I am anguished. I am hurt and emotional. I take great pains to eliminate irrational attacks or misguided diction from my posts. That doesn't mean I pretend to completely succeed in that endeavor, but I am trying.
So, instead, my question to you might be: What strikes you as angry? Does the truth as I perceive it not jive with the truth you see? Do you see anger as the tone that must necessarily drive such a divergent opinion?
Before you blame the blog writing (which of course, you can do shortly thereafter) is to question your interpretation and see if it could be interpreted in a different light. I think that's good advice for all written communication.
You may have noticed that I didn't do a whole like to answering these FAQs. At least, not as much as you might expect in a post entitled "FAQs". That's kind of on purpose, because in my next post, I plan to share more details of my personal journey to give context to my doubt. It's in the coming weeks' posts that I'll be able to share more specifically why I doubt and dissent and why, on occasion, I really am angry.
Two really helpful links I recommend before speaking to friends and family who doubt:
- A master class on listening taught by Feminist Mormon Housewives' inimitable fmhLisa: http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2014/03/leave-the-door-to-the-gospel-wide-open-when-a-loved-one-doubts/
- A fascinating recent reddit exchange in which an orthodox Mormon woman asks the exmormon subreddit for perspective in engaging with a sister she loves who is leaving the church: https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/40y0w3/im_mormon_i_believe_and_i_dont_want_to_debate_im/
Why blog about this?
This is a fair question that I get regularly. Basically, these individuals are asking why I am choosing to be so public and so permanent with my questions.
The answer here is two-fold. On the one hand, what other space is there? We are discouraged from doubting publicly and privately. We cannot speak about it in church, and there is no safe place outside of church to do so in a "sanctioned" way because doubt is viewed as a viral disability with pandemic potential among the purified flock of a ward or stake.
Similarly, many of us who doubt have no one to turn to privately. Our family and friends, even those with the best intentions, are unprepared, unwilling, or unequipped to engage with us. Additionally, we harbor our own self-doubts that we might "infect them" or "hurt them" with our pain and hurt. The result is a terrible loneliness, one that has driven far too many of my fellow doubters to extreme (and sadly, sometimes final) solutions.
Thus, the internet is a huge blessing. It is a way to connect with a huge number of other human beings with a vast array of opinion and experience. I have several Facebook groups where I gather strength and learn that I am not alone. I don't know where I would be without them (shout out especially to fellow ATFers!). But FB posts are not the place for long-form thought. Thus, a blog. A blog that continues the many connections made possible by the marvelous interwebs and allows me to express and put my thoughts into (semi-) coherent streams.
This blog has been everything I hoped for. It has sparked conversations, both reactive and supportive. It has given hope to some who were hopeless. It has pushed me to be honest and vulnerable in my perspective. Because a real struggle and part of my journey, I have no qualms with it being permanently etched into the internet databanks. Which leads to another very common question...
Why are you so angry in these posts?
This is a question that surprises me. I get it in about half the conversations I have. What's surprising is that the other half often ask the exact opposite: "How do you maintain a steady tone when talking about your personal struggles with doubt?"
I'm not scientist, but I'm going to extrapolate from the data that the issue here might not be my tone. It might be my readers.
On the one had, writing is notorious for being a minefield for authorial intention. Tone is perhaps the most difficult aspect of verbal conversation to convey. In the 18th century, Jonathan Swift wrote a little piece called "A Modest Proposal" in which he advocated the consumption of Irish babies as a means to steady the population growth and modulate famine in Swift's native Ireland. As a result, Swift was nearly pushed from the emerald shores of his homeland in a fit of spontaneous public outrage. Only problem was, "A Modest Proposal" was actually a biting satire aimed at shaming Britain's nonchalant attitude to Irish sufferings. Whoops.
If a writer as supremely talented as Swift could be misinterpreted, it's little wonder it happens in this blog. I am not angry. But I am anguished. I am hurt and emotional. I take great pains to eliminate irrational attacks or misguided diction from my posts. That doesn't mean I pretend to completely succeed in that endeavor, but I am trying.
So, instead, my question to you might be: What strikes you as angry? Does the truth as I perceive it not jive with the truth you see? Do you see anger as the tone that must necessarily drive such a divergent opinion?
Before you blame the blog writing (which of course, you can do shortly thereafter) is to question your interpretation and see if it could be interpreted in a different light. I think that's good advice for all written communication.
You may have noticed that I didn't do a whole like to answering these FAQs. At least, not as much as you might expect in a post entitled "FAQs". That's kind of on purpose, because in my next post, I plan to share more details of my personal journey to give context to my doubt. It's in the coming weeks' posts that I'll be able to share more specifically why I doubt and dissent and why, on occasion, I really am angry.
Hi Dave. The suggestion I am going to put forward here, please know that it is only out of love and is based purely on my own experiences. It is not a criticism of you, and if anything it may be a criticism of the way many of us Latter-day Saints have been taught to approach questions of Faith. It's not just you and it's not just this issue that gets a "why don't you just follow the prophet" response from other members of this church. It is a very old response to any question about the "inspiredness" of leaders of the church. I feel/have discovered that often times the problem is not one of willingness to follow the prophet; but lack of not knowing Jesus. We are sometimes prophet-crazy in this church, at the expense of diverting our focus from his boss. Some of the most faithful (in the sense of doing things "right" without questioning) seem to understand Him or know Him less than your typical primary kid. I will follow the prophet so long as the prophetic counsel is in-line with my, very real, experiences with Christ. This is a healthier approach than just assuming that everything that comes out of Salt Lake is the unquestionable will of God (which I'm sure you know ;) As we get to know Christ through the scriptures, prayer, the temple, personal revelation etc. his commandments and his prophets' become easier to understand because they "fit" with Christ's personality and typical method of dealing with us humans. I feel that any scripture study done with the intent of getting to know the kind of being that Jesus is will be more helpful (and ultimately more authoritative) at understanding church policies, the prophet, and everything else. It also gives more clarity when something in the church may be amiss. I rarely question one's obedience or motives when these questions arise because I have had so many questions myself in the past where obedience was not the issue, in fact in most cases, believing (and all the responsibilities associated therewith) is the easy way out considering my temple marriage and the fact that practically every friend I have is in this church. I don't want to mention my experience and perspective on this issue, but I feel that if you focus your life more on getting to know Christ and less on having to follow the prophet or understanding the prophet, it will be easier to make peace with this issue, or you may find that your issue is with God and not his prophet. This should not be overly alarming though, nearly everyone, whether they like to admit it or not, has been angry with God about something, and by now I'm sure He's used to it. He's here for us anyway. I hope you are able to re-find your faith through all of this and that you are able to make peace with it, regardless of what your experiences may be up to this point. Sorry for the anonymity we haven't spoken in years and this seems like a weird time to start.
ReplyDeletetl;dr- get to know Jesus before you worry about His prophets; you may actually be upset with Him, or maybe not.
I should consider writing my own blog. I don't want to overstep my welcome into yours, but I am encouraged by the tone and example that you set as you work through your concerns.
ReplyDeleteLast night our stake held a priesthood leadership meeting. Much excellent counsel was received; however, the extended closing thoughts were disappointing. As I consider how pervasive the ideas presented seem to be becoming in the Church, I too am grateful for Internet forums where voice is permissible.
We were told that many people have been sending messages to our stake president to communicate problems with local leadership. This, we were told, was a "sin." In fact, we were told that this sin makes us unworthy of the temple recommends we hold as it proves that we are not sustaining our leaders. I have not done this myself, after having tried and failed to bring some problems to light eight or nine years ago. I do not doubt that some of what is communicated is trivial and some may be issues that should be addressed face-to-face. The fact remains, however, that problems like abuse, teaching of false doctrine, and diverting church funds to non-approved activities do exist. Based on my own experience, if we communicate these issues to the general level, our concerns are sent back to the stake. Yet, if it is a sin to communicate concerns with stake leadership there remains no process to address serious error. The organization can drift away from health and those who see it happening have no chance of participating in healing. Our hope remains in direct intervention from the Savior as we have nowhere else to go.
We were also reminded last night that the keys of the priesthood entitle one to revelation and that this revelation cannot be explained at times. The one holding the keys will do what they "feel is right," and that alone is sufficient to substantiate the validity of their decisions. As I mentioned previously, I have seen clear instances where decisions by local leadership were at odds with general leadership and scripture. Yet, according to this version of our doctrine, if a local leader holding keys feels it is right then it is right.
Another point worthy of note is that this doctrine is only being applied to the bishop or the stake president. Aaronic priesthood presidents also have keys. If a young man were to counsel the ward on the basis of his keys the chances of his thoughts being ignored or corrected would be quite high. He would, after all, "Be just a young man with no experience who is acting outside the limits of his authority." This could be true, but if that is so then the same safeguard should also apply to bishops and stake presidents. Yes, they have keys. But, no they are not always correct, and they can use their positions to act outside the limits of their authority causing real harm to faithful people in the process.
I know that this is not directly connected to the policy of exclusion that has caused anguish for so many. Your struggle has brought back to the surface my own; struggles that seem to be related. I hope I haven't detracted from your story as I share a bit of my own here. I admire you and your family very much. Perhaps someday I'll have the courage to write as you do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Dave,
ReplyDeleteWe were never good friends or anything (I think we were just in the same BYU ward once) but I just want to offer a word of encouragement. I was in the same boat as you a few years back, and I finally made the decision to leave the church. This wasn't an easy process because my whole immediate family and most of my extended family are members too. I'm glad you're being so open and communicative about your doubts. It's really refreshing to see real discussion about real problems in the church and the difficulties in dealing with those problems as a church member. I'm much worse at expressing myself, so I didn't talk about my doubts as openly, except with my wife, who was going through the same thing with me. I just want to encourage you to keep sharing, and know that things will work out whichever way you choose to go from here. One of my family members says she has had real, serious doubts about doctrinal things that took her years to come to terms with in her head, so I think there’s a way back if that is what you want. There’s no way to quantify whether she doubted “as much” as you or I (but I would guess no), but she is now very happy and strong in the church. On the other hand, things worked out fine for me leaving the church as well. My family members will always think I’ve made a terrible decision and will keep praying for me to “see the light”, but they love me and have done a very good job of not openly judging me or bearing their testimony at me once it was clear that I had definitely left the church. I feel much more at peace with myself now that I don’t have to continually try to reassure myself that all the negative teachings of the church will magically make sense after I die, or somehow try to wrap my head around the paradox that the church is perfect while its leaders and their teachings are not. Keep up the open discussions, and good luck, whatever you choose.
-Ben Lindsay
Hi Dave -
ReplyDeleteThanks for this blog. I really enjoy reading it in general. You raise a lot of good questions, and I enjoy noodling over them.
I don't have a response or anything in particular to contribute - other than thank you for taking the time to ponder, to search, and to ask deep questions. Curiosity is a gift, and I still believe that everyone who searches eventually finds answers. Maybe they are different than everyone else's answers - but that in some ways makes them more special.
Keep writing. Keep sharing. Keep looking. It's noticed and appreciated.
~An insignificant English major