Spiritual Discussion Group

Do you Believe in Soul Mates?

2007-03-07T01:46:00.000-08:00

Some of you are married, some of you engaged, some of you searching. And all of you are romantics at heart.

Do you believe in soul mates?

A way to heal

2006-09-28T02:44:00.000-07:00

What makes a mother get to the point where all she can say about her daughter is "we learned we have to trust the Lord in our mistakes"?

She's a good mother, and I am a good daughter. So how can it get to the point where her life history reports only that I'm a mistake? She's still alive... there is still time to change history.

When she goes to church on Sundays, she hears people from the pulpit saying "there is no greater joy than seeing all your children in the temple" or something very similar. In fact, she herself used to be one to speak of how joyful it was to have one hundred percent success with righteous children. Of course, my parents were never so proud as to take credit for the righteousness of their children (publicly anyhow). No, it was their faithfulness to church teachings like Family Home Evening, and blessings, that led to the perfect family.

I have never had the desire to rebel. Even when I disagreed with my parents, rebellion has never been an action that has crossed my mind. I didn't want to make them unhappy. The rules made sense. My parents were great examples and I enjoyed being brought up by them. I would try to show my love not only through my words, but through my actions. I wouldn't do things that would disappoint them, if I could help it. In fact, acting in a way that would disappoint my parents was the biggest cause of any guilt I've ever experienced and had to overcome.

My parents believe that there are certain actions we must choose to take in this life in order to be "exalted" in the next. These include baptism into the right church, and marriage in the right way. Being "sealed" in the temple is not just between husband and wife - it's a bond between entire families. A sealed family will be together eternally, in the "highest degree of glory." You can perform these rites, and still fall short of these eternal blessings if you don't live the proper moral life. However, the reverse is not true. You can live a proper, moral life, but if you choose not to perform these rites, you are damned - cut short of eternal progression and the opportunity to remain together.

Despite the best efforts of my parents, I have grown into an adult who does not share their religious beliefs. I do not believe in the necessity of ritual in this life to progress to a higher afterlife. As much as I would like to please my parents, I also must live an authentic life, and therefore cannot ascribe to a religion to appease my family. Now, no matter how moral my actions are, they can never be good enough to "save my soul."

Now, every time my parents hear someone say "there is no greater joy than..." they feel the painful sting of having a child who has made the choice to abandon them eternally.
Every time they hear that family is central to their religion, they will ache with pain.
Every time they hear the promise that if they "train up a child in the way he should go . . . when he is old he will not depart from it" they wonder what they did wrong.

It's guilt.
They feel responsible for my agency.
It's how I know that although they would not admit a sense of ownership over my "righteous" behavior, they cannot help but feel guilt and ownership for my lack of it.
I have become the black sheep. The prodigal. The mistake.

My parents also believe in a God who is a spiritual Father to all who live on this planet. What reigned supreme in the plan for our existence was to give agency to his children, the ability to choose their own way. They believe this God is perfect. They believe this God loves ALL his children, even those who "go astray."

My parents raised us to be "independent adults, not dependent children." In other words, they wanted us to be able to think for ourselves, and make our own choices. They chose to give us agency.

Following the example of a God they believe to be perfect, I hope one day they will be able to look beyond "their mistake" and simply love. Forgiving themselves will be the only way we can heal the relationship that religious belief has severed.

The Universe is Still Alive

2006-06-19T19:18:00.000-07:00

I didn't really get any answers from this post; maybe that's because no one wanted to offer any, but I'd still like some, so I'm re-posting it. Maybe this will cheer people up a little bit.

James and I have been talking a lot about spiritual fulfillment lately.

We both don't get all our spiritual needs met at church. So where do we pick up the slack?

James gets many of his spiritual needs met helping people who need it; that's everyday work for him. Oh, I remember helping people! My needs used to get met at Northwest, where I would have wonderful spiritual experiences regularly. The credit union.... not so much. I've been gardening more, which feels wonderful, and spending more quiet moments alone or with trees, but still, my spirit needs fuel. *sigh*

So, my question is: Where are you getting your spiritual needs met?

I've Made a Change!!!

2006-06-10T23:14:00.000-07:00

I just went ahead and did it! If you disagree, please let me know, please say I shouldn't have changed the settings and that I had not the right...

No more anonymous posts. My reasoning is this: I think this blog used to have a lot of potential, but frankly I find the conversations lacking. I also suggest to the group to consider having the comment settings as "only registered members" as this might allow us to engage in conversation that is productive and thought-producing.

Love your Neighbor

2006-05-31T13:36:00.000-07:00

So most of you know that I don't really attend church these days. I learned that Sunday, a letter was read over the pulpit in all LDS wards around the country asking members to write their Senators urging them to support the Federal Marriage Amendment Act. The LDS church has also joined the Christian Coalition in a signed statement of support.

I can't find the words to say exactly how I feel about this. It saddens me. If I hadn't chosen to stop going to church by this time, this would have been very strong motivation to stop.

I agree with what this blogger has to say on the matter, and feel they say it very well:
Exponent II: Making Sense of Sunday

The Universe is Alive

2006-05-31T09:16:00.000-07:00

James and I have been talking a lot about spiritual fulfillment lately.

We both don't get all our spiritual needs met at church. So where do we pick up the slack?

James gets many of his spiritual needs met helping people who need it; that's everyday work for him. Oh, I remember helping people! My needs used to get met at Northwest, where I would have wonderful spiritual experiences regularly. The credit union.... not so much. I've been gardening more, which feels wonderful, and spending more quiet moments alone or with trees, but still, my spirit needs fuel. *sigh*

So, my question is: Where are you getting your spiritual needs met?

Dusting it Off

2006-04-27T13:42:00.000-07:00

This blog has fallen asleep. I'm wondering if it's just because we're busy, if you all have other great avenues for spiritual discussion, or if we've become spiritually dusty. Or it could be something else all together.

I've been thinking about blessings. I loved the blessing I had before I gave birth, and felt its strength while in labor.

Now, my baby is very sick. He's already been to the doctor once, but we don't really know what to do for him. He's in so much pain, it breaks my heart.

I'm wondering what kind of faith I have in blessings right now. Do I have enough faith in healing to bless my baby, or is my faith so shaped by past experience that I will require an LDS priesthood holder to bless him? I don't know. I DO have faith in blessings... I've been healed, and I have witnessed miraculous things. I believe the power comes from a unity of spirit, as well as faith - in this case the ability to convince our own minds that we can heal. Our minds are amazingly powerful tools, often under-used.

How do I develop the strength of mind to send healing peace to my son?

Conference~!

2006-04-09T09:25:00.000-07:00

Wow!

It was good.

I am Mormon all over again for 6 months.

I hear that Pres. Hinckley called out Utah for racism in Priesthood session!

He was really brilliant and beautiful in the Sunday session...wow...I love him. He's a hero to look up to...I cried and cried while he was speaking...sad to think of him leaving us soon.

What did you love in Conference?

I really believed President Hinckley when he described the Restoration...for some reason it was very powerful for me this time...like he and I were just in a room together and he was telling me this story, one on one...the God of the Universe actually appeared to the boy in a grove of trees, in broad daylight, it actually happened...I don't know what happened this time out of all the times I have heard this...but wow...I heard him this time...a message he spoke a week ago, on another continent, and I felt the power of it still...like we were in a hallway and the words travelled down the corridor and entered me.

And I also got that Jesus is the Father and brother that I've always wanted...a man to put his arm around me...telling me I'm precious and protected...ready to defend me and lift me up at any time that I need him...I just felt that and got excited...

I was really shining and happy today....listening to good men and women say hopeful and shining things for 4 hours, surrounded by friends and springtime...

Love Lumina

Plant a Seed

2006-02-28T16:18:00.000-08:00

Sunday I had a "Mother's Blessing." I didn't call it a Blessingway, what has become a more and more popular event these days for Mother's-to-be... Blessingways originated in part from Navajo Traditions of Honoring the new Mother for this journey/transition. Rather than drawing on these traditions, I looked into my own roots, and learned of Mother's Blessings that used to be a very common occurrence among LDS women. They were not done the same way blessings are usually done in the LDS church today - the biggest difference is that they were most often given BY women, not priesthood holders. They didn't call on priesthood authority or anything, but they did perform a very intimate woman-to-woman ritual.

I took aspects of this tradition, and added in my own personalization for the evening, and had a very beautiful, small, and intimate blessing.

BUT - there was one way any who wants to can choose to participate, still. I ended the evening by presenting those who attended with what I called a "gift of life." I gave them each a pot of soil, and two sunflower seeds (planters, not eaters). I asked everyone to wait to plant the seed until they either heard I had gone into labor, or that I've given birth.

You too can plant a seed to celebrate a new life.

Nothing is more symbolic of life than a seed. When I handed them out I told people that not every seed grows. If you plant your seed, and you get nothing, I said, please use the experience to honor those who wish to be mothers and aren't... either for lack of Father, or lack of ability. In this I especially want to honor my sister Melissa and brother Aaron who wish to be parents and would be wonderful parents, but have not yet had been blessed with a child.

Sometimes a seed will germinate, even sprout, but then not survive - even when conditions are seemingly right. If this happens, use it to honor those who lose their children young, either through miscarriage or other complications. I have a dear college friend who would have also been due in March and lost her baby. I especially wanted to honor you, Shannon, in this.

Sometimes, a seed grows and flourishes. I gave sunflowers because their seed, their potential to sprout new life again, is so readily seen. Celebrating life eternal, it's potential, it's gift.

I'm planting sunflowers today in honor of another new life... my Nephew Elijah was born this morning.

purely sociological

2006-02-08T15:18:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, I sat on my porch, listened to the birds, and felt the warm sun on my skin. It was holy. I don't appreciate nature often enough, and I know this because the experience felt refreshing and new.
It makes me wonder, from a purely sociological standpoint...
If man "created" religion and gods to explain things like thunderstorms and why the sun moves and why things grow in the spring, and if science has solved these mysteries, and we spend more time in buildings and air-conditioning than we do walking in the raw forest... then would man have "created" gods if we were brought into the world with the understanding of these things beforehand? Say, for instance, the world has always existed as it is now, with buildings and science books, and we were brought into consciousness, would we instinctively create gods and rituals? Why would we, if we did?

Thoughts? Comments?

Speaking of Ritual

2006-02-06T13:00:00.000-08:00

I am soon going to go through three rituals; two relatively voluntary, and one the hugest sacred rite of passage that is the cause of the continuation of humanity itself.

The first will be a tradition Baby Shower, an American ritual which became popular soon after World War I. It is most often baby-centered, commercially acted - with accompanying "Ooooo's," and "Oohhhh's" - and silly-game enacted. I did not want a wedding shower for this reason, and I've never been comfortable being the center of attention when that attention is manifest in commercialism (in other words, getting lots of stuff). But, in this case, it makes some practical sense. We don't have much money, we don't have much baby stuff, and feeling a bit isolated from many of my friends these days - a great excuse to be surrounded by people just waiting to "Ooo" and "Ohhh" this baby that will soon move from in-belly to in-arms.

The second is becoming more popular, but still not a widespread movement... still considered a bit granola. It's unfortunate that in most all of it's manifestations, it's a revival of what used to be practiced in many cultures, including LDS culture. I am organizing a Mother's Blessing for myself, also known as a "Blessingway."

In Navajo tradition, they would perform a ceremony celebrating this rite of passage from maidenhood to motherhood, and honoring the woman for her part in increasing the tribe.

In the early days of the LDS church, women would gather before a woman was going to give birth and perform a washing and anointing specific to this same rite of passage, giving the mother strength... woman to woman, mother to mother, priestess to priestess. This was not done underground, either. It was openly discussed in Relief Society meetings, and endorsed and encouraged by Joseph Smith. During the days of women's suffrage, and even more so during the campaign for the ERA, the hierarchy in the church decided this blurred the lines too much between male-centered priesthood sanctioned activity and what was not. This empowering ritual was removed from mainstream, and very little known today. See http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/searchable/Issue29.asp for more details. I plan on orchestrating a blessing for myself; a mixture of my religious cultural heritage (LDS) and the spiritual nature of art. Again, I don't think this type of ritual is necessary, but I look forward to creating a personal ritual to speak to my soul and empower me in this life-changing, life-creating step I'm about to take. Third, I will be giving birth. This is something that is done in every culture, in every animal, throughout this planet. This could be called a ritual, and so far the only one I can logic a justification for it being the same. This is the only ritual I can observe that happens naturally in the animal kingdom as well as humanity. It is natural, part of the original created/creative process. Of course, it does get personalized and culturalized... in the US, it becomes a medical condition - treated with hospitals, tests and scans and even surgical procedures... not to mention a bundle load of money. 1 in 4 hospital births in the US are cesarian, and the numbers are rising sharply. In Turkey, it is up around 90%. In some cultures, women are sent into "confinement" where they are kept from men, but mothered by the entire community. In some cultures, it's treated like nothing special, except for a day when the woman goes off by herself to deliver. In some, it is a huge celebration of womanhood, from early pregnancy all the way through early childhood. Birth ritual, here I come!

Quakers

2006-01-26T13:13:00.000-08:00

I've always been interested in religions. I love to read the scriptures and holy texts of the world.
I often get fascinated by a particular practice and study it for a while.

After some discussions on some of my "issues" with the LDS church, many people have told me to look into "The Society of Friends" aka Quakers.

Here are some of their standard beliefs that I agree with. They call them testimonies. (I found these from the "Religious Tolerance" link on the right.)

	"Every man and woman has direct access to God; no priestly class or "steeple houses" (churches) are needed" *Not to say there is no value in gathering together and meeting as a community. Also, there is no preacher "in charge" of what happens at their gatherings. Each individual acts "as guided by the spirit."
	"Every person - male or female, slave or free is of equal worth" *Regardless of race, sexuality, intelligence, etc. Every person deserves equal dignity.
	"There is no need in one's religious life for elaborate ceremonies, rituals, gowns, creeds, dogma, or other "empty forms." *One of my original "issues" with the church. An absolute NEED to go through a ritual to gain Eternal Life doesn't make logical sense to me. At the same time, I do see beauty in ritual, just not necessity.
"	Following the inward light would lead to spiritual development and towards individual perfection." *It our own journey.

I have not yet attended a Quaker meeting, but I plan to.

Disclaimer: I am not looking for a replacement for my LDS practice, as much as I am continuing my search. I doubt the search will ever stop. I can't remember who it was, but I believe it is a Buddhist saying that goes along the lines of "the only ones you should be skeptical of are those who claim to know." I don't believe knowledge is stagnant.

Staying true

2006-01-25T09:51:00.000-08:00

Last spring, after a family reunion, I was discussing the church with my sister, Ginny, and her husband, Craig. They are not members, although my sister grew up in the church. Her husband has deep respect for members, and they are both very spiritual... although their beliefs do not usually coincide with church teachings.
After a heated discussion with my oldest (and very apostate) brother, Ginny and Craig wanted to know why I choose to be a member of a church that I question and disagree with. I talked about my faith, and how I don't think I'll ever leave the church... and Craig said something that has stuck with me. He said, "It's the people who question and disagree with parts of their religion, but remain faithful to it, that I respect the most. That takes work. It's easy to be a member of something if you believe everything about it." Kristin said something that ties it all together nicely, and I thank her for that:

"For people who still believe, to step outside the paradox by leaving the church is not a viable option, because they aren’t being true to their belief. It is for these people that finding a resolution within the paradox is necessary. I think that the people who stay in the church because of their belief and try to catalyze changes because they think the status quo is not right are people who are acting with the utmost integrity."

So I thank you, Kristin, and I thank Craig and Ginny, for those words.

Race

2006-01-22T11:57:00.000-08:00

I think that the issue of racism is important enough to justify continued discussion. Let me address some of the big questions:Is black skin a mark of God's curse on Cain for killing Abel? If so, should all generations be cursed for the actions of an ancestor?

Since it is such a sensitive issue, there isn't even complete agreement among scientists about the 'scientific cause' of differences in skin color. It seems reasonable to believe that people with dark skin are better equipeed to live in areas that receive more ultraviolet light. Some argue that sexual selection (differing concepts of beauty) is the most important factors when it comes to skin and hair color. However, whether natural or sexual selection be the cause, it does not appear that black skin arose seven thousand years ago as a result of a divine curse.

Still, the civilizations that eventually came to dominate and colonize the world mostly consisted of rather fair skinned people. A book I am reading argues (and quite convincingly) that the reason for this is mostly due to the fauna and flora available to those groups who were able to make the quickest and most successful transition from hunter-gathere to agricultural societies. In other words, location was more important than race.It seems as if there is no room for God in any of these theories. This is a particular instance of the general question of whether the creation (or history) requires an "intelligent design".

Does God participate in history, or are the religious accounts simply myths that serve some ancient cultural function?I will not attempt to answer this broader question except to say that science will always tend to eliminate the need to rely on miraculous explanations, but the diminishing need for explanatory myths does not prove the absence of anything divine. I maintain a personal faith in the existence of God for non-scientific reasons, but I also believe in the validity of science. The idea that God interracts with mankind is central to my belief, so I will take that as an assumption while making my points.

There is a long history of enmity between socieities (and individuals) that have different means of food production. A recent example is represented in the play Oklahoma, where farmers and ranchers can't get along. Cain and Able have often (and perhaps originally) been used as symbols of the conflict between settled agriculturalists and nomadic hunter-gatherers (or herders). It may not have been clear seven thousand years ago that those societies with the most highly developed agriculture would eventually dominate and in many cases enslave those societies that continued to rely on hunting, gathering, and inefficient agriculture, but by now this should be readily apparent.Therefore, using the terms "blessing" and "curse" in a purely secular way, it can be said that highly developed agriculture was a blessing, and being nomadic was a curse. These blessings and curses were not limited to one generation. In fact, to understand them we must look at the whole course of history.

If we suppose that this dichotomy was known by God previous to the creation of Earth, then it is not unreasonable to say that God blessed certain people with agriculture and cursed others with a nomadic lifestyle. Of course, in this case the curse is more the lack of a blessing, since every society as far as we know started out in hunter-gatherer mode. The transition was just being made by the time the story in Genesis is supposed to have happened.It also so appears that the societies that were blessed with agriculture also happen to have fairer skin than many of the societies that they eventually subjugated. But I think that the question of skin color is of little importance in determining which societies eventually came to dominate. Both skin color and agricultural development are correlated to a large degree with the location where the societies were located, but one had a more direct impact on the result when the different groups came into conflicts.

So let us suppose that God planned all of this. Why would he do so? Why would he bless some people and not others? This question is equivalent to asking why he would let some societies develop in equatorial regions and others in Mediterranean climates with plenty of domesticable plants and animals. But to state it like that almost obviates the question if you believe God acts within the bounds of natural law. He created it like that because differences in climate are inevitable when creating a planet suitable for human life, and differences in climate will inevitably lead to differences in food production, which in turn lead to different rates of technological and societal development. The "blessings" and "curses" that result are very real, as anyone who has ever been subjugated to a more advanced society will tell you. They are also, by their very nature, passed on from one generation to another.

So then our question becomes: are these physical differences due to moral or spiritual gradations that existed prior to creation, or that were manifested in such things as the murder of Abel? Or in other words, did God give the best spirits His best real estate and the ancestry with the most material advantage? I think it would be ridiculous to claim that every member of a powerful Western society was of higher moral caliber than every member of a less developed society. It is clearly not true. But is there a statistical difference?

I think that the question would be a bit humorous if it were not for the fact people have taken some very strong opinions and done some very terrible things based on those opinion. It is one of the key questions underlying racism. However, it is not the key question when considering the doctrine of foreordination. Trouble arises when people fail to see the difference. So what is the difference?

The question underlying foreordination is whether God chooses certain spirits and places them on Earth in a way that He sees fit in order to achieve His ends. In some cases this might involve placing them in societies which are, or are destined to become, the dominant soceities in the world.

Is it unreasonable to believe that God chose Abraham and Moses and placed them smack in the middle of the fertile crescent at a time when human culture was just beginning to develop because He knew which areas on Earth were going to be the first to develop agriculture and whose cultures would eventually come to dominate the whole world?

Is it unreasonable to believe that "unto whom much is given, much is required..." so that those who are born into powerful societies have special responsibilities to minister unto those who have been born into less fortunate circumstances?

If you believe in God, such things are not so unreasonable. So to be honest, I think it is largely true that the black races were cursed to be "servants of servants" for generation after generation. That is just a restatement of history. I also think it is entirely possible that there was an historical person named Cain who killed his brother and (perhaps for this reason) rejected the sedentary lifestyle, thereby bringing the curse of eventual subjugation upon all of his offspring. Of course I am not sure that the story is literally true in its entirety, or whether he was actually black, or whether his offspring became associated through intermarriage with another nomadic people, etc. An answer to such questions exists, but I am not sure it is critical to my understanding of Earth's history or God's Plan.

Edit -

2006-01-20T13:21:00.000-08:00

Kristin, et. al -
I've given you all administrative privileges, so now, you should be able to edit your comments.
Please, do not go crazy changing settings, do not delete others' comments without permissions, changing settings, etc. These requests seem obvious, but I thought I'd err on the safer side.

Apology

2006-01-18T08:21:00.000-08:00

I think it is important for someone to present a rational perspective in answer to the concerns presented by Paul in his last post. Although my perspective is not necessarily "authoritative", I believe that there are points which need to be made in response.

Before I attempt to answer any of the individual concerns, however, I would like to address an implication that seemed to be one of the themes of the post. Namely, that the church should change its perspective on issues such as homosexuality, the historical nature of the book of Mormon, and the idea that church policies are guided by revelation (as opposed to, for example, the racist tendencies of Brigham Young). Perhaps I misunderstood what you were advocating, but it seems apparent to me that certain issues, including some of those mentioned, are so critical to the belief system of the church that it would be impossible to change them while still maintaining that "the Church is true". Of course, this has not prevented a great many churches from abandoning any sort of literal belief system. But if you want a church that believes that the Book of Mormon is a myth, that there is no literal priesthood authority/revelation, and a host of other more politically correct ideas you would be better served to seek another church than to wish changes upon the existing one.

Having said that, I do not believe that the issues you raised are indefensible. Let us begin with DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon. I agree that given our current understanding there is no preponderance of DNA evidence that would provide a scientific verfication of the theory that inhabitants of the New World emigrated from Israel. In fact, I haven't seen any evidence to that effect. However, it is important to point out that a lack of proof is not logically equivalent to a proof of the opposite. This is critical because most of the people who believe the Book of Mormon to be a literal account do not justify this belief based on DNA evidence to begin with. I would say that the justification has more to do with personal spiritual experiences that lead them to believe the account of Joseph Smith that he was visited by angels and led to discover gold plates. There are also witnesses who testified to the existence of the gold plates. So let us suppose for a moment that the testimony of these witnesses were sufficient proof to believe in the literal nature of the Book of Mormon. There would be no inconsistency in believing that such proof exists and also believing that DNA proof was not available. Surely, if DNA proof were evident it would be a lot easier to believe the other, but again, a lack of proof does not constitute a disproof. The Book of Mormon also explicitly says that those most likely to carry the original DNA markers (the Nephites) were essentially destroyed. It does not explicitly say that the only inhabitants of the New World were of Israelite descent. Still, the most important point is that if you have accepted the truth of the BOM for other reasons, the DNA evidence does not force a contradiction.

The issue of blacks receiving the priesthood is a very sensitive one, but I think your representation of the issue has been less than fair. First of all, one of the basic tenets of the gospel is the concept of foreordination. These days it is politically incorrect to say that any race has any special abilities or any special relationship to God, but the Bible is pretty clear about the concept of a chosen people. Also, it just so happens that the chosen people of the the Bible, the Jews, are demonstrably "chosen" in at least one very important way. Namely, they have an average IQ that is significantly higher than the rest of the population. Am I a racist for saying this? Perhaps, but it is a simple fact. That there are racial differences is a scientific fact. That God gives certain responsibilities and prerogatives to certain groups of people is a Biblical "fact". It is also true that the responsibilities that people assume within a society are to a large part determined by the level to which that society has advanced. For example, I would argue (and there is siginificant evidence to support) the idea that in many socieites, especially those at certain levels of development, the practice of polygamy is beneficial. I would also argue that given certain circumstances, a caste system such as existed in India is advantageous. Since God is responsible for the welfare of the whole race and not just each individual it is reasonable to assume that an institution which is beneficial on the whole might have His sanction.

When the church was established, a lot of effort was put forth to try and mimic the organization of the early church. Also, people had their own ideas of what was acceptable given their own social context. I do not believe that God micro-managed the church in every way. I believe that some things could have been done better. However, I also believe that there was Biblical justification for the development of the institutions as they stood (if we accept that it was taken as fact that the black races were not descendents of Israel, and were still subject to a "curse" inherited from their ancestors). I agree that not all of the institutions had their beginnings in the actions of Joseph Smith. But Jospeh Smith was never seen as God. He was seen as the first prophet of the modern age. There was prudence in the decision of subsequent prophets to wait until they felt they had explicit authorization from God to extend the priesthood to blacks if for no other reason than they felt that the job of a prophet is to act in God's name and not just make politically correct decisions.

What I am advocating is that the morality of social institutions changes with the development of society. This may sound like "moral relativism", and in a sense it most certainly is. But by nature (especially when it comes to modern physics) I often fall in the camp of the relativists. In saying this, I would also like to point out that it creates a strong possibility of finding common ground on many issues. I think that in certain ways the church will, and should change. I think everyone would agree that it is better that blacks have the priesthood. I simply disagree with the idea that there was never any justification for racial, or gender, distinctions within the church. I adhere to the concept of spiritual and physical foreordination. I think that the house of Israel is a chosen people and that God literally placed certain people in certain ancestral relation to each other for a reason. A correlary of this is that certain people are not "chosen" in the same sense. But bitterness over not being "chosen" for whatever purpose you wish to be is the motivation for the first and many subsequent spiritual rebellions.

The final comment that I would like to make is that to believe in a religion is always going to require a leap of faith. This means that we are going to have to make a hard decision. On one side is always going to be what seems to be a preponderance of physical evidence that fails to justify belief. On the other side is going to be a desire to believe. It is the responsibility of the church to be true to the central tenets of faith that best represent our spiritual desire. It is not the responsibility of the church bend in the face of political pressure or a lack of scientific confirmation. If guided by the Spirit, this will not necessarily lead to physical conflicts such as the Catholic persecution of Galileo, since the Spirit has no need to get defensive about advances in science. However, I think that internal conflicts are inevitable, and a necessary part of our growth.

The Paradox of Obedience and Integrity

2006-01-16T22:57:00.000-08:00

I apologize for the length of this post. My cork has finally popped. I have been avoiding discussing many of these issues and questions for some time for fear of offending people or being branded an anti-Mormon. Recent discussions on this blog have increased my confidence in sharing my concerns; I feel like I can air my feelings and ideas and that they can be positive food for thought for the readers here.

Recently, my friend Skye gave me an article, “OBEDIENCE, INTEGRITY, AND THE PARADOX OF SELFHOOD”, reprinted in short in Sunstone magazine: http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/searchable/Issue39.asp, which discusses the paradox of obedience and personal integrity. The article was thought provoking for me since my reasons for leaving the Church have to do with issues of personal integrity.

The author, Eugene England, responds to an address by Richard Cummings, President of the Association of Mormon Letters, that speaks of

"a creeping identity crisis which is gnawing at the very heart of Mormondom," what he called "the clash between institutional authority and individual integrity and between the imperative of blind obedience and the claims of reasoned belief." He spoke of a problem which is for many the most anguishing in Mormon experience-that is, the struggle to be true to self despite pressures to obey, to conform, or to overlook what seem to be "clear fallacies or even tyrannies in the strictly authoritarian pattern" and then to maintain our integrity in the face of misunderstanding, hostility, even ostracism from our brothers and sisters and disciplinary action from those in authority over us in the Church.

England responds:

“That issue is indeed central to Mormon experience and literature but in ways that are in my view less troubling and at the same time more challenging than Cummings suggested.  He saw the problem, at least in terms of our own decisions, as essentially a simple one, though the consequences might be difficult and complex: Clearly we are to choose individually reasoned belief over blind obedience, the honor of self over the demands of the group.
     I sometimes wish the problem were that simple, with the enemies clearly identified and all lined up together and the main challenge being to attack or at least survive them.  At other times I am grateful that, in fact, the issue is a genuine paradox, a difficult but fruitful condition of existence, a source of the struggle but also of the supreme joy of growth in this universe in which "there must needs be opposition in all things."
     I believe the tension should not be resolved in favor of one or the other of those conflicting values.  Rather, what Cummings called the Mormon identity crisis will, I hope, continue-successfully transcended, of course, by each of us in our own way but in ways which maintain both obedience and integrity as we work out our salvation in fear and trembling and as we try to write and appreciate Mormon literature.”

I hope you will take the time to read the entire article using the link above (you have to scroll down through the articles until you find England’s).

England’s conclusion is that rather than seeing the problem as a dichotomy where we have to choose blind obedience or become completely autonomous, possibly leaving the Church, we should see it as an acceptable paradox where there is another choice. He illustrates this through the issue of the denial of the priesthood to blacks.

“…the modern Abrahamic test for Mormons, the denial of priesthood to the blacks.  In that test God, through his servants, asked us not only to sacrifice our political and social ideals and the understanding and the good will of our colleagues and friends, but he seemed to ask us to sacrifice the very essence of his own teachings to us.  To many it appeared necessary to deny our Mormon understanding of the divine potential of every human being and to compromise our higher ethical vision of possible exaltation for all people through unrestricted progression-concepts that are among the most attractive and vital features of our Mormon faith.
     There were two groups who failed the test, I believe: There were those who thoughtlessly accepted the practice or rationalized the mystery away by finding some way to blame the blacks because of their supposed lineage or invented pre-existent mistakes.  On the other hand, there were those who emotionally opted for their own personal vision, rejected the authority of the Church and loyalty to their community, and blamed Brigham Young or the current prophet or other supposedly racist Mormons, never themselves.  My personal hero from that time is President Hugh B. Brown, who wrote the First Presidency message of 1969 that urged all Mormons to pray (and thus prepare)" that all of the blessings of the Gospel become available to men of faith everywhere," which could only mean when blacks would be given the priesthood.

Neither of the groups I mentioned that failed the test-whether conservatives or liberals-followed that suggestion to pray for a change, and thus they did not find a resolution of the paradox of obedience and integrity through their personal preparation nor did they help God prepare us to live the higher law of priesthood for all.”

Ultimately, his solution of praying for resolution of the issues that breach our personal integrity does not satisfy me. The idea that the people that rejected the authority of the Church failed the test because they didn’t help God say it was OK for everyone to hold the priesthood is ridiculous to me. Does God need our help to establish his doctrine? If God knows our heart and mind, why is it necessary for him to test us in this way?

If the leaders at the time that blacks were forbidden the priesthood were truly inspired, why would they have taken away that privilege (Joseph Smith ordained an African American man to the position of an Elder in 1836) only to give it back in 1978? The idea that God needs to test us in this way is full of deceit. It isn’t rational; it’s cruel and pointless. If God is omniscient then why would he need to perform a test that is punitive to several generations of African Americans? Let’s quit trying to whitewash the fact that Brigham Young was a slave owner and that he and many other leaders of the Church were racists under the guise that it was all a test. It’s insulting to anyone willing to look at the facts objectively. If you read Brigham’s statements about blacks you will find no reference to a test, but you will find blatant bigotry and prejudice.

I believe that irrational arguments/excuses such as these are manipulative devices used to shame people into conformity and silence. It’s too convenient to explain away wicked policies such as denying blacks the priesthood by calling it a test of our faith. Religions have been using the old justification that if the people’s faith was greater then the ________ (fill in the blank with miracle, unfulfilled prophecy, incorrect doctrine, etc.) would/wouldn’t have happened since the beginning of recorded time. Another example would be the doctrine of polygamy, which was also a “test” of many members, especially women’s, faith.

Is it up to us pray to “help” God tell our current leaders to correct unjust doctrines? I see that as a manipulative way to keep people in line and I see it as an insult to the Creator of this world that is endlessly powerful and doesn’t need us to help Him to do anything. I also see it as a way to diminish the accountability of the men that have the power to change policies. It places the burden of correcting the unjust policies of the Church on the lay members and makes them accountable for the decisions of their leaders. If that is the way it works then why shouldn’t we reject the authority of those leaders? Would we let our political leaders off the hook if they instituted policies of discrimination by calling it a test and praying for them to become enlightened? No, we would reject them by voting them out of office or even impeaching them.

The problem I have with being expected to believe in our leaders (past and present) being inspired and communing with the Lord is that they aren’t dealing with basic issues that are concerns for many people in the Church. Maybe it’s the insular environment of Church headquarters that is to blame for the lack of dealing with the issues? I don’t know, but I’m waiting to hear a General Conference address that is something more than the same regurgitated messages, over and over. I want to hear about the issues that are confusing to people, the issues that when left unanswered, cause people to leave the Church, like homosexuality, DNA evidence and the Book of Mormon, the many omissions and inconsistencies in our official Church history, etc. The Church’s growth is slowing down and two thirds of the members are inactive; this should be alarming, but I haven’t seen it acknowledged or addressed. The leaders need to respond to people’s concerns instead of telling people to pray about it. If these men have the access to the Lord that they claim to have then why aren’t they taking these things to Him and telling us what He has to say about them? Isn’t that the advantage of having a living prophet?

Until the Church can openly deal with its own imperfections (historically and currently) and be willing to acknowledge truths as they come to light (i.e. DNA and the Book of Mormon), I’m not willing to be a part of it. I do have hope in the possibility that the Church may evolve into a religion that will promote individual’s explorations rather than shaming them for questioning the status quo.

I hope that the Church’s attitude of secrecy will eventually fade and that a new attitude of openness and accessibility will prevail. A good start would be a rewriting of the official Church history to make it complete and accurate so members don’t have to go to non-LDS sources to find out what’s in the SLC archives. I think it would be beneficial for members of the Church to know what happened in the early Church, to understand the prevalent attitude that encouraged the exploration of spiritual beliefs and gifts. It was a magnificent, weird time and we should celebrate it rather than hide it. The heart of Mormonism is in the stories of the early saints, especially Joseph Smith. Shouldn’t we really know him?

I hope that the Church will be open to scientific discoveries that contradict established ideas. I hope that the Church’s future leaders have the courage to admit that the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon are neither American Indians nor Polynesians in light of overwhelming DNA evidence. I hope that they won’t shame thinking members of the Church by proclaiming that the Earth is flat when it becomes plain for all to see that it is round.

My hopes are outrageous but that’s the kind of organization that could inspire me to live in integrity and authenticity. I’ve been exhorted by some to stay in the Church and try to help catalyze these changes. Brother England would tell me to stay and pray for these changes to happen. That won’t work for me. I can’t sit through meetings biting my tongue the whole time, and I can’t state my opinions without disturbing the worship of those around me. I’m incapable of being a representative of Mormonism right now.

My vision of what an incredible organization full of motivated, good-hearted, loving latter day saints could be and do is too different than the vision that SLC has right now. So I say “so long”, not to my friends and loved ones, but to the organization of the Church. For now.

I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this paradox/dichotomy.

roses

2006-01-15T22:05:00.000-08:00

The pain involved in leaving your faith reminds me of one poignant moment in my own spiritual reckoning. I call it my spiritual mental breakdown. I was physically disabled by it one day. Crying and shaking and hysterical. It was one of the scariest moments of my life, to feel the essence of all of my hope and faith and belief crumble away, and be left utterly naked in the face of the world around me.

No one could save me from that moment.....and I am grateful for it and it's repercussions in my life.

Emily Potter walked by my room at that moment, and I followed her, and begged her to let me go wherever she was going because I was so afraid to be alone. she was going to church, but stayed home with me, and listened to me. I'm so glad she took me seriously and listened and loved and honored me while I struggled.

I want to do that for you Amber and Paul, and anyone else. I love your questions and I love your integrity. I love you for living through the pain and into your realest truest selves. I love you.

I believe in questioning all the way to the core. I believe in shaking it so hard that all the leaves fall off, and only the bones are bare.

I also believe in seasons....

that in the coldest dark of winter, there is life waiting below...spring comes fro everyone and everything...miraculously...and that the barest trees will flower forth and bare fruit in what seems like the blink of an eye. The world rotates, and everything changes quickly, death comes before resurrection.

I love you everyone here.

On my journey, my diary reads, that I discovered a beautiful warmspot of sunbeam sunlight, in the Book of Mormon! The Book of Mormon, went from completely dull and dreary, to shining and bright, in the turning of a few paper-thin pages. I'm very excited about that.

And, I brought my friend Hyun to church with me, and to meet with the missionaries. Missionaries shine! We watched the Restoration DVD in Korean, and the Spirit was tangible.

Hyun said, "The people at your church and the sangyossa (missionaries), their eyes are very pure and very true."

I couldn't help but smile so wide! I felt so happy.

Love, Discussion, Debate...

2006-01-06T13:57:00.000-08:00

Wow...I missed some interesting posts in my absence. I would like to make a few points regarding the "How to love a leaver" and "Safe Discussion Zone" concepts:

First, I am an advocate of debate. I enjoy it and I think it challenges me to better articulate my ideas. Occaisionally I even agree with someone elses opinion. However, a debate is much more interesting if I repsect the person representing the opposite point of view. I think a healthy discussion demands that people take opposing sides to an issue and point out when errors of reasoning have been made. But I do not feel that this blog is primarily about debate. I think we all feel that if we can share a few sensitive ideas and see how other respectable people respond we stand to gain something. Sometimes that involves support, and occaisionally it involves disagreement. A group that isn't open to both would be one-legged.

I also agree with the statement that has been made several times that an improper response to those questioning and/or leaving the church is due to immaturity. But it is important to realize that the primary way to transition from immaturity to maturity is through experience, and most of us don't get the required kind of experience that often. Immaturity is not suprising, horrifying, or abnormal. It is just another word for the natural state that everyone lives in until they are forced or inspired to move to another level. I am constantly amazed by the new levels of immaturity that I find in myself. I sometimes seem like such a child.

Amber, I am glad that you can share your experience regarding your spiritual search and I hope you realize that there are people out here who are interested, sympathetic, and moved by your experience. I don't necessarily agree with all aspects of your approach, however, so I would like you to clarify a few things. Is your distance from the church motivated more by doctrinal or social issues? It is a valid complaint to say that church members do not love unconditionally, or that you simply don't feel comfortable or accepted in the society, but to me that does not seem to be the thing that causes such deep questioning. All people are imperfect, and I think that anyone who cannot accept a key doctrinal tenet is going to feel uncomfortable in a soceity that is based on commonality of belief.

In a way, I am agnostic. I don't think anything important can be proven (this despite my love of proving things). However, I feel comfortable being active in the church, amongst a lot of people who seem pretty sure that everything is proven, because I am willing to act on "blind" faith. I don't feel like I have any other options, and I am pragmatic in the sense that when I don't have a choice, I don't take it. To me, the option of finding meaning in things I physically know does not exist. So I hope for things that are not seen, and I understand that I share a common hope with the believers.

HOW to Love a Leaver II

2006-01-02T20:54:00.000-08:00

Ryan's comparison of fighting for the life of a suicidal friend to my question about how to show love to a close one who has left the [LDS] church has been the focus of many of my thoughts lately. I think this analogy is a great one, and may help reach the answer to my question, and problem.

The question is still: HOW to love a leaver? How do you best demonstrate your love for them, while experiencing the loss... in my parents case, believing in the loss of having one of their children with them and the rest of the family in the hereafter.

HOW do you “fight” (in Ryan's words) for the life of a suicidal friend?

I've only known one person of my acquaintance who has committed suicide, and I was not close to them, so I cannot say how I would deal with the loss.

I have, however, had a very close friend attempt suicide, and many others I've known discuss their thoughts about the possibility of committing suicide. At one point in my life, I thought a lot about the possibility as well.

I'm happy to report that nine years after the attempt, my good friend is still alive. I cannot claim to have any sure contribution to my friend surviving the trying time of his life. In fact, I believe that any desire he kept to remain with us in this life came from within himself.

But HOW show love? My friends' suicide attempt affected my severely. I had ignored an intuition to call my friend the night of his attempt, so I felt partial responsibility in this low point in his life. I was heartbroken – for both our sakes. I cried, I prayed, and I did everything I could to show my love for my friend. (I eventually came to a place where I was able to cope after composing a beautiful song in his honor.)

But still, I haven't addressed this issue: the fight itself. When I've learned of loved ones thoughts of suicide, my initial reaction has always been 'why?' followed by the desire to listen, and be a support for them. When I went through thoughts of suicide myself, what I hoped for more than anything was a listening ear. Someone who would listen to my cry for help, and just be willing to listen, and possibly even empathize.

Part of my internal struggle was that I knew thoughts suicide was selfish, and would accomplish nothing of positive consequence. It would get me the attention I desired, but not in time to be of any use. I hated myself for thinking selfishly, and this self hatred only deepened the desire to end it all. Luckily, I was able to find the personal strength to find a hope for value in my life, and avoid the attempting the thoughts that were constantly swimming through my mind.

Had I found someone to talk to about my struggle, it would NOT have helped to be told that I was being selfish, that my ending my life would do no good, or anything like this. What I needed was a listener, a hug, and someone to try to understand me.

Unfortunately, I can liken much of the reaction I've gotten from church members to this latter example. Being compared to archetypal wicked Book of Mormon characters, or being lectured that the direction I'm going is wrong do not help the cause. Certainly, they stem from a source of love. But the “fight” only deepens the feelings of rejection and pain.

What I seek is understanding, eventually. In the mean time, a willingness to listen, and to know that this is a time of deep personal pain. With each sharp arrow thrown from a bow of love, my pains and struggles deepen... and the struggle to reconcile my current understanding of my path and the courage I knew it would take to follow this path is becoming worse. If the “fight” is for my spiritual life – and what it should be in the eyes of those within the church – the approach of constantly trying to “remind me” or “drive home” the messages of the church only make the struggle to not become embittered about the church more difficult.

If I am ever to return to a belief in the church, it will be because I feel it is a source of unconditional love. Unconditional is key. Do not love who you want me to be. Do not love what you feel I should be. Recognize and appreciate value that is CURRENTLY in me – believing member of the church or not.

I'll see you at the top.

2005-12-31T11:14:00.000-08:00

I commit to respect and love all of my brothers and sisters.

I lost sleep last night over Amberlynn's post about her parents, and the comments to respond to it.

It's difficult for me to read long posts, so I'll make mine as brief as possible:
I'd like to share a small fraction of my spiritual understanding:

Life is Eternity/Truth/Spirit/Soul/Heart/Universe/God/Creation. These are synonyms.
When I learn to be true to these things in every way I am one with God.

The moment Fear enters my Soul, I have detached myself once again from God, and reattached myself to Mortality. Most of the issues and fear I will ever face is because I am mortal.

But...
The God I worship is not afraid.
The Truth I seek is not fragile.
The Eternity I sense is not limited.

So...
For heaven's sake, leave the church Amberlynn.
For heaven's sake, don't leave the church Amberlynn's father.
And for God's sake, let's all shake off a little more mortality and believe in a little more Eternity.

I testify that a God-seeker will find God.
I testify that a Truth-seeker will find Truth.

In the meantime I am not afraid.
I don't cry for your soul. And don't cry for mine.
I believe in God way too much for that.
And I believe in the God in you way too much for that.

Man alive, do I have more to say...

Just one more thing:

If you believe you are on the right path and I'm on the wrong path (or vice versa), and that there is only one way to Truth, I challenge you to climb to the top of a mountain.

What is Spiritual Discussion?

2005-12-28T18:02:00.000-08:00

What is it's definition to you?

For me:

A place to SHARE (not debate) spiritual views and opinions, to expose myself to others possibly opposing viewpoints, and broaden my understanding.

This can be scary, and create huge vulnerabilities.

What will you do to keep it "safe" without denying yourself the opportunity to share?

I will:

Pledge to work for understanding, especially when I disagree. When I do disagree, and feel the need to comment on it, I will first explore why I disagree and try to understand further by asking questions. I will double check myself to ensure they my responses show support, are not argumentative, and do not invalidate others' views. I seek to explore, to understand, and to share. Simply, openly, honestly. (Honesty need never exclude kindness.)

The Concept of My Character

2005-12-26T18:54:00.000-08:00

William H. Gass says, “Characters in fiction are mostly empty canvas. I have known many who have passed through their stories without noses, or heads to hold them; others have lacked bodies altogether, exercised no natural functions, possessed some thoughts, a few emotions, but no psychologies, and apparently made love without the necessary organs.” How do I, as a breathing person, feel that a character in a book is somehow life-like, that I can take them seriously and form attachments? One way these attachments of mine manifest themselves is through emotional reactions; for example, anger at Vronsky’s fluctuating love. How I can react to characters in fiction in ways similar to my reactions to people? How can I justify looking to understand my character by reading? I suspect the answer lies in how I perceive real embodied people. How much can we really know of a person? How many aspects do we explore? We get sensual experiences with a person, so we see and smell them. We talk with them, and hear some things that they say.

I had a disturbing experience a month ago when a couple of friends lectured me. Based on what they said, I felt like they had a skewed vision of me in their heads. I called my best friend and told her what they had said and what I thought the implications of those statements were. I explained the history of our interactions and how I understood why they would think that of me based on that history, but their conclusion was wrong because they didn’t know everything. And I was frustrated, because I wanted them to not come to conclusions about me and then correct the things they thought were lacking, but try to understand me. That is why I started talking to them that day in the first place. My best friend confirmed that they did, indeed, think these things about me, and that they were, indeed, wrong. And then she said something that I had never thought of before but was very obvious. These friends of mine are not invested in understanding me. They love me in a real but casual way. It took my best friend and me years to recognize the nuances in the other’s most emotional and frenzied outbursts. These friends have not expended and most likely do not have the energy and time to understand me. And, as an added bonus, my best friend told me that I did not have to try to understand them. It was a call to categorize the people in my life.

Several months ago, I had a dream about a lover. He was excited about another woman. He said, “She was scrawny, and she was beautiful.” I asked him to look at me, and he said he wasn’t interested in my pretty. “You are on the pretty side of regular.” I woke up hot and wet and unhappy.

It was frustrating to be tossed because of appearance. I have my physical flaws, but I am aware that physical beauty is not one of my weak points. (I am vain.) The fact that this dream was about physical beauty is essential to the basic symbolism of the dream. What was occurring in my dream was that the person from whom I desired and expected intimacy and understanding was not seeing me. On an evident level. I was being perceived and valued based on a small and baffling set of my characteristics. And the betrayal I felt in the dream was a betrayal to my perception of this man. I felt emotionally invested in him, and was completely taken aback by this distant behavior. The situation was painful precisely because both he and I were feeling based on shallow perceptions. Not shallow values (which my lover presumably had as well—scrawny???), but shallow perceptions. I only thought we had intimacy, and it suddenly became clear that we did not.

I told my sister that the struggle of my life is loneliness. In one I form or another, it is what I beat against. Her solution was God, that God could heal loneliness. There is a very real point there. The notion of the Christian God is amazing. God is someone who knows me, who presumably loves me in a way that is perfect. A perfect love, and it is mine. I remember being a little girl, three or four, and attempting to imagine nothing. Nothing meant blackness, and there would be a void of blackness that surrounded the pulsing nectarine pit that I imagined my brain, the me that I could never imagine away. I would be frustrated, lying on the carpet, never being able to get rid of the image that I understood as me, thinking, pulsing with my breath, always there. Existence was me. As long as I exist, there cannot be nothing. But if there is God, then there is something besides me.

While I find the ideas behind my sister’s solution so intriguing and beautiful, I didn’t want an answer. I want her to feel with me. I want us to co-feel. I want my friends to co-feel. I want my lover to co-feel. I want to feel with them, only perhaps not as much as I want them to feel with me, to see all my pieces. While God offers a promise to transcend my lonely single existence, I want it to be transcended with people. So it’s not just my experience, so it's not just me and God in the black. I want, somehow, to get beyond the barrier between people that is only being able to perceive portions of each other and really connect. I find my desires in the situation are futile; the idea of a lover with whom I have incredible intimacy and understanding is so much more satisfying to my loneliness than being made whole by God.

How to Love a Leaver

2005-12-26T14:15:00.000-08:00

Most all of you are affiliated with the LDS church. Many of you have been very active at times, one of those times perhaps being now.

I previously shared with you my letter to my family explaining why I've had to take a break from the church. I must admit that the more I've been away from it (strictly in terms of CHURCH itself - I still believe in and live the high standards) the more I doubt I'll return.

I think I also shared with you the surprising outpouring of love I received from my siblings - and perhaps my struggles with my fathers' reply... that he missed my point entirely.

I was having the most wonderful Christmas I can remember, with my amazingly loving husband and his wonderful family. The gift I was most excited to receive was a draft life history that my mother sent us. I spent a lot of time Christmas Eve and Christmas Day reading the story of her life. I felt connected to her in a way I haven't before.

Then, I reached the section about her children's weddings. She went in order of when they got married, which meant I was last. It was fascinating to hear her account of who each of my siblings were as children - and what good wonderful people they were. She would then tell the story of how they met their future partner, and then the wedding. I was really looking forward to seeing what my mother would have to say about me as a child.
When I reached my paragraph I was given two lines: "We got a call from our daughter telling us she was marrying a man we'd never met before that Friday. We've learned we need to trust the Lord, despite our failings." I was terribly heart broken. I couldn't help myself, and emailed my mother - requesting a revision. I told her I wasn't asking her to lie, If I was her failure, let her keep that in, but at least say something about me. Who I was, and who I am.

She emailed back today and said she would write more about my wedding when she could, but she can't now.
My father also wrote. Here are some excerpts from his letter:
"Sorry you were a little disappointed to just about tears [it was beyond "just about," fyi] when you read your section of moms life history. It was most likely very hard for mom to write about something she feels she has lost for eternity and worked so hard to teach true principles of the Gospel to. ...But I guess you are in a sense no different than Laman and Lemuel who had all kinds of signs given to them and just decided that they knew best. Their parents tried in vain to teach them but they kept finding faults they felt their father had that caused their misery. The difference is that we are your parents, but most likely feel the same pain that their father felt.
Now, I know that if any of what I say pricks your heart, I know that you in the back of your mind still have those beliefs, if it doesn't, then, you have lost that testimony that we know you once had."

YES my heart is pricked, but not because "in the back of my mind I still have those beliefs." Again, the more I research - both my heart, MY history, and the church - the further from many of those beliefs I get, and the further I realize they have been. I'm pricked because being told by my father that I am evil and lost hurts.

Words like my father said to me "I know that if any of what I say pricks your heart" stem from what has been ingrained in him through his lifetime in the church. I've sat through many church discussions on why people leave, and how to "deal" with it. Now, from experiencing it first hand, I can say (at least in my case) that what was always discussed in church is way off base. Me, and the people I know who have "lost" their testimony in the church don't fit into the standard stock of people who leave, and the reasons for my/our heartache are nothing like what they talked about in church.

Some of these misconceptions for why people leave the church are: they've gotten lazy in developing their relationship with God, they've quit praying, they feel the standards are just too high, they've been offended by someone at church.
Some of the misdirected ideas of how to "deal" with these peole are: continue to "reach out" and bear your testimony to them, find out if they're reading the Book of Mormon, find out if they're still praying, pray that they will come back.
The most heartbreaking misconception for me personally, is that these people are sad because they've lost the spirit.

I've already written about why I began the steps of leaving. Although not a single person from my church has "reached out" to me in any way, or even attempted to contact me since I've left, those in my family continue to bear their testimony to me, and tell me they know I still believe and just have to hope that I'll come back.

The heartbreak, is that in a gospel supposedly centered on love and family, that love between others and family truly is taught to be conditional. If I have grown into differing beliefs than my parents - they can only love with the hope that I will return to what they've taught me - and live with the misunderstanding that I have "strayed." There was MUCH good and love in my upbringing, and I believe that I am still good, and worthy of complete love. I have not strayed from the love of family, love of scholarship, love of service, love of good health, and desire to improve that was instilled in me through my family. I have not lost the lessons of parents who taught by example love for each other and for us. There are countless other goods that my parents have taught me that I have infused in my being.

I had a thought early on that I was to be the one to teach my family how to love. I had no idea what that meant, but now I know. I am the trial of their faith. I too, must wait for them to come around - as they are waiting for me to come around. But we (both them and I) must all be careful to our perceptions of what "coming around" means. They will never change in their dedication to the church, and I do not want them to. I want to be loved for who I am. I want to be shown an attempt to understand me, not an attempt to guilt me into being who they think I need to be.

Have you had your love for others tested like this? How do you "deal with it?"

Merry Christmas!

2005-12-26T12:01:00.000-08:00

So how did everyone enjoy Christmas? I decided not to go home to Utah, because it seems like I just got back from Thanksgiving, but I had a great time as the 1st counselor in the bishopric (or rather, his wife) invited over for Christmas dinner and a rousing game of trivial pursuit...

Plus, I got a great Christmas present, an invitation to attent Harvard Law School next year. I was pretty excited, and my little brother is likely going to attend MIT so we can get a place together. I have been quite blessed.

The Marathon is on a Sunday

2005-12-11T20:03:00.000-08:00

And I'm getting Mormon enough to care about that....

sheesh.

I can take the sacrament again, today would have been my first Sunday to do that, but I overslept and got to church late and missed it. And then the talks were on the importance of the sacrament.

The Seoul West(?) Mission President Pres. Ringwood spoke. I love how he speaks slowly and deliberately, he will pause and look at you, giving you a moment to process and feel what he has just said. He inspires me. I believe what he says. He reminds me of Bishop Croft.

Is it okay to lean on his testimony till I have one of my own?

I bore my testimony last week and talked of being in the flabby "before" photo of a testimony, and being excited about a firm fit "after" photo in a while.

I paid so much money in tithing settlement. It's really amazing and crazy the law of tithing, I can't believe it. Heavenly Father really challenges us and expects us to live up to much more potential than even idealistic me can see.

I'm challenged by life as a Latter-Day Saint. I think that is a good thing. It makes me wonder if I should grade harder as a Professor.

The Book of Mormon challenge deadline is looming, and I haven't finished 2 Nephi!
I'm still not thrilled with the Book of Mormon. I struggled to make it through the isaiah stuff in 2 Ne. Why is it there? It made me fall asleep.

I don't know what to do about friends like Mike's. A sweet affectionate EFY counselor man who is full of love and life and is Gay and Mormon.

Please tell me if I'm getting really narrowminded and judgemental as I get more and more back into church. I don't ever ever ever want to be those things.

I feel so happy lately, and I'm blaming it on church.

I love you all, and want to hear more from you on this blog!

Addicted to good conversation

2005-11-25T13:31:00.000-08:00

I've hesitated to join this discussion group...for the mere reason that it could get addictive.

It also doesn't feel exactly good here, for some reason. Maybe because it's new. But I want to try it once in a while if that's ok.

Do you think it's true that who we are is what we think about in our free time?

I'm getting Mormoner

2005-11-22T08:06:00.000-08:00

and Mormoner

it's scaring me
but it feels good

I've been meeting with my bishop
and repenting
which is such a strange feeling
because I'm not sure I believe in it at all
but it still feels good
and so I'm going there

One thing I'm afraid of about this
is that I will get boring

that I will get content and blessed and comfortable
and begin to insulate my life against anything that "takes away the Spirit"
and lose touch with the world outside of Mormonism

I stand for unity
I am unity

so, this experiment will continue

this weekend it was good good to be with a lot of Mormons
and to feel some burning in my bosom
as the Mission President spoke to us
I love seeing men cry
it is so beautiful and moving and tender

I tried to read the book of Mormon on the way home on the bus but fell asleep
but I'm reading 2 Ne. 4, where Nephi finally sounds humble.

Humbled.
That is the word for how I felt at church this Sunday.
Humbled.

and Blessed.

Ryan-

2005-11-21T18:56:00.000-08:00

You have disappeared from my knowing you - which was only through your replies here.
My post inviting participants yielded replies that were related to a different post (understandably, otherwise, it would have involved A LOT of scrolling).

It has been difficult for me to find the time to post on here - but as it is currently the only format in which the Spiritual Discussion Group happens, I decided it's time to invite everyone I - or you - know who may have interest in participation. Although I can't post much these days, reading your thoughts does help me.

So Ryan, where are you? I don't know your email address, and need it if I am to invite you to join as an author. Of course, ANYONE can still comment at any time - but as an author you can post about an entirely personal subject - or anything that has not yet been brought up.

Please, everyone, help spread the word to keep the discussions alive and well.

Thanks.

Good in and of itself

2005-11-18T11:15:00.000-08:00

A tangent to our recent discussion on homosexuality deals with the question of what is good, rather than what is bad. I think that spirituality has a lot to do with being connected, both to other people and to other moments in time. We talk about having an "eternal perspective", and I think it is safe to say this implies we are both aware of, and care about the state of the distant future. One question that interests me concerns the way we perceive our future, especially beyond death. Do we need to have an awareness of, and a connection to our eternal future in order to be happy? Can we be happy based purely on present circumstances that have no bearing on the future?

I often find myself unwillling to really hope for things that aren't guarunteed, but I still find myself acting as if they were real. For instance, recently I decided that I wanted to leave active duty for the national guard so I could go to school full time. In particular, I wanted to go to law school. I knew that I would have to start applications and take the LSAT if it was going to happen, even though I was not at all sure that a transfer would be approved. The outcome was critical to my future, and I was quite anxious. I guess you could say that I was excited about the prospects, but because it was only hope I didn't really feel any joy. I tried not to think about it, but also to motivate myself to do the considerable work that was necessary. (I was approved to transfer, and am waiting to hear back from the schools I applied to).

Sometimes I feel the same way about my eternal prospects. There are a lot of things that I think are possible, and which I hope for very much. But I don't really feel reassured all of the time. It is easier not to think about death and what happens afterwards. So can I stil motivate myself to make considerable changes in my life according to this hopeful view of eternity? Can I be happy if I am constantly putting eternity out of my mind? Can hope alone make us happy if it comes together with anxiety?

Lumina's thoughts lately

2005-11-09T18:52:00.000-08:00

I went running today...

that feeling afterwards, when I my heart is still pumping, and a little bead of sweat trickles over my forehead, down my nose, to my chin, while I bend in a stretch...

the blood flowing through stagnant places...

the feeling of my shoulders and neck muscles loosening while I bend over to touch the ground...

this is spiritual for me...

i need some yoga.

I wonder why the church doesn't have a physical component beyond the Word of Wisdom, or does that embody it all?

I'm so pleased with how many Mormons I have met lately who recognize the truth in alternative medicine.

I'm so dissapointed in how many Mormons I know who give me a look of shock when I say that I went to the Jim-jil bang, which is the Korean sauna. Yes, all the women are naked in the same room. And it's okay. Why is nakedness so shocking?! That's one other thing that I wonder...why the secrecy and privacy of the temple dressing rooms?

Nakedness is spiritual too. Especially outdoor nakedness. Emily Potter wrote a beautiful short story about Eve, that I would like for her to post here.

I'm still working on the Book of Mormon challenge. It's hard, I get grossed out but I also feel a sense of peace and blessings.

The moon is a very powerful spiritual symbol for me. Maybe you should have Spiritual Discussion Group once a month, under the full moon.

I had a very strong spritual prompting two Sundays ago, as I prepared for leading Primary Music. I felt that God gave me the absolutely most enjoyable calling in the entire ward, just to be nice to me, because he knows how hard church has been for me lately.

I love Primary.

This is a picture of me being called to repentance.

Oh, and here is something else I should repent for...ha ha

I feel really blessed actually, looking at this photo, thinking of that night, knowing how the law of chastity has blessed my life.

Calling all Explorers

2005-11-06T17:30:00.000-08:00

So this has become the only current forum for the spiritual discussion group. This makes me sad on one level, because I have been seeking a community of people I can talk about these kinds of things with, face to face. It helps me feel community and support, which are both very important - especially when journeying through explorations of new spiritual paths.

But so far, it seems what we have tried will not work. Different people want to process in different ways, and some just don't want the formal setting, in any manner. In fact, as of now, it only seems two of us do. So, until there is a time when there are people interested in getting together, or when people host special events, THIS is the group.

So, I'm sending out a plea. Please share. Please explore. Please post.
If you are not currently a contributor, but read, and have things you want to talk about, please send me your email and I will invite you as an author. I would like anyone to be welcome here, provided the following ground rules: we are not here to negate each other or others. If you want to rant about how you feel a certain belief is wrong or misguided, it needs to be strictly in a way that does not lay blame on any individuals. What I would personally prefer, though, is not explorations of what you have found that is wrong (although that is what my last lengthy post was about) but things you have explored, or want to, that you think or feel may be right.

Will you take this journey with me?
Will you join this group of explorers?
Will you share your journey?

Soul Bearing

2005-10-30T17:25:00.000-08:00

I can tell strangers and people slightly close to me exactly how I feel. But I haven't been able to tell those who have been closest to me through my entire life - my family - the truth... until 5 minutes ago. I just sent them this email - and I'm currently shaking with anxiety wondering what consequences it will bring. (btw, Erik is my non-LDS husband, and Dalyn is my brother.) Ok, here's the letter, my soul, naked:

Dear family,
Please forgive this being full of mistypes and grammatical errors, or what just my be human errors. I've been typing at the computer all day long, because I've finally found a way I can do this. Please understand that the following is simply an explanation of where I am right now in regards to church, with a bit of history behind it, to try to help you understand. I do not wish for any of it to be argumentative in any way, but simply an explanation of my feelings. I pray you'll be able to read this with an open heart and that I've been able to communicate my feelings simply - without intending any offense.

WAR
It begins with war. Russell M. Nelson gave a talk in General Conference that hit me more powerfully than anything I've ever heard in General Conference. His talk was given relatively soon after 9-11 and shortly before our country made the choice to invade Afghanistan. He spoke powerfully that we as a church must "renounce war and proclaim peace." He was NOT referring to peace simply in our hearts or our homes. He was referring to war. Yet, I still felt like a lone soul within church and almost even within my family in believing that invading another country, even with the justification of retaliation for a horrid event, was the wrong thing to do.

Then came talk of invading Iraq. Again, I felt strongly – and strongly alone - that it was (and is) the wrong thing to do. I reread Nelson's talk. I reread the section in the Doctrine and covenants he referred to. I could find nothing to console me and allow me to find a way that our choice to invade another country was ok.

When we did go to war, I would find myself frequently raising my hand in Sunday School classes and saying things like "no, the general presidency has not said this war is a blessing from God. No, they have not pronounced that it's right or a good thing, or justified." As well as, "Aren't we studying the second coming to learn the way to be on the righteous side? Isn't war listed as something that all but Zion will be involved in? (Excepting spiritual war, of course.) Aren't we to strive to be Zion, not proclaiming war to be a good thing?"

I was confused. Why would such a powerful General Conference talk be so easily brushed aside? Why did I feel so alone when I believed I was following the words we count as valid as scripture? Why were our leaders, the ones who said that "we AS A CHURCH need to renounce war," not speaking up? Instead, in fact, our Church President was receiving a medal of patriotism from our Country's President.

When I asked these questions I was met with a few different reactions. Some people either called me names, or did everything they could to invalidate me. Oh well, there was really not much I could do about this. Some said to me "We believe in honoring, obeying, and sustaining the law." To the latter, I agree! We SHOULD honor, obey, and sustain the law. We ARE subject to those we vote into office. But last time I checked, having an opinion different than our president was not against the low in this country. In fact, I thought our country was FOUNDED on the principles of freedom of conscience, and our government was structured so that opposite viewpoints could and WOULD be heard. When WE are the ones who elect our officials, than truly WE are the ones responsible to speak up. This is OUR government. There is nothing unpatriotic, in my opinion, in speaking out against sending our loved ones into war.

"I'm sure it's the right thing. He knows things we don't, and I'm sure our leaders would speak up if this wasn't the right thing to do,"was anther response. These often included statements like "President Bush is a good Christian man. I'm sure he prayed about something this serious." How could they be so sure? Everything I had read, seen, and heard - both "worldly" and scripturally/doctrinally/spiritually - pointed to this not being right. Of course our President and security officials know things we don't know! But even since then, so many things have come to light that "what they knew" was based on weak speculations, or worse. Of course, if I bring this up to anybody, they immediately go off into a spell about the liberal or biased media. I won't deny that news sources have biased ways of spinning stories, or choosing what to report, but the truthfully, there is bias in both directions from many media sources. In today's information age, it is very easy to filter in the media sources you want to hear, and filter out those you don't. Anyone wishing to find an alternative viewpoint can do so at the click of a button. Anyone wishing to further investigate matters for themselves can do so. Blaming media sources changes nothing for me. As far as President Bush being a "good Christian man" I do not doubt that he has good values he believes in like any other good Christian, or good non-Christian for that matter. But to use that as a matter to simply put your faith in him I disagree. He is not an apostle, and in fact, belongs to a religion that preaches AGAINST ours. I do not say this to say I believe he didn't pray, isn't good, or holds something against our faith in his heart. I simply point it out to explain why I don't hold these points as reasons to put simple trust in him and his and his associates choices. But why are so many ready to? And why was our/is our own leadership silent on the matter?

So I took my questions directly where we're told to: to prayer and scripture study. I previously hated reading about so many wars in scriptures, but this time, I began at the very first page of the book of Mormon, and read through to the very last page - taking notes and pondering all the way through, especially on any matter concerning war. By the end of this journey, I did not find solace and comfort in our actions as a country. In fact, the opposite happened. The more I studied war, the more evidence I found that this was NOT the right thing, and was not justified in any way, nor could I imagine it being sanctioned by God.

If this is truly Christ's church, where is his voice in this matter?

This curious spot led me to more questions, and deeper inquiries into my faith, the gospel, the church, and what I saw as differences in the three.

DIFFERENT MEANS, SAME FEELINGS
I began studying and reading other philosophies and holy text on top of continuing my study of LDS church literature. With a few books, I decided to take "The Book of Mormon Challenge" to the test. In other words, I would read prayerfully, and meditate and ponder what I was reading. I had never really tried this with anything besides the Book of Mormon, and I had never once felt any need to question the validity of the Book of Mormon. I simply knew it was true.

The first book I tried this with was called "Seven Theories on Religion," a book a friend gave me to read. It was a collection from various psychologists and philosophers on the origins of religion. When I prayed and asked if the book was true, and immediately had the deepest darkest feeling I've ever imagined fill every part of me. I can only imagine what the dark feeling Joseph Smith described. The dark feeling took a long while to recover from, but it was very easy to put the book down with no desire to open it again. It was simple enough evidence to me that it was not true. But I didn't discontinue this method of study on other books. I continued my interest in various writings and teachings of people and books that seemed good. I found much good in many of the teachings of Confucius and Siddhartha (The Buddha), and found much of what they said to compliment and enrich gospel teachings. I attended a few other churches, and tried other practices, all along using the "search, ponder, and pray" method of seeking if there was wisdom and truth in them. All the while, I stayed fully active in all aspects of the church.

After a few years of this, in a roundabout way, I discovered a man named Rudolph Steiner. (I did not learn of him through religious studies, but instead through studies in educational methods, when I leaned of Waldorf Schools - which fit perfectly, from what I could tell, the same educational philosophies I had created from my own pondering on the subject.) Steiner was born in Austria in 1861, and lived through 1925. From what I could tell, he never knew anything of our church. The more I learned of him, and the things he and his ideas accomplished, the more fascinated I was. I began to read his writings, still using the search ponder and pray guide. I read a short work of his, "Anthroposophy in Everyday Life" and found it to be and feel very good, even though I didn't understand all of it. Then I found a book he wrote called, "How to Know Higher Worlds - The classic guide to the spiritual journey." I felt something peaceful, amazing,and beautiful while studying this book. I was still extremely interested in Waldorf education and took a trip to a small college in a gorgeous upstate New York town that specifically teaches Waldorf Education and other concepts that stemmed from Rudolph Steiner. (On top of education, he had contributions in the fields of medicine, science, philosophy, religion, economics, agriculture, architecture, drama, and created his own dance/art form called eurythmy.) This school had a very special feeling to it. I stayed for two days, sleeping overnight in their dorms. I visited classes, explored the campus and surrounding area, and spent a lot of time in personal reflection. I had the same feeling the whole time that I've had once or twice visiting the temple, or on an especially spiritual day at church. All the people I met seemed radiantly beautiful and almost holy.

When I got home from this trip I suddenly realized I was feeling the same things I feel from Church from a completely outside source. This shocked and scared me. How could this be? The things I was looking into did not come from prophets. These people knew nothing of the Book of Mormon. Was I being deceived? I cried and I prayed, and I found no comfort. After several days of distress I called a friend who I felt safe discussing these kinds of thing with. "What if the church isn't the only true church? What's going on here?" This friend understood, said they had been through similar questions themselves, and decided that everything was ok. They stuck with the church because it's what they were given, taught, and blessed with from the beginning - and it just didn't make sense to give it up. I still wasn't sure of what to believe, but I decided that I too, would choose to stick with the church. I was benefiting from it, not to mention I was currently in love with a good LDS boy, which was already causing enough emotional turmoil in my life.

I set the Rudolph Steiner books aside, decided that it wasn't the right time for me to go back to school, and devoted 100% of my studies strictly to church matters. But in the back of my mind, I still had the nagging question - 'what if it isn't the ONLY true church?'

THE MOUNTAIN, AND THREE POINTS TO PONDER
After a while, I was able to find a place of peace within myself and the church by coming to the following metaphor: When I heard anyone speak the words "this is the only true church" I thought of the mountain we must all climb to reach our Heavenly Father. "one true church" translated, in my mind, to "one way to the top of the mountain" = UP! We each have the choice to move away from the mountain, or sit and stay where we are, or move up. To reach a level of Godhood, we have to choose to continually move up. The good work and service we do for others, continual self improvement, striving for perfection - the peak of the mountaintop, is where we're going. Yes, up we must all go, but at the same time, people choose different ways to climb. Some use a guide, a teacher to show them the way. Some forge their way through unknown thick forests. Some climb rock faces. Some solo, some in groups. I saw our church as a group, rock climbing with high tech equipment to move up very fast. In other words, it may not be the ONLY way to go UP, but it was highly efficient, with lots of help.

Because of this view, I was able to finally be ok with the idea of personally being a missionary. I could openly and easily share my feelings about the church to those who would listen, or who seemed like they would benefit from it. It also helped me be less sad (= judgmental) of those I loved or saw who were good people, striving to do what's right by what they knew, but who were closed to any thought of the church. I saw them moving up the mountain, and I believed they had just as much chance of making it to the top as I did.

I loved discussing gospel matters with Dalyn. We all know the man can argue, convincingly, thoughtfully, and well. (He would make a great, good, charismatic politician!) But of most anyone I ever spoke to about the church or gospel matters, Dalyn not only had a way of not invalidating what I felt, but also giving me knew angles to ponder, things to look into, and better arguments for things I didn't understand or agree with than anyone else I could find.

When I mentioned my metaphor to Dalyn, the concept was turned into turmoil once again for me. Although he refused to work within the metaphor, his points were very clear. Dalyn gave me three points to ponder, and look into doctrinally. They were these:

*If your problem with the church is people in the church, you're not giving them a fair chance.
*The Church is the right place for everyone.
*You can be a good person, and do good things, and still be damned, i.e. separated from God.

What this did for me in reality, was turn what I had been using as a source of being at peace into a hurricane whirlwind of once again, NOT being ok.

In talking this through with another friend who WAS willing to work within my metaphor, his response to my view of the mountain was this: "Amber, you're right. However, no matter who you are or what you do, if you want to get to the top of the highest mountain, you HAVE to do it the same way. There's ice and there's danger, and if you don't do it right, you don't make it."

I took this and pondered it. He was right, but I was still uneasy. Later, I had a great discussion with my Relief Society President and told her what I was going through. Without batting an eyelash, her reply to the idea that we all have to reach the top the same way was, "but who says we have a monopoly on the equipment?" She was putting my uneasiness into words for me. The answer, of course, is the Church says it has the monopoly... but did I agree?

Now I was ready to directly look into and answer Dalyn's points. *First, the people at church. That one was easy. I knew very well the church was made of and for imperfect people, myself included. Every one of us makes mistakes and does stupid things. If my problem was *people* at church, I would have quit when I was in young women's (like so many of my peers did), where if you weren't a cheerleader, didn't wear the latest fashions to church, you simply weren't included socially. People were blatantly and rudely made fun of by girls and boys in a more visible way at church than what I witnessed at school. But socially fitting in is not why I went. I went because I believed in what I was being taught.

But was that really honestly true? I thought deeper. It was, after all, an issue of feeling alone at church when it came to views about war that seemed to begin this entire cycle of questions. But the more I thought about this, the more I was sure. It wasn't the people and the feelings of being so different than everyone else there that was a problem for me. But if it wasn't people, what was it? What is my problem? Scarily enough for me to admit, for the first time, it must be the doctrine.

So to Dalyn's second point; the Church is the right place for everyone. This would be the point that we all have to climb the same way, or at least once we reach a certain point. Did I, could I believe this? This was gray area for me. I came to the conclusion that I believed the church would only be the right place for everyone if everyone were part of the church. This is gray because that's the church's goal. 'Exactly, everyone needs to be part of this church.' But not everyone IS a member of the church. The only thing we ARE all part of is humanity, and why isn't this life and our actions through this life, instead of solely our actions in the church, what matters. What about all the people who are truly good people, but are frequently targeted by the church as the kinds of people it's not ok
to be, namely intellectuals, woman who WANT careers and true leadership roles outside the home, homosexuals who want to live as homosexuals. (I wrote of only those I've heard specifically singled out in General Conferences, and left out more who typically don't fit in at the ward level, but this is due to the imperfection of
individuals, not church teachings.) To be okay with this concept, I would have to do what I've done for years whenever I heard something I disagreed with at church; apply a different personal interpretation. The Gospel - which is to love God and others, follow the teachings of Christ and his example, and do the best we can do through faith, the atonement, and good works IS the right way for everyone. Which gets me back to my original idea. Are they working to go UP the mountain? And the gospel applies to everyone, no matter who they are or what religion. To me, the gospel and church are not one and the same. The church is the organization of guides and ropes we're using to go up. The gospel is the simple concept that you must go up.

But it IS Church doctrine that the Church is the right place for everyone. So me not agreeing with this points out to me one place where I disagree with the church, and there is no getting around it. It's a rather difficult thing to recognize that what you actually do believe in and what you thought you believed are not the same thing.

Looking at the last point, makes it pretty clear to see where I stand on the last point Dalyn gave; "you can be a good person, and do good things, and still be damned, i.e. separated from God." In other words, it's the ordinances found only through the church that will keep you from being damned (as Christ's atonement was and is a universal gift).

I see beauty in the outward act of carrying out a ritual to show commitment to something. Baptism is beautiful. But it doesn't make sense to me that God's love would be so narrowly conditional. Even in this earth life, within our families, I cannot think of any example of a loving parent's love being so conditional that they would require their children to perform a certain rite a certain way or they would not be allowed in their presence. If God's love is conditional like this, why? I honestly cannot stop at the only answer I've found within church doctrine, which is obedience. Again, a personal translation to Jesus's example of baptism and the need to follow him, is in the meaning of what he did, and not the ritual of it. I've done baptisms for the dead many times, and no matter how hard I tried, never felt a testimony of the necessity of baptism. The necessity of turning your life to that of good works, and godliness, yes, but immersion in water by one with a proper line of authority doesn't make my bosom burn.

If all that is good comes from God, and if "by their fruits" i.e. good works "ye shall know them," how can the good person be separate from God? What is the point in being with or like God anyway? I believe it is to do good. Happiness may be an ultimate thing for us, but what good is it if it produces nothing? Good works bring happiness, and the happiest are those who continue in good works.

Why do we want to become like God, or gods ourselves? It is not because we are power hungry, or because being simply obedient it's what we're supposed to do. It's because we believe we'll be able to do infinite good, beyond what we could in any other capacity.

In fact, we don't even deny happiness to other post-life realms we consider damned. It's that Eternal Life, that continual progression, we seek. The ability to do more and more good.

So how does it or could it make any sense that those who do good are kept from continuing in that goodness?

The way we must all go to reach the top of the highest mountain is pure, individual, personal goodness - so that we may reach the pinnacle and continue to do good. The Church does not hold a monopoly on good works.

So I've pondered these things at great length and in great detail, and have not been able to reconcile my own beliefs about what the Gospel is, and what the Church is. Unfortunately for me, this has led to one step after another of what I thought I believed in and what I actually believed in turning out NOT to be the same thing. And, even though I have still avoided any study of anti-mormon literature (I say this to ensure you that I have NOT been seeking for things to dislike about the church) I continued to find more and more doctrines and official church practices that I did not believe in, or that I disagreed with. (For the point of this letter, now is not the time to go into them, but perhaps someday. I will if you really need to know.)

I continued going to church for some time after this because I still felt I was benefiting from it. But as I continued, I unfortunately got to a point where words that were being said were too consistently in disharmony from what I believed, and my life long method of personal reinterpretation no longer could continue. I was spending time at church thinking too often, I just don't agree, and leaving church too often feeling worse than when I entered.

Because of this, I've decided to take some time off from going to church, while still trying to pursue those things which brought me fulfillment from it: the concept of knowing for yourself - not relying on others' testimonies, loving others, discussing spiritual matters with others, studying, pondering, meditation, and prayer, striving my best to climb the mountain and abound in good works. I have no desire to officially quit my membership or cut my ties with the church. I have no desire to bad talk it, or convince anyone to leave it, or refrain from looking into it for themselves. I am not even closed to the idea that I may go back and fully embrace all of it.

My biggest fear in being totally honest about this was an artificial idea I'd constructed in my mind about conditional love within our family. Erik can tell you of the many nights I spent in tears worried about my family not loving me. I know those fears were and are completely irrational. However, because I know how important and central the church is to all of you, I can't imagine my honesty not causing pain and heartbreak. This is the same thing I went through in my choice to marry Erik. I knew many of you would take it as a blow. But I loved (and love) Erik too much, and was so fully confident in knowing that marrying him was the right thing to do, that I had to take that choice.

I don't know if my time off from church is the right thing to do or not. I don't have answers to a lot of the questions you may have for me. There have been many other reasons I've held back. One, I have been worried that you would lay blame on Erik. Two, I've been worried that you will place judgment on me - that there must be some gospel standard I'm not living, or don't want to live, and I don't want the guilt of church hanging around all the time. I still believe and practice high moral standards. I want what is best for my body, my mind, and my spirit. Third, lack of support. I don't expect ANY of you to actually support me in making a choice that is against how I've been raised and against what you all believe in. It has been difficult coming to terms with being honest with myself that my true beliefs are not the same as yours, and the church's. I haven't sought any support or help in this journey except God's, and it hasn't been an easy journey, and I know it will continue this way. I haven't wanted to tell you for fear of making things even harder for me. Your love for me could manifest in ways of hurt, or anger, or the decision to distance yourself from me. Of course I don't desire any of that,
but can't fool myself into thinking it won't happen. But I've reached a point where not telling you, and just holding it in, is harder than the thought of facing the consequences of letting you know where I stand.

I love you, completely. All I can do is hope that our love for each other will be able to find a way to support each other in the ways we all need.

With all my love,
Amber

A new kind of SDG

2005-10-16T22:54:00.000-07:00

Today we discussed how we could create a safe atmosphere where we can share feelings, explore ideas, and really connect with each other. We also discussed opening the meetings up to new people that want to join in. We will be trying a new kind of meeting next week and the following week the group will be open to anyone that's interested.

We have run into some obstacles in our first few meetings and I want to ask for feedback from anyone who reads the blog.

First of all, the approach to discussing ideas that we hold sacred has been difficult. How do we discuss these things without getting into a mode of debate. How do we avoid trying to convince anyone else that what we know is right; how do we discuss without making anyone feel wrong?

Secondly, we have felt a lack of connection with each other at the meetings. How do we create a more loving atmosphere where we can connect with each other. Ideally we want everyone that attends to leave the meeting feeling that they are respected and loved no matter the differences of opinion.

Last, we want to create a listening for everyone that attends. A real listening where everyone is truly heard. How can we facilitate listening?

Any ideas are welcomed and we will experiment and find something that works. Those of us that attended today are commited to creating an atmosphere of love, openess, safety, and listening. We want to find edification in the love we have for each other and have an element of inquiry and discovery. No question is out of bounds but we need to have boundaries that allow for mutual respect.

This can be daunting. The issues that we're discussing can be very emotionally charged, but we're trying to keep these emotions in check so nobody gets hurt, at the same time we want our emotions to be open so we can feel a spiritual connection with each other.

If anyone has had experiences or ideas with these issues, please share.

Unbecoming

2005-10-16T21:46:00.000-07:00

My current biggest fear: I'm becoming something I never wanted to be. The more I formulate and settle into my opinions, the more closed-minded I become. I never wanted to be someone who was so stuck in her ways, or her way of seeing things that she was not open to other ways of looking at things. Obviously, this would close me off from seeing my potential mistakes, or finding new or fuller truths.

I also did something today I hate. Kristin was in the middle of explaining her feelings about an issue she is really struggling with. I did the worst thing I could have done in that situation; I interrupted, and I said the words "no you don't." Negating someone's feelings! Being argumentative when someone is expressing something important to them. And I did it. How awful! I did nothing that was truly supportive, truly trying to understand. I did not connect with Kristin. I am so sorry. Instead, I just expressed my opinion, and that was that.

When I asked to begin this group, this is exactly the opposite of what I wanted, and here I am being the hypocrite.

We ended up talking about it later. HOW do we connect. How do we ensure we're really supporting each other.

How do you stop yourself when you see yourself becoming exactly what you DON'T want to be?

Meeting?

2005-10-13T23:02:00.000-07:00

Hey SDG folks. Are we meeting again any time soon? Sunday?
I need to hear your ideas, voices, thoughts, and comments about the food in the oven again soon!

Truth in People

2005-10-03T15:38:00.000-07:00

Ryan posted this as a comment, but I think it deserves its own post. Sorry I don't have time to format it into its original paragraphs right now...

An experience just came to mind. When I was on my mission in South Africa I had first served in the black segregated areas. A little further down the road I was in the first white ward in that province. Pretty much every other ward had split off from that one. They said welcome to zion. We brought an investigator to church who was black and the whites told them to move out of their seat. A little while later we were visiting a member and she asked if we had any baptsims coming up and we said yes. She said is it one of those beep beep beep black people? I was so angry and upset. I felt like I was becoming racist against white people. How could they do that? I prayed to Heavenly Father and said in a mean tone of voice, prove to me there's such a thing as a decent white member in this country because I don't believe it. I really wasn't expecting proof, I was just venting. I said they don't understand the gospel if this is how they treat people. A funny thing happened. I was transferred to the richest whitest city in my mission. Prior to and after this area I had many baptisms and taught many discussions in every area. But in this area in one month we taugh 1 discussion. The only thing that happened was I was shown there was white members who understood and loved the gospel. They were incredible. I was transferred from that area to the highest teaching and baptizing area in the mission. But I cried like a baby when I left. My prayer was answered.The truth is I have been so hurt by people in this life that I don't care for almost anyone. I have for the last 17 years become incredibly withdrawn from the world and drew closer to God. The only beauty I see is in nature. When I see people I see everything that's wrong with them and think why should I even try to get to know them? Why should I care? I had been so incredible obedient to the gospel yet I was saying I hate people. Then I was lead to this one soulofthemoon. I was shown all that was wrong with me. I tried to push Emily away. Basically everything I saw as wrong she saw as beautiful. This is so hard for me because I tried to do it her way with herself and someone else you know. Emily was true the whole time and the other proved that my orignal attitude was right and I never should have tried to begin with. I am struggling with the truth of who people really are. It kills me to know I am seeing things in the wrong perspective. But how many Emily's do I need to know to help changed that. It's not even possible when I have put up this brick wall to begin with.Religious and scientific truths are great. The truth that totally troubles me at this time is people. How do you find the truth in people? There, I'm not so positive and see the world as far as people go in a very polluted and corrupt state. Yet I am corrupted because of how I have allowed my perspective to be polluted. Do any of you know how to find this type of truth? I am deaf and blind to it. I can only see and hear cleary with Emily. There was another and I was proved to be a fool. I am struggling so bad with this right now.
10:10 PM

Musings on Truth

2005-09-26T17:59:00.000-07:00

This has been a subject that has fascinated me for some time. About a year ago I took a paranormal psychology class where we studied the reasons that humans have such a strong tendency to ignore facts and science and focus our energy on beliefs that have no empirically backed evidence.

Our text, Wings of Illusion by John F. Schumaker, presented us with the theory that the evolution of the human mind has crossed a mental gulf, a cerebral Rubicon that can never be turned back from. At this point humans began to develop a new degree of self-awareness, language capabilities, information processing, and hypothetical and abstract thinking. Survival began to depend more on intellectual capability than physical prowess/dexterity. Humans attained death perception and had to adopt paranormal beliefs to counter the horror of death and chaos. The brain’s function was divided; half works with reality while the other half works at repressing it so the human doesn’t go mad.

Without paranormal belief systems humans would go insane; religion and other paranormal belief systems serve to insulate us from the reality that life is meaningless and the threat of death is imminent. The idea presented is that if we weren’t crazy we’d be insane. In other words, if we weren't crazy enough to believe in the paranormal we would fall to the insanity of the threat of our impending death and the meaningless of our short existence.

I have found this theory fascinating and horrifying because of the implications that it has for my own paranormal (religious) beliefs. I took this class at a time that I was already questioning my religious beliefs and earnestly seeking the truth on my own. As a Mormon we know that the truth is manifested through the whisperings of the spirit or a burning in the bosom. In essence, our emotions will tell us whether something is true or not.

These feelings of the spirit, transcendence, enlightenment, or whatever you wish to label them are created physiologically through chemical reactions in the part of the brain called the amygdala. Whether something truly paranormal initiates these chemical reactions causing the feelings, I don’t know. There are certain conditions that precede these kinds of reactions. What I do know is that the brain can be manipulated to produce feelings of euphoric spirituality or transcendence. That scares me. That means that the only source I have for truth is empirical evidence. That means that my past spiritual confirmations are dubious. I can still choose to have “faith” in those feelings but that is also a choice to ignore what I’m learning in school. I know that sounds really absolute and extreme but that’s how I feel. I feel depression and forlornness and also power and hope.

Ernest Becker said that if we have a passion for the truth, we shall encounter a “temporary period of forlornness.” He added that joy awaits us on the other side of this forlornness. He said that “disillusionment must come before wisdom.” Becker also admitted a belief in God before he died.

I’m still in a stage of disillusionment right now but I’m also excited by the terrifying prospect of the truth. It will be my endeavor to continue the search for the understanding of spirituality and how it affects us physically and emotionally.

Creating Life

2005-09-24T21:32:00.000-07:00

There is, or should be, something intensely spiritual about being pregnant.

Actually, this is how I want to feel. Truly I fit in to the "should be" category.
I often have to tell myself to feel magic and amazing and remember what is really happening. It's certainly an excersize.

Often, the reality is pain, both physical and spiritual, and a strange sort of disconnect.

Perhaps it will feel more real as time gets closer to the actual birth.

Is this the right blog for these kinds of thoughts?
I think so.

I am reading the Book of Mormon.

2005-09-23T09:18:00.000-07:00

This is what I am reading right now.
I haven't ever read the Book of Mormon all the way through. I will finish it by the end of the year.
It's pertinent to what we are discussing. It's my spiritual journey in a nutshell. Can I know what God wants me to do? Can some other man like Nephi tell me? Will God tell me if I inquire? Is God separate from me? Is there really a devil and really hell? Is there such a thing as filthy and unclean? Is faith necessary to be close to God? What the hell is Faith? Do I need a Redeemer? Why? What's so wrong with me right now?

Sometimes, I just open the book and read one word, cause I believe that there is power in there and it gets on me if I open the book.

-----------------------------------------------------

THE FIRST BOOK OF NEPHI
HIS REIGN AND MINISTRY

CHAPTER 15
Lehi’s seed are to receive the gospel from the Gentiles in the latter days—The gathering of Israel is likened unto an olive tree whose natural branches shall be grafted in again—Nephi interprets the vision of the tree of life and speaks of the justice of God in dividing the wicked from the righteous. [Between 600 and 592 B.C.]

1 AND it came to pass that after I, Nephi, had been carried away in the spirit, and seen all these things, I returned to the tent of my father.

2 And it came to pass that I beheld my brethren, and they were disputing one with another concerning the things which my father had spoken unto them.

3 For he truly spake many great things unto them, which were hard to be aunderstood•, save a man should inquire of the Lord; and they being hard in their hearts, therefore they did not look unto the Lord as they ought.

4 And now I, Nephi, was grieved because of the hardness of their hearts, and also, because of the things which I had seen, and knew they must unavoidably come to pass because of the great wickedness of the children of men.

5 And it came to pass that I was overcome because of my afflictions, for I considered that mine aafflictions• were great above all, because of the bdestruction• of my people, for I had beheld their fall.

6 And it came to pass that after I had received astrength• I spake unto my brethren, desiring to know of them the cause of their disputations.

7 And they said: Behold, we cannot understand the words which our father hath spoken concerning the natural branches of the aolive•-tree, and also concerning the Gentiles.

8 And I said unto them: Have ye ainquired• of the Lord?

9 And they said unto me: aWe• have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.

10 Behold, I said unto them: How is it that ye do not keep the commandments of the Lord? How is it that ye will aperish, because of the hardness of your hearts?

11 Do ye not remember the things which the Lord hath said?—If ye will not harden your hearts, and aask• me in bfaith•, believing that ye shall receive, with diligence in keeping my commandments, surely these things shall be made known unto you.

12 Behold, I say unto you, that the house of Israel was compared unto an olive-tree, by the Spirit of the Lord which was in our father; and behold are we not broken off from the house of Israel, and are we not a abranch• of the house of Israel?

13 And now, the thing which our father meaneth concerning the grafting in of the natural branches through the fulness of the Gentiles, is, that in the latter days, when our seed shall have adwindled• in unbelief, yea, for the space of many years, and many generations after the bMessiah shall be manifested in body unto the children of men, then shall the fulness of the cgospel of the Messiah come unto the Gentiles, and from the dGentiles• unto the remnant of our seed—

14 And at that day shall the remnant of our aseed• bknow• that they are of the house of Israel, and that they are the ccovenant people of the Lord; and then shall they know and dcome• to the eknowledge• of their forefathers, and also to the knowledge of the gospel of their Redeemer, which was ministered unto their fathers by him; wherefore, they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer and the very points of his doctrine, that they may know how to come unto him and be saved.

15 And then at that day will they not rejoice and give praise unto their everlasting God, their arock and their salvation? Yea, at that day, will they not receive the strength and nourishment from the true bvine•? Yea, will they not come unto the true fold of God?

16 Behold, I say unto you, Yea; they shall be remembered again among the house of Israel; they shall be agrafted• in, being a natural branch of the olive-tree, into the true olive-tree.

17 And this is what our father meaneth; and he meaneth that it will not come to pass until after they are scattered by the Gentiles; and he meaneth that it shall come by way of the Gentiles, that the Lord may show his power unto the Gentiles, for the very cause that he shall be arejected of the Jews, or of the house of Israel.

18 Wherefore, our father hath not spoken of our seed alone, but also of all the house of Israel, pointing to the covenant which should be fulfilled in the latter days; which covenant the Lord made to our father Abraham, saying: In thy aseed• shall all the kindreds of the earth be bblessed.

19 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, spake much unto them concerning these things; yea, I spake unto them concerning the arestoration• of the Jews in the latter days.

20 And I did rehearse unto them the words of aIsaiah•, who spake bconcerning• the crestoration of the Jews, or of the house of Israel; and after they were restored they should no more be confounded, neither should they be scattered again. And it came to pass that I did speak many words unto my brethren, that they were pacified and did dhumble• themselves before the Lord.

21 And it came to pass that they did speak unto me again, saying: What meaneth this thing which our father saw in a dream? What meaneth the atree• which he saw?

22 And I said unto them: It was a representation of the atree• of life.

23 And they said unto me: What meaneth the arod• of iron which our father saw, that led to the tree?

24 And I said unto them that it was the aword• of God; and whoso would hearken unto the word of God, and would bhold• fast unto it, they would never perish; neither could the ctemptations• and the fiery ddarts• of the eadversary overpower them unto blindness, to lead them away to destruction.

25 Wherefore, I, Nephi, did exhort them to give aheed• unto the word of the Lord; yea, I did exhort them with all the energies of my soul, and with all the bfaculty• which I possessed, that they would give heed to the word of God and remember to keep his commandments always in all things.

26 And they said unto me: What meaneth the ariver• of water which our father saw?

27 And I said unto them that the awater• which my father saw was bfilthiness; and so much was his mind swallowed up in other things that he beheld not the filthiness of the water.

28 And I said unto them that it was an awful agulf•, which separated the wicked from the tree of life, and also from the saints of God.

29 And I said unto them that it was a representation of that awful ahell•, which the angel said unto me was prepared for the wicked.

30 And I said unto them that our father also saw that the ajustice of God did also divide the wicked from the righteous; and the brightness thereof was like unto the brightness of a flaming bfire•, which ascendeth up unto God forever and ever, and hath no end.

31 And they said unto me: Doth this thing mean the torment of the body in the days of aprobation, or doth it mean the final state of the soul after the bdeath• of the temporal body, or doth it speak of the things which are temporal?

32 And it came to pass that I said unto them that it was a representation of things both temporal and spiritual; for the day should come that they must be judged of their aworks, yea, even the works which were done by the temporal body in their days of bprobation.

33 Wherefore, if they should adie• in their wickedness they must be bcast• off also, as to the things which are spiritual, which are pertaining to righteousness; wherefore, they must be brought to stand before God, to be cjudged of their dworks•; and if their works have been filthiness they must needs be efilthy•; and if they be filthy it must needs be that they cannot fdwell• in the kingdom of God; if so, the kingdom of God must be filthy also.

34 But behold, I say unto you, the kingdom of God is not filthy, and there cannot any unclean thing enter into the kingdom of God; wherefore there must needs be a place of afilthiness prepared for that which is filthy.

35 And there is a place prepared, yea, even that aawful• bhell of which I have spoken, and the cdevil• is the preparator of it; wherefore the final state of the souls of men is to dwell in the kingdom of God, or to be cast out because of that djustice of which I have spoken.

36 Wherefore, the wicked are rejected from the righteous, and also from that atree• of life, whose fruit is most precious and most bdesirable• above all other fruits; yea, and it is the cgreatest• of all the dgifts• of God. And thus I spake unto my brethren. Amen.

From our first discussion

2005-09-19T16:03:00.000-07:00

Here are some thoughts, questions, and quotes from our first discussion that should live on:

"Is experience with prayer proof that God exists?"

"Is it the force of our will that creates something to happen?"

"There's definitely power to it" ..... "That's why I'm determined to believe in God."

"Why is it easier to feel closer to spiritual experiences in the wilderness?"

"Why do we have to have those experiences all the time. (Meaning, you don't.)"

"Is it our belief that creates it - or a connection to something outside ourselves."

"Where is that access to that something outside ourselves?"

"God will help us through any medium WE choose."

"When you feel things external 'why are we feeling that'?"

"I think anyone who wants to reach to God, he will respond."

Not everyone agreed with every statement, or bought into every question.
Much food for thought.

My only complaint is that I didn't have more time to explore with these good people even further.
I will have to wait for next week.

What is Prayer?

2005-09-19T15:45:00.000-07:00

This was our first topic. I've been thinking about it a lot lately.
There have been so many times in life where I felt connected to something outside myself, where I had that "spiritual experience" of love, peace, and/or an answer.

This came in many ways. Sometimes, it was through what I had been traditionally taught was prayer. Sometimes through meditation. Sometimes through yoga practice, or piano practice, or singing in a great choir, or listening to a great choir, or creating any art, or experiencing someone else's art, often through nature and being surrounded by people I love.

I was discussing the empty, nothing feeling that I get when I seek for this feeling and can't find it easily. "How is God speaking to you?" A friend asked. At that time in my life, I was getting nothing from the structure of prayer I had been taught. But I was getting everything through art. Yes, God was speaking to me through art.

But then, my concept of what/who God even is was thrown into great questioning, and the feeling of "God speaking to me" has been ever more elusive.

So what is this prayer thing anyway?
Is that feeling of being spoken to something that stems from within us? A belief system we create so much so that it becomes reality?
Or is it something that truly comes from someone/something else; external?

Thus began our first discussion.

Beginning

2005-09-16T20:07:00.000-07:00

Our Spiritual discussion group begins this Sunday. We will study, explore, and discuss our questions with each other. I'm excited to begin.

I came up with the idea for this when attending church was becoming more and more mentally/emotionally difficult for me. I would sit quietly, unable to say that I disagree. And I was beginning to disagree with more and more of what I heard. But I kept wanting to go to church. Church used to be so fulfilling for me, but as I discovered that I didn't believe in it the way I thought I had, I felt at a loss.

So I examined. WHY *had* church fulfilled my spiritual desires?

Was it the talks people gave over the pulpit?
No. I often would just pick up a theme and go on with a self talk either in my head or in my journal.

Was is the community?
Tough one. Growing up, no. I did not fit in with the other girls at all. I hated activities about make-up and walking like a model, and announcements about how tan all the girls were because they just got back from cheerleading camp. But, I did have the very strong knit community of my family, and socially, where would I be as a non-member growing up in Utah. Most of my friends were LDS, even if they weren't in my ward. So, yes. But then the only people I seemed to connect with at church, once out on m own, were those who would sometimes be self described as "on the edge." I would talk to my friends when they said they had a hard time admitting to being "Mormon" because of some of the things it implied (those things, they said, were self-righteousness, homo-phobic, pro-war, Republican, and judgmental.) I had friends who considered themselves "not just Mormon" but maybe Mormon-Buddhist, or Mormon-Pagan, etc. The further I lived from a high population of Mormons, the fewer LDS close friends I had, and the more non-member friends I had. Sometimes, I would have ONE friend from church. Strangely, at my wedding party, not one of my friends from church came. My bishop, stake president, and relief society pres came, as well as one LDS couple in our ward who new us from dancing, but not one of the *friends I made through the church came.
When I began going to the family ward, I loved seeing little kids. But Relief Society, the one place where I really felt like I could speak up, and we could actually have a conversation, no longer felt safe. Once again, they were talking about make-up ("Goodness, a true friend will tell you if you're about to teach and your lipstick has worn off. Can't let that happen!") and how good and important it is that we're at war ("I know God has sent us to free those poor people. He wouldn't let us go if it weren't right") and I no longer felt comfortable even mentioning my opinion. Not to mention my husband is not LDS, so I have a big black mark until the ward converts him ("don't worry, we'll get him" -- have you asked if I he or I want you to?) Like I won't be ok, I can't really be accepted, until he's part of it too.
Socially yes, socially no.

What is it socially that fulfills me?
The thing I like about Mormonism, that makes me adverse to really seeking any sort of replacement Church, is that there's not one preacher. Everything is run by peers. Therefore, I felt safe disagreeing. If the Sunday School teacher says something I feel is wrong, it's (usually) ok to raise my hand and say so. If someone's teaching style doesn't do anything for me, I may have the option of another class or just wait until someone else becomes the teacher.
I would definitely not be ok with the idea of one person preaching, and the rest of us accepting. I don't like the idea of one person with all the answers. I like the idea of our own personal relationships with divinity, and our own personal applications of that relationship.
And, I like to talk. Just listening to spiritual ideas doesn't do much for me. Just keeping them to myself doesn't do much either. I have a much harder time with private prayer than I do with public prayer. I like to process outloud, and to shore it with someone. I don't need them to blankly accept everything I believe or say. I also don't want to debate it, convince or be convinced of another way. I just want to talk, to explore, discuss, share.

And I don't feel ok doing that at church anymore. Not just because I don't truly feel comfortable with the people. Mostly because I have so many questions and disagreements right now that I couldn't honestly say how I feel without being shocking or "contentious." Church is not the place for that. I don't want to cause or contribute to contention. But I do want to ask my questions and openly seek answers, not just accept things like "you have to take it on faith" or "sometimes we just don't know, what's important is obedience."

To me, faith IS exploring. I wrote a long essay exploring the process of faith. To me, it's exactly like the scientific method. You observe what works, you come up with why you think it may work, and then you fully actively explore if that is true or not. Of course, what you discover from one round through the process is still just a theory (faith!), but there is no law, no knowledge until every possible cause has been explored. We're only limited by the possible causes we can imagine and our abilities to explore them. "Zen, and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainace" explore this idea well, I think.

So, I'm creating a group of people I can discuss and explore with. Perhaps they are exploring different things in different ways than I am. That's ok. I just want to feel safe talking about it, with others who want to talk about it.

Would you like to join us?