Selfish Altruism

                Personalities are strange complicated things. I don’t understand why we have them. Is it genetic? I’m sure that has something to do with it. But I’m sure there is also a significant amount of social factors in it as well. Having taken many personality tests I have decided that the MBTI is the best description I can find for at least my personality as well as my close friends. Also the MBTI is the only test I've actually taken where I sat down and paid money for it (it was for a class so I had to take it). Well that was when I was a sophomore or junior in college a long time ago, and I was significantly younger (17 or 18, who knows and who really cares). While taking the test I had not yet really developed fully as a person, and also I had no knowledge of the test prior to it. So when I answered the questions I answered them without much bias and without reading into the questions so much. I got my results back and tested INFJ. I was happy because the results described me perfectly! I was also very upset because my list of suggested careers included: social worker, religious clergy, teacher, dentist, counselor, etc… As a young physics major none of these appealed to me, and I was so sad to be “stuck” with a personality belonging to the social sciences. I guess it’s no secret that most in the physical sciences look down upon the social sciences questioning if they can even really be called “science”. Even within the hard sciences you have a pride competition on who is the most useful or the purest of all the subjects. So for me as a cocky youngster, I could never dream of “lowering myself” to one of these petty careers. Little did I know that a few years later I would half regret my decision. I love the field I’m in, but often times wish I would have gone into psychology and counseling.

If you know anything about the MBTI then you would know the INTJ is known as the scientist. I was borderline INFJ/INTJ and I thought that maybe I was some kind of hybrid. I've looked deeper into the personalities and the details behind the letters, and I am definitely an INFJ. If you are also on the edge of deciding which you are, or if you think you are a “hybrid” I would suggesting reading this page. If you are an INFJ and decided to study or pursue a career in the sciences then you are not alone! There are advantages and disadvantages to our personality in the field, but that is a discussion for another day. Today I want to discuss the one part of an INFJ that one probably recognizes the easiest: extraverted feeling. INFJs are introverts, we love to think to ourselves and have time for ourselves. We love to have freedom to do as we please, and hate social commitments. We don’t like to be in the spotlight, don’t like to be publicized, and don’t like to be in large groups of people where it prevents us from one on one interactions. (Aside: At this point I will stop using the term “we” and use the term “I” or “me” because I can’t speak for everyone, just for myself.) Despite my introverted nature I have this innate extraverted feeling. It’s something I often wish I could turn off, but I can’t. What it means is that I feel what other people are feeling. I can sense people’s motives, and I can read people without realizing it. I have often come to quick judgments about some people throughout my life and been criticized for it. Then months later I end up being right about my analysis of the person. So this sounds awesome, one might ask why I would ever want to turn it off?

Well first off I do recognize it as who I am. I am happy with who I am, and if given the choice would probably not want to change. But there are issues I deal with every day that most people have no clue about. So let me describe a little of this extraverted feeling that happens in my life. When I watch a TV show I am the character. If someone is being tortured I “feel” the pain they are feeling. Watching breaking bad was one of the most depressing parts of my life because I was always trying to connect to the characters. I could never sympathize with any of them, but yet I was always rooting for the main characters. I hated myself because I was disgusted by how selfish and stupid all of the characters were. But yet I would end the show always feeling so depressed because the story in of itself is so depressing. I love war movies and TV shows, but so many times I watch them and remember that I would hate being a soldier. The fact that it is not any individual soldier’s fault they are in a war is what is so sad. Every soldier is afraid to die, but every soldier is ordered to kill. War truly is hell, and I feel so sorry for anyone who has ever had to participate in any way. If you are sick, I won’t be satisfied until I have done everything for you that I would have wished you did for me. It’s a favor to let me go buy you medicine, get you a drink, or make you food because I can’t sleep until I know there’s nothing more I can do to help. Even then I probably can’t sleep because I can’t stop thinking about the pain you are in. Sometimes this can make me come off annoying or way too involved so I apologize it’s just my instincts.

Many people might describe me as kind hearted, altruistic, or just a super nice guy. What they don’t know is that I’m really not all that nice. Everything I do that is nice is actually to make ME feel better. I do things because I’m always thinking in other people’s shoes. I always think “I wonder how he/she would/does feel about this” and act according to what would make them the happiest. Through this I gain happiness because when others are happy I am happy. So sure I might be altruistic. I do some things that normal people wouldn't do. I have very much a martyr personality where I will gladly put myself into a bad situation to get someone else out. Sometimes I take the blame for things that weren't my fault because I know the person at fault already has enough to deal with. So yes all these actions and thoughts are altruistic, but are they really? Why do I do anything that I do? It’s because I feel better doing it or have some sense of relief by doing it. I do some things because I would feel too guilty not doing it. If someone is cleaning, I feel the need to help them clean. Not because I want to help them clean, but because I feel guilty because the lazy POS who’s not cleaning. So really I don’t have such a selfless nature after all.

So you’re probably wondering why I’m writing this as it sounds like a horrible attack on me and my personality. It’s not meant to be like that; it’s more just a way to express how I feel all the time. Sometimes you see a really nice person and you might say “gee I wish I was like them.” That’s very well-intentioned, but often times we are so quick to look at others and compare them to ourselves. I do this all the time. But that’s not really fair; I’m very different from them. The funny thing is I look at people who are bossy and always get what they want. Then I think to myself “gee I wish I was like them.” Often times I put others above myself when I really shouldn't. But as I've grown older and learned to put myself first it feels like I’m losing a part of my soul. It’s a living hell where I feel awful not helping everyone, but by doing so I don’t get the help I need. There is a balance which we all need to reach, and each of us needs to determine the balance that’s best for ourselves. I just want to express that just because you’re not a naturally sensitive person doesn't make you a bad person. Some people might find you unpleasant to be around, but trust me as a sensitive person there are plenty of people that find me just as unpleasant. That’s just a social thing you’ll have to learn in time, which is ok.

So really I just want to say that everyone is different. We all have different personalities and struggles. When each person is compared to another there will always be strengths and weaknesses. The important thing is to stop comparing ourselves to others, and looking at what we are and what we can be. If we compare ourselves to others it hurts us in two ways. First: we may look at someone who is better than us at something. If that’s the case we hurt ourselves by “trying to be like them” rather than trying to improve that part of ourselves. Second: if we see something that were better at than others often times we become relaxed and stop trying. That can be dangerous because if it’s something we really do wish to improve upon we are crippling our growth. So in closing I guess the main point I want to get across is that it’s fine to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes. In fact it’s probably fair to say that most of us don’t do this nearly enough. But when we do we should remember that we live in our own shoes, and that’s ok. Some struggle with problems unseen, and to judge another person without knowledge of these struggles is extremely ignorant. We just need to remember our own struggles too, because to ignore our own hidden struggles would be just a ignorant. We all deserve to accept who we are.

The Truth About The Truthfulness of Science

                I recently saw this and read through it briefly. Now I have not actually watched the show COSMOS myself because I am too busy with my own vector calculus, but I would encourage all to watch it. I’m sure it’s a wonderful show, and will promote young people to go into science. But one thing that bothers me is some of Dr. Tyson’s wordings. Now as a humble graduate student I fully accept that he is probably a much more intelligent person than I, and also he has PhD in astrophysics so he is definitely not an idiot or a bad scientist. What bothers me personally is his political agenda tied to the way he talks about science. The nice thing about science is that we can leave the normal politics and religion outside when we walk into the lab door. Obviously there is politics in science, but it is very different. We argue about theories, experiments, funding, and the likes. So I will highlight the biggest problem I have with Dr. Tyson’s perceived agenda (perceived to me). Science cannot replace religion, it was never meant to. When you start to mix the two bad things happen. Like I have stated in earlier posts religion is all about a belief system. Science is a methodology and does not have beliefs tied to it. So while I agree Dr. Tyson really is smart and makes some wonderful points (which I fully agree with), some of the way he words things can make me cringe a little inside.

http://xkcd.com/1322/

                So the real point I’m writing all of this is that Dr. Tyson told Colbert, “that’s the good thing about science: It’s true whether you believe it or not.” Now let me explain why this has a large cringe factor associated with it. Oxford dictionary defines science as: “The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.” There is also an alternative definition as “archaic knowledge”. Now Dr. Tyson is using the archaic knowledge definition (I assume) in this context. This definition does not really cover to job of a scientist. Scientists merely practice science, or this activity of applying the scientific model to things. So calling science (the science that scientists practice) true doesn’t really work. Science isn’t really “true” or “not true” it is merely a method of modeling the universe. So while I applaud Dr. Tyson’s motives I would like to re-word his phrase. The laws of nature hold true no matter if you believe in them or not. The scientific models we have to describe the laws of nature are quite accurate. The nice thing about science is that you don’t have to believe the model; you can go out and test it for yourself. However, a good scientist will use his time and resources wisely. Therefore, he/she would be inclined to value peer-reviewed scientific papers and attempt to expound upon the models that have shown to be consistent with experiments and observations.

                One of the big problems we have in science classrooms is the perceived notion that what is in your textbook is the truth. The problem with this is that what is in all of your scientific textbooks is not “the truth” but merely the models that have shown to be fairly accurate in describing the laws of nature. Science doesn’t write the laws of nature, it merely models them. I feel that students should be encouraged to doubt what is in their textbooks. There is no reason for a student to believe it unless they can actually become a scientist themselves. That’s why demos are so important in all science classrooms. The demonstrations and experiments that the students participate in are the actual science of the class. The rest of the class is really just the philosophy part of science. The philosophy part of science is important in becoming a good scientist. The models/laws/theories/equations/postulates/whatever you want to call them are all models based on past experiments and observations. It would be a good thing to learn from past experiments as it would probably take more than one lifetime just to go through and perform experiments for every model past scientists have discovered. When Dr. Tyson talks about how opposing viewpoints are not necessary in every scientific debate that’s what he was getting at. The key to good science is in knowing how to use your time and resources wisely in testing hypotheses and attempting to create new models. I do not agree, however, that opposing viewpoints are not necessary in every scientific debate. If you can find just one example of how your model does not describe the behavior of nature then that model would no longer be viewed by the scientific community as valid and would need to be either thrown out or revised. Nothing can really be proved in science, so the way we try to show something is a good model is by trying to disprove it. If reasonable effort has been put in to disprove a model or a theory, and the theory/model still held/holds true then it means it’s probably a good model. In other words we haven’t proven the theory/model, we have only tested it. That means we should be open-minded to the fact that perhaps our model is wrong.

http://xkcd.com/242/

                Why is being open minded important in science? A great example is the discovery of quantum mechanics. Scientists performed experiments which exhibited behavior which violated the laws of physics up to that point. This is why it is so dangerous to say that science is “true” because that infers the models of science describe exactly the laws of nature. Quantum mechanics was not accepted by many scientists around the time it was being discovered because those scientists were too stubborn to accept that the “laws” of nature could be broken. Really we just discovered that although Newton modeled nature very well on a macroscopic scale, once you are in the context of small dimensions and high energies nature behaves differently. So instead of saying science is true, I prefer to use phrase such as, “an electron does what an electrons does, and it doesn’t care what you think.” I have to thank one of my professors for his simple yet strangely elegant insight. So science needs to be open to revision. Perhaps none of our models will work tomorrow. If that were to happen we would have to revise all of our models and equations to match that.

Nature will do whatever it wants, and is not bound by scientific models. We just assume that the laws of nature will be constant in time because they have been (we suspect according to our model and observations) for about 14 billion years. In science we make many assumptions and approximations in our models to save us time and resources. This is good science because it allows us to be more productive and make even more discoveries. We may make many statements like “information does travel faster than the speed of light”. That is because our model and observations show that nature has and seems to still behave this way. However, if we discovered something which did travel faster than the speed of light it would be ignorant to not look into this discovery further. That doesn’t mean you should accept it, only be open to the possibility. A few years ago scientists thought they had discovered just this, but it was shown to be experimental error. So I am of the opinion that information does not travel faster than the speed of light, but one day I said that nothing can ever go faster than the speed of light. One of my colleagues showed be that danger of a statement like that. I realize now the problem with my statement and am now very careful in my wording of scientific statements. It would most likely be a waste of time and resources to look for something travelling faster than the speed of light, but if something every did it would be ignorant to not look into it further.

http://xkcd.com/298/

So there is a link between the laws of nature and science. The difference between the two is science is a model, and does not give facts. It only will show the most likely patterns which will be repeated. I say this partly tongue in cheek because our models have proven to be so accurate that “most likely” does not give it justice. But there will always be a better model, new discoveries, and things we as scientists have overlooked.

http://xkcd.com/749/

So in closing I would just like to say that science and religion can co-exist. In fact if your religion teaches you to pray, and see if you receive blessings that’s technically science. You’re testing a hypothesis, and possibly getting results. If you took that last sentence to heart, all I can say is good like finding a way to put error bars. I won’t wish you luck on getting published or peer reviewed. If you’ve taken it that far for your own sake please just stop. Some people believe in claims that may or may not fit the current scientific theories. You believe whatever you want, but you are likely to be wasting your time if you try to use science to prove anything in your religion which disagrees with current scientific models. If you want to spend your time doing that that’s fine with me (and probably most of the scientific community), but please don’t put it into our children’s textbooks, use our research funds, or waste our time with your conversation. All of these things are precious to us, and I think that’s the point Dr. Tyson is trying to make. Also remember that science is also not something that you should believe in, nor is it a belief system. I have heard from many atheists that they have replaced religion with science. That is probably one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard.  You can’t replace a belief system with something that is not a belief system. If you think that scientific models disagree with the claims of religion that’s ok, but leave the religion behind and don’t get all preachy with the science. Like Dr. Tyson meant to say, the beauty about science is that you don’t have to believe it. Just go try it and you’ll see for yourself if it works.

When men become gods, and God becomes man

I recently saw this article that a facebook friend posted. I was reading it, and I realized that this talk represents the pinnacle of why I will probably never believe in the LDS religion again. I realize that so many people can brush this off as just being “the words of a man” but that is exactly why I cannot follow such a religion. Elder Oaks in this article says: “We must stress the fundamental truths on which our beliefs are based. Ultimately, these include the existence of God and the eternal reality of the truths and the right and wrong defined by His teachings and His commandments.” The question here is what is the “right and wrong” defined by “[God’s] teaching and His commandments”?

                After talking about Korihor (an anti-Christ figure in the Book of Mormon), Elder Oak’s goes on to explain that the idea of moral relativism and secular humanism is most influential in the world of higher education. I would definitely agree with this, because the more you study about things like physical science, psychology, sociology, and similar subjects the more you begin to understand that the way we as humans reason is through our experience. We look at situations and events and analyze how they reciprocate themselves over time. The biggest problem with religion is that it is a SUBJECTIVE topic which no academia can model. Each person will have his or her own experience with a God or gods or other beings. There is no consistent way of replicating one’s personal religious experience, so those in the higher education setting who are used to this methodology have a hard time accepting a belief in something that is not objectively proven.

                Elder Oaks then goes on to give this statement: “This is the belief applied by many in the popular media and in current peer pressure. ‘Break free of the old rules. Do what feels good to you. There is no accountability beyond what man’s laws or public disapproval impose on those who are caught.’ Behind such ideas is the assumption that there is no God or, if there is, He has given no commandments that apply to us today.” I completely disagree with the statement that doing what feels good to you is assuming that there is no God, or that he has not given any commandments. Moral relativism is just stating that there is no objective way of finding any all-encompassing moral code. For example in Islam there are many commandments which Christians break every day. This does not mean that Christians do not believe in God, but merely that their interpretation of God and his commandments is different. So how can one truly know what God’s commandments are except for doing what one FEELS good doing. Isn’t this in fact one of the ways that we are taught in Mormonism the spirit works with us. So what happens if I don’t feel right at church, does that mean that the spirit is telling me I shouldn’t be there? No matter how you look at it there’s no way of knowing if there is or isn’t a God, and what his commandments might be objectively. The only way we can find out is by our SUBJECTIVE experience with religion. Deciding which religion is the true religion is very subjective, everyone has different experiences and will interpret those experiences for themselves. That will lead them to conform to the commandments that a particular religion claims are his commandments, or maybe even they will adapt those religious standards to their own subjective understanding.

                I personally subscribe to the idea of moral relativism. I understand that I have my own thoughts on morality or what I feel is right and wrong due to my own personality and subjective personal experiences. I also accept the fact that others experiences will be different, and I can allow them their own personal moral code. I do not consider myself a secular humanist because although I do not feel like religion is my moral guide; I like to be open minded to new experiences that could change my opinion. According to my personal system of what is right and what is wrong, the only thing that I feel is innately right and wrong for everyone is allowing others to develop their sense of morality for themselves. Yes that includes things that could be harmful to society. That doesn’t mean that I condone their behavior, I only condone their feelings towards such behavior. I will discuss this later when I define the difference between social contract and morality. I would like to discuss (first) why Elder Oaks is so very wrong with criticizing secular humanists comparing them to the abominable church which claims they make themselves gods and their purpose is to get wealth and power over others.

                To call those that subscribe to the philosophy of secular humanism to the evil church or the last days is just as offensive as it would be for me to call the LDS church a cult (if not more so). Part of secular humanism is all about developing an altruistic morality, so why would one who is altruistic attempt to get gain from others or gain power over others? They wouldn’t, so by definition a secular humanist (if one truly subscribes to the essence of the philosophy) would teach all of the things Jesus taught minus the part about God. So to compare them to evil people teaching false doctrine to get gain is absurd. Last time I checked secular humanism is one the philosophies one could subscribe to without tithing or a donation plate being pushed on them. Church leaders have the potential to gain much more wealth and power than any leader in a humanist movement because humanists are all about equality and would avoid putting one person above another.

                Elder Oaks quotes a BYU professor in saying, “Humanism makes a man to be god, the supreme being, and the educated human mind becomes the arbiter of all that is true, good and beautiful.” This is an incorrect statement as god is a construct of religion. Humanism does not make man to be god because it does not talk about god at all. But if we look at it in this light, how do we follow God and know is commandments. Well according to the LDS church if something does not agree with the doctrine of the church then one can throw it out as false. What happens when one feels like the spirit is telling them truth, yet it challenges the teachings of a church leader which has been accepted as doctrine? That person then is typically told that what they received was in fact not revelation from God as it contradicts the truth God has given us through his prophets. So because a prophet is God’s mouthpiece, a prophet essentially becomes God. So although we may fear man becoming gods, should we not also fear the possibility that perhaps God has become a man? Essentially a leader of a church who teaches that he is in fact God’s mouthpiece on earth has Godly powers over his congregation. But is that power something God gave to him/her, or something that his congregation gives to him/her? I won’t answer that question, but I would encourage one to think about it.

                So now that we have all that out of the way, we can get to the true meat of what this talk was about really: protecting religious rights in America. With all this talk of same-sex marriage many religious organizations are feeling “oppressed” just because they can’t pass laws to force people to live a certain way. If one understands well the founding fathers of this country and their philosophies, then one would also be very familiar with the social contract and how that philosophy played a role in the forming of the US Constitution. Each person in this country is believed to have an unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or at least that’s what the Declaration of Independence states). It is my understanding that the Constitution and all the amendments thereof are to ensure all American people these liberties. I am no law expert so forgive me if I am misinterpreting all of this. A government is a man-made institution and the laws thereof where made to govern men. The revolution was fought for some because they wanted freedom from the Church of England. In the same respect religion was to be free of the government, but in the same respect government was also to be free of religion. So you see the social contract that we agree to live by as citizens is far different from any moral code given by a God or gods. But from my understanding this entire hubbub is all about how the government is getting dangerously close to violating the first amendment right of the freedom of religion. If that’s the case then God’s moral laws have nothing to do with it.

                So let’s talk about this freedom of religion. Congress cannot make any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof. So let’s talk about a good example: same sex marriage. Is making same-sex marriage legal making a law respecting the establishment of religion? I don’t see a connection at all between the two. Some say “marriage is a religious institution”, but then I would respond by saying that the rights given by marriage are through the government. Rights such as visitation, tax and inheritance, and legal stuff like wills are all governed by men not God. So I don’t see how marriage is a religious institution. Sure maybe God doesn’t accept the marriage, or a church might not accept the marriage, but that’s not the debate that’s going on. It’s trying to get the government to accept the legal marriage.

                I won’t go into the whole legal aspect of this stuff, the Supreme Court rulings, or the quotes from Thomas Jefferson because that would make this twice as long. I just want to point out that there is a difference between legal marriage and religious marriage. For example a temple sealing is the only thing that the LDS God views as a real eternal marriage anyways. So therefore it seems to me that any legal ruling on marriage does not affect the celestial status of marriage. In fact in other countries (such as Brazil) you are required to have a legal wedding outside the temple before being sealed inside. There is a clear separation there between religious marriage and a civil marriage. That’s all the US government is doing by accepting legal same sex marriages is saying that the CIVIL part of the marriage is legal. A friend did point out to me that the LDS church does put value into civil marriage. Actually since most Christian churches don't have temple sealings like the LDS church does I realize that this argument is fairly weak. So I would like to restate that a church will decide what marriage is accepted by God or not. There are states in the US and also other countries where gay marriage is legal. A church that claims homosexuality as a sin will claim that this couple's marriage is not condoned by God. So the problem isn't that churches don't give value to any civil marriage, the problem is that a church decides what marriage has value to God and what doesn't. After all the LDS church performed a good number of polygamous marriages after it was illegal in the US. So although these marriages were recognized by God they weren't recognized by the US government. I feel that the US had not right to say that polygamy should be illegal, but at the same time the church accepted that God would accept the marriage whether or not the government would.

                So let me explain to you why the freedom of religion is not under attack. Lawmakers are legally prevented from passing any law which gives any advantages or disadvantages to any religion. However there is a caveat that religious members must abide by the law of the land. The law of the land is always the higher law according to civil law. That’s because we live in a society of people, and we need rules from people. Someone who is LDS and always talks about church leaders “acting as men” should understand this very well. We have structure in the government because we deal with many people, and that structure is independent of any belief in anything. It’s purely people dealing with people.

                The fact that any church is getting involved in any way in the political process is actually a violation of the first amendment. Having a church pay for lobbying in Congress or fund and or provide materials and manpower as a church in any political activity would be to promote preferential treatment of that church or religion. Preferential treatment for any church or religion is exactly why we have the first amendment. So you see a church or religion getting involved in processes such as legalizing the use of marijuana or same sex marriage is in fact a violation of the separation of church and state set forth in the first amendment. This is because it gives preferential treatment lawfully to people of one church or religion and does not give equal rights to all. So all of you church folks complaining that your first amendment rights are under attack just know that you’ve been attacking the first amendment rights of others this whole time.

                Now don’t get me wrong there is nothing wrong with individual people who belong to a religion or church to lobby for what they believe in. Just know that Congress cannot pass any such law regarding religion at all, so in other words a legal marriage as defined by Congress is in fact not religious. So pushing for your religious definition of marriage would be to push for a law that does in fact violate the first amendment because you are pushing for it due to your religious beliefs. So think on that carefully next time you write to your congressman: is what I’m pushing for something that has to do with religion? If it is then you should probably rethink the constitutionality of what you’re pushing for. It’s true that forcing a church to perform a religious marriage that is against its own doctrine would be in my opinion unconstitutional, and I would fight for their right to not be forced to do so. On the other hand: to prohibit a church or just a plain civil marriage that doesn’t agree with someone’s interpretation of the Bible is also (in my opinion) unconstitutional. That’s true to make it illegal to teach creationism in school would also be a violation of the first amendment, but to not teach evolution also fits into that category. So let’s just teach our kids all the viewpoints and let them decide for themselves what they think. After all isn’t that what LDS doctrine believes life is all about?

                So I will just say this. To make man’s laws God’s laws would make God into a man and having to abide by man’s rules. To make man into a god would require that one puts themselves at a status of deity and the mentality of being a higher power. Neither of these viewpoints fits in with the founding fathers viewpoint of the social contract. I’m not saying we have to follow what they say or did, after all they expected society would change and if they really were smart would applaud the way that we evolve the government as society evolves. That is in fact a government FOR the people being changed BY the people. So all I want to say in closing is that God is not a man, and man is in no form a god. We are all just humans, however we got here no one knows. All we know is that if we have to deal with each other we should probably respect each other’s views. There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven. I view that as explaining that things are put into context, and taking things out of context makes for a big mess. So let’s leave the politics in Washington and the religion in church. Leave the parenting to the parents, the educating to the educators. If we all accept the role we play in society, and accept the role that others play in society in the scope of one’s own role perhaps we as a society can learn to function the way society was meant to: everything at the appropriate time and place.

Who Am I?

A simple question with infinite meaning can often times be ignored

Because the question one thinks is simple is often not simply answered

Which came first: the egg or the bird? We often have asked ourselves

And strangely no answer can come from the question upon which our mind may dwell

“Who am I” I ask, a question so simple but with no answer of which I’m aware

So how easy a question so simple and honest can be something deeper I’ll share

I often was taught that I came from a God who loves me and shows me he cares

Later at school I learned that a person is the clothes that he or she wears

Nature and nurture determine the person which we will one day become

Some traits are genetic, some traits come from parents, and those traits make up the grand sum

There’s Moses and Jesus and Darwin and Freud, and others with grand explanations

But can their answers be taken for truth without having further citations?

My feelings, my thoughts, my words, and my acts aren’t always unique to me

But ALL of my feelings, my thoughts, and my words in nobody else you will see

Some tell me of heaven and what I’ll become the minute right after I die

Some tell me that death is the end of this life, and you’ll never come back if you try

So often I wonder: does my existence have existence far beyond this small earth?

Can my existence exist on forever, and did I exist before birth?

Some give me answers without telling how, others the “hows” without “whys”

But no one can answer what happens hereafter until that same person dies

Some say we are one, just a different projection of who “we” really are

I’d say that’s an answer, but in my own answer I wouldn’t go quite that far

My answer is this, I know who I am, because who I am is me

And this person I am, or who I become is exactly who I want to be

I might not know all of the answers, like where I’ll go when I die

Or whether or not we lived before birth, or if God watches down from the sky

But the answer I know is who I am now, and knowing that sets me free

To do the things I feel I should do, and to be who I want to be

Some people may say I am lost or confused, or maybe I just lost my way

Because I choose not to believe, or to do, or to say the things that they say

You’ll never be me and I’ll never be you, so how can you know who I am?

Some tell me I’m this, some tell me I’m that, so how can I tell what’s the scam?

So I will decide what’s best for me, and you must decide for you

Because I am one, cause if I were we, then we would have to be two

So questions of who we become after death or what we were before birth

Don’t have to be all of or part of the answer of who we are when we live on this earth

I do things and says things that others find odd, but also I find others strange

But if we can just accept who we are, then acceptance requires no change

On Repentance

A friend of mine recently was wondering what my thoughts are on repentance. This is a tough question for me because I don’t really believe in sin anymore. So I am going to approach this in the viewpoint I had when I did believe in sin. I will attempt to use the scriptures that I had growing up in the LDS church to explain my reasoning. There are some scriptures which I was not happy with (namely some of the scriptures in the D&C [Doctrine and Covenants]) because I did not feel that they fell in line with the teachings that should be prominent in Christianity.

First I will say that sin is one of my biggest qualms with religion. People will refer to the Ten Commandments as their moral code. Others will refer to the Bible as a whole for their moral code. I don’t understand how either of these can be used to create a moral code. The Bible (namely the Old Testament, but parts of the New Testament) can be used to justify incest, slavery, polygamy, and one could even argue that it justifies genocide. Most people who defend the Bible as the word of God will claim that polygamy and murder of women and children are very evil deeds. It only takes one read through and you will find countless examples of both (All links are to the KJV that the LDS church has online):

-Killing: 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Jeremiah 48:10, Joshua 8:1-29, Joshua 6:20-21, Judges 20:48, and countless other examples

-Incest: Genesis 19:30-38, Genesis 38, Exodus 6:20, Genesis 20:12 (there may be a consideration that Sarah is actually Abraham’s niece, there are a few other examples of both “holy” men and unholy men which committed incest

-Polygamy: Genesis 16:1-11, Genesis 29:21-28, 2 Samuel 2:1-2, Countless other prophets and kings with their wives and concubines

I give these only as a few examples. The LDS church has an official explanation for the polygamy thing and as to why Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and several other LDS prophets after him until the official declaration was released, and later added to LDS cannon. I just want to make the point that the Bible is full of things that are not considered by modern society as moral things, but yet modern Christianity has set the Bible as its source of righteous standards and morals.

Why we have Ten Commandments in front of courthouses I do not know, but I’m not upset about it. I just think that it is more of a symbol than actually standing for a moral code. After all things like worshiping other gods, lying (when not in cases of perjury or fraud), saying the name of God in vain, committing adultery, not honoring your parents, coveting, making graven images, and not honoring the Sabbath day are all perfectly legal. If we count bearing false witness as in the case of perjury or fraud then there are in fact only three out of the ten that are illegal within the US.

Whether you agree with me on this or not, I don’t really care. I just have come to the conclusion that morality and ethics are determined by society and individuals. What “God has said” can change, and very well has changed over time and between religions. For some drinking is a sin; yet Jesus himself drank wine as it was the custom for his time. Some say that only being a drunkard is a sin, but if you read Noah the prophet got quite drunk one night and it is argued that Ham sodomized his father. When Lot’s daughters seduced him he was also too drunk to tell they were his own daughters suggesting that he also did his fair share of heavy drinking.

So as I was growing up I was told by the church what was and what wasn’t a sin. This was a long list of do’s: go to church, read scriptures daily, say prayers daily, pay tithing, serve in the church, etc… as well as a list of do nots: no sexual acts of any kind before marriage, don’t rebel against the church or your parents, don’t drink/smoke/drink coffee or tea/do drugs, don’t work/shop/do “worldly” things on Sunday, don’t lie/cheat/steal, etc… This is all along with a list of cultural do not’s and do’s which are not official commandments according to the church, but are implied either by being taught by a prophet of the church or just a cultural thing or “suggestions”. These include: not watching sports on Sunday (Kimball The Miracle of Forgiveness), not watching rated R movies (there are several talks on this, I only linked one), not dating until you’re 16 (For the Strength of Youth), no caffeine or sometimes just coca-cola, other taboo things like sleeping with someone of the opposite sex even if there are no sexual acts performed.

I was a confused young man in a world or so many do’s and do not’s that I felt like I had lost sight of what was really important. Jesus often criticized the Pharisees for their strict obedience to the law as opposed to following a higher law or the most important commandment which was to love God and to love your neighbor. So why is it that we put so much emphasis on the laws and commandments which Jesus is not found preaching in the New Testament, and instead focus on things that are only covered by a few verses in the entire Bible? I had often struggled with this, and therefore struggled with the idea of repentance. If forsaking sin is a stipulation for repentance then how am I ever supposed to repent if I have to worry about doing so many things all the time? I don’t think I ever fully grasped the idea of repentance because I was always stuck on feeling horrible about myself, instead of focusing on making myself a better person.

If church is for sinners just like a hospital is for sick people, then how come we focus so much on the sins in church? It’s like going to a hospital to receive chemo for your lung cancer, and instead receiving a long lecture series on how smoking causes cancer. I feel that we (or I felt that we) focused way too much energy as  religious people in condemning and defining sin that we lose the big picture or becoming better people. I feel that one of the biggest reasons that pornography is such a “huge problem” in the LDS church is because you talk so much about it. Guaranteed that a normal 13 year old boy that hears someone talking about the stuff he saw the other day on the internet is going to go home with only more desire to look at it.

But I digress; the whole point of this is to talk about repentance and my thoughts on it. The LDS church defines repentance as:

“A change of mind and heart that brings a fresh attitude toward God, oneself, and life in general. Repentance implies that a person turns away from evil and turns his heart and will to God, submitting to God’s commandments and desires and forsaking sin. True repentance comes from a love for God and a sincere desire to obey his commandments. All accountable persons have sinned and must repent in order to progress toward salvation. Only through the atonement of Jesus Christ can our repentance become effective and accepted by God.”

I think that repentance is about a change of heart (and LDS doctrine agrees) more than a change of behavior. A change of heart is not something that is given by a list of commandments or things that one must do to repent. If you don’t feel bad for doing something you cannot by definition repent. If you feel bad for doing something you’ve already started to repent automatically. One can’t just have a “change of heart” because they hear a talk in church or their bishop/priest tells them to. If you tell someone who is gay that they “must have a change of heart” or they’ll go to hell is like walking up to a democrat and telling them they must vote republican or when they die they’ll lose all their estate to the government (I use the term is like, there are obvious differences I’m just making a quick analogy). You’re asking someone who feels good about what they are doing (because that is what their natural inclination is) to stop doing what they feel they want to do.

It’s true that one could argue that almost no one is repentant because almost everyone feels good doing some kind of sin. I’m not trying to say that, I’m trying to say that if you feel BETTER keeping a commandment that you feel comes from God than sinning, that would indicated true repentance because you had a “change of heart”.

Feeling guilty for doing something is very different than feeling guilty for doing something you feel is bad. There is a difference between doing something that is wrong and worried about it affecting your salvation/church status/condemnation and feeling sad that you did something innately evil/upset God. Some people go to church because they fear hell; I’d argue that that person with that attitude wouldn’t make it into heaven because they feared God not loved him. The same could be said about the repentance process we have in churches, we fear the shame/punishment more than we feel upset for doing something wrong.

I sometimes hurt other’s feelings with the things I say. I genuinely feel bad because I hurt their feelings, but it would do no good to feel bad if it was just because I feared the social/economic repercussions of offending someone. Just like the brown-nosers are really annoying in a corporate world, I’m sure that Jesus would feel the same about those in the religious or spiritual world. The crazy thing about most people’s beliefs in modern Christianity is that God knows the intentions or your heart as well as your actions. In my opinion merely “going through the motions” isn’t repentance, it’s just trying to brown-nose God. So that’s probably why step one in repentance is having a change of heart because you can’t really do the rest properly without that part.

So how can one truly feel this “change of heart”? Well according to LDS doctrine everyone receives what is referred to as the light of Christ which the Book of Mormon prophet Moroni teaches is basically our conscience. So God gave us this inherent gift to know what is right and wrong. Once you are baptized into the LDS church, you are given a further gift: the gift of the Holy Ghost which is like the light of Christ on cocaine (or whatever your stimulant or choice is). This often confused me because I was told that people that live in remote areas and aren’t taught Christian values are treated as innocent in the eyes of God. This as an answer to my question if you don’t believe in pre-destination and God is a fair God then what about people who aren’t taught about the truth and are evil (cannibalistic tribes, warlords, etc…). I was told they would still have a chance (and according to Mormon doctrine it will be in the spirit world in the life hereafter) to accept the truth. Other Christians have told me that they will be judged on what knowledge they were given. But according to LDS doctrine everyone is given the light of Christ which will help us determine what is good and what isn’t good. So then how come there are so many different opinions on righteousness and sin? I still have that question, and am waiting for a good response (if you think you have a good response, I’ve probably already heard it and don’t find it convincing).

So we’ve got the point now that we have to have a change of heart, and that magically comes from God through our conscience, the light of Christ, or whatever you want to call it. So after that what are the steps? Well Jesus taught a pretty good lesson when he said “Go and sin no more”. Obviously not doing the sin again is a very good measure of how repentant one is. But does that mean if we commit the sin again we aren’t repentant? The truth is I don’t know. I don’t believe that any man is at liberty to speak or to judge. Romans 14:13 expresses my best feelings on the topic, don’t judge but only work towards helping others towards their goals of righteousness. After all Paul argues earlier in the chapter that we will all stand accountable to God at the last day for our own actions, so why should we be concerned with others?

It is exactly this topic that I want to bring up another step in the repentance process: confession. In 1 John 1:9 we read that confession leads to forgiveness from God. I agree with this, because it is part of being honest with ourselves. If God knows everything, then denying something to God means that we don’t accept that we ourselves have done something. I view confession to God as something more for us to accept what we have done rather that the need of God to hear our confession. After all if God is all powerful and all knowing why would he need to hear a confession from us? But confession is brought up typically in a sense of confessing to God, so why do Catholics confess to a priest and why do Mormons confess to a Bishop?

Well James 5:16 seems to be the only evidence that one should confess publicly within the Bible. So as to the Catholic belief in confession I cannot speak to as I am neither Catholic nor did I grow up Catholic. Therefore I have no opinion on that matter. The LDS idea of confession does hold some scriptural value if you believe in the LDS cannon of the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. The high priest Alma was given the commandment from God to go and basically demand repentance of those in the church who had “been deceived” into sinning. In this case he basically was given authority to excommunicate from the church those members who would not confess of their sins and show a repentant attitude. D&C 59:12 refers to the same type of thing as James 5:16 that we should confess our sins to other members of the church. So of all the mountain of scriptural verses, only three clearly state you need a public confession (I lied, it’s actually four. There’s another story just like the Alma story above). But the point being why is it required for repentance if it is only stated four times in LDS scripture. On top of all that, the two from the Book of Mormon point more towards serious and open sinning rather than sin that is not open and more discrete.

It is my opinion (and kind of was as a believing member of the church) that sins are not required to be confessed to a Bishop because it really doesn’t have any doctrinally sound base. If the LDS church would actually be open about what they accept as doctrine and those things which are “the opinions of men” within the church leadership then it would be much easier to accept it as doctrine (although if the church accepted what all church leaders taught/implemented it would also open up a Pandora’s box). In fact confession to the bishop is in the LDS leadership handbook without a reason other than “someone along the line was inspired to put it in there”. The official stance of when to confess is very blurry, and the handbook contains information on what is required to confess to the bishop. Instead of going into detail I’ll just say it’s mostly “serious” sins such as anything sexual in nature or more serious word of wisdom problems (drinking, smoking, etc…). This article gives a really wishy washy explanation of when confession is required. Basically it says if you feel bad about it you need to confess.

Also this article gives the reason for confession: it is to relieve you of the burden of the sin. I have heard countless stories from bishops and in conferences about how much better everyone feels after confessing to the bishop. I can admit I have felt better after confession to the bishop. But why did I feel better? It’s because I was TAUGHT that in order to be forgiven I had to confess. Honestly I felt like God and I were good and that there was no need to confess to the bishop other than “that’s what you do”. I don’t feel that it’s necessary for anyone to confess to a bishop, if it really scarred you it’s much better for you and more appropriate to talk to a therapist. OK some people might feel better getting the sin off their chest by telling a bishop, but I think the number of people who “need” to feel that relief have the “burden” because they’re taught that they won’t even be forgiven until it happens. Some people feel the need to confess little things to their bishop and are told that confession of a sin of that nature is “not required” for repentance. They obviously felt bad enough about it to confess so drawing a blurry line of what’s required and what’s not required for repentance is ridiculous.

So let’s say you do confess to the bishop. What happens then? Well pretty much anything actually. The bishop has free reign of how to discipline you, and if he doesn’t feel comfortable about something he refers to the higher authority a stake president. Well even if I feel repentant the stake president can tell me I can’t give talks in church or attend the temple for a year if he feels it’s necessary. So even if you received revelation from God that he forgave you, a person in authority in the church can receive revelation contrary to your feelings and discipline you. So you say “it’s ok, he’ll be judged for that in the afterlife and he knows his responsibility”. Well then what was the point of you praying and receiving revelation for yourself if someone else is just going to override it? That’s the problem with this confession system; it takes away your ability to finish the repentance process on your own, and puts it into the hands of a “Judge in Israel”.

Another problem I see in the system is in the case of missionaries and students at church-owned schools. If a missionary at a young age had sex before his mission once, repented of it (all but confessed), and was a year and eleven months into his mission he could be sent home by the mission president for being unworthy. So he did all that work, and you praised him for having the spirit and being a great missionary all that time only to send him home because he had missed the confession part. What if he didn’t feel bad about it until that time in his mission? That means he didn’t need to confess it according to Elder Grow. There are problems in this system in that transgressions that were committed prior to a new obligation are counted towards you as if you had just committed them. Also the discipline is so inconsistent that it’s sickening.

You see it all just depends on your bishop or stake president. If you did something bad a long time ago some will say you’re ok, others will say that you are still in need of repentance. The honor codes at church schools that one signs are agreements for proper conduct while attending the school. They are not signed agreements for previous sins. So to send a student home from a church school because of previous sins (just like the missionary example) is much less warranted than the missionary example. I have seen this happen multiple times and it upsets me. If there was a need for repentance, then why do they need to go home and resolve it with another bishop? They are confessing to relieve themselves of the burden not to be formally disciplined right…?

To finish off, I want to talk about the inappropriate nature socially of confession. When one confesses to church leaders typically you have to go into discrete detail about the sin. For example I couldn’t just say me and the girlfriend got naughty last weekend, I’m sorry. I’d have to describe who touched what and how. That’s all fine and good (albeit creepy) for an adult to confess that, but when young men and women some as young as 11 are confessing these things to a sometimes older than 50 year old male it sounds absurd. Since women can’t hold the priesthood however these young women must go in and confess in detail their sins to their older male counterpart. I think in any other social setting that kind of discussion would be completely inappropriate.

So I have talked a lot about what is sin and why I think confession isn’t needed or appropriate in most cases. But all in all I think repentance is something that is a personal matter between you and God. If you feel the need to confess, then confess. If you feel guilty because someone told you it was required to confess, try to talk to God first and see what he thinks. After all in the end you’ll be judged by him, and I’ve been told he tries not to go back on his word. Just like sin is a personal thing between you and God so is repentance. You do it to please God, not to appease him. In that sense you should really be doing it to also please yourself if you feel that pleasing God is a happy thing. If you don’t think pleasing God is a happy thing then please re-think your religion/religious status.

I will just say that I live my by what Jesus taught “Judge not, that ye be not judged”. No matter what you believe or how you feel about repentance, as long as it helps you become the person you want to become I’m all for it (granted you do no harm to others). Jesus is kind loving and Christians believe he died for your sins. I’m pretty sure if he was willing to die for you and suffer horrible agony, then he loves you plenty enough to not be a prick about the repentance process.

On Pascal's Wager

A recent set of conversations with several people got me thinking about something I once believed in firmly. For those of you unfamiliar is Pascal’s Wager or Pascal’s gambit this Wikipedia article sums it up well. Basically Pascal argues that since there’s a possibility that God does exist and the economics of the afterlife depend on your belief in God that it is better (in a economic sense spiritually) to believe in God. In other words a belief in God may cause some temporal losses in this life, but the potentially infinite losses in the afterlife of living with an atheistic viewpoint far outweigh and losses in this life. And if it turns out that God doesn’t exist then the most you have to lose is some kind of finite loss here in this life.

                Having grown up Christian, Pascal’s wager appealed to me when I grew older and found contradictions in religion which raised doubts in me. Pascal having contributed significantly to physics and mathematics was for me a good role model to base my philosophy of life on. I was in fact very ok with the fact that even though I might be missing out on some life experiences because of my beliefs (or possibly persecution or ridicule) it was worth it. And if in fact God didn’t exist then we’d all die and it wouldn’t matter in the slightest.

                This whole line of thought has really bothered me in recent years, in that technically there is not justice if there is a God. There is justice perhaps in a religious sense, but not justice in a truly equal justice sense. If God exists and the atheists are wrong then all the believers get to mock the atheists and send them to hell. In fact no matter what religion you are, you will still get to say “well at least I believed in a God/gods” as they get some kind of satisfaction in hell for choosing the wrong God. If atheists that don’t believe in any afterlife are right then they will never get the satisfaction of saying “ha I was right”. They will simply just die and disappear like the rest of everyone.

                All humor aside, I have started to look into my initial evaluation of Pascal’s wager. Recently I have looked into apatheism and almost convinced myself that I was one. The truth is that I am not. If there was a God and I knew about it I would change my life. If that/those God or gods was/were just, merciful, and loving I would change my lifestyle to helping them accomplish their goals. Those goals would ultimately be the happiness of others. In my opinion this is accepting people for who they are (after all they would be their creations and would want them accepted as just that) and helping them become caring and loving human beings. If this/these God/gods was/were unjust I would have to rethink my life. I am very strongly inclined to stick to a value system. If the higher deity was unjust I would have to outweigh my eternal punishments with compromising my values. I don’t know what I would do in the situation, but I’m afraid I would choose eternal punishment over worshipping a cruel heartless deity. So the only reason I’m not an apatheist is because I fear compromising my values to worship a cruel God to save myself. This fear gives me uncertainty so I cannot with surety say that if there was a cruel God it would not change the way I live my life.

                So why do I bring up apatheism in a discussion about Pascal’s wager you ask. Well it’s because Pascal’s wager is an “argument of assumptions” as the citation on Wikipedia calls it. He approaches it from a Christian viewpoint which in my opinion is the first mistake. If one believes and worships Jesus Christ then they are wrong according to the God of Islam or Judaism. Will I get into heaven as a Christian if Jesus wasn’t in fact the son of God, but merely a prophet or maybe just a regular Jew? I don’t know. Will I get into heaven with a Christian God as a Muslim? I’ve been told by many that I wouldn’t. So here’s my problem with the whole wager, it’s based on assumptions that have just as much uncertainty as the existence of a deity. There’s no statistics or numbers to create a valid economic model.

                So I am an apatheist in that if I found out there was a loving God, I wouldn’t change a thing in my life. I live by a standard that is to love others and respect and honor their values. I avoid doing things to others that I know would hurt me. I try to avoid judging others because they act different or say weird things, or maybe even believe things that seem absurd to me. I do judge, it’s in our human nature to, but I know that it’s against my value system to do it. I don’t think I’m in a position to claim that others are sinning, but can only determine what a sin is for me. I don’t do things I consider “sins”; in the same respect if your “sins” are not negatively affecting someone else’s life, then I’m in no position to call it a “sin”. So I feel that if God is a loving merciful God, he would see that I am accomplishing his goals even if I didn’t believe in him. And if he is loving and merciful he can overlook my faults and will understand that he did not show proof of himself enough for me personally to believe in him. If he is not loving and merciful than even if I did believe in him I doubt my life would be worth much to him. So I will take Pascal’s wager from an apatheist perspective. My losses here in this life are none, since I would live my life as a loving caring person with or without a God. My losses in the afterlife are (based on my assumptions) infinite if God is not loving, or none if he is. Either way I have the same chances in the afterlife according to my assumptions, so it’s economical to live the life I do.

                My whole argument with all of this is merely that any model of any God or religion is based on assumptions. Those assumptions could be guided by inspiration, answers to prayers, a holy book, etc… It’s fine to have a belief system, and it’s perfectly ok to live your life according to your beliefs. When you start telling others that their models will end them up in hell is where I have a problem. They are basing their model of different assumptions, and you have no right to take that away from them. So I will say this: the house always wins. Whatever or whomever you bet your lifestyle on it won’t change the house rules. No one knows for sure what those rules are, so whatever your wager just try to keep your hands on your own spiritual chips.

How An Idealist Lost His Ideals

For those of you who have studied about the MBTI personality preferences, I am an INFJ. Some people think the whole thing is just a giant scam, or don’t believe in it because the online test didn’t describe them. Well the truth is I have taken several tests before and even the same test multiple times while getting different answers. So the best thing to do is study the personality types and understand more what your preferences are rather than trying to interpret what each question is asking on some silly online test. I will say for me INFJ fits me very well.

For those who aren’t familiar with the personality types or the INFJ type I will briefly sum it up. If this is boring you can skip the next few paragraphs. We are known as “idealists” or “the protector”. This comes from a combination of the following functions:

Our primary function is introverted intuition (Ni). This means we are always analyzing situations and predicting future events based on observed patterns. An example of this for me is the fact that I can plan out hypotheticals such as: “if I won the lottery I would…” and could honestly spend about an hour describing in detail how I would spend each penny. We also have a certain thirst for understanding and often come to realizations like “the more you know, the more you realize you don’t know.” INTJs share this in common, and many times (myself included) INFJs feel they are INTJs because we share the same rare primary function.

Our secondary function is extraverted feeling (Fe). Although introverted we have a deep sense of emotional connection to other people. I have been told often that I am way too sensitive, and worry about offending people in situations that it would be impossible to be offended by. We have a strange protection of people’s feelings, and also a sensitivity to others interactions with us. We also have are much more open to self-disclosure (this blog is probably a good example) and use it to connect with others.

Our tertiary function is introverted thinking (Ti). This is a process of taking data and developing ideas or models in order to make sense of something or describe it concisely and clearly. It involves categorizing things and finding distinctions and patterns. I have developed this in my studies as a physical scientist. Although it is my tertiary function it helps me to model things into a “big picture” and to help me understand how life works. I do have to admit since this is my tertiary function it is often more difficult for me in the physical sciences to develop a non-personal approach to the subject. I enjoy talking with INTPs (although they have Ti as their dominant function) because it is interesting to philosophize with them.

Our inferior function is extroverted sensing (Se). I guess this is sort of experiencing some kind of “oneness” with the world. It being my inferior function I don’t notice it as much so it is difficult for me to describe in detail.

Not being a social scientist of any sort I can’t really give the expert rundown of my personality type. One thing that is very clear is that we are value or ideal driven. It’s the whole “I’d die for the cause” mentality or “this is worthless because it has no meaning”. Those are both extremes, but sum up the underlying drive for at least me personally. I do like one line from the Wikipedia article on INFJs: “Sensitive and complex, they are adept at understanding complicated issues and driven to resolve differences in a cooperative and creative manner.” If I could describe my personality in one sentence it would be: A private but caring and sensitive thinker. Now that we have all that boring personality stuff out of the way, I will tell the story of how an idealist lost his ideals and his struggle to find them again.

Since I am highly value driven, growing up in a religious home suited me very well. I defended my faith with honor, but was also very careful not to offend others’ beliefs. There were things, however, in the Mormon
faith that made me feel like an outcast in the religion:

The “the tolerance trap”: It was difficult for me because the LDS religion teachings include that of avoiding the “tolerance trap” which for me is insensitive to others feelings. Being a very strong extroverted feeler, I personally don’t like making others feel like they are bad people for doing something different. It was easy for me to go to church and get fired up about “yes this is the truth, and God will strike down the sinner”, but then in my daily interactions I was embarrassed by what my church actually preached. In defense of the LDS church I feel they have made great strides to be much more tolerant and “new-age”. There were other issues that also bothered me like the fact that blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood until 1978, the touchy feely side of me found this to be very offensive. Other examples include the conduct of leadership within the church, and what I viewed as nepotism within the general leadership of the church. I can’t blame the Mormon “gospel” for those things, but it did help me separate myself socially and culturally.

The “One True Church”: I think this has been a big turn off for me for religion in general. MOST (there are exceptions) religions claim to have the truth, and that all others don’t have any or only just a part of the truth. This conflicts with my personality strongly because of my introverted intuition and extroverted feeling. I just can’t handle conflict socially or ideologically. I longed so much to connect with everyone, but there was always this thing between us. “You never talk politics or religion at the dinner table”. I hated that I couldn’t connect with others, and would often try and find similarities between our faiths instead of talking about how much church was true. I hated that it was my responsibility to tell others they were wrong. I hated that my church preached of all the other churches that they are “all wrong; and [God] said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: ‘they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.’” It also bothered me for a long time because it doesn’t seem logical for God to let so many religions on the earth. I couldn’t handle the fact that people receive different spiritual manifestations and all claim to be “the one truth”. It seems inconsistent to me.

Every Member a Missionary: Just like any other church, the Mormons are very into their missionary movement. I hated the whole missionary thing for two reasons: I’m an introvert and I hate pushing my beliefs on others. As a Mormon you are encouraged from when you are young to make friends and share your beliefs. I didn’t have a lot of friends growing up because I really didn’t like socializing in the same way most people do. I prefer to have a small group of close friends that I am comfortable with. Also my extroverted feeling was always afraid of offending people with my religion. Once I went out with some missionaries as a teenager and we knocked on a door. The lady who answered said she had some bad experiences with some Mormons and didn’t want to talk to any more. I apologized profusely for her previous experiences and apologized for bothering her. She opened up to me and almost let us in. The missionary I was with criticized me and said that she was just making up excuses not to talk to us. I knew that was probably true, but also highly insensitive of this other missionary. All in all missionary work to me is annoying, I figured if my friends really were interested they would show interest. Since they didn’t I just let it be.

Trusting Leaders: A prominent Mormon apostle Dallin Oaks once stated, “it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticisms are true.” If someone does something that is against my principles (in sometimes their own principles) that person loses some credibility in my sight. On my mission I disagreed with some of the leadership because I felt some of what they had to say did not fall in line with my belief system and values. In these times I was treated as rebellious, disobedient, and “in need of repentance”. I often times became defensive and even more passionate about these beliefs because they were being threatened. Some of them included pushing people to commit to be baptized, stop “wasting my time” on people who wouldn’t be baptized in the near future, and refusing coca-cola from people who offered it even though there is no rule in Mormonism about it. These are issues I felt strongly about for other reasons, but the fact that leaders labeled me as disobedient to God’s will for following what I perceived as God’s will was no less than irritating.

People Worship: There is a lot of talk about authority figures in the LDS church. I do not find it strange or offensive for people to think that Mormons worship Joseph Smith. They talk about him so much, and teach that Joseph Smith “has done more, save Jesus only, for salvation of men in this world, then any other man that ever lived in it.” There is never ending talk of how “Sheri Dew” has changed someone’s life or perspective. Students at church schools camp out overnight to get a front row seat if a prominent LDS leader comes to give a speech. For someone like me who’s motivator is strongly against praise (in fact I really hate being praised as much of a self-esteem booster it is) it is a real turn off to see this kind of behavior.

Doubt Your Doubts: “Doubt your doubts before your doubt your faith” was a popular phrase from a talk given by apostle Dieter Uchtdorf last October. I heard it from some people trying to help me come back to the faith. I won’t even go into the infinite irrational loop of what doubting doubts infers. I just want to talk about how the church (for obvious reasons) discourages intellectual thought. I will have to restate, the church discourages intellectual thought that might disagree with doctrine (they sure do love their apologists). Anyone who does some studying can find that scientists can fairly accurately date the earth to be around four and a half billion years old. I learned in seminary that God told Joseph Smith the earth is around six thousand years old and will only exist for seven thousand years temporally. There are other things that bothered me scientifically, and I had a difficult time being able to come up with a reasonable explanation to this clear contradiction. My personality hates contradictions in models and ideas so this bothered me for a long time. There were things I was able to explain like the idea behind God guided evolution, but others like the age of the earth or Noah’s ark I never really could come to terms with. When I asked questions I was always told “the answer is not important” or “you’ll learn when you die”. I hated that because I couldn’t understand the religion as a whole if there were pieces that didn’t fit into place.

Obedience With Exactness: You know that part in Pirate’s of the Carribean where they talk about the code and it turns out that they’re “more like ‘guidelines’”? Well that is exactly how I feel about rules in society. Clearly we have laws and there are some things that are just not ok in our society (because we have deemed it inappropriate as a collective). But there are other things that I would view as just suggestions that will help you. I think Jesus’ teachings are really good examples of that. He said it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Does that mean rich people are unrighteous? Not at all, just that once you have wealth it is obvious that it will be easier to be greedy or arrogant. As missionaries we had rules regarding many things: no playing videos/watching TV/listening to music and rules for when to go to bed and when to get up. There were specific rules as to how many people we needed to talk to each day and some other weird things like in my mission we were not allowed to drink coca-cola. For a list of all the rules LDS missionaries have worldwide you can consult the missionary handbook. I understood the rules, and why we had them but for me I was not getting enough sleep and it was affecting my ability to work as a missionary. I would often sleep in or take naps because I would work harder and be happier after. I was told that I wasn’t baptizing people because I wasn’t obeying with exactness. Mormon apostle once recounted hearing from Mormon prophet Heber J Grant “My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.” This kind of blind obedience could never sit with me, and I could not handle the fact that God would punish me for standing up for my beliefs.

There are many other problems I had being in the church that conflicted with either my personality or things that just bothered me. I feel I have covered many of the topics earlier in my blog. These things really did make me feel like an outcast and that I didn’t belong. I wondered for years what was wrong with ME because no one else seemed to have these problems or struggles. Indeed I felt like no one understood me in general (and still feel that way for the most part), but in the church I felt even more misunderstood.

All of that being said I do want to point out some characteristics of the LDS church that were really close to my heart:

Charity: The Book of Mormon has a whole chapter dedicated to this topic just as 1 Corinthians 13 is one of my favorites. Jesus taught to love everyone even the sinner. Jesus indeed (if the man existed and really was the savior of the world) truly loved us all. It’s a touching story fiction or not. I still get emotional thinking about it just because of the emotion in the story itself. Honestly I loved that some people in the church were all about the whole “love everyone and everything”. The idea that love is the key to happiness and salvation is a really appealing idea to me, and I still believe that is true. No one should need religion to expand their capacity to love.

The Circle of Life: Mormonism gave me meaning in my life. This life had a purpose and was just a small step in my eternal progression to becoming like God. Most people find that absurd that someone could believe that they will eventually become a God, but growing up in it seemed to make perfect sense. We somehow all existed as “intelligences” (whatever that means), and God made us into spirits. He then made the earth for us to gain a mortal body and test our faith. After we die we resurrect and if we were righteous will continue to progress until we become Gods of our own worlds just like him. Having purpose in my life really gave me focus in my life.

Apology Accepted: I know that Mormon apologists really do stretch quite a bit. But in their defense at least they try. I really like Mormon doctrine in that they seemed to make a little more sense than the rest of Christianity. I’m not saying that they DO make more sense, but growing up I felt their arguments were better held together (this is coming from a biased viewpoint I understand that). Point being I felt that if the Mormon church wasn’t true, how could anything else be true because it really did seem to make the MOST sense (I still had trouble understanding a lot of contradictions within the doctrine).

Family Focus: Yes the LDS church is strongly against same-sex marriage. I actually defend their right as a religion to teach it, but don’t agree with their political involvement (I had a rant earlier on my blog about it). One thing I do like though is what the church TEACHES (I emphasize the teach because there are a lot of LDS families that are definitely dysfunctional) a focus on successful happy families. This to me once again really resonated with my value system of raising kids in a happy loving home. It made it easier to feel at peace knowing I could find a spouse very easily within the church with the same family value system as me.

Emotions: This has two sides to it for me. First the church teaches that an answer to prayer comes from strong emotional feelings, and that those feelings are the “spirit” talking to you. I had many instances where I felt “the spirit” and that made the religion true because obviously God was talking to me. This ended up backfiring however when I felt strong feelings about the church not being true later in life. The other part is that it gave me something to defend. I was emotionally involved with it, and it was my value system. I was truly willing to die for the cause, and would have defended my beliefs no matter the ridicule if I felt it was threatened. When you have a cause as an INFJ it’s very difficult to give it up.

Service: The LDS church has a strong emphasis on serving others. I love that about the church because it gave me opportunities to serve without having to look very hard. I did not like that it focused around serving other members of the church as a priority, but still I enjoyed helping others however I could

Social Opportunities: As an introvert it’s difficult to make social connections with people. I don’t like having to deal with other people without some sort of connection or purpose. I can be friendly and cordial but that doesn’t mean I like what I refer to as “shallow” social interactions. The church gave me a way to meet people and have social interaction with some kind of purpose. Although most people at church drove me nuts and I had a strong distaste for them and their social games I made a few friends as well.

There are many other reasons (I’m sure) that the LDS church was close to my heart. It was my entire way of life. Everything revolved around an eternal purpose. My value system was upheld by my religion. I had something that I could look forward to my entire life, which was returning to my father in heaven.

My whole story is covered on the first post of my blog. But I wanted to go into some of the more difficult aspects of what it’s like to truly feel lost after losing your religion. I have mentioned both why the church meshed with my personality and also why it was a huge turn off for me. This caused me to truly go through self reflection and try to understand if this truly was a cause worth fighting for. I have heard from many people within the LDS church talk about those who leave the church (and I would guess many people have said the same about me) that it is because it’s the “easy way out”. It was definitely not easy, in fact it was one of the hardest things I have done and have to live with in my life. Looking back now and understanding who I am I realize more why it was so difficult, but also how I was able to do it.

Loss of Meaning in Life: If I accepted that the LDS faith was not the truth, then I also accepted that I had lost the meaning of life that I had currently. This actually sparked from studying science and realizing that science has more holes than most people know about. If science had holes, couldn’t religion as well. I had to reanalyze the whole purpose and meaning to life. That was very difficult. To this day I don’t think I have an answer, but my new meaning in life is trying to find meaning in it. Instead of being focused around my salvation and that of my family, I am now focused on humankind as a whole. I am always trying to figure out how my life can affect others positively. I am willing to stand up for anyone that is being persecuted, not just the religious. I don’t know if there will be an afterlife and that was very depressing to me for a long time. I’ve learned to accept it, and whether there is or not I would like to make an impact on this life without regards to the life hereafter.

Social Struggles: This is something that continues to be a problem in my life. I hate conflict and hate offending others. I feel very strongly about leaving the church being a good thing in my life, but at the same time I don’t want others to feel hurt about my loss of testimony. I still have good friends who are LDS, and my family is still very strong in the church. I have a conflict inside of me when family discussions revolve around religious principles because I of course want to stand up for my new value system, but do not want to attack that of my familiy’s. It sounds silly (and probably arrogant to some) but I don’t want my loss of testimony to affect other’s feelings about the church. I do want people to come to understand my point of view and what I feel is “free their minds” from the bondage of religious thought, but at the same time I respect so much their strong beliefs. I have a connection to them because I understand them and where they are coming from. I feel helpless and defenseless though because it’s difficult for any of them to understand me. Anything I say to explain my point of view can be seen as an attack on their faith and so I am left to hold my tongue. Perhaps that’s why I started this blog as an outlet to try and express my feelings.

Loss of Ideals: This is something that made it difficult and easy to part from my past. It was probably the most difficult thing for me to accept that my religion was not true (I avoid using the term false, because I look at a lack of truth rather than apparent falsity). Leaving something you loved your whole life is difficult. I struggled many nights trying to find an excuse to find parts of it true, and parts of it false. For a long time I felt that Mormonism was part of the path God had for me, and though it wasn’t the truth it was the beginning of the journey that I needed. I’m not sure at of if God has a path for me or if he even exists, but I have comfort knowing and accepting my past as part of who I am. It opened my eyes and helped me to gain a better understanding of life. Leaving religion is truly depressing but eye opening, and can really expand your viewpoint and understanding of other people. I kind of treat the LDS church like a relationship and one personality site explains my feeling perfectly. As reffering to INFJ relationship it states: ”Are able to move on after a relationship is over (once they’re sure it’s over)”. Once I knew I didn’t believe it anymore I was able to move on quickly with my thoughts about life. I developed a new value system. My new value system is based on open mindedness and seeking understanding and truth. I don’t ever expect to find the “truth” but I enjoy the journey. I love learning about other religions, and why people believe what they believe. I’ve developed a new tolerance for people of all walks of life and attitudes. I may not agree with many people, but I’ve learned to try to understand where they are coming from. I have also discovered that my ideals did not come from the LDS church. They came from my loving parents and myself. I have learned that my love for others, my determination to serve, and my respect for others are things that my parents taught me. They’re qualities that I love developing, and although the church provided ways in which to develop them, it was not the cause FOR developing them. I wish that was true for all people, but since it’s not I guess I am grateful for churches.

There were many other struggles I had internally when parting with religion. I still have to deal with the side effects of it. Sometimes I really wish I would have just been born into a family without Mormonism, but that is a depressing thought because I would not give up my family for anything. I also have a few close friends that would make going through it all worth it just for their company. I have two close friends from my missionary work that I would be willing to suffer through the whole two years again even if it was just for the chance to meet them and gain their friendship. I would never wish my bad experiences on anyone else, but I wish I could give everyone the understanding that I have received through them. Sometimes it pains me to know the only way for someone to understand me is to go through the same struggles I have gone through. I wish it was easier, but few good things come easy.

In closing I just want to say for those others out there who think you are misunderstood and alone: you are not alone. You may be misunderstood, but I promise you there are others like you. Find strength in the fact that of all the billions of people in the world, someone else has gone through something similar and hopefully you can find them. If you believe in a God, the God that I believed in and still hope for is one that understands all of us individually. He would know why we do what we do, and doesn’t care so much about rigid commandments but more about our individual successes and how we contribute to the success of others. As always I will end with some really emotional fluff in that I hope we can all just learn to love each other, and accept others for who they are. We may not understand sometimes, but the least we can do is love and sympathize.