Elusive Happiness

I have mentioned before how I feel about divisive and damaging rhetoric that comes from religion.  Instilling the idea in believers that anyone that doesn't agree with them is in need of what they have creates walls and barriers.  It automatically puts conditions on those relationships.  The dichotomy to these conditions comes from the other belief that the believers imaginary friend wants to love them, so believers argue that their outreach to save is out of love.  The big picture does not support this.  The big picture supports relationships established for the sake of mutual benefit of the two parties present.  I develop a friendship becuase we enjoy each other's company and the support we give in each other's lives.

These religious ideals to save souls makes another aspect of those relationships tiresome.  From the religious perspective, I am miserable, or at least not fully happy.  "True joy" is a common phrase they use.  I can never experience true joy without pretend Jesus by my side, washing my soul white with his magical blood.  After being mentally out of religious belief for a couple years now, I can state with 100% assurance that I have never experienced more consistent internal peace with myself.  The imposed guilt and shame whithered away, a cloud lifted and I see the world with less angst.  I see others as fellow humans with unique perspectives and value, rather than viewing them as people somewhere on an arbitrary salvation scale, trying to get through this 'test' to get back to some elusive sky-daddy.  I experience true joy when I see humans showing their humanity, not in correlating warm-fuzzies to an outdated religious text that tells me I am worthless.

My own personal dichotomy occurs with happiness.  Some that are close to me may not believe that I am much happier as a non-believer, and it is hard to articulate on the fly why they are wrong. Many of my struggles is with my children.  Watching them adopt these religious beliefs from mom and dad, just like I did from my parents, who adopted it all from their parents and so on.  Religous belief is mentally and emotionally crippling and it pains me to see that in my children.

Because religious belief is so divisive, it is an unavoidable wall in a marriage.  Some manage to poke holes in the wall, or even tear most of it down, but it is a pervasive, thick, tall and wide wall.  There is plenty of struggle in a marriage, so the addition of this wall doesn't make all of the other struggles very manageable.  This is one reason why it is a huge fallacy to attribute sadness or misery to a lack of religious belief in one's life.  Joy and self-worth isn't found in imagined relationships. Rather, it is found personally.  Whether it be found in real relationships, things you love to do, or somewhere else, joy is personal and cannot be judged or monopolized by external sources.

Jeffrey Holland at it again.

Bound by Loving Ties

By Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

The following is the text from the address Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles gave during the 2016 BYU Campus Education Week devotional on August 16, 2016, in Provo, Utah.

One of my BYU professors of yesteryear—actually quite a few yesteryears—was Edward L. Hart, who wrote the text of a much loved hymn in the Church. The second verse of that hymn, Our Savior’s Love, reads this way:    

The Spirit, voice
Of goodness, whispers to our hearts

A better choice
Than evil’s anguished cries.

Loud may the sound
Of hope ring till all doubt departs,
And we are bound
To him by loving ties.1

An omnibus word familiar to us all that summarizes these “loving ties” to our Heavenly Father is religion. Scholars debate the etymology of that word just as scholars and laymen alike debate almost everything about the subject of religion, but a widely accepted account of its origin suggests that our English word “religion” comes from the Latin word religare, meaning to “tie,” or more literally, to “re-tie.”2 In that root syllable of ligare you can hear the echo of a word like ligature, which is what a doctor uses to sew us up if we have a wound. So, for our purpose today, “religion” is that which unites what was separated or holds together that which might be torn apart, an obvious need for us, individually and collectively, given trials and tribulations we all experience here in mortality.

I see the goal here to establish a black or white narrative. The implication is that you need Mormonism.

What is equally obvious is that the great conflict between good and evil, right and wrong, the moral and the immoral—conflict which the world’s great faiths and devoted religious believers have historically tried to address—is being intensified in our time and is affecting an ever-wider segment of our culture. And let there be no doubt that the outcome of this conflict truly matters, not only in eternity but in everyday life as well. Will and Ariel Durant put the issue squarely as they reflected on what they called the “lessons of history.” “There is no significant example in history,” they said, “of [any] society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion.”3

This is an articulation of the black or white, extremist narrative where religion ‘addresses’ the conflict. The implication is that religion may not be immune from the conflict, yet can somehow solve, or fix it with their institution.  What is puzzling here is the quote from the Durant authors.  They clearly write their history from their atheistic standpoint and argue that, history does not even support a belief in God, so whatever religion Holland thinks he is referring to, Durant intends it to be a human construct only: “Does history support a belief in God? If by god we mean not the creative vitality of nature but a supreme being intelligent and benevolent, the answer must be a reluctant negative.” (Chapter 7).

If that is true—and surely we feel it is—then we should be genuinely concerned over the assertion that the single most distinguishing feature of modern life is the rise of secularism with its attendant dismissal of, cynicism toward, or marked disenchantment with religion.4 How wonderfully prophetic our beloved Elder Neal A. Maxwell was clear back in 1978 when he said in a BYU devotional: “We shall see in our time a maximum … effort … to establish irreligion as the state religion. [These secularists will] use the carefully preserved … freedoms of Western civilization to shrink freedom even as [they reject] the value … of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.” Continuing on he said: “Your discipleship may see the time come when religious convictions are heavily discounted. … This new irreligious imperialism [will] seek to disallow certain … opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.”5

I agree that it is a fallacy to reject an idea out of hand due to its origins.  We have yet to see any ‘shrinking’ of religious freedom per se though.  Christians enjoy more freedoms and have historically for hundreds of years.

My goodness! That forecast of turbulent religious weather issued nearly 40 years ago is steadily being fulfilled virtually every day somewhere in the world in the minimization of (or open hostility toward) religious practice, religious expression, and even in some cases the very idea of religious belief itself. Of course, there is often a counterclaim that while some in the contemporary world may be less committed to religion per se, nevertheless many still consider themselves “spiritual.” But frankly that palliative may not offer much in terms of collective moral influence in society if “spirituality” means only gazing at the stars or meditating on a mountaintop. Indeed, many of our ancestors in generations past lived, breathed, walked, and talked in a world full of “spirituality,” but that clearly included concern for the state of one’s soul, an attempt to live a righteous life, some form of church attendance, and participation in that congregation’s charitable service in the community. Yes, in more modern times individuals can certainly be “spiritual” in isolation but we don’t live in isolation; we live as families, friends, neighbors, and nations. That calls for ties that bind us together and bind us to the good. That is what religion does for our society, leading the way for other respected civic and charitable organizations that do the same.

He continues to build a strawman here in favor of religion. He is also dismissive here of any form of spirituality not connected to religious adherence, as if he can authoritatively do so for all current and past generations, no matter their form of spirituality. Furthermore, he confines contemporary spirituality to a specific form taken in isolation when clearly that is cherry-picking in a world where there are as many forms of spirituality as there are people.

This is not to say that individual faith groups in their many different forms and with their various conflicting beliefs are all true and equally valuable; obviously they cannot be. Nor does it say that institutional religions collectively—churches, if you will—have been an infallible solution to society’s challenges; they clearly have not been. But if we speak of religious faith as among the highest and most noble impulses within us, then to say so-and-so is a “religious person” or that such and such a family “lives their religion” is intended as a compliment. Such an observation would, as a rule, imply that these people try to be an influence for good, try to live to a higher level of morality than they might otherwise have done, and have tried to help hold the sociopolitical fabric of their community together. 

This if/then argument takes an unjustified leap at the end.  Religious people here are being classified together as all attempting to live a higher morality and all attempting to be involved in their community both socially and politically. In reality, a generally religious person is more likely to err on the side of piousness, and may or may not be interested in their community.  On the contrary, influences for good, his first descriptor, would be more accurately described as a follower of Christ, not a religious person.

Well, thank heaven for that because the sociopolitical fabric of a community wears a little thin from time to time—locally, nationally, or internationally—and a glance at the evening news tells us this is one of those times. My concern is that when it comes to binding up that fabric in our day, the “ligatures” of religion are not being looked to in quite the way they once were. My boyhood friend and distinguished legal scholar Elder Bruce C. Hafen frames it even more seriously than that:

“Democracy’s core values of civilized religion … are now under siege—partly because of violent criminals who claim to have religious motives, partly because the wellsprings of stable social norms once transmitted naturally by religion and marriage-based family life are being polluted[,] … and partly because the advocates of some causes today have marshalled enough political and financial capital to impose, by intimidation rather than by reason, their anti-religion strategy of might makes right.”6

I find it highly ironic that this quote calls out advocates of anti-religion in a Western world that has been dominated for centuries by powerful people advocating privilege for specific religions, i.e., Christianity.  When the tables turn (not saying it is justified), Religious people like Holland and presumably Hafen, whine about their privilege (not freedoms) being taken away.  Furthermore, vague references to an unknown strategy against religion is a fear tactic, nothing more.

There are many colliding social and cultural forces in our day that contribute to this anti-religious condition, which I am not going to address in these remarks. But I do wish to make the very general observation that part of this shift away from respect for traditional religious beliefs—and even the right to express those religious beliefs—has come because of a conspicuous shift toward greater and greater preoccupation with the existential circumstances of this world and less and less concern for—or even belief in—the circumstances, truths, and requirements of the next.  

Bottom line: tradition and heritage don’t help make something true. Additionally, humans should very definitely be more interested in this world rather than the next.  Once you prioritize the theory of an afterlife, every aspect of mortality comes second.  This is where religion capitalizes on humans and real relationships are then founded on a shaky, cracked foundation.

Call it secularism or modernity or the technological age or existentialism on steroids—whatever you want to call such an approach to life, we do know a thing or two about it. Most importantly we know that it cannot answer the yearning questions of the soul, nor is it substantial enough to sustain us in times of moral crises. Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, formerly Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Commonwealth for 22 years, a man whom I admire very much, has written, “What the secularists forget is that Homo sapiens [are] meaning-seeking animals, [and] if there is one thing the great institutions of the modern world do not do, it is to provide meaning.”7 

  

This is monopoly rhetoric. Religious people always take an extreme. Here the extreme is that “meaning” cannot possibly be found without us.  This sets the stage for control out of fear.  We humans cannot possibly have the power within ourselves to find meaning in our lives so we must turn to religion. This is, to put it bluntly, a very pompous attitude to have.

We are so fortunate—and grateful—that modern technology gives us unprecedented personal freedom, access to virtually unlimited knowledge, and communication capability beyond anything ever known in this world’s history, but neither technology nor its worthy parent science can give us much moral guidance as to how to use that freedom, where to benefit from that knowledge, or what the best purpose of our communication should be. It has been principally the world’s great faiths—religion, those ligatures to the Divine we have been speaking of—that do that, that speak to the collective good of society, offer us a code of conduct and moral compass for living, help us exult in profound human love, and strengthen us against profound human loss. If we lose consideration of these deeper elements of our mortal existence—divine elements, if you will—we lose much (some would say most) of that which has value in life. The legendary German sociologist Max Weber once described such a loss of religious principle in society as being stuck in an “iron cage of disbelief.”8 Noting even in his day the shift toward a more luxurious but less value-laden society, a society that was giving away its priceless spiritual and religious roots, he wrote, “Not summer’s bloom lies ahead of us, but rather a polar night of icy darkness.”9And that was in 1904!

Another black or white fallacy here. He makes it seem as if science is the only other option we have when secularists know full well science doesn’t currently give us clear answers regarding morals.  But fear of not having other options, people will naturally turn to religion, as his correlation dictates. Addressing the quote: Weber wasn’t speaking of religious principles in politics, but principles in general.

But of course not everyone agrees that religion does or should play such an essential role in civilized society. Recently the gloves have come off in the intellectual street fighting being waged under the banner of “The New Atheists.” Figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and the late Christopher Hichens are some of the stars in what is, for me, a dim firmament. These men are as free to express their beliefs—or in their case, disbeliefs—as any other, but we feel about them what one Oxford don said about a colleague: “On the surface he’s profound, but deep down, he’s pretty superficial.”10 Surely, Rabbi Sacks says, it is mind-boggling to think that a group of bright secular thinkers in the 21st century really believe that if they can show, for example, that the universe is more than 6,000 years old or that a rainbow can be explained other than as a sign of God’s covenant after the flood, that somehow such stunning assertions “will bring all of humanity’s religious beliefs tumbling down like a house of cards and we are then left with a serene world of rational non-believers,”11 serene except perhaps when they whistle nervously past the local graveyard. A much harsher assessment of this movement comes from theologian David Bentley Hart, who writes, “Atheism that consists entirely in vacuous arguments afloat on oceans of historical ignorance, made turbulent by storms of strident self-righteousness, is as contemptible as any other form of dreary fundamentalism.”12

Strawman? Bandwagon? So you point the finger, build a strawman and dismiss out of hand because of the narrative of religious historical precedence? Not to mention adding the words “self-righteous” and attaching it to individuals, even though religious institutions practice bigotry and hatred behind such titles. What is truly mind-boggling is the blind obedience you demand in the face of such logical reasoning questions based on literal interpretations of borrowed stories from older pagan societies.

We are grateful that a large segment of the human population does have some form of religious belief, and in that sense we have not yet seen a “polar night of icy darkness”13 envelop us. But no one can say we are not seeing some glaciers on the move. Charles Taylor, in his book with the descriptive title A Secular Age, describes the cold dimming of socioreligious light this way. The shift of our time, he says, has been “from a society in which it was virtually impossible not to believe in God, to one in which faith, even for the staunchest believer, is [only] one human possibility among [many] others.” In the 21st century, he writes, “Belief in God is no longer axiomatic.”14 Indeed in some quarters it is not even a convenient option, it is “an embattled option.”15

Can you conveniently reason away the Dark Ages, dominated by the Catholic church? If anything could resemble a “polar night of icy darkness,” it would be that huge time period where the church suppressed science and silences all opposition. I think I already answered why it was impossible not to believe in God: because religions killed you for that.

But faith has almost always been an “embattled option,” has almost always been won—and kept—at a price. Indeed, many who have walked away from faith have found the price higher than they intended to pay, like the man who tore down the fence surrounding his new property only to learn that his next-door neighbor kept a pack of particularly vicious Rottweilers. David Brooks hinted at this but put it much too mildly when he wrote in his New York Times column, “Take away the rich social fabric [that religion has always been] and what you are left with [are] people who are uncertain about who they really are.”16 My point about “too mildly” is that a rich social fabric, important as that is, says absolutely nothing about the moral state of one’s soul, redemption from physical death, overcoming spiritual alienation from God, the perpetuation of marriage and the family unit into eternity, and so forth—if anyone is considering such issues in a post-modern world. 

Vague, anecdotal untruth? Sure many don’t intend to pay such a high price, but why is the price so high? Could it be that religion has something to do with that because of irresponsible, preposterous rhetoric that is indoctrinated into its followers? Such as, ‘your family member is going to hell if they leave our religion,’ or, ‘you might consider divorcing such a rebellious irreligious person for the spiritual safety of your young children.’  These are dangerous and divisive words that are found all too often in the sanctimonious halls of religion found the world over. Speaking of anecdotal evidence: I have personally found myself after freeing my life of an over-controlling religion that doesn’t allow to explore who I really am, only who they think I am or should be, as is the case for most people who leave religion.

In fact, religion has been the principle influence—not the only one, but the principle one—that has kept Western social, political, and cultural life moral to the extent these have been moral. And I shudder at how immoral life might have been—then and now—without that influence. Granted, religion has no monopoly on moral action, but centuries of religious belief, including institutional church- or synagogue- or mosque-going, have clearly been preeminent in shaping our notions of right and wrong. Journalist Will Saletan puts it candidly: “Religion is the vehicle through which most folks learn and practice morality.”17

So what of societies before Christ? Organized religion has only existed since then and arguably is even younger than that. Israelites didn’t have ‘organized’ religion.  What of the far east? Their societies have flourished morally without ‘organized’ religion in the same sense.  Sure, religion is a primary vehicle because so many are entrenched in it.  That doesn’t mean there would be a vacuum of morality if religion was taken away.  This is to imply that irreligious people don’t know how to behave, aren’t contributing to society, and are fundamentally immoral.  In effect, Jeff Holland is extending dangerous religious rhetoric that paints anyone who disbelieves as monsters to be feared.

I am stressing such points this morning because I have my eye on that future condition about which Elder Maxwell warned, a time when if we are not careful we may find religion at the margins of society rather than the center of it, where religious beliefs and all the good works those beliefs have generated may be tolerated privately but not admitted (or at least certainly not encouraged) publicly. The cloud the prophet Elijah saw in the distance, no larger than a man’s hand,18 is that kind of cloud on the political horizon today, so we speak of it by way of warning, remembering the storm into which Elijah’s small cloud developed.19

The word ‘political,’ almost came out of nowhere here.  Again, Holland uses a go-to fallacy: black or white.  All the good works will disappear if religion is marginalized.  He is using fear to rationalize keeping religion at the center of society.  Also, religious beliefs don’t generate good works.  Love in humankind generates good works.  Whether you are religiously motivated or not, humans have self-preservation built into their DNA, contrary to religious labels such as ‘natural man.’

But whatever the trouble along the way, I am absolutely certain how this all turns out. I know the prophecies and the promises given to the faithful, and I know our collective religious heritage—the Western world’s traditional religious beliefs, varied as they are—are remarkably strong and resilient. The evidence of that religious heritage is all around us, including at great universities—or at least it once was, and fortunately still is at BYU. Just to remind us how rich the ambiance of religion is in Western culture and because this is “Education Week,” may I mention just a few of the great religiously-influenced non-LDS pieces of literature that I met while pursuing my education on this campus 50 years ago, provincial and dated as my list is. I do so stressing how barren our lives would be had there not been the freedom for writers, artists, and musicians to embrace and express religious values or discuss religious issues. 

The existence of something does not make the alternate ‘barren.’  That is like saying, “If I hadn’t been born, nobody would have any of the original ideas I came up with.” In reality, ideas grow and stem from others all the time.  Philosophies are sharing seeds of an idea until concepts and theories are materialized from multiple sources.

I begin by noting the majestic literary—to say nothing of the theological—influence of the King James Bible, what one of the professors I knew later at Yale called “the sublime summit of literature in [the] English [language],”20 the greatest single influence on the world’s creative literature for the last 400 years. I think also of what is probably the most widely read piece of English literature other than the Bible, John Bunyan’sPilgrim’s Progress. Five decades after I first read them I am still moved by the magnificence of two of the greatest poems ever written by the hand of man, Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy and John Milton’s Paradise Lost. Certainly the three greatest American novels I read at BYU were Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, and Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, each in its own way a religious text and all more meaningful in my reading of them now than when I was a student on this campus so long ago. So, too, of my encounter with Russian writers, especially Fyodor Dostoyevsky and Leo Tolstoy. Then you add British giants like George Herbert and John Donne, William Blake and Robert Browning; throw in Americans like Emily Dickinson, William Faulkner, and Flannery O’Connor; then an American who became British like T. S. Eliot and a Britain who became American like W. H. Auden; for good luck throw in an Irishman like W. B. Yeats—to name only a handful—and you have biblical imagery, religious conflict, and wrenching questions of sin, society, and salvation on virtually every page you turn.

Not to mention bigotry, slavery, misogyny, abuse, infanticide, adultery, rape, murder, ethnic cleansing, racism, incest… what did I miss?  Just as easily can one create a list of brilliant irreligious authors and poets who have influenced society over many years.

Having mentioned a tiny bit of the religiously related literature I happened to encounter as a student, I now note an equally tiny bit of the contribution that religious sensibility has provoked in the heart of the visual artist and the soul of the exultant musician.      

[Audiovisual Presentation]

Brothers and sisters, my testimony this morning, as one observer recently wrote, is that “over the long haul, religious faith has proven itself the most powerful and enduring force in human history.”21 Roman Catholic scholar Robert Royal made the same point, reaffirming that for many “religion remains deep, widespread, and persistent, to the surprise and irritation of those who claimed to have cast aside [religious] illusion”22—those who underestimated the indisputable power of faith. 

Arguably, what was underestimated is stubborn ignorance handed down as part of the heritage of ancestors.  Religion thrives in ignorance.  When a control mechanism can give [incorrect] answers to legitimate fears of people, they are then under their control.  When some outside influence offers a rational explanation, i.e., where the sun goes at night, then we can start to defrost the real icy darkness religion has created. Holland here again appeals to longevity which is no basis for holding on to an ancient religion.

The indisputable power of faith. The most powerful and enduring force in human history. The influence for good in the world. The link between the highest in us and our highest hopes for others. That is why religion matters. Voices of religious faith have elevated our vision, deepened our human conversation, and strengthened both our personal and collective aspiration since time began. How do we even begin to speak of what Abraham and Moses, David and Isaiah, Jeremiah, Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni have given us? Or of what Peter, James, and John, the Apostle Paul, Joseph Smith, and Thomas Monson mean to us? 

You can begin by realizing they are just a handful of influences for [possible] good in the world.  The problem with some of these examples are fundamental character flaws: adultery, murder, malfeasance, fraudulence, just to name a few.  I admit, this is a logical fallacy in its own right, as the ideas that come from someone should not be dismissed based on their personal character. Yet Mr. Holland didn’t specifically speak of what they said, only what they have ‘given.’ If one takes Joseph Smith for example, one might argue that he ‘gave’ us a lot of good and a lot of bad, as his actions directly disaffected many close friends and associates, whose names were then dragged through the mud as they dared speak out against Joseph and his manipulative practices.  Personally, I like to invest in myself.  I believe in myself and I find inspiration in my own way, through multiple sources that tell me that hope, meaning and human connection is found from within, not from a manmade religion.

It is impossible to calculate the impact that prophets and apostles have had upon us, but, putting them in a special category of their own, we can still consider the world-shaping views and moral force that have come to us from a Martin Luther or a John Calvin or a John Wesley in earlier times, or from a Billy Graham or a Pope Francis or the Dali Lama in the current age. In this audience today we are partly who we are because some 450 years ago men like Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer, being burned at the stake in Oxford, called out to one another that they were lighting such a religious fire in England that it would never be put out in all the world. Later William Wilberforce applied just such Christian conviction to abolishing the slave trade in Great Britain. As an ordained minister Martin Luther King Jr. continued the quest for racial and civil justice through religious eloquence in the pulpit and in the street. George Washington prayed at Valley Forge, and Abraham Lincoln’s most cherished volume in his library was his Bible, in which he read regularly, out of which he sought to right a great national wrong, and from which, in victory, he called for “malice toward none [and] charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right.”23

One could also argue that those religious convictions of those people were more a correlation rather than a causation, as their belief system didn’t change who they were as compassionate or convicted people.

So the core landscape of history has been sketched by the pen and brush and words of those who invoke a divine creator’s involvement in our lives and who count on the ligatures of religion to bind up our wounds and help us hold things together.

Leaping from ‘religion,’ to personal divine creator? Now we are definitely talking about a specific religion.

Speaking both literally and figuratively of a recurring feature on that landscape, Will and Ariel Durant wrote: “These church steeples, everywhere pointing upward, ignoring despair and lifting hope, these lofty city spires, or simple chapels in the hills—they rise at every step from the earth toward the sky; in every village of every nation they challenge doubt and invite weary hearts to consolation. Is it all a vain delusion? Is there nothing beyond life but death, and nothing beyond death but decay? We cannot know,” they say, “but as long as man suffers, these steeples will remain.”24

Again, the irony is that they aren’t complimenting religion, merely acknowledging its existence and longevity.

Of course, those of us who are believers have very specific convictions about what we can know regarding the meaning of those ubiquitous church steeples.

Common abuse of the word, ‘know.’

In that spirit may I conclude with my heartfelt apostolic witness of truths I do know regarding the ultimate gift true religion provides us. I have been focusing on the social, political, and cultural contributions that religion has provided us for centuries, but I testify that true religion—the gospel of Jesus Christ—gives us infinitely more than that; it gives us “peace in this world, and eternal life in the world to come,”25 as the scripture phrases it. True religion brings understanding of and loyalty to our Father in Heaven and His uncompromised love for every one of His spirit children past, present, and future. True religion engenders in us faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and hope in His Resurrection. It encourages love, forbearance, and forgiveness in our interactions with one another as He so magnanimously demonstrated them in His. True religion, the tie that binds us to God and each other, not only seals our family relationships in eternity but also heightens our delight in those family experiences while in mortality.  Well beyond all the civic, social, and cultural gifts religion gives us is the mercy of a loving Father and Son who conceived and carried out the atoning mission of that Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, suturing up that which was torn, bonding together that which was broken, healing that which was ill or imperfect, “proclaim[ing] liberty to the captives, and … opening … the prison to them that are bound.”26

“…truths I do know…” is irresponsible and misleading. I have peace. Demands of loyalty don’t appeal to me. Being free from religion has also opened my eyes to how truly deep and delightful all my relationships can be. Enjoy the here and now. Don’t wait for empty promises of eternal life to enjoy your relationships.

Because my faith, my family, my beliefs, my covenants—in short, my religion—means everything to me, I thank my Father in Heaven for it and pray for the continued privilege to speak of it so long as I shall live. May we think upon the religious heritage that has been handed down to us, at an incalculable price in many instances, and in so remembering not only cherish that heritage more fervently but live the religious principles we say we want to preserve. Only in the living of our religion will the preservation of it have true meaning. It is in that spirit that we seek the good of our fellow men and women and work toward the earthly kingdom of God rolling forth, that the heavenly kingdom of God may come. May our religious privileges be cherished, preserved, and lived, binding us to God and each other until that blessed millennial day comes, I earnestly pray in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

He acknowledged privileges! Thank you! (Privilege: special right, advantage or immunity).

---

1.    “Our Savior’s Love,” Hymns, no. 113.

2.    See “Latin Dictionary and Grammar Aid,” s.v. “relig are” and “lig are,” University of Notre Dame,http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=relig&ending=are and http://archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=lig&ending=are.

3.    Will and Ariel Durant, The Lessons of History (1996), 51.

4.    See George Gallup Jr, “Americans’ Spiritual Searches Turn Inward,” Gallup.com, Feb. 11, 2003,pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/03/5-key-findings-about-religiosity-in-the-u-s-and-how-its-changing/; David Masci and Michael Lipka, “Americans May Be Getting Less Religious, but Feelings of Spirituality Are on the Rise,” Pew Research Center, Jan. 21, 2016, pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/21/americans-spirituality/; Michael Lipka, “5 Key Findings about Religiosity in the U.S.—and How It’s Changing,” FactTank: News in the Numbers, Pew Research Center, Nov. 3, 2015,pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/03/5-key-findings-about-religiosity-in-the-u-s-and-how-its-changing/.

5.    Neal A. Maxwell, “Meeting the Challenges of Today” (Brigham Young University devotional, Oct. 10, 1978), speeches.byu.edu.

6.    Bruce C. Hafen, “Religious Freedom and the Habits of the Heart” (2015 Oxford Conference: Magna Carta and Freedom of Religion, June 21, 2015), 10, iclrs.org/content/blurb/files/Elder Bruce Hafen Oxford 2015.pdf.

7.    Jonathan Sacks, “How to Defeat Religious Violence” Wall Street Journal, Oct. 2, 2015,wsj.com/articles/how-to-defeat-religious-violence-1443798275.

8.    See H. H. Gerth, C. Wright Mills, ed., From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, 128.

9.    John Dreijmanis, Max Weber’s Complete Writings on Academic and Political Vocations (2007), 206.

10.   Jonathan Sacks, “Chief Rabbi: Atheism Has Failed. Only Religion Can Defeat the New Barbarians,” The Spectator, June 15, 2013, spectator.co.uk/2013/06/atheism-has-failed-only-religion-can-fight-the-barbarians/.

11.   Jonathan Sacks, “Chief Rabbi: Atheism Has Failed. Only Religion Can Defeat the New Barbarians.”

12.   David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (2009), 4.

13.   John Dreijmanis, Max Weber’s Complete Writings on Academic and Political Vocations, 206; quoted in Bruce C. Hafen, “Religious Freedom and the Habits of the Heart,” 10.

14.   Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (2007), 3.

15.   Charles Taylor, A Secular Age, 3.

16.   David Brooks, “How Covenants Make Us,” New York Times, Apr. 5, 2016,nytimes.com/2016/04/05/opinion/how-covenants-make-us.html?rref=collection/column/david-brooks&action=click&contentCollection=opinion®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=20&pgtype=collection.

17.   William Saletan, “When Churches Do the Right Thing,” Slate.com, May 8, 2014,slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/08/is_religion_evil_on_guns_terrorism_and_civil_liberties_these_churches_did.html.

18.   See 1 Kings 18:44.

19.   See 1 Kings 18:44–45.

20.   Harold Bloom, The Shadow of a Great Rock: A Literary Appreciation of the King James Bible (2011), introduction.

21.   R. R. Reno, “Religion and Public Life in America in the 21st Century,” Journal of Faith and War, Apr. 30, 2014,faithandwar.org/index.php/component/content/article/42-god-and-human-nature/181-religion-and-public-life-in-america-in-the-21st-century; italics added.

22.   Robert Royal, The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West (2006), x.

23.   Abraham Lincoln, “Second Inaugural Address,” Mar. 4, 1865, bartleby.com/124/pres32.html.

24.   Will Durant, The Pleasures of Philosophy: A Survey of Human Life and Destiny (1953), 407.

25.   Doctrine and Covenants 59:23.

26.   Isaiah 61:1.

Overposting

I don't know why I've been posting so much lately.  My baseline is to think about something awhile, mulling it over in my brain, trying to iron it all out so I can articulate it as best I can.  My recently attitude has been to just unload my current thoughts.  Maybe I don't want to mull it over? Regardless, here is my brain-dump for the day.

A popular meme/thought has been going around and evolving for some time now.  I remember seeing a quote similar to this pinned up in church hallways.  Here is the current iteration:

 

If this didn't frame a false narrative there would be no problem.  It starts with the qualifier "If," which keeps it accurate, but then frames the rest of it like it is the only option for leaving the church.  99.9% of people absolutely do not leave the church over imperfect people around them.  Furthermore, no one "denies" the concept of a church being a hospital where everyone goes to (try) to heal.  Along with that, the idea of a church being a hospital also frames it as though that is the only place for individuals to receive 'treatment,' or care.  Humanists believe that can be done when you truly empathize with others.  Spending time to reach out and care for others can heal. 

If you want to claim the Gospel as the only thing that truly heals, then you have to account for the billions of people living or who have lived that lived perfectly happy lives without it, finding healing powers in their family and friends.  Change the narrative. Change how you see people who leave.  Change can come from within. I'm just a dissenting voice. Don't accept damaging ideas that are fostering and bred to alienate and damage relationships.

Interfaith parenting

Interfaith parenting is complex and not an ideal situation.  One parent almost always has the advantage and  teaching children can be hard as many religions teach they have a monopoly on truth.  If a child learns the cultural rhetoric of a specific belief system, how does it look if one parent doesn't belong to it? It's always a balancing act of the 'outsider' parent, and that is often taken for granted.  While being respectful of the belief system, the outsider parent has to be allowed to give their perspective and opinion on things, encourage critical thinking, and articulate the differences between the parents' beliefs.  This is also hard, in light of the rhetoric, when the believing spouse thinks the outsider parent is morally deficient.  One of the primary responses is to protect the children from their damaging and dangerous ideas, as it will lead to 'sin,' and even possibly lose the child's relationship, not to mention losing their soul.

Directly because of that cultural rhetoric that many belief systems foster, families are torn apart.  Let me reiterate: loving relationship are torn apart by belief systems that foster the idea that they have a monopoly on morality and truth.  Let me be clear: I love my children just as much as my wife.  I worry about them day and night.  I want them to be happy.  I have learned a thing or two in my 36 years regarding where real happiness comes from.  I know they have the potential to be happy by choosing to be a part of a belief system, but I also know they have better odds choosing to leave.  I have never been happier personally after choosing to leave.  Many people suffer significantly less guilt, shame and depression being free from a control mechanism over their lives.

This letter will be my template for my own children that choose to go on a religious mission:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/4thajp/before_you_go_follow_up_to_my_son_planning_on/

Pot-Kettle Ignorance

I had an acquaintance ask me on Facebook questions regarding my Atheism and my knowledge of the Bible, religion and Christianity.  It was a public post and another individual was involved on an OP of mine.  The conclusion he came up for me was that my decision was based on ignorance.  Now sometimes I feel like it could be an equal foundation.  Atheists point fingers at theists and say they are ignorant, why can't they do that to us?  Those instances are happening less and less.  Most of us don't just read the Bible and conclude there is no God, even though that is pretty close to a valid conclusion in and of itself.  Most atheists use a complex set of inputs to come to that conclusion.

Atheists, first of all, conclude there is no God, while gladly suspending that belief based on any forthcoming evidence.  I learned this later, after deciding I liked the idea of the softer version, Agnosticism.  Realizing a rational Atheist would gladly reconsider based on new findings, I changed my mind.  But claiming ignorance was the basis of my decision is hard to wrap my head around.  Most theists conclude personal experience as the bottom line in the differences between us.  If personal experience is the difference between our spiritual experiences, then how could a theist claim my decision is based on ignorance? 

Also, even if one side of the argument thinks the other side IS basing their decisions on ignorance, why would a person use that in an argument rather than keep it to themselves? That is the quickest way to shut down any dialogue.  If that is what he wanted to do, it worked, but he has always claimed to foster and encourage discussion between parties who hold differing opinions and worldviews.  I have noticed it to be a pattern with him, though.  He seems to enjoy thinking he has the higher intellectual ground, especially if a discussion or relationship goes south.  The other person will cut it short, so he concludes that he had the upper hand because THEY couldn't come up with good rebuttals or counter-arguments.  This shows a massive lack of introspection and a stunting of personal growth.  I am very aware of my weaknesses and I try to learn from every experience and I know I am not perfect, but honestly I still have no idea how he came up with ignorance as my defining baseline.

Working title

The anger article where I got into a discussion with my brother, I noticed a common theme: Religious people doesn't acknowledge that what I'm saying might be legitimate for my own personal experience.

Questions in general within the church: there is another common theme, although not everyone will experience the same degree of pushback: hard questions are avoided and ignored.  REALLY hard questions.  I think when leadership delineates questions into categories of 'hard' and 'not hard,' we can see what they consider hard questions if we look at official responses to what they choose to address, then label it a hard topic.

There is also the idea that the organized church "hid" things from the general population that they didn't want to address or they didn't think it was 'uplifting' or 'essential' for salvation. People get really angry over this.  I was conflicted for a long time, as I could see both sides to this.  I started reading into every topic on my own, and I used non-internet sources to do it.  They ARE out there.

When people can sit down at a computer, type a specific chain of words together in Google, click on the right site and read for 5 minutes the gist of a 'hidden' topic after years of going to church faithfully and not hearing a peep about it, their anger is justified.  Just because they hadn't heard of it before, yet the information was available doesn't mean they don't have a right to be mad.

The church frames topics and conversations and lessons in such a way as to focus on the curriculum.  At the end of the lesson, there is a spiritual takeaway.  Sometimes the spiritual lesson that we can apply to our own lives is a bit of a stretch from the story they use.  If the correlation committee can't stretch a story to extract a moral lesson, then it will be discarded, or not used.  They simply don't care about alerting us to all the questionable things that have transpired.  Of course, we view the essays published on the official website today as a reactionary response to this very issue.

It is hard to understand this dynamic, especially when you are introduced to this information and your spiritual and emotional baseline just got a boulder dropped in it and the ripples aren't going to calm down for awhile.  The last thing on your mind is, 'let's look at the natural progression of how the church has correlated lessons, and how the church tries to focus on spiritual takeaways.'

Changing gears.  I have mentioned how damaging religious rhetoric is.  It ultimately hurts family units.  The most popular feedback I get for being anti-theist is why I can't leave religion alone.  It isn't something they can grasp.  If I didn't believe that religion poisons everything, then I could leave it alone. The fact is, I want it eradicated.  It isn't only religion, it is anything the believing brain comes up with and holds on to and makes it a huge focus in their lives.  Conspiracy theories is a good example outside of religion.  Our brains want to find patterns in things, then connect it with a higher power or in a power that explains things that are out of our control. Because I can't leave it alone, I must be filled with hate.  This is the furthest thing from the truth I can imagine.  Nothing is above criticism.  If a belief system can't handle criticism, what is the point of that system, or how strong can your faith in it truly be?

Another example of how rhetoric damages relationships.  Religion teaches its adherents that non-believers have no morals.  Morals come from their higher power, so how could non-believers have morals? This is a huge fallacy that can easily be proven by looking at criminals.  Bad people will do bad things regardless of what they believe in.  Horrific things are done in the name of religion arguably moreso than under any other banner, besides maybe statism.  Statism is intrinsically religious to itself, not necessarily to a Godless system.  They have replaced God with itself.  The argument that religion has a monopoly on morals is ridiculous and baseless.

Hijack

Joseph Smith Jr. wrote a book from ideas gathered that were popular during his time and geographic location of New England in the early 1800's.  He had a talent for storytelling.  A big part of his epic tale was the black or white fallacy that many religions adopt: you are either with us or against us.  If you are with us, our God will bless you. If you are against us, Hell and cursings await you.  At one point during this story, an Army Captain gets angry at a, 'very wicked man' because he is apparently seeking to destroy Liberty throughout all the land:

9 Yea, and we also see the great wickedness one very wicked man can cause to take place among the children of men.

 10 Yea, we see that Amalickiah, because he was a man of cunning device and a man of many flattering words, that he led away the hearts of many people to do wickedly; yea, and to seek to destroy the church of God, and to destroy the foundation of liberty which God had granted unto them, or which blessing God had sent upon the face of the land for the righteous’ sake.

 11 And now it came to pass that when Moroni, who was the chief commander of the armies of the Nephites, had heard of these dissensions, he was angry with Amalickiah.

 12 And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.

 13 And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land—

 14 For thus were all the true believers of Christ, who belonged to the church of God, called by those who did not belong to the church.

 15 And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come.

 16 And therefore, at this time, Moroni prayed that the cause of the Christians, and the freedom of the land might be favored.

 17 And it came to pass that when he had poured out his soul to God, he named all the land which was south of the land Desolation, yea, and in fine, all the land, both on the north and on the south—A chosen land, and the land of liberty.

 18 And he said: Surely God shall not suffer that we, who are despised because we take upon us the name of Christ, shall be trodden down and destroyed, until we bring it upon us by our own transgressions.

 19 And when Moroni had said these words, he went forth among the people, waving the rent part of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had written upon the rent part, and crying with a loud voice, saying:

 20 Behold, whosoever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord, and enter into a covenant that they will maintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them.

 21 And it came to pass that when Moroni had proclaimed these words, behold, the people came running together with their armor girded about their loins, rending their garments in token, or as a covenant, that they would not forsake the Lord their God; or, in other words, if they should transgress the commandments of God, or fall into transgression, and be ashamed to take upon them the name of Christ, the Lord should rend them even as they had rent their garments.

 22 Now this was the covenant which they made, and they cast their garments at the feet of Moroni, saying: We covenant with our God, that we shall be destroyed, even as our brethren in the land northward, if we shall fall into transgression; yea, he may cast us at the feet of our enemies, even as we have cast our garments at thy feet to be trodden under foot, if we shall fall into transgression.

 23 Moroni said unto them: Behold, we are a remnant of the seed of Jacob; yea, we are a remnant of the seed of Joseph, whose coat was rent by his brethren into many pieces; yea, and now behold, let us remember to keep the commandments of God, or our garments shall be rent by our brethren, and we be cast into prison, or be sold, or be slain.

 24 Yea, let us preserve our liberty as a remnant of Joseph; yea, let us remember the words of Jacob, before his death, for behold, he saw that a part of the remnant of the coat of Joseph was preserved and had not decayed. And he said—Even as this remnant of garment of my son hath been preserved, so shall a remnant of the seed of my son be preserved by the hand of God, and be taken unto himself, while the remainder of the seed of Joseph shall perish, even as the remnant of his garment.

 25 Now behold, this giveth my soul sorrow; nevertheless, my soul hath joy in my son, because of that part of his seed which shall be taken unto God.

 26 Now behold, this was the language of Jacob.

 27 And now who knoweth but what the remnant of the seed of Joseph, which shall perish as his garment, are those who have dissented from us? Yea, and even it shall be ourselves if we do not stand fast in the faith of Christ.

 28 And now it came to pass that when Moroni had said these words he went forth, and also sent forth in all the parts of the land where there were dissensions, and gathered together all the people who were desirous to maintain their liberty, to stand against Amalickiah and those who had dissented, who were called Amalickiahites.

 29 And it came to pass that when Amalickiah saw that the people of Moroni were more numerous than the Amalickiahites—and he also saw that his people were doubtful concerning the justice of the cause in which they had undertaken—therefore, fearing that he should not gain the point, he took those of his people who would and departed into the land of Nephi.

 30 Now Moroni thought it was not expedient that the Lamanites should have any more strength; therefore he thought to cut off the people of Amalickiah, or to take them and bring them back, and put Amalickiah to death; yea, for he knew that he would stir up the Lamanites to anger against them, and cause them to come to battle against them; and this he knew that Amalickiah would do that he might obtain his purposes.

This is the situation that faithful LDS members take to hijack days like Memorial Day.  The day the United States of America, established in 1776, honors fallen soldiers who fought and died for our democracy.  A democracy established, wisely, with a strong sense of autonomy from religion. They knew, from the close proximity of European upheavals, that their democracy would last with a foundation built on religious freedom, even if that meant some wanted no God at all. Normal people will look at the above story and have a hard time putting the two together. 

One big piece of this overall story that is missing is the fact that Mormons take everything in the Book of Mormon literally.  A small family literally built a boat they made from handmade tools, crossed the ocean and established at least one strain of American Indians (there were actually some already here, but they killed themselves off to the very last dude after the tower of Babel).  From this one family we come to learn that God favors this land as long as righteousness is present.  That is somehow the connection.  After Joseph Smith failed, then later Brigham Young failed at establishing theocracies, and from a few select quotes favoring this country's Independence and Constitution as coming from God himself, the LDS community has adopted it as a divine substitute until they can ultimately establish a theocracy in this land.

It is completely fine to think this way, but don't hijack days like Memorial Day and July 4th for your own purposes.  Give those men and women who sacrificed everything their day.  Honor those people who have no idea who the crap Moroni from the Book of Mormon is.