Containing 5,717 Articles Spanning 332 Topics  
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery  
Online Since January 1, 2005  
PLEASE NOTE: If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page (the one you just landed on) is an archive containing articles on "BOB MCCUE". This website, The Mormon Curtain - is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can read The Mormon Curtain FAQ to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒  CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
  BOB MCCUE
Total Articles: 144
Topics surrounding well-written Bob McCue.
topic image
How To Deal With A TBM Spouse
Thursday, Jul 15, 2004, at 07:48 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
From Bob McCue:
What follows is part of a message I sent to a friend who asked me how he could enjoy life when so much of his life was tied to a spouse with whom he could not get along. The issue between them is Mormonism. She believes. He does not. They as a result do not communicate as they used to, and do not enjoy doing many things together. Hence, his comment regarding something I said on another thread here regarding the way in which post Mormonism has enabled me to enjoy each moment in ways not possible before, was that his relationship to his spouse radically limited his ability to do what I had described.

What follows supplements a Case Study Regarding Spousal Cognitive Dissonance at http://mccue.cc/bob/medium.htm.

I like the wisdom that says we should decide what we value, decide what we can influence through our actions, decide whether we are willing to act in light of the probable consequences of our actions, then do what we are prepared to do, and finally and most importantly, fully accept and get happy with what we cannot influence. A great deal of our unhappiness relates to our recognition of things we cannot influence, and our unwillingness to accept them.

I note that the process just decribed seems to me to vary depending upon the breadth of the perspective we employ. For example, today I can either work out early in the morning, get some extra sleep or type this post. If I choose the sleep or this post, I should not brate myself for not working out. Sleep would provide the benefit of some extra rest that makes me feel better instead of the benefits of a workout that in a different way would make me feel better. I won't discuss the merits of this post. But once I have made a choice, I should embrace the results or make a different choice. There is not point beating myself up for what I have chosen, or cannot change.

The decision as to whether to leave a relationship as important as that with our spouse, fraught with issues related to children etc., is worth a much greater investment of time and effort than most other decisions. So, I might decide what is important to me, and what I can do to increase the probability that I can achieve it (including leaving my marriage if necessary) and then say to myself, "This is one of those really important decisions that has wide ranging financial and relationship ramifications, so I am going to measure four times before cutting. I will use the next (x months, years, whatever) to maximize the probability that I have made a wise decision as to what is important to me, by gathering as many points of view as I can in that regard, and then I will use (x months, years, whatever) to try to bring what I value into my life as it currently stands. If it appears that I cannot achieve what I consider to be the minimally acceptable situation in that regard, I will leave my marriage."

Once I have choosen the process just described, and embarked upon it, I have chosen a particular type of sunset, and can enjoy it to the max. I can revel in the learning process that occurs while I collect perspectives. After I have decided what is important to me, it is highly probable that I will have to plough through, and drag my spouse through, heavy emotional seas as we see whether there is enough overlap in our lives to make them worth living together. I can allow those heavy seas to simply wash over me. I need not fight my way through that process. I will be seasoned by it, and will explore part of the human terrain that most travellers either do not explore, or are so numb while they do so that they do not see much. This is a sunset of a different type. I have made a choice and I can fully accept and embrace the consequence of that choice. And when I decide either to leave my marriage and face many painful and joyful consequences in that regard, or to stay in what will assuredly be a less than perfect situation, I should embrace what I have chosen. It is another sunset.

So, I would say that your difficult spousal situation (which is not that different from what mine was) is a sunset. We cannot choose many of our sunsets in the short term. We can choose more of them in the longer term, but even then our choice is limited. But we can always choose whether to embrace, or fight with, what the combination of our choices and random circumstance has served up. That approach to life, it seems to me, is the factor that correlates most strongly with a long term satisfaction. While I don't agree with all he says, Victor Frankl addresses this topic eloquently in "Man's Search for Meaning".

As I have said before, one of the Church's greatest evils in my view is the manner in which it furthers its institutional agenda and as a consequence encourages innocent young people to build their lives together on false foundations. This is what puts people like you, me and our spouses in situation you have described. However, it seems that humans of various stripes have forever dealt with similar things. Some of the greatest art with which I am familiar comes from this font. And more to the point, we can either use this experience to plumb our human depths, or fight it, regret it, etc. Once we are sufficiently self aware and for those of us who have the tools to do this, it seems clear to me which route is likely to be more satisfying.

The process as I describe it above also makes it clear to me why so many Mormons simply refuse to look or think about Mormon history and the social and personal conseuquences of Mormon belief. They choose to embrace their current relationships. For many personality types, this could not be done with a full intellectual awareness of what Mormonism does, means, comes from, etc. So, they shut down the process of learning about those things. This allows them to embrace what they have chosen to the greatest extent possible. I do not believe I was capable of doing that, but am not overly critical of those who are steered by their unconscious mechanisms in that direction. The only people in that situation I challenge are those within my own home, because of the degree of love and concern I feel for them, and because of the way in which they affect my life and the lives of other family members for whom I feel similar love and concern.

All the best,

bob
http://www3.telus.net/public/rcmccue/bob/postmormon.htm
topic image
African Wisdom
Wednesday, Feb 16, 2005, at 08:59 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
My wife and I toured a local museum yesterday, and found the following African proverbs that I found enlightening enough to record and share:

- To not know is bad; to wish not to know is worse.

- Choose the neighbor before the house; the companion before the journey.

- He who can't dance says the drum is bad.

All the best,

Bob
topic image
I See The Past, Present And Future, Existing All At Once Before Me
Thursday, Mar 10, 2005, at 07:44 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
That should sound familiar. It comes, more or less, from the DandC. I don't have my copy handy, so someone will have to fill in that blank for us.

I ran across this phrase while reading today. It is part of William Blake's work. He died in 1827. This is believed to have been written in about 1818. To see the words in context, go to http://eir.library.utoronto.ca/rpo/display/poem180.html.

I used to think that this phrase from the DandC, which is consistent with modern physical theory, was evidence that Joseph Smith was inspired by God to know science that was ahead of his time. And yet again it seems that I was likely wrong.

Credits: Bob McCue Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.

Doctrine and Covenants 130:7:
"But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord."
From Representative Poetry Online:
William Blake (1757-1827)
Jerusalem: I see the Four-fold Man, The Humanity in deadly sleep
(excerpt)

1 see the Four-fold Man, The Humanity in deadly sleep
2 And its fallen Emanation, the Spectre and its cruel Shadow.
3 I see the Past, Present and Future existing all at once
4 Before me. O Divine Spirit, sustain me on thy wings,
5 That I may awake Albion from his long and cold repose;
6 For Bacon and Newton, sheath'd in dismal steel, their terrors hang
7 Like iron scourges over Albion: reasonings like vast serpents
8 Infold around my limbs, bruising my minute articulations.
9 turn my eyes to the schools and universities of Europe
10 And there behold the Loom of Locke, whose Woof rages dire,
11 Wash'd by the Water-wheels of Newton: black the cloth
12 In heavy wreaths folds over every nation: cruel works
13 Of many Wheels I view, wheel without wheel, with cogs tyrannic
14 Moving by compulsion each other, not as those in Eden, which,
15 Wheel within wheel, in freedom revolve in harmony and peace.
http://eir.library.utoronto.ca/rpo/display/poem180.html
topic image
Do Young Mormon Women Want More Income Earning Potential In A Potential Mate Than Non-Mormon Women?
Monday, Mar 14, 2005, at 07:49 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I had just returned from watching our 22-year-old son's intramural basketball game. Wonderful game, by the way. Those kids do things - and do them beautifully - that my buddies and I did not dream of 25 years ago when I was playing seriously.

After the game I chatted for a while with an RM who I knew before his mission and had not seen in perhaps four or five years. He lamented a recent romantic relationship that ended instead of resulting marriage. I told him to be happy about that, and summarized some of the stats re marriage. That is, marriages that occur in the late 20s or early 30s are both more likely to survive long term, and to produce a higher degree of satisfaction for both partners that those that occur in the early 20s. He was intrigued, and one of his friends joined us at that point. He summarized what I had said for his friend (who I infer is over 25) and told him that he should be happy he has not gotten married. He did not seem happy about this.

We also talked a bit about the cultural pressures within Mormonism to marry young, how that is out of step with social reality and causes a lot of problems for young Mormon kids who marry before they are ready to, and then have a miserable time together. One of the boys indicated that Mormon marital practises in this regard would have worked great in 1820, or perhaps today in Africa but do not work now in North America. I agreed, and felt proud that I resisted the temptation to go into a full-on discussion of why Mormonism in general does not work or make sense. I don't know these kids well enough to want to get into that kid of a discussion with them. I only do that when either invited to do so, or with the ones I love the most and hence for whom I am prepared to do some heavy emotional lifting.

We then talked a bit about careers and money. I assured both boys that a very happy life can be enjoyed without a high powered career and a lot of money. I fact, I indicated that that for many people the need to earn the big bucks and flaunt the life style that often goes with it is a source of depression. They both looked relieved, and interested. After chatting this way for a few minutes, one of the boys said that he wished that I would talk to all of the Mormon girls in Calgary because none of them seem to understand that life can be great without marrying a doctor, dentist or lawyer. "That is all they want", he said.

When I repeated this conversation to my wife, she said that this is what losers who can't get a date because they have personalities like doormats tend to say (I am paraphrasing using my words, of course). She also said that if anything, Mormon girls are worse at looking down the road and thinking about the practicalities of life than non-Mormon girls are likely to be, and that if a Mormon guy is really trying to find a girl to marry him and can't do it, he would have even worse luck in the non-Mormon community. She concluded that money and future career prospects are less important for Mormon girls than non-Mormon girls.

What say ye?

All the best,

Bob
topic image
“The Spirit” and When to Get Married
Wednesday, Mar 23, 2005, at 07:43 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
One of my favorite nephews just got engaged. He is 21, a recent RM and has been dating his now fiance for about 6 months. They plan to marry in August. The classic Mormon RM story.

She comes from a wealthy background. He is just starting school and has no idea what he will do to support his family. He stays at our house several days a week while attending school, and over the years we have done a lot together. We both have a passion for basketball, and have played numerous hotly contested games of one on one, two on two and three on three against each other over the years. He is, incidentially, about 5'10" and nicely dunks the basketball.

I saw him this morning for the first time since I heard the news. We were alone at the breakfast table. The conversation went something like this:

B: Well, if it isn’t Mr. Nucking Futs!

N: Huh? Ooooh!! Thanks a lot Uncle Bob for that vote of confidence.

B: You’re welcome. Seriously, you’re nuts. And I am one of the few people who know you well enough, and love you enough, to give you the straight goods.

N: I appreciate that. But we’ve thought about this carefully, and waited for a lot longer than some people said we should so that we could make a careful decision. We ….

B: (Laughing out loud) You’ve waited along time?!! How long? Six months!?

N: Seven (laughing).

B: (Still laughing) You can’t even tell me that with a straight face!

N: You were laughing and making me laugh. That’s not fair!

B: Come on. Seriously, I am going to tell you what I think because I care a lot about you. I don’t expect that you are going to listen to me and say, “Oh, Uncle Bob thinks I shouldn’t get married so I won’t.” But I can assure you that there will be some significant bumps in the road between now and when you pull the pin on this, and when you hit those bumps I hope you will remember what I have to say and hear alarm bells ring.

You are making a decision with your little head instead of your big one. I understand how that works because I made a similar decision. Mormonism has you in a box that way. Your body and mind are both screaming at you that it is time for you to consummate a relationship both physically and emotionally, and there is only one way a faithful Mormon can do that – by getting married.

N: Uncle Bob, its not about that. We love being together …

B: Plllleeeeese. Let me finish. That’s what they all say. That is what I said too. I don’t doubt that you love being together.

We make most of our decisions based on our perception of probabilities. Some decisions, like the one you are making, are exceptions to that rule. They are based on emotion. And those are often the worst decisions.

The statistics, and hence the probabiliites, are clear. People who marry as young as you two are divorce more often and have less satisfying marriages than those who marry later in life when they both know more about who they are, what is important to them, etc.

N: We are going to grow up together.

B: Maybe. But the statistics say that a lot of people who marry as youung as you are don't grow together. They grow apart and that causes trouble for them. What makes you think you are exempt from what seems to be the rule for everyone else?

N: We will choose to make it work. That's why.

B: That is a great attitude. And it would have a much better chance of working if you were not handicapping yourself as you are.

Why do you think people in Utah use more anti-depressants than anyone else in North America? Why do you think the personal bankruptcy rate is higher in Utah than anywhere else in the US? This likely has something to do with when and how people marry and have families in Utah.

N: Those statistics have nothing to do with me.

B: Really? If you think statistics don’t apply to you, you are dreaming in Technicolor. Does gravity apply to you?

What about this statistic. Your beloved is a wonderful girl, but all she knows is a lavish life style. You had better make one hell of a lot of money boy.

N: You don’t know her like I do. We have talked a lot about that. She knows it will be tough for us for a while. She is ready for that.

B: I don’t doubt that she said it, and means it. But she has only lived one way. If you ask her long term to live another, I am willing to bet that it will be tougher than she can imagine, and that will make it tough on you. Sexual incompatibility and money are the two primary causes of divorce and marital unhappiness. You know nothing (I presume) about your sexual compatibility and you know about the only kind of lifestyle she has lived and, frankly, there is only a slim chance you can deliver anything close to that. This is a bad bet boy. Believe me.

N: That's for the advice.

B: You are committing yourself to a lifestyle you have no idea whether you can supply. I have worked my ass off for the same reason, and I have been lucky. I would much rather have not made the commitment to bring in all of that income, had more choice as to what I could do to earn a living as a result, and had more liesure time. I know you, and have a pretty good idea that you are not going to like the grind you are probably in for.

N: It might be good for me to have a gun to my head. I need to work harder; to get more focussed.

B: I have never heard a worse reason to get married than the one you just gave me. You are making me more worried instead of less.

By the way, I have seen you hit lots of jump shots from just outside the three-point line. You take that shot because you know you can hit it. Right?

N: Yup.

B: But you don’t take shots from three steps out from there. Why?

N: Obviously because that is outside my range.

B: But an inexperience player might jack up shots outside his range, right? Shots that would make an experienced player like you cringe because he knows that their chance of going is in poor. Right?

N: Yup.

B: You see where I am going with this?

N: Yup.

B: You are pulling up for a shot just inside of center Buddy, but because you have no experience in this game you don't even no it. And I have played this game for almost 25 years, and am cringing. What should that tell you? Who knows more about this game, me or you? Who is not emotional about this decision, me or you?

N: That’s your opinion. None of what you say means anything about my situation.

This went on for a while, with plenty of joking interspersed with the serious stuff. DW then came into the room and in her own, must more understated way, basically said the same thing I had. Then I told our nephew that despite what I said, I truly hoped that it worked out well for him, and I left the room. While I was gone, the following ensued.

“N: Aunt Juli, you have to trust me on this. I have prayed about what I am doing and I feel certain it is the right thing.

J: (Smiling as wickedly as she can, which is not very wickedly) I received the same confirmation before I married your Uncle Bob.”

That, it seems, stopped the young man in his tracks. It was the only thing that was said to him this morning that made him even pause. Aunt Juli received spiritual confirmation that God wanted her to marry Uncle Bob, and now Uncle Bob is a rank apostate. How does that work? Hmmm.

All I can take credit for is an assist. Had I not started the conservation, DW could not have finished it. And of course, I doubt that either what I said or what she said will have any effect on what happens.

All the best,
topic image
The Use Of Mythology In The Recovery Process
Monday, Mar 28, 2005, at 01:56 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
The widest angle lens I have found while trying to understand my experience on the way out of Mormonism was handed to me by a friend as I was going through some of my darkest moments of that birth canal. She referred me to comparative mythologist Joseph Campbell. I found him and others like him to be immensely helpful (see in general http://home.mccue.cc:10000/bob/documents/rs.mythology%20v.%20history.pdf and http://home.mccue.cc:10000/bob/documents/out%20of%20my%20faith.pdf starting at page 36).

Campbell describes mythology as those beliefs used to make sense out of life’s most basic questions: Why do we exist?; why do we suffer?; why do we rejoice?; why do we die?; what happens after death?; etc. He notes common threads in these myths, and patterns related to the nature of myths and the human groups that believe them. For example, people who live in environments where resources are scarce and hence fought over by competing human groups tend to have myths that justify killing other humans, whereas people who live in environments of abundance don’t tend to have such myths. Mythologies, Campbell would say, are mostly functional – they help us to make sense out of what we have to do to survive.

Mythologies are, in general terms, of great use if used as metaphor and dangerous if taken literally. Think, for example, of the carnage that has been inflicted on mankind by those who take literally the idea that God has a “chosen” people. There is nothing wrong with this idea in metaphor, and it is a killer when taken literally.

Another way to think of mythology is as a form of extended or meta-analogy. That is, myths are not explicitly based on empirical truth that prove cause and effect relationships to exist, but rather suggest broad cause and effect relationships that can be taken in many different ways. We will consider below one of these below in the form of the “Hero” myth, which encourages us to leave the safe confines of our social group and ideology to break new ground. This thirst for exploration and learning is basic to humanity, and is responsible for our continual learning about how to control our environment. As we continue to learn, we become more powerful. One of the longstanding concerns of some of the most insightful members of society has been that human power will outstrip human wisdom to the point at which we will destroy ourselves. I think that concern is, by and large, healthy since the more aware we are collectively of these risks the less likely we are to be harmed by them.

Analogies are dangerous because a false analogy that supports the status quo or what we for some reason want or need to believe tends to persuasive. Such analogies are often based on limited data that suggest spurious cause and effect relationships. A nephew who was in Thailand when the tsunami hit in December of 2004 told me a story recently that nicely illustrates this point. He was not in the area that was devastated, but met many people who were. One fellow told him that he and some friends had planned a boat trip for the day of the tsunami. However, he foolishly got so drunk the night before that he was sick when the others left for the cruise. They died, and he lived. Magical thinking people (including superstitious, or religious people) could draw many conclusions from this event. Maybe getting drunk is a good survival strategy overall? Maybe each time the urge to get drunk is felt, that is God’s way of protecting either that particular man, or mankind in general? Maybe being spared disaster in this bizarre way was God’s method of communicating something to this man – maybe he should continue to do something that he was doing, or stop doing something he was doing, or start doing something new (like join the Mormon Church if he had been thinking of doing that or if he met Mormon missionaries a short time after his brush with disaster)? Etc. For the magical thinking person, there are innumerable ways to use an event of this sort to justify doing or not doing countless things.

The naturalistic interpretation of same event would be, quite simply, “shit happens”. This man was incredibly lucky. Full stop. The event has no more cosmic significance than my stepping on and crushing one bug as I walk across my lawn, and narrowly missing another. However, a brush with death may make us introspect, and perhaps appreciate the fragility of our existence a bit better (for a while at least) and so change our behaviour in some ways that we find valuable.

A much more important, and infamous, false analogy is the “survival of the fittest” aspect of evolutional theory that was used to justify human eugenics of the type that underlay the Holocaust.

One of my favorite false analogies within Mormonism is that between feelings and truth. For example, most humans have strong feelings for their families, and when they are put in a situation that brings those feelings out it tends to feel like something “good” has happened and hence whatever seems to have caused this to occur should also be “good”. Feelings of this kind tend to accompany things like marriages, expressions of love between family members, surviving crises related to health and other things together, etc. Mormon belief routinely gives credit for these good feelings to the Mormon institution, and hence uses these common human experiences to suggest that Mormonism is “good”, and hence is what it says it is – God’s one and only true church on Earth. The logic works like this:

· Families are good;

· Whatever makes you feel good about your family is good;

· Whatever is good is “true” (“By their fruits ye shall know them”);

· Mormonism has taken control of many important family occasions (weddings, funerals, public expressions of love for family members during testimony meetings, etc.; private expressions of love through father’s blessings, etc.);

· Therefore, Mormons often feel powerful, healthy emotions related to their families and friends as a result of participating in Mormon activities and rituals;

· Therefore, Mormonism is good;

· Therefore, Mormonism is “true”;

· Therefore, Mormonism is what it says it is – God’s one and only true church on Earth.

· Therefore, the Celestial Kingdom exists and if I want to be there in a state of incredible happiness with my family I must obey Mormon leaders.

The naturalistic explanation for this phenomenon is that countless other religions and ideologies have used similarly spurious cause and effect connections to control people's behaviour. Some of these are more or less benign, and others are terrible. Nazism, for example, amplied the natural socially useful forces of human pride and allegiance to the social group, fear of outsiders and insecurity related to recent German history, to cause World War II and the Holocaust. American democracy was created through the use of similar forces.

Mormon testimonies, hence, are in my view fully explained by social forces of type just described and the nuerology described at http://home.mccue.cc:10000/bob/documents/out%20of%20my%20faith.pdf starting at page 77.

I have become increasing orientated toward empirical analysis and the naturalistic explanations derived from them as I have moved through my recovery. That is, I place increasing weight on what science can tell us with some degree of certainty about cause and effect relationships. When science conflicts with long cherished ideas, usually based on a false analogy of some kind, I try hard to allow the insights gained from science to govern. So, I have becomes sceptical of the use of analogies that are not backed up by data that confirm both that the analogy really works as advertised, and that the frequency of the phenomena in question supports the point it is used to make.

However, myths that have stood the test of time and have cropped up in human culture after human culture often are found to contain kernels of truth that have been explained reasonably well by science. Mythology can help us to understand both the workings of our own minds (or souls – use the term your prefer) and social groups. They are, in a sense, collective dreams. And there are some myths or parables that are particularly helpful to those who are struggling through the massive personal and social transition that is recovery from Mormonism. Here are a few of my favourites – The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Social Masks, and The Child, Camel, Dragon and Lion. After reading these summaries, you might want to go back and re-read the recovering Mormon transition steps above and see how they been transformed by this ancient context.
topic image
Why Can't Insiders Accurately Perceive Their Own Culture?
Tuesday, Mar 29, 2005, at 07:59 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
The following is a summary of some of the principles of social behaviour that make it difficult for insiders to accurately perceive their own behaviour.

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is at the root of denial. Fear is at the root of cognitive dissonance. The extent of our fear is determined by our general tendencies in that regard, and our beliefs. The nature of our beliefs determine our vulnerability to the issue in question. For example, I used to fear not being with my family in the Celestial Kingdom and wanted to be there with them. Fear and desire walk down this path hand in hand. Hence I obeyed the rules designed to get me what I wanted and avoid what I feared. As soon as I no longer believed that the Celestial Kingdom existed, my motivation to do many things evaporated, including some that I did not even know were related to that belief disappeared. I discovered the link while wondering why my motivation toward certain activities or attitudes had changed.

Cognitive dissonance theory is concerned with the relationships among cognitions. A cognition is a piece of knowledge about an attitude, an emotion, a behaviour, a value, etc. People hold a multitude of cognitions simultaneously, and these cognitions form irrelevant, consonant or dissonant relationships with one another. (See http://www.ithaca.edu/faculty/stephens/cdback.html) As William Safire in a New York Times op-ed piece (December 29, 2003), put it:

A cognition is a bit of knowledge or belief. When it disagrees with another cognition in our head … a nasty jangling occurs. To end this cognitive dissonance … we change the weak cognition to conform to the stronger one. Take Aesop's fox, who could not reach a lofty bunch of grapes no matter how high he jumped. One foxy cognition was that grapes were delicious; the other was that he couldn't get them. To resolve that cognitive dissonance, the fox persuaded himself that the grapes were sour - and trotted off, his mind at ease.

Cog dis usually functions in a manner no more complicated than that. But while Aesop neatly illustrated cog dis, he did not adequately reveal the primary force that lies beneath it – fear.

One of Buddhism’s central and enlightening notions is that most of mankind’s ills are caused by the manner in which fear or desire cause us to make unwise decisions. As the following summary of recent research will show, this ancient insight is remarkably accurate. Buddha’s “middle way” was the path that lay between fear and desire and so was out of both their reaches. And since a good portion of desire is fear that we will not obtain that which we most desire, fear is the most primal and effective of emotions. The well known case of denial in marriages where infidelity is a problem illustrates this. The faithful spouse is usually unable to see the evidence of cheating until well after most others can see it. This denial of reality is a function primarily of the spouse’s fear of losing the relationship if the information in question is processed and dealt with. The greater the fear, the greater the cog dis it will produce and the deeper will be the consequent denial and suppression of threatening information. The psychology related to personality profiles indicates to us that not all people are influenced by fear and desire in the same way. In one study that focussed on the question of why some people are more religiously inclined than others, it was determined that the personality trait called “openness” correlates strongly to religious tendencies. Openness is the inclination toward new experience; the opposite of dogmatism. The more “open” a person is, the less likely she is to be influenced by fear in any particular situation, and the less likely she is to be religious in the traditional sense of that word. That is, the less likely she will be to accept traditional religious authority and the literalistic interpretation of scripture it posits. And of course the opposite is also true.

So, the picture that comes into focus is that in any particular case, denial is a function of two things. First, how open to new experience the individual in question person is, and second, how significant is the fear that the denied information is perceived to create.

A faithful Mormon should be expected to experience massive amounts of fear upon contemplating the possibility that the religious experience on which much of his life, family and social relationships are based is false. This fear produces a powerful form of cognitive dissonance, and hence an extensive or suppression of the information. We should expect that the more faithful the Mormon, the less able she will be to see the reality of the institution that sponsors her religious faith and the effect that faith has upon her.

Rational v. "Automatic" Decision-Making

Humans perceive themselves to be rational decision makers. However, there is a great deal of psychological and other research that indicates that many of our decisions are automatic, likely as a result of decision making routines that evolution programmed into us to help us to survive in a harsh environment where decisions have to be made quickly and on the basis of limited information. However, we have a primal need to justify our actions, and in this modern world dominated as it is by a "rational" paradigm, that means we twist our knee jerk reactions into a rational framework in order to feel comfortable with them. For example, why do Mormons believe that tithing brings forth God's blessings? Because of stories told that illustrate the cause effect relationship between paying tithing and receiving blessings. Why are Mormon Priesthood blessings perceived to "work"? Same kind of reasoning. Michael Shermer wrote a book that persuasively sets out how coincidence, mankind's tendency to look for patterns where they don't exist and a misunderstanding of cause and effect relationships nicely accounts for beliefs of this nature, and that the more intelligent a person is the more likely she is to defend the beliefs that she at some point in her development (usually early) she accepted as "true" (See "Why People Believe Weird Things").

One of the evolutionary rules of thumb (sometimes called "heuristics") noted in the research is that when powerful emotions are encountered, reason shuts down. One of those forces is fear. This is adequately explained by what I indicated above respecting cog dis. Powerful desires for money, prestige, sex etc. can also overcome reason. One of my clients was on the verge of falling for a fraudulent financial scheme that offered him $20,000,000, and came to me for tax planning advice. He had tickets purchased to fly to Nigeria the following week to sign a few papers and collect his money. After I asked some questions, and then provided him with news service articles that indicated how others had lost their money, been kidnapped for ransom, and in one case killed as a result of participating in similar schemes, he reacted like someone coming out of a trance. This experienced, successful businessman's considerable ability to reason had been overcome by the emotion of greed, which is of course a variant of desire.

Other research indicates that the most powerful of emotional forces are often connected to "value structures" such as religion (my religion is "true" and yours is not, for example), morality (the abortion issue; the homosexuality issue, for example), political issues (democracy v. communism, for example), etc. Another powerful emotion that affects our beliefs is love. I recently watched in amusement (and with some concern) as one of my young friends who I did not think had a religious bone in his body fell in love with a faithful Mormon girl and began to think seriously about serving a mission after years of resisting the pressure of his parents and others to do so.

Love and fear combine to produce potent emotional distortions of reason. This is responsible for the advice provided to medical doctors and other professionals that they not attempt to diagnose or treat themselves or family members. For example, a doctor's love for her child, and fear of the consequence that a serious illness would bring to that child, for example, has been demonstrated to impair her ability to see symptoms that clearly indicate serious illnesses such as cancer.

Yet another area of study focuses on our inherent risk aversion. We tend to overestimate risk and underestimate potential gain from risk taking, and we tend to overvalue what we already possess when it is compared to what we don't possess. One fascinating study in this regard provided university students with one item each that had the same value (say $5) in their school book store. They were also given some money with which to bid on the items other students were given, and were required to put their own item up for auction with a minimum sale price. On average, each student was prepared to pay much less (say $3.50) for items similar to her own than the amount for which she was prepared to sell her own item (say $7). The tendency to value what we have more than similar items we don't have, and to overestimate risk and underestimate the rewards to be gained by taking risk, would promote societal stability and hence make evolutionary sense. And they make us unlikely to change our minds respecting something like religious beliefs we have already accepted.

Another line of research deals with decision-making under conditions of great uncertainty and indicates that the more uncertainty and perceived risk, the more likely it is that we will go with the crowd and accept what authority figures have to say about what we should do. This is one manifestation of something called the "conformist bias" or "authority bias". The conformist bias explains the stock market buying that leads to "bubbles" in the market, and the panic selling that leads to irrational market collapse. It also applies to things like the global warming issue. There is a strong tendency in this regard to agree with the people who are dominant in our group. And what is more uncertain than religious belief? Even in cases where the phenomena are not terribly complex, the conformist bias exerts a powerful influence.

Some researchers have suggested that the conformist bias is just one of many aspects of the authority bias. A strong, perceived source of authority is often found at the root of group behaviour that sets in motion the conformist bias. It should be clear how this plays into the religious mindset, and particularly with regard to the authoritarian, hierarchical Mormon social structure.

In general, the more uncertain a matter, the more influential the authority and conformist biases will be. And authority, of course, is a subjective matter. My beliefs confer authority on certain people and institutions. Hence, those who want to influence me should be expected to attempt to control what I believe. These biases are aided and abetted by the nature of human memory. Elizabeth Loftus, world-renowned memory expert and U. of Washington psychology professor has noted:

Memories don’t fade… they … grow. What fades is the initial perception, the actual experience of the events. But every time we recall an event, we must reconstruct the memory, and with each recollection the memory may be changed – colored by succeeding events, others people’s recollections or suggestions … truth and reality, when seen through the filter of our memories, are not objective factors but subjective, interpretative realities. (Shermer, Why People Believe Weird Things, p. 182)

Loftus provides numerous examples of how easy it is to suggest to people that they have had an experience, and cause them to believe that they really had it (See “Memory, Faults and Fixes”, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 2002, reprinted in “The Best American Science and Nature Writing (2003 Edition) at p. 127). Of particular note are certain experiments that have been conducted to illustrate the way in which our memories and current perceptions are shaped by how we think others have perceived the same event we did. For example, subjects might be shown a series of slides depicting an event or actually witness a staged event, such as a theft or a traffic accident. Then, the subjects would be given additional information concerning the event. The post-event information given to one group would contain material that contradicted some details of the actual event, such as a stop sign being described as a yield sign. The post-event information provided to a second group of subjects (the control group) would contain no such conflicting information. After ingesting the supplemental information, all subjects would be given a test concerning what they witnessed. In all of these experiments, the subjects who were given the misleading supplemental information performed more poorly than control subjects respecting the items regarding which they had been given misleading information.

This research sheds light on how Mormon testimonies are created. Once we have heard enough other people say, for example, that they felt something particular when they read the Book of Mormon, we are capable of manufacturing similar memories. And the more authoritative, credible, loving etc. the people who suggest these things to us, the more effective they are likely to be. I believe, in addition, that there are other and much more real influences behind the LDS testimony phenomenon. See http://www3.telus.net/public/rcmccue/bob/documents/out%20of%20my%20faith.pdf at p. 77 and following for a summary.

It has also been shown that certain experiences that cause of the emotion of "elevation" to occur are highly influential with respect to our behaviour. When people see unexpected acts of goodness, they commonly described themselves as being surprised, stunned, and emotionally moved. When asked "Did the feeling give you any inclination toward doing something?," the most common response is to describe generalized desires to help others and to become a better person, and feelings of joy. These feelings bind human groups together, and so create strong, reliable communities. Members of Mormon communities exhibit this kind of behaviour. However, the behaviours in question often also bind the participants to the Church itself. For example, by leaving on a mission for two years, a young man in the Mormon community inspires precisely the kind of emotion described above. And he is subjecting himself to a powerful conditioning force that will make it much more difficult for him to "question" when he returns, and he is keeping himself very busy during precisely the period of time during which most young men question. Hence, the community is strengthened by an act that inspires the emotion of elevation, and at the same time a number of other things are done that will also strengthen the community. Many Mormon conventions have this kind of effect.

As noted above, the prize religion offers is huge – relief from the anguish caused by our greatest existential fears. And the LDS Church ups the stakes significantly in this regard by positing the possibility of eternal family life and has created a society in which an admission of disbelief often costs dearly in terms of marriage and other family relationships, social status, etc. In the face of this kind of prize/penalty structure, we should not be surprised that apparently rational people are easily persuaded to believe in irrational, extremely low probability versions of future reality such as the Celestial Kingdom. And when you add to this the psychological pressure that being surrounded by believing Mormons for most of life, bearing public testimony on countless occasions as to the certainty of my belief, and then being placed in leadership positions within the Mormon community, it is not surprising to me that for almost three adult decades I was unable to see what is now so clear to me respecting the Church and the manner in which it treated me and continues to treat others.

Even Scientific Thinking is Influenced by these Principles

As noted above, the principles just described were developed with respect to human mental processes in general. They have not been yet broadly applied to religious phenomena. One of my friends who is an LDS professor of religious psychology who has been helping me with this project indicated recently to me that he thinks this neglect is due to the greater credit given within the academic community for empirically oriented research. Since the application of psychological principles to religious behaviour does not easily fit into the mould, it is not an attractive research subject. He agrees with my assessment that the application of these principles to the formation of religious beliefs and cultural practises is reasonable to assume, and that given the dominant nature of emotional forces relative to religious issues, it is also reasonable to conclude that cognitive dissonance, denial etc. will be powerful forces in the determination of religious beliefs. For an excellent overview respecting the application ofcognitive dissonance principles to religious issues in general, see "Speculations on a Privileged State of Cognitive Dissonance, by Conrad Montell at http://cogprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00002388/01/temp.pdf.

I note in particular something that Thomas Kuhn pointed out in his landmark book on the philosophy of science, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". In that book he coined the term "paradigm shift" to describe how science changes. Until his time, it was believed that science progressed in a more or less linear fashion. He pointed out that science seems, rather, to lurch forward. His explanation for this, which has been widely accepted in the scientific community, is that the majority of each generation of scientists becomes captive to the dominant "paradigm" of their day. However, a minority of each generation will see things the majority cannot see, and will pursue those interests, sometimes to the derision of their colleagues. A future generation of scientists, less encumbered by the paradigm of their forbears, will often recognize in the fringe work something of importance that will be adopted, amplified and provide the basis for a new paradigm that will rapidly transform the scientific community's views respecting the issues in question. And then the process will repeat itself. A classic example of this is found in the history of DNA. Gregor Mendel did the ground work for modern DNA theory, published his work, and was ignored by the scientists of his generation. He is now revered as the founder of genetic science.

The scientific community is the pinnacle of rational thought in our society. If scientists are subject to the forces described above in the manner Kuhn indicates, how much more so are the rest of us likely to be? And since the correlation between emotion and irrational belief is so strong, and the connection of religion to emotion so pervasive, should we not expect great difficulty as we attempt to be "rational" about religion? But, given modern man's need to explain everything he does in rational terms, should we not also expect him to do that, and believe with all his heart that he is being rational with respect to his religious beliefs?

When we add all of the above factors us, we should not be surprised that it is excruciatingly difficult for the typical faithful Mormon to look any information in the eye that questions the legitimacy of the beliefs on which his life is based.
topic image
Miscellanea re Adjustments to leaving Mormonism
Friday, Apr 22, 2005, at 02:44 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
A friend just forwarded this to me. Since it is relevant to our discussion regarding the merits of different forms of spirituality and belief in God, I pass it along. Click Here For Original Link Or Thread.

I found your discussion of spirituality interesting and useful, and during my trip with my son did some reading that is relevant toit that I will pdf and send to you. The most interesting comes from a phd thesis written at Cornell by, of all people, the lead singer of the punk rock group "Bad Religion". The guy is a bona fide biologist - anthropologist and did some brilliant work for his phd thesis in the form of a series of interviews with some of the greatest living biologists about their beliefs in god, and how those beliefs can be reconciled to the theory of evolution. He was following up on earlier studies that are reviewed in "How We Believe" by Shermer. Those studies found that a surprising large percentage of scientists believe in a god of some kind. However, the more respected the scientist, the less likely such a belief as to be found. Greg Graffin (the punk rocker/scientist) refined and updated the study by focussing on biologists (including geneticists), making the survey questionaire more complex, and including detailed interviews with about a dozen of the most respected of the group. The interviews are published in full in an appendix to the thesis and were the most interesting part. This work was done in 2004. You can order a copy if you wish at http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/

Another book that I have not yet read, but will buy shortly, was recommended to me by a friend who teaches pyshcology at a US university. He says that it will become the locus classicus in this field, and is called "Attachment, Evolution and the Psychology of Religion", by Lee Kirkpatrick. See http://www.guilford.com/cgi-bin/cartscript.cgi?page=pr/kirkpatrick.htmanddir=pp/paciandcart_id= I note that the friend in question is more like you in orientation regarding spirituality than me, and unlike both you and me, he has taken a "soft" approach to Mormonism. His wife is still active, he still attends but has recently begun to decline callings. He is a "dont' rock the boat" kind of guy, and a serious academic with regard to religious matters. A fascinating character. I ran into him on the internet at a site that had nothing to do with Mormonism, and he has helped me immensely during the past couple of years in terms of finding materials to answer the burning question of the day.

Here are a few other things he recently recommended that I look regarding adjustment to and understanding changing belief in general:

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/elevation.html

http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume3/pre0030003c.html

I have skimmed this stuff, and find it useful. It runs along the same lines as much of Martin Seligman's work (see http://www.authentichappiness.org/) which as you know I have found very helpful.

This friend also recommends Matthew Alper's "The God Part of the Brain", which I have not read.

In any event, I think your and my main area of disagreement is that I am no longer prepared to place much weight on the things that cannot shown to be at least probable based on scientific experiment. I understand that I must make many decisions based on non-scientific theories, assumptions etc., and I try hard to be aware of when I am doing that and remain particularly open to changing my views in those areas since they are notoriously unreliable. The comments of SL Slacker in the Foyer thread noted above (he is a medical researcher - microbiologist I think - who will be at the Consciousness conference hosted by Shermer at CalTech next month) regarding the rate at which knowledge is expanding is relevant to that. The more credence we give to non-scientific "knowledge" the deeper the roots things like the confirmation bias will grow, and the more resistant we are likely to be as information that disconfirms our beliefs comes to light.

In any event, I will enjoy continuing to kick these ideas around with you, but am out of time for today. I arrived at the office at 6:30 am after leaving last night at after 8 pm, and the closing we are working on today is starting to heat up. I have not yet read the post I forwarded above, other than to skim the first few paragraphs and conclude that it is worth reading. Slacker and I have corresponded enough for me to take him seriously. When I get the chance to reply to him, I will ask him to be more specific with regard to some of the examples he gives early on re. fundamental scientific problems that have been recently solved. And I would be interested to see how he responds to some of your approaches. [end]

The next is a recent email (the last in a long chain) to a bishop who is trying to decide how to deal with his recent discovery of the reality of Mormonism, is concerned about his marriage breaking up etc. * is the bishop. ** is the pyshcology professor noted above, who is involved in the chain as well.

* and **:

As usual, **'s advice is very sound. **, the presentation notes you mentioned did not come through to me. I would love to read them. And thanks for the book and website references. It has been too long since the last time I looked over your shoulder for some reading material.

About all I can say, *, is that the fear that all involved feel regarding the consequences of fundamental change in belief is likely overstated. Evolution likely designed us to deeply fear getting so sideways with our primary social group and/or family that we might be rejected by them. For most of human existence that likely increased the risk of death measurably. I felt as you describe feeling, and found that when I pushed ahead and did what I felt on principle and a long term cost benefit basis was important, that it was not as bad as I thought it would be.

In ** and me, you have two very different examples of how to approach the main issues related to Mormonism. ** has quietly withdrawn in a variety of ways. I left much more openly, and was ready to leave my marriage if it came to that. I don't think it would be possible for me, let alone healthy for me, to proceed as ** has. And he might well say with justification the same about what I have done. That is to say that there is no "right" way to handle this. I think one should do his best to assess his own personality and family, and then do what appears best in that context. And, one should try to make the decision based on principles and probabilities, because that is how the best decisions are most often made. When we are emotional and fearful, the part of our brain that works with probabilities shuts down to one extent or another. My observation is that most people who are tying to leave Mormonism exaggerate the risks of things like marital failure, loss of relationships etc. that are likely to result from that, and underestimate both the problems associated with continuing to enable Mormon activity in their children and loved ones and the wonderful nature of the world that can be created outside of Mormonism. The second, in particular, has been a beautiful surprise for me.

As you know, how my seven kids would be affected if I laid low for five or so years weighed heavily on me. By acting as quickly as I did, I caught the then 15 year old in time to steer her into more reality based waters, and the youngest three will all have the chance to make a decision regarding religious belief without being hamstrung with nearly as much Mormon baggage as their older siblings were. One of the many ugly, unconscious untruths told by Mormons is that we should "just let the kids make up their own minds" after handing them over to a highly effective conditioning machine. That is not allowing someone to make up her own mind.

My 20 year old daughter and RM son show no signs of changing beliefs. Had I been able to act three or four years earlier, I think I would have had a good chance to affect them in a material way. It may be too late for that now, and I still have not found a way to comfortably accept that. I am grieving the loss of a daugther and son, in essence.

*, I know a few people who are like **, and a few who are like me. I don't know you well enough to feel confident which end of that spectrum you are on. Your last email sounded a lot like what went on in my head for a long time. A lot of pain, fear, discomfort with the path you are on, etc. I am not sure how ** would assess that. And it is certainly too simplictic to use ** and me as the ends of the only relevant spectrum.

I shouldn't say much more than that. I empathize with your situation because I remember vividly what a similar situation felt like, and hope you will find a way out that works for you. If you decide to take the bull by the horns, I think I can safely say that it is probable that most of what you fear will not come to pass, and the fear you feel as well as your unfamiliarity with the alternative ways of living that are open to you combine to blind you to some great experiences that await you, your wife and your family. My wife was as intransigent as yours, and has told me several times lately that she is very happy with our new life, that our marriage has never been better, etc. We still struggle with some things, but I agree with her. We have a much better chance of thriving together now than ever. And I am confident that had I not forced the issue, she would have remained an active Mormon while I did my own thing. That would have decimated our intimacy. It was doing that. I don't think our marriage would have survived that way. And if it did, that might have been the greater tragedy. There is so much more to life and relationships than we could experience while "unequally yoked".

Human beings respond in large measure to necessity. As my personality collided with the reality of Mormonbelief and practise, it created some "necessities" in both my wife's and my lives. I believe that as a result, we are both far better off than I can imagine being had we remained active Mormons while I pretended, or in any of the other possible combinations other than the one we ended up with.

And then again, maybe I am just rationalizing my own choices. As noted above, ** is making something work that I can't imagine. And there are other ways of doing things as well.
topic image
The "Meaning Of Life" As Per Ursula Goodenough In Her Book "The Sacred Depths Of Nature"
Monday, May 23, 2005, at 07:46 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I finished reading this book this morning, having heard Dr. Goodenough speak at a conference last weekend, and having had the chance to chat with her. She is one of those rare people who project both a sense of personal power and make those in her presence feel both valued and safe. And her book will take a cherished place in my library because she has hit almost directly on the head a number of things that I have been groping toward for some time. And through her I have now connected with a community of people who see things much as I do, and have a similar sense of value and priority.

So, I highly recommend this book. Reviews that come at it from different perspectives (some more critical than others) can be found at the following links:

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/Bo....

http://faculty.washington.edu/nelgee/literature/bkr....

http://www.scispirit.com/goodenough.htm

I add my comments as follows:

This book is the single shortest and most lucid review of big picture analysis of “reality” I have found. She starts with the big bang and then flips through the possible creation of life and evolutionary theory in a few short chapters. She reviews a lot of material with which I was familiar using novel examples to explain concepts I do not remember grasping before as I now do thanks to her, and breaks lots of new ground for me. The book is well worth reading for its scientific content, and it pitched at a level that is easily understandable for those without much science background, such as me.

One concept I don’t recall thinking about before is the difference between asexual and sexual life in terms of evolutionary strategy. Asexual organisms (such as bacteria) are immortal in the sense that their genetic essence does not change as they divide. As long as the ecological niche required to support them exists, they simply continue to clone themselves. Sexual life has a different evolutionary strategy that involves changing to adapt to a changing environment. The creation of the genes of each individual through the combination of the genes of its parents means that each individual is different, and hence of limited lifespan. The natural selection process is then presented with an endless array of different individuals from which to choose. Those that survive and, in general, the best adapted to survive and propagate. So, the “eternal” part of sexual life is the genome that is continually adapting and manifesting itself in different forms (and in our case, modifying its environment to suit its capacities). All other parts of each sexual individual is subservient in a sense to this – to protect the unique part of the genome housed in its sperm or eggs until they can perform their tiny function in this grand drama.

I add to Goodenough’s story the following diversion. During this evolutionary dance, small group animals at some point emerged. And from them, about 15 million years ago, emerged apes. And from them, about 5 million years ago, emerged the first “humans”. And from them, a relatively few thousand years ago, emerged humans who could communicate symbolically, and were (or shortly thereafter became) self conscious much as we are. The ability to communicate symbolically conferred enormous survival and propagation advantages on homo sapiens, and made him also conscious of his individually limited span of life. That is, the very organ (the brain) that became conscious of its own existence became conscious at the same time of its imminent demise. You don’t get one without the other unless you are asexual (like a bacteria or amoeba). Hmmm. Maybe this might explain the tendency of some religious folk to celibacy.

In any event, the paradox of being suddenly both aware of existence and death as well as the many powerful emotions connected to the evolutionary process are responsible in one way or another for much of our religious and artistic inclination. I am leaving aside for the moment the way in which religion is harnessed by those who wish to control their fellows. It is the almost universal inclinations that make this possible that I am paying attention to at the moment.

So, we have become conscious of ourselves and our instinctive drive to propagate and survive that are essential for our life form’s evolutionary strategy form to work. This drive is the whispering of our eternal genome, which we interpret as our own immortality. This faint, comforting voice contradicts the death we see all around us and which is essential to our life form. Individual death allows life to dance with our environment, and to display itself in the endless, breathtaking variety that inspires virtually universal reverence in those who become conscious of it.

At the end of each chapter Goodenough includes a section titled “Reflections” in which she outlines the feelings that the chapters contents evoke for her. In many cases I did not identify with her feelings, but those cases in which did made the part of the exercise more than worthwhile.

I particularly liked here conclusion, in which she indicated that her reason for being is tied to evolutionary theory – the grand story of existence. She accepts as a give that life is good and should be preserved. That is of course perfectly aligned with our most basic biological drivers. She notes that this impulse causes her to try to understand the nature of our environment and what we need to do within it to get along better as a human race and preserve the biodiversity required for long term existence and enjoyment of all life as to offer. She notes the connection this approach causes her to feel to all life. She makes extensive use of words like “scared”, “spiritual”, “religious” while explaining her feelings. She notes that once we are well grounded in our place in nature, we can enjoy the art, emotion etc. that all religious traditions have to offer – their essential humanness.

I particularly like Goodenough’s reference to one of her father’s favorite metaphors. He was a professor of religions studies who had a conservative religious upbringing, but as life passed became more metaphoric in his understanding of religion. He said, “Life is like a coral reef. We each leave behind the best, the strongest deposit we can so that the reef can grow. But what’s important is the reef.”

I am content with my place in on the reef; to enjoy life’s miracle while it lasts; to learn to pay more attention to the tiny part of the miracle that is before me, moment to moment; and think much less about those parts of the future that are beyond my influence.

Two of the reviews I linked above noted that Goodenough’s approach is not like to be satisfying to many theists. I agree. However, for those of us who have found our religious traditions wanting, Goodenough offers a wonderful away to reframe the big picture so as to enjoy certain aspects of our past. I had reached most of the conclusions Goodenough and her colleagues put forward (you can find her group at places like http://www.iras.org/ and http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/index.asp) but needed some help to bring things into focus and then begin to think critically about and refine my intuitions. I am finding the tools to do that within this group.

I also note that some people who leave Mormonism retain more of theistic leanings than do I. I don’t say that this is necessarily a bad thing, as long as we do not give ourselves over to the same kind of magical thinking that Mormonism promoted. And I still have trouble finding the brakes on the bus as long as we are prepared to accept any kind of metaphysical conclusions without a measure of testability. For those people, what Goodenough offers may have less utility. For those who minds run along paths similar to mind, this is a goldmine.
topic image
Sydney Ridgon And The Book Of Mormon
Friday, Jun 3, 2005, at 10:21 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
History is never certain. However, some things are far more certain than others. We have a pretty good idea, for example, as to the nature of most of the important facts related to the dropping of the Hiroshima bomb, and much less reliable information about Jesus Christ.

There is some evidence connecting Rigdon to the Smith family prior to 1830. Much of this relates to the treasure seeking community in which Smith (Jr. and Sr.) had some prominence. Ridgon appears to have moved in similar circles. This connection, however, is far from proven, and the origins of the BofM are likewise far from proven. However, there is a lot of data that has not been given much attention to date that in my view is helpful in forming opinions as to what appears most likely to have happened based on the evidence we have to work with. This is the usual case, by the way. We make most of our decisions based on incomplete evidence and the probabilities we (usually unconsciously) infer from it. You find people insisting on certainty when they (usually unconsciously) wish to resist the probabilities inferred by the evidence in front of them. They simply raise the bar high enough to ignore what disturbs them.

So, here is a synopsis of some of the data I am now reviewing.

There is a lot of evidence connecting Ridgon to Spaulding and his various manuscripts. The Spaulding story is usually panned by Mormon apologists because the only Spaulding manuscripts that survived bear little resemblance to the BofM. However, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that Spaulding has at least one other manuscript that did not survive, that this manuscript bore a striking resemblance to the Book of Mormon, and that it ended up in Ridgon's possession.

Ridgon was a Campbellite minister. Cambellite theology has a few unusual twists, and Ridgon had more of his own. Somehow, a lot of these ended up in the Book of Mormon.

It was commonly believed in Ridgon and Smith's time that the Native Americans were descendants of Israel. Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" clearly indicates this. This view went back to shortly after the Americas were discovered. I read just the other day something from one of the early Spanish explorers of South America in which he expressed this view regarding the natives of Brazil. Hence, it would have been plausible to the common people of JS and Ridgon’s time that ancient Native Americans may have been sufficiently connected to the Israelite tradition to have kept sacred records similar to the Bible.

Rigdon was trying to reform the Campbellite movement. If an ancient record (like the Book of Mormon) could be found that supported his version of Christianity, this would aid his cause and "bring people to Christ". Since this was undeniably good, any ends leading to it must also be good.

This form of exerting influence over belief has a lengthy history. It is believed that significant parts of the Old and New Testament (and in particular, one of the major reforms to the Jewish people documented in the OT) was the result of just this type of "invention" of ancient documents or “psuedepigrapha”. This is also part of the even older "noble lie" tradition. That is, if a falsehood serves a sufficiently noble purpose, it is justified. This is a particularly common approach for certain types of leaders and is at the core of Mormonism’s odious “faithful history” and “lying for the Lord” traditions.

So, the idea is that Ridgon, with the best of intentions, cobbled together the Book of Mormon using primarily Spaulding’s lost manuscript, and adding ideas from Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, perhaps "The Golden Pot", and a few Smith family stories (such as the iron rod - tree of life - great and spacious building narrative, which JS's mother tells us is a vision received by Smith Sr.)

The theory suggests that Ridgon then fed the manuscript to JS after recruiting him to help him bring the book to life. JS was necessary since it would be too convenient if Ridgon himself found an ancient book that verified his views. If a known mystic like JS did it, however, Ridgon could simply point to the book and then use his influence to promote its views. He would support it, and it would support him. To make this work, while the book was coming into being and for a while thereafter, Ridgon had to remain in the shadows as far as JS and the BofM was concerned.

If this happened, it would make sense that JS and Rigdon would not take anyone else into their confidence. In fact, it would be essential to the well-intended con that those closest to Smith were utterly convinced of the reality of his story. Their innocent, utterly convinced, testimony would be critical to the success of the venture. Mormon missionary work to this day operates on the same principle. Convince the innocents and send them out to convince the rest. Many financial cons I have seen as a result of my legal practise operate on the same principle. I am short on time today and so won’t go into that.

Smith would have been selected by Rigdon because of Smith’s visionary history and his connection to find hidden, precious things. So, when Smith purported to find golden plates and produce a religious record, many people around him would be prepared to believe at least that he was sincere. Then, when Smith began to produce (for him) a remarkable stream of literature, it would attract attention and appear miraculous. And the record answered so many of the religious and social controversies of the day (always in favour of the Ridgon-Cambellite approach). And, JS had proven himself adept at putting on a great show. That is what the treasure seeking, glass looking scam required. And he was good at it. At noted above, it likely that this is how JS came to Ridgon’s attention and is what recommended him for this critical role in Ridgon’s plan.

This theory does not suggest that Ridgon and JS conspired to create a new religion and defraud the people. Rather, it suggests that Ridgon was trying to do what he felt was right in terms of promoting his version of the Christian faith, and JS (who was chronically short of money and opportunity at this point in his) was easily recruited to help Ridgon.

Then, things did not work out as Ridgon had hoped. His Campbellite ministry did not go well. And JS attracted a much larger crowd of his own than expected. Soon Ridgon was JS's right hand man, and really ran the show for a long time. And then (to Rigdon's surprise and chagrin, if the theory is correct) the bumpkin Smith developed a life of his own. He jumped the fence Ridgon had put around him (JS's role, received by "revelation" was initially limited to translating the BofM) and took control. He tried to punt Ridgon (this was approved in secret shortly before JS’s death by one of the clandestine quorums Smith ran in parallel to the apparently democratic public structure of the Mormon Church in those days, and a replacement counsellor for Smith was set apart in secret) but the cognoscenti could not push Ridgon’s dismissal through in the public church meeting, so he remained on board.

Then Smith died and Ridgon lost the well-publicized power struggle to BY.

This is what a scientist (and my friend who is doing this work is an excellent scientist) would call a “just so” story. That is, it plausibly explains the extant data, but stops far short of providing “proof” that the facts required to support the theory occurred.

Many scientific theories that are now accepted started as “just so” stories. The theory of evolution is one of them. A just so story can graduate to an accepted view of reality by being tested in various ways over a long period of time (as has evolutionary theory) and passing all tests. Time will tell with regard to the Ridgon theory.

Another important scientific principle is that when confronted with several “just so” stories to explain a given phenomenon, we should accept the one that provides the simplest, most probable explanation for the events in question based on the available evidence. When making decisions, this is what we instinctively do. In fact, a lot of excellent research has been done in the last several years (google “gerd gigerenzer” for example) as to how well humans function from a decision making point of view on the basis of amazingly little data.

I still have a ways to go in my review of the fascinating material summarized above. But at the moment, I do not hesitate to say that this is the most probable theory of those I have reviewed as to how the BofM came into existence.
topic image
The Joy Of Determinism - The Old Freewill V. Determinism Debate
Tuesday, Jun 21, 2005, at 09:19 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
For this interested in the long story, see the thread at http://www.aimoo.com/forum/po.....

The thread was started by the observation that a prominent scientist said at a recent conference that she found that ditching free will was itself immensely "freeing". That is, she felt that be adopting a deterministic mindset (that all of her actions were determined by a combination of her genes and prior experience) she did not beat herself up as she used to do.

This is a challenging idea that I think has merit. What follows are two posts I made to the thread.

All the best,

Bob
topic image
Comparative Apologetics
Tuesday, Jun 21, 2005, at 11:42 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
One of the last barriers I had to jump on my way out of Mormonism might be called the "Smart Mormon" hurdle. As one approaches it, the hurdle looks like this:
  • There are so many really smart Mormons who believe Mormonism is "true".
  • The smart Mormons are much smarter and better educated than I am. They all have PhD's and most teach at BYU after all. And many of them have also been designated by God as his leaders. They are not only smart, but have greater powers of spiritual discernment than I have, as evidenced by their divine selection as Mormon leaders.
  • So, on what basis am I justified if I disagree with the "smart Mormons"? History and science are uncertain, after all. The safe thing to do - and the "smart" thing to do, is to reject my own conclusions in favor of those reached by the "smart" crowd.
This is the line of thinking that has been pushed by apologists of many stripes since time immemorial (see Click For Document) It can only be maintained if information, and hence perspective, is controlled by the apologists.

So, when one finally walks right up to the hurdle and starts to look at is carefully (see Click For Document) a variety of interesting things happen. The "smart" people are not so smart, for one thing. They are just regular people, some of whom are well qualfied in areas that have nothing to do with religion and so their opinions regarding religious matters are given more weight than is warranted. Richard Bushman and Davis Bitton are a prime examples of this type of person in my view. Many LDS general authorities are in the same camp. They have each been sucked in by different types of social conditioning to which their group has subjected them (including in some cases being "called" into a position of tremendous authority - nothing warps perception like power or the possibilty thereof) in the same way as have smart people within many other ideologies. And that, for me, was a key revelation - that there are innumerable smart people who at the same time believe some of the kookiest ideas on offer to be the literal truth.

Hence, one of the most useful exercises I went through while working through this phase of my collapsing Mormon belief was to visit the websites and chat rooms of many groups of apologists for non-Mormon ideologies. This helped me see the same kind of smart people using the same kinds of specious arguments as those with which I was confronted at FARMS and elsewhere in the Mormon world. I found it fascinating that in every case except my own (that is, re. Mormonsism) the use of cheap debating tricks, illogic, emotional obfuscation, etc. was obvious to me. Only in the case closest to my heart (that is, the Mormon case) where my own social conditioning was the deepest, did this kind of apologetic behaviour have any impact on me. This realization helped me to the conclusion that ideologies inculcated by thorough social conditioning create a form of mental pathology that functions to keep social groups together.

In the end, it simple. Evolution selects for people who are pre-disposed to the pathology just noted because throughout most of human history keeping the group together conferred greater survival and reproductive advantages than any individual "being right". If you were right, the group would eventually figure it out and it was more important that the group remain intact than you be right. So, our brains developed to tend to consciously acknoweledge the kind of realities that threatened group cohesion when most of the group was ready to come to the same conclusion.

Again, it is that simple. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I think about this now.

In any event, I did not keep track of the various sites I visited as I went through the exercise just noted. I just got on Google and tracked a couple of them down. However, I suspect that others here have had similar experiences to the one I just described. I noted that Tal Bachman in a recent thread noted said he is familiar with some of these sites.

Perhaps those of you who have seen apologists for other ideologies in action and have found them similar to Mormon apologists could share some of your favorites with us. Here is my contribution to get the ball rolling.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp (Go to home page and poke around. There is some great stuff here.)

http://www.rim.org/muslim/musapol.htm All the best,

bob
topic image
Michael Quinn's Mormon Testimony
Monday, Jul 11, 2005, at 11:36 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I recently had the chance to spend some time chatting with Michael Quinn and thought some here might be interested in a brief report. I did not hear anything from him in private that he has not indicated in public, so I can tell you exactly what he said. And, by the way, the first thing I did upon meeting Quinn was thank him for the role he played in helping me out of Mormonism. His research put a number of key pieces of information in place for me. He is one of my heroes.

Some have suggested that Quinn's "attacks" against the Church are inconsistent with his current stance as a non-Mormon Mormon. Quinn does not perceive himself to have attacked the Church, but rather he was simply doing his job as a scholar with integrity. He is far better informed that I will ever be regarding where all the Mormon skeletons are buried.

Quinn has had spiritual experiences that from his point of view establish the "reality" of Smith's divine appointment in such a way that the evidence he has seen to the contrary is still insufficient to shake him. This includes the belief that the Book of Mormon was really translated by divine inspiration from real golden plates; that God's exclusive authority was given to Smith and passed on by him to Hinckley et al.; etc. The whole load.

Quinn indicated that he understands that his view is improbable - that most "objective" people who have simply reviewed the evidence re Smith would not agree with him. He again referred back to his personal, and admittedly subjective, experience.

I had expected Quinn to tell me that his beliefs were of the post Modern, metaphorical sort. Not the case. He is a literalist.

We discussed cognitive dissonance and other topics at some length. His comments in that regard can be found in a recent Sunstone magazine. He did not mention that article to me although the conversation occurred after the article was first published. I thought this a little odd once I found the article. It is, however, consistent with what I observed to be his understated nature.

Quinn understands what the literature says regarding cog dis and biases, understands that his behavior smacks of cog dis, and shrugs his shoulders. He chooses to give primacy to the spiritual experiences he has had and the conclusions they impressed upon him.

I reviewed my experience with him and the quite different conclusions I have reached. For the long story, see http://mccue.cc/bob/documen... starting at page 77 and http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs... starting at page 39. He acknowledged the reasonableness of my approach, noted that there were many things about his position that were inconsistent, and indicated that his experiences were so compelling that he still felt justified in maintaining his beliefs.

I note that the experiences Quinn described to me as more real than real sound similar to what Newberg describes as a typical "mystical" experience that should be expected to give rise to powerful beliefs. See the "Out of My Faith" essay linked above for this discussion.

I found Quinn to be likeable, sincere and not surprisingly, very intelligent. I look forward to continuing to interact with him. I don't think he is playing a publicity game, as some have suggested. Rather, I think that given the abuse and pain he has suffered at the hands of Mormonism, his continued profession of belief is testament to the powerful nature of the experiences he has had. It would be interesting to know if he has a history consistent with minor epilepsy or other medical conditions that sometimes accompany apparent paranormal experiences. See, for example, McNally http://cms.psychologytoday.com/artic...\ for a summary as to how certain types of sleep paralysis and hypnopompic hallucinations can produce physical symptoms related to alleged alien abductions stronger than those experienced by soldiers suffering from post traumatic stress disorder after war experiences.

In any event, there is no clear cut explanation for Michael Quinn. What is clear is that he always has been, and still is, a deeply spiritual person with a great deal of integrity. One does not have to agree with the conclusions he has drawn about Mormonism to hold that view.
topic image
Mormon Polygamy And Apologetics - An Overview
Thursday, Jul 21, 2005, at 07:59 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
What follows is a question that was recently put to me, and my answer. Some may find it a useful big picture analysis of Mormon polygamy/polygyny.

All the best,

bob

Dear Mr. Mccue,

My name is * and I live in **. I have been reading a little of the information on your web site. I am researching certain religions and Mormonism is one of them. The question I have for you, on the matter of polygyny, is if you know any references where either Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor or any of the other leaders of the FLDS were able to explain the contradiction between DandC section 132 and what is written in The Book of Mormon; Jacob 2:24 - 29, that is, if any of them were able to explain it at all. Thank you in advance for any information you can offer.

Hello *.

You might also reference Ether 10:5 and the language in the "Book of Commandments" (the precursor to the Doctrine and Covenants) at the time Smith and others were engaged in polygamy on the "con" side. That is, Mormon theology appeared to make it quite clear that polygamy (let alone polygyny) was not permitted.

On the "pro" side, see DandC 132: 37 and 38 which indicate that the Biblical patriarchs who had polygamous wives and concubines only sinned insofar as they entered into these relationships without God's permission. DandC 132 then goes on to, in effect, prescribe the same law for Mormons. The reference to the Biblical tradition rationalizes the Book of Mormon scriptures you noted, in my view, as long as you accept the premises that the Bible is an accurate account of God's dealings with mankind, as is the Book of Mormon. That is, Abraham et al clearly had many sexual relationships that were approved by God. That is where the twelve tribes of Israel come from, after all. And David clearly sinned by entering into a particular sexual relationship in circumstances of which God did not approve. The fact that God might give a woman already married to one man to another is not expressly addressed by either the relevant Book of Mormon scriptures or DandC 132. All that is made clear is that whatever God commands is OK.

The idea that was taught by Smith and early Mormon leaders to justify a married woman entering into “spiritual wifery” with a Mormon leader was that God’s law overrides temporal law (see the reference to “theocratic ethics” below), and that women have the right to “trade up” by leaving a less faithful husband for one with a better chance to offer them and their children access to the highest reaches of the Celestial Kingdom, subject of course to God approving the union in question. Since it was generally (if not exclusively) the case that Mormon leaders approached women to advise them of God’s will in this regard, the idea that a woman has the “option” to trade up is pretty thin in my view. Smith told some women that God had commanded both him and them to obey this command by way of sending an angel with drawn sword to advise Smith that both he and the woman in question would be destroyed if they did not obey.

In any event, the Biblical record, the Book of Mormon and DandC 132, in my view, all hang together rationally on the basis just indicated as long as you accept that God’s current word overrides both social mores and civil law and that Smith was the purveyor of God’s most recent word. In that case, both polygamy and polygyny as he ran them were OK. I think that you will find, generally speaking, that the Mormon apologists run down this line, and I am sure that there is plenty to be found from Mormon leaders to this effect. I have not read material from this genre in long enough, however, to be able to quote line and verse.

Now, to what is of greater interest to me. I note the obvious sexual access advantages this system created for the members of the Mormon leadership hierarchy from time to time as long as polygamy/polygyny was accepted as God’s will. I have found that the question we are told to ask while attempting to understand social behavior from an evolutionary perspective is helpful in this regard. That question is “who benefits” from the propagation of a particular idea or belief. When we find that the persons who benefit are those who are spreading the belief, it is frequently if not generally the case the case that they have not been willing or able to adequately test the belief’s legitimacy. This is precisely why the checks and balances within democracy are of crucial importance. Once in power, those who make the rules simply cannot be trusted. This is as close to a universal principle of human behavour as can be found. The behavior of Smith and other early Mormon leaders who clearly were trying to establish a theocracy is only one of countless examples that support this principle. And their behaviour with regard to the establishment and promotion of polygamy is a classic in this genre.

As noted above, the idea of God’s word overriding legal and moral constraints was critical to understanding much of what Smith did. I like Michael Quinn’s summary of this concept (see page 88 of his book "Mormon Hierarchy – The Origins of Power") as follows:

Smith remained aloof from civil office, but in November 1835 he announced a doctrine I call "theocratic ethics". He used this theology to justify his violation of Ohio's marriage laws by performing a marriage for Newel Knight and the undivorced Lydia Goldthwaithe without legal authority to do so... In addition to the bigamous character of this marriage, Smith had no license to perform marriages in Ohio.

Although that was the first statement of this concept, Smith and his associates put that theology into practice long before 1835, and long after. Two months later Smith performed marriage ceremonies for which neither he nor the couples had marriage licenses, and he issued marriage certificates "agreeable to the rules and regulations of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Theocratic ethics justified LDS leaders and (by extension) regular Mormons in actions which were contrary to conventional ethics and sometimes in violation of criminal laws.

This ethical independence is essential for understanding certain seemingly inconsistent manifestations in Mormonism. Some had already occurred - reversals in doctrine and divinely revealed procedures, and the publication of unannounced changes in written revelations and historical texts. The Knight marriage was a public example of Joseph Smith's violation of laws and cultural norms regarding marriage and sexual behavior - the performance of civil marriages by legally unauthorized officiators, monogamous marriage ceremonies in which one or both partners were undivorced from legal spouses, polygamous marriage of a man with more than one living wife, his marriage proposals to females as young as twelve, his sexual relationships with polygamous wives as young as fourteen, polyandry of women with more than one husband, marriage and cohabitation with foster daughters, and Mormon marriages of first cousins, brother-sister, and uncle-niece. Other manifestations of Mormonism's theocratic ethics would soon begin in Kirkland and continue intermittently for decades - the official denials of actual events, the alternating condemnation and tolerance for counterfeiting and stealing from non-Mormons, threats and physical attacks against dissenters or other alleged enemies, the killing and castration of sex offenders, the killing of anti-Mormons, the bribery of government officials, and business ethics at odds with church standards. [end quote]

I cannot overemphasize how disgusted I was when I found out about Joseph Smith's sexual behaviour and the other practises just mentioned. The evidence I have reviewed is very clear to the effect that he used his position of authority to take advantage of many women, some of them married and others very young; all of them innocent believers in his divine mandate. And those who refused him often had their reputations besmirched and suffered in other ways as a result of doing what was right. You can imagine my surprise when I read psychological studies that, without mentioning Joseph Smith, described his profile (charismatic religious or other leader, etc.) and predicted that he would have trouble keeping his trousers up while in willing female company, and that as the alpha male of the group he led that he would not have trouble finding willing sexual consorts.

I note in passing that the language in DandC 132 that describes God as "giving" various women to various men is particularly offensive to modern sensibilities, but consistent with the mores of Biblical times if not Smith's day. This is also consistent with the manner in which Smith and other Mormon leaders propositioned many of the women who became their "spiritual wives". The women were notified, in effect, that it was God's will that they enter into a marital-like relationship with Smith or others. Smith used his approval over polygamous relationships to control those of his followers who were living the "principle", as it was called. That is, when some men attempted to form polygamous or polygynous relationships without Smith's approval, it appears that they were disciplined. One of these, John C. Bennett, became one of the first to leave Mormonism and attempt to "expose" it. See http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/benintro.htm for a summary related to him. I note that in both primitive human social groups, modern religious cults and even certain animal groups, the ability of an alpha male to control sexual access to the females of the group is a powerful leadership tool used to maintain social hierarchy.

I doubt that Smith had multiple sexual partners in mind when he wrote (or collaborated in the writing of) the Book of Mormon. In my view, Mormon polygamy was simply the result of the alpha male (Smith) of a human social group (early Mormons) taking advantage of the traditional alpha male prerogative (lots of sexual partners). As word of his activities leaked out, the idea of divinely sanctioned polygamy was formed to prevent disaster (Smith losing control of his group on moral grounds) and Biblical precedent was used to justify that because it was available and useful in that regard.

It is probable, in my view, that the same sociological forces that led Smith to do what he did also governed the behavour of the Biblical patriarchs (if they indeed existed) as well as others of their day. And if you are the one who indicates which women have been "given" to you by God, there is not much chance of running afoul of God, is there? And if God is going to tell you which other men have women "given" to them, this will help you to stay in control of those men, won't it? DandC 132 appointed Smith to that office. So even though Smith did things similar to what got David in trouble ("do not plant seeds in another man's field", to quote an Amerindian "commandment" - this more is close to a human universal), that was OK with Smith's God. Smith, as you likely know, was married to and in all probability had sexual relations with women married to other men. In at least one case, he sent a Mormon man away on a mission for the Mormon Church, and then almost immediately propositioned the departed man's wife inthe manner just noted. I think that Mormon polygamy is likely a fascinating case of how one small thing (a religious leader having some illicit sex) can lead to something huge, like the entire social complex relating to Mormon polygamy, including the modern Mormon fundamentalists who continue to live a polygamous lifestyle and attract converts from mainstream Mormonism and people like me who are descendants of polygamous Mormons. This is the butterfly effect in a social context, in my view.

So, we have Smith in public and private for over a decade indicating the he was not engaged in polygamous activities (using Clintonesque language I might add, around the issue of what he was doing), and Mormonism's official rule book clearly indicating during that period that polygamy was not permitted. Then, when Smith finally had to go public with what he was doing because it was becoming so widely known, DandC 132 was presented as a revelation over ten years after Smith has started his polygamous, polyandrous, etc. affairs. This was justified on the basis that God had commanded Smith to lie because the people were not ready to hear about what he was doing. And during the time while the public and regular Mormons were being deceived as to Smith and other's sexual activities, as insiders became aware of what was going, God "revealed" to Smith that they were entitled to participate as well. This is classic "co-opting" behavior as described in social theory - if you turn those who might challenge you into "partners in crime" they will not challenge you. And a few insiders, such as Hyrum Smith, who for some reason did not wise up to what was going on remained on the outside and so continued until the end of the ten year+ piece just noted to publicly deny that there was any polygamy going on, and were not corrected by the leadership cadre by whom they were surrounded and with whom they associated daily, almost all of whom were actively engaged in polygamy. To have a few innocents like Hyrum categorically denying polygamy was of course helpful to the public's impression of reality. This is a tactic regularly used by fraud artists today. Innocents are recruited and purposely kept in the dark about what is going on while "selling" the fraud with the best of intentions based on their limited understanding of the facts. These innocents are crucially important megaphones and salespeople for those whose credibility on its own would not be adequate to pull off certain types of scams. The most trustworthy and innocent the megaphone, the more effective it is. The innocent young and old people who conduct today's Mormon missionary work, most local Mormon leaders (who are generally well intentioned, moral, wonderful people) and some of its highest leaders, are in my view innocent dupes of this type.

The period related to early Mormon polygamy is one of the darkest chapters in Mormon history, in my view. I recommend that you read Compton's book "In Sacred Loneliness" and Von Wagoner's "Mormon Polygamy: A History" if you have a serious interest in the topic.

Now, I must confess that I am not as expert with regard to LDS history as many people are. I invite you to ask your question, and send of copy of what is above, to * at **. * knows more Mormon history than do I. He is an active member of the LDS church and well-known in its "apologetic" community. While he and I disagree regarding many things, we carry on a respectful dialogue and I have generally found his ability to put his hands on the "facts" (such as is possible in historical analysis in any event) to be reliable and so would commend him to you. He and I will, no doubt, draw different conclusions from facts on which we are likely to agree for the most part at least. He can be counted on to give you a side of the story that I am not likely to either see or find persuasive. And you deserve to have access to both sides of this story.

Since I encourage you to hear the Mormon side of this story, I should also quickly say something about apologetics in general. This is tied into the power of narratives to build social fabric, and the power of social fabric to make us believe certain things are real and others are not, regardless of what reality ultimately turns out to be. I have cut and pasted what follows from other things I have written, with a few modifications.

As today’s nuerologists have pointed out (see for example Quartz and Sejnowski, “Liars, Lovers, and Heroes: What the New Brain Science Reveals About How We Become Who We Are”), our brains are formatted to a significant extent by the physical and social environment in which we exist during our developmental years (up to early adulthood). For example, cats raised from birth in a room without vertical lines walked into table legs when released into the "real" world, and their patterns of brain activity were consistent with those legs not being visible. Their brains, conditioned by their environment, could not perceive the vertical plane. Similar data of a less formal basis has been collected regarding pygmies led out of the forest for the first time who were incapable of grasping the significance of animals grazing on a plain hundreds of yards away. Such distances were not part of their world. Their brains had no context within which to make sense out of their perceptions. They thought they were seeing miniatureanimals.

The most authoritative storytellers recognized by our particular social group provide much of the material around which our brains are formatted. The story about the manner in which God did (or did not) confer supernatural powers on Joseph Smith in order to bring the Book of Mormon into being is a good example of a powerful story of this type. In the contemporary Mormon community, this story ironically coexists with many others that are mostly scientific in orientation.

This brings us to the concept of “premises”. Premises are a group's "givens"; their wallpaper; and most importantly, the ideas that if accepted render the rest of their belief system “sensible”. For example, IF God did confer on Joseph Smith the power to “translate” the Book of Mormon, then it is logical to believe that the many stories Smith told of angelic visitations and other special authorities he received from God were also true, including his stories about being told by God both to have sex with multiple women (some of whom were married to other men) and to deceive both the public and members of his church about what he was doing.

So, premises relate to what a group deems "sacred" - that is, beliefs so important that they should not be questioned and so are protected by all of the taboos the group can muster. In the contemporary western world, democracy and "equal" (in some hard-to-define sense) human rights are sacred in this sense. Belief systems as diverse as those of primitive people, Catholicism, Scientology, Marxist Communism, representative democracy, etc. can be boiled down to a few “premises” which if accepted, render most of the rest of the belief system “logical”.

The nature of premises is nicely illustrated by an account an anthropologist gave respecting a visit he made to Artic to study the Inuit (see Ehrlich, “Human Natures”). He first met with a Catholic priest who had recently arrived in the Inuit community. The priest told him about the natives’ belief system, how crude and silly it was, how it involved the spirits of ancestors and animals playing a role in daily life, etc. Then the anthropologist went over to see the Inuit. When he asked how they were getting along with the priest, he was told that the priest was a nice enough fellow, but had some outlandish beliefs. They then proceeded to laugh so hard they fell over while describing the story of the virgin birth. The Inuit could not believe that a person of obvious sophistication and wisdom, like the priest, could believe something as ridiculous as that. Such is the nature of our most important premises – they are pounded so deep into our cultural and psychological background that they are immune from critiqueand hence often bizarre when considered by anyone who considers them in the rational way a cultural outsider would tend to use.

The function of the stories told by a group’s storytellers is, for the most part, to so thoroughly engrain the basic premises of a belief system that they pass into the realm of the “sacred”, and so beyond questioning, in the fashion just described.

Sacred beliefs, as noted above, are protected by taboos, and again the role of the storytellers is of critical importance in creating the perception of reality that gives strength to a taboo. For example, Mormons believe that terrible things happen to a Mormon who “loses his testimony”. These include not being able to be with his family after death, often going through divorce and estrangement from family members and close friends during this life, and in general, losing the “joy” that comes only from being a faithful Mormon. Similar beliefs are found in countless other communities from the Jehovah’s Witnesses, to certain Muslim, Jewish and other groups.

So, when a person is confronted with evidence that questions the validity of an important belief her adrenalin system fires up. The stronger the taboo, the stronger this response. In primitive societies, the breach of many such taboos meant death. Our instincts still appear to be wired on this basis because of the lengthy period of time during which our ancestors lived this way. And it is well documented that a firing adrenalin system interferes with our ability to engage in certain types of critical reasoning. Rather, we tend toward conservative behaviour. Sources of perceived danger, in particular, are avoided instead of examined. And so any source of evidence that questions a fundamentally important belief tends to be avoided.

It is also interesting to note a clearly defined pattern created by the generally scientific nature of modern society and the various sacred and often supernatural premises of various religious groups. For example, Mormons and most members of almost all other faiths except the Jehovah’s Witnesses, reject the supernaturalism related to JW beliefs – the sacred JW premises. Conversely, JWs side with the members of virtually all other faiths in rejecting the supernatural claims that support Mormon beliefs. The pattern is that religious people tend to be scientific in orientation with regard to all beliefs except those required to support the premises of their particular belief system. So, when they enter the arena defined by their own religious beliefs they become, from the perspective of all outsiders, “irrational”. The same pattern is visible to a lesser degree (in most cases) when it comes to issues related to politics, economics, environmentalism, and other issues that are hard to definitively analyse and charged with emotion.

Evolutionary theory has an elegant explanation for this pattern. That is, evolution selects for people who are pre-disposed to not "falsifying" the myths on which their society is based while being able to do so with regard to myths on which other social groups are based. This strengthens the "in group" ideology and weakens all "out group" ideologies. This makes sense because throughout most of human history keeping one's group together likely conferred greater survival and reproductive advantages than any individual "finding the truth" etc. So, our brains developed to tend toward conscious acknowledgement of the kind of realities that threatened group cohesion only when most of our "in group" was ready to come to the same conclusion, hence reducing pressure on group stability to manageable levels.

“Biases” and “cognitive dissonance” play important roles in the psychological matrix that reduces the likelihood that sacred beliefs will be questioned. For example, once we have made up our minds about something and held the opinion for some time, we are biased in favor of not changing our minds. This is called “confirmation bias.” Some psychologists believe that it alone is responsible for more faulty human decisions than any other human foible. Another bias is “authority bias” where we unconsciously screen information that may bring us into conflict with our social group or other sources of power (see Aronson, “The Social Animal” and Shermer, “Why People Believe Weird Things”). Those youngsters in primitive times who failed to pay attention to their elders faced a higher probability of death and removal of their genes from the gene pool. Evolution thus selected for deference to authority and to the expectations of one’s social groups. This form of bias explains why members of religious groups are able to identify illogical beliefs in other religious groups but not their own.

A cognition is a piece of knowledge about an attitude, an emotion, a behaviour, a value, etc. Two cognitions are said to be dissonant (thus producing “cognitive dissonance”) if one cognition conflicts with another. For example, I like my friend, and trust him. Various cognitions relate to this. If I find out that my friend has lied to me, other cognitions form that are dissonant with those I already hold. Cognitive dissonance is the term used to describe the resulting unpleasant mental state, which most humans immediately attempt to relieve themselves of much as they look for water when thirsty.

If two cognitions are dissonant, we tend to change one or both to make them consistent with each other. This often results in what is sometimes called “denial” – the suppression or unrealistic appraisal of evidence in an effort to reduce cognitive dissonance. Denial is, by definition, invisible to the person or group that is subject to it, but often easily visible to outsiders. The pattern I noted above of insiders being “irrational” but only with regard to beliefs and evidence related to the most sacred belief, suggests the widespread denial caused by cognitive dissonance. Another well known example of cognitive dissonance induced denial is that of the wife who husband is “cheating” on her, and while many friends and family have seen enough evidence to feel fairly confident that they understand what is going on, the faithful wife refuses to acknowledge the possibility even when the evidence is placed before her by well meaning friends. In this case, the dissonant cognitions are between the man who expresseshis love for her, and her dependence on him in various ways as a result of the life they have built together, and the evidence that suggests that that same man is being sexually unfaithful to her. The more she fears the consequence of the second cognition, the blinder she is likely to be to evidence supporting it.

I visualize the process of overcoming cognitive dissonance as an old fashioned set of scales, like the scales of justice. Disconfirming experience and evidence has to be piled on the side of our scales opposite sacred belief until they begin to tip. That is, we have to experience enough cognitive dissonance to make us finally question the reality we have assumed to exist. The epiphany experience many people have as they leave a controlling religious faith is related to what happens when we reach the "tipping point" on our scale. Then, suddenly, it is as if a switch were thrown and we can see all kinds of things that have been building up just out of view as a result of the work our mind has been doing to keep us in denial. Suddenly, much of this information and insight is released into the conscious mind because the unconscious can no longer hold it back. It is as if the lights suddenly came on. This experience changes many people irrevocably and, apparently, suddenly. However, it is often the effect of manyyears of accumulating information and work done by the unconscious mind to prepare us for an epiphany that would otherwise have been too much for our minds to bear.

The way in which storytelling and the unquestionable, or even invisible, premises they create control our perception of reality has helped me to understand my inability for many adult years to "see" things that are now so obvious about Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. I was like the cats raised who could not see table legs or the pygmies who thought animals grazing on a distant plain were seeing miniature animals. I was in denial as a result of cognitive dissonance related to the image of Joseph Smith as a humble, inspired prophet of God on which I had been raised from childhood.

When Joseph Smith declared the Book of Mormon the “keystone of our religion”, he said much more than he knew. He, without knowing it, invoked all I have just summarized and much more. And at the base of this lies the power of narrative which he well understood as a result of his history as a treasure seeker, as describe more fully below.

It is my view that Joseph Smith understood that his narrative of the Book of Mormon’s divine origins would, if accepted, give him the right to speak with God’s voice as far as all who believed him were concerned. That is, his narrative of how the Book of Mormon came into being would give him tremendous personal power. The modern Mormon leadership understands that as well. They have inherited Joseph Smith’s power, and amplified it in many ways by the selective telling of his story. Their power depends directly how many people believe the story they now tell about Joseph Smith and how the Book of Mormon came into being.

Scientific and historical inquiry largely related to pattern identification. Each piece of evidence or data either fits, or does not, into a particular pattern. Patterns are expressed as hypotheses, such as “the Book of Mormon is real history” or “Joseph Smith was authorized by God to speak on His behalf”. The objective of the scientist or historian is to uncover as much evidence as possible relevant to a hypothesis, and assess whether the pattern disclosed by the evidence matches, or does not match, the hypothesis. The role of the confirmation bias, authority bias, other biases, and cognitive dissonance have been extensively studied in the scientific and historian communities, and are shown to exert powerful distorting influences there. Hence, the reliance on peer review and other communal mechanism within the scientific and historian communities that over time are believed to be out best bet at cancelling out these distortions that afflict all individual humans.

People who feel impelled to “prove” that their group is “right” or has “the truth” (often called “apologists”) tend to start with a hypothesis that says that a certain pattern (or hypothesis, such as the two set out above) must be “true”, and then look for evidence to support their position. Every ideology with which I am familiar has its apologists. Think for example of the Holocuast deniers, communists, all religionists, various breeds of economist, various breeds of ecologist, etc.

I have found books like Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things", Taleb's "Fooled by Randomness" and Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World", to be helpful in understanding the apologetic mindset in general. In particular, Shermer's final chapter in the second edition of his book ("Why Smart People Believe Weird Things") is insightful when it comes to understanding the smartest or best credentialed of the apologists. You can find, for example, very smart and well educated holocaust deniers, young earth creationists, JWs, Catholics, Orthodox Jews, etc.

In a nutshell, if you are working with a large enough database, you can find bits and pieces of information to support almost any conclusion you wish to draw. Shermer and Taleb both cite great examples in this regard. This is one of the traps laid for us by "deductive" reasoning. Deductive reasoning causes us to work from a hypothesis ("The Book of Mormon is real history") back into the data to see if we can prove or disprove the hypothesis. If we are influenced by things like the confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance etc., we will tend to find data that confirms the hypothesis, and miss or dismiss the disconfirming data.

Inductive reasoning, on the other hand, involves starting without a hypothesis, digesting as much relevant data as possible and seeing what kind of picture emerges. Most science and history related to complex questions (such as why any particular human culture is as it is) start out using induction, and then forms and begins to test hypotheses using deductive reasoning, and from there on goes back and forth between the two. Apologists tend to remain in deductive mode, looking for any data that might support their cherished hypotheses, the hypotheses that "must be true" in order for their social world to continue to exist.

A common tactic of apologists since at least the ancient Greeks (see for example http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.apologetic%20mind.pdf) is to emphasize the uncertainty of all “knowledge” and then to insist that, for really important things like religious beliefs, a high level of certainty is required before a change in belief is warranted. They hence set the bar of proof so high that practically speaking it is impossible to clear.

I do not suggest that all I have just written about apologists applies to *, but some surely does as it does to me on the other side of the coin. We are all best off acknowledging that we are subject to biases, cognitive dissonance etc. and relying heavily on the most “objective” sources to which we have access particularly when dealing with issues that fire up the emotional centers in our brain, such as evidence that questions our most basic religious and social beliefs. In that regard, the conclusions of non-Mormon scholars with regard to questions relating to science and history critical to Mormon foundations is most likely the most reliable you can find. Mormons would admit this to be the case with regard to every religion except their own, and would tend to dismiss any criticism of their faith by outsiders on the basis that one can only understand through faith. Not coincidentally, this is a near universal pattern among religious believers of all faiths when defending their own beliefs.

In any event, I wish you well in your research.

All the best,

bob
topic image
Review Of Michael Ruse's Mysteries Of Mysteries - Is Evolution A Social Construction?
Wednesday, Jul 27, 2005, at 09:12 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Review of Michael Ruse’s “Mysteries of Mysteries - Is Evolution a Social Construction?”
bob mccue
July 26, 2005

A friend asked some time ago that I write a review of Michael Ruse’s (“Michael”) book “Mysteries of Mysteries - Is Evolution a Social Construction?” (“Mystery”) and post it to a science list on which we both participate. Here is it for those here who are interested in this kind of thing.

I should first confess my biases. I am a realist. However, I am acutely aware of the human tendency toward feeling certain of our conclusions, and how the influence of our dominant social group pervades our perceptions of reality. Hence, while I believe there is a reality “out there”, I am circumspect regarding our ability to pin it down. I am also a pragmatist. We make decisions moment by moment mostly on the basis of an amazingly efficient set of heuristics (see for example, http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gigerenzer03/gigerenzer_index.html). We are also subject to powerful biases, many of them related to the group influence just noted. So, I think it important to keep the idea that I don’t know for sure what is real. This is my best bet to keep myself as free from things like the confirmation bias (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) and authority bias and other group based influences over my perceptions as possible, while trying to collect as much information as possible about what is “real” and make my decisions on that basis using probability theory. Michael is also a realist with pragmatist leanings (from what I could tell) similar to my own. Not surprisingly, I both liked his book and found it helpful.

For the same reasons as I set out my biases so that those who read this will understand where they may wish to discount me, I did a little background reading regarding Michael so that I might have an idea of his biases before reading Mystery. See http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n09/coyn01_.html for an example of what I found. It is a review of another of Michael’s books titled “Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?: The Relationship between Science and Religion” in which Michael attempts to rationalize what sounds from the above review like an unusual form of Christian belief with a form of evolutionary theory. While I have not read that book, I doubt that Michael and I would agree in this area. I tend to side with people like Joseph Campbell and Karen Armstrong in believing that most literalist religious beliefs do more harm than good, while accepting that most religious beliefs when taken metaphorically can be useful. However, this is the kind of thing I will look forward to chatting with Michael about at Star. I tend to learn the most from those well-informed folk with whom I disagree.

In any event, my perspective is likely to be different with regard to Mystery than that of many who read here. This is because my scientific senses are still at a relatively immature level, and my knowledge of the history of science is in a similar state.

Finally, I should confess that I have not finished the book. I have about 50 pages left, and while traveling this weekend left the book in a hotel. It will arrive back in time for my trip to Star Island, but not in time to finish this review, so I will send this off without the benefit of reading Michael’s conclusion. I will be interested to see how it squares with what I have inferred so far.

Michael’s stated objective is to analyze the scientific and social content of the work done by the leading evolutionary theorists from the beginning of evolutionary theory up to date of publication, which was 1999. He does this by defining what he means by scientific content. This included things like consistency, predictive quality, ability to open new research paradigms, etc. I found this analytical framework helpful.

Michael then moved on to show how social values tend to creep into scientific thought. In that regard, he sketched the background of the realism v. social constructionism by summarizing Sokal’s Hoax, and then Karl Popper’s and Thomas Kuhn’s theories and tying them into some interesting personal background. Because of its brevity, this summary is inadequate to give a sense of the complexity of the issues covered. I am not critical of Michael in this regard. One can only do so in the set up of a 320-page book. The best single book I have read regarding the epistemic background against which Michael writes is Peter Godfrey-Smith’s “Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science”. And this only hits the high points of a bogglingly complex part of epistemology. For someone at my stage of understanding, the analysis Michael supplies of evolutionary theory and its history becomes much more useful when set against the theoretical background of Godfrey Smith’s book or something like it than it would be on its own.

For example, I found Godfrey-Smith’s analysis of Bayesian probability theory as a backdrop to Popperian analysis particularly useful. Popper is a realist who posited that we are progressing toward a better understanding of reality through the collective scientific enterprise. Bayesian probability theory supports this notion. However, Godfrey-Smith does a good job of showing how the foundations of probability theory must be assumed or inferred to be correct, and that this analysis can be shown to be circular. This reminded me of the reading I have done relative to Godel’s incompleteness theorems (see Rebecca Goldstein, “Incompleteness” for example. She has an interesting interview up at www.edge.org). When we get down to the basics tenets of even math, we find that the bottom of the pool is elusive. And yet by continuously expanding the range things we can use to predict future states, on the basis primarily of Bayesian probabilities applied to empirical data, we continue to create technologies that bring more of what we perceive to be reality under our control. At bottom, despite our inability to ever put a pin in where we are through the use of probability theory or anything else, this approach seems to come closest to justifying the Popperian view.

At the same time, it seems clear that there are surprising shifts in “paradigm” that from time to time occur within the scientific community. These are consistent with the less probable future outcomes predicted by Bayesian theory prior to existence of the evidence on the basis of which a paradigm shift occurs. Hence, in my view, probability theory works to synthesize at least some of Kuhn’s views with a kind of Popperian analysis.

Michael proceeds to focus on biological evolution, and to review the theories related to it that have been put forward by a variety of scientific luminaries starting with Eramus Darwin (Charles’ grandfather), moving up through people like Steve Gould, Dick Lewontin and E.O. Wilson, and concluding with contemporary scientists like Geoff Parker. He added interesting background information with regard to each scientist, and used that to allege a correlation between his scientific work and social context. In each case, I learned something about the history of science and saw how difficult it was in many cases to tease apart scientific theory and personal biases.

Michael’s analysis of values that were imbedded in science, and “metavalues” (values about how science works) was for me particularly useful. For example, he showed how Julian Huxley’s Victorian progressionism was imbedded in his science. And on the other hand, he showed how other more recent scientists had similar values, but did not allow them to enter the scientific equation in the same way as did Huxley, and how this resulted in a basically different epistemic paradigm. And I note as an aside how interested I was in Michael’s discussion of the Victorian “progress” paradigm and how it influenced the development of evolutionary theory as a social construct. Mormonism (my inherited belief system) formed in a Victorian environment around the time Eramus and Charles Darwin did their thinking, and the idea of the “eternal progress” of each human being is central to Mormon theology. While I was aware of how progress oriented the Victorian era was, for some reason I had not put 2 + 2 together on this point until reading Michael’s summary of the period and how it influenced (and still influences to a degree) evolutionary thought. Here is an online summary of certain aspects of this idea that I add primarily for my own purposes - http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006D8AE.htm

Another crucial distinction Michael made that I found helpful was between the content of the “professional” and “popular” publishing of the various scientists whose work he reviewed. He attempted to demonstrate that some were much better than others at sticking to science when writing professionally and restricting their value-laden views to popular publications. And, the pattern to which Michael clearly pointed was that as time has passed, the leading popularizers of science have become increasingly better at doing science at the highest professional levels and restricting their culture laden views to literature that does not purport to meet professional scientific standards. I will return to this concept below. It is one that left what may be my most lasting impression of Mystery.

The value laden views that Michael attributed to various scientists often amounted to just so stories of marginal scientific value, some of which now look quite foolish, that Michael felt he could trace to cultural influences. I do not know enough scientific history to critique the connection Michael posited between Lewontin’s Jewishness, Wilson’s WASP Southernness, etc. and how those influences may have affected their science. But right or wrong, by presenting his analysis as he did, Michael showed how it is reasonable to conclude that it is very difficult for any of us to be completely objective, try as we might, and how engrained our biases are likely to be in our worldview. This was for me the interesting part of the analysis – how intertwined the cultural and the scientific could become.

While Michael did not focus on this point, one of the messages that came through to me (which Godfrey-Smith did emphasize) is that the best way to deal with the objectivity issue is to use as many perspectives as possible so that our biases are likely to set each other off. I am reading Phillip Ball’s “Critical Mass” at the moment as I wait for Mystery to return by mail. The role of the law of large numbers in social contexts is the main theme of that book. I don’t think Ball addresses the issue of scientific epistemology per se, but I can see how what he says about some other things would apply in this regard.

Since reading Mystery, I have round myself more sensitive to social constructs in the views expressed by others regarding science as well as in my own thought. I consider this to be a step forward, and yet another reason to be more humble about what I think I “know”. We all seem to need regular reminders of our bounded our perceptions of reality are, and Michael provided that nicely in my case.

Those who favour Kuhnian thinking may not find Mystery as helpful as I did. For example, Margaret Wertheim writing for Salon has this to say:

"In the end Ruse wants to have his cake and eat it, too: He sees evolutionary theory as essentially objective, but with an overlay of metaphorical subjectivity. Not everyone will feel satisfied with this resolution, but it is a heartening testimony to our times that this avowed champion of Sokal is at least prepared to acknowledge that the other side is not entirely wrong."

As noted above, it is my view that probability theory at least partly reconciles the Popperian and Kuhnian (at least the soft Kuhnian) perspectives. Some of Kuhn’s more difficult to understand and/or radical, relativist ideas and those of the entire radical side of the postmodern school are, in my view, silly enough to simply dismiss. Their important point was that we should be prepared to be wrong, and that it is useful to “deconstruct” our social contexts in an effort to immunize ourselves against powerful group influences. As the postmodernists pass into a paralyzing relativism, they become a kind of dangerous nonsense that I do not take seriously. I like what Susan Haack has to say about what might be called the “silly side” of postmodern scholarship. See http://www.csicop.org/si/9711/preposterism.html and http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/reviews/haack-manifesto/ for example.

And I note that arguably one climbs to near the pinnacle of irony to watch religious scholars of any ilk attempt to “deconstruct” the “metanarratives” of things like history and science in defense of their dogmatic religious beliefs, while turning back flips to justify not using the same tools to question the premises of their belief system. This is all the more fun if the beliefs in question include the idea that their group alone has a corner on truth. This has all been the case within the Mormon academic community.

Michael’s focus on some of the most prominent popularizers of science, and his indication of their relative standing in the scientific community, made me think of something else that has been on my mind for a while. That is, why are some scientists willing to go over the line into “culture laden” issues that are not subject to the same strict epistemic norms as is professional scientific work, while most are not? And what kind of role will society tend to permit the scientists to play who take it upon themselves to create culture? Since these ideas are also relevant here, I will discuss them briefly in the context of Mystery.

I recently found some thought provoking material related to these issues in a PhD thesis written at Cornell by, of all people, Greg Graffin, the lead singer of the punk rock group "Bad Religion". Graffin is a bona fide biologist - anthropologist and did some useful work for his thesis in the form of a series of interviews with some of the greatest living biologists about their belief (or lack thereof) in god, and how those beliefs can be reconciled to the theory of evolution. He was following up on earlier studies that are reviewed in "How We Believe" by Shermer. Those studies found that a surprising large percentage of scientists believe in a god of some kind. However, the more respected the scientist, the less likely such a belief as to be found. Graffin refined and updated the study by focusing on biologists (including geneticists), making the survey questionnaire more comprehensive, and (as already noted) by conducting detailed interviews with about a dozen of the most respected of the group. The interviews are published in full in an appendix to the thesis and were the most interesting part. This work was done in 2004. See http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/

During his interviews Graffin invited his subjects to speculate as to how evolutionary theory might become a kind of religion or analogous social force. I was surprised at how dead to this issue most of his interviewees seemed. They seemed not so much to be reluctant to step out of the strict rules of scientific enquiry, as unaware that this might be a possibility. Michael’s review of the history of evolutionary theory was enlightening to me in that regard. The way in which people like Lewontin and Wilson, for example, have gone at each other and the furor other scientists who have stepped into the cultural ring have created should be expected to warn all but the most adventuresome scientists.

This made me start to think about why the few scientists who are willing to speak in terms of values are received with so much enthusiasm in some quarters and rancor in others. And indeed, why the public should pay any more attention to scientists once they stray outside their professional field than to anyone else who has demonstrated expertise in any field of human endeavour. Graffin’s interviews demonstrated that those scientists who had a belief in god often backed this up with naďve views. That is, once the basis for their belief was disclosed, it was not more compelling than the basis for belief that someone like Tom Cruise might express. Michael shed more light on this issue by chronicling the manner in which the religious beliefs of a number of prominent scientists influenced their work.

The point Michael helped to bring into focus for me is that scientists are not per se any more worth listening to with regard to religion, values or cultural issues than anyone else, unless questions about which they speak fall within the professional expertise of the scientist in question. And we know that by their nature, sociology, anthropology etc. do not admit of the kind of epistemic rigor as does biology of physics. So, why are the views of biologists, physicists etc. given the credence they are with regard to these matters? Think of Einstein and Feynman, for example. Or more recently, Dawkins.

In my view, science has become a kind of de facto religion or mythology. And so prominent scientists are those whom an increasing percentage of the population in most of the developed world (except perhaps in the US) trust to describe the most important aspects of reality. This trust, however, is based on the professional side of science that Michael was careful to distinguish from the very kind of popular scientific writing that tends to be culture laden. I do not believe that many people (like me) who are powerfully influenced by the writings of respected scientists realize the extent to which our respect for the professional scientific enterprise as a whole may cause us to tend to accept the values of science popularizers based on just so stories that they themselves would never put forward for serious scientific consideration in professional journals.

So, people like Dawkins are not necessarily leading scientists. The role of the popularizer is a specialized niche that requires a certain amount of scientific credibility but more than that, an entertainer’s flair. Michael Shermer fits this bill, while being perhaps a little short on the respect of his academic peers. He does, however, put on a great show, writes easy to read books and has a flair self-promotion. This is perhaps why Lewontin savaged Pinker in Graffin’s thesis. Pinker, according to Lewontin, is a [expletive] upstart shooting his mouth off about all kinds of [expletive] stuff that he knows [expletive] nothing about. But, Pinker writes gripping books, also has a flair for self-promotion and exhibits Wilson’s tendency to extrapolate theories ahead of data. Lewontin is much more conservative in his epistemic approach, and it rankles him to see popular “science” writing that falls far below what he considers to be science’s minimum epistemic standards.

The paradox just noted will likely be what I chew on for the longest as a result of reading Mystery.

So, where does that leave us in terms of scientists who are inclined to create culture and posit values and by definition must be culture laden?

For my part, I am happy to accept scientists who incline toward the spiritual or value aspect of life as my high priests. I will not follow and obey them, but rather accept the basic epistemic paradigms of science as I listen to as many voices as I can while trying to learn to hear my own, or perhaps allowing my own to emerge from what I hear as it resonates with my biology and history. So, I will encourage those scientifically oriented within my small sphere of influence to speak out about what they value, and why. Michael sensitized me, however, to the line between professional and popular science and the just so, non-scientific concepts that are often unwitting passed off and accepted as science in the popular press. When we are making a value choice that is culture laden, we should address that issue instead of bowing to what we think is the best available science on some point.

I also wondered how long it will be before we see a greater integration between some of our science popularizers and our culture’s best story tellers. Think of Joseph Campbell’s long collaboration with George Lucas. Or how about The Matrix and what it attempted to do with regard to certain basic philosophy concepts. It is only a matter of time before we see science being pitched in this fashion. I think that this could be a wonderful thing, and expect also that the promoter of the ID project (for example) will realize an opportunity to push their agenda through this means.

I am now out of stream. To provide some additional context for Mystery, I have attached links and text below of several online reviews.

Best regards,

bob

http://www.utpjournals.com/product/utq/701/mysteries22.html

Published in University of Toronto Quarterly - Volume 70 Number 1, Winter 2000/01- Letters in Canada.

To see more articles and book reviews from this and other journals visit UTPJOURNALS online at UTPJOURNALS.com.

Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?


Michael Ruse.Harvard University Press. xii, 298. $42.50

Reviewed in University of Toronto Quarterly by JAMES ROBERT BROWN

This extremely readable and interesting book is about the nature of science. Do scientists give us a disinterested and objective account of the world? Or do they somehow concoct theories which perhaps serve their interests and reflect their subjective values? Michael Ruse says a bit of each, but he mainly sides with the angels of objectivity. And he is surely right to do so.

The real trick is showing how subjective values interact with the objective pursuit of knowledge. This Ruse does astutely through the device of individual case studies. Key figures in the history of evolutionary biology are given individual chapters in which their personal biographies and scientific views are discussed in an integrated way. Naturally, Darwin and Huxley are here, but so are a large number of moderns including Dawkins, Gould, Lewontin, and Wilson. As well as the ten individual biologists covered (the others are Erasmus Darwin, Julian Huxley, Dobzhansky, Parker, and Sepkoski), there is a beginning chapter on the philosophy of science (Kuhn vs Popper) and a final chapter on metaphors and metavalues.

Stephen Jay Gould, to pick one of Ruse's examples, is well known as a popularizer of the biological sciences; indeed, he is one of the great essayists of our times. Gould is also well known for his theory of punctuated equilibria. This is (depending on whom you hear it from) a genuine rival to Darwinian evolution or a mere supplement to it. Gould claims that there are significant rapid changes in the history of species often brought about by major environmental change (think of comets and dinosaurs) or by having part of a population cut off from the rest (known as the founder principle). Instead of Darwinian gradualism, Gould sees short periods of rapid change followed by long periods of stasis. What has this to do with values? According to Ruse, plenty. For one thing, Gould is interested in upgrading his own cherished discipline of paleontology. Instead of taking their marching orders from geneticists, the fossil folks can lead the way. Second, Gould has a Marxist background, and punctuated equilibria fit in nicely with a picture of history highlighted by revolutions. Third, the Darwinian gradualism which he opposes is tied to the so-called adaptationist program of sociobiology, a theory which tries to account for all human characteristics and behaviours in biologically adaptive terms. Gould, perhaps because of his Jewishness and his socialism, sees human differences as more the result of culture and environment than of nature.

These, according to Ruse, are the kinds of values that can play a role in the thinking of a scientist. But do they determine scientific outcomes? Did they determine the outcome for Gould? There is a classic distinction philosophers make between `discovery' (having an idea in the first place) and `justification' (having objective evidence for accepting it). In a pinch we could say that Gould's values contributed to the former, but played no role in the latter. Ruse notes that the scientific community has paid scant attention to punctuated equilibria. So he concludes that Gould's values did not contribute to the course of evolutionary thinking.

By contrast, the values of E.O. Wilson (who had a southern Baptist and military background which led to strong views about sex roles) have found their highly influential way into sociobiology. Ruse, however, sharply separates the `real' science from `popularizations' and claims that Wilson allows his various values only into the popular realm. When it comes to real science, traditional epistemic values such as prediction, explanatory scope, and so on carry the day for Wilson and for the scientific community at large.

Ruse's principal conclusion is that science is largely an objective enterprise. Scientists are rife with subjective values and these values play a role in motivating scientific work. They also play a role in popularizations. But in real science objective epistemic values come to the fore. Messy though it is, science is an objective process.

Like all of Ruse's earlier books, this one is a pleasure to peruse. (Thanks to a lack of support for our universities, Canada is losing many of its top academics. Wouldn't it be a pity of we were to lose our best philosopher-historian of biology?) Charmingly irreverent and opinionated, gracefully witty and informative, Mystery of Mysteries is a great read, for professional and public alike.


http://www.bu.edu/partisanreview/archive/2000/4/pinsker.html

The Social Construction Blues

Sanford Pinsker

The Social Construction of What?
By Ian Hacking.
Harvard University Press.
$29.95.

Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?
By Michael Ruse.
Harvard University Press.
$27.50.

Let me begin with a confession: I am one of those old-fashioned sorts who associates the scientific method with scrupulously objective observation, the rigorous testing of hypotheses, and explanations of the natural world that are as precise (and, yes, true) as they are often poetic. No doubt my admiration for scientists who engage in the slow, demanding work of laboratory experimentation springs from a sense (confirmed by a wide range of teachers) that I possessed a world-class math block, and that I would not likely push the scientific envelope one smidgen. Add the unhappy fact that I happen to be a diabetic and you can easily see how it is that I cheer, positively cheer, any researcher hard at work on a cure for what ails me.

I take a measure of solace, however, in reminding myself that many combatants in the science wars know even less about hands-on science than I do. Small wonder, then, that genuine scientists, the ones who work with Bunsen burners and chalk up on the blackboards, often regard the culture studies crowd with such contempt. That’s where I may have something of an advantage because the same attacks now being mounted on scientific authority are old hat to those of us in literary studies who watched our discipline become systematically destabilized. Bashing Shakespeare, either as Exhibit A in the hegemony of dead, white, European writers or, more recently, as an apologist of empire, became a way to ask, again and again, questions beginning with whose: Whose greatness? Whose excellence? And most important of all, whose interest is being served? Dressed up in the impenetrable language that may well be postmodernism’s defining feature, the agendas of identity politics rolled over those who talked about novels and poems (rather than "texts") and who believed, on aesthetic grounds, that some books were better than others. Such innocents often found themselves contemptuously dismissed as under-theorized, or worse.

As someone who has suffered these slings, these arrows, I know full well how cultural warfare works–and also how a spongy term such as "social construction" can easily be applied to everything from authorship to Zulu nationalism. That’s why Ian Hacking’s The Social Construction of What? is such a gratifying book. It covers a wide range of clashes about everything from how best to treat mental illness, child abuse, or anorexia, to the current research being done in sedimentary geology–and always with an eye on the specific "what" in question. My hunch is that Hacking has little patience with much that currently travels under the wide umbrella of social construction ("both obscure and overused," he snorts), but also that he recognizes useful thinking when he sees it:

Social construction has in many contexts been a truly liberating idea, but that which on first hearing has liberated some has made all too many others smug, comfortable, and trendy in ways that have become merely orthodox. The phrase has become a code. If you use it favorably, you deem yourself rather radical. If you trash the phrase, you declare that you are rational, reasonable, and respectable.

Given the vitriol on both sides of the science wars, Hacking serves a valuable function by explaining, in language as clear as it is smart, what noncombatants in the science wars need to know. Here, for example, is what he has to say about socially constructed anorexia:

Unfortunately, social construction analyses do not always liberate. Take anorexia, the disorder of adolescent girls and young women who seem to value being thin above all else. They simply will not eat. Although anorexia has been known in the past, and even the name is a couple of hundred years old, it surfaced in the modern world in the early 1960s. The young women who are seriously affected [their exact numbers are currently a subject of hot debate] resist treatment. Any number of fashionable and often horrible cures have been tried, and none works reliably. In any intuitive understanding of "social construction," anorexia must in part be some sort of social construction. It is at any rate a transient mental illness, flourishing only in some places at some times. But that does not help the girls and young women who are suffering. Social construction theses are liberating chiefly for those who are on the way to being liberated–mothers whose consciousness has already been raised, for example.

Since Peter L. Berber and Thomas Luck Mann published the first study to use "social construction" in its title (The Social Construction of Reality, 1966), we have been awash with imitators. Most of them concentrate on the "how it is" that our consciousness has been changed, and always, we are told, for the good. By contrast, the what that so interests Hacking hardly matters. Even fundamental physics is not immune in an age when some argue that scientific results, like everything else, are social constructs rather than discoveries about our world that hold independently of society.

We think of this fundamental debate separating social constructivists from objectively grounded scientists as yet another aggravating feature of postmodernism, but in fact it is quite old. In 1898, long before the term "social construction" was coined, Edwin J. Goodwin, an Indiana legislator, proposed a bill that would make ą = 3.2–and furthermore, that people using his "New Mathematical Truth" be required to cough up royalties. The scheme, part of other misguided efforts at the time to "square the circle," was eventually defeated. But it’s not hard to imagine other, equally daffy efforts to have a social tail wag the scientific dog. Who, after all, would be surprised if a contemporary version of Goodwin proposed that ą get rounded off to 3.0 rather than its more cumbersome 3.14 °? My imaginary politician might argue that, with enough votes, the natural order could be changed–and in ways that would certainly please the lazier students of his state.

Unfortunately, there would be other, unforeseen consequences as well. Many more scientifically minded folk were quick to point out that nobody would want to stand near buildings designed by an architect who used a 3.0 ą (or a 3.2 one, for that matter) in his calculations–and this is especially true for structures sporting domed roofs. Unfortunately, the sort of fuzzy thinking that once turned charlatans into objects of derision is now taken very seriously indeed.

Flash forward to Alan D. Sokal’s wickedly delicious 1996 parody of theory-heavy science. His essay was a torpedo below the water line, a deadpanned way of holding pretentious lingo and vacuous ideas up to ridicule. It demonstrated, as no "straight" account ever could, just how much nonsense was passing itself off as cutting-edge thought. Sokal’s jawbreaking title, "Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," should have been enough to tip off the editors of Social Text, but given their preference for airy postmodernist theorizing, it is hardly surprising that they accepted his tangled arguments about the social construction of gravity. Peel away phrases such as "privileged epistemological status" or "oppositional discourse," and copious footnotes to the likes of Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, or Luce Irigaray, and what one discovers is that gravity has a strong social component. Indeed, what Sokal proposes (with tongue lodged firmly in his cheek) is that gravity can operate quite differently in New York City than it does in San Francisco–depending, of course, on how the respective citizens decided this matter at the ballot box.

Sokal, you will remember, brought his 1996 hoax to the attention of Lingua Franca, a journal that enjoys nothing more than a juicy academic scoop, and the rest, as they say, is history. The wire services jumped on the story and in short order Social Text became a national laughingstock. Not even the intellectually playful Stanley Fish was able to provide effective damage control–although he made a pinch-faced effort in a New York Times op-ed piece that scolded Sokal for "bad faith" and other crimes against the scientific community. But Fish’s sophistry didn’t wash–not for scientists pursuing the truth about how our world works, and certainly not for those who had long regarded postmodernist theorists as self-proclaimed emperors parading around without clothes.

I mention the much-aired Sokal hoax not only because Ian Hacking and Michael Ruse give it significant attention in their respective books but also because the flap itself sets the framework for what might be called "Social Construction: Round II." For Hacking, what matters most in the talk, pro and con, about social construction is the what at the immediate issue. Is it facts or gender, quarks or reality? Is it a person, an object, or an idea? Ruse puts it a slightly different way when he proposes that we may have been asking the wrong questions all along, and that, rightly seen, what we have is a situation in which both camps can mount strong arguments:

Our ultimate concern [Ruse argues] is surely with the issue of realism. Does an objective "real world" exist "out there" that can be known through the methods of science, or is science a subjective construction corresponding to shifting contingencies of culture and history, with nothing "real" beneath it? Are the epistemic norms of science guaranteed to lead us to a knowledge of this world, and if so why? Or are the epistemic norms also simply part of culture in the end, on a par with the metaphors of science? I worry about these questions [which Ruse obviously feels are the right ones], and now candor forces me to admit that–on the evidence we have–one could reasonably argue for either realism or nonrealism!

That is, one can make a case for Karl Popper who believes that there is indeed a "real world" out there. We may never know it exactly, but (in Ruse’s words) "‘truth’ is the correspondence of our ideas with this world, and the aim and method of science is to approach such truth, if only asymptotically"; or one can make an equally compelling case for Thomas Kuhn who believes that "there is no reality other than that seen through and created by the paradigm." His fair-mindedness (if that is what Ruse’s waffling comes to) reminds me of the Yiddish joke about the rabbi who listens to a couple seeking a divorce. The husband begins first, outlining his grievances (she is a lousy cook, a sloppy housekeeper, etc.). The rabbi gazes thoughtfully at the ceiling and proclaims, "You’re right!" He then goes on to hear what the maligned wife has to say (her husband is a lazy bum, and beats her to boot), and after giving the ceiling another look, announces: "You’re right!" "But rabbi," a witness interjects, "how can they both be right?" Stroking his beard, the rabbi sidesteps the contradiction with this playful retort: "Nu, so you’re also right!"

If Hacking takes up the pros and cons of socially constructing damn near everything, Ruse at least has the advantage of focusing squarely on evolution. Mystery of Mysteries not only follows the twists and turns of the long debate about evolution, but it also provides lively portraits of the major participants. Here, for example, is a snippet from the section devoted to Charles Darwin:

Start with religion. . . .The young Darwin moved from Christianity to deism, and evolution was for him, as for his grandfather, a confirmation of his religious position rather than an anomaly. This was the philosophy of the Origin: "Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." Later in life, particularly under the influence of Huxley, Darwin’s beliefs faded into agnosticism. Even then, however, he did not go through the Origin systematically removing references to God.

Ruse provides equally compelling (and balanced) portraits of contemporaries such as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward O. Wilson. The result is a study that charts the progress of thinking about evolution and that shows how what was once a debate became a bitter dispute. Here it might be helpful to think of evolution as a kaleidoscope. Turn the cylinder one way and its shapes arrange themselves into one pattern; give it a quarter twist and you end up with something else, equally plausible so far as Ruse is concerned. My hunch is that Hacking would feel much the same way–that is, if we substituted one social construction of x for another.

Both Hacking and Ruse provide insider information delivered from a vantage point well above the fray that the science wars have produced. My hunch is that those on either side of the aisle will be unhappy with at least some of their observations–that is not only to be expected, but applauded. The consequences of science are simply too important for scientists and nonscientists alike to settle for tunnel vision, half-truths, and gobbledygook.


http://www.salon.com/books/feature/1999/06/22/feminismscience/index.html

Has feminism changed science?
TWO NEW BOOKS ENTER THE
DANGEROUS TERRITORY WHERE
COLD FACTS MEET HOT TEMPERS.


Has Feminism Changed Science?
By Londa L. Schiebinger
Harvard University Press, 256 pages

Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?
By Michael Ruse, Harvard University Press, 320 pages


- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Margaret Wertheim


June 22, 1999 | In classic biology textbooks, the story of conception resembles nothing so much as a true-romance novel, in which the bodice-ripping formula of Barbara Cartland et al. is transposed into a cellular-level melodrama starring the virile "active sperm" and the demure "passive egg."

"In these sagas of conception," writes science historian Londa Schiebinger, "the spermatic hero actively pursues the egg, surviving the hostile environment of the vagina and defeating his many rivals." Like Sleeping Beauty, the egg drifts unconsciously in the fallopian tube, waiting to be awakened by the valiant, vital sperm. It is an archetypal story of female passivity enlivened by male energy -- a story as old as Aristotle, and as replete with patronizing overtones.

Since the late 1970s, however, a new generation of biologists has begun to peek behind this suspect veil and, using fresh analyses, to reveal quite a different story, one summed up by the title of a seminal paper, "The Energetic Egg." In this new account the egg, no longer a slumbering princess, becomes an active agent, directing the growth of microvilli (small finger-like projections on its surface) to capture and tether the sperm. Here the egg and sperm are partners, co-activators in the process of conception.



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




Check out books by Margaret Wertheim at BARNES and NOBLE


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


What is particularly noteworthy is that while the egg's cone of microvilli was discovered in the 1890s, it was not thought worthy of serious scientific attention until 80 years later -- a time when women's roles in society were themselves being reconceived.

But before we cheer too loudly for this liberation of a core biological function from the rhetorical trappings of millennia-old sexism, it is worth stopping to reflect that the new tale itself is rife with gendered cultural overtones. As Schiebinger notes, in this new account the egg and sperm have come to resemble nothing so much as the high-powered dual-career couple of the '80s and '90s.
Like the contemporary corporate woman, the new "energetic egg" is valued precisely because it is now seen to be more like its male counterpart. Like the business exec with her power suit, the new egg has been "masculinized." And just as the female exec risks accusations of aggressiveness, so too the new egg is all-too-easily seen as a "femme fatale, threatening to capture and victimize sperm." The point is that while the new story may have stripped away the old sexist overtones, the egg and sperm remain gendered, essentially reflecting the pattern of current social arrangements between men and women.

This saga of transformation in one of our premier biological narratives raises a question that has become central to the current discussion about science: Can science ever be free of cultural influences? To put it another way: Can science ever be purely objective, an inquiry into the unsullied "truth" about the "real" world, or will it always be prey to the vagaries of subjective experience?

This is the question that resides at the heart of the so-called "science wars" that have rocked the academy for the past several years, and which show little sign of abating. On the one side are the objectivists (sometimes called realists), who believe that science is an ever-progressing ascent toward an ultimate picture of the-world-as-it-really-is. On the other hand are the subjectivists (sometimes known as relativists), who believe, to varying degrees, that science will always carry the stamp of the culture from which it springs. For this camp, prevailing views about gender, race, class and the like inexorably influence scientific theories, so that we can never (even in principle) see the world as it really is. To this camp, that very notion is a fiction that must be abandoned.

Many, though by no means all, scientists fall into the first camp -- Stephen Jay Gould is an eminent exception. Likewise, many, though not all, historians, philosophers and science-studies scholars fall into the second camp.

The question of whether science can ever be culture-free is also at the heart of a number of new books. One of the best is Schiebinger's provocatively titled "Has Feminism Changed Science?" If science is, as the objectivists claim, a culture-free activity, then the answer must be no. But as the changing narrative of the egg reveals, it is not so easy to strip away the cultural subtext from our scientific theories.

The science wars have been simmering for the past decade, but in 1996 they moved from sort of a cold war standoff phase into active engagement. The catalyst was the publication by a little-known physicist named Alan Sokal of an article in the cultural studies journal Social Text. In his now infamous piece Sokal purported to present a postmodern critique of physics in which, using lashings of trendy French philosophy and deliberately nonsensical postmodern jargon, he suggested that quantum mechanics could be seen to support the view that all knowledge is culturally relative. Immediately after the piece came out he gleefully exposed it as a hoax designed to show that cultural studies types know naught about science and ought to lay off pronouncements on the subject.

Whether one regards this as a brilliant exposé or as a petty frat-boy prank, the fallout has driven a deep wedge between the community of scientists and the community of science-studies scholars (those who study how science fits into the social, cultural and historical landscape.)

One way of looking at this divide is suggested by Canadian philosopher Michael Ruse in his new book, "Mystery of Mysteries: Is Evolution a Social Construction?" Ruse divides the two camps, roughly speaking, into the Popperians (following the Austrian philosopher of science Karl Popper), and the Kuhnians (following the American philosopher of science Thomas S. Kuhn). For Popper, science was a progressive activity, getting us ever nearer to a true picture of reality. Although Popper acknowledged that we could never find ultimate truth, he insisted on an objective view of science as an exploration of the world as it really is.

Kuhn, in his 1962 book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," famously declared that all science proceeds according to "paradigms" -- mental constructs or theoretical frameworks which inevitably change as our society changes. For Kuhn, science is not an ascent towards any God's-eye view, and the science of one age must be considered no better or worse than the science of any other.

Kuhn's book sparked its own revolution, not in science but in science studies, and it became a flash point for even more revolutionary views of science, which have culminated in the radically relativist views that Sokal and the objectivists so deplore.

The two extremes in the debate may be characterized as follows: For radical objectivists, nature is the only voice, with human culture playing no role. For radical relativists, nature has no voice of its own, and all scientific knowledge is the production of humans. In reality, most people fall somewhere in between. Even Einstein, that arch-realist, recognized that we can only know nature through the prism of our theories -- we can never see it naked, as it were. Glad news it is, then, to see Ruse and Schiebinger trying to find a middle ground.

Both Ruse and Schiebinger approach the question -- and both books are indeed framed as questions -- from the vantage point of a particular case study. For Ruse the case study is the theory of evolution, and the ways that ideas about evolution have themselves evolved over the past two centuries. For Schiebinger the case study is feminism, and the way that both female practitioners of science, and feminist theories about science, have affected (or not) various scientific disciplines -- from cell biology to primatology, archeology, medicine, mathematics and physics.

Feminist science scholars, it must be noted, make up one of the key groups to have claimed science as a culture-laden activity. As such, they are seen by objectivists as a key battalion of the enemy. In the post-Sokal era, Schiebinger is aware of the need for caution, and she approaches her subject with the hyperalert acuity of a lion tamer encountering a large, wild cat. The big surprise for many objectivists will be that Schiebinger lays to rest to the notion that women in and of themselves change the nature of science simply by becoming scientists. The culture of science is not rooted in the chromosomes of its practitioners, she assures us -- a conclusion all objectivists should applaud.

But if women do not necessarily do science differently, the historical record suggests that feminist perspectives have indeed made an impact on both the culture and content of science. The saga of the egg is just one example Schiebinger gives in which women's involvement in a field has opened up new lines of inquiry that have led to significant new discoveries. Another case in point is primatology. For more than a century primatologists, who were almost exclusively male, focused almost exclusively on male primates. Once a new generation of primatologists -- again beginning in the 1970s, and who by then included women -- started to pay attention to the females of the species, they found that previous views were clearly distorted. Other cases can be found in genetics, archeology and medicine.

Some of the female scientists who made these discoveries were avowed feminists, but many were not. Yet, as Schiebinger shows, it is no coincidence that so many of these insights came to the fore at a time when women's own role in society was changing, and when the very nature of "femininity" and "womanhood" was so much a subject of debate. In short, you do not have to be a feminist to be influenced by feminist cultural movements.



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




Check out books by Margaret Wertheim at BARNES and NOBLE


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


One example of this trend that has struck me forcefully over the past few years is the way in which the whole question of embodiment has become a hot topic in fields like artificial intelligence and cognitive science. After decades during which intelligence was seen to be a purely mental phenomenon, suddenly there is talk of it being ineluctably rooted in the physical reality of a body. Most of the current scientists and philosophers making this claim are men who would not (I am sure) identify themselves as feminists; nonetheless, feminist philosophers have been making just this claim for decades.

We are all a part of a cultural matrix, which, even if unconsciously, affects the way we think. As Schiebinger puts it "We cannot free ourselves of cultural influence; we cannot think or act outside a culture. Language shapes even as it articulates thought."

Reluctant though he seems to be to admit this, Michael Ruse comes to a similar, if more guarded conclusion regarding evolution. Tracing the evolution of evolutionary theory through a half-dozen of its major proponents -- from Charles Darwin to contemporary practitioners such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould and E.O. Wilson -- Ruse reveals how their views of evolution were influenced both by the culture of their time and by their own upbringings.

Wilson, for example, perhaps as a legacy of his Southern Baptist childhood, is still essentially looking for some kind of fundamental truth. As he acknowledges in his own recent book, "Consilience," at university he traded in his religion for science. Given the indelible traces of each man's culture on his scientific theories, Ruse frankly admits, "I see the influence of culture on scientific ideas as something that is here to stay."

That said, Ruse also wants to claim victory -- and for him it is the most significant victory -- for objectivism. The course of history has shown, he says, that although in the beginning evolutionary theory was almost purely a cultural construction, over the past two centuries it has been increasingly cleansed of such intrusions. While individual practitioners may still reveal the hallmarks of their culture, particularly in their use of metaphors to describe their ideas to non-scientists, in the final analysis the theory has been born out by objective, empirical validation.

In the end Ruse wants to have his cake and eat it, too: He sees evolutionary theory as essentially objective, but with an overlay of metaphorical subjectivity. Not everyone will feel satisfied with this resolution, but it is a heartening testimony to our times that this avowed champion of Sokal is at least prepared to acknowledge that the other side is not entirely wrong.
salon.com | June 22, 1999


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_3_108/ai_54343067

Mystery Of Mysteries: Is Evolution A Social Construction? - Review
Natural History, April, 1999 by John Tyler Bonner

Save a personal copy of this article and quickly find it again with Furl.net. It's free! Save it.
MYSTERY OF MYSTERIES: IS EVOLUTION A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION? by Michael Ruse. Harvard University Press; $27.50; 320 pp.; illus.

After centuries of biological theorizing, have we yet formulated an objective science of life?

I started this book with some uncertainty because, unlike the author, Michael Ruse, I am neither a philosopher nor a historian; I am a laboratory biologist. But we do overlap in our common interest in evolution. He is a professor at the University of Guelph in Canada, and in his latest book he has put his knowledge to good use to say some fascinating things about the relative roles of culture and hard fact in the history of evolution and its mechanisms.

Is evolution a subject that has always been treated with total objectivity, or has it always been affected by philosophical and cultural attitudes prevalent at various times? If the latter is true, what has that influence been? At the risk of ruining the plot, let me say that in the author's view, the study of evolution has become less influenced by culture over time, moving increasingly toward an objective "science" in its purest form.

Ruse begins his journey at the end of the eighteenth century with the physician, poet, and naturalist Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin's grandfather. Here was a man of strong appetites (for food and for the ladies) who believed there had been a transmutation of species--that is, an evolution of living organisms--but who looked upon the matter as a given and, therefore, not in need of carefully assembled evidence. Despite his new ideas, he was "thoroughly culturally laden," as Ruse points out. Indeed, his treatise on transmutation, The Temple of Nature, is written in verse.

Ruse is especially good on the far more complex position of Charles Darwin, who, not satisfied with merely describing the fact of evolution, sought its causes in the mechanism of natural selection. Surrounded by a church-influenced culture during the time he was breaking new ground for a more objective science of biology, Darwin was understandably cautious about publishing his ideas. Ruse also argues that artificial selection--the careful breeding of domestic animals and plants to produce new and different varieties--was a well-established practice in Darwin's time and helped to shape his views.

From here, Ruse takes the leap into this century, selecting eight scientists who have been influential in the study of evolutionary biology and who represent some of the schools of thought over the decades. The first is zoologist Thomas H. Huxley's grandson Julian Huxley, who did some solid work in embryology, behavior, and evolution but is most widely known for his popular writings. I remember Huxley coming to Princeton a number of times to lecture, and he packed the house. Huxley's objectivity, Ruse suggests, was compromised by his belief in the idea of progress--and especially in the "improvement" of mankind--which led to his regrettable enthusiasm for the mystic evolutionism of Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Like Huxley, Theodosius Dobzhansky made many of his scientific contributions during the second quarter of the twentieth century. Dobzhansky was a Ukrainian American geneticist who emigrated to the United States in 1927 to begin his career in Thomas Hunt Morgan's famous "fly room" at Columbia University--the laboratory that gave birth to modern genetics. Dobzhansky then went on to do some of the foundation work connecting genetics to evolution. What intrigues Ruse is that Dobzhansky, a deeply religious man, succeeded in keeping his personal convictions separate from his professional science.

After Dobzhansky come a pair of biologists whose reputations were built as they popularized evolutionary science during the 1970s. Richard Dawkins, an Oxford University zoologist, had instant success with the 1976 publication of The Selfish Gene, in which he argues that Darwinian natural selection acts primarily on the genes. Stephen Jay Gould, the Harvard paleontologist who has been a columnist for Natural History since 1974, argues here and in numerous books that evolution acts on a hierarchy of levels, including whole organisms and groups of organisms. Dawkins and Gould are both brilliant writers, and their spirited debates have enlivened the subject of evolution for us all.

Next come two Harvard professors who played important roles in the 1970s and 1980s. Work by Richard C. Lewontin, a star student of Dobzhansky's, is an interesting mixture of groundbreaking population genetics and Marxist politics. Edward O. Wilson, an entomologist specializing in ants and founder of the field of sociobiology, combines solid science and voluminous popular writings.

Finally, Ruse discusses two scientists who are currently in midcareer: the English sociobiologist Geoffrey Parker, of the University of Liverpool, and the American paleontologist J. John Sepkoski Jr., of the University of Chicago. Parker is known for his research on the reproductive strategies of dung flies, upon which he has based important mathematical models of evolutionary strategies; Sepkoski applies mathematical models to interpreting trends in the fossil record.

From Erasmus Darwin onward, there has been a steady decrease in the influence of culture on the way we do science, and an increase in objectivity. "However socially or culturally convenient one may find the science," Ruse concludes, "if it does not succeed in the fiery pit of experience, it can and should be rejected." To anyone interested in the evolution of evolution, I recommend this book. It is written with clarity and grace, and both the professional and the layperson will find it full of riches.

John Tyler Bonner, emeritus professor of biology at Princeton University, is the author of a number of books, including Life Cycles: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist (Princeton University Press, 1995).

COPYRIGHT 1999 American Museum of Natural History
COPYRIGHT 2000 Gale Group
topic image
The Mormon Shipwreck
Saturday, Aug 27, 2005, at 08:32 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
A non-Mormon friend asked me the other day how I had found the time I have spent during the past three years to do all of the reading and writing I have done about Mormonism. I explained that people are affected differently by the kind of religious belief transition I have made, but for many it feels like their world is ending. That is how it was for me. I contemplated suicide briefly. I thought I was likely going to go through a divorce. I experienced enormous trauma in my closest personal relationships. For months I had trouble sleeping and unless fully occupied could think about little beyond how "this" had happened to me.

I felt like I was on a huge ship that suddenly and unexpectedly sunk, leaving me in a whirlpool that was about to drag me under. It was either swim, or die. So I swam desperately, not caring about anything else for a time. Most of my writing is mere froth kicked up by this effort. Eventually, it seemed like the current became weaker and my swimming less panicked, and finally, I felt relatively in control again. Occasionally, the current would surprise me with a burst of energy, and I would have to swim for my life. But for the most part I was under control and became increasingly comfortable in the water while calling out to passing ships for help in hope that I would find a new safe place. Then, to my amazement, I realized that I had been a fish all along and for some reason could not see that as long as I was on the ship. So, I tentatively put my head under the water and began to breathe, and then excitedly swam down into a world that I still find marvellous beyond my capacity for expression.

I would be interested to hear from others how they would characterize their experience "on the way out". Not only the dark and bitter part, but the wonder on the other side of that.

Best regards,

bob
topic image
A Request For Collaborators In A Post-Mormon Writing Project
Wednesday, Aug 31, 2005, at 07:21 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
The following is the introduction to an essay that has sat half finsihed (at 50 pages) on my computer for almost a year. I have finally decided to finish it, and would like to invite those interested to read the draft as it now sits and to provide comments, input, etc. If you would like to participate, send me an email and I will send you the draft essay.

Recovery From Mormonism
(Or Any Other Controlling “ism”)
A Guide for the Perplexed
bob mccue
*, 2005
http://mccue.cc/bob/spirituality.htm

Whenever someone sorrows, I do not say, "forget it," or "it will pass," or "it could be worse" -- all of which deny the integrity of the painful experience. But I say, to the contrary, "It is worse than you may allow yourself to think. Delve into the depth. Stay with the feeling. Think of it as a precious source of knowledge and guidance. Then and only then will you be ready to face it and be transformed in the process. Peter Koestenbaum

Introduction

Larry Braithwaite asked me a while ago to write a summary of the “recovery” process that might be useful to those who have stumbled, groped, reasoned, quested – whatever – to the edge of Mormonism and find themselves devastated by what they there encounter. This was initially for me at least, a dark, terrifying place that I will never forget. Larry’s wife Tammy, with his support, has published her/their insightful story with regard to Mormonism (see http://www.exmormon.org/journey/journ...), and has been flooded with requests for help by people who have read it. They thought that I might be able to contribute something that would be useful in that regard. As part of my continuing effort to repay the debt of those who helped me along this surprising-in-so-many-ways road, I am pleased to do what I can.

My primary objective as I write this essay is to provide context that will help to dissipate the vertigo and terror many people feel as they discover that the foundations of their spiritual lives – no, their entire lives – are nothing like what they appeared to be. It is difficult for those who have not gone through this experience to understand it. For example, a non-Mormon friend asked me the other day how I had found the time I have spent during the past three years to do all of the reading and writing I have done about Mormonism. I explained that people are affected differently by the kind of religious belief transition I have made, but for many it feels like their world is ending. That is how it was for me. I thought I was likely going to go through a divorce. I contemplated suicide briefly. I experienced enormous trauma in my closest personal relationships.

I felt like I was on a huge ship that suddenly and unexpectedly sunk, leaving me in a whirlpool that was about to drag me under. It was either swim, or die. So I swam desperately, not caring about anything else for a time. Most of my writing is mere froth kicked up by this effort. Eventually, it seemed like the current became weaker and my swimming less panicked, and finally, I felt relatively in control again. Occasionally, the current would surprise me with a burst of energy, and I would have to swim for my life. But for the most part I was under control and became increasingly comfortable in the water while calling out to passing ships for help in hope that I would find a new safe place. Then, to my amazement, I realized that I had been a fish all along and for some reason could not see that as long as I was on the ship. So, I tentatively put my head under the water and began to breathe, and then excitedly swam down into a world that I still find marvellous beyond my capacity for expression.

This essay is about how one gets from raw terror to pure wonder and excitement, and why it is reasonable to expect that to happen. And I note that for many, the transition process is not as difficult as it was for me. The degree of difficulty mostly depends on a person’s biology, how fully conditioned she is to Mormonism, how much her family and other relationships are tied into Mormonism and how easily she adapts to change in general.

For some reason, it has taken a while to find the energy for this task. I think this is because I am now at a stage of my “recovery” where it is often hard to return to the scene of the crime, so to speak. I spend a lot of my time off running through fields of light so enchanting that they fully occupy me. And my guts still twist when I think about the early parts of the path that has led me to this point. I also know something about my compulsive nature, and could predict that once I opened this can of worms it would absorb a large chunk of time. So, it has now been almost a year since I promised that I would get to this as soon as a few other pressing issues at work were off my plate. I expect that the time will come when the recollection of how I “recovered” from Mormonism will not cause this kind of discomfort. I look forward to seeing that healthy signpost along the road of my own continuing recovery.

I have organized this essay so that you can get the basics from reading the “Abstract” found just below this introduction. Those who are interested in more than that will find it in the body of the essay and other materials to which I refer. In that regard, you will have to put up with numerous references to other essays I have written. That is not because my writing is necessary the best on this topic, but rather because I refer to what I know. Writing has become for me a primary form of therapy – as intimated above, a froth produced as I have done the exercises necessary to form a new worldview and as a result, grow a new brain.

Despite my experience with Mormonism, I still believe in the wisdom of the crowd (see James Surowiecki, “The Wisdom of Crowds – reviews at http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0525/p1... and http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article...). However, I choose the crowds with which I associate with great care, and extensively winnow their advice. I have tried to harness the power of the group by posting early drafts of this essay on the bulletin boards at http://www.exmormon.org/ and http://www.aimoo.com/forum/freeboard...., as well as sending it for comment to a number of people whose opinions I respect and who have perspectives that differ markedly from my own. The input received from these sources has immensely enriched what you will find in this essay. The awkward or erroneous parts are, however, all mine.

A Broad Perspective on Recovery from Mormonism

Most topics are best understood in the broadest possible context (see http://home.mccue.cc:10000/bob/docume...). So, I think it is useful to attempt to place the discussion of changing one’s religious orientation – and in particular moving from the Mormon to the post-Mormon world – in the broadest historical, psychological and sociological framework possible, without writing a book. This is particularly the case regarding religion because many religious people, including Mormons, have been trained to think of their religion as uniquely important and hence not subject to understanding in the same way other aspects of human experience. Hence, much of the recovery process relates to learning how our religious experience is the result of the same psychological and sociological mechanisms that have been extensively studied in other contexts. That is not to say that we understand these things completely. But we do know a lot about how they work, and the work the scholars in various fields have done in this regard is enormously helpful for those who are trying to understand how the world could have seemed to certain for so long, and then suddenly (or gradually in some cases) turned to dust. The perspective gained by standing on the shoulders of the scholars who have done this work can be crucial in different ways. For some, it takes the edge off the terror they feel while moving from one state of seeing religious “reality” to another. For others, much more importantly, it provides the courage necessary to pass through the “narrow gate” and acknowledge reality in the first place. And for yet others, perhaps more important still, it provides the balm needed to heal wounds that have been largely ignored after leaving Mormonism for one reason or another long ago, all the while feeling vaguely deficient and guilty as a result of not having lived “up to” the standard set by the Mormon community.

The transition out of Mormon belief was more painful than anything else in my experience, and paradoxically, some of my life’s greatest euphoria followed close on the heels of my worst misery. Joseph Smith captured this paradox in his description of how his vision of God and Christ was immediately preceded by a struggle with the forces of darkness. In this he echoed an ancient mythic theme. I do not suggest that this means he was inspired, but rather acknowledge his ability to identify and push important psychological buttons that have been used by countless religious and other social leaders before and since him to attract and hold the attention of their peers. Charisma, power and the ability to persuade are generally speaking what are perceived to be divine inspiration.

So, here are several perspective broadening exercises we will undertake to enhance our understanding of Mormonism and how it affects us.

First, we will set the process of changing belief in what is likely its broadest possible context – that of mythology. That is, people have been going through this kind of thing in one way or another ever since humankind began to record her history. I found this idea in and of itself profoundly comforting and enlightening.

Second, we will review a couple of succinct analyses of the process of spiritual transition. The first is a bare bones description of the process as described by an insightful post-Mormon, and the second is a summary of James Fowler’s robust treatment of this topic in his well-worth-reading book “Stages of Faith”.

Third, we will focus on the part of the process described by Fowler that is likely of greatest interest to those who will read this essay – the transition from the narrow, group-controlled belief (Fowler calls this “stage two” or “stage three” faith) through the anger and terror of Fowler’s “stage four faith” into the light and wonder of Fowler’s “stage five” faith. This is of particular importance to both post-Mormons and those who deal with them because the terror and anger of stage four discourages some people from ever going there, and is frightening to anyone who has to deal with someone who is going through it. Perspective here is of particular importance. We will review some of what the psychological and sociological literature has to say about this transition, what it is reasonable to expect of it in terms of time and energy, and how to try to manage it. This will include an extensive analysis of what might be called the “Stage of Grief”. That is, the literature with regard to how we grieve losses andadjust to them is of great help to those who are going through this process in terms of the removal of Mormonism or any other major ideological pillar from their lives.

Fourth, we will review a variety of the principles that relate to building a new worldview, and why that is for many people one of life’s highlights.

And finally, we will wrap up with more mythology since we remember stories far more effectively than we remember theory, and so we will attempt to attach the most important principles we have discussed to one of the worlds most famous and memorable myths that is relevant to this process.
topic image
Does Prayer Work? Does Mormonism Work?
Sunday, Sep 4, 2005, at 08:13 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
The answer to this question, as is so often the case with questions of this type is, "That depends on what you mean by 'works'". Let’s explore this interesting issue. I will set out my thoughts and would be interested to hear the impressions and experiences others have had along similar lines.

In a recent thread (http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor...) I posted the "rest of the story" regarding a well publicized study a year or two ago that alleged prayer to be an effect meanings of curing certain illnesses. And not the usual kind of prayer where the ill person is sitting and listening as someone prays for her. Rather, this was about prayer for an ill person who does not know she is being prayed for. This later type of prayer has been shown to have no measurable effect on health.

While I no longer pray in the way I used to, I still regularly (and in fact more often than before) express gratitude and love toward others for whom I care. And I am sure that this has a positive effect on both them and me. I will explain why below. And I believe that Mormon prayer and certain of its rituals that involve prayer are effective in a sense for this reason as well.

There is a large body of psychological literature that explores the way in which expressions of gratitude, love and encouragement affect both the persons giving and receiving them. The person expending energy to make the expression perceives herself to have been energized by the experience, and the person receiving the expression tends to react similarly though along different psychological correlates. This is a great deal for all involved. 2 + 2 = 6.

The various ritual behaviors used within the Mormon and other religious traditions harness the power of this long understood phenomenon in at least two important ways. First, it is used to make people feel good about themselves and others. And second, it is used to strengthen the perception that the Mormon institution is the source of this wonderful aspect of human experience. Let’s look at the second aspect of how Mormonism uses this part of human experience.

Frequently Mormon prayers are not prayed in private. Meetings open and close with prayer. Mormons pray over meals. Fathers', priesthood, baby and patriarchal blessings are usually performed before groups of people. At the core of the marriage ceremony we find a prayer. The expression of testimony is close to a prayer in that while it is addressed to the group, it closes in the name of God. “Prayer lists” are maintained in Mormon temples. The temple “prayer circle” is a particularly interesting form of public prayer that gives a feeling of privacy and exclusivity since only the "most worthy" are permitted to participate. Missionary companions and married couples are encouraged to prayer together, day and night, and to pray audibly as well as silently.

In each of these prayer forms, Mormons are encouraged to do various things having different purposes that are intertwined by the act of praying about them at the same time. For example, Mormons are encouraged to express gratitude both to God and to other people, often people who are present or if not present who will become aware that the prayer was said. The temple prayer circle is particularly interesting in this regard. The names on the prayer roll are not a matter of public record. But frequently the word makes it back to the “sufferer” (my name was various prayer rolls for a long time as I left Mormonism and for all I know, still is) that her name had been put on the prayer roll at one temple or another (sometimes simultaneously at several) as an act of love; acts often performed by "insiders" who are more worthy toward "outsiders". This simultaneously lifts the insider by making her feel good about having acted in a loving manner, while highlighting the insider v. outsider lines more clearly in her life.

The act of expressing gratitude, as noted above, has been shown to have a powerful positive effect on how both the person expressing and the person receiving the expression feel. All others present tend to be positively moved as a result of witnessing what has happened. This binds the social group together. By causing this to occur in the context of Mormon ritual, the Mormon institution can take credit for the good feelings produced by these universal human mechanisms, and so strengthen itself.

Another important aspect of expressing gratitude is that the thing we express gratitude toward becomes more precious to us. This is the case when we silently express gratitude, and the more public the expression becomes, the stronger the effect. This is why testimony bearing, or witnessing, in particular is stressed within Mormonism and other faiths. And this is why prayer is a stepping stone toward testimony bearing both for children and for those "invesitgating" Mormonism. The evolution of many rituals can be explained in this way. For example, this is one of the reasons psychologists and anthropologists believe the ritual of public marriage ceremonies evolved. The community has a stake in encouraging stable marriages for various reasons that I won’t go into here. The public nature of the commitment, expression of love, expression of gratitude by the couple for each other, etc. were found over time to help stabilize the marital relationship. And everyone likes an excuse to party anyway.

In Mormon prayer and prayer-like rituals, expressions of love and gratitude for those closest to us are intertwined with expressions of love for God. And these are confounded both with each other and expressions of love for the Mormon institution and its symbols – Joseph Smith; the temple where absolute obedience to Mormon authority is promised; the current prophet; other current leaders; etc. So, much of the good feeling and energy that results from expressions of love and gratitude end up solidifying the relationship between the individuals giving, receiving and witnessing these expressions and the Mormon institution.

In fact, when required to choose between the Mormon institution and any of these loved ones, the choice is intended by the Mormon institution to be clear, though few Mormon leaders will admit this. The Church comes first. The Celestial Kingdom is more important than Earthly life. But rather than counsel marital break up, most Mormon leaders will stand aside and let the chips fall where they may when one spouse seems clearly committed to leaving Mormonism and the other intent on staying. And this should not surprise us since many social groups historically have operated on this basis, and this teaching is at the core of Christianity. Christ's message was intended to divide families as well as communities over the issue or religious faith, if it came to that. The only thing unclear about the many New Testament passages that make this point in different ways is whether Christ himself said what they say, or whether those building the Christian community after Christ's death remembered Christ saying what was so obvious to them and so added these sayings to his record themselves and so invoked his authority.

Because the powerful feelings I have just tried to describe occur in circumstances that the Mormon Church creates, it is reasonable for a person with little or no experience outside of Mormonism with regard to these things to conclude that Mormonism is responsible for them.

This brings us to the emphasis on pageantry, solemnity, reverence etc. that accompany many Mormon rituals. These individual and group actions are well known to produce powerful emotional experiences that humans like. Combine that with the power of the personal expression of love and gratitude, and a wonderful cocktail has been mixed.

And then there is the so-called placebo effect. It is well established in the medical as well as psychological literature that if we believe that something will have a positive effect on at least some aspects of our physical health (herpes, for example, reacts positively to placebos), emotional well being (depression reacts particularly positively to placebos) or perception of pain, it probably will have. An article in a recent Economist magazine summarized current medical studies that have been done in this regard. These studies linked the lastest brain imaging (PET) scans to traditional placebo studies to see what was happening in the brain when people were under the influence of a placebo they believed would reduce their perception of pain. It was shown that the brain produced increased levels of endorphins, the body’s natural pain killer, when the participants thought they were receiving a pain killer but in fact were only receiving a placebo. And they of course reported significantly decreased levels ofpain.

I can think of no reason for which the placebo research would not apply as well to Mormon prayer and priesthood blessings as it would to sugar tablets and saline solution thought to contain effective medication. This would reinforce the idea that something supernatural was possessed by the Mormon institution in the form of priesthood authority, furthering the reverence, deference and obedience reasonable people would tend to show to that institution.

So yeah, prayer works. It does all kinds of powerful things when linked with the right social and psychological mechanisms that are known to be effective in many other contexts.

Does this mean that there is no God and that faith and prayer have no other effects? In my view, the evidence does not go that far. What this line of research clearly indicates is that many of the supernatural aspects of human experience that are attributed to prayer and faith as the result of misunderstood natural phenomena. And the most important lesson for me in all of this is that I was hoodwinked into believing that the Mormon institution had unique power to make me feel good; to heal me; to foster loving relationships; etc. when in fact it was simply misdirecting my attention from the most probable nature of the mechanisms that were having their expected effect in my life, and taking credit for wonderful aspects of life in ways that were deceptive.

Now we have unwoven part of a rainbow. The wonder and beauty of Mormon life lays smashed on the floor all around us. Mormons are often critical of the “anti-Mormons” for the manner in which we tear down without building up. So let’s do a little building up, and notice how easily this occurs.

It took quite a while on my way out of Mormonism to pick apart the threads I just described. As I did so, something happened that I believe to be the normal, sensible response to what I had experienced. The key to understanding this is to appreciate the nature and importance of perspective, and what we should expect to happen to us once our perspective changes about anything that is important to us.

Once I understand how important the expression of gratitude was (thanks to Martin Seligman’s psychological studies), I made it a point to express gratitude more often. Each time I do this, it lifts me. Thanks Martin!!! Even that made me feel good. And the understanding that this is something natural, available to all, that has nothing to do with Mormon or any other kind of authority, fills me with joy. It felt wonderful, for example, to get rid of the idea that there was something unique and special about the feelings of joy a Mormon couple have as they promise to love each other in a Mormon temple and there express gratitude to a few crying, oddly dressed family members and friends. This is a universal human response to that kind of circumstance. So it makes perfect sense that once I understand this, I would simply go out of my way to find opportunities to express sincere gratitude for those in my life.

The same thing applies to expressing love. The same thing applies to expressing encouragement. The same thing applies (to a point at least) to helping other people.

And having learned a few useful tricks from people like Seligman, I was encouraged to see what else they can teach me. The importance of forgiveness is something else I have learned from them. The importance of being involved for a significant part of each day in “flow activities” is another important point. The importance of identifying my “signature strengths” and focusing on doing as much as I can with them instead of worrying about fixing what I perceive to be “character flaws” that I am likely never to overcome. We seem to go further and enjoy the ride more if we concentrate on doing what we can with our strengths instead of beating ourselves up for what we are not so good at doing.

Etc. My intent here is not to try to write a life manual, but rather to indicate that there is a vast world of information out there, well organized and back up by solid empirical studies, that we can use to guide ourselves toward lives that we have reason to believe will be more joyful, productive and fun than anything the well intended but ego blinded old guys in SLC could possible offer from their point of view. The basic reason for this is simple and clear. Their primary objective is not to create the strongest, healthiest, happiest individuals possible. Their objective is to create the strongest Mormon institution possible. And that often requires sacrifices to be made by many individual Mormons.

Like us. Or like us as we were.

All the best,

bob
topic image
Encouraging Myths For Post Mormons
Thursday, Sep 8, 2005, at 08:25 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
The Use of Mythology in the Recovery Process

One of the most comforting perspectives to be grasped as we deal with the trauma caused by a changing belief system is that provided by mythology. This shows how common this process is, and how integral it is to the creative forces that underlie both individuals and societies. We find evidence of this in most of human civilization’s major myths. But I am not talking about “myths” in the sense of stories that are not true. Rather, I am talking about the kind of story that gives meaning to people’s lives – stories that may not be literally true, but speak in a universal language of symbols and archetypes about recurring themes in human life. Stories like, for example, the resurrection of Christ and his Virgin Birth that are repeated in many cultures with regard to their foundational figures and represent among other things humanity’s amazing capacity to reinvent itself in both its social and individual form. Carl Jung said that these mythologies are like collective dreams, and that they come from the same placeas do our individual or private dreams – the experience humans have in common. We desire companionship, love, family, respect, power and many other things. We fear isolation, death, suffering, etc. We share biology as well as family and social structure. Any theme that resonates consistently with human beings over long periods of time and so has found its way into many foundational myths is likely of great importance to human beings.

As I was going through some of my darkest moments in the birth canal on my way out of Mormonism, a friend referred me to comparative mythologist Joseph Campbell. I found him and others like him to be immensely helpful for the reasons already noted (see in general http://home.mccue.cc:10000/bob/docume... and http://home.mccue.cc:10000/bob/docume... starting at page 36).

Campbell describes mythology as those beliefs that are used to make sense out of life’s most basic questions and so to stabilize life itself: Why do we exist?; why do we suffer?; why do we rejoice?; why do we die?; what happens after death?; etc. He notes common threads in these myths, and in patterns related to the nature of myths and the human groups that believe them. For example, people who live in environments where resources are scarce and hence fought over by competing human groups tend to have myths that justify killing other humans, whereas people who live in environments of abundance don’t tend to have such myths. Mythologies, Campbell would say, are mostly functional – they help us to make sense out of what we have to do to survive. And, to serve their purpose they must be believed to be true, if not literally, then metaphorically or symbolically. In that sense, Mormonism is a classic mythology. If you would rather, you can substitute the term “belief system” wherever I use “mythology”.

Campbell quipped that we tend to think of mythologies as what other religions teach, while our belief system (religious or otherwise) teaches the truth. This is as true for many who use a largely scientific worldview as any other. Some such folk, and even some scientists, use scientific theory and data to support behavioural prescriptions and value judgements that science itself would never condone and in this sense, many science based worldviews are mythological in the same sense as are most traditional or religious worldviews.

It is also important to note that science does not support the belief in any particular understanding of God beyond the idea that the wonderful order we see in nature obviously came from something. If we are content to call whatever that is “god”, then science will support us. This was pretty close to Einstein’s position. Beyond that, as Einstein noted, science simply does not address the “god” issue or many other issues that are of foundational importance to many human beings. This does not stop people on either side of many debates (including the “does god exist” debate) from invoking science whenever they think they can strengthen their argument by doing so. This understandably confuses those who do not understand how science works.

So, people like Einstein would support the idea that mythic themes that have stood the test of time and have cropped up in human culture after human culture often are found to contain kernels of truth that have been explained reasonably well by science or that are not in conflict with the scientific view of the world. Foundational or mythic stories of this type can help us to understand both the workings of our own minds (or souls – use the term you prefer) and social groups. And while there is a lot about how mythology affects us, how stories weave both the ancient mythologies and our modern and “true” (we are sure) belief systems, I will leave that for later and focus here on how a several mythic themes are profoundly encouraging to those of us who may feel that we have awakened in the bottom of a well, so far from daylight that we may never see it again. They are “The Hero with a Thousand Faces”, “The Night Passage” and “Social Masks”.

The Hero with a Thousand Faces

One myth that exists in almost all societies is the hero myth. This is the myth of the person who leaves the group to go on an adventure. Often this is required by a need within the group – a battle to be won; a fair maiden to be rescued; a magical talisman like The Grail to be found; etc. A few of the common elements of this myth are as follows:
  • The hero leaves the safety of the group and goes into the unknown where all kinds of horrors exist that are not found within the world inhabited by his group;
  • The unstructured, dangerous nature of the world outside the group (chaos) represents the dangers most humans perceive to exist if they leave their group either physically or intellectually;
  • The hero faces the horrors of chaos, and finds that he has unexpected powers, some given to him by the authorities who authorized his adventure and others that seem to well up from within or are found during the course of the adventure;
  • The authorities who authorize the adventure are often not the mainstream authority within society, but rather alternative sources of wisdom or power that are unknown to the main group but have an important influence on the welfare of the group as a whole;
  • The hero is changed by his adventure, and often returns with a treasure quite different from the one he set out to find.
  • Ironically, the hero often finds the most important part of his treasure only after returning home. In one Near Eastern myth, the treasure sought by the hero the world over was buried under his own porch upon his return from his epic adventure.
Some mythologists have divided the hero’s journey into three stages. First is separation, a time of great excitement or angst as the hero leaves or is torn from the known and thrust into the unknown. The second is liminality, when the hero is outside the reach of her society while pursuing her quest. During this time the rules of “normal” behavior do not apply as the hero finds her way through a strange land and undergoes the trials that will cause her reconstruction. And the third is reintegration as the hero rejoins his social group. This is often difficult for many parties since the hero has changed and sometimes his group has as well.

One way to think of the recovering Mormon is as a reluctant hero – a “Frodo” kind of hero. “The Lord of the Rings” is, by the way, a classic hero myth. I could go on for pages (and have done so elsewhere in a half finished essay that will likely never see the light of day) about the analogues between “The Lord of the Ring” and recovery from Mormonism. Suffice it to say here that Frodo did not want to be the ring bearer. Others were stronger, seemingly better suited to the task, etc. In fact, many of them were baffled as to why Frodo seemed to be fated to bear the ring, and despaired for their civilization as a result. He did not seem to have what the task demanded. And yet, as he and his companions time and again threw themselves into the unknown – into chaos – they found out more about themselves and eventually found a way to complete the great mission which was entrusted to them. And Frodo’s unique talents, as it turned out, made him the idea ring bearer. That story is great mythology, but of course would likely cause profound damage to anyone who decided that he was a literal Frodo of some kind carrying the sacred ring of knowledge that would destroy the evil kingdom of Mormonism, or any other.

Another hero myth with which we are all familiar is Christ’s story.

The process of facing the unknown, being pushed into it and having the courage to continue, and then being reconstructed – reinvented – by a combination of personal choice and the forces one has to face outside the secure confines of one’s social group, is one of the most basic of all human stories. And it is the story of recovery from Mormonism.

Note that the hero usually acts alone or with a small group of companions. The vast majority of the social group is usually blissfully unaware of the danger they face and of the adventure that is underway. And the hero’s return is often understood as such by only a few. As is the case with many of the main features of widespread myths that reflect recurring social patterns, there is a sound sociological/psychological basis for this aspect of the hero myth.

A thirst for exploration and learning is basic to humanity’s historical and continuing evolution, and is responsible for our continual learning about how to control our environment. As we continue to learn, we become more powerful. One of the longstanding concerns of some of the most insightful members of society has been that human power will outstrip human wisdom to the point at which we will destroy ourselves. I think that concern is, by and large, healthy since the more aware we are collectively of these risks the less likely we are to be harmed by them. The hero myth genre, as it is told by different societies, shows the balance they variously recommend between deferring to the view of the group and so slowing down change to make falling into chaos less likely, or on the other hand encouraging as much individual innovation as possible in full confidence that the resulting change and the energy that it releases can be controlled so that chaos will not reduce our society to rubble. The former tends to be favoured by Eastern cultures while the latter is the West (and particularly the US’s) hallmark. For a wonderful contrast in this regard, see last years movie “Hero” (Chinese with English subtitles) in which the powerful hero allows himself to be killed so that a tyrant king can continue his drive to unite China and so reduce the chaotic fighting between its factions, and “The Matrix” trilogy in which the power of the individual and small group to reshape a corrupt society is highlighted.

The Night Passage This is a particular kind of hero journey that has many tellings and if profoundly encouraging for those who have been shaken loose from the Mormon moorings. Since most who read this are likely familiar with the story of Jonah and the whale, we will use it as our primary narrative and refer briefly to other stories.

Jonah was an unlikely hero – a regular guy. God called him to a difficult mission, and he declined. Therefore, God sent a great fish to swallow Jonah up, allow him some time to reconsider his options, and then spew him out on the shore in a place where it was convenient for him to fulfill his divine calling, which he then did. He was thus transformed, and at the same time made a contribution to his community that was essential to it

The Jonah narrative has roots in many other preceding Near Eastern myths that I am not going to trace. However, a review of certain common themes is useful.
  • The hero seldom seeks this adventure. Rather, it seeks him. This often manifests itself in a force beyond the hero’s control that takes her over and throws her into chaos. This is the fish that shallows Jonah or the monster Tiamat that swallowed Heracles. While under the control of this greater power (in the belly of the beast), powerful forces both strip the hero of her power (Heracles symbolically lost his hair, so becoming childlike) and cause new powers to coalesce. The hero emerges from this womb-like state humbled, reconstructed and ironically more powerful.
  • There is often a descent from the ordered life into something less ordered or completely disordered as in the many cases where a hero descends into the underworld and its chaos (the usual rules cease to apply) to perform some task essential to those in the land of the living. Out of this relative chaos, a new kind of person is formed. Since as I am writing this the chaos in New Orleans caused by hurricane Katrina is still killing people each day, I am grieving that loss of humanity and civilization, and wondering what kind of new order will emerge from the chaos there.
  • These heroic experiences often occur either at night or in a place of darkness, such as the whale’s belly or the underworld, and re-emergence into the light of morning or the outside word evokes the image of the rising of the Sun or its strengthening and life giving influence in the Spring of each year.
  • The hero’s journey requires a withdrawal from society.
  • During darkness, wisdom is often conferred upon the hero either by humbling experience or divine gift. Mohammed’s famous “night journey” that some modern Muslims are trying to understand through the lens of near death experience research (see http://www.near-death.com/muslim.htm...). Near death experiences are well known to have reconstructing influences on those who have them that are similar in many ways to those found in the Jonah type of legend (see http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence05.html). I heard Bruce Greyson (see http://www.newsun.com/greyson.html), one of the leading researchers in this area speak about it recently.
  • As the hero emerges from her seemingly dark, confined, chaotic space, the world itself often appears to have reconstructed and in hence more receptive to the hero’s new powers. Thus was the world changed during Noah’s time in the Ark, and for Lehi and his family as they emerged on a new continent from their mytic barge/submarines. The reader is often left to wonder whether the world is actually different, or whether the hero’s new perspective causes all to be reborn with her.
  • Often new parents, or guides, are found for the journey through the hero’s new world, as was the case as Moses emerges from the bull rushes.
There is a tremendous amount of food for thought for post-Mormons in this mythic vein.

Social Masks v. Individual Masks

One of my favourite analyses of the hero mythic structure comes from W.B. Yeats in the form of his analysis of social masks. You can see that and related subjects summarized at http://home.mccue.cc:10000/bob/docume...

The basic idea is that society tells us who we are – puts a mask on us. This is necessary to create order within society, and it gives us a starting point. Some social groups put this mask on more tightly than others. The Hindu caste system, for example, is much more rigid than anything Mormonism has come up with. However, all groups to an extent at least resist attempts to tamper with the social mask, and there is an individual force that wells up from within that encourages us to find a more “authentic” way of living – a way that “feels right” for us as individuals. Yeats characterized this as the removal of the social mask and creation of an individual mask, or masks. That is, the formation of an individual identity. The same thing is known in the psychological community as the process of “individuation”. The more powerfully our social mask has been attached to us, the more painful it is to take it off. In the Western Democratic part of our world, masks tend not to be as firmly attached as they are in other parts of the world (India or Iraq, for example). And, in the West the tendency toward the formation of the individual mask is the strongest. Not coincidentally, this is where human innovation has yielded its most abundant harvests in recent times. Mormonism and other fundamentalist leaning religious groups run counter to this trend in the Democratic West.

After our individual mask has been formed, we may identify wholly with it or we may continue to wear the social mask to an extent, recognizing it as such, and revert to the individual mask as often as we can. Or, we may develop a range of masks and wear them each on occasion. How we do this, the extent to which we do it, etc. is determined by our individual characteristics and the nature of our group. For example, some scholars have observed that the more structured a society, the more chameleon-like behaviour is observed. That is, in authoritarian societies individuals tend to wear of many different masks (See, for example, Richard Nisbett "The Geography of Thought"), each dictated by the different roles their society calls upon them to play from time to time (boss; subordinate; son; grandson; father; husband; friend; etc.) and are much less likely to experience the radical transformation from one state to another of which Yeats spoke to his largely Western audience.

Those of us who are able to remove our social masks and fashion individual masks are predicted by Yeats to be on our way to enjoying certain rare fruits. Middle age for such people is usually the most productive and exciting of life since they have learned to leap from the Moon to the Sun. That is, the Moon reflects energy created by others. The Sun is an energy source, as are those who wear individual masks. And as is the case with so much of human experience, it is only possible to understand the difference between the Moon and the Sun modes of life by experiencing it. For a faithful Mormon, this road goes through the terrifying valley of rejection of religious authority. This does not mean that religious authority must be ignored. It means that we must weaken Mormon authority’s influence over us to the point at which it becomes a possible source of wisdom like many others around us, and it must earn our allegiance by providing advice that is better than that readily available elsewhere. The experience of most Mormons who reach the point of questioning Mormon authority to this degree is to recognize that the wisdom on offer within the Mormon community is in most respects inferior to that available elsewhere. Once this realization sinks in, significant behavioural changes gradually occur as wisdom is sought from non-Mormon sources and as a result attitudes toward things like the role of men and women, how sexual orientation is formed, how political and social attitudes are formed, etc. begin to change.

Another lesson more accessible by those Westerners who wear individual masks than most members of society is the difference between essence and vehicles. We are more interested in light than what creates it. That is, we don’t much care about the particular light bulbs (vehicles) we have in our sockets as long as they produce satisfactory light (essence). Our mortal bodies are vehicles for a particular consciousness – our own. But consciousness – the life and energy of which we are a part – lives on after we are gone in various forms just as one wave crests and then returns to the sea. We are self-conscious waves on a sea of consciousness. We are like the little creatures that build the reef. What is important is the contribution we make to the reef, not the span of our own lives. As Einstein put it,

A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe'; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely but striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security." (See Nick Herbert, "Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics", p. 250)

I can imagine some people reading this and thinking (as I did the first time I ran across this idea), “Try telling a light bulb who is aware of herself that light bulbs are not important”. Fair enough. But we have thousands of years of Buddhist, Hindu and other traditions in which individual death has not held the power of people as it does in Western society. We westerners are much more individualistic than most other peoples have been. This is both our blessing and our curse. It is a blessing in some ways because our belief that we should take off our social mask and become creative has made our society the most productive, by far, in human history in terms of creating knowledge that allows us to control our environment. But this very emphasis on our individual importance makes us fear our own demise in ways that confuse many Easterners. They are much more humble about their place in the cosmos. They tend to see themselves as part of a whole rather than wholes in and of themselves. This takes away much of death’s sting.

Ironically, for the Westerner putting on an “individual” mask often means releasing herself from much of the individual emphasis of the West and thus coming to see herself much more as a part of the integrated whole of life.

It takes time for this counterintuitive set of ideas sink in. Become more individual by being less individualistic? The extinguishment of my own individual consciousness does not matter?! Etc. I think that it was well over a year ago that I first ran into these concepts and it has taken all of th time since then, coupled with a lot of reading and thinking, for them to feel comfortable; right. Perhaps for others who are brighter of more mentally flexible than I am it will not take so long. But in any event, I can state with conviction that once these ideas take root, they change us in important ways. We can simply revel in the period of our own creativity and watch with bemusement as our individual light fades and others take its place and function. This is as it always has been on this Earth, and for all we can tell will always be. We live; we create; we tire; and we depart the scene having left a legacy in terms of our genes, ideas, actions and inactions, and the myriad other influence we have exerted on life around us. A butterfly’s wing in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas. What can a human life cause as its influence cascades down through the generations? Think in particular of the causal chain started by one boy in England (my great grandfather) who joined the Mormon Church and moved to America in order to take up the challenge and opportunity to better himself this new and radical worldview offered. He believed that he was a “god in embryo” and left all he know to follow a dream. How many lives have been changed by that act of faith and courage alone? Or how about the faithful Mormon or Taliban or Hindu etc. who radically changes her worldview to bring it more into line with a naturalistic understanding of our world. How many lives will be changed by such an act of faith and courage?

Throughout our adult and hence more aware aspect of life, and particularly as we feel our departure approaching, we feel connected to all those who have gone before us and those yet to come, and feel deep gratitude for the chance we have had to be conscious of our tiny slice of life and to have contributed something for those we love. In this contribution and its continuing effect on all those to whom we become connected by infinite chains of cause and effect, we live on.

This philosophy is at least as justifiable as the traditional Western fear of death, and I would suggest, much more pragmatic. Why should we spend a great deal of energy worrying about what we can’t know – that is, what (if anything) will come next?
topic image
A Summary Of How Denial Works
Friday, Sep 9, 2005, at 06:59 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I am pulling together my notes on this topic, and am trying to synthesize them into a set of working principles that is short and simple enough for me to remember. I would be grateful to anyone who cares to read this and tell me if they can think of any areas of research that are inconsistent with what I have put together. I will spare you the 150 pages of notes.

All the best,

bob

The empirical and theoretical research produced by sociology, social psychology and psychology (as summarized above) can be synthesized into a description of a few features of human behavior that Mormonism is well suited to take advantage of. These can be stated as follows:

· Our perceptive faculties and brains do not primarily record objective information. They rather function in a manner consistent with what evolutionary theory indicates to be our most basic objectives – they help us to maximize our probability of survival and reproduction. Hence, we have an astonishing ability to more or less accurately perceive those aspects of reality that seem to increase the probability of our accomplishing those two objectives, and to suppress those aspects of reality that seem to hinder us in that regard.

· Our evolutionary imperative mandates many forms of relatively accurate perception, some of the most interesting of which are summarized in the heuristics research, and two overriding types of misperception which are as follows:

o The first type of misperception relates to the importance of the group historically to our individual survival and prosperity. I will call this “group induced misperception”. It causes us to largely accept as “real” what we perceive to be important to the group’s survival and prosperity and to suppress information that we perceive to threaten the group. Think, for example, of Bourdieu’s “misrecognition” concept and the authority bias research. Most of the bias research can be explained by this concept as well.

o The second type of misperception is caused by our need to feel secure within the group as individuals. For example, if our contribution v. our cost to the group does not meet some minimal standard, we may be pushed out and when our instincts were formed by evolution this likely often meant death. And the greater our status within the group, the greater our security and reproductive opportunity will tend to be. While this was likely true when our instincts were formed, it is still true in different ways now. I will call this second type of misperception “ego induced misperception”. Think, for example, of the justification bias research.

· Our inherited beliefs are the cumulative effect of the our group’s historic perceptions, which evolved for the practical purposes just noted and are almost certain to be inaccurate to a significant extent. See the information above regarding social context and “premises”.

· We will be slower to accept accurate information that conflicts with an inaccurate belief we hold than would a similarly educated and intelligent person who was not burdened by our inaccurate belief. This is likely in part because our brains format around our inherited beliefs. However, we behave this way with regard to inherited beliefs as well beliefs formed on a deliberatively rational basis in adulthood. This feature of our psychology likely evolved as a result of the importance of inherited beliefs to group stability and the likelihood that wisdom passed on to us by our elders of a more practical sort would be on balance adaptive. The confirmation bias research bears this out. This is one of the most pervasive and harmful cognitive biases.

· Emotion is largely driven by the older structures within the brain’s core, while deliberative reason of the type used in the scientific method is largely driven by structures that evolved more recently and are in the cerebral cortex. The older, cruder brain structures tend to overcome the more recent rational structures when they are pitted against each other. See the information above related to reason v. emotion.

· The more heavily we are influenced by emotion as opposed to reason (“ecological rationality” as opposed to “deliberative rationality”), the greater our tendency to misperceive. This increases the probability that we will act in accordance with our evolutionary imperative when confronted with evidence, whether accurate or inaccurate, that could threaten our group or our place in it. See, for example, the information above regarding taboos, ecological rationality, reason v. emotion, and value structures.

· We tend to equate strong feelings with “knowing”. This enhances our tendency to be certain of whatever moves us most deeply from an emotional point of view, whether it related to fear or desire, and so strengthens the tendencies already noted.

· Powerful emotional experiences, often characterized as “spiritual experiences”, result from both normal brain functioning and brain dysfunction. They are sometimes the result of solitary contemplation or other individual experience, and sometimes the result of group interaction of various sorts. These experiences are human universals and are both rationally and irrationally used in most human groups to support their foundational beliefs. See the information above related to spiritual experience and the emotion of elation.

· We are not as affected by emotion when examining the experience of other individuals or groups as we are when attempting to understand our own experience, and hence are able to see irrational behavior in others that we cannot see in ourselves. See the information above related to the pattern of insider belief and outsider rejection.

· Human tendencies evolve because they are on balance adaptive at the time of evolution. Hence, a tendency like the authority bias may have been adaptive on balance, but in some cases maladaptive. This would be particularly so from the perspective of many individuals within the group since the authority bias likely evolved to strengthen groups, and so only indirectly to benefit individual members of groups. And yet individual members of the group would be subject to it whether it was adaptive for them or not. Individuals who become aware of this can now often leave groups that work contrary to their particular interest, but should be expected to instinctively fear doing so for the reasons indicated.

· Human culture changes much more quickly than human biology. So human tendencies that evolved because they were at one time adaptive on balance (such as the authority bias) may persist after they are less adaptive on balance or even maladaptive. The declining importance of adherence to the dictates of certain kinds of small group authority makes the authority bias a likely an example of this. This explains why entire groups are instinctively held together when the costs them impose on their members is far greater than the collective benefits the members receive. Jonestown is likely an example of such a group.

Let’s now condense these principles by another order of magnitude to see if we can get a “take away” concept that is concise enough to be remembered.

· The human capacity to perceive evolved to make it more likely that we would survive and propagate in our physical and social environment (our “evolutionary environment”) at the time we evolved. In our evolutionary environment the well-being of our dominant, small social group and our security within it were far more important to our survival and reproductive opportunities than is now generally the case. Therefore, both in our evolutionary environment and now, when we are confronted with information that might threaten one of our group’s foundational values and hence threaten our group, we tend to misperceive the information so that it is not threatening. The same is true with regard to information that might threaten our place within the group.

· We are more likely to misperceive when under the influence of our emotions. Our emotions tend to flare when our group’s foundational values or our place in the group are threatened. However, we tend to rational when examining the foundational values of other groups, and so can spot their irrationality. The obvious irrationality of other groups coupled with our inability to perceive our own irrationality strengthens our group. And particularly powerful emotional experiences, often characterized as “spiritual experiences”, are human universals. These are used in most human groups to support their foundational beliefs.

That is short enough that it will do the trick for me.

So, how does Mormonism use these attributes of human behavior to strengthen itself?

· Mormonism emphasizes the possibility of knowing impossible to know and deeply comforting things with certainty, thus taking advantage of the human dislike of dissonance, bias toward certainty and fear of death and social instability.

· Mormonism emphasizes emotional feeling as a form of knowledge that should take precedence over “rational” or “intellectual” knowledge whenever there is a conflict, and encourages both group and individual behavour that will increase the likelihood of powerful emotional experiences. This supercharges the irrational effect emotion has within the Mormon community.

· Mormonism maintains control over as many of life’s experiences as possible that tend to produce positive emotions, and takes as much credit as possible for those feelings. These feelings are then used as evidence that Mormonism’s truth claims are “true”.

· Among Mormonism’s inherited beliefs we find a few that raise the fear and desire stakes, thus intensifying an already powerful authority bias and making Mormons more prone to the irrational effect of emotion. The most significant of these is that only those obedient to Mormon authority will be reunited after death in the Celestial Kingdom with their families in a state of unimaginable joy. This concept’s most pervasive influence comes from its making complete obedience to Mormon authority a condition to family life after death. This means that any strong taboo set up by Mormon leaders will evoke the fear response, which will impair reason. For the last several decades one of Mormonism strongest taboos has been against reading or talking about information that questions Mormon authority, regardless of the information’s academic merit. Hence, the first hurdle most Mormons must get over when faced with information that questions the Mormon belief system is an irrationality inducing fear response caused by themere idea that one might look at such information. If that can be overcome, the fear response that in most groups would be caused by seriously considering information that questions foundation group values must then be dealt with.

· Mormonism monopolizes its members' time and suppresses information that conflicts with Mormon belief, thus slowing the manner in which cognitive dissonance of various types will build within the Mormon population, and the opportunity reason will have to calm emotion and so overcome emotional irrationality. Importantly, it is taboo to read or talk about anything that questions Mormon authority. The mere appearance of this information is therefore enough to evoke a strong fear response in most Mormons, and so impair their rational faculties.

· Mormonism uses a host of group and individual rituals that are likely to amplify the effect of various biases and cause both group and ego induced misperception so as to strengthen the Mormon group. The emphasis on constant vocal affirmation of Mormon belief through public or semi-public scripture reading, praying and testimony bearing of various types is central to this.

What that is far from complete, it is good enough for present purposes.

When we add all of the above factors us, we should not be surprised that it is excruciatingly difficult for the typical faithful Mormon to look any information in the eye that questions the legitimacy of the beliefs on which his life is based.

So, we should not be surprised that it takes many of us until mid-life to “wake up”. And, we should not be surprised that many of our family and friends will never wake up. In fact, we should expect those who wake up to be in the minority. The force of denial within a heavily conditioned, socially tight community like most Mormon communities should be expected to be powerful.

On the basis of the foregoing, I feel justified to conclude that under the influence of the powerful personal experiences and social conditioning I have noted, the socially relative becomes more real than every day waking reality for many religious believers, including many Mormons, creating barriers to the kind of understanding across religious and other cultural lines that is becoming increasingly important in our shrinking world. The amounts to the denial of many kinds of highly probable reality, and explains to me both my own experience, and those of believers within many other traditions.

In sum, we should expect Mormons who have been fully conditioned by their community to be highly resistant to any information that challenges their beliefs. And, if for some reason a faithful Mormon is put in a position where the certainty he has felt that the Mormon worldview is “true” collapses, we should expect that to be a trauma on par with losing a close family member to death.
topic image
Mormonism's Response To Secularization
Friday, Sep 9, 2005, at 07:07 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
This is a contribution I made recently to a science and religion list on which I participate.

All the best,

bob

My continued reading here confirms that I have far more to learn than to contribute to those of you who have been at this science and religion stuff much longer than have I. Thank you all for some recent wonderful insights and challenging thoughts.

I stumbled across something a short time ago that puts some of what we are discussing regarding how to interface religious naturalism (RN) with the religious community in context. Many of you may already be aware of these old ideas. But since I needed to summarize them for my own purposes, I will share that summary here as my contribution to the community stew pot and hope that it is useful to some. This material runs more toward the "tactical" interest than in developing a positive statement of what RN is, in which I am also interested.

Swenson ("Society, Spirituality and the Sacred - A Social Scientific Introduction" (Broadview Press) (1999)) at pp. 347 - 384 summarizes the academic literature with regard to the secularization of society, including various ways in which the tension between science and other secular forces and institutional religion have been described. While creating a useful synthesis, he could not avoid treating us to a dizzying display of the scholarly propensity to create language and taxonomy to describe the similar if not identical phenomena.

One of the scholars whose thought Swenson reviews is Peter Berger. Berger builds on some of Max Weber and others' foundational concepts related to religion's changing role in society. After summarizing various ways in which religion has been marginalized by forces of secularization, Berger observes three responses at work in the religious community, as follows: The deductive; the reductive; and the inductive. I note, showing the same itch the results of which Swenson highlighted, that Berger's labels could easily be improved.

The Deductive

This amounts to a reaffirmation of the religious tradition. It is neo-orthodoxy, fundamentalism, retrenchment, etc. As Karen Armstrong has pointed out in "The Battle for God", each of the major religious faiths have shown increasing signs of this tendency during the past several decades.

The Reductive

This acknowledges science and philosophy as humanity's most authoritative guides, thus radically diluting religious authority. Theologians of this bent accommodate their religious views to secular authorities by using two primary tools, "cognitive bargaining" and "translating". Cognitive bargaining amounts to deliteralizing or metaphorizing what was traditionally assumed to be literal. That is, the Virgin Birth and Resurrection are important symbols, not real events. Translating involves what Berger terms the conversion of the "transcendent" into the "immanent". That is, religion is not about a relationship to a "sacred" force external to human beings, but rather is about identifying, understanding and relating to forces internal to human individual and groups. This involves interpreting old terms (often with traditional, literal meanings) in new (often metaphoric) ways. I thought of words like "religious", "spiritual", "sacred" in their RN context as I read this.

The Inductive

This is the movement from tradition or ideology to experience, which ironically is to walk back up the path religion has walked. Anciently, religion was more about experience than belief. The ascendance of ideology within religion is a relatively recent phenomenon. In his inductive approach, Berger follows the lead of Friedrich Schleiermacher who took human experience as the starting point of religious reflection and considered revelation to be every new or original disclosure of the cosmos to the innermost consciousness of the person. So, one begins with the widest variety of these experiences (as la William James, who was influenced by Schleiermacher) and induces from that what is common and so assumed to be most important. This induction is never complete, in part because human experience continues to change and in part because there is will always be new ways to interpret old experience. However, individuals and institutions often perceive induction to have done its job, or are not aware that a process is underway.

Berger's Synthesis

Berger believes that the inductive option provides the best way forward. Deduction, he believes, is a step backwards that shuts out much of the good modernity and post modernity have to offer. Reduction, he believes, often unnecessarily desacralizes human experience. Induction, he says, better preserves sacred experience and facilitates a process that will allow religious experience and institutions to change as the human condition and shape of human society changes from time to time and place to place.

Berger also concludes that the modern world has freed, and so ironically at the same time, isolated humans in new ways. We are thus put in a position to make decisions outside the monopolistic reach of religious institutions while understanding that sacred "reality" (in Otto's "mysterium tremendum" and "fascinadus" sense) and our subjective complex of wishes and desires are separate phenomena. Berger says that it is our connection to the permanent, sacred stratum of reality that carries us through the uncertainty of modern life. I infer that in his view this is where we find our most important meanings. Berger says that we cannot connect to the sacred sufficiently as individuals, and hence there is a continuing important role for religious institutions to provide the small group association that we need for other purposes, and a "plausibility structure" (justification by apparent authority) for our experience with the sacred.

My Commentary

Berger's analysis is helpful in terms of identifying different segments of the religious marketplace that will respond differently to what Religious Naturalism (RN) has to offer. As noted below, this is complicated by the fact that each tradition, denomination and congregation will have representatives from each segment within it. And even in individual believers we will find elements of each form of thought described above. It will be more a question of which is dominant over which aspects of the individual's belief system.

I see the inductive approach as more an extension of the reductive than a separate category. That is, the inductive approach will also accept science and other secular sources of interpreting experience as authoritative. I observe that the older a tradition is the more likely it is to have incorporated inductive elements. For example, of the religious traditions I know Judaism is the most "praxis" and the least theologically inclined. Its stories are also the oldest and hence easiest to metaphorize. And its history has humbled its theology, for the most part. However, a review of the Midrash (among other things) shows that this has not always been the case, and there are parts of the contemporary Jewish community that still take theology very seriously. And at the other end of the spectrum we have our friend Rabbi Oler and his association of humanist synagogues. Much of Catholocism, despite protestations from the top, is also more praxis than ideological. Others could perhaps comment regarding how the Eastern traditions run along this axis.

The important distinction for those interested in encouraging the acceptance of RN is that between the deductive v. reductive/inductive. This is, as just noted, because the deductionists have surrendered much less authority to science and other secular sources of knowledge than have the reductionists/inductionists. The deductionists seek to turn back the clock (or keep it from advancing) in terms of who has authority to speak with regard to various matters. So, the critical question to address in deciding how to approach a particular person or group is likely, "How deductive are they, and about which issues?" Selling RN in the deductive market will be much trickier than elsewhere. That topic is complex enough that I won't broach it here.

Adding the inductive to the reductive approach is, in my view, relatively easy for the reasons noted above. And I see RN as particularly well suited to doing that. This is, largely, how I interpret Ursula's book "The Sacred Depths of Nature". In addition to reductively "translating" some religious terms, it brings a new-to-many-people understanding of evolutionary biology that sacralizes our perception of ourselves, life in general and physical reality in precisely the sense Berger indicates. It assumes an immanent perspective to the sacred while encouraging sacred feelings through the contemplation of the miracle that is life in the context of reality as we are now justified to apprehend it. In this sense, it can be understood as doing little more than helping us to better understand the scope of the immanence sacred. This is why Ursula's version of the RN message is so welcome in certain quarters. It helps people with a reductive point of view to resacralize. And since Ursula would threaten those who resist the authority of science, and hence I don't hear of her being invited to Evangelical congregations.

This analysis has helped me to understand something that has long puzzled me about Mormonism and that I believe is central to understanding how to deal with the deductive faiths in general. Mormonism is mostly deductive in a sense, but it is not really "neo-orthodox" because it is young enough never to have been anything but orthodox. However, Mormonism has dealt with many issues over the years that have forced it to deliteralize certain of its beliefs, and it is at present beginning to grapple with the deliteralization of its core mythology - that related to Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon. Within Mormonism, however, deliteralization has never moved from the academic fringe into the mainstream and where accepted has been largely treated as a kind of secret gnosis - a "meat" for which the masses are not ready. Recently, signs of the inductive approach have also appeared within the Mormon intellectual fringe and are also Gnostic in the sense just indicated. It is my view that many of Mormonism's highest leaders are aware that the reductive and inductive process is underway and recognize it as necessary to a degree since many Mormon myths are young enough that they can be falsified in the scientific sense. So reduction and induction may be the lesser of evils in some cases, as they have been found to be by large branches of Christianity. However, Mormon leaders are trying to manage this process so that they minimize their loss of their influence. They are doing many things in this regard. I won't bore you here with examples. Suffice it to note that as long as they are helped to hang onto their congregants, they will be much less inclined to resist what RN has to offer while not going out of their way to preach it from the pulpit.

While I liked most of Berger's analysis, from what I read it overemphasized both the permanence and importance of sacred "reality". While humans share a common tendency to feel what scholars like Schleiermacher, Durkheim, Otto and James have so well described, the nature of the sacred experience in my view radically changes once we shift from a transcendent to an immanent perspective. Berger hits this nail on the head when he described the feeling of freedom, power and "aloneness" that accompanies modernity, and then he somehow returns to the essence of the "sacred" experience as his social and individual lynchpin. Perhaps I just don't understand him yet, but what so far what I have understood does not work for me. And in my view, secular experience in parts of Europe and Canada indicate that people adjust to their loss of traditional conceptions of the "sacred other" and having done so, regard those as bizarre impositions.

I would prefer to adjust Berger's analysis (as I understand it from what is admittedly no more than a survey of his thought) to include reference to another kind of reality - objective physical and social reality as we are justified from time to time in apprehending them. This understanding So, I would modify Berger's final synthesis as follows.

We understand that there is a difference between the objective physical and social reality of which we are a part and our subjective complex of perceptions, wishes and desires. Our journey through the uncertainty of modern life is stabilized by our understanding, refined by as many well-tested points of view as possible, that:
  • we are interconnected to that reality
  • these interconnections inspire in us feelings that we have in common to large degree with all of humanity, including wonder, reverence and terror, as reality unfolds in understandable as well as inscrutable ways before us;
  • our actions have profound short and long term effects on those we love, all other life forms of which we are aware, and many other aspects of physical realty; and
  • a concerted effort is now required of us if we wish to preserve life as we know it.
We recognize our heritage as small group animals and hence acknowledge our need for companionship and in particular, sharing our most important meanings and purposes with other humans outside of our families. We also acknowledge our hierarchical nature and hence inclination toward authority. Thus, we recognize the role of social (including religious) institutions in providing a structure and "plausibility structure" within which we can have some of our most meaningful experiences.

References:

Peter Berger, The Heretical Imperative, (1979).
Peter Berger, A Far Glory: The Quest for Faith in an Age of Credulity (1992)
Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy, (1969)
Emil Durkheim, Sociology and Philosophy, (1974:48).
Phillip Hammond, Religion in the Modern World, in James Davidson Hunter and Stephen C. Ainlay (eds.) Making Sense of Modern Times (p. 143-158) (1986).
William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience, (1902:38)
Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, (1958)
Friedrich Schleiermacher, On Religion - Speeches to its Cultural Despisers (1988) [1799].
Donald S. Swenson, Society, Spirituality and the Sacred - A Social Scientific Introduction, (1999).
Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations, (1947).
Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion, (1963).
topic image
Personal Mythologies And The DSM - IV
Monday, Sep 19, 2005, at 06:52 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
One of the projects I have had going for some time is that of putting together a manual for people undergoing the crisis of conservative or fundamentalist religious faith through which I went a few years ago. Hence, when I run across material that is relevant to that topic, I file it away. Last night while doing some reading unrelated to that topic, I stumbled across some interesting information in that regard that may be of interest to some here.

I was not aware that the DSM - IV has a category dealing with religious or spiritual crises. See http://www.spiritualcompetency.com/jh.... David Lukoff (see https://www.saybrook.edu/app/showcv.a...) is one of the drivers in this field. Several of his publications deal with the importance of the narrative self, and "personal mythologies" to sound mental health. A disruption one's personal mythology related to religion can cause a form of mental dysfunction that is dealt with by the DSM - IV.

For an online summary of some of Lukoff's views regarding the restructuring of personal mythologies in the wake of foundational changes in religious perspective, see http://www.virtualcs.com/blackboard/l... As I read this and then thought about it last night, it seemd to me that Lukoff has nicely summarized the process through which I went, and in my case, the personal mythology that made the most sense was the Religious Naturalism (RN) story that Ursula Goodenough tells so well (See "The Sacred Depths of Nature") tells so well. I had worked out 90% of that on my own by reading Einstein and others before I knew anything about RN, and so when I ran into Ursula's book a few months ago, and then ended up at Star Island (See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.star...), it was liking walking into a reunion for a high school I had forgotten thatI had attended.

The DSM - IV does not (as far as I can tell) come close to prescribing something like RN as a personal mythology. Indeed, it seems to leave the door open to many types of mythology, as long as they take the patient in the direction of better mental health. I was troubled by some aspects of Lukoff's presentation. For example, the use of the term "non-consensual reality" is problematic for me. He seems to be saying that odd non-consensual realities (like, for example, the kind of think David Hufford was describing on Star Island re. sleep paralysis) should be accepted as real in some way that I don't yet understand as long as they don't interfere with one's ability to deal with consensual reality in a socially acceptable way. I don't know enough about how Lukoff thinks the interface between those two "realities" works to at this point to more than sound a cautionary note. Too much of psychotherapy, from what I can tell, relies upon the placebo affect and invites patients to infer realities that do not exist because something seems to "work". Once started down that path, the likelihood of magical thinking is too high to be healthy, in my view.

Without trying to exhaustively analyze what Lukoff has to say, it seem to me that the manner in which the DSM-IV deals with religious issues invites RN to present a treatment modality, grounded in the kind of personal mythology Lukoff says is necessary to mental health (and here I am on all fours with him), that has many advantages in terms of grounding the patient in the most reliable epistemic and ontological foundation the world has to offer at this juncture while at the same time dealing with crisis. And if this works for clinical cases, why would not not work for the many sub-clinical cases? This approach, I would argue, is most likely to help the patient to develop the means to protect herself against her own weaknesses and the occasionally human proclivity to take advantage of the weak. Etc.

Yesterday and today are close to perfect days in the Canadian Rocky Mountain foothills. Fall here is more an event than a season. The nights cool and the leaves change color and fall in a couple of weeks. We are in the midst of these weeks now. Nights near freezing. Indian summer days. Color everywhere. Bugs dead. Little wind. Close to perfection. It is good to be alive.

Best,

bob
topic image
When are we justified in thinking that we "know: something?: A Case Study regarding Martha Beck and "Leaving the Saints"
Monday, Sep 26, 2005, at 08:22 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I posted something this morning at http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor... relative to Beck and her well-worth-reading book. A little while ago I received an email form someone whose views I respect politely taking me to task for some aspects of what I said there. Since I think that my response outlines some things that are important regarding how we think we come to “know” things relative to whatever moves us powerfully at the emotional level, I will reproduce here some of what I said to my friend, edited to make it appropriate to this forum.

All the best,

bob

My friend started out by asking me to read something related to Elizabeth Loftus (she is referred to extensively in my review of Martha’s book at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.leav...).

I replied:

Thanks for that. I have read a lot about Loftus and the Jane Doe case, but had not read that. I don't think, however, that it changes anything with regard to the recovered memory issue. Here is the quote I like best in that regard (from my review):

“Are repressed memories accurate? Both those who argue that repressed memories are always false and those who argue that repressed memories are always true (because, like the fly caught in amber, they are solidified and impervious to later contamination by influence or suggestion) appear to be mistaken. Although the science is limited on this issue, the only three relevant studies conclude that repressed memories are no more and no less accurate than continuous memories (Dalenberg, 1996; Widom and Morris, 1997; Williams, 1995). Thus, courts and therapists should consider repressed memories no differently than they consider ordinary memories.

“The science clearly directs us away from the distracting issue of the existence of repressed memories, and toward the psychologically and legally significant issue of the validity of particular memories. The therapy room and the courtroom both benefit from distinguishing true and false memories (Scheflin, 1998). The science of memory shows that 1) memory is remarkably accurate for the gist of events, and less accurate for peripheral details; 2) all memories, repressed or continually remembered, may be influenced by later events or by the method of retrieval; and 3) all memories, whether implicit or explicit, may exert an influence on behavior (Schacter, 1999). With a renewed concentration on how memories are retrieved or influenced, therapists and lawyers might again be able to work as associates, not adversaries.” (see http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p9911...)

What we are really talking about is when a person is justified in believing that something did, or did not, happen. This is of course central to the formation of all beliefs, including our beloved Mormon beliefs (as they were). So, let me reframe our discussion of Beck's book along those lines.

I agree with most of what you said re. the consistency of her symptomology, etc. to that of people who have suffered sexual abuse. But the woman has a PhD in sociology. She has read all kinds of self-help books as well as academic research. Her memories were recovered during the height of this issues publicity in Utah. For some background on that topic, see http://www.cesnur.org/2001/archive/mi... Are we not believe that Martha was not familiar with what "worked" and did not work from a symptomology point of view? And we need look no further than her book itself to find evidence that she remembers things selectively and in Technicolor as required to spice up a story. Her trauma and the way human memory functions in general could easily do the rest that was needed to produce her story. And again, I am not saying that they did. I am saying that they well could, and she has not discharged her burden of proof in that regard as far as I am concerned. So, I am not prepared to say that just because she told the story in a manner consistent with how it is told by people who are proven to some degree of certainty to have been abused means that she was also abused.

I am familiar with her evidence re. vaginal scarring, and mentioned it in my review several times. The point there is that she asserts something that could be interpreted in many ways, and the physical evidence could range widely in nature once it is actually examined. One would need medical expert testimony to see what the evidence actually indicates.

I agree with your analysis of why kids who have been abused often repress their memories. However, the probability of anyone remembering an emotionally charged event accurately is far less likely than remembering a less emotionally charged event accurately. And, the probability of remembering more than the "gist" of any event accurately is remote. Nonetheless, we are inclined toward certainty in our memories.

So, are kids abused? Absolutely. It is hard to figure out what happened? Terrifically hard. By chance, last night I was at the memorial service for one of my partners (cancer; 50; very sad; wonderful service without a single mention of god) and spent half an hour chatting with a family court judge. She was talking about some of her recent cases in which child sexual abuse is an issue. This is abuse that is either alleged to be occuring now, or in the recent past, and is part of the landscape for custody battles. She made a number of comments that were telling. First, the incidence of this allegation has skyrocketed during the last 15 years. She believes that in a high percentage of the cases the allegations are false, but does not accuse anyone of lying. She is well versed in the memory research. I was surprised, and pleased, by how well informed she was re Loftus and other researchers. She believes that the emotional turmoil of the divorce and custody battle causes both spouses to use anything they can get their hands on as weapons and warps their perceptions of reality. The kids are caught in the middle and have things suggested to them by well meaning parents and others. Most counselors in the larger centers do a pretty good job avoiding this (because of the publicity people like Loftus gave to the false recovered memory thing years ago), but in the smaller centers some of the counseling is off the wall.

This is what I thought as I listened to this wise woman last night - If it is so hard for someone with the tools of the court at her disposal, whose job it is every day to find out "what happened", to get comfortable with what happened six months ago (or even a few weeks ago) in a sexual abuse allegation case, it seems a real stretch for those who are inclined toward certainty in something like the Beck case before the relevant evidence has even been gathered or tested.

You suggested that the "alien abduction" scenario gives the argument against recovered memories an unwarranted pejorative twist. I think that you and I are emphasizing different aspects of the alien abduction research. McNally started in that area looking at recovered memory and ended up studying sleep paralysis. That is the axis that interests me, because there is a link there that has strong predictive ability. If someone shows the physical symptoms related to sleep paralysis and has certain terrifying memories, we should be more skeptical of what they have remembered. That does not mean that we dismiss their story, but we should be more skeptical. I think it is fair to point out that for people who exhibit the sleep paralysis symptoms (rooted in a REM sleep dysfunction) we should not be skeptical of those who report alien abductions but not bat an eye at those who report sexual abuse. Indeed, alien abduction reports often include sexual abuse of ritual and other types.

On the other hand, where sleep paralysis does not seem to be relevant we should not use what the research in that area has shown to cast more doubt than already exists on those who report sexual abuse. The important thing here is that we have some traction regarding sleep paralysis in things that can be medically tested. If we can use this, great. If not, it is not helpful as a diagnostic tool. Perhaps I did not make that clear enough in what I posted earlier.

I agree that the alien abduction stuff could be used inappropriately, and as noted above I would be critical of anyone who attempted to wave that flag over someone's story so as to dismiss it without a fair hearing. Martha will get the most fair hearing you can imagine from me. It is still going on. But she will not get me to accept her story with regard to something as earth shattering as an incest allegation without more than the assertion of incomplete and untested evidence. By "incomplete" I mean that the other side of the story has not been heard. One of the first things one learns as a lawyer is that your clients’ case is usually at its best just after you have heard it from your clients. This is not because all your clients are liars, it is because the nature of human beings it to perceive reality so as to justify their day-to-day actions and overall way of life. So, as the other side's story comes out and evidence is tested, I ALWAYS expect the story my client told me to change and usually to weaken.

The alien abduction stuff is also relevant because it shows how moving things that only happen in our heads can be. We should expect some experiences of this nature of be utterly compelling. This is a cautionary flag that we should raise for all to see, not just with regard to Beck but with regard to all life events that have powerful emotional content, such as many linked to our Mormon experience. They are the ones most likely to be misinterpreted along axes most likely to justify our dominant social drivers. This is what puts Mormons into denial regarding many aspects of their history and culture, for example. Again, I don't suggest that Martha is doing this. I am pointing out a broad based phenomena that affect the standards of justified belief with regard to particular phenomena. Anyone who comes forward with the kind of allegation Martha has should bear a heavy onus of proof. Until she has met it, the responsible thing to do if one does not have to make a decision is to hold fire. And I say this with theutmost respect for her personally and the work she has done and is going on various fronts. This may be a little like Mike Quinn, or Newton for that matter. Martha Beck’s reputation and utility as a scholar or person does not stand or fall in my mind on whether she is accurate in her recollection of what happened between her and her father. History is full of people who made profoundly important contributions in certain areas while being utterly mistaken about other (usually emotionally laden) things, while acting in good faith.

I note that Martha could have told her story differently. You would enjoy Karen Armstrong's "The Spiral Staircase" (about leaving a Catholic nunnery) I am sure, which is much more measured than "Leaving the Saints". Martha could have said: "Here is what I remember. I remember it vividly. It is more real than anything else I have ever experienced. I believe that it happened. I am also aware of alien abductions etc. that seem more real than real. If this did not really happen to me, then it is evidence of how badly twisted I was by the experience of growing up Mormon as the daughter of Hugh Nibley. But in any event, here is my story." By not taking that detached, and more credible point of view, and by using unwarranted hyperbole throughout the book, she has dramatically weakened the strength of her presentation.

So, I think her story is plausible, but there are many ways in which the evidence could be tested, and would be tested either if she tried to make her claim of incest legally stick, or her family tried to make sure it was laid to rest another way. So, I accept that Martha’s story is consistent with having been abused, if not exactly as she indicates then in some other way. I also accept that her story is consistent with sexual abuse. But remember my judge friend. Once you get to testing evidence, cross-examining etc., the picture usually gets foggier in her experience, not clearer. This is my experience as well. This is a function of the heavy emotional waters in which the judge deals with these issues. The waters in which Martha swam were not just heavy, they were abusive from an emotional point of view. So we should proceed with great care.

I am sensitive to the charge that by taking the approach I am I will re-victimize people who have been harmed. I think that we should take care to protect those who need protecting. My judge friend errs on the side of protecting children who might be at risk. That is the right thing to do with phenomena about what we cannot be reasonably certain. So those who may be at risk should be protected. And all of us should be educated as to how our minds work so that we can made better decisions as to what and when to believe, and of what and when to be more skeptical.

And I note that I find myself in the odd position of defending the agnostic position re. Beck's story against smart people (like you) who evidence sound critical thinking skills in many areas, and yet who seem to me to be either unduly certain that "it" did, or did not, happen based on the extant evidence. As is usually the case these days when I see certainty where I don't believe it to be warranted, I look for emotional issues that might be clouding otherwise clear minds. In the case of the newspaper editor I mentioned in my post, I think I know what those issues may be. Am I off base in your case if I suggest the same sort of thing might be in operation?

I do not have a personal stake in sexual or other forms of physical abuse (of which I am aware, anyway). So, I am not clouded by emotion on this issue and have done my best to research it as I would a legal case. I have been wrong before and may be wrong now, but nothing I have seen so far warrants certainty in this case.

Thanks for writing. I respect you and have learned from each of our exchanges.

All the best,

bob
topic image
A Few Therapy Ideas For Recovering Mormons
Friday, Oct 14, 2005, at 07:36 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
A Few Therapy Ideas for Recovering Mormons bob mccue October 13, 2005 http://mccue.cc/bob/spirituality.htm

We may define therapy as a search for value. Abraham Maslow

Abstract

See http://www.virtualcs.com/blackboard/l... and http://www.spiritualcompetency.com/jh... for a summary of information related to recovery from the kind of spiritual crisis many of us pass through as we leave Mormonism. This is based on the DSM – IV, the manual psychiatrists use to diagnose mental dysfunction. The type of trauma recovering Mormons often experience fits into the DSM – IV definition of “religious or spiritual problem”.

Recovery from spiritual trauma, such as that caused by discovering that basic religious beliefs are false, requires that we “restory” ourselves. That is, through ingesting new kinds of information, talking with people we trust about both our old way of perceiving ourselves and reality (our “personal mythology”) and new possibilities in that regard, we eventually become comfortable with a new way of seeing ourselves and our place in the world – we find a new personal mythology or narrative.

Some psychiatrists recommend that it is useful from a therapeutic point of view to develop our creative abilities while going through the restorying process. I have found drawing helpful in that regard. See “Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain” at http://www.drawright.com/ for a great way to learn to draw. It is psychology based, and teaches us how to suppress the functioning of the symbol based left side of the brain, and allow the creative and more accurately perceptive right side to dominate. As Dr. Betty Edwards (author of “Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain”) puts it, she teaches people a new way of seeing that causes them to be able to draw. I experienced this during the first two hours I spent on her course. It was a fascinating experience during which I produced for the first time in my life drawings that resembled what I was trying to draw. Those who have seen my lack of talent in this regard demonstrated (including my wife) regard these drawings as near miraculous. That is not to say that they are remarkable for anyone but me. But relative to all else I have done in that regard, they are amazing.

The feeling that results from doing the left brain suppression exercises Edwards prescribes as a prelude to drawing closely resembles the mental state associated with yoga and certain types of meditation. The symbol based, left brain is what allows us to make quick decisions and is where the simplifying assumptions we make about the world reside, including those related to religious and other cultural beliefs. It therefore can be thought of as housing much of our personally mythology. As we suppress it, we are more able to see things as they are instead as we have been taught to perceive them. This should in most cases help the restorying process along.

During a recent trip to France, my wife and I enjoyed creative writing classes, painting classes and cooking classes. Each of these in different ways required the suppression of the left brain so that the right brain could both perceive what was before us and resurrect memories in ways that the left brain cannot. We both experienced a minor rebirth as a result. It is not surprising to me that this kind of activity would be recommended by psychiatrists as a useful aid to those who are attempting to reorientate themselves after leaving a belief system like Mormonism.

Introduction

The DSM - IV (the manual used by psychiatrists to diagnose their patients) provides some interesting perspective with regard to the causes, and recommended treatment, of certain religious or spiritual problems. See http://www.spiritualcompetency.com/jh... for a summary. The purpose of this essay is to outline a few of the key concepts behind the DSM – IV in this regard, and to describe my recent experience using some of the therapies (art and creative writing therapy in particular) that are suggested for persons suffering from trauma related to the religious or spiritual aspects of life.

DSM – IV: “Religious or Spiritual Problem”

The basic ideas behind the DSM IV treatment of spiritual problems are as follows:

· The DSM – IV defines "Religious or Spiritual Problem" as including distressing experiences that involve loss or questioning of faith, problems associated with conversion to a new faith, or questioning of other spiritual values which may not necessarily be related to an organized church or religious institution.

· We conceptualize ourselves by way of stories and the role we play within them. This aspect of ourselves is referred to as the “narrative self”, and the story in which we see ourselves playing a role can be called our "personal mythology".

· In order to have sound mental health, it is essential that we feel secure within a personal mythology. It is through our role within this mythology that we perceive meaning in our lives. Another way to conceptualize this is by way of Yeats “mask” metaphor. See http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index... for a summary of this concept.

· A disruption one's personal mythology related to religion can cause a form of mental dysfunction that is dealt with by the DSM - IV. For example, if my personal mythology is derived from Mormonism, I likely perceive myself as doing god’s work here on earth and making many sacrifices in order to do so, and in exchange I am earning wonderful blessings that will mostly come to me and my family after death in the Celestial Kingdom. I perceive the world as dominated by unseen forces of good and evil that are locked in an eternal struggle, and through my action or inaction, good or sinful acts, etc. I can either harness the forces of good through my priesthood and literally subject nature to my will (as long as it is consistent with God’s will), or alternatively if I am not righteous I may fall under the influence of evil forces that can harm and deceive me in many ways. If the beliefs that underpin this belief system are shattered, I should be expected to feel somewhere between disoriented and suicidal. The DSM– IV provides the tools necessary for a psychiatrist to assess the degree of mental dysfunction the kind of trauma I just described has caused in a particular individual. And I note that this is only one of several kinds of spiritual problem that the DSM – IV identifies.

Dr. David Lukoff (see http://www.virtualcs.com/blackboard/l... and http://www.spiritualcompetency.com/jh...) describes the recovery process with regard to a spiritual trauma such as what should be expected to result from leaving Mormonism. He says that this kind of recovery requires that we learn to “retell” our personal mythology. That is, either the old personal mythology of Mormonism needs to be stretched to become believable and hence workable again, or an entirely new mythology must be developed that will ground and give meaning to the individual. Lukoff suggests that in order to do this, a lot of self expression (talk therapy) is required. Ideally, a therapist who understands the process would be found and a lot of time would be spent allowing the patient to tell the old narrative, explain why it does not work, talk about hopes, dreams and fears,talk about new sources of information that are being ingested as the therapy proceeds, and from all of this reading, talking, thinking, etc. a new personal mythology will eventually emerge, and as time passes, will stabilize.

Here is how Lukoff puts it in part:

“Psychotherapy can be seen as a process of helping clients construct a new narrative, a fresh story of their lives. In this narrative understanding, psychotherapy does not consist in the cathartic healing effect of releasing traumatic repressed events and their emotions, but in reconstructing a person's authentic story. In making interpretations, the therapist retells the patient's stories, and these retellings progressively influence [the] what and how of the stories told by patient. The end product of this interweaving of texts is a radically new, jointly authored story. Or as Hillman describes it, the client comes to therapy to be "restoryed": ‘The patient is in search of a new story, or of reconnecting with her old one. . . .The story needed to be doctored, not her.’ (pp. 17-18).”

Lukoff has nicely summarized the process through which I went. In my case, the personal mythology that made the most sense was the religious naturalism (RN) story that Ursula Goodenough (See "The Sacred Depths of Nature") tells so well. See http://www.religiousnaturalism.org/ for sources of basic information in this regard. I had worked out 90% of this on my own by reading Einstein (see http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Theolog... for example) and others before I knew anything about RN, and so when I ran into Ursula's book a few months ago, and then ended up at Star Island (See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.star...), it was liking walking into a reunion for a high school I had forgotten that I had attended.

Later in the same article, Lukoff provides the following description of a particular kind of spiritual problem that will sound familiar to many post-Mormons:

“Persons transitioning from the "culture of embeddedness" with their teachers into more independent functioning often seek psychotherapeutic help (Bogart, 1992). Vaughan (1987) reports that many individuals who have left destructive spiritual teachers reported that the experience ultimately contributed to their wisdom and maturity through meeting the challenge of restoring their integrity. One such case was described by Bogart (1992):

‘Robert had spent 8 years as the disciple of a teacher from an Asian tradition that emphasized surrender and obedience. Robert had become one of the teacher's attendants, and reported that he "Loved the teacher very much." Yet there were difficulties. … Robert left the community after the guru's sexual and financial misconduct were revealed. Upon leaving, he had intense and at times even paralyzing feelings of betrayal, anger, fear, worthlessness and guilt.

Robert went into psychotherapy with a spiritually sensitive therapist. Later in psychotherapy, he realized that his relationship with the guru replicated his relationship with his father--an angry alcoholic who had humiliated and physically injured Robert, but whose approval he had nevertheless sought. He also worked on major issues around establishing a life outside the structure of the spiritual community and integrating his spiritual beliefs and practices into this new life.’ (adapted from pp. 4-5, 16-17).”

And finally, Lukoff distinguishes between emergencies and the process of spiritual emergence that many people undergo as their religious beliefs change:

“In spiritual emergence, (another term from the transpersonal psychology literature), there is a gradual unfoldment of spiritual potential with minimal disruption in psychological/social/occupational functioning, whereas in spiritual emergency there is significant abrupt disruption in psychological/social/occupational functioning. The Benedictine monk, Brother David Steindl-Rast, describes the process:

‘Spiritual emergence is a kind of birth pang in which you yourself go through to a fuller life, a deeper life, in which some areas in your life that were not yet encompassed by this fullness of life are now integrated or called to be integrated or challenged to be integrated (cited in Bragdon, 1994, p. 18). While less disruptive than spiritual emergencies, emergence can also lead persons to seek out a therapist to help integrate their new spiritual experiences (Grof, 1993).’”

It is common for people emerging from Mormonism to go through what might be called an emergency, and then later settle into a period of emergence that may last for a long time. I hope my emergence never ends. Near the end of his life, the great artist Goya wrote “Aun aprendo” (Yet I learn) on one of his drawings. To this we may all aspire.

Do We Need Therapists?

Many reading this will realize that bulletin boards like those at Recovery from Mormonism, and The View from the Foyer (see http://www.aimoo.com/forum/freeboard....) perform the role of a therapist, to an extent. I did not go to a therapist, and in fact, the idea that I might do so did not cross my mind. Were I leaving Mormonism now, however, I think I would see if I could find a therapist with experience in a related field and buy some of his or her time. I can see how an experienced therapist with regard to the phenomena described by the DSM – IV could be profoundly helpful, and particularly so during the stage described below when many of us tend to obsess over the details of what went wrong with Mormonism at a time when the therapeutic advice suggests that we disengage fromwrestling with our past for a time and focus on developing our creative potential and ability to see things more as they really are that comes with this. I don’t believe that many people will be capable of doing this without significant support. And I did not realize how much research has been done in this field. The links about point to a number of books that indicate the depth of clinical and theoretical experience that has been developed.

Since I did not have realize that therapy was either available or advisable, I simply spent a ton of time at Recovery from Mormonism and The Foyer and elsewhere reading, writing, thinking, etc. while also reading books, sending emails and speaking with people I trusted. Out of this my personal mythology gradually emerged. But while thrashing around during the process, I would say with the benefit of hindsight that I put unnecessary pressure on a number of important relationships, and may have damaged some of them in ways that are not repairable. Hence, for those who can seek therapy, I think it is advisable. Since I am not in the business of selling therapy, this advice perhaps can bear more weight than it would from a therapist.

Spiritual Emergency v. Spiritual Emergence

I believe that I suffered a spiritual emergency when I discarded my Mormon beliefs. I could think and speak of little else for months. My work suffered. My family life suffered. Etc. Another DSM – IV category that is relevant to this process is posttraumatic stress disorder. Many recovering Mormons show many of the symptoms that define this disorder.

In my case, eventually the emergency passed and a process of spiritual change and growth commenced that is still underway. This still seems like a miracle in many ways from my point of view.

Here is what Lukoff has to say about dealing with the “emergency” aspect of this process:

“However, for spiritual emergencies, most of the models of intervention come from the transpersonal psychology literature. Grof and Grof (1990) recommend that the person temporarily discontinue active inner exploration and all forms of spiritual practice, change their diet to include more "grounding foods" (such as red meat), become involved in very simple grounding activities (such as gardening), engage in regular light exercise (such as walking), and use expressive arts (such as drawing, clay and evocative music) to allow the expression of emotions and experiences through color, forms, sound and movement. In the case described above, Kornfield made use of most of these elements to avoid hospitalizing the individual who entered a spiritual emergency during a meditation retreat. Reliance on the client's self-healing capacities is one of the main principles that guides transpersonal treatment of spiritual emergencies (Perry, 1974; Watson, 1994). In addition, psychologists should be willing to consult, work closely with or even refer to spiritual teachers who may have considerably more expertise in the specific types of crises associated with a given spiritual practice or tradition. Unfortunately mental health professionals rarely consult with religious professionals or spiritual teachers even when dealing religious and spiritual issues (Larson, Hohmann, Kessler, Meador, Boyd, and McSherry, 1988).

Another key component of treatment of spiritual emergencies is normalization of and education about the experience. While this is a common technique in therapy, it plays an especially important role with spiritual emergencies because persons in the midst of spiritual emergencies are often afraid that the unusual nature of their experiences indicates that they are "going crazy" (as described in some of the above cases). An extremely abbreviated version of normalization of an unusual spiritual experience is reported by Jung (1964) in the following case: ‘I vividly recall the case of a professor who had a sudden vision and thought he was insane. He came to see me in a state of complete panic. I simply took a 400-year-old book from the shelf and showed him an old woodcut depicting his very vision. "There's no reason for you to believe that you're insane," I said to him. "They knew about your vision 400 years ago." Whereupon he sat down entirely deflated, but once more normal.’ (p. 69)”

I first note the “normalization” point. That is what brings many people to places like RFM. They seek validation. That is why the storyboard at RFM is so powerful. Mormonism restricts its members from talking about the reality of their experience. The only expressions of belief that are permitted in public are those that support the institution, thus isolating and invalidating all who do not resonate with what is publicly stated. This, over time, causes one’s real feelings to be suppressed and creates an inauthentic manner of relating to reality and other people that can itself cause various forms of psychoses.

However, Lukoff’s suggestion for those in the initial stages of crisis was counter intuitive for me. He did not suggest digging in and figuring things out (as I tried to do), but rather withdrawing from direct contemplation of the problem to engage in what amount to strength building, healing exercises that would create a greater ability to both see and bear reality. I think this idea needs a little reworking to be useful from a Mormon point of view, and here I will take a shot at doing that, as well as describe my resent experience with these modes of therapy.

It seems clear that Lukoff is referring to people who have acknowledged that they have a problem, and so have sought out a therapist. The main problem on the way out of Mormonism is that the organization has its hooks into us in so many different ways that it is not easy to get the point at which one can look herself in the mirror and say, “I have been duped. What am I going to do about it?” A destructive act is required to get to that point. Until that extraordinarily painful destruction occurs, the “patient” will not acknowledge that she is ill and hence will not seek, or in most cases be prepared to accept, treatment. Places like RFM play an important role in providing the information that people on the fringes of Mormonism need to validate their feelings, destroy unjustified beliefs, and find sources of information to start to re-work their personal mythologies. This requires focus on the problem – precisely what Lukoff recommends we avoid while in an emergency state. I think that it is far to say that the state of emergency – if it will become such – will not occur until a person has accepted that his most basic beliefs are false. So, I suggest that Lukoff’s advice be followed as soon as the penny has fully and truly dropped. Until then, it is necessary that the focus be internal – on the issues required to falsify unjustified Mormon beliefs, and particularly, those beliefs in Mormon authority that enable Mormon leaders to be able to control a large percentage of Mormon behaviour.

My moment of truth is described at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.reve.... It is my belief that had I done what Lukoff recommends (disengaged from Mormon studies and began to explore my artistic side), it would have saved months of thrashing around and a lot of stress on some of my most important personal relationships. This belief is based both on what I have read about Lukoff’s theories, and experiences I have had during the past few weeks.

Become As A Little Child

When I came across Lukoff’s essays several months ago, my wife and I were in the process of planning a 25th anniversary trip to the south of France. We had talked about talking some cooking or other creative lessons while on that trip, and reading Lukoff made me decide to intensify that aspect of our experience. We planned to be in France for two weeks, and I am the type who goes into sensory overload if I look at art, architecture etc. all day for days at a time anyway. So, we booked a week at a creative writing course in Martrin with Sharon Colback (I highly recommend it and will write more later about that experience in particular – see http://www.writehereinfrance.co.uk/) and a week of painting and cooking courses at Saignon with Andrew Petrov and Marcia Mitchell (near Avignon – see http://www.personalprovence.com/) Again, I highly recommend this experience.

My creative writing skills are limited, I have never applied paint to canvass, and my cooking goes no further than what can be either eaten cold or warmed up. These courses were part of a conscious effort to put myself into new and uncomfortable territory. My wife Juli has long aspired to be a writer and has taken a writing course. She took her first painting class and art history class this summer and loves to cook in creative ways, particularly when it comes to deserts. So she was more than happy to include these experiences in our trip.

Before finding Lukoff’s papers that are noted above, Juli and I had already decided to incorporate some learning activities into our trip as a result of a lecture I heard Allison Gopnik (UC Berkeley) give last Spring with regard to the difference between adult and child neural functioning. Gopnik indicated that children are more conscious than adults. She used the example of what happens when an adult goes to a new city – let’s say Paris – and experiences a wide variety of new things while falling in love. Falling in love is a very intense form of new experience and one of the few things that can shock an adult human out of the relatively unconscious state in which most adults live. Most people who have experienced what Gopnik describes would agree with her – while in the state induced by new and interesting experiences the whole world seems to pulse with life while our brain is in a child-like learning mode. That is, the requirement that we learn changes our mental state, and makes us more likely to absorb and remember all kinds of things. We become aware of textures, smells, sights and sounds by which we are constantly surrounded but generally speaking unconscious. We are shocked into this state by confronting new stimuli that requires us to use our attentive faculties in ways we generally do not. While in this state, we feel more alive. Gopnik says children live this way to a much greater extent than do adults. This causes their regular displays of wonder and excitement as they encounter new things.

I had often wondered about the way in which the world seemed to come to life for me during my transition out of Mormonism. Gopnik explained that. I was, quite simply, jarred out of my “adult” mode into a child-like state. I was humbled and became anxious to learn. I needed to learn. And so I began to experience many things as a child does, including the sense of wonder and joy at new discovery. This gives new meaning (likely not intended by those who wrote the words) to the scriptural injunction that we should “become as little children.

Gopnik indicated that children are so engaged in exploring and learning that they don't get very much done. To get things done, we need to reduce our actions to largely unconscious, repetitive motions. Think of driving the car, for example. We don't need to think about that. Most of the jobs that we do require similarly low levels of conscious activity. While she did not mention Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi's research with regard to “flow” (see http://www.wie.org/j21/csiksz.asp and http://www.authentichappiness.org/), her findings are more or less consistent with what they have to say. That is, in order to be both productive and happy we need a balance between doing things that have become so routine we don't need to think about them (and so we get a lot done) and things which challenge us. The ideal mix is just enough challenge to have us continue to learn and have feedback with regardto our progress, combined with an opportunity to do things at which we are already very competent and therefore feel success and productivity. And occasionally it feels great to confront the kind of challenge we did in France, but even then, the challenge must not be so great that it overcomes us, and there must be enough positive feedback to encourage us to keep going even thought our skills are rudimentary. Our instructors structured the experience and provided feedback that was well within these requirements. Hence, we had a great time during our classes, and embarked upon sight seeing expeditions and various social experiences with our hosts and others we got to know along the way with our minds opened by the learning experience we had each morning.

Gopnik indicated that the trade-off between the time it takes to learn and the need to get things done in order for all to survive has resulted in humans evolving so as to have years as children during which they primarily do, and then a period of time as adults during which they spend most of their time getting things done. Children are put in a position where they explore their environment, re-evaluate their environment in fundamental terms and develop the set of skills necessary to cope with their environment. Accordingly, as the environment changes as a result of what adults or nature do, children develop abilities that their parents often did not have. This is an example of co-evolution – the environment changes and the organism (in this case humans) changes in response, which enables it to cause further changes to the environment, and so on. One does not need to look further than the children who were raised with computers when compared to their parents in terms of dealing with the Internet base environment.

“Drawing On The Right Side Of The Brain”

Since we had committed to take the painting lessons, I decided that I wanted to learn something about that type of artistic process before going to France. A couple of weeks before going, I bought a book that I had heard about in that regard called “Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain” (see http://www.drawright.com/). It advertised a psychology based approach to drawing that appealed to me, and came with a workbook and step-by-step exercises that made things easy to follow.

My ability to draw has long been a source of hilarity around our family and my office. I am a tax attorney, and have to draw diagrams on white boards during meetings on a regular basis to illustrate the transactions we help people to complete. These require at times symbols for buildings, oil wells, factories, etc. Any child in grade two could do as well as I do in this regard, and I am regularly kidded by my clients and colleagues as a result of the crude nature of my drawings. And my handwriting is illegible. But I was not concerned about becoming a competent artist. Rather, I wanted to have an “outside the box” learning experience that would open my mind in the fashion noted above, and would help in the manner Lukoff suggested. Artistic talent was not required for either of these functions. Nonetheless, several friends who heard that we were going to take painting lessons while in France almost laughed out loud.

I was so busy before we left on our trip that I did not open the drawing book until we were on the place flying to Toronto for a few days of business meetings before leaving for France. During the course of a four-hour flight, I read a few chapters in the book, and did the first three exercises. The result was astonishing.

Dr. Betty Edwards is the book’s author. She developed her approach as a high school teacher in California, and then turned it into a PhD thesis at UCLA where she later taught for many years. She developed her approach on the basis of the “left brain” – “right brain” research produced by Dr. Roger Sperry, who won a Nobel Prize for his research. While this area of study is still controversial and the version Edwards used is now out of date, for her purposes it works well. She quotes Richard Bergland, a well-known neurosurgeon, as follows:

"You have two brains: a left and a right. Modern brain scientists now know that your left brain is your verbal and rational brain; it thinks serially and reduces its thoughts to numbers, letters and words… Your right brain is your nonverbal and intuitive brain; it thinks in patterns, or pictures, composed of ‘whole things,’ and does not comprehend reductions, either numbers, letters, or words." (“The Fabric of Mind”, Viking Penguin, Inc., New York 1985. p.1)

That is, the left brain uses symbols. It does not see things as they are, but uses simplified versions of reality that can be quickly manipulated to get things done. The right brain, on the other hand, sees things more as they are both as wholes and in relationship to each other. It also perceives the patterns that provide the basis for our sense of meaning.

Edwards says that she teaches people a new way of seeing that causes them to be able to draw. She does this by showing us how to suppress the functioning of the symbol based left side of the brain, and allow the creative and more accurately perceptive right side to dominate. In this regard, her techniques closely resemble certain types of meditation that are designed to quiet the “chattering” that goes on continually in our minds. I could feel this quieting occur as I did some of her exercises.

The symbol based left brain is what allows us to make quick decisions and is where the simplifying assumptions we make about the world reside, including those related to religious and other cultural beliefs. As the left brain functioning is suppressed, we are more able to see things as they are instead as we have been taught to perceive them. The experience of trying to perceive an object, like a cathedral I sketched while we were in France, while the left brain is declining in influence and the right brain is taking the stage, is like watching while a curtain is pulled back and a new view opens up. As this occurs, the left brain’s chattering quiets and we pass into a quasi-meditative state.

Edward’s teaching system uses various techniques to disable the left side of the brain. For example, the first and most striking exercise I did involved turning a Picasso drawing of the Russian composer Igor Stravinsky upside down and attempting to copy it. Were the painting right side up, our dominant left brain would recognize “hand”, “foot”, “face”, etc. and would provide us with the symbols for those things. This leads to the childish drawings most of us produce. However, once the drawing is upside down, the left side of the brain does not recognize its parts in the same way, and disengages. This allows the right side of the brain to take over and allow us to see the lines in front of us as they really are instead, and more or less accurately reproduce a complicated drawing.

For me, the result was stunning. I almost woke my wife up (she was sleeping in the airplane seat beside me) to show her. And for the next two days, as I sat in a large conference hall during meetings that required very of my attention, I sketched things in the room around me. Chandeliers. Water pitchers. Pictures from newspapers, including human faces and other body parts. My own hand with the fingers pointed toward me in a claw like posture. None of these were wonderful works of art, but they were reasonable representations of what I was trying to draw. This was new territory for me. And each time I started to draw, I could feel myself entering a semi-trance of the kind I have come to associate with meditation.

Creative Writing

I am not going to try to give even a partial account of the wonderful five days we spent with Sharon Colback and two other students at Martrin, a small town near Millau in the neighborhood of France’s Tarn Valley. However, I note that many of the exercises Sharon led us through were designed to disengage the left side of the brain, though she did not speak of what we were doing in those terms. As I struggled with those exercises, I became painfully aware of how I have been trained to use the left side of my brain to control my perception of life and how much this has caused me to miss. I could feel resistance each time I tried to let go of my need to control the story I was trying to tell; my need to think logically and linearly. This made me think of the relationship between our conscious and subconscious minds.

The subconscious often acts as a kind of filter. It screens out information that would be dangerous to us, for example. This is at the root of denial, and is explained by cognitive dissonance theory (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitiv...). For example, a woman whose husband is cheating on her will likely be the last to reach that conclusion based on the evidence in front of her. Why? Because if she becomes conscious of this evidence, she will likely take action that may dramatically and negatively (in some ways) change her life. I wondered how much of a connection there was between the left/right brain dichotomy and what I had read before regarding the subconscious and conscious minds. The left brain acts as a kind of filter – a control mechanism. The subconscious does the same thing. So I perhaps should not be surprised that as I learned to take the brakes off my creative process, to reduce the influence of my subconscious and/or left brain filters, some of what came tumbling out was troubling.

Sharon recommended various exercises to enhance our creativity. Here are a few of them.

First, each morning when we awoke we were to write for 15 minutes before doing anything else, and were to write about whatever came into our heads. This could be dreams, what we looked forward to that day, what had happened the day before; whatever. It was critically important that we commit to ourselves before hand that no one would ever read what we were to write during these sessions. She said that sometimes when she did this a stream of profanity emerged. I laughed at that, and wondered out loud what could provoke that kind of language from someone as obviously genteel and cultured as Sharon. A female course-mate assured me that it must be a male of some kind, and Sharon agreed.

In any event, Sharon told us that we were not to reread, even to correct spelling, as we wrote for 15 minutes each morning; that we were to encourage whatever seemed to want to tumble out to do so; and that we were not to go back and re-read it for three weeks.

In another interesting exercise, she had us draw a river on a long sheet of paper in a fashion that would describe our lives, and then write about that. This provoked a few painful realizations, which in turn provoked a torrent of writing. In another, she had us make up characters on the basis of photographs she gave us, and then having created these essentially random characters, to write a dialogue between them. Then, having written the dialogue between them, we were to write a page of description about where they were. Then, we were to at random cut up the dialogue into sentences (or sets of sentences), do the same with the description, and then paste them (again at random) one after another onto an other sheet of paper. Amazingly, each of these made sense with little correction.

By the end of the week, I was getting to the point at which I could simply put my head down and write – just let a story rip out of me. Sharon emphasized the importance of allowing ourselves the liberty of writing a “shitty first draft” – of just letting go; letting whatever was there pour out. As already noted, I resisted that, but eventually the kind of random pouring out that Sharon’s exercises caused helped me get into a mental space were I could just let it rip. And as I did so, I recognized the same semi-trance that I have felt while doing my drawing exercises. There was a similar quieting of the left brain; elevation of the right brain (and perhaps the subconscious). What a fascinating process.

Because of the intensely creative nature of the exercises Sharon led us through, and probably the chemistry of the group, we became very close to the other people we shared our time with while at Sharon’s. And we became close to Sharon as well. We had a great time stumping around the French countryside together and will likely see each of these people again at some point. We have suggested a group reunion in Canada.

Painting

Given the fun I had with drawing, I was looking forward to the painting lessons perhaps more than anything else we had scheduled to do in France. Andrew Petrov was our instructor. He is an accomplished painter from Washington D.C. who has been living in France for about five years. He introduced us to yet another kind of letting go that without any question uses the same kind of left brain – right brain mechanism Edwards so nicely describes.

We had three mornings painting with Andrew. During the first he gave a little basic instruction about how oil painting works; how to mix colors; how to complement colors; and how to “paint falsehood with accents of truth”. This last statement to the better part of two days for me to grasp.

Just as I tended while writing toward trying to control the flow of the story (going back to correct and re-write instead of just letting it tumble out), while painting I tended to try to quickly represent what I saw before me. Our first painting, for example, was of a Roman bridge near Apt called “Pont Julien”. From the beginning of the morning, I was trying to get something that looked like the bridge on the canvass, and Andrew was slopping paint on what I thought was a good start in that direction. He wanted layers of color on the canvass. He wanted no lines; he wanted no clear edges (he was continually pulling colors I had purposely separated into each other, creating what appeared to me to be a mess). And then after a great deal of work had been done, he would slop paint all over what I had done and I would be required to start over. And from this random mess, eventually a reasonable bridge emerged. Not where I had planned. Not the part of what I had started out trying to capture. But a pleasing representation of the bridge nonetheless. And behind it, and its various backgrounds, peeked an array of hints of color as a result of the many things I had tried and Andrew had forced me to more or less cover.

“A little like life”, it eventually occurred to me. Lots of randomness. Does not proceed logically. Extremely forgiving. No need to rush, in fact most things turn out better with more time and patience. Most mistakes can be erased or painted over. At one crucial moment, I asked Andrew for some help and pointed carefully to the spot on the painting that was troubling me. He said, “You mean here?” and with his brush slopped a different color of paint over fully 1/3rd of the painting. And within 30 minutes what had initially seemed like a horrifying scar over my blossoming bridge has been absorbed seamless, and surprisingly, into the painting.

I sum up Andrew’s lessons as follows:

· Delay “ego painting” for as long as possible. Ego painting is the clear lines and visible brush strokes that finally bring definition to the painting and stoke it with the artist’s personality. This is like good foreplay before sexual intimacy – the longer the delay the more satisfying the result.

· Ask, “What is the essence of what I am seeing” when you look at your subject. Squint at it. What stands out? Think about what attracts you to it. Ask the question of yourself out loud. Andrew says that he regularly mutters to himself while he paints to get the brain moving outside its usual grooves.

· Regularly squint at your subject to see its important features. That is how we can tell what is really light and dark. That is how we can tell where to emphasize light and shadow. Only the essence stands out through the squint.

· Don’t worry about mistakes. Just get your feelings on the canvass. Don’t be afraid of “shitty first drafts”. You can erase paint. You can paint over. Just let it rip.

· Let go of ideas related to definite form. Paint what you feel in terms of color and shape, and with amazing frequency when you stand back to view the painting at a distance, you will capture the essence of what you want to represent. All you have to do is get the back relationships right. Relative size. Relative brightness or darkness. Relative location. And don’t be too precise.

· Our symbol brain (the left side) is generally what we use when looking at a painting. Hence, shapes do not have to be precise in order to be interpreted by the brain as what we want to them to be. We just have to get close, and our symbol brains and imaginations will do the rest.

· Never leave a clear edge. Our brain knows edges are clean and so our left brain interprets them as clean. But when we look carefully enough to overcome the left brain, our right brain tells us that all edges are fuzzy. And the further away they are, the more fuzzy. So paint them all fuzzy. And overemphasize what you want to stand out.

· Less is often more. Restricting a painting to a limited color pallet often makes it more brilliant as we choose colors to evoke what we feel instead of copying what we see. This was driven home from me both when Andrew made us substitute black for blue one day, and then the next when in the market we saw some brilliant black and white photography of the region, alongside color photographs. The black and whites were far more compelling than their brilliantly coloured counterparts. This was in part because of the quality of the photographer, and in part because the absence of color brought out the essence of the forms involved, which were striking. Old stone architecture; sheppards moving their sheep through fields; etc.

Recovering Mormon Therapy

Developing the ability to use the right side of the brain has powerful therapeutic benefits for those who are recovering from the effects of a domineering institution like Mormonism and are trying to develop a new personal mythology or worldview. And I can see particular wisdom in pulling away from the analysis of Mormonism once the crisis has been reached and we have accepted that our belief system is in disarray. At that point, as we begin to develop a new worldview, it is more important than ever that we perceive things accurately, as wholes, in their essences, and as they relate to each other, instead of as booming, buzzing details.

The disciplines of drawing, painting and creative writing as I experienced them in France each in different ways tended to suppress my tendency to see, think and feel as I have been taught, and enabled me to see and feel more of what was in front of me; of what was essential about the scene in front of me; and perhaps most importantly, to reinterpret various incidents in my past and to see new ways of dealing with both life as it is now and as it will become. It makes sense to me that this process would both help to calm the emergency, and would become wonderful creative fodder during the creation of a new world view.

I note in particular the analogy between what Lukoff recommends for those who are in a state of spiritual emergency and what I was being taught to do in different ways while learning to draw, write creatively and paint. Lukoff says, in essence, “Stop trying to understand the thing through analysis, introspection, etc. Just let it be. Go draw, paint, jog, garden. Be good to yourself. Don’t be strict with yourself. Don’t worry. Be happy.”

And from each of our art and writing instructors I heard continually in a variety of different ways, “let go”. They told me to stop trying to control my story. Let it tell itself. Let it tumble out. Accept, even embrace, a “shitty first draft”. Concentrate on what is really there in front of you. Keep asking yourself, “what do I see?” Squint at it. Move around and look at it from different angles. Ask out loud why it appeals to you. Play with it and how it makes you feel. Just throw paint on the canvass in shapes and colors that seem consistent with how you feel, not what you see. And don’t worry about how it looks because you can always fix it later. Let it stay in the realm of feeling and vague image for as long as possible because there it will develop in ways that will often surprise you.

Restorying ourselves is the ultimate creative, artistic act. Our palate is life itself, both already lived and as we can imagine it. We paint with our own blood and tears; write with our dreams. The more of ourselves and the reality around us we can perceive – in essence rather than detail – the more satisfying the story will be and the more authentic the role in which we can cast ourselves. Nothing makes more sense to me now than developing our ability to use the right side of the brain as we reframe our relationship to ourselves and the world, and chart our path through life as the story unfolds.

I told myself several years ago after taking the first big steps out of Mormonism that I would never again allow myself to be convinced that anything was absolutely, unshakably true. I still feel that way. What I did not realize, however, that this attitude requires of me a continual restorying. As long as I live and continue to have energy, I will be redefining myself and my relationship to the world around me. This will largely be a function of becoming more self aware, and aware of my relationship to the people around me and other aspects of my environment. The biggest revelation of the past few weeks is of the critical nature that the disciplines to which I was exposed while in France will play in this process.

The process of becoming more self-aware is like peeling an onion. Trying to see and feel like an artist, and then creating something (anything), teaches us to suppress our prejudices in ways that will be helpful in allowing more of what is in our subconscious to come to the surface and more of the reality around us to be appreciated instead of sliding by. This excites me, and does not require anything of me beyond some time. I do not need to become an artist to gain the benefits I just described. All I have to do is act like an artist. This is what will teach me about both myself and anything else I care to consider. It does not matter if I ever produce anything that anyone else will like.

As Juli and I were wondering whether we could have taken the same kind of courses in Calgary or somewhere close to home and benefited in similar ways from the exercise, she suggested that the fact that it was hard while in France to avoid being reminded that the world is full of different possibilities was helpful. The streets are narrow. The houses and other buildings look different. The people speak a language that we don’t understand. The food is different. The experience of recovering from jet lag is itself a kind of rebirth that gives the impression that one has emerged into a new world.

I agreed with her. The environment we chose for this experiment in creativity was close to ideal for our purposes. However, we cannot go to France often, and thankfully there are many opportunities to write, draw, paint, etc. around us where we live. We have both
topic image
Draft Submission To Newsweek's "My Turn" Re: Joseph Smith's Birthday And Mormonism
Tuesday, Oct 18, 2005, at 08:22 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
On another thread, someone made the useful suggestion that I turn a letter to the editor I wrote to Newsweek re. Soukup's "Mormon Odyssey" article into an essay submission to Newsweek's "My Turn" feature. 900 word limit. 150 submitted each week, from which one is chosen. Long odds, but what the hell.

Those of you who know how long winded I tend to be can imagine how hard it was for me to choose the 900 best words to pick apart Mormonism.

Here it is. Feedback appreciated. I will submit it in the next day or two.

Best,

bob

Joseph Smith, Jr. – Mormonism’s Founding Prophet Would You Buy A Used Car From This Man?

December 23, 2005 is Joseph Smith’s 200th birthday. As a result there has recently been a flurry of reporting with regard to Mormonism and Smith’s contribution to it.

Smith’s life will eventually become a great movie - lots of sex, deception, religious fervour, the rise of a powerful new religion, a run for the Presidency of the United States, and in the end Smith was murdered.

In my view, there is one question that takes Smith’s essential measure – “Was Joseph Smith trustworthy?” If so, the amazing stories he told should be taken seriously. If not, he is merely another in a depressingly long line of influential shysters.

Smith’s claims are spectacular. Among other things, he tells us that God appeared to him and commanded him not to join any of the churches then in existence because they were all “abominations”; that an angel gave him golden plates and the power to translate The Book of Mormon from those plates; that the Book of Mormon contains the literal history of God’s dealings with a Christian people who lived in the Americas from 600 BCE to 400 CE; that God sent Peter, James and John as well as John the Baptist, in person, to restore God’s authority by giving it to Smith; and that on many occasions angelic visitors or the voice of God himself came to Smith and taught him what he needed to do as the leader of God’s Kingdom on Earth.

Most of Smith's claims must be accepted or rejected solely on the basis of his trustworthiness. What does the historical record tell us in that regard?

Before Smith became God’s prophet he was a con man. He pretended to be able to see buried treasure in a small brown stone (a “seer” or “peep” stone) into which he looked by putting the stone into the bottom of a hat, covering the hat’s opening with his face and looking at the stone. He would say that he saw treasure buried on a particular property, and sometimes the property’s owner would hire him to dig up the treasure. There is no evidence that he ever found treasure, but he evidently put on quite a show. Not good enough, however, to satisfy all of his treasureless customers – we have court documents related to his conviction on charges of “glass looking” in connection with a failed treasure digging adventure.

It is interesting to note that Smith used the same “stone in a hat” routine to “translate” the Book of Mormon. Smith acknowledged that most of this “translation” occurred without the golden plates being present. See http://www.mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm for one of many credible theories with regard to how the Book of Mormon may have come into being.

Smith “married” many women. It appears in some cases that this amounted to no more than sexual intercourse that was labelled “marriage” after the fact. Several of Smith’s “wives” were young girls, others were married at the same time to other men, and in a few cases Smith sent husbands on "missions" for the Mormon Church causing them to leave town just before he propositioned their wives. The worst part of Smith’s polygamy, however, was the manner in which he denied his actions in that regard in public and private, to Mormons and non-Mormons alike, for over a decade. His excuse for this massive deception?; that the people were not ready to hear God’s will. Smith’s lying with regard to his sexual activities established a pattern of Mormon leadership deception referred to as “lying for the Lord” that has dogged Mormonism ever since.

Smith deception was not limited to sexual matters. His mode of government, for example, and other important aspects of his relationship to Mormonism were based on secrecy and deception. It seems clear that Smith believed that his status as God's “prophet” placed him above manmade legal and moral constraints. Leading Mormon historian Michael Quinn has described this as Smith's "theocratic ethics". In a theocracy, which Smith believed himself to lead, God's law (as stated by God's prophet - Smith) trumped all else. Hence, Smith became a law unto himself.

Smith’s record of a translator of ancient documents is telling. He failed in his only verifiable attempts, most notably with regard to the Book of Abraham which is still believed to be Holy Scripture by most Mormons. Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham from certain Egyptian papyrii. His failure as a translator in this regard became apparent long after his death when scholars developed the ability to read Egyptian hyroglyphs. And yet throughout his life Smith proclaimed his ability as a translator with supreme confidence and used his various “translations” as evidence of divine gift that helped him to gain and hold his following.

I have summarized only a few of Smith's noteworthy shortcomings. It seems clear that he was the type of person from whom most people would not wish to buy a used car. However, he was a charismatic huckster who was adept at hiding his history and spinning an exciting, compelling tale. No sooner had one group of followers left him than he found others. And the organization he founded, like many other well-known institutions whose murky roots are long forgotten, is a fascinating study in its own right.

Whatever Mormonism is – and that is far from clear – it is likely not whatever Joseph Smith said it was.
topic image
Continuation Of Draft Joseph Smith Essay For Newsweek Thread
Monday, Oct 24, 2005, at 08:02 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Was Joseph Smith Jr., Mormonism’s Founder, Reliable?
bob mccue
October 18, 2005
http://mccue.cc/bob/spirituality.htm

Joseph Smith Jr. would have been 200 years old on December 23, 2005. Hence, we are in the midst of a reporting flurry regarding Mormonism. Much of this shows Mormonism at its clean-cut best – attractive families; successful businessmen and politicians; Steve Young; with smiles all-round. And Mormons generally have earned their hardworking, pleasant image. However, the more we know about history the better we can understand the strengths and weaknesses of what we encounter in the present. In that neighbourly spirit, let’s consider a few of Mormonism’s foundational planks.

Joseph Smith’s claims include that God appeared to him and commanded him not to join any church because all were “abominations”; angelic visitors and the voice of God himself regularly guided Smith as he led God’s Kingdom on Earth; and God sent Peter, James and John to give Smith God’s exclusive authority. Then add lots of sex, deception, political intrigue, Smith’s run for the U.S. Presidency and claim to be “King of the Earth”, and millions who today revere him as humanity’s second most important person behind only Christ. This is quite a story.

While there are many ways to interpret Smith, one pedestrian question takes his most important measure: Was he reliable?

Before Smith became God’s prophet he was a convicted con man. Among other things, he pretended to be able to see buried treasure by looking into a small brown stone. People then paid him to find the treasure. Court records describe his conviction on fraud related charges in that regard. This cooled his enthusiasm for treasure seeking.

Then Smith began his prophetic career. He reported that God and Christ appeared to him, and that an angel gave him the golden plates from which he claimed to translate the Book of Mormon. He used his treasure seeking stone to perform this translation, mostly without the golden plates present.

Once accepted as a prophet, Smith exercised the alpha male’s traditional sexual prerogative over his followers. What he eventually called polygamous marriages were often little more than clandestine affairs. Several of Smith’s over thirty “wives” were young girls, others were already married and remained so while consorting with Smith. In a few cases Smith sent husbands out of town on long term Mormon business before propositioning their wives. Rumours of adultery and polygamy swirled around him while he gradually allowed other Mormon leaders to join him in this secret practise. Meanwhile, for over a decade Smith and the others involved denied their behaviour. This lying established a pattern of leadership deception that still dogs Mormonism.

Smith claimed to be able to translate ancient records but failed in his only verifiable attempts. For example, his mistranslation of the Book of Abraham from Egyptian papyri became apparent long after his death when scholars developed the ability to read Egyptian. And over a century of Book of Mormon scholarship has produced little to support its claims, against mountains of disconfirming evidence.

Smith’s tendency to deceive pervaded his mode of civic and church government. And he altered his personal history as well as revelations from God in ways that helped him maintain control over his followers.

While he sometimes admitted error, Smith’s most egregious deceptions were excused on the basis that God told him to lie because it was necessary. This characterized much of what is most troubling about Smith – the ends too often justified the means. In a theocracy God's law, as stated by God's prophet, trumps all. Hence, Smith became a law unto himself.

Disillusioned Mormons left Smith in droves as reality collided with his grandiose claims. But the stories he told on God’s behalf evolved so as to attract new followers. Many who stayed did not understand his shortcomings until they were so committed to Mormonism that they rationalized his deceptive behavior. The study of cognitive dissonance and cognitive bias explain how this works and why it should be expected.

Smith was murdered at a time when Mormonism was stumbling. His martyrdom caused him to become an icon that would be used for often conflicting purposes by the many groups into which his followers splintered. One such group followed Brigham Young to the Utah desert where it grew into mainstream Mormonism.

For leaders like Young, a community building myth about Smith was more useful than Smith’s history, so inconvenient fact tended to be surpressed. Hence, Smith’s deceptive tendencies were not understood until long after Mormonism reached critical mass as an American sub-culture, and even now many well-educated Mormons are unaware of their religion’s questionable beginnings. The current prosperity of many religions with unsavoury pasts illustrates that once a social group has a sufficient head of steam, it takes far more than scandal to stop the train.

However, the tension between Mormon myth and the information rich, Internet world is painful. This causes many Mormons to emphasize more than ever the idea that the powerful emotions they feel while worshipping are God’s voice affirming all Mormon beliefs, and that these feelings are the most trustworthy evidence of reality. The belief taht emotional feeling is a form of knowledge makes Mormons susceptible to manipulation of many kinds, and is likely responsible in part for Utah’s North American leading rate of white collar crime, anti-depressant consumption and several other unflattering social statistics.

So, should Smith be believed? It appears not. But his life coupled with Mormon history presents a gripping, cautionary social parable.
topic image
The Problem With Mormon Authority
Monday, Oct 24, 2005, at 08:08 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
What follows is a copy of a lightly edited letter I sent earlier today to a respected, liberal Mormon academic.

Best regards,

bob

Dr. *:

I have appreciated much of your work, and have not listened to your interview on *. I do, however, have a few things to add to what ** said to you.

Mormon leadership has from near the beginning has ridden two horses at a minimum in terms of authority. On the one hand, they claim absolute divine authority and obedience as ** noted. Countless statements from Mormon authorities can be mustered in support of this claim as well as the temple ceremony itself. And on the other hand, they claim the right to make mistakes and that such do not dilute their authority. In fact, the major defence Mormon leaders make of Joseph Smith and his error prone successors is that we cannot expect perfection from humans and that Smith was both God's prophet and human, so we should not hold him to an impossible standard. Fair enough. However, when you combine the claim for divine authority and obedience whenever you can't be proven wrong with an "out" that does not dilute your authority whenever you are proven wrong, you have something that resembles the "Texas sharpshooter's fallacy" in logic. That is, if you want to look like a great shot (or a prophet), you fire a bullet at the wall first, and then before anyone sees the hole you draw the target around it to show the hole in the middle of the bull's-eye. In similar fashion, Mormon leaders have invented and Mormon followers have accepted a system that can't be falsified. If you are right or can't be proven wrong, you are a prophet. If you are proven wrong, you made a non-prophetic error that does not affect your authority and hence the members' obligation to obey you. Followers are prevented by their belief system from using the usual connection between past error, prediction of future error, and decision as to whether to follow the advice/order of the error prone leader. Hell-of-a-deal for the leaders as long as they can can get it, and an interesting evolution of the inerrancy doctrine that was used by religious leaders in times when they were questioned less than religious leaders tend to be now.

And what about the Mormon leadership attitude with regard to questioning their authority? I love it when Mormon leaders trot out quotes from Brigham Young, Joseph Smith and others that show how Mormons are expected to think for themselves. And of course, they must also obey regardless of what they think. So why are we surprised that most Mormons don't think critically about their beliefs? What is the point if you can't act as a result of your thinking, not to mention the common Mormon advice in recent years that says, "Don't think, or read, or talk about anything that might cause you to question". And, obedience is what is covenanted in the temple. And members must not "speak evil of the Lord's anointed" which means in effect not questioning Mormon leaders in public or private so that legitimate concerns circulate and answers are demanded instead of quietly dying in a divided and conquered populace. This is a system similar to that which despots from time immemorial have created, and to which Mormons have simply agreed. This, in my view, is evidence of the kind of mythological evolution people like Joseph Campbell talk about. Mormonism has come up with a mythology related to its leadership authority that makes superficial sense in a scientific thinking world. We are small herd animals by evolution and instinctively cling to our dominant social group. Hence, it does not take more than superficial sense to keep us there most of the time.

That having been said, my concern with the Mormon leaders demand for unconditional obedience differs from **'s. It is the case, as he indicates, that Mormon leaders could make unethical demands and members would obey. It is also the case (and much more likely) that Mormons who are conditioned to obey the people they perceive to hold divine authority may at some point change their allegiance in that regard to a smaller, more radical group or start to become their own authority (like the Laffertys). The idea that God communicates his will to Mormons (or anyone) through feelings is a dangerous idea that can't be proven and is so easily susceptible to abusive manipulation that it should be rejected as a matter of priniple.

But my greatest concern with regard to the requirement of absolute obedience is that it causes Mormons to follow bad advice. What about gay Mormons who I understand to be even more depressed than the average Mormon and who commit suicide more often than the average gay person? What about Mormon women who are depressed in astounding numbers? What about Mormon women who are particularly inclined, or suited, to make professional endeavours their primary focus in life? What about Mormon intellectuals who are told in effect to stop thinking, talking and writing about what appeals to them in many cases? What about all those Mormon kids who get married so young, then start having kids, then get into Mormon leadership positions, then don't look up until they are in their 40s (like me)?

There are countless ways in which Mormon leaders provide advice to their followers that is profoundly to the advantage of the institution and profoundly against the interest of the average member.

And what does the emphasis on absolute obedience do to the moral fibre of the average Mormon? The temple covenants with regard to obedience are never met in my experience, and you are hearing from a guy who from the time he returned from his mission to being called as Bishop about ten years later did not miss a single home teaching appointment. I was ultra obedient, and in my view, no one fully lives up to the obedience requirement. Most Mormons fall so far below it that it is pathetic. They are put in the position of either carrying terrible guilt, or rationalizing the meaning of their covenant to obey and do all they are called upon to do within their reasonable power. Hence, most rationalize, and this slops over into all other aspects of their lives. Mormons, hence, in my experience are less honest on average in their dealings with their fellow man than most similarly situated individuals. Statistics drawn from Utah (with which I suspect you are more familiar than am I) support this in terms of tax evasion, software piracy, personal bankruptcies and other matters. This may also be a carryover from the time between the First and Second Manifestos during which Mormon leadership perfidy was so common and blatant, and some Mormon leaders wrung their hands over how this may have warped the moral timbre of their society.

And finally, what of the issue of reliability? Joseph Smith was not reliable. He deceived people constantly and when caught either used the "opps" out noted above, or in grievous cases used the "God told me to do it" out. In either event, he misled people while proclaiming his divine ability to see both the present and future with prophetic clarity. He lied about polygamy. He used the most disgusting, ridiculous seduction lines I have ever heard with many women, blatantly exercising his presumed divine authority to get their sexual favor. Those of his translations that have been checked have been proven to not be translations in the sense his hearers thought them to be. He used his prophetic mantle to attract investment capital to ill-conceived and sometimes illegal schemes. He regarded himself as in general above the law. He used secret quorums of various types to manipulate what was thought at the time to be relatively democratic church and a supposedly democratic city governance structure. The Book of Mormon has been shown to have an extremely high probability of not being what he said it was. And this is just the start of a list that I presume you know better than I do.

Whether Smith was a sincere believer in his own abilities, a pious fraud or just a fraud doesn't matter in a sense - what he said was not reliable. And his tendency to say whatever was required to get his people to continue to follow him and believe what he said was passed on to those who claim their authority from him. Hence, much of what they say is not reliable either. That was particularly the case during certain periods of time, but even now when we compare Mormon history as taught in missionary discussions, adult Sunday school classes and even for credit university courses at Institutes of Religion and elsewhere, the charge of deception is irresistible. Were Mormonism a security, many of Mormonism's highest leaders would be in jail for fraud.

When you combine leaders who consistently do not provide advice to followers that is based on the best available understanding of reality, with followers who are carefully conditioned to obey without questioning or discussing their concerns with anyone, you have a social disaster in the making. This disaster is no likely to manifest itself in a visible collapse, but rather in terms of blighted, impoverished lives. This was my experience, and the stats re anti-depressant consumption and a variety of other behaviors in Utah make me believe that this is a reasonable way to read the tea leaves in front of us.

I am glad there are people like you around who try to tease apart the threads of Mormon experience. However, in my view you do not go anywhere near far enough in your critique, and end up apologizing for an organization that would be best seen in history's dust bin. I don't expect it to find its way there because of Mormonism's proven ability to do what it must to survive. However, just as I now look back on the events that caused revelations to be received to do away with polygamy (after the fits and starts with which you are well acquainted), I wish that those with voices like yours would put as much pressure as possible on the Mormon hierarchy. They will change when forced to do so by declining membership rolls and revenues. I do not believe they will do so until a loss of personal and institutional power seems the lesser of evils from where they sit. The organization has been down that road at least three times before.

Best regards,

bob

ps My further thoughts regarding Mormonism can be found at http://mccue.cc/bob/spirituality.htm
topic image
A Few Thoughts About Mormon Marriage
Tuesday, Oct 25, 2005, at 11:35 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
A Few Thoughts About Mormon Marriage
bob mccue
October 22, 2005
http://mccue.cc/bob/spirituality.htm

Table of Contents
Introduction 2
Two’s Company; Three’s A Crowd 2
Fear and Desire 3
The Man’s On Top 4
Where’s The Love? 5
Mormonism Takes Undue Credit 5
Temple Building As An Investment Strategy 6
Divorce 6
Marriage In Traditional Societies v. Modern Societies 7
How Does Mormon Marriage Stack Up? 8
What Is Required To Understand The Mormon Experience? 10
Conclusion 10

Marriage (noun): That which turns love’s speedboat into a barge.

Introduction

I recently attended a Mormon wedding reception. It was a typical Mormon reception in most ways. It was held in a cultural hall at a standard issue Mormon chapel and had a Spartan feel to it largely as a result of following the day’s highlight at the Cardston Temple. The people in attendance were friendly and seemed happy; a feeling of good will and hopefulness filled the place. Most there were outfitted like Mormons on Sunday – men in suits and white shirts; women in their Sunday dresses. I enjoyed seeing a number of friends whom I seldom see these days. I respect and enjoy these people, despite the elephant in the corner.

The reception’s unusual feature was a ring ceremony, included I suspect, because one of the newlyweds had many non-LDS family members in attendance. I have known the bishop who officiated at the ring ceremony for many years. He is a well-educated, good-intentioned man. Both his description of Mormon marriage and words of advice to the young couple were Mormon classics, and caused me for the first time in a while to think about the basics of Mormon marriage. I go on at length in this regard in an essay at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/temple%... Here, I will come at this topic from a different angle and be much more succinct.

Two’s Company; Three’s A Crowd

My bishop friend, among other things, noted during the ring ceremony that Mormon marriage is like a triangle with the couple at the base and God at the apex. He used the analogy of a couple kneeling across the altar from each other in a Mormon temple with a beautiful chandelier above them. The chandelier, he said, represents God. Hence, the marriage is not a two party, two-dimensional, affair as are most “til death do you part” marriages. Rather, it is three party and three dimensional, and most importantly, eternal. This means that it is much stronger and better than marriages entered into without God’s authority and participation. I wondered how that remark made the non-Mormons in attendance feel, for whose benefit the ceremony was being conducted.

In any event, I agree with the good bishop as to one thing – Mormon marriages are tri-partite affairs. The Mormon institution, presumed to represent God, is the third party. To use the temple or a chandelier in the temple as a symbol for this third party is appropriate, in my view. Both husband and wife are required to covenant absolute obedience to God and his presumed representatives on Earth – Mormon leaders. These promises are made in the Mormon “endowment” ceremony that is incorporated by reference into the temple marriage ceremony. The endowment ceremony is considered by Mormons to be “a gift of knowledge and power”. It is what marks spiritual maturity for a Mormon, and while it does not teach much that is not in Mormon Sunday school lessons, it does require the initiate to make a variety of far reaching promises such as those just noted. No notice of this is given and the initiate is usually put on the spot with a group of expectant friends or relatives who have already made the same promises looking on. It would take uncommon psychological strength to do anything but go along. And the psychological research indicates that making of this kind of promise will make obedience much more likely than would otherwise be the case.

The words used to extract the promise of obedience are as follows:

“… we should covenant to sacrifice all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God …”

and

“… you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.”

The “Kingdom of God” and “Zion” are both references to the Mormon Church. Mormons who go through the endowment ceremony are required to indicate that they “solemnly covenant” to accept these commitments by raising their hands, bowing their heads and saying “yes”. Mormons who have been through the temple are reminded of these covenants in many ways.

In particular, Mormons are reminded that disobedience to temple covenants disqualifies them for what the temple promises – life after death in the “Celestial Kingdom” more wonderful than they can imagine. They will be forever in God’s presence with the faithful Mormon members of their families, endlessly procreating in the physical, sexual sense of that word while creating, organizing, populating and governing “worlds without end” as “kings and queens; priests and priestesses”.

I note as an aside the way in which Mormons are encouraged by their beliefs to bargain the present for what the far distant, likely non-existent, Celestial Kingdom offers. For example, it should be expected that married Mormon sex life would be less than stellar given the body shame Mormon’s are taught; endless pregnancies in many cases; the time and financial demands of large families; heavy Mormon community responsibilities; etc. But don’t worry about that; endure to the end and there will be sex forever in the Celestial Kingdom.

“Queens”; “Priestesses”? What is that about? Well, in the Celestial Kingdom women in some hard to understand way will finally get the real authority they are not permitted to have on Earth. So don’t worry about not having authority now. And time will no longer exist in the Celestial Kingdom, so don’t worry about being run off your feet now. And if you are not taking care of yourself as you should, or are depressed, or are physically ill, the Celestial Kingdom will take care of that too. It will be a world of physical and spiritual perfection, all you have to do is … endure to the end … of this life.

Fear and Desire

Fear and desire are two sides of the same coin. The Celestial Kingdom concept harnesses both of them to motivate a great deal of Mormon behavior. If Mormons stray too far from the path of obedience to Mormon authority, they will be shut out of the Celestial Kingdom. The stronger the belief in the Celestial Kingdom, the more fear will result from the possibility that one might not have been obedient enough to god's commandments (as communicated and interpreted by Mormon leaders) to make it there. Hence, a great deal of Mormon effort throughout life is dedicated toward qualifying for the Celestial Kingdom by obeying Church authority.

This means that in a marriage between faithful Mormons, if one falters in obedience the other may with justification point to their marriage covenant of faithfulness to Mormon authority and cry foul. That is the one of the most important parts of the brief Mormon temple marriage ceremony. Hence, the institution of marriage itself becomes a primary Mormon defence against the questioning of Mormon belief.

No wonder young Mormons are encouraged in many ways to marry as soon as possible and to immediately start their families. Making sex illicit until marriage is enough to do the job in most cases. Explicitly stigmatizing men in particular who make it to age 25 without marring is also helpful, not to mention how women who are not married well before then are made to feel. And the deeper the family roots go down through the mutual dependence of spouses on each other as children arrive, debt is incurred to purchase cars and houses, etc. the better the marriage acts as a defence against any information that might cause the questioning of Mormon beliefs.

The Man’s On Top

A number of the bishop’s and MC’s jokes at the wedding reception made the implicit Mormon relationship between man and woman clear – the man is a rough gem who acts like he is in control while the woman puts up with him and over the long haul, with much trial and tribulation, gets the job done. This reminded me of the relevant portions of the Mormon marriage ceremony. After a few brief words of advice respecting married life, the man performing the marriage would say to the groom:

“Brother ______, do you take Sister ______ by the right hand and receive her unto yourself to be your lawful and wedded wife for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?”

The groom then says, "yes". The officiator then turns to the bride and says:

“Sister ______ do you take brother ______ by the right hand and give yourself to him to be his lawful and wedded wife, and for him to be your lawful and wedded husband, for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?”

The "Holy Order or Matrimony" and the "New and Everlasting Covenant" are references to the endowment, where the heavy lifting with respect to Mormon marriage is done as already noted.

That is the entirety of the official part of the ceremony, and there is very little window dressing permitted around it.

The only substantive difference between the two paragraphs above is that the groom "receives" the bride, and the bride "gives herself" to the groom. The groom does not "give himself" to the bride. This reflects Mormonism’s patriarchal orientation. The man is in charge. The woman has "given" herself to the man. This language also harkens back to the day when the female of the species was a type of property, to be transferred by her father to her husband whom she would then serve for the remainder of her life. It is also consistent with the manner in which men and woman promise obedience during the endowment. The men are required to obey god. The women, in the current ceremony, are required to promise to obey god and:

“… to hearken to the counsel of her husband, as her husband hearkens unto the counsel of [god] …”

Until the last round of changes to the ceremony were made a few years ago, this passage used to say that the women would,

“… obey the law of their husbands and abide by his counsel in righteousness …”

Again, the patriarchal orientation of the ceremony is visible, as are the changes that are slowly being made to bring it into line with early 20th century (if not 21st) sensibilities.

Where’s The Love?

Note that during the Mormon marriage ceremony itself says nothing about the love the couple has for each other; nothing about their commitment to each other; and nothing about their hopes, dreams, the challenges they may face, etc. The ceremony's emphasis is twofold: first on the eternal nature of the covenant made, and second, through the reference to the New and Everlasting Covenant, on obedience to the Mormon Church.

Compare this to a typical Anglican ceremony, which most Mormons I know consider to be a terminally unimaginative religion to the extent they think about it all. The Anglican ceremony notes that marriage,

“… was ordained for the mutual companionship, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.”

The core of the Anglican covenant is to love your spouse. It includes the following language:

…will you have___ as your wife/husband, to live together, as God has ordained, in the holy state of matrimony? Will you love her/him, cherish her/him, honour and protect her/him, in sickness and in health; and, forsaking all others, be faithful to her/him, as long as you both shall live?

And the Anglican ceremony is crowned with this marvellous phrase:

With this ring I wed you, with my body I worship you; with all that I am and all that I have I honour you: in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

This, in my view, is uplifting, inspiring, encouraging – all that the guiding principle of marriage should be. I cannot think of a better concept to use at the apex of the marriage ceremony, while not preferring its theistic language.

Mormonism Takes Undue Credit

Back to the reception. The bride and groom were both radiant and effusive in their assessment of their experience at the temple and the wonderful day they had just enjoyed. The Cardston Temple is located in the foothills of Canada’s Rocky Mountains, and offers spectacular views from the highest hill in a down on its luck small town. The marriage occurred on an Indian summer day in October. My wife and I were married on a near identical day at the same time of year just over 25 years ago, and probably looked and sounded at that time a lot like the young couple whose life together we were celebrating at the reception. I have known the groom since he was a baby, and teared up a little at some of my memories of him and his family as the evening progressed, as well as while writing this.

“Isn’t that nice”, I thought to myself after listening to the bride and groom gush over how wonderful the temple was. “Once again, the third party to the relationship has taken most of the credit for what is a wondrous and universal human experience – the intertwining of two lives through marriage. Most couples are euphoric on their wedding day. Their families usually are too. So here we have a bunch of people who have been helped along toward being conditioned as surely as Pavlov’s dog to feel good about Mormonism.” I know the groom’s unorthodox Mormon history, and this is the kind of experience that will likely keep him headed in the “right” direction from a Mormon perspective for a while at least, and perhaps one thing (including marriage to a faithful Mormon) will lead to another and he will become a lifer.

Temple Building As An Investment Strategy

“What is the present value of the tithing these young people can be reasonably expected to pay?” I wondered. “Hell of a deal”, I thought as I roughed out the number in my head and worked out more or less how many temple marriages that are done in a typical Mormon temple each year. “No wonder they keep building temples even though not many people use them for proxy work-for-the-dead.”

And then the penny dropped. “What about the present value of all the tithing paid by family members, and particularly parents and grandparents, who want to attend the temple to be with their kids and grandkids when they are married?” The huge number I had calculated on the basis of the brides and grooms on their own rocketed into the stratosphere. “These temples are the best investment imaginable! And to think that N. Eldon Tanner, from my home town, was the financial genius likely responsible for all of this …”

Tanner was a respected businessman (he built the “TransCanada” pipeline system) and politician in my home Canadian province of Alberta before being called to full time Mormon leadership service, and is generally credited with taking Mormondom “corporate”. I had thought before about the connection between temple attendance requirements, temple construction and LDS revenues, but had never worked through the numbers in the clear fashion I just had. “And all of that got started on Tanner’s watch. Wow”, I thought. “This reception is turning out to be interesting in an unexpected way.”

Divorce

On the way home my wife and I talked about our observations. We both enjoyed the company of old friends and agreed that we should make more of an effort to stay in touch with them. Conversation turned to what makes marriages happy, and why in my view so many Mormon marriages under-perform in that regard.

We started out talking about something I read a long time ago, and ran across again recently that has to do with why people divorce – an appropriate topic of conversation on the way home from a wedding reception. One stream of research reports that as people move from marriage number one, to two or three, that their expectations decline. A high percentage of people who divorce and remarry report that the problems in their first marriage followed them to their second or third, and that they eventually accustomed themselves to these. This would suggest that personal fulfillment through marriage is so elusive that we should not bother to chase it.

However, another fascinating set of studies show how predictable divorce is on the basis of a mere 30 minutes of video footage of a couple talking about routine matters. Each bite of their communication is determined to be either positive or negative using sophisticated criteria developed by Dr. John Gottman (see http://www.gottman.com/research/abstr...), on the basis of which Gottman has a prediction success rate of 95% as to which couples will be married for a certain period of time after the interview. Using the first 15 minutes of the interview, his batting average drops to 90%.

The key to Gottman’s formula is that positive to negative communication (as he defines both) must be better than 5:1 for a marriage to have a good long-term survival prospect. And most important of all is the degree to which what he calls “contempt” is displayed. This is a hierarchical behavior – verbal or non-verbal communication that shows that one spouse considers him or herself to be above the other. That is, it is not necessary that what we would usually think of as contempt be shown. Accordingly to Gottman, marriages can successfully deal with much more anger, deception and other obviously toxic behavior that a little polite indication of “who’s who”. If much of that is detectible, the marriage has a short life expectancy.

This line of research persuasively questions basic notions about what causes marital dysfunction and how hard it is to predict and in some cases correct either within a marriage or by choosing a new life partner. And in particular, it points out that the problems people will tell us are what break a marriage are often not it at all. We have problems, and hence solutions, of which we are largely unaware. Fascinating stuff.

After kicking this around with my wife for a few minutes, I wondered out loud whether Mormon marriages under-performed because Mormons are simply prepared to settle for less. That is, Mormon marriages with which I am familiar are often hierarchical in orientation, and so accordingly to Gottman should be more vulnerable to divorce. However, Mormon marriages end in divorce a little less frequently that the average. However, absence of divorce is a poor measure of marital quality. There are not many divorces among the Older Order Amish or traditional Hindus, but few of us aspire to that kind of marriage.

Marriage In Traditional Societies v. Modern Societies

There is a huge difference between marriage in traditional societies and modern democracies. The notion of “romantic” love is a recent invention to which many traditional societies still do not subscribe. Hence, in traditional societies such as the Hindu and Muslim many marriages are either entirely or largely arranged, and the expectation is that the couple will form a family that will be a social building block, and that they will make it work. Individual self-fulfilment or happiness as a primary objective of marriage is not an issue, and divorce is not an option. There is a high correlation between this kind of arrangement and bad societal deals for women in general, since the men often find a way to make things work from their point of view through having affairs, running the social and financial show while the women remain behind the scenes with few rights, etc.

In western democracies, women have more rights and the idea that marriage is about romantic love and self-fulfilment is generally accepted. This means that divorce is a necessary evil. The frequency of divorce is the natural consequence of the western realization that individual freedoms of many kinds, including those related for forming and dissolving marriages, can be granted without causing the kind of chaos that is still used to justify much of the social control that is exercised by traditional societies over their members.

Another way to understand the marital difference between traditional and modern societies is to think about expectations. It has been pointed out that much of our unhappiness results from differences between our expectations and reality. The further reality falls short of expectations, the more stressed and unhappy we tend to be. Hence, people with low expectations tend to be more satisfied with life than those with high expectations. This is one of the less than stellar outcomes of some aspects of Buddhist philosophy from my point of view. If you expect and want nothing, you will not be disappointed. But I digress.

Expectations fundamentally affect the factors used to choose marriage partners. In traditional societies were marriages are arranged, the focus is on what will build a strong society. Hence, family relationships and social stability of various types are of primary importance and if the happiness of the couple is considered, it is a minor factor. On the other hand, where personal happiness is the primary marriage objective that is where emphasis is placed. Countless books and magazine articles have been written to help the western public understand how this works. New breeds of the traditional matchmaker are now regularly paid large fees to help potential mates understand their psychology and the kind of person who will complement them. Sophisticated markets of various kinds now function where people who are looking for relationships can digest information about possible mates and make dating choices. People typically wait much longer to marry than in traditional societies, and the research indicates that theolder a couple are when they marry the more likely the marriage is to last and flourish. Recent research also indicates that the quality of life of a couple’s children tends to increase if the mother’s age when she has her first child is more than 30 years, thus indicating on average a better-educated, more prepared mother (see http://www.freakonomics.com/)

In traditional societies less is expected of marriage from a personal point of view. Hence, husbands and wives are routinely satisfied with situations that would be intolerable for most people in the West. And in the West, for the most part, the expectations are higher, dissatisfaction is more common and so is divorce as individuals try to find a match that works for them. The idea of “starter marriages” is gaining currency – a marriage that like a small first home is used to get one’s toe in the water and find out what is important before moving on to something expected to be more permanent.

How Does Mormon Marriage Stack Up?

So, I wondered, perhaps we can think of marriage in some sense as being on a scale of one to ten in terms of personal expectations of happiness and self-fulfilment. Marriages within the most traditional societies still encourage very low personal expectations in this regard, and so will be put at one. And at ten we will put the most individualistic of the western tendencies to look for self-fulfilment through personal relationships of a marital type. And between them we can plot all other marriages. In that case, where would Mormon marriages fall?

After some discussion, my wife and I agreed that Mormon marriage is closer to one that ten. My best guess was around three. More importantly, this line of thought raises some interesting ideas about Mormon marriage in light of what I wrote above.

Mormonism is a type of traditional culture that places social controls above individual rights far more than the majority of the democratic western culture within which Mormonism exists. Hence, in many ways Mormons are torn between what they are taught by their dominant Mormon sub-culture and the messages they receive from the broader culture to which they are also exposed. The Hutterites, Amish, FLDS, some Hindus and Muslims and other traditional cultures that exist in the West deal with this by isolating themselves to a large measure. Mormonism did that for a long time in Utah, but eventually the Mormon mainstream decided to integrate with the secular forces that moved into the area by being “in” but not “of the world”. Mormon isolation is now accomplished to a degree by Mormon leaders telling Mormons to avoid information that threatens their belief, and to allow emotional experiences to override information collected through rational means. That is, “I felt really good at the Temple, therefore Mormonism must be true despite what I know about Joseph Smith’s deceptive tendencies …”.

This is tricky business, and usually ends up meaning that Mormons adopt social trends a few decades or generations after the broader culture does. The various brands of fundamentalist Mormons, on the other hand, have retreated from modernity and with justification accuse their mainstream cousins of having been “corrupted” by secular forces.

By attempting to both function as an integrated part of modern society and retain tradition values, Mormonism places a heavy psychological burden on its faithful. For example, young Mormons like my friends whose reception we attended carry both the Mormon expectation that marriages will be made to work no matter what – marriage is “eternal” – and the western secular notion of romantic, self-fulfilling love. Hence, they have high expectations with regard to the personal satisfaction they will receive from marriage. But have they gone about choosing their marriage partners so as to make those expectations realistic?

Most young Mormons who marry are attracted to each other. But how hard is that bar to clear? The mere fact that they cannot satisfy themselves sexually prior to marriage without experiencing a great deal of guilt makes it likely that their hormones will be screaming for them to find an acceptable mate.

A big problem in my experience is that young Mormon couples who take their religion seriously place a lot of emphasis on how likely it is that a potential mate will help them get to the Celestial Kingdom. Questions like, “What kind of a mother/father is she/he likely to be?”; “How faithful to the Church is she/he likely to be?”; “Does she/he have the spirit with her/him?”; “Does She/he study the scriptures and pray each day?”; tend to play a dominant important role in the decision-making process after the initial, and easy to satisfy, “Does he/she turn me on?” test is passed.

The factors I just noted are much more relevant to the marriage making concept in a traditional society than in the contemporary western world because they focus on the ability of the relationship to accomplish societal goals within a particular context (the Mormon social group) instead of how well the couple get along; the extent to which their interests overlap; how they will spend years enjoying themselves alone together before starting a family; and after the children leave; how they will provide for themselves; etc. The faithful Mormon is taught that if she has sufficient faith to be obedient to Mormon authority God will take care of the rest, so don’t worry about it too much. Many young Mormons rely on this fantasy to their detriment.

And how do young married Mormons tend to behave? First, they tend to be very young, and so the research indicates that the deck is staked against them because they have not finished developing (the brain does not finish the basics until the mid-20s in most cases), don’t know themselves well yet and are not established in the way that tends to make for successful marriages. If they are like most young Mormon couples, they will start their family quickly and so be on the wrong side of the research that indicates that the children of mothers who begin their maternal career after age 30 do better than others. They are burdened with the patriarchal notions noted above, and the wife in particular is likely to have a hard time ignoring the voices around her that empower women. This in many Mormon marriages encourages the kind of hierarchical communication that Gottman says breeds divorce.

In short, there are lots of reasons for which to expect that Mormon marriages in Western society will be under a lot of pressure. Add to this the personal bankruptcy and anti-depressant use rates in Utah (70% Mormon and hence a reasonable proxy for it), and a troubling picture emerges. And as noted above, the Mormon divorce rate is about what it is in the rest of society.

This all leads me to believe that Mormon marriages, on average, tend to survive more because of lower expectations and determination to “make it work” somehow than because they are well chosen and have been properly nurtured. In this regard, Mormon marriages are more like those of traditional societies than most of those in the democratic west.

I hasten to add that anyone who asks a married Mormon if he is happy in his marriage will probably hear that he is. This is a requirement of Mormon belief – that you be happy and that your marriage be happy. To admit that this was not the case would be itself evidence that things were likely not right in your life. And many Mormon, including most of the friends with whom we spent some pleasant time last night, give the appearance of having well-adjusted, compatible marriages. I do not suggest that they, in particular, have anything other than that.

What Is Required To Understand The Mormon Experience?

My main point is that contrary to popular Mormon belief, if you want to understand Mormonism or any aspect of it such as Mormon marriage, you’ve got to do much more than ask a Mormon or have lived a Mormon life. The Mormon point of view (as is the case with any culture specific viewpoint) is far too narrow to grasp the nature of the Mormon experience. What we need is access to the kind of data John Gottman collects – data that penetrates the facades we all put up and shows the stresses underlying ordinary communication. We need to understand a broad base of other cultures and behaviours as they really are instead of as Mormonism tells us they are. And finally, we then need to understand the base of values and expectation on which Mormon and other cultural behavior is built. Until we understand the background against which Mormonism is set, we cannot understand it. And if the point of the exercise is to decide how “Mormon” one wishes to continue to be, an understanding of other value systems and the outcomes they are likely to deliver is of course crucial.

Conclusion

Oh, I almost forgot the closing highlight the wedding reception. There was the typical computer generated slide show of the couple’s lives from babyhood through the cute kid, ugly duckling and blossoming swan stages. Throughout, the bride’s name appeared with her pictures in the upper left hand corner of the screen, and the groom’s name appeared in the lower right hand corner with his. At the conclusion of the slide show, in a nice musical crescendo, a picture of the Mormon temple appeared on the screen and the two names began to move toward each other and obvious union at mid-screen. “Nice touch”, I thought. Then, to my amazement, the names kept moving after coming together until the groom’s name was for the first during the presentation on top of the bride’s.

Freud would have a field day with that one.
topic image
Questions From The Mormon Fringe - How Mormon Leaders Receive Revelation And Agnosticism
Friday, Nov 4, 2005, at 08:11 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Questions from the Mormon Fringe – How Mormon Leaders Receive Revelation and Agnosticism

The following is a lightly edited copy of part of an exchange I am having with a sincerely questioning Mormon. Since the questions are basic, I thought others here might find this useful. I would be interested to hear how others would answer this kind of question.

Best regards,

bob

Bob, am I to believe that you are now an agnostic? Also, is it true that you were a Bishop for 5 years? If so, I have a question for you. Did you honestly feel any distinct guidance when people were in front of you facing a Bishop's Court? To discern between excommunication, disfellowship, or simply counseling?

Hello again XX.

I am agnostic as to most things related to religion, except what we can test using science. I will cut and paste below a summary I recently sent to some scientific friends with much more experience in this area than I have in which I asked for their advice as to the approach I am developing. I have since heard back from them that they see things more or less as I do.

While I was Bishop I did not preside over any bishop's courts. I had several cases where I could have convened them, but choose not to. My policy was live and let live unless I felt forced to act. So I have to answer your question on the basis of things like not convening those courts, extending significant callings, etc.

I followed the procedure outlined in DandC 9, which speaks of concentrating and reasoning with feelings of warmth to follow if the decision is right and feelings of darkness if not. This, from my point of view, is the same process I use at work. I keep thinking, collecting data, etc. until the decision feels right. The only difference is that as Bishop I used formal prayer more during the process. At work, however, I used prayer a lot in making the important decisions I made. So, in my case at least, there was little difference in the major decisions I made at work and at church as a Mormon leader. In each case, common sense (in the end) was the primary determinant. And common sense is little more than the cumulative total of our conditioning coming to bear on the decision before us.

While I was a Mormon leader I believed that God was inspiring my decisions in that regard just as he did my personal decisions. Since God's voice in my important personal decisions had been so faint all I had to work with were vague impressions, I was not surprised to find the same was the case with my church responsibilities. I spoke with my SP and other bishops about this, and was told that their experience was the same as mine. And statements that Hinckley has made recently to the press indicate that the highest counsels of Mormondom are run on the same basis.

The emotional high points of being the Bishop came from the same font as the high points during the rest of my life's experience as well. That is, when I counselled with people who were under stress because of marital problems, perceived sin, etc. and helped them to find relief, this was gratifying for them and hence also for me. To have people come to me week after week with their most important problems and thank me profusely for helping them, was of course both an ego boost and produced of satisfying emotional experience. The same was true as I participated in intimate family moments like weddings, funerals, baptisms, missionary farewells and welcome homes, etc. The emotional charge I received as a result of this felt like God's approval of my work; at those moments while feeling mildly euphoric I thought I was feelings his presence and hearing his voice. However, I now see that the same dynamics are involved in any human group whether it be politics, the law firm at which I work, a social club, internet discussion group, etc.. When we share other's lives at an intimate level, it is deeply satisfying.

Mormonism brilliantly takes control of many of life's high points, thus giving the impression that the powerful and usually positive feelings we tend to have in conjunction with those experiences are related to (or even due to) God, and Mormonism. In addition to the kind of thing I have noted above, this extends to fathers' blessings, blessings of health, rites of passage such as being ordained to the priesthood or passing through the Young Women's program, and even the conditioned tendency to pray during both times of deepest sorrow and joy. That is, each time life dips us in its renewing chaotic brew that both accompanies and produces change, Mormonism teaches us to genuflect to its version of God, thus associating the most powerful emotional forces we know directly with God and his presumed Mormon agents. Many other religions have used the same process. It is arguably the single most effective social conditioning and control agent mankind has ever invented.

Part of the downside of acting as bishop was that it deepened my confusion about the kind of feelings that may be due to a God of some kind, and what is just the result of how humans are built and interact with each other in groups. This lengthened the time it took for me to "think my way out" of Mormonism. In addition, while acting as bishop I was drained of time as well as physical and emotional energy that was badly needed in my home by my wife whose health was failing as she cared for our young and growing family pretty much by herself.

Now that I have a broader understanding of religious history and social psychology, I see all around me people who interpret life's powerful emotional events as God's voice, or presence, or will, etc. This is one of the oldest stories known to man.

And so I believe that agnosticism with regard to most of this is the way to go. However, I think it is safe to conclude that most people who think they hear God telling them anything in particular are mistaken. And even people like Gordon Hinckley, when put on the spot, admit that they are not hearing anything particular from God. Their decision making process, as far as I can tell, is just like that I have outlined above. They are acting on the assumption that the amazing revelations Joseph Smith claims to have received are what he said they are, and are merely attempting to be consistent with that while maintaining the authority over their followers. And the biggest issue in that regard, of course, is Smith's credibility. The closer his life is examined, the less credible he is.

Best regards,

bob

Michael and Phil:

Let me again edge into your conversation, more to ask for enlightenment than to contribute. But to become enlightened, one must first disclose his ignorance, so I will start with that.

I am still trying to get the basic concepts straight in my head, and am encouraged to see my friend Michael beavering away at a similar task.

My system, which is still a work in progress, for approaching issues like the one Michael raised [how much can science teach us about the big meaning questions; how do we draw the line between physics v. metaphysics] is as follows:

- I start with epistemology - the study of how we justify our beliefs.

- I move from there to ontology - the study of the broadest range of categories of existence; The study of the nature of being, reality, and substance.

- Then I get to physics (or science). The epistemic principles with which I am comfortable direct me to physics as the most reliable means to begin to work out my ontology. A definition of physics I like for this purpose is: Physics (from the Greek, ??????? (phusikos), "natural", and ????? (phusis), "nature") is the science of Nature in the broadest sense. Physicists study the behaviour and properties of matter in a wide variety of contexts, ranging from the sub-nuclear particles from which all ordinary matter is made (particle physics) to the behaviour of the material Universe as a whole (cosmology). Hence, physics underlies all other sciences. Physics is what we use to determine whether particular entities exist, what their nature is, and hence how they interact with other entities.

- So, were does metaphysics fit in? Metaphysics ("beyond" physics) is what frames physics. That is, when you define physics, you define metaphysics by exclusion. Thus, it is a vast area that includes epistemology, ontology, mythology, cosmology, semiotics, etc. I am accustomed to using the term metaphysics to refer to "speculative thought about matters outside the perceivable physical world", which is another common definition. To avoid confusion, I do not use the term metaphysics much. When I mean that something is not scientific, I say that since people are more likely to understand me. When scientific language is used to describe something that might be metaphysical, I prefer to speak in terms of how that can be justified within a particular epistemic framework. I find that most misunderstandings can be cleared up most quickly by first nailing down differences in view regarding epistemology.

- In an interesting way, physics (or, better put, the entire scientific enterprise) have strongly influenced both epistemology and ontology as they are now widely accepted. In this sense, I agree with Michael that science affects metaphysics, but as noted below, think that to say science "generates" metaphysics is not quite right. Rather, as the scope of science changes, it changes the boundary of metaphysics by definition. This includes relegating to the garbage heap ideas that were once widely considered to be metaphysically valid and that have been falsified by science. This also tends to make metaphysics on the fringes of science look more interesting for some purposes, like defining one's ontology.

The epistemic and ontological theorists whom I find most helpful are those who use science's reliability as their acid test. So, I end up finally on the road toward constructing my worldview or ontology with an epistemic system that is strongly influenced by science, and hence an epistemic hierarchy that uses Bayesian probability theory as does science to assess evidence and justify both ontological belief and action. This means that as I deal with different aspects of the scientific enterprise, I try (as do most scientists with whom I have debated issues of this kind) to distinguish between that which is more measurable and hence reliable, and that which is less. Physics (as the narrowly defined branch of science) offers both poles - certain principles that are nailed down with a great degree of precision like Newton's laws, to some aspects of theoretical physics that are not supported by a shred of empirical data while being taken very seriously. String theory would be an example of this. However, in general physicists have looked down their noses at biologists, for example, because of how much less predictable (and hence scientific in a sense) biology is than physics. And the social sciences in general deal with phenomena that are much more difficult to measure and hence reliable than most of what biology works with, resulting in more peering down noses as the hard scientists in general regard the social scientists and their work.

The important point for me is that as we move from phenomena that are more accurately measured and understood to those that are less, our ability to use science within the epistemic system to justify belief diminishes. So, at what point does the knowledge provided by science become less able to justify belief and behaviour than other forms of knowledge?

- Mythology in its commonly understood sense is the study of myths. However, the most important mythology for me is human history as I believe it to be. This is the human story, starting for many people before recorded history or even before life on this planet, that tells us at the most fundamental level who and what we are by giving us a part in a vast epic. As such, this kind of mythology is part of ontology - it tells us basic things about who we are; why history is patterned as we perceive it to be; what the cosmos is; what or who controls the cosmos; etc.

We all start somewhere in a human group with a mythology that is called history, science, story, etc. and is believed to describe past and present reality. Hence, the primary form of knowledge that competes epistemically with science in our current society is personal mythologies that are derived in some way from group mythology.

People like Einstein and Feynman suggest that to the extent our inherited ontological and epistemic beliefs are not falsified to some reasonable degree of probability by science, we do not have a good reason to abandon them. This recognizes the utility of cohesive human groups to both individuals and society. Of course, there is lots of debate around when inherited beliefs have been sufficiently falsified to be abandoned. A strong apologetic tradition going back as far as I can trace it says that certain inherited beliefs (such as religious beliefs) are so important that virtual certainty of falsehood is required to justify change. Remembering that these are non-scientific beliefs that are not falisifiable by definition helps us to see this standard for what is - a social defence mechanism designed to prevent change in belief and hence the group. When we see something like this, we should ask "who benefits" and then determine who is promoting this view. They are generally the same people.

- I have trouble teasing meaning apart from its related ontology. Semiotics is the study of how meaning is constructed, and what I mostly see there is epistemology and ontology. Meaning is based on perceived reality. So, how do we decide what is "real"? That is, what is the real nature of a human being? Are we designed by God in some way, or not? Does God exist, or not? And if so, what is His/Her/Its nature? These are ontological questions, answered on the basis of epistemic principles and meaning flows from that without more.

Again, I think it is helpful to recognize that we don't start in a vacuum without meaning and then construct it. It is a given; a basic premise that is an intrinsic part of our inherited ontology. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? If there was even an example of co-evolution, it must surely be mythic meaning and ontological belief within a given culture. The question is, will we change what we inherited? Such changes are usually driven by nascent ontological belief that is inconsistent with mythic meaning, not the other way around.

- Given what I have just said, I don't agree that science "generates" metaphysics. That, in my view, is a contradiction in terms. What you are saying, I think, is that our non-scientific ontological views are affected by science. I agree with that. Sometimes it is a matter of science having falsified so many claims of a particular type (faith healings, for example), that other similar claims are not accepted without a high standard of proof being met. Or science has provided explanations that are far more parsimonious than what religion offers for some phenomena, such as that many types of visions can be medically explained; epileptic seizures do not necessarily mean demonic possession; etc.

A lot of what science uses to question ontological beliefs is on the fringe of measurable phenomena and hence the fringe of science - social science. This should make us sceptical of its probative value, and to think carefully about Einstein's and Feynman's advice before we stand on that pedestal to insist that others, within social groups the dynamics of which we do not understand, change their beliefs and so incur personal costs that may not be justifiable in their circumstances. Those same believers, when assessing the likely costs assoicated with a change in belief, would do well to remember that our cling-to-the-group instinct was developed in our evolutionary past when clinging to the group was necessary for survival. Therefore, in our current context we tend to dramatically overestimate such costs.

And sometimes we find ourselves way outside science and yet hear even respected scientists (as Michael Ruse has pointed out in "Mystery of Mysteries - Is Evolution a Social Construct?") positing non-scientific ontologies in their popular works and having many members of the much less scientific public swallow them whole because they are dressed in scientific garb and presented by respected scientists. This justifiably angers other scientists.

- To conclude, lets run one of the topics from Star Island this summer through my little system.

I can use scientific analytical tools to assess the accuracy of a statement like "Buddhist monks report losing their sense of self while meditating; their measurable brain states at the same time are consistent with that reporting; and these brain states are consistent with other well known brain states that accompany lovemaking and other phenomena known to cause a powerfully attractive emotional and hence physical state." Those statements are falsifiable on the basis of data collected, measured, etc. and are hence within science's reach.

However, I can't use science to assess the statements, "Therefore, there is a state of "absolute unitary being" that is more real than the base-line waking reality we generally experience. And therefore, I believe that God [pick your favourite flavour] does exist and what the Monks experienced was a taste of the dimension in which he lives and where we will go after death and ... [go on from there to deal with questions of life's purpose and meaning as you wish]" I realize that this is not what Newberg said in his book ("Why God Won't Go Away") or at Star. I am repeating what I have heard others state as their personal beliefs on the basis of his research.

The second and third statements posit an ontology that cannot be tested scientifically, but is argued to be consistent with Newberg's findings and hence justifiable from an epistemic point of view that has science's approval even though it is not scientific.

As I start to assess this statement, I will first want to talk about epistemology in general. What will be our standard for accepting that something is real? Is it enough, in general, to show that something is not falsified by science? Were that the case, any number of bizarre beliefs would be justifiable including those of Muslim suicide bombers who feel enormous peace and in some cases orgiastic epiphanies as they prepare for their missions of the kind the great mystics write about.

I would then pull out some social science, acknowledge that any conclusions drawn from it are far from bullet proof, and look for patterns in what people from different cultures believe in basic ontological terms. I may be able to show that any experience that makes a person feel a bit like he or she just had a sexual climax will likely be perceived to be highly attractive, and anything perceived to cause the experience will likely be considered both valuable and powerful. I can likely use Newberg's research to show a link between some mystic and religious experience and powerfully attractive, motivating emotional states. I may be able to show correlations between various kinds of environmental conditions and ontological beliefs (environments of scarcity produce demanding, punishing gods and hard to reach heavens; etc.). I may be able to show correlations between ontological beliefs in general and other aspects of human psychology or neurology. I may be able to show correlations between theories as to how orwhy the ontological beliefs in human groups develop and other psychological theories such as evolutionary psychology. I may be able to show correlations between both group and individual attributes and their ontological beliefs, and suggest that by choosing an ontology we to some extent choose our group and individual natures. Etc.

In the end, I don't think I will have trouble justifying within my epistemic system the following:

- I am not justified in a belief merely because it has not been falsified by science.

- Strongly held ontological beliefs that are not justified by science are correlated with many factors that seem inconsistent with a concurrent correlation to reality. That is, things like belief in particular kinds of gods or human purposes are much more reflective of social reality and other objective circumstances of the individual and her group than anything else.

- This pattern suggests that any particular non-scientific ontological belief is unlikely to accurately describe reality, and human nature appears to be such that this suggestion will be almost universally resisted by people who hold particular ontological beliefs, no matter how bizarre they may seem to non-believers.

That is it for today. I would welcome any education you, Phil or others may wish to offer.

Best,

bob
topic image
"The Gospel Is Perfect But The People Are Not" - A Critique: Part II - The Gospel Is Perfect?
Monday, Nov 7, 2005, at 08:49 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
“The Gospel is perfect but the people are not” – A Critique: Part II - The Gospel is Perfect?

Part II – The Gospel is Perfect?

I did a google search as well as a search of the www.lds.org data base of two phrases: “The Church is Perfect” and “The Gospel is Perfect”. I noticed an interesting pattern. By and large, faithful Mormons do not say “the Church is perfect”, and the lds.org data base does not include a single incidence of that phrase. The faithful almost universally say something like "the Gospel is perfect but the people are not", and the lds.org site does contain that phrase.

There is an important difference between the “Church” and the “gospel”. The Church is the collection of imperfect people who try to follow the dictates of the Gospel, which is taken to be the perfect word of God. Mormon leaders are quick to admit that they, and all of their predecessors are imperfect, and that their imperfections are not evidence that the Mormon Church is not God’s church. Mormons say that God must work through the agency of imperfect humans to accomplish his purposes, one of which is the “perfecting of the Saints”. I recall being moved a number of years ago at General Conference by a women who spoke in that inimitable Intermountain West accent while modelling a squished beehive-type hairdo. She was, I think, I member of Primary General Presidency. She went on about how grateful she was that members of her ward and stake were imperfect! Spectacularly imperfect! This, she gushed, gave her the chance to develop her patience and love in the best possible environment for that kind of thing! The Church was perfecting her because of the imperfections of its members! Isn’t that amazing! I wonder where else on Earth one might find imperfect human beings to test ones’ patience? This must mean Mormonism is “true”!

In any event, the Mormon Church is clearly not perfect. And this goes far beyond its being comprised of imperfect individuals. The Church is structurally imperfect in ways that incline it toward certain kinds of predictable abuses. And these structural flaws are traceable to its foundational instructions as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, a set of “revelations” Smith purported to received from God, and in which he was instructed as to how the Mormon Church was to be set up and operated.

For example, the Mormon Church is non-democratic. History teaches us that when humans have power over other humans that is not carefully circumscribed and subjected to checks and balances that the train will run off the rails. It is not a question of “if, but rather of “when” and “how bad will the damage be”. This is why the invention of democracy and the emergence of the modern democratic state is considered to be of such monumental importance in human history. Mormon leaders are constrained in many ways by the rights of citizens within the democratic states in which Mormonism operates, but within their sphere of permitted operation they behave as should be expected of non-democratic leaders. They maximize their influence, and distribute as little information as possible to the membership by way of which they might be held to account for their actions, while extracting the maximum amount of resources of various kinds from their membership.

Among other things, the non-democratic nature of Mormonism explains the astronomical percentage of blood and marital interrelationships within the ranks of high Mormon leadership. The perquisites of Mormon leadership do not generally include a lot of money. But if you don’t think that the right to order people around and have them worship you is something people will do almost anything for, read a little history.

I laughed out loud a short time ago when Gordon Hinckley, the current Mormon prophet, feigned astonishment that one of his sons had been nominated for high office within Mormonism. “I had nothing to do with it”, Hinckley assured his listeners. His son was called by God to Mormon officialdom, and Hinckley himself was not involved in the process. And I believe him, at least to the extent that he was not directly involved. That is the beauty of the Mormon leadership system – Hinckley would not have to do anything. The rest of the leaders know what to do to keep the game going.

At the congregational level, Mormon leaders are generally chosen from among the more financially successful and respected of the male members. Some of them (Bishops particularly) are then required to dispense advice regarding important, intimate personal problems. These include marital disputes, career advice, teenage difficulties, who one should marry, whether one should go on a mission or to university, etc. The advice most often handed out by these generally well-meaning men is that one should obey the Lord’s commandments (that is, stop sinning as defined by Mormonism), spend more time praying and studying the scriptures, and immerse oneself in Mormon service. That is one size fits all advice provided by men who have in general no training in counselling, and are not considered to need any. They rely upon "god's inspiration" to guide them in the advice they give.

If a Mormon bishop is confronted by someone who is obviously mentally ill, most of the time he will tell them to see a doctor. And Mormonism has set up its own psychological counselling system so that Mormons in many places do not have to see a non-Mormon for help with life’s emotional challenges. This was likely done because non-Mormon psychologists, oddly enough, often regard Mormonism itself as a big part of the problem and recommend disengagement. As this pattern became clear, the Mormon Church invested heavily in training and then employed a cadre of counsellors who would offer different advice that encouraged Mormon to remain Mormon.

I heard a few days ago about a young friend who is going through a difficult adjustment after coming home from his mission. He is having trouble deciding what to do for a career and hence what to study; his lacks confidence in his own judgement for a variety of reasons; etc. His bishop’s advice – “pray more, study your scriptures more, immerse yourself in church service, and are you sinning?” The boy does not think he is sinning, but who knows. If he follows the Bishop's advice and does not feel better, what is likely to happen? He will become more depressed because not only does he feel poorly, but God is not responding to him and the most likely reason for that within the Mormon worldview is that he is sinning. And so a more strict adherence to Mormon behavioural norms would follow, and this cycle could continue for some time. That could be depressing on a new level. I suspect his difficultly lies in the kind of thing a good psychologist and some career counselling could straighten out without too much trouble.

A medical doctor friend told me recently of a call he received from a bishop of an LDS singles ward with whom he has been friends for years. The bishop was concerned with the degree of depression he was seeing and hearing about during the interviews he conducts with members of his ward. He wanted the docs advice as to whether the problems he was hearing about were clinical, and hence whether he should refer members of his ward to a doctor, or whether the “pray more and stop sinning” advice was enough. This bishop is more perceptive than most.

After listening to the bishop's summary of the problems his ward members had, my friend said that most of what he heard sounded clearly clinical to him, and he asked what percentage of the ward was in this state. The bishop replied that he thought it was in the 50% range. Lots of kids are depressed because they are not married, and perhaps have sexually sinned while trying to get married. Others are depressed because they don’t want to get married and are under a lot of pressure to do so. Others because they are terrified of going on missions, and under great pressure to go. Others because they are simultaneously trying to give heavy time to LDS service and get the kind of grades they need to have to follow the LDS path – successful professional etc. with large family and a high Mormon calling. Pretty picture. How do I get some of that?

So, we will agree that the Church is not perfect, and its members certainly are not. What, then, is the “gospel”, how does it relate to the “Church”, and is it reasonable to say that the “gospel is perfect”?

The “gospel” is generally defined as the good news of Christ’s redemption, usually interpreted as that version contained in the four canonical “gospels” in the New Testament. “Gospel” is also used as a synonym for “true”, as in “it is gospel!”. However, in the Mormon context the word “gospel” has a different meaning. In its introduction, the Book of Mormon proclaims itself to be the “fullness” of the Gospel. This no doubt follows various DandC passages that also say this (see for example, DandC 20:9, 135:3). And in the Mormon temple, prior to 1990 those who made the promises that are part of the Mormon “endowment” ceremony were required to agree that they would obey “the Law of the Gospel as contained in the Book of Mormon and the Bible”. In 1990, this was modified to say, “the law of the Gospel as contained in the Holy Scriptures”, which would bring the DandC (amendable at any time by Mormon leaders) and other statements by Mormon leaders that are regarded as canonical into the Mormon definition of “gospel”. Theseinclude all statements of Mormonism’s highest leaders made twice each year at Mormonism’s general conferences. This is consistent with other aspects of the Mormon temple ceremony in which Mormons promise absolute obedience to Mormon authority.

So, for Mormon purposes the gospel is Christ’s message as contained in the Bible (as far as it is translated correctly), as restored by Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon, and most importantly, as stated by Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders in any way that is regarded by Mormon leaders as being part of the Holy Scriptures.

But hold on. Didn’t we agree above that the Church itself is not perfect? And now we learn that the Church is defined by the DandC which is part of the perfect gospel? Isn’t that contradictory? If the gospel (the DandC) defines the Church, how can the Church be imperfect from a structural point of view?

I suspect that the Mormon answer to this question would be that only the parts of the DandC that do not relate to the “human” side of the Church are perfect. Another way to look understand this is that anything that relates to the pre-existence or life after death or the nature of god, etc. is the gospel and the rest is not. That is, anything that can’t be disproved is the gospel and hence perfect. Hmmmm. While I can understand why a Mormon might say this, it seems to quite clearly contradict many other things that Mormon leaders have said, as well as the Mormon temple ceremony. And, if the gospel is perfect, it does a pretty poor job of letting you know where its boundaries are. Is that not a contradiction in terms? How do you get poorly defined perfection?

In any event, one might note that both the Bible and the Book of Mormon are notoriously difficult to interpret, as evidenced by the fact that there are numerous Christian and Mormon sects. If the gospel is perfect, why it is so confusing?

The Mormon answer would be that the Bible and Book of Mormon are only confusing to those who do not accept that the only people on earth who have the authority to speak for God are Mormonism’s leaders. And they say, as do other religious leaders, “Obey us and give us your money and other resources.” Hmmmmm. It is almost tempting to think that there is a scam going on here. Lots of nice sounding things that fall apart on analsysis. Nah, it couldn't be that. These Mormons are far too nice and well-intentioned to be scammers, aren't they?

What we are really confronted with in the realtinship between the Church and the gospel in Mormon doctrine is circular logic. That is, the definition of one thing relies upon another, which in turn relies upon the first. The gospel is perfect; the Church (including its leaders) are not perfect; and the gospel is defined by the Church’s leaders. So, the perfect gospel is defined by imperfect leaders? Hmmmm. Houston, we have a problem.

This is part of one of Mormonism (and other religions’) oldest tricks. Joseph Smith, for example, is God’s prophet and inspired by him, unless he is proven to be wrong. In that case, he is assumed to have made a human error that does not invalidate his prophetic power with regard to all that has not been proven wrong. And this is the case even when we learn that many of his errors were due to his having decided to mislead his followers because that would be in everyone's (and especially his) best interest.

In like fashion, any error that Mormon leaders are shown to have made in defining the gospel was never really part of the gospel. This must be so because the gospel IS perfect. Hence, by definition anything that is eventually found not to be perfect was not part of the gospel. The error, really, was ours. We thought that because the imperfect Mormon leaders told us what the gospel was and that it was perfect, that everything they said about the gospel was accurate. We have been told that the leaders are imperfect and should not have been confused.

“Well then,” a confused Mormon might ask, “how can I know what is true? If the members are imperfect, and the leaders are imperfect, and the Church itself is imperfect, I thought that I could at least rely upon the gospel. That was my unshakeable bedrock. And now you are telling me that I can’t even rely on that as it is set out or interpreted by Mormon leaders in the Holy Scriptures? You say that I should be ready at any time to be told that what I have been told is part of the perfect gospel was just another error? Now I am really confused.”

I can just the response of the Mormon leaders: “I bear you my solemn testimony, with tears streaming down my cheeks, that I know the gospel is true and perfect and that Joseph Smith restored it to us in spite of his imperfections. I know this beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have felt it in my very soul. I testify this to you in the name of Jesus Christ, and promise you in his name that if you will remain faithful to Mormonism, you will receive blessings beyond your ability to imagine them in the Celestial Kingdom!!” [pause for effect]

Well, that makes me feel much better about all of this.

All the best,

bob
topic image
Mormon Apologetics V. Mormon Criticism - Is There A Better Way?
Friday, Nov 11, 2005, at 09:07 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I just visited http://ldsliberationfront.blogs.com/l... for the first time and found a few interesting items there. One caught my eye in particular - an analysis of the difference between Mormon apologetics and Mormon criticism. My lightly edited post to the thread is found below. I suggest that using a wider angle lens is better than taking either the Mormon Apologetic or Mormon critic approach.

Best regards,

bob

Hello RT.

A friend just referred me here, and I have enjoyed reading a few of your pieces. I will briefly comment regarding this one.

Let me suggest that there is another axis along which you might approach Mormonism that in my view makes more sense than either apologetics or criticism. It uses the most basic of epistemic principles.

As you intimated, scientific epistemology dominates our culture. This is so because it produces knowledge based on repeatable experiment that is more reliable in some ways than any other kind of knowledge we have yet produced. And within science, of course, there are gradients of reliability. Most aspects of psychology, for example, do not produce knowledge that is as reliable as that produced by most aspects of chemistry, for example.

As we move toward the fringes of science in terms of the reliability of knowledge produced and into metaphysics, we find that what passes for knowledge is to a greater extent socially constructed. That is, people simply agree as to what certain phenomena mean, and in our society most of this can't be tested by science. In pre-scientific societies, even more knowledge was created on this basis.

In scientifically oriented societies, the greatest battles are pitched as knowledge produced by science collides with (and generally overcomes) socially constructed knowledge. Think of Galileo, Darwin (including the current ID debate), and in Mormon circles, the "is the Book of Mormon real history" debate and its most recent chapter involving DNA evidence. The approach of the Mormon apologists in that regard has clearly been to redefine the Book of Mormon's claims to make them unfalsifiable, and hence non-scientific, and hence more amendable to being maintained as social constructs.

There is one way to test socially constructed knowledge that cuts across almost all human cultures and is relevant to Mormonism. A basic and finely tuned set of human skills or heuristics is related to sensing how trustworthy other people are. Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink" outlines some of the recent research in that regard. In a matter of seconds, most humans can form amazingly reliable impressions of how trustworthy other people they meet are likely to be. This ability is likely related to the importance to human group cohesion and success of the ability of group members to trust each other, and to weed out those that are not trustworthy. See also Gird Gigerenzer's research summarized at http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gigerenzer03/gigerenzer_index.html

On the other hand, there is massive literature on cognitive bias that outlines the circumstances in which humans are likely to misperceive in this regard. I describe some of this at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.the%... and http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.do%2... starting at page 26. Many of these distorting forces relate to what is called the "authority bias". This seems to derive from the need individual humans historically have had to be protected by a group. Until recently it has been more important to our survival to act so as to maintain group cohesion than to always be "right". Hence we are biased toward agreeing with the dominant authority in our group. The principle of insufficient justification and the saying-is-believing principle (as noted in the second document referenced above) are best thought of in some ways as sub-sets of the authority bias.

When our amazing ability to detect untrustworthy behaviour and our tendency to defer to authority are considered in context, I think the following is a reasonable hypothesis. The ability to detect untrustworthiness has been important to human survival, but not as important as being within a protective group. Hence, certain types of untrustworthiness within the group tend not to be detected including many of the foibles exhibited by group leaders. For this reason, the same leadership flaws and untrustworthiness that goes unnoticed within the group will be highly visible to people outside the group, and what is effective leadership within the group will often be perceived as pure evil by outsiders. Think of Hitler and countless other political leaders. And, when we consider the way in which con artists operate, we find that they invoke the authority bias in innumerable ways thus disconnecting our critical faculties. We find the same thing - usually in more subtle fashion - accountable for much of the success our best salesman have. See Robert Levine "The Power of Persuasion - How We Are Bought and Sold" for in interesting read in that regard.

In modern North American society religious groups are not required to protect their members. Yet the instincts that cause deference to group norms in terms of accepting socially constructed knowledge and overlooking leadership error work in favor of such groups. This is due to the fact that human biology changes much more slowly than human society.

So, when one steps outside of the Mormon group and looks back with an outsider's eyes, what does one see? First, one sees a group of people who inexplicably (until the above factors are considered) accept as their foundational premises the word of a man who is a proven deceiver (whether delusional or dishonest being irrelevant) with regard to immensely important matters, and who justified some of his most egregious deceptions on the basis that God told him to deceive. This is the same God who he said authorized him, and only him, to lead all of humanity.

The second thing one notices is that only a tiny percentage of the Mormon group is aware of the extent of the founding leader's deception, and the extent to which current leaders continue to deceive. And, when this information is presented to group members, there are two main responses. Some quickly distance themselves from the group, and the rest find a way to rationalize the leaders' behaviour (past and present) in a fashion that would be acceptable to virtually no group outsiders. That is, group outsiders almost universally and immediately conclude that anyone who would deceive about the range of things Smith did should not be believed about anything of substance, and particularly should not be believed when he claims God's unique authority to lead mankind. And the outsiders immediately recognize in Smith's behavior a well known human pattern - that of the con man who invokes the authority bias to take advantage of others. Group insiders can't see this.

All of this is consistent with the hypothesis just indicated.

And then when one goes around looking in on other religious groups who have similarly odd versions of socially constructed belief when compared to the broader society in which they find themselves, one finds similar behavoural patterns both with regard to group insiders and outsiders.

Best regards,

bob
topic image
The Creation And Erosion Of False Faith: A Timeline
Monday, Nov 28, 2005, at 10:03 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Here is another marathon post. Sorry about that. I put this together for my own purposes and thought it might be useful to some others.

Introduction

As noted on another thread (link to exmormon.org deleted), I was doing some file cleaning today and ran across a number of letters I wrote while leaving Mormonism. This prompted some thought with regard to how my faith was created and eroded, and I decided to record them since I have not thought about the details of this process for a long time and the perspective I have now allowed me to see some things that I had not previously seen. Most of this has to do with how pressure was building that I could even perceive until I was at the end of the process and could look back.

Some have criticized me for sharing deeply personal information in what I write. I have made the conscious decision to do this (within limits in some cases determined by my wife where events involve her) because this is precisely the kind of communication that Mormonism cuts off, and I believe that I would have benefited tremendously had others been willing and able to share experience of this kind with me.

Hence, I don’t say that I did things the “right” way or that others should follow my example. In fact, it seems clear to me now that I could have proceeded more wisely (much more wisely in some cases) had I known more about the nature of the process. So all I offer here is a review of what happened in my case and hope that this will be helpful to some others as they attempt to hear their own voices and see the path ahead of them.

And, I note that I no longer hold many of the beliefs that are contained in the several letters that are included below. A worldview can only change so fast.

Finally, I have included several letters in full because I want a record of them in this format. To make the timeline easier to follow, I have noted these letters and attached them at the end of the piece.

Principles

After writing the timeline below, I decided that it would be helpful for those reading it to appreciate the context within which I now see events before reading them. Here is a summary of that context.

We all start somewhere with inherited beliefs of many kinds. Religions beliefs are a form of inherited beliefs.

There is a powerful correlation between inherited beliefs and persistent perceptual error. That is, Mormons can spot the silliness and the JWs can spot Mormonism’s silliness, but neither can see their own problems. Inherited beliefs often create blind spots. This is attributed to various cognitive biases, the most important of which is likely the confirmation bias. Once you have committed to any particular position, this commitment makes it difficult for you to process information contra that position.

Interestingly, the smarter you are the harder the confirmation bias bites. This is thought to be because smart people are better able to find patterns in complex data sets and persuade other people to their point of view, both of which tend to support their beliefs no matter how crazy they may be to people who do not start out encumbered by them.

I would suggest that this is a reason for humility for those of us who have escaped. It is likely that we did not leave because we are the “smart one” who "thought our way out”. Rather, it is likely that we have questioning, authority resisting personalities as a result of our nature and nurture and these allowed us to see more of what is obvious to almost all those who are not subject to the confirmation bias with regard to Mormonism.

Cognitive dissonance (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.do%2... at page 39) lies at the bases of the cognitive biases, including the confirmation bias. It fires up whenever any information challenges our inherited beliefs and the social networks, our conditioning, education, etc. that go along with them. All of this is, in effect, a weight that holds our existing religious beliefs in place regardless of whether they are correct.

Whether we can overcome that cognitive dissonance, and how long that will take, depends on our ability to learn and change, as determined by genetics and conditioning. Michael Shermer in his book "How We Believe" cites extensive social science research that shows that the more open a person is to new experience, as measured by a personality trait called "openness", the more likely it is that she will become less certain or more liberal in her religious views as time passes. I have collected data in the post-Mormon community online that indicates that certain Meyers-Briggs personality types are more likely to question their religious beliefs than others. Particularly, those who are introverted (as opposed to extroverted); intuitive (as opposed to sensing); and thinking (as opposed to feeling) are more likely to seriously question Mormonism. My data sample size and the manner in which it was collected, however, were such that these conclusions are tentative at best. I am in the process of preparing a larger andmore reliable survey that will address the same issue.

Our psychology seems to be designed to promote stability – to cause us not to change social groups unless the cost benefit advantages are obvious, and often not even then. This makes sense in light of the importance of being part of a well functioning group to our survival throughout most of humankind's evolutionary history. Hence, the threat of expulsion from our primary social group causes profound fear. This buttresses cognitive dissonance and makes information that challenges our beliefs more difficult to rationally evaluate. This irrational fear of leaving the group is exploited to a tee by Mormonism and other similar groups.

It takes a massive amount of learning for even a personality type predisposed toward change to overcome the weight I have described in the case of a well-conditioned Mormon. I visualize this as an old fashioned set of scales, like the scales of justice. Disconfirming experience and evidence has to be piled on the side of our scales opposite religious belief until they begin to tip. That is, we have to experience enough cognitive dissonance to make us finally question the reality we have assumed to exist. The epiphany experience many people have as they leave a controlling religious faith is related to what happens when we reach the "tipping point" on our scale. Then, suddenly, it is as if a switch were thrown and we can see all kinds of things that have been building up just out of view as a result of the work our mind has been doing to keep us in denial. Suddenly, much of this information and insight is released into the conscious mind because the unconscious can no longer hold it back. It is as if the lights suddenly came on. This experience changes most people irrevocably. Afterwards, they can perhaps fake being who they were, but they are and always will be different in fundamental ways.

For the reasons just indicated, I doubt very much that I could have thought my way out of Mormonism without several years of decompression after my stint as Bishop, which ended just over a decade ago. I needed that much time, space and energy to slowly take weight off the Mormon side of the scale and to experience cognitive dissonance producing things that would add weight to the other side.

And, perhaps most importantly, I needed time to become sentient again. I was so busy for so long that I no longer felt much outside of a narrow range of the emotional spectrum. It was the realization that something had died inside of me that got my conscious attention first. I was depressed but not so badly that I could be diagnosed as such. I went to various doctors, assuming that something was physically wrong with me. I checked out clean in each case. Only as I emerged from Mormonism did my vitality come back.

The question of limited time raised another important perspective from which to consider the phenomenon of Mormon belief.

There is only so much time. If a large percentage (almost 100%) of a person’s discretionary time is devoted to Mormon activities, there will be little chance to place life in a broad perspective and hence see Mormonism in context so that one might question whether it is what it purports to be.

This is a classic magician’s trick called “misdirection”. See http://www.leirpoll.com/misdirection/.... As the legendary magician Jean Hugard said, "The principle of misdirection plays such an important role in magic that one might say that Magic is misdirection and misdirection is Magic". That is, magic is performed by the magician using tendencies in human perception to make us look at his left hand while his right hand (or foot, or assistant, etc.) does something that we do not notice and gives the impression that something magical has occurred.

So, if we are focused on the minutiae of living a Mormon life, the big picture will not be questioned. Hence, Mormonism (and many other religions that use the same system) are all about the details of daily living, and result in such a busy day to day existence that there is no opportunity to think about where the train is headed.

This is not the result of the plan of some evil men sitting around in the Salt Lake Temple. Rather, this is how human social organizations of all types to some extent function. They spontaneously organize to protect themselves, find the resources they need to flourish, etc. The reason that the rules of modern democracies are so important is that they run against the hierarchical gain of human groups, and so force human organizations in an unnatural direction. This requires leaders to account to members; this restrains the natural direction of power; this requires information about how and why leadership decisions are made to be disclosed to the members. Perhaps the clearest lesson from human history is that absent the constraints that democracy imposes on the power of those at the top of the social pyramid, power will be abused.

The Timeline

In any event, here is the timeline as I now see it.

1971-74: I was aged 13 to 16 during this period and in all out rebellion against Mormonism and its restrictive standards. I did not commit terrible sin, but engaged in a lot of the usual teenage experimentation – some drinking, smoking tobacco, marijuana and hashish, etc. This caused tremendous conflict with my parents. The pain this caused eventually broke me. I could see how I was hurting them and my younger brothers and sisters. I felt great guilt as a result of this and my “deviant”, “sinful” (from a Mormon point of view) behaviour that would consign to my life outside the Celestial Kingdom. As I lit up a cigarette one day I recall thinking that this life was not so bad, and since the Telestial Kingdom was like this life I would be OK. But the pain I seemed to be inflicting on my family and thought of being separated from them throughout the eternities eventually became too much for me to bear.

1974-76: I was trying to “straighten up” and eventually did so. This healed the rift with my family. I was a classic returned prodigal who was celebrated in many ways.

1977-79: I served a Mormon mission in southern Peru. I was a completely straight arrow missionary. The pain I experienced while playing at the edges of the teenage road made me decide that the only way to go was straight up the middle.

1979-89: I continued as a straight arrow. God blesses those who are obedient and who sacrifice for him. I was committed to doing all I was asked to do by the Mormon Church. My wife and I married. Our family started 10 months later. We had four kids while I earned three university degrees. I served as various class and quorum instructors, stake missionary, YM pres., Stake YM presidency, High Counselor. I did not miss a single home teaching visit. The law firm I joined, the nature of legal practice I choose (tax), the city where we lived, the part of city where we lived, and many other foundational decisions were made on the basis of what would be best from a “service to the kingdom” perspective. My main goal in life was to experience the receipt of God’s confidence and power described in Helaman 10.

I was acutely aware that from the time I had “gone straight” I had succeeded in virtually everything I had attempted, and believed that my success had been negligible prior to that. This I attributed to God’s blessing and cursing. I had not yet noticed how ill my wife was, and how desolate our relationship was. This was largely the result of my neglect and the ridiculous burden she imposed on herself as a result of constant pregnancy and effectively raising our children alone. Her individuality had dissolved.

1989: We decided to leave Vancouver, British Columbia. Living there required too much commuting and not enough time at home. The realization of how bad our marriage situation was slowly dawning. The realization that the pace at church was too great was buried in the background, but starting to call for attention and being pushed down. I accepted job in another city and was called as Bishop two days later. I told the SP about why had decided to leave Vancouver, etc. He told me that God had work for me to do there and that if I had the faith to accept I would be blessed to be able to deal with my problems. I told him to go away and fast, pray etc. and tell me he was sure that he was speaking for God. He did, and called me early in the morning the following day at work to tell me so. So I told him I would serve as required, hung up the phone, knelt down and begged God to make me equal to the task. I believed he would, but was terrified.

I then called the law firm whose offer of employment I had accepted a few days before and asked to be released from my contractual commitment to them, and then went to the firm I worked for (where I had resigned a couple of days before) and asked for my old job back. I am sure both firms thought I was nuts, but one released me and the other gave me my job back.

1989-93: I served as Bishop. We had two more kids. The pace of life went from frenetic to crazy. Our marriage and my wife’s health continued to decline without being noticed. Exhaustion set in. But being constantly admitted into the most intimate details of other peoples’ lives, being trusted, obeyed, and told how wonderful you are has a way of buoying one up. I am deeply conflicted now with regard to many of the friendships that were formed during this time. They were based, in my view, on false pretences. To continue, each has had to be placed on a new and completely different footing. This is a difficult process that I have only been able to successfully negotiate in a few cases.

I was still completely obedient to Mormon authority. For example, after about three years as Bishop I told the SP that we had decided that after six kids that it was time for me to have a vasectomy. The Handbook of Instructions indicated that this decision should not be made without the counsel of ecclesiastical leaders, and counseled against it. To make sure my memory on this point is accurate, I looked the GHI up to. Here is what it says:

“Surgical Sterilization (Including Vasectomy). ‘Surgical sterilization should only be considered (1) where medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health, or (2) where birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the person or persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop (or branch president) and receive divine confirmation through prayer’ (11-5).”

I told him that my wife was not coping well; etc. He questioned the wisdom of taking this step, noting that my wife and I were young (35 and 32 respectively), and that he and his wife had 8 kids and one of his counsellors had 10 and the other 7. The second counsellor’s wife had her children all in circumstances of difficult health. Her referred me to the GHI (see above) where it counsels against vasectomy and suggested that we continue to use the forms of birth control that had so far resulted in four pregnancies. He noted that if my wife's health was that bad, that perhaps a hysterectomy might be in order. I was irritated, but changed my plans according to his advice.

Later, as the end of my five year term as Bishop approached I told the SP that my wife and I had decided to move to a different and smaller city after I was released because our family situation (commuting, too much time on church stuff etc.) was killing our marriage and family life. The SP told me that the stake presidency would be reorganized shortly (stake split) and that I was likely to be called to new SPresidency. He told me that he felt that God had work for me to do in the new SPresidency. In my first small act of defiance of Mormon authority, I told him that I was confident that we should move, and would do so despite what he told me. I told him that when I fasted and prayed (and I had done a lot of that) about this issue I felt perfectly at peace with moving and my stomach churned at the thought of staying. I asked him if he was in a position to extend a calling to me (knowing that he was not) and said that absent that, I would leave. I felt comfortable with the idea that God had accepted that our family’s needs would be better met in another city, and that there I would do what I could to take low profile church callings that would not require the time away from my family that had I to put as Bishop. We parted on friendly terms and a few months later, I accepted a job in a new city, told the SP when I would be leaving, was duly released, and left.

One of my last acts as Bishop was to deal with a man who resigned his membership on the basis of things he had learned about Joseph Smith’s polygamous activities. I counselled him unsuccessfully several times, did not read the literature he gave me on the basis that history is so uncertain that you can’t know what to believe, and gave him some Hugh Nibley books. I was not fazed in the slightest as far as I could tell by this encounter. However, I had started to question some doctrinal matters that did not make sense to me. These were minor questions, from my point of view then - inconsistencies that would be eventually cleared up. I took the approach of Camilla Kimball (see her biography – she also drank wine while with Spencer on a Church trip to France) with regard to these matters. That is, I had a few “chestnuts” that I kept up on a mental shelf that I occasionally took down and chewed on, and then put back up. They didn’t bother me in a material way as far as I knew. I made no connection between what I had been told about Smith (teenage girls; huge number of wives; lying; etc.) and my other concerns.

1993-2001: Once in our new city I was exhausted and went to see several doctors in an effort to find a medical reason for how I felt. I was told that I was simply exhausted and that should stop trying to do so much. I now realize that I was close to a nervous breakdown. The effort required to be Bishop had completely sapped my strength and I while I acknowledged that I could not acknowledge how close to the brink I was.

It took several years for my energy to gradually come back. I think that I had in some ways hit a “growth” wall as well. The administrative challenge of making life work as Bishop was more than enough to fully occupy me. But once that was gone and I needed to find meaning in the practice and study of Mormonism as a regular member, I found more and more that did not make sense and so shied away from study. I now know that I need a relatively high level of intellectual stimulation unless I am so busy that I don't notice this need. And it is not healthy for me to be that busy.

Attending Sunday School and Priesthood classes was painful because of their repetitious nature and ridiculous things that were often taught there. Human nature, as far as I can tell, is strongly orientated toward innovation and leaning. Mormon discourages this beyond the basics, and encourages a deadening attitude of “enduring to the end”. This causes death from the head down at an early age, and is likely connected to the statistics regarding Mormon anti-depressant use.

But the problems with Mormonism I had found were all ignorable. I had still not read anything but the Nibley kind of stuff. And anyway, the Gospel is perfect, not the Church or the people. This was the place for me to exercise my spiritual muscles precisely because the people were so imperfect. Bla, bla, bla.

In our new ward I was immediately called as scout master. Our oldest son was about to become a scout so I accepted. About a year later I was called to be the YM pres. in same ward, which would have resulted in my having to leave my son and take care of someone else's kids. I begged the Bishop to reconsider on basis that I wished to spend my “church time” with my son. I still believed that if called, after explaining the circumstances fully to the person issuing the call, I must accept. The Bishop allowed me to remain with the scouts. Had he not, this might have put me over the edge. During this period I missed the first few home teaching visits of my adult life and felt terribly guilty about that. I tended to form close relationships with the families I home taught, and these misses came after my “route” was arbitrarily changed. I blamed my derogation of duty on still being tired, but could hear a little voice telling me that it was because I was pissed at the HP group leader who had made these nonsensical changes after I had invested so heavily in service to and friendship with “my” families. This little voice scared me.

After three years with the scouts we moved to a new ward in the same city and Stake. I was immediately called to the Stake YM presidency. After a year in that position, I was called to be Stake Mission Pres. I accepted on condition that I did not have to put in the 10 hours per week technically required by the calling, and would have not to call other stake missionaries to account for this. I had always felt this time requirement was a ridiculous rule that hardly anyone obeyed and hence caused many people to feel guilty. I had not required it of the stake missionaries in my ward while I was bishop.

After about six months as Stake Mission President the SPresidency went through two successive reorganizations. On both occasions a number of people approached me and indicated that they had heard, or were sure, that I was about to be called into the SPresidency. I pleaded with God not to do that to me. Our family situation was worsening in some ways as the seeds of my neglect came home to roost. Our oldest daughter was going through all kinds of trouble; my wife continued in relatively ill health but resisted seeking treatment, etc. I had my speech prepared in the event I was called, but felt that if the calling was extended in any event I would have to accept. In neither case was I called. The relief I felt was tremendous. I suspect I missed that bullet in part because of the clear conditions I had put around my calling as Stake Mission President that related to what I perceived to be my needs at home at the time. Had I been called into the SPresidency, I would have given it my best shot and likely not beenin the mental space required to make the changes I later did.

- July - Sept 2001: I had a three month sabbatical from the practice of law during which for the first time since my teenage years I had time to think and fully unwind. This was a wonderful, new experience. I visited my mission field with my family and had a wonderful time connecting with families I had converted while there, all of whom were still "faithful". I was unaware of any spiritual "trouble" on the horizon, but loosened up in a number of ways in terms of my commitment to work and realized how frenetic our lifestyle still was. I could tell that the time to think about what I was doing in life was healthy, and committed to making that more a part of how I lived. Ironically, this was encouraged by a seminar I attended at BYU while on a Marriott School of Management program that focused on how modern society (of course not the Mormon Church) tended to make us into “human doings” instead of “human beings”. I committed to try to become better at “being”.

- November 2001: Our eldest son (my little scout) left for a Mormon mission in the Ukraine. My remarks at his farewell can be found at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/brayden... I was still serving as Stake Mission Pres. I had some extremely irritating experiences while trying to arrange for his departure to occur so that he could return without losing a full year of university. His departure was, it seemed, eventually designed to do precisely what I had diplomatically tried to avoid. In the end, he lost a full academic year. I wondered at the time if someone was attempting to teach me humility as a result of the polite request I had made. But I wrote it off as not a big deal and did not think or worry about it. People are sometimes petty. The Gospel is true; the people are imperfect, etc.

- Sometime in 2001: The Mission President with whom I worked as Stake Mission President tried to introduce a new proselytizing program that required more than the usual extreme use of guilt and fear on member missionaries (ie. all members). I refused to cooperate on the basis that carrots work better than sticks, and I found the proposed approach personally objectionable. In a carefully controlled meeting with the other Stake Mission Presidents in our and an adjoining Region, I was shown a video during which Spencer Kimball (I think) clearly advocated the tactics the Mission Pres. wanted us to use. The other Stake Mission presidents in attendance agreed to go along. I surprised myself by flatly, on the spot and in public, refusing to have my Stake participate. I was particularly irritated at the attempt to manipulate me and the others present through the use of group dynamics (show the film; ask for public commitment one by one starting with those known to be ready to commit; etc.). I invited the Mission Pres. to take the matter up with my Stake Pres. if he wished. Mouths dropped all over the room. The Mission Pres. was a former senior executive with the O.C. Tanner company, and was clearly irritated with my unwillingness to get in line and march when told to do so. His counselor, one of my long time friends, took my aside afterwards and begged me to not make his life any more difficult than I already had.

I still had no concerns with regard to the Mormon Church as an institution, but was not prepared to bow to authority as I had been. My SP never spoke to me about the matter.

I recognized at the time that the manner in which I had simply and publicly defied the Mission Pres. meant that I had crossed some kind of a line, but I did not think enough about this to recognize what was happening. My relationship to Mormon authority was changing. I believe that this would have happened much earlier had I not been on the authority side of the equation for so long. The study of cognitive biases (the "principle of insufficient justification" in particular) explains why this should be expected to be the case. See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.do%2... at page 48.

I had also become a “regular” home teacher. That is, I did my home teaching about as often as the other members of the HP quorum – maybe 50%. I still felt guilty about this, but excused myself on the basis of how tough things still were around our home with first one daughter and then another running into huge problems.

- March 2002: I resigned as Stake Mission President for "family reasons". We had a number of challenges with a couple of our children and my wife and I felt that we needed to focus on things at home. However, things were no more difficult at this point than they had been for a couple of years. I was unaware of any changes to my faith that may have been then occurring. However, I wonder now if a New Yorker article that one of my Mormon partners passed on to me for comment may have had something to do with this. You can find it at http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content... I wrote a lengthy Nibleyesque critique and gave it back to my partner and invited him to circulate it. He later reported that his father-in-law (a General Authority) had commented favourably with regard to my analysis. I was perceived in the Mormon community as one of the intellectual “defenders of the faith” and for that reason my partner had given the article tome. However, some of the questions that New Yorker article raised did not simply go away. And I felt like I had been kicked in the stomach as I read it for the first time. After writing my rebuttal, however, I felt fine on the surface at least. The questions, I now believe, percolated in my subconscious.

July 2002: A friend called me to tell me that his son had left Mormonism as a result of things he had found on the Internet. He had been our Bishop before I was called to take his place and has done numerous kind things for us over the years. I had been his son’s bishop, his Venturer leader, had counseled him through some tough times as a rebellious youth, and sent him on a mission. I was very close to both father and son. I thought, “That kid is in over his head. I will get on the Internet, find the stuff that concerned him and straighten him out.”

The next morning, a Monday, I typed “anti-Mormon” into Google. I had never read anything about religion on the Internet or any anti-Mormon literature except as Bishop some of the “Godmakers” while helping a ward member with that while Bishop. The “Godmakers” strengthened my Mormon testimony. That book uses the wrong approach to reach Mormons. It is designed to keep Baptists out of Mormonism, not help Mormonism to see the weakness of their own position.

In any event, for the next three weeks I did very little legal work or anything else, other than read Mormonism (pro and con) from early awakening to late and troubled falling into bed. I went back and forth between FARMS and academic sources, having quickly determined that the General Authorities and most strident of the anti-Mormons were not worth paying attention to. I had diarrhea during most of that period, and off and on for many months following.

I stopped attending Church, but found work and family travel excuses each week to excuse that.

I mentioned to my wife that I was seriously questioning some aspects of our beliefs, and the emotional nature of her response warned me not to say anything else until I was sure what I needed to do.

August 2002: My surrender is described http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.reve.... This is not exactly how it occurred, but the emotional impact is accurately conveyed. Then I had to decide what to do.

I started to frantically try to find the bottom of the pool in terms of "truth", and entered what I will always remember of one of the most exciting phases of my life. That is, as terrifying as the “destruction” of false faith is, the construction of a realistic worldview that is truly one’s own is wonderful. I spontaneously teared up at least one a week at the joy of discovering how connected I was to humanity; how sensible science was; how rich other faith and philosophical traditions were, etc.

And the joy of freedom! This did not hit home fully until I was able to come out of the closet. A gay friend who is familiar with my experience tells me that the emotional territory I was travelling at this point is almost identical to what many gays experience as they "come out".

October 2, 2002: With an incredibly poor sense of timing that my wife will never let me forget, I took her away for a overnight trip to celebrate our 21st wedding anniversary and told her that I no longer believed; was not going to participate in Mormon services anymore; would teach our children about my beliefs; was breaching my temple covenants of obedience; and that I loved her more than ever and wanted to recommit to her as a marriage partner on terms by which we could both live. She went ballistic, and for many months that followed we struggled to determine whether our marriage would survive.

October 2002: After Juli and I had our talk and spent a miserable night together, we returned home and the next day I called the kids together and told them what I had decided to do and let them ask any questions they wanted. This went surprisingly well. Two daughters aged 16 and 21 at the time told me how happy they were; that they had never believed. They still say that they felt like being let out of prison. Both immediately began to be more open with me about what was going on in their lives.

The younger kids (aged 12, 10 and 8) were concerned because they could tell that uncertainty was in the air as far as our family was concerned. However, they have each adjusted well. None of them has any inclination to return to Mormon activity. Our son in the mission field and daughter at BYU took the news very badly and are both still active Mormons.

I told the kids at home that we should not talk to others about what I had decided to do because they would not understand. I was still not sure about whether I would attend LDS services on some basis, etc.

October 24, 2002: I sent a letter to my friend and Bishop resigning my callings. It is attached as Appendix A.

October - November 2002: Shortly after I sent the letter to the Bishop, one of my Mormon partners (I am a partner in a large law firm; in our office at the time we had about 40 partners of whom five were LDS) came into my office, closed the door and told me that he had heard I was having an affair with my secretary and that he understood how these things happen, etc. and wanted to assure me that he was still my friend, was there for me, etc. It then came out that he had also heard that I was questioning my Mormon beliefs, which would make sense if I was having an affair. One of my daughters, it turned out, had told one of her friends “in confidence” about our family meeting, and the word had spread like wildfire. My partner lived two stakes away on the far side of a city of 1,000,000 people. Adultery was a much more palatable explanation for my change in belief than the most careful, prayer, consideration of my like.

As a result, I sent a letter to 30 of my Mormon business associates that was designed to make sure that I was not savaged by the rumour mill. It is found in Appendix B.

November - December 2002: Within a week of the above letter going out, my SP contacted me. We met once alone, and once with a local GA. The day after the meeting with the GA, I sent him the letter attached as Appendix C.

A couple of days later the SP told me that after consulting with the GA and others in Salt Lake City that he felt that he had no choice but to require that I agree not to talk to anyone outside my immediately family about my beliefs, or resign my membership, or go through the “court of love” process.

I immediately resigned. My resignation letter is attached as Appendix D.

December 2002 – November 2005: My beliefs have continued to evolve toward secular humanism. I am thrilled with life. My marriage survived (thank goodness) and my wife is doing better emotionally and physically than at any other time in our marriage.

This process has not been easy, but now that I understand it I would not hesitate to go down the same road again. We are programmed to fear what we don’t understand, and since we have no experience with what is on the outside of Mormonism, there is no way for us to appreciate the good things that await those who are prepared to challenge Mormonism’s false authority. I am grateful to whatever it is that allowed me to have this experience.

Best regards,

bob
topic image
Mormon Relationships - Its About Time
Monday, Nov 28, 2005, at 10:11 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I attended the funeral of a business associate the other day. He died tragically at age 50 of cancer. At his funeral were members of his hockey and fast pitch teams. He had played on those teams for over 20 years with the same group of guys, gradually drifting down through the divisions from “open” to “old fart” over the years with the athletic activity gradually being replaced by social relationships as the focus of the team. This made me ache for what might have been, and decide to pursue the same kind of relationship are my relatively advanced age (47).

Relationships of the kind my deceased friend had are rare within Mormonism, unless your ward boundaries and callings don’t change for over 20 years. That is, personal relationships of all kinds are determined not by preference, what you like to do, etc., but by the way in which the Mormon Church functions. This is only one of countless ways in which the Mormon Church inserts itself into our most intimate relationships with the result if not the intent that our relationship to Mormonism remains primary and all other relationships subsidiary.

This results from the fact that Mormonism’s primary objective is to create the strongest possible institution. Hence, its social structures are set up to do this and so the relationships sponsored by Mormonism are relatively weak. Strong personal relationships, after all, would likely interfere with allegiance to the institution. All the way along the road Mormons are required in uncounted ways to affirm the primacy of their relationship to the institution. This is usually presented a commitment to God.

So, the Mormon Church impedes the development of real friendship by keeping people so busy that the only relationships one has time to nurture are those related to church callings. This is yet more evidence of the way in which Mormonism puts it institutional interests ahead of those of its members. The image of human bodies being used as anesthetized batteries to run the machine world in the Matrix series is a useful caricature in this regard. Consider the following in this regard:

Time and “Misdirection”

It is all about time. This is where the scam has its roots.

There is only so much time. If a large percentage (almost 100%) of a person’s discretionary time is devoted to Mormon activities, there will be little chance to place life in a broad perspective and hence see Mormonism in context so that one might question whether it is what it purports to be.

This is a classic magician’s trick called “misdirection”. See http://www.leirpoll.com/misdirection/... As the legendary magician Jean Hugard said, "The principle of misdirection plays such an important role in magic that one might say that Magic is misdirection and misdirection is Magic". That is, magic is performed by the magician using tendencies in human perception to make us look at his left hand while his right hand (or foot, or assistant, etc.) does something that we do not notice and gives the impression that something magical has occurred.

One of my favorite magic tricks (and one of the few that is simple enough for me to do) is performed as follows. A group of people is seated in chairs and watching the trick. I put my hands in front of the subject’s face, and about a foot away from her nose. I show her a handkerchief with my left hand, and then while moving my hands around each other in a circular manner that is supposed to look confusing but not be confusing, I stuff the handkerchief into my closed right fist so that an edge is still visible. While doing so, I close my left hand into an identical fist. I then ask her where the handkerchief is. She points to the right hand.

I repeat this procedure twice more. Each time the subject easily spots the handkerchief.

Now, having defined the “relevant space” and “relevant actions” for my subject, I know that her attention will be focused on the area around my hands in front of her and on what my hands have done the past three times. This time as I move my hands in precisely the circular motion I have trained her to watch, I release the handkerchief from my left hand and it flies quickly over her head. This is obvious to everyone else in the room because they stand at a distance from the action that allows them to see the handkerchief as it hangs in the air for a second and falls to the floor. However, the subject has the chance to see the handkerchief as it moves about 12 inches before passing out of her field of vision, and she is focused on the area a few inches around my hands. While the human eye is quick enough to pick motion of this sort up, when “misdirected” it will not do so. The subject looks foolish when she assumes that the handkerchief is in the right hand again, and is amazed when it is not in either hand.

And misdirection is much more powerful that this. My favorite object lesson in this regard can be found on the Internet (though I could not find it now), where I once say a video clip of people passing a basketball between them. Five (I think) people are dressed in light colored clothes, are walking in a complicated pattern and are passing a light colored ball between them. You are told to count the number of times the ball moves from one person to another. This is not easy to do because of the way they move in front of each other while passing the ball around. After the video is over (maybe 30 seconds) you are asked if you noticed anything “odd”. I didn’t. “You didn’t see the gorilla?” you are asked. “Nope” was my response. So you replay the video.

While the people are walking through their pattern and passing the ball, a man dressed in a black gorilla suit walks into the middle of the group, turns toward the camera, lifts his arms and makes a face, and then walks out of the frame. It is that obvious. And I did not see it because I was focused on who was passing the ball to whom, and the gorilla was dressed like the background (dark) instead of the figures (light). But once you knew that something “odd” had happened and paid close attention, this was as obvious as the computer sitting right now on the desk in front of me. It was “magical” when the gorilla appeared out of thin air.

Such is the power of misdirection.

Mormon Misdirection

So, if we are sufficiently focused on the minutiae of living a Mormon life, the big picture will not be questioned. Hence, Mormonism (and many other religions that use the same system) are all about the details, routine and ritual of daily living, and result in such a busy day to day existence that there is little opportunity to think about where the train is headed.

This is not the result of the plan of some evil men sitting around in the Salt Lake Temple. Rather, this is how human social organizations of all types to some extent function. They spontaneously organize to protect themselves, find the resources they need to flourish, etc. The reason that the rules of modern democracies are so important is that they run against the hierarchical grain of human groups, and so force human organizations in an unnatural direction. This requires leaders to account to members; this restrains the natural direction of hierarchical power; this requires information about how and why leadership decisions are made to be disclosed to the members.

Perhaps the clearest lesson from human history is that absent the constraints that democracy imposes on the power of those at the top of the social pyramid, power will be abused.

Mormon Relationships

How does, then, Mormonism affect our relationships?

Marriage

This is arguably (and hopefully) our most intimate relationship. As such, it contains a power that can either work for or against the social organization. Mormonism adroitly harnesses this power to work it. See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.a%20...

The Mormon Church is institutionalized as a third party to the marriage relationships. Both spouses make promises in the marriage ceremony of obedience to Mormonism. If one spouse falters in this commitment, the marriage is in trouble. Mormons are encouraged to marry young and to immediately put down anchors in terms of the wife staying home to have kids so that if the Church relationship is threatened there is a lot at stake.

Other Family Relationships

I often thought, and said, while Mormon that I deeply appreciated the way in which the Mormon Church helped me to raise my children. In exchange for my spending time with their kids as YM president, others spent time with my younger children. Parents, I thought, could not do certain things for their own kids, and so it was good that I had a village to help me raise my kids. It was a cooperative.

What I did not realize was that by weakening the primary bonds between parents and children, for example, and by substituting relationships that are brokered by Mormonism, the Mormon Church was gradually taking a control position with my own children.

I should have seen this coming because when my own ultra orthodox Mormon parents suggested to my wife and I when we married that perhaps waiting a year or two to start our family would be a good idea, we both thought that they were becoming a bit worldly, and accepted instead the advice of our even more ultra orthodox Mormon institute director (I was the LDSSA President at our university at the time) to "not put off bringing spirits into mortality" for any reason. Baby no. 1 was born 9.5 months after our marriage.

When I told my children that my beliefs had changed, two of the oldest four were sufficiently conditioned by Mormonism (as ages 20 and 18 respectively) that they distanced themselves from me. Our son, who was serving his mission at the time, expressly refused for a long time to look at anything I wanted him to read because, "I respect your intellect Dad, and you have been deceived. Whatever has deceived you can deceive me, so I can't afford to take the chance of looking at it." He now says he will look, but as far as I can tell has not done so in a meaningful way.

Friendships

Friendships are usually formed on the basis four things: Neighborhood proximity; children’s activities; personal interest; and professional interests.

The Mormon mindset (we are the chosen; we are in the world but not of the world; etc.), social organization and time requirements all interfere with each of these relationship forming mechanisms.

For a Mormon, neighborhood proximity is not as important to the opportunity to be friends as which ward she is in. There is not enough time for close friendships with neighbors in the usual fashion because of the time spent attending to Mormon ward activities. And when the ward boundaries change or someone moves a short distance but out of the ward, friendships change. If you don’t see people at church at the various activities each week, it is hard to maintain friendships on the basis of the time otherwise available. If they move out of the Stake, or the Stake boundaries change, the may as well have gone to Europe. I remember lamenting this many times as ward and stake boundaries changed and people moved to new neighborhoods close by but in different wards.

Children’s activities are dominated by Mormonism, and to the extent that our kids are involved in the community we run into the time problem again when it comes to developing non-Mormon friendships. Just when are you going to see these non-Mormon friends, particularly if you are on the Mormon leadership track?

The same sort of thing can be said of the friendships one has at work or as a result of hobbies. Life’s focus is directed toward what happens at church.

As callings change within the ward, and particularly as home and visiting teaching callings change, the amount of time we spend with different people radically changes. Think was happens if one is moved from the Elder’s Quorum Presidency into the Young Men’s Presidency? Or from the Relief Society to the Primary? Social life is largely reorganized as a result. Thus the message of obedience, and primary of the institution over the individual, is constantly reinforced.

How many true friends do you see regularly, once a month? How many of those friends consistently call you on the 29th or 30th and ask you to inconvenience yourself to set aside some time within the next two days for a visit? I remember flinching once before calling an non-member spouse of a ward member to do just this – knowing that it would be apparent to him that I was performing a duty instead of visiting a friend. But I did it. I apologized to him for the late call, but asked if he could nonetheless set aside some time the following night to chat with me. He sighed, and said yes.

This is an unnatural form of human social association. It is institutional. And if a friendship happens to be spawned during the course of such a HT or VT association it is highly unlikely to endure. I was so busy while Mormon that I did not occur to me to try to maintain close contact with former home teaching families after my assignment changed. It was simply not possible.

And what of the sports team relationships that I noted my recently deceased friend enjoyed so much? Very few Mormons participate on teams of this kind. Again, they are too busy. If they play sports they are likely to be Mormon sponsored teams. Those are subject to the vagaries of Ward boundary changes and so seldom endure over many years.

God Is In Control

I remember becoming aware in my mid-20s of the reality I have described above, and thinking that it was a good thing. That I was allowing God to determine who I associated with and who not. That God would use this to bring people into my life “for a reason” and so school me in his ways. Among the many bad things that happened as a result of this attitude is the worst (by a long ways) investment I have ever made. A relationship based on a Mormon calling blossomed into a business deal in which far too much confidence was placed in my Mormon colleague in large measure as a result of my “this is God’s way of guiding my life” attitude. I and other people we invested in this venture as a result in large measure of their respect for my judgment lost a total of more than $3,000,000 Cdn. as a result of my error. I am still paying for this bit of education and will continue to do so for a long time.

Children’s Friendships

On the way out of Mormonism we realized that we were in effect limiting our children’s circle of friends to the Mormon kids. We were not doing this overtly, but as we stopped attending Mormon meetings our kids’ friends changed. And in each case I can say that the “fit” between our kids and their friends improved. I believe that this is because the kids had a larger pool to choose from, and were able to find people to whom they more naturally related – with whom they more naturally resonated – than the Mormon kids with whom they used to associate.

Conclusion

I do not suggest that all Mormon relationships are puerile. I value some of my Mormon friendships still. However, it is clear that Mormonism’s primary interest is a strong institution. Hence, its social structures are set up with this as the primary objective and as a result, the relationships sponsored by Mormonism are poor relative to what can be expected of relationships formed on a more organic basis in the community at large.

Remember to watch for the gorilla.

Best regards,

bob
topic image
Religion And "Attachment Theory"
Thursday, Dec 1, 2005, at 12:03 PM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
This is an excerpt from "How Denial Works" (version 2) at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni.... If version 2 is not yet up when you check the document, wait for it to start reading or make a copy.

Best,

bob

Attachment Theory

Attachment theory applies the principles of evolutionary psychology to the study of child-parent relations and has been extended by some researchers to adult romantic relationships and other researchers (see Kirkpatrick and Faber below) to the relationship between individuals and religious groups or ideologies. In light of the cognitive bias research we have already reviewed, it is fair to suggest that the application of attachment theory to religious behaviour is closely related to the authority and conformist biases, or perhaps tells us something about their origins.

Lee Kirkpatrick, (see “Attachment, Evolution, and the Psychology of Religion” http://www.guilford.com/cgi-bin/carts...) in what is likely the best book published on this topic so far, indicates that attachment is just one of a large number of evolved behavioural systems that comprise human nature and are relevant to how different kinds of religious beliefs can be expected to affect the behaviour of different kinds of people. He indicates that attachment theory is particularly explanatory with regard to how many monotheists (for example, Christians, Jews and Muslims) relate to their religious beliefs and groups, and are affected by them.

Kirkpatrick’s statement as to why be believes attachment theory is a good place to start with regard to understanding monotheistic behaviour in particular is worth repeating in large measure Here it is, from the introduction of his book:

First, attachment theory is a fundamentally psychological theory. It was developed initially as a theory of infant social development, particularly focusing on the ways in which experience with caregivers shapes subsequent behavior and social relations; it was in no way developed specifically for the purpose of describing or explaining religion. ...

Second, attachment theory is more comprehensive than most alternatives currently extant in the psychology of religion. … It is not a theory about emotion, behavior, cognition, or physiology; it is a theory about all of these and, most important, about how all of these are integrated in an organized, functional way. The theory includes both normative and individual-difference components, which are needed if we wish to answer both normative questions (Why are people religious?) and individual-difference questions (Why are different people religious in different ways?) about religion.

Third, attachment theory is deeply explanatory. It does not merely describe how infants interact with their mothers, or adult romantic partners with one another, but purports to explain why humans are built in such a way that they behave this way. It not only provides a descriptive typology for conceptualizing individual differences in people’s orientations toward personal relationships and intimacy, it purports to explain how these differences come about and why the system works in this rather than some other way. This functional, process-oriented approach enables its application to other phenomena such as religion, offering a basis for addressing questions about both the causes of and individual differences in religious belief and behavior.

Fourth, attachment theory is unambiguously a scientific theory. It has been supported by countless empirical studies reflecting a multitude of methodologies and populations, meaning not only that we can have considerable confidence in it, but also that it has clearly been demonstrated to be amenable to empirical testing. Perhaps equally important, however, is the fact that its application to religion is not laden by evaluative baggage. In contrast to earlier psychoanalytic formulations that presuppose religion to be inherently infantile, regressive, and mentally unhealthy, attachment theory provides a more value-neutral theoretical basis for understanding many of the same aspects of religious belief in which Freud was interested. Like Freud’s theory, attachment theory focuses on human concerns about comfort and protection, and God is psychologically represented as a kind of parent figure. However, from an attachment theory perspective, there is absolutely nothing assumed to be “infantile” or “regressive” about any of this. As Bowlby argued cogently and other researchers have subsequently explored in depth, attachment system processes are designed to operate across the entire lifespan. Attachment theory thus provides a scientific view of how humans are designed with respect to these issues in a way that is inherently neither pro- nor antireligious.

The theory of attachment as it applies to children suggests that the manner in which a child relates to her parents – the form of attachment between child and parent – affects the way in which the child relates to many aspects of her environment. For example, one stream of research suggests that there are three common attachment “styles” demonstrated by infants to their parents. These are called Secure Attachment Anxious-Ambivalent Insecure Attachment Anxious-Avoidant Insecure Attachment, Disorganized Attachment. In each case, the nature of the nature of the attachment to the parent or primary caregiver is mirrored to an extent by other aspects of the infant’s behaviour.

For example, the manner in which a child relates to its mother might be observed in a way that would allow the child’s attachment style to be determined. Then other aspects of its behaviour would be observed. In such experiments, a correlation has been found between children who are securely attached to their mothers and children who tend to explore freely while the mother is present, will engage with strangers, will be visibly upset when the mother departs, and happy to see the mother return. The theory says that children are best able to explore when they have the knowledge of a secure base to return to in times of need. When assistance is given, this bolsters the sense of security and also, assuming the mother's assistance is helpful, educates the child in how to cope with the same problem in the future. Therefore, secure attachment can be seen as the most adaptive attachment style. According to some psychological researchers, a child becomes securely attached when the mother is available and able to meetthe needs of the child in a responsive and appropriate manner. Others have pointed out that there are also other determinants of the child's attachment (including genetic factors), and that behaviour of the parent may in turn be influenced by the child's behaviour.

Other researchers detected similar patterns of behaviour in adult romantic relationships. Securely attached people are able to place trust in their partner which, in turn, means they can confidently spend time apart. People with an anxious-ambivalent attachment style may have difficulties because their way of behaving in relationships can be seen as needy or clingy by their partner. They are prone to worry about whether their partner loves them or whether they are valued by their partner. People with an avoidant-attachment style are uncomfortable being close to others. They have difficulties in trusting other people and do not like to depend on others. These patterns are believed to develop in infancy, but can be modified as people enter into new relationships.

M.D. Faber in “The Psychological Roots of Religious Belief: Searching for Angels and the Parent-God” (see http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/archi...) also develops the attachment theme along the religious axis, but in a narrower (and less helpful in my view) fashion than Kirkpatrick.

Faber focuses on how our earliest biological needs, our dependence on our parents and their endless satisfying of those needs predisposes us toward a belief in a kind of God that would treat us in similar fashion. Faber makes a good case for the way in which some religions exploit this “weakness” in our character with which our biology has equipped us. As he puts it:

[Churches] strive to trigger state-dependent memories of the early period through formal, diurnal practices… [Religion] has shrewdly played into man’s most childlike needs, not only by offering eternal guarantees for an omniscient power’s benevolence (if properly appeased) but by magic words and significant gestures, soothing sounds and soporific smells – an infant’s world… Thus religion is a cunning, unconscious method of preserving the tie to the… original mother and father… We can play the game of life in two directions, staying put and moving on… And so it is with religion… Not only does one get the caregiver back, but one gets the caregiver back in an idealized form. One is not alone, and one has nothing to fear from a just and merciful God.

The basic biological situation, the implicit memories, the desperate anxiety associated with separation, and every church’s deliberate and clever attempt to seduce innocent minds – such factors travel a great distance in explaining monotheism’s virtually irresistible attraction for humanity, including the most intelligent and educated among us.

Both Faber and Kirkpatrick note that not all religions present the kind of a God just described – one that infantilises His followers. Many religions, and the Eastern religions in particular (at least as they tend to be interpreted in the West) posit a god that likely encourages us to grow out of ideas of dependence and attachment. In fact, Buddha blamed “attachment” for most of what ails humankind (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism). And Marvin Levine (see “The Positive Psychology of Buddhism and Yoga”) does a fine job of pointing out many of the ways in which some aspects of Eastern “religious” wisdom is well prescribed for what ails Westerners.

This reminds me of the various ways in which different kinds of religions have been categorized by religious studies scholars. We have, simply, “good religion” v. “bad religion”, “sick-souled” v. “healthy-minded”, “mature” v. “immature”, “intrinsic” v. “extrinsic”, etc. As we attempt to characterize religion in terms of the positive or negative attachment style, we are making this kind of value judgment. That is, we are defining where a particular religions ideology stands relative to what we value. We are not defining something essential about the religion. There are many people who believe that the best religions, for example, are those that cause the most complete dependence of the worshiper on the worshipped. Indeed, the most of the Muslim faith and large parts of Christianity are so premised.

There is, of course, a vigorous debate in this field along nature v. nurture lines. To what extent, for example, does how Mom parents cause the attachment style and to what extent is it innate? Does the nature of one’s belief in God affect parental attachment, and vice versa? And how much can that vary in accordance with the romantic experience in adulthood? Many other similar questions are being asked.

Various fine books have been recently written on the nature v. nurture topic in general. Among my favourites are Steven Pinker’s “The Blank Slate” and Quartz and Sejnowski “Liars, Lovers and Heroes”. None of them dare do more than point the way, and indicate that most of our major behaviour characteristics have large components of both nature and nurture.
topic image
Are Mormonism's Highest Leaders Aware Of Those Who Leave Mormonism For Principled Reasons?
Tuesday, Dec 6, 2005, at 08:10 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
That was the question put to me recently. Here is my answer.

Best,

bob

Hi *,

Sorry for the delay, I have been running lately.

I think that the leaders are noticing, but not reacting in the manner you and I would likely hope. I heard a while ago, for example, about a large number of bishops in the SLC area who have simply resigned and stated reasons like mine for doing so during the past year. This does not indicate that the organization is going to collapse, but can be counted on to influence Mormon leadership action.

Here are the things I observe along those lines.

- A greater emphasis on the idea that faithful members should stay off the internet related Mormon sources. These sources are cancerous, etc. People like me are used as examples of how even the "very elect" can be deceived. My own RM son uses that one me. And I have heard of two lessons recently taught here in SS and HP group that used me for that purpose. And I am no big fish. Each area will have a few people like me. More now than ever.

- A fellow I know very well was recently called as Bishop. And I also know very well the SP who called him. That combination would have been unthinkable a short time ago due to the nature of the new bishop. He is a sheep. He is not a thinker; two inches deep at most. He will love the profile of being bishop, but will not be effective in any aspect of its execution. His apprecation of human nature is shallow. He is lazy. Etc. But, there is virtually no chance of him quitting because of intellectual concerns. Look for more people of this type to be called as bishop, and fewer young people (less predictable - I was 30 when called) and few intellectual, think-for-yourself leaning people who might challenge authority. The Church will become more McMormon.

- More tolerance toward the publication of books like Bushman's that tell more of the real story but still find reasons for both belief and obedience. This allows them to say "Look, the information is out there is you want to find it".

- But, no change in the intolerance to things like Bushman's book coming up at church. Hence, more emphasis on the "stick to the lesson manual" (no sources outside the manual itself and the scripture; no interpretative aids to the scripture - this baffled me while I was still active but now I understand perfectly what was afoot) approach both to teaching lessons and speaking in church (where the lesson manual will be the scriptures only). This practically speaking prevents the vast majority of Mormons from finding out about their history.

- More use of the "gag order" approach they used on me. That is, believe what you want but don't talk about it. That way the continued participating of intellectuals in Mormon meetings will be tacit approval of what it taught there, deceiving more young people (as I was) when they see really smart people coming to church, holding callings, etc. and never emitting a squeak of concern.

Overall, the best model to predict the behaviour of Mormon leaders I have found is power dynamics. They will not do anything, until forced, that will reduce their power. And they will do anything that they think they can get away with long term to maintain or increase their power. The internet is forcing them to accept things like Bushman's approach to JS's history, but they will draw the line there.

All this means that the Church's growth will slow and the membership in North America will likely decline as it already has in Western Europe. They will call this a "winnowing", a "flight to quality", a "sign of the times", etc. The leadership's emphasis will be more and more on the miracle of growth overseas where the world is not wired yet and hence the pickings are easy. But there will be increasing pressure to make those places carry themselves financially. And in North America the emphasis will be on keeping what they have. Thus, bishops who obey and aren't likely to question, but who may be much less adept at delivering the administrative and spiritual goods bishops are traditionally expected to deliver will be part of the program.

Best,

bob
topic image
Of Emotional Battleships, Intellectual Row Boats, Pokemon, Southpark, And Misdirection
Wednesday, Dec 7, 2005, at 09:32 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I will further disclose the low brow nature of my intellect by admitting to occasionally watching Southpark with my kids. This started a few years ago when I learned that Trey Parker, one of the two creative guys behind the show, is a Mormon refugee and hence some of his humour is laced with stuff few but post-Mormons would pick up. And to my wife's initial horror, I made the case for allowing our kids to watch the show as well. Potty mouthed and crude as it is, the show comes at issues in ways that my kids understand and we have some our best laughs together while watching it, and best discussions about moral and social issues after watching it.

Last night my sons (15 and 11 years old) persuaded me to watch part of a South Park Christmas Special with them. There was a sketch about how Pokemon was being used by the evil Japanese to brainwash the children of American and turn them against the American establishment that had me crying I was laughing so hard. I literally fell over sideways on the couch and could not move for a few seconds at one point.

The Japanese manipulators of American culture successfully defused each and every confrontation with American authority figures who had hard evidence of the brainwashing that was underway by quickly first pleading ignorance, second promising to fix their mistakes, and third noting that the poor Japanese with their tiny penises could do nothing when compared to the Americans with their huge (and dinosaurian, and mastodonian, and other highly entertaining adjectives) penises. The Japanese ran over the first two points and then hammered the third one home over and over again. This reduced the American authority figures (including Clinton) to vacant eyed smiling acceptance of the Japanese and their brainwashing ways on the basis of the obvious Japanese honesty and good sense in recognizing American penile superiority.

I almost died laughing.

After the movie my sons and I talked about the nature of the point of this lovely caricature (the use of disingenious flattery to manipulate emotion and action through advertising and many other aspects of society including religion - "Agree with us and you are by definition one of God's elect; oh, and now start paying tithing, etc."), and what creates humour in general (the connection of two usually unconnected concepts in a plausible fashion - a gay Satan; little kids who use sophisticated profanity; a piece of pooh (Mr. Hanky) with his own Christmas Special; the use of genital flattery for manipulative purposes in an overt instead of implicit fashion; etc.).

Great night.

Southpark nicely illustrated the principle of cultural manipulation. Find out what the people want, and then use fear and desire to manipulate them. These are your emotional battleships. As Southpark accurately reflected life, intellectual rowboats get blown away in most encounters with the much stronger emotional weaponry.

And over time, emotion can be used far more effectively than even this (also illustrated in this Southpark episode). You can get people to think that they want something, and persuade them that you have the power to help them get it. This is the principle on which advertising and salesmanship is based (relative to religion as well as all other things), as well as magic. In magic it is called "misdirection". See http://www.leirpoll.com/misdirection/... for examples.

As the legendary magician Jean Hugard said,

"The principle of misdirection plays such an important role in magic that one might say that Magic is misdirection and misdirection is Magic".

That is, magic is performed by the magician using tendencies in human perception to make us look at his left hand while his right hand (or foot, or assistant, etc.) does something that we do not notice and gives the impression that magic has occurred.

Misdirection in magic is based on based weaknesses in the human ability to perceive that psychologists and neuroscientists now study. My favourite object lesson in this regard can be found on the Internet (see http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/grafs/..., if you have a java enabled computer). It is a video clip of people passing a couple of basketballs between them. Five (I think) people are dressed in relatively light coloured clothes, are walking in a complicated pattern and are passing two light coloured balls between them.

If you can access this video, you may as well perform the experiment on yourself. So before reading further, watch the video and count the number of times the balls moves from one person to another. This is not easy to do because of the way they move in front of each other while passing the balls around.

After this short video ends (maybe 30 seconds) you are asked if you noticed anything "odd". I didn't. "You didn't see the gorilla?" you are asked. "Nope" was my response. So you replay the video.

While the people are walking through their pattern and passing the ball, a man dressed in a black gorilla suit walks into the middle of the group, turns toward the camera, beats his chest and makes a face, and then walks out of the frame. It is that obvious. And I did not see it because I was focused on who was passing the ball to whom, and the gorilla was dressed like the background (dark) instead of the figures (light). But once you knew that something "odd" had happened and paid close attention, this was as obvious as the computer sitting right now on the desk in front of me. It was "magical" when the gorilla appeared out of thin air.

Such is the power of misdirection. This applies to religion, politics, economics, social relationships of all kinds, etc. It is one of those fundamentally important things to grasp if one wishes to understand as much as possible of human behaviour, both individual and social.

To show how deep this runs, consider the unsettling story of how progress sets traps that destroy entire civilizations is really about the human tendency to focus on social fine points (like how quickly our economy is growing) while missing critical big picture imperatives (like global warming). Jared Diamond tells this story in "Collapse" (see http://www.newyorker.com/critics/book... and http://www.davidbrin.com/collapse.htm...) . For a shorter and much more accessible (if darker) version of the same events, see Robert Wright's "A Short History of Progress" (see http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2005/0...).

So, if we are sufficiently focused on the minutiae of living a religious life, an academic life, a businessperson's life etc., the big picture will not be questioned. Hence, many religions and other ideologies that wish to control behaviour are all about the details, routine and ritual of daily living, and result in such a busy day to day existence that there is little opportunity to think about where the train is headed.

This is not the result of the plan of some evil people sitting around in determining the fate of humanity. Rather, this is how human social organizations of all types to some extent function. They spontaneously organize to protect themselves, find the resources they need to flourish, etc. within the constraints imposed upon them. The reason that the rules of modern democracies (self imposed constraints that affect collective and individual behaviour) are so important is that they run against the hierarchical grain of human groups, and so force human organizations in an unnatural direction. This requires leaders to account to members; this restrains the natural direction of hierarchical power; this requires information about how and why leadership decisions are made to be disclosed to the members.

And as I noted in my earlier message, the time may have come for us to revisit some of the basic rules of our democratic system.

Our ancestors taught us that the clearest lesson from human history is that absent the constraints that democracy imposes on the power of those at the top of the social pyramid, power will be abused. We may need to extend their wisdom by building protections into our system that will counter the human tendency to think and act within a short term and small group frame of reference. This is in many ways the same tendency that causes humans to abuse power - short term thinking coupled with a very small group (me) is what causes me and all other human beings to tend toward the abuse of power. The current generation of human beings should likewise be counted up to abuse its collective power to take resources from future generations, and should be assumed not to be able to see that its actions are wrong. Therefore, just as democratic institutions were designed and implement to restrain one kind of power and the bad decision-making that tends to go with it, the time may have come to agree that we should imposeconstraints on ourselves that constrain the exercise of similar types of power.

And I don't have the slightest notion as to how it would be best to proceed in this regard.

Best,

bob
topic image
What Is The Meaning Of Life For Atheists (Or Non-Theists, Or Agnostics)?
Tuesday, Dec 13, 2005, at 07:22 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Tom Clark (see Center for Naturalism) is a thoughtful fellow from whose writings I have consistently drawn wisdom. What follows is an email he sent to a group in which we both participate, and my response. The issue is how one derives meaning from our life experience after having jettisoned the notion of a literal god.

Best,

bob

[Tom wrote]

See http://www.stnews.org/News-2451.htm for a story on religious naturalism featuring Ursula Goodenough (a respected biologist) and Michael Ruse (a respected philosopher of science and religion).The article closes with a quote from Ruse:

“Ruse, on the other hand, said that he sees nontheistic and atheistic systems as equally lacking in meaning. "I would want to say, you give it [belief in God] up, there is no meaning. Now I'm not saying you can't have joy and friendship or enjoyment of ideas or family or all of these things. I think you certainly can. But ultimately, it's meaningless," he said.”

I think it's a mistake to characterize ultimate reality - the whole of what is - as "meaningless," since that's to project our parochial expectation or desire for purpose onto something that's incapable of being construed in such a fashion. It's a descriptive injustice to characterize an unsupervised, wild cosmos as meaningless, as did Steven Weinberg when he said "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless." Rather, the fact of existence is inscrutable, quite beyond the meaning/no meaning distinction. Purposes necessarily inhabit an overarching, non-purposive context, which necessarily escapes being construed as purposive. If god existed, she'd be in the same existential predicament we're in, which is to wonder what's the point of it all, and then see that such a question is necessarily unanswerable.

Tom Center for Naturalism

[bob wrote]

Tom,

Thanks for that note. By the way, my wife and I were driving home from an out of town Christmas party this morning and used your Science and Theology News interview on religious atheism (http://www.stnews.org/News-522.htm) to launch a nice discussion about the line between science and religion. Your material is always useful and thought provoking.

While agreeing for the most part with what you and Michael C. said, my take on Ruse was somewhat different. I think he makes an important point (certain kinds of meaning are not justified within a naturalistic framework and must be let go of when one becomes a naturalist) while missing another (other kinds of meaning are naturalistically justified and should be expected to evolve as our understanding of nature improves). Let me flesh this out a bit.

First, I agree with Ruse that atheism and non-theism are the same. So what goes for one goes for the other.

Second, I think he had a valid point regarding the epistemic and ontological rules that govern science and those that take it seriously, and what they imply for meaning. This is what my wife and I were talking about on our trip home.

The big difference between people who take science seriously and those you have called "squishy minded", it seems to me, is in what they are prepared to accept as reliable knowledge and act upon as such. I note, by the way, that terms like "squishy minded" while accurate in a sense are also pejorative and hence unhelpful. I would prefer to speak of these people in terms of things like socially conditioned assumptions regarding reality and other concepts of that sort that in my view recognize the limited (if any) agency people of this type have when it comes to this aspect of their worldview. However, it is hard to find an accurate label for them that is efficient and not pejorative. I will use the term "scientific people" to refer to those who use science consistently to draw the line between reliable and unreliable forms of knowledge, and "unscientific people" to refer to those who do not use science consistently in that regard. Ironically, some people to whom I will refer as unscientific are in fact practising scientists of some repute, but due to our instinctive deference to our dominant social groups and the foundational premises we have inherited from it operate with a compartmentalized mind. That is, they have sources of epistemic certainty that cannot be justified scientifically, and they do not see a conflict between the scientific principles that govern one part of their lives and the unscientific that governs the balance.

Unscientific people accept as certain things that are manifestly uncertain; things that cannot be shown to be reliable; things that are non-scientific. In fact, the more uncertain some alleged phenomena seem to be (the nature of God, for example) the more emphatic some people are that they are certain. This is tied closely to questions of ultimate meaning, as noted below, as well as being a big part of the glue that holds social groups together.

Scientific people will admit that many things are possible (like some form of god) but are not certain and hence should not be relied upon in epistemic or ontological terms. Hence, for scientific people what lies outside what is "known" is by definition not known and hence unreliable. Therefore, we are therefore not justified in drawing certain conclusions about it.

Scientific people try hard to remain open to what might be out there beyond the known, and hence able to accept what science may in the future try to teach our hardening neural networks in that regard. They try to maintain the same attitude about what appears to be known based on the best available evidence from time to time.

You indicated that existence is inscrutable - beyond the meaning/no meaning dichotomy - and hence we should not speak in terms of meaning with regard to existence as a whole. While that is true, I think there is more to it. I will be interested to hear what you think about this.

Scientific people will tell us that the boundaries of our knowledge of the world in which we exist create a whole. This is not the whole of existence. Rather, it is the whole of what we reliably know about existence. The part of existence defined by our reliable knowledge is no doubt anchored it many other things that are real, by those are beyond our understanding at the moment and hence are like the darkness beyond a spotlight illuminating a play on stage. What we cannot see cannot reliably inform what we perceive to be happening on stage.

This is important to meaning because meaning is context dependant. That is, a flower does not have meaning or function in isolation. If our knowledge were restricted to a single flower, we might be able to find the functionality and hence infer some forms of meaning for its parts by examination of how they interact and relate to the whole, but the entire flower (being the universe for purposes of this example) simply is. However, once that flower is set within its context as we know it in this world, it acquires many attributes by reference to that context. It has certain functions. It "means" one thing to a bee, another to each of many other insects, another to the earth into which it decays, another to the animal that eats it, etc. And what does it mean to the multiplicity of humans who see and use it in various ways using our symbolic minds? Of course, as our understanding of both the figure (the flower) and its ground (the context) changes, our perception of things like function and meaning also change.

I am not equating function with meaning, but rather using function as an illustration of how the ground largely defines the figure.

Perhaps all Ruse is saying is that once you have accepted the naturalistic hypothesis and its epistemic and ontological implications, you have reduced the context around your empirical world to the point that it is like the flower-as-universe example above. Devoid of a context that has characteristics discernable with some degree of specificity and probability of being "real", all of empirical reality as we understand it is shorn of the kind of meaning that can be easily derived from God and all that goes with Him, including various stories as to why and how the Earth and humanity came into being. This is the context that humans wrap around empirical reality as they perceive it in order to create meaning.

As is well known in the world of art, you can vary the way the figure is perceived in many ways by changing the ground. Hence, by changing the assumptions related to God and other metaphysical aspects of existence that are presumed to surround empirical reality, the meaning of the empirical reality can be controlled.

Without this context for empirical reality, we can still find the function of various parts of reality as we know it and can justifiably infer various meanings for these parts relative to other aspects of the known whole. For example, in the evolutionary context my purpose and meaning may be to act so as to enhance the prospects for the long term survival and propagation of my genes and all other genomes related to them. It is not hard to connect that to Maslow's hierarchy of needs for each human being of the current and future generations, not to mention other forms of life. I derive this from my empirical context, as I am justified in believing it to be while operating within the naturalistic hypothesis. But without a context for the empirical whole that we can justify as real, there is no justifiable way to derive a function or meaning for that whole that then might inform the meaning I perceive for myself as part of that whole. As my understanding of empirical reality as a whole increases, my perception of the function, meaning and other attributes of various parts (including me) changes, in many cases becoming richer. I expect this perspective expansion to continue indefinitely, and so that justifiable perceptions of meaning will change indefinitely.

My meaning and purpose used to relate, for example, to doing what was required to pass the test to which God had put me in this life, and be able to return to live for eternity with Him and become a God like Him. The overarching purpose and the meaning with which this presumed context for empirical reality infused my life dictated an amazing amount of what I did from moment to moment. This meaning, however, was not justifiable and was based on what I now perceived to be an extremely improbable set of ontological and epistemic beliefs that were designed to remove time, energy and other resources from me and give them to other people who happened to lead the religious group that promulgated this story. It amazing how consistent that pattern is throughout history - the guys telling the metaphysical story are at the receiving end of the time, money etc. donated by those who believe the story.

So, does accepting the naturalistic hypothesis necessarily render all existence meaningless? No. However, under the rules of justified knowledge that naturalists use, we are not justified in concluding that there is any meaning for the whole. Ruse is perhaps merely pointing that out. And he separates meaning from living a joyful, fulfilled life.

I understood you to say that Ruse is posing, or responding to, the wrong question. He said "if you give up belief in god, there is no meaning". That is too strong. He might have better said, "within the naturalistic hypothesis, if you give up belief in a god and his attendant metaphysical ontology, you cannot justify any particular meaning for the whole of existence". I think that is what he meant, and I am OK with that. I think his words were an understandable slip that need a little dressing up.

However, one can move from what he said to another important point which is that just as beliefs in empirical reality can be justified to one degree or another within the naturalistic hypothesis, so can beliefs with regard to meanings.

As noted above, many meanings can be justified with regard to the parts vis-ŕ-vis other parts or the whole. It is just meanings with regard to the whole that can't be justified. As what is embraced by naturalism becomes a better representation of realty, the materials from which our justified meanings can be forged will become richer. I have no idea where that will go, but as my discussions with Stan and others here have illustrated to my satisfaction, there is much more to empirically justifiable material to work with than I had dreamed a few years ago. If you go back 150 years, there was certainly much less. If we project forward 150 years, I can't imagine what will be on the table, and am far more excited than fearful about that.

I think it is important that we face the uncertainty of what is not known, and so I think Ruse's point is important. People do need to face the fact that the ontological assumptions that ground many of their meanings are not justifiable, and hence their conceptions of meaning are not justifiable. I have spoken to Ruse about this and believe that this is his view as well.

I suspect as well that he would agree with both the justification of meaning of the limited sort I just described, and the likelihood that the empirical playing field will expand in this regard as time passes, but I have not spoken to him about that.

In my view, it is a Faustian bargain to accept the manifestly uncertain as certain, thus creating unjustifiable ontological beliefs and hence unjustifiable meaning by the relationship between the empirically testable and whatever social dreams, oft thousands of years old, that are presumed real. I know you agree with this

If history is any guide, those who go down this road will manufacture the context that, relative to the empirically known, will justify the actions they (or at least some of those who are powerful in their group) feel are necessary. This will be yet another mirror in which we can look and feel pleased with ourselves. This closes the mind and misleads at the same time. And it is what I see in both old and new belief systems, such as many New Age quasi-religions.

And what about people like Ray Kurzweil (see http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670...). He seems like a genius, and yet is foolish enough to have suggested that on the basis of 220 supplements per day he has found the fountain of youth, and some branch of complexity theory has allowed him to create a money machine that outsmarts the stock market (see http://www.boston.com/news/globe/idea...).

My point here is not to be critical of Kurzweil. I have not yet read his most recent book which a friend whose judgement I respect has recommended to me. However, I expect that we will see more people like Kurzweil who will attempt to provide meaning by wrapping the empirically known with the scientifically speculative. The recent and lamentable movie "What the Bleep Do We Know?" (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.what...).

It is my view that when confronted with meaning creating propositions such as those Kurzweil and others will increasingly float, we should be sensitive to the same things as we are regarding meaning created by theology. Some of those are:

· How justifiable are the "facts" posited in order to create this meaning?

· If they are not justifiable, why am I inclined toward accepted this set of unjustified assumptions but not others? The answer to this question usually relates to blind spots created by social conditioning, and hence the question is best put to people who are not affected by the same social conditioning as we are.

· How does the interface between is justifiably known and what is speculative create meaning in this case? That is, the empirically known is hard to change. However, the speculative context can be made up by anyone creative enough to do so. Hence, an examination of how the speculative wrap interfaces with the empirically known is often illuminating.

· Who are the beneficiaries of the meaning so posited? And who is pushing the story that creates the meaning in question? If those who benefit are also those who are pushing this particular form of meaning, alarm bells should go off.

· To what extent does this meaning tell me and others like me what I want to hear, and so manipulate me?

Out of time this morning.

Best,

bob
topic image
But Good Things Often Come From Bad, And So People Are Justified To Choose To Remain Mormon Even After They Understand Its Real History
Friday, Dec 16, 2005, at 08:57 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
But good things often come from bad, and so people are justified to choose to remain Mormon even after they understand its real history. And, people are often worse off outside of Mormonism than in, and so I would not want to disturb those who wish to stay in.

So I was recently told. My lightly edited response was as follows.

best,

bob

You and I also seem to have a different view of the options outside of Mormonism. You are perhaps unaware that the suicide and depression rates (as measured by anti-depressant consumption) in Utah are the highest in North America. Mormons say that this is only true outside of the "faithful" Mormon community. I doubt that. I know a lot of Mormon women in particular who take anti-depressants, but it is not socially acceptable within Mormonism (even less so than in other groups) to admit that you are depressed. And the suicide stats are really interesting.

If we believe that the active Mormons do not have a high suicide rate (this is what Mormon researchers tell us) then what it is about being an inactive Mormon or non-Mormon in Utah that raises the suicide rate for that group into the stratosphere? And why does Utah lead the US in personal bankruptcies, reported spousal abuse, some kinds of reported sexual abuse, etc.?

If you take similar demographic groups (Mormon and not) in terms of income levels, educational levels, community attributes, etc. (like Mormons and non-Mormons in the suburbs of Calgary or Denver) you will not find that the non-Mormons are out doing drugs and raping people while the Mormons are at home baking cookies and reciting poetry to each other. Rather, you will find similar social behaviours, with the non-Mormons tending to have more time for community affairs, spending more time doing things as a family (instead of attending Mormon functions together, but apart), not using anti-depressants as much, being more racially tolerant (by behaviour, not word), encouraging their daughters to become more and better educated, encouraging their children to marry later and have fewer children, etc.

For more detail in this regard, see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.shou... at page 19.

To understand Mormonism (as is the case with every social group) you should listen to what they tell you about themselves. Rather, you should collect the most objective data possible about their behaviours.

I don't think that a case can be reasonably made for Mormonism enhancing lifestyle in the ways most of us would appreciate. And when you cut through the marketing BS (Mormonism has become very adept at persuading both its members and others that it is "family first", produces happy people, etc.), I think a solid case can be made that Mormonism impedes the creation of the kind of life most people value.

The easiest way to think about this issue is as follows: Mormonism requires a lot of time and money. If it is "true", that makes sense because your time and money are buying goods to be delivered after death. If Mormonism is not "true", it is no more than any other social club or church, and so I should examine each of the potential uses for my time and money on the basis of only what I can expect in return for them during this life. This is the critical point - take away the "after life" benefits Mormonism promises, and the sterility of what it offers her and now comes into disillusioning focus.

When I go through the exercise I just noted with Mormonism (think of those endless, boring, uneducational meetings; those assigned friendships; the endless time spent planning meetings to get other people to attend more meetings to get other people to attend more meetings; etc.) and other potential uses of my time and money, this is an easy decision. There are many other uses to which I can put my time and money that are more likely to bring what I value into being than what Mormonism offers.

I wish you the best on this adventure.
topic image
Mormon Marriage and Disrespect
Wednesday, Dec 21, 2005, at 09:59 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
What follows is an expansion of one section of the essay at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.a%20.... I would be interested in some feedback since I am never sure whether my perceptions are on track or influenced by our many mental processes that are designed for things other than to accurately perceive (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni...).

In a nutshell, what I am wondering about is the extent to which cultures like that around Mormonism tend to cause dysfunctional marriages to last longer than they in some cases should.

The most interesting research regarding marriage I have run across is John Gottman’s. On the basis of a mere 30 minutes of video footage of a couple talking about routine matters he has a 95% prediction rate for which couples will divorce within seven years. He does this on the basis of the ratio of positive to negative communication (including non-verbal communication) using sophisticated criteria he has developed over years of this research (see http://www.gottman.com/research/abstr...). Using the first 15 minutes of this interview analysis, his batting average drops to 90%.

The key to Gottman’s formula is that positive to negative communication (as he defines both) must be better than 5:1 for a marriage to have a good long-term survival prospect. And most important of all is the degree to which what he calls “contempt” is displayed. This is a hierarchical behavior – verbal or non-verbal communication that shows that one spouse considers him or herself to be above the other. “Disrespect” is perhaps closer to what most of us would use to describe this kind of communication. Accordingly to Gottman, marriages can successfully deal with much more anger, deception and other obviously toxic behavior that a little polite indication of “who’s who”, including things that are so subtle that few of us would catch them, and Gottman and his staff has to slow down the video and look for momentary flashes of emotion across the face that indicate what is “really” going on in the head (usually at the subconscious level), before the conscious mind suppresses it and gets on with the business of trying to get along. If much contempt, as Gottman defines it, is detectible on this subtle basis, the marriage probably has a short life expectancy. This is particularly interesting because the couples in question generally have no idea that they are in trouble. The signs Gottman detects are something like going up in a helicopter above a couple in a canoe floating down a river to a height where you can see the rapids or waterfall around the next bend. Regardless of how the couple in the canoe think they are doing, you can see things that indicate serious trouble ahead.

This line of research persuasively questions basic notions about what causes marital dysfunction and how hard it is to predict and in some cases correct, either within a marriage or by choosing a new life partner. And in particular, it points out that the problems people will tell us broke up their marriage are often red herrings. Gottman lucidly explains that we have problems, and more importantly solutions, of which we are unaware.

It seems to me that within Mormon marriage there is a greater power imbalance than in most marriages between similar non-Mormon couples in terms of age, socio-economic status, etc. That is, the man has more power in Mormon marriage than non-Mormon marriage. This, it seems to me, likely makes both Mormon men and women tolerate higher levels of disrespect in their marriages than would be the case of non-Mormon marriages. For those of you familiar with couples from cultures even more conservative or traditional than the Mormon culture, think of how those marriages work. I am thinking of Hindu women who walk behind their husbands while in public with their faces covered; of Hutterite women who are almost completely deferential to male authority; of FLDS women to whom their polygamous husband are a kind of quasi-deity and whose daughters are taught to sing hymns like “My Daddy is the Best Man in the World!”. It seems to me that in such cultures, the tendency to tolerate disrespect within the relationship would beeven higher than in the LDS culture.

In any event, it is my observation of Mormon marriage that in general there is a greater incidence of the kind of subtle disrespect that is a marriage killer according to Gottman, but the divorce rate is slightly lower than the national average. I would suggest that this can be explained by lower expectations on the part Mormon couples, which is the other side of the “tolerance of disrespect” coin.

What do you think about this? And you can see the essay referenced above for a more detailed comparison of LDS marriages to both traditional and modern/secular marriage.

Best,

bob
topic image
The Power Of Religious (And Other) Convictions
Wednesday, Dec 28, 2005, at 07:23 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Most importantly, Mormonism and Scientology both foster community based on literal, metaphysical beliefs that amplify humankind's tribalistic instincts. "Believe what we tell you, and this will prove that you are one of God's elect and in line for incredible blessings!" Without those metaphysical beliefs to attract adherents, both of those faiths would likely die.

I had the chance to demonstrate the power of this kind of belief while out for dinner a few nights ago with some of the young lawyers at our firm (articling students, in fact) who invited some of us old farts to join them. Since I have not recorded this yet, I will use this email as an opportunity to do so.

After a few drinks, one of the other senior lawyers with us who was seated at the other end of the table indicated in answer to a question I did not hear that he had been excommunicated by the Catholic Church after choosing to marry a non-Catholic in a protestant church. This happened in Quebec, where Catholicism was at that time (about 30 years ago) still the primary organizing force in some small communities. This led to an energetic discussion of the merits and demerits of religion. In my demur way, I was staying out of it. My wife has told me that she tires of having Mormonism dragged into most of our social encounters, and I am trying to learn from her advice. But within a few minutes someone put a question straight to me about how my experience with Mormonism compared to my friend's with Catholicism, and away we went. A short time later, one of the female articling students said to me something like this,

"This makes no sense whatsoever. I have seen these Mormon missionaries going around and some of my friends have talked to them, and I have never heard such a ridiculous story - angels, golden books, god appearing to people - it is ridiculous. I don't understand how anyone could fall for something like that." In our conversation up that point this girl (in her late 20s I would guess) had demonstrated a lot of personality and self-confidence. She was clearly the type who has no hesitation to swim against the tide when that makes sense to her.

I replied by asking her if she really wanted to understand what this kind of thing was about. She said yes. We were sitting across a corner of the table from each other with one person between us. I leaned over the table and extended my hands to her. She looked at me like I was off my nut. "Give me your hands", I gently said. She reached out toward me, still looking at me a little sideways, and I took her hands in mine while looking directly into her eyes. Our table of eight people in the middle of a noisy restaurant became quiet.

"Angela [not her real name]", I said, "are you close to your parents?"

"Yes".

"How about your husband?"

"Of course."

"I feel moved to tell you that I know that you can live with them forever. After death, I know that you can be with your parents, your brothers and sisters, your husband, forever. Would you want to do that?"

She rolled her eyes and smiled confidently, "This is crazy!"

"OK", I said, "It is crazy. But stay with me. I want you to imagine that both of your parents died during the last few months. How are you feeling?"

After a few moments of silence, "I am devastated".

I continued and squeezed her hands gently, "I am a Mormon missionary and I just knocked on your door, and because I look so sincere and you are feeling like you need someone to talk to, you let me in. You tell me your story - about your family, how much you loved your parents and all that and then (I squeeze her hands a little more), I look you straight in the eye and with tears running down my cheeks I tell you that I know for a certainty that your father and mother still live; that they are watching down on you; that they inspired me to come to your door; that I have a message they want you to hear so that you can take some steps in your life that allow you and them to be rejoined after death ..."

She interrupted me, "This is creeping me out". Her confident smile was gone, but she did not take her hands from mine.

"Or imagine", I said, "that you just had a baby (she had said earlier that evening that she planned never to have children) and the same thing happens. I knock on your door; you are feeling emotional because of your new baby and the way she has changed everything about your life, and I tell you that God has sent me to you because of your new baby, and that God has inspired me to tell you how you can be with that wonderful baby after death ..."

"OK I get it!", she said as she pulled her hands from mine. "This is too weird! I could feel something from you that I have never felt before ..."

Angela went on for some time about the bizarre nature of what she had felt as I look into her eyes, touched her hands and spoke to her with absolute certainty about things that are among the most uncertain, and terrifying, known to man. I explained that all I was doing was replicating the kind of thing I did innumerable times as a Mormon missionary and then lay priesthood leader. The expression of sincerely believed certainty is a powerful thing. Andy Newberg explains why we should expect this kind of reaction from a neurological point of view when such certainty is combined with existential crisis (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/out%20of%20my%20faith.pdf at page 78). And when you add this kind of personal power to even clumsy communal ritual and experience, it is supercharged. Nothing that people do in this mind of context surprises me. Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, Waco, Moonies, Hari Krishna, Mormonism, etc. These are the most powerful social forces know to humanity; the emotional battleships I have mentioned in other posts. And groups like Mormonism use them to near perfection.

Mormonism will be interesting to watch during the next several decades because some of its foundational beliefs are sufficiently susceptible to scientific investigation that they will be shorn of any credibility they had, at least outside of Mormonism, forcing Mormonism to either become like the Young Earth Creationists or Old Order Amish (islands of irrationality in a sea of reason) or to retool their foundational beliefs. Mormonism has re-tooled before (after polygamy was taken from it in the late 1800s) and so my bet is that it will go that route again. I think it probable that Mormonism will end up resembling most standard Evangelical sects within 50 to 100 years, which is a nanosecond in the time frames over which religions develop. Hence, I suggest that Mormonism is right now at a tipping point as a result of the confluence of certain sketchy Mormon foundational beliefs, science (genetic science is at the forefront at the moment - see Simon Southerton "Losing a Lost Tribe" http://www.signaturebooks.com/Losing.htm) and the Internet.

In my view, the primary lesson for Religious Naturalism (see www.religiousnaturalism.org) in Mormonism and Scientology is the importance of the belief that something is "true" in creating an enduring mythology, and how that must be linked to both ritual and communal experience to take on a life of its own. As Karen Armstrong notes (see "A Short History of Myth"), mythologies are lived more than they are believed. The energy Angela felt from me would be translated quickly by Mormonism into a connection to a community of supportive, loving people who would teach her the "right" way to live and infuse her life with ritual practice that would occupy a large part of each of her days from then until she refused to allow it to do so any more. The connection to a community and way of life that made her feels secure would soon supersede the importance of her beliefs. This is an example of a particularly interesting kind of feedback loop as described by emergence and complexity theory (see http://www.new-paradigm.co.uk/complex-od.htm), within a particular kind of human culture. The willingness to believe creates a transcendent experience, which connects one to a group, which causes one to adopt daily habits that are consistent with/mandated by belief, which causes habits of behavior and interdependence on the group, which both support the beliefs and render them unnecessary this causing change to occur in both the group and individual behavior, etc. all of which is set in an environment that brings pressure to bear on both the individual and the group that causes this complex system to continue to evolve at the macro level as well as at its nexus with a particular individual. This is the model that I think in the mid to long term has the best chance of explaining how human groups (religious or otherwise) function, and how the behavior of particular individuals relative to their group are likely to work.

Science is currently our best bet when it comes to finding out what is real. However, as discussions as recent as ours concerning Brian Swimme (see lecture at www.meaningoflife.tv) indicate, the territory that a mythology needs to cover in order to be effective is arguably much larger than what science covers. One of science's primary virtues is that it is set up to discredit those who overreach. Hence, people like Swimme will have to be clear that they are not speaking as scientists if they wish to retain their credibility as scientists, and that credibility is critical to their enterprise.

As indicated above, groups like Mormonism and Scientology use our tribal instincts against us. One of the things that attracts me to Religious Naturalism is that it uses this tribal instinct in our favour. The ecological approach, for example, shows us how we humans on this planet are all part of one system; that for practical as well as ethical reasons we can't afford to ignore that is going on in Africa, for example; that while we might feel more connected to some small group that this is an illusion as much as watching an enjoyable movie is; etc. Religious Naturalism leads to ecologically sensitivity, and this is the only idea I have found so far that passes the test of "truth" while packing the emotional punch that I think is necessary to found a mythology powerful enough to capture the minds as well as hearts of a large percentage of people on the planet. This is based in science. It is important. And while working at the fringes of science, it does not have to go as far as people like Swimme take it to be compelling. An explicitly non-scientific mythology that is consistent with science, with its attendant rituals of a group and individual nature, could be constructed to help us experience the transcendence that most humans crave and wrapped around science. I think this is where people like Swimme are headed, and as long as the transition from the science to the non-science is made clear enough, I don't have a problem with this.

And various modes of communal association, over the Internet and in person, could be devised to enable the feeling of connectedness and "tribe" that most people also seem to need. The program could be set up so as to be adaptable to already existing religious groups who are somewhat adrift at the moment. And there may well be some people who wish to start from scratch.

At the core, however, of all of this is an idea powerful enough that one person can literally or metaphorically take the hands of anther in hers, and say "I know what we should do ..." about something that terrifies us.

Which reminds me of something. I can't believe that I almost forgot the best part of the Angela story.

Did I mention that she is quite an attractive young woman? After we finished at the restaurant (it closed at 11 pm) a group of six moved next door to keep chatting. Not long after we were settled at our table a well dressed businessman in his late 30s or early 40s approached our table. Angela was sitting with her back to the wall, and so he had to lean over the table to address her.

"I never do this", he said, "but I have to tell you that I have just experienced love at first sight. You are the most beautiful woman I have ever seen, and I love you."

Angela looked around the table at our stunned faces, and then held up her left hand to display a wedding ring. "I'm taken" she said. And one of her female lawyer colleagues wrapped her arms around Angela and said, "And I'm the backup".

It took a few minutes of additional conversation to get Romeo to abandon his quest, and I have no doubt that he continued his cruise of the bar using what I suspect is a pick up line that will bring him a conquest before the evening ended. Those who seem certain of themselves have an intoxicating effect on a reasonable percentage of their peers. We had a good laugh regarding the parallels between my little experiment in the restaurant and the "man on the prowl" in the bar. And we see the same thing as we attend sales presentations for financial products, real estate, various forms of technology, etc.

The projection of certainty as a tool of persuasion (conscious or unconscious) is a human universal.
topic image
Two Justifications For Mormon Belief
Friday, Dec 30, 2005, at 08:18 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I developed these positions while my Mormon testimony was in its death throes. During this period, I went back and forth between people at BYU and other apologist organizations on the one hand, and skeptical Mormons or apostates on the other. I was recently reminded of this by receiving a few emails from a Mormon who seems to be at a stage of the process similar to mine when I first thought through what follows.

Before I start this I should state the conclusion I eventually reached. That is, Mormonism is on balance severely toxic. It of course contains some good, but on balance, it contains much more bad for most people. Those who can are well advised to simply leave and construct their lives on the most rational foundations they can find, surrounded by people who hold similarly high moral and rational values, and there are plenty of such wonderful folk waiting for us to join them. However, there are exceptions to every rule and since I do not understand (nor can I understand) any individual’s circumstances fully, I do not feel competent to suggest what anyone else should do.

In any event, after becoming aware of all of the relevant facts, it is my observation that the following two positions are best able to justify continuing Mormon belief. That is not to say that they are reasonable justifications, but they are the best available.

First, Mormon belief can be said to depend upon a form of knowledge that cannot be justified by rational means. Having dispensed with reason entirely, we have no need to continue to argue about history, science or anything else based on reasons. And we can even find academic support for this kind of approach in the post modern tradition. See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.do%2... at page 15 for an overview of the post modern connection to Mormonism.

But if this approach is taken, then Mormonism loses reason as a sword as well as a shield. This is essentially a relativistic position that says that truth is in the eye of the beholder, and so if one sees truth in Mormonism it is there for she who sees it, and this cannot be questioned or defended on rational grounds. It just is. Mormon missionary work in this context can be defended by indicating that until other people have had the chance to look at Mormonism, they will not know if truth is found in Mormonism for them. Hence, they should be given the chance to look.

Most Mormons will find this to be an odd way to look at things, since the same approach can be used to justify any religion as well as Mormonism. From a Mormon leadership point of view, this approach is likely to be preferred since it justifies whatever authority Mormon members can be persuaded to allow Mormon leaders to exercise. And the existence of this approach need only be discussed with those few Mormons who begin to seriously question the details of Mormon history or the justification for the exercise of Mormon authority. If information is managed appropriately, this will be a small percentage of the Mormon population.

This, in fact, is how I perceive Mormonism today to be managed.

Second, a rational defence of at least part of Mormonism can be constructed by discarding the elements of Mormonism that fail rational tests and keeping the rest. Since this is likely to reduce the authority of the current Mormon leadership group, it is not likely to be promoted by them. However, some Mormons who find the irrational/postmodern approach inadequate are adopting a rational approach along the lines I am about to describe. Indeed, this was the line I used to try and justify Mormonism before leaving it. My thinking in this regard is as follows:

1. We should acknowledge that science is our most reliable means of determining what is “real”. So, we should give science its due where it is justifiably reliable, and this means forcing religion and other non-scientific beliefs to cede ground where required by reliable science to do so.

(a) We should trust the scientific process in this regard, which means relying upon the judgement of those people who are best informed regarding the phenomena in question, and discounting the views of those who are likely to be biased. Importantly, this means using the same kind of probabilistic reasoning that we use to make most of our decisions. That is, we do not require absolute proof of what is real before we make important decisions because absolute proof is not available with regard to anything in the real world. The best we can hope for is evidence that justifies a belief in a particular state of reality on the basis that it appears to be the belief most likely to be correct.

(b) We should recognize the powerful nature of the biases that affect the judgement of all human beings, and use the mechanisms science has developed to screen these biases and other kinds of misperception out of the process of determining what is real.

(c) Historical analysis is a quasi-science that is subject to many well understood kinds of uncertainty, and professional historians (often aided by scientists) are those best equipped to examine historical evidence and tell us how probable it is that different versions of past events have occurred.

(d) We should use the best available scientific and historical techniques and expertise to reach decisions as to what likely occurred in the past, since our conclusions in this regard often profoundly influence our current decisions as to how to live.

(e) We should recognize that we regularly make important decisions on the basis of the best available evidence, and our perception of probabilities based on that evidence, and we should conduct ourselves regarding religious matters in a fashion that is consistent with how we deal with other important aspects of life.

(f) In Mormonism’s case, this means that we should acknowledge that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is highly improbable and that Joseph Smith was deceptive on so many occasions that it is not reasonable to rely upon his words for an accurate recounting of literal events, especially when what happened is crucial to his maintenance of power. This means, among other important things, that Smith’s claims to have received God’s authority as he says he received it are highly improbable to be true.

(g) We would note that many other religious traditions have gone down this road. The Catholic Church and all of the Protestant traditions that depend on it, for example, have gradually given up important dogmas in the face of science’s advancing tide. This process has humbled those religions to an extent. Mormonism is young enough that it has not yet been humbled sufficiently to accept that many of its dogmatic foundations are so likely to be incorrect that it is not moral to continue to teach them as “truth”.

2. We should acknowledge that most of what we believe is not reliably justified by science.

(a) Science does not touch the big "why" questions, for example, and many of the beliefs in cause and effect mechanisms that govern our behaviour relate to sociology, religion, politics, economics, etc. which are either on the fringes of what science can reliably deal with, or outside it because of the complex nature of the phenomena in question. Beliefs that are outside of science are referred to as “metaphysical” beliefs – beliefs that are beyond “physics” which is what science used to be called.

(b) So, we should acknowledge that in the absence of reliable science, a wide variety of metaphysical beliefs are equally justifiably.

(c) However, many people hold metaphysical beliefs and accord them unjustified status in terms of reliability or "truth". Once we are outside science, or so far out into its fringes that its predictive capacity is close to that of dice tossing, we should acknowledge this and understand that it is not rationally justifiable to make decisions on the basis that one belief is preferable to another because it is more likely to be “true”.

(d) This means that rational Mormons will abandon their claim that Mormonism has more “truth” than other religious belief systems or philosophies. However, they may rationally advance the claim that for particular people at particular times in particular places, Mormonism may be the best system, or a reasonable system, to use if one wishes to achieve particular social or personal outcomes.

(e) This also means that many of the values and other metaphysical beliefs that are part of Mormonism may well be justifiable. These include the Mormon emphasis on honesty (which is ironic in light of the fact that deception is one of Mormonism’s core leadership values), family and community relationships, patriotism, education, science (except to the extent if conflicts with Mormon belief, but that is dealt with above) and a variety of others.

3. We are making progress on a wide variety of fronts in terms of being able to use social science to predict which outcomes that will result from particular human groups adopting particular moral rules.

(a) We should use social science to the extent possible to predict outcomes that are likely to come from adopting and living by particular metaphysical beliefs. This involves complexity theory, emergence theory, the increasing capacity of computer modeling, etc. Just as we have increasing ability to predict when tropical storms will occur, our ability to predict human social outcomes is increasing. This tools can be used to justify, or not, various Mormon metaphysical beliefs in light of given objectives in terms of social outcomes.

(b) This analytical project will include a consideration of how metaphysical beliefs affect our ability to understand and use science. See the http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni... in this regard.

(c) We should consider in this regard questions like how belief in a metaphysical system like Mormonism's plan of salvation is likely to affect attitudes toward things like birth and population control. This is a good example because our ability to control the planet's population over the next several generations may determine humanity’s long term survival. If we accept the metaphysical premise that there is a certain number of "spirits" waiting to come to Earth and that God is in control of the process, then the use of abortion and other forms of birth control may be dismissed out of hand. This metaphysical belief hence strongly influences how technological power will be used, and biases the perception of data of many kinds related to these issues.

(d) We should consider how our beliefs regarding epistemology (how we can justify knowledge) affect our ability to perceive and use scientific theory and data. For example, a Mormon who believes that God communicates the most important truths about reality through emotional forces will likely be rendered in capable of perceiving scientific knowledge that contradicts the truths that are received through more reliable means. This is how I explain people like Scott Woodward (former a respected microbiologist at BYU) who in the BofM DNA debate has acknowledged that the extant DNA evidence indicates that the BofM unlikely to be what it says it is, but since this has not been proven with 100% certainty he still feels justified in holding his Mormon belief that the BofM is what is says it is (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.dna%...).

(e) In short, there is a complex set of feedback loops (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_...) in the complex system that contains both our metaphysical and scientific beliefs. So, in my view it is not reasonable to suggest that we can all simply accept science and then go our own way regarding our "spiritual" (metaphysical) beliefs. There is a sub-set of possible metaphysical beliefs that are more consistent with science than the rest, and less likely to interfere with our processing and use of scientific information.

(f) As the tools that can be used to predict social outcomes become more refined, we will become better able to decide which aspects of Mormonism are likely to work for particular individuals who have particular goals, and which will not. This will justify some Mormon metaphysical beliefs, and cause others to be discarded. And Mormonism will continue to be dynamic, thus creating more metaphysical beliefs to be tested.

(g) We should recognize that some Mormon congregations and communities are much more amenable than others this the kind of approach to Mormon belief I am here outlining. Some people may feel so strongly about their connection to Mormonism that they will move to a Mormon community that will enable this kind of belief and practise of Mormonism.

4. This approach basically amounts to cafeteria Mormonism. At present, this is hard to do and those who embrace Mormonism in this way are stigmatized as “less active” or “not fully committed” or “cultural Mormons”. However, bearing such stigma may be the lesser evil for some people.

In conclusion, I note that Mormon apologists do not tend to use either of these systems. They don’t like admitting to irrationalism, and so do not confess to option no. 1 above. However, they denial of science and history when it hurts their case amounts to this in many cases. And they do not like brutally pragmatic approach represented by option no. 2. So, they end up betwixt and between and we know what the good book says about that, don’t we – “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:16).

I second that motion.

Best,

bob
topic image
Notes For A Podcast Interview: Religious Belief Impairs Our Ability To Perceive And Reason In Some Ways
Tuesday, Jan 3, 2006, at 07:51 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I was asked to participate in a podcast a little while ago. Here are some of the notes I prepated for it.

Best,

bob

2) Religious Belief Impairs Our Ability to Perceive and Reason in Some Ways

a) The basic point that I am going to try to get across is that religious belief in certain circumstances has a predictable, powerful and distorting effect on our ability to perceive the evidence around us as to how the world works.

b) I limit my critique to literalist religious beliefs.

i) Most religions include a mixture of metaphorical and literal beliefs.

ii) Mormonism has some metaphorical beliefs, such as that the Biblical story of the earth’s creation in six days is not to be taken literally, but rather is a metaphor for six creative periods that must have lasted much longer than 24 yours each given what science tells us.

iii) Due to the findings of science, linguistic and textual analysis of the Bible and other ancient religious documents, for the last couple of hundred years at least there has been a trend within Christianity and other religions toward a more metaphoric understanding of religious texts and concepts. Some Christian sects regard the entirely of the Old and New Testaments are metaphoric. And pastors tend to be more metaphoric than regular members.

iv) However, most of Mormonism’s foundational beliefs are taken to be literally true. God really did create Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden that really was in Missouri; God impregnated Mary in the usual fashion and hence Jesus is God’s literal son; God really did appear to Joseph Smith; Joseph really did translate the Book of Mormon from golden plates an angel really gave to him; the Book of Mormon stories really happened; etc.

v) It is the dogmatic approach to knowledge required by literalist religious belief that causes the problems I will try to point out during this podcast.

vi) To the extent a religious can be shorn of its dogma, it will become more functional and healthier for its adherents in my view.

vii) However, religious authority is usually largely based on dogma. Once authority has to be earned it is much more difficult to maintain. If history is any guide, those in control of religious institutions can counted on to give up their power and influence as slowly as possible, and this means giving up the literalist belief and dogma that sustains power as slowly as possible.

viii) Religious dogma regarding authority can be thought of in business terms as a barrier to entry; something like a monopoly power that keeps other competitors out of a market. And it has the same effect as monopoly power: It creates costly, poor service oriented organizations that are designed more to benefit those who run them those whom the organizations are supposed to serve.

c) Literalist religious beliefs in an age of dominated by science and religious belief are a fascinating study in consistent, predictable contradiction.

i) For example, most modern religions, including literalist religions like Mormonism, accept reason as our best guide to reality except where it conflicts with “revealed truth” in a way that would threaten the credibility and hence authority of the religions institution in question.

ii) The authority and credibility if religious institutions and their leaders is critically important because religious believers place enormous confidence and trust in the ability of their religious institution and its leaders to tell them what is “right” or “true” and hence “what to do” regarding a wide variety of contentious, difficult to answer questions. For example,

(1) What are the proper roles of man and women in the home, community, government, etc.?

(2) Is birth control or abortion justifiable, and in which circumstances?

(3) In what circumstances is sexual intercourse permitted (and hence implicitly how young should people marry and start having children)?

(4) Is homosexuality justified?

(5) How should different races relate to each other and is interracial marriage OK?

(6) When is war justifiable?

(7) To what extent is it justified for humans to play god by cloning, genetic engineering, combining technology with human and other biology, etc.?

(8) Etc.

iii) By answering questions of this kind religions have both simplified social interactions (which is useful in some ways) and created social fiefdoms under the control of different religious and/or political leaders. This supercharges the natural and increasingly dangerous human tribal propensity.

iv) The history of each literalist religion and hence the “truths” that they have emphasized while answering questions such as those above constrains their ability to accept the knowledge that science has to offer and creates a predictable pattern of irrationality.

d) Assume for example:

i) You are at a party. One of your friends has had five beers during two hours because he is upset about breaking up with his girlfriend. And he is not headed to his car to drive home after loudly proclaiming, “I am noooo drun” and “I aaam juus fiiiiine ta driv hom!!!”. You don’t doubt his sincerity or the certainty of his belief. Do you feel justified to take his keys away, forcefully if necessary, and prevent him from driving his car?

ii) Most people would feel justified to intervene. In fact, if it is your house and he is your invited guest, you probably have a legal obligation to take his keys away from him.

iii) The justification for both our feeling about the “right” thing to do and the law that in some cases compels us to act is objective data that clearly indicates that a certain amount of alcohol impairs human judgement. There is no reasonable basis on which to dispute that conclusion.

iv) So, once someone has had a more than a certain amount of alcohol, we do not take what they say seriously. We may love them, trust them in most circumstances, etc. but in this particular circumstance, we don’t trust them because we understand that they are “under the influence” of something that overpowers their reasoning ability.

e) During this podcast, I will attempt to demonstrate that certain types of religious belief overpower the human ability to reason in a fashion similar to alcohol.

i) That is not to say that religion somehow makes people drunk or that the impairing capacity of religion is as extensive as it is regarding alcohol.

ii) But rather, that just as there is a correlation between drinking alcohol and impaired reasoning, there is a correlation between certain types of religions belief and certain kinds of impaired reasoning and that this pattern is so predictable that it is reasonable to infer that religion causes this particular form of impairment to our rational faculties.

iii) I am not suggesting that the impairment mechanism is the same and in fact I am sure it is quite different.

iv) All I suggest is a similar correlation.

f) In basic terms, here is how I believe this works:

i) Reason and the scientific method produce the most reliable knowledge known to man.

ii) The primacy given to science by religion (except when it is too dangerous to do so as indicated above) is the result of the success science has had in developing technology and predicting many things.

(1) This is because science has had far greater demonstrable prophetic success, and success in performing what amount to miracles, then religion can possibly claim.

(2) Imagine our ancestors seeing television, flight to outer space, cell phones, current medicine, etc. These are miracles that have been produced by science. This demands that it be acknowledged as our most powerful means of coming to understand reality, combined with the unwillingness of religions to admit that they are wrong about ideas that are perceived to be linked to their authority.

iii) We define “reason” or “rationality” to mean that we will seek out, accept and use the information most likely to enable us to have the highest probability of achieving our conscious objectives. It is therefore irrational to ignore such evidence.

iv) The scientific method is the use of various evidence gathering and theory testing mechanisms to form and test hypotheses about how the natural world works.

v) The opinion of the majority of scientists with expertise in a given field of enquiry represents the information that is most likely to be accurate with regard to that area, and hence if we are rational we will adopt and use that information as soon as we reasonably can.

vi) All scientific analysis is done on the basis of what if more probable to be accurate. That is, the question is not “is this idea true or not?” but rather something like, “how probable is it that this idea is our best approximation at the moment of truth, and what degree of reliability can I expect if I use this idea to predict future events?”

vii) The most reliable of scientific knowledge produces the amazing technologies we use every day.

viii) Scientific knowledge becomes less reliable as the phenomena in question becomes more complex, with things like the prediction of weather patterns, whether global warming is due to human activities, how human culture will develop in the future and why it has developed as it has in the past being susceptible to scientific analysis but with far less precision and hence predictability than how cell phones can be counted on to work, for example.

ix) Take the impact of human beings on global warming as an example. This is a complex, contentious area of scientific enquiry. However, a strong majority view has now developed with regard to it (see below). It is irrational for those of us who are not experts to ignore this opinion. Many in North America still ignore this information, likely as a result of the sacrifices it calls upon us to make. Our ignorance may cost our descendants dearly. This kind of “denial” (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.denial.pdf) is a common and well understood feature of human perception. It applies to religious and other beliefs as well that would be painful and otherwise difficult to change in the same fashion it does to things like global warming.

x) There is a huge area outside of science. That is, science only addresses questions that are testable, and there are far more questions that are not testable given the means science has at her disposal at the moment than are testable.

(1) Does God exist?

(2) What is God like?

(3) Does Heaven exist? Hell?

(4) What caused the Big Bang?

(5) Do the parallel dimensions predicted by String Theory exist?

xi) None of these questions are amenable to scientific analysis.

xii) Science has been described as a small clearing in the midst of a vast forest, with the odd trail pushing out from the clearing into the forest’s darkness.

xiii) See Appendix A for a graphic representation of “Reliable Science”, “Less Reliable Science”, and “Non-Science”.

xiv) Literalist religious people in the Developed World tend to accept science, but also tend to believe that when science conflicts with their religious beliefs that science should give way.

g) This creates a predictable pattern as follows:

i) Smart, well-educated and literalist religious people will tend to have irrational beliefs wherever their religious beliefs contradict science.

ii) See Appendix B for a graphic representation of Evangelical Christian Young Earth Creationist beliefs relative to science. Note that they accept most of science while disagreeing with those scientific beliefs that contradict foundational religious beliefs. Virtually all other scientifically inclined people would call the YEC beliefs that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, dinosaur bones were placed in the Earth to test human faith in God, Adam and Eve were created with the rest of life and creation less than 10,000 years ago, etc. as irrational.

iii) This attitude regarding science is severely dysfunctional for the YEC community in many ways. It causes members of this community to retreat from mainstream culture in various ways, and do be much more suspicious of science in many ways that is healthy. This attitude thus produces ignorance of many kinds.

iv) See Appendix C for a similar graphic representation of Jehovah’s Witness beliefs. Their areas of disagreement with science are different from those of the YEC, and likewise predictable on the basis of their religious beliefs.

v) See Appendix D, E and F for similar graphic representations of alien abductionist beliefs, New Age beliefs and Mormon beliefs respectively. Again, the areas of disagreement with science are different from those of the others and predictable on the basis of their religious beliefs. Each of these is discussed in some detail below.

vi) We could produce similar charts for many other literalist religions.

h) As a result of the analysis we just performed, if I am speaking to a scientifically oriented, orthodox Mormon, I can predict with a high degree of probability each of the following:

i) He will accept that Biblical metaphor is acceptable in some cases at least because the Mormon temple ceremony describes the creation of the Earth as occurring over a long period of time thus indicating that Genesis need not be taken literally. Hence metaphor is OK regarding many of the Old Testament stories.

ii) So, while being prepared to take a metaphoric position regarding many Biblical teachings such as the six days of creation, the age of the earth, the existence of dinosaurs, etc. he will not do the same regarding the Tower of Babel, and hence will be in conflict with science regarding how languages developed.

(1) This is the result of the reference to the Tower of Babel as a real event in the Book of Mormon which Mormons have a much more difficult time dealing with as metaphor than they do the Bible.

(2) For linguists, the idea that human language diverged less then 6,000 years ago is as crazy as the idea that earth is less than 6,000 years old.

iii) Therefore, most well educated (from a Bible studies point of view) Mormons would accept that Noah’s Ark is likely metaphor or myth, same for the falling of Jericho’s walls and Jonah and the Whale.

iv) Same for Christ’s miracles, the Virgin birth, the literal resurrection, etc. Since they are referenced by the Book of Mormon they must be taken literally.

v) He will be ignorant of and/or dispute evolutionary theory on a basis that is consistent with the statements of Mormon leaders of the years instead of science. That is, evolution may have been used by God to create life but probably not to separate one species to another, and certainly not to create man from mere animals.

vi) He will think that the Garden of Eden literally existed and can be located in Missouri and hence he will be ignorant of and/or dispute various accepted aspects of how recent genetic, linguistic and other research has shown that homo sapiens originated in Africa and spread from there starting about 65,000 years ago after a far longer history of pre-homo sapiens life forms in other parts of the globe (provide weblinks? – recent article in the Economist is good; provide link to global dna project);

vii) He will be ignorant of and/or dispute various accepted aspects of how the Americas were populated and the origin of the Amerindians (Israelite) and in particular she will be ignorant of and/or dispute the validity of the DNA research that shows that it is extremely unlikely that Hebrews immigrated to the Americas;

viii) He will have an incredibly inflated idea of the importance of the US in current and future human affairs;

ix) He will have an usually deferential attitude toward certainty types of authority, and more resemble in behavior the conformity oriented Asians than the individualistically oriented North Americans (see Richard Nesbitt, “The Geography of Thought”).

x) He will relatively easily susceptible emotional manipulation, which explains in part at least Utah’s US leading incidence of multi-level marketing and financial fraud participation rate. This, Mormon family size and the payment of tithing is likely related to Utah’s US leading personal bankruptcy rate.

xi) He will have unusually rigid ideas with regard to the appropriate roles for men and women. This may well be responsible at least in part for Utah’s US leading rates of anti-depressant use, reported spousal abuse and certain types of sexual assault.

xii) He will regard homosexuality as a sin, perversion of human nature or “test” (like a bad temper or physical defect) of some kind that God has imposed on some humans that must be overcome.

xiii) He will regard any knowledge that contradicts Mormon dogma as dangerous, suspect, and to be avoided despite a clear pattern in Mormon history of many now regarded as sound scientific and social ideas being rejected, and then accepted.

(1) Consider, for example early Mormon attitudes toward geology, evolutionary theory, cosmology, race relations (until recently).

(2) And what about the way in which Mormon leaders fought to keep polygamy, lied for over a decade about their behaviour, and finally abandoned it in the early 1900s. Then having been forced to do so, they took Mormonism mainstream.

(3) What would Mormonism be like now had it retained polygamy? Talk about “prophetic leadership”.

(4) If God is responsible for Mormonism, to say that He works in mysterious ways is an understatement, and He has an exquisite sense of irony.

i) The pattern that this analysis develops is clear – literalist religious belief causes the adoption of irrational scientific views where the two are in conflict. This often results in the adoption of irrational, dysfunctional opinions and behaviors.

i) Furthermore, as our chart notes the further from the center of science we get the more complex phenomena become and the less predictable or reliable knowledge related to that phenomena.

ii) And yet people who hold literalist religious views hold their most certain opinions regarding phenomena that are outside the purview of science, and hence are among the most uncertain of all we experience.

iii) As noted above, these include questions like “Does God exist?”, “What is God like?”, “What will happen after death?” etc.

iv) We are irrational if we ignore the clear lessons of human history as to the folly of believing that we have certain knowledge as to how questions of this kind must be answered.

v) Dogmatic certainty with respect to the untestable is what creates the kind of ignorance and tribalism that has made a wasteland of Northern Ireland and Palestine, causes suicide bombings all over the Middle East and flew airplanes into the World Trade Center.

vi) Neither God nor religion is a problem, but people who purport to speak for God or think they knew with certainty what we must do to please God are a serious problem. Their behaviour is irrational.

vii) I agree with the bumper sticker that pleads “God, Save Us From Your Followers”.

j) This denial of probable reality and hence adoption of irrational belief as a result of religion has been carefully studied as part of a wide range of consistent human perceptive failures (see again http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.denial.pdf), and relates largely to our historic dependence on social groups for survival and reproductive opportunities.

i) Our instincts to defer to group opinion and authority structures, even where to do so is irrational in the manner noted above, were developed during time when we were much more dependant on our dominant social groups than we now are and hence it was more important to keep our place in the social order than to be “right” about many kinds of things.

ii) These instincts change slowly.

k) In many circumstances we acknowledge that our reason is impaired by emotional and other forces and follow rules to protect ourselves.

i) Hence, medical doctors are advised not to treat family members because the emotional forces involved have been shown to impair judgment.

ii) For the same reason lawyers are advise not to act on their own behalf, and the insurance companies that protect law firms from negligence claims deny coverage where lawyers are representing companies in which they have large shareholdings because it has been shown that a disproportionate number of negligence claims come from cases of this type.

iii) Financial and legal advisors are routinely hired to assist us to make important financial decisions were fear and/greed may impair judgement.

iv) Our corporate business world, though far from exemplary in terms of reasoning and virtue, is set up to require independent members of boards, executive compensation and audit committees, etc. in recognition of the human inability to exercise power in a reasonable fashion.

v) Law firms often require “second opinions” where one partner must review the work of the person primarily in charge of a matter to ensure objectivity.

vi) Large accounting firms sometimes require the partner responsible for a matter to rotate each few years because of the problems that have arisen as a result of partners becoming to close to their clients and losing objectivity.

vii) We often seek marital or family counseling to deal with issues that are known to be so emotionally volatile that we cannot reasonably expect to deal with them on a rational basis.

viii) Our democratic institutions are perhaps the greatest social monument of all time to man’s inability to make rational decisions when in the possession of power, and hence under the sway of greed and/or fear.

ix) And if this is not our greatest moment to this aspect of bias and our need for help to be rational, then the scientific enterprise certainly is. It requires peer review before publication of a material nature. It requires the pooling of knowledge for public critique. It myriad ways it acknowledges that the wisest among us have blind spots that only others will be able help us see.

x) Fear, greed and other primal emotional forces have been shown in countless experiments to interfere with rational functioning, and we are advised to distance ourselves from whatever causes these forces to play on us before making important decisions.

xi) And yet in their wisdom religious leaders and those who follow them proclaim their certainty and disdain for the views of any who dare disagree with them. This is a breathtaking form of ignorance, and arrogance, once it is seen in the context of the human endeavor to know as it has played out over our recorded history.

l) These rules are designed to protect us against predictable failures in our ability to perceive, and so are similar to the “don’t drive after drinking regardless of capable you think you are” rule.

m) In similar fashion, it is advisable to follow similar rules to protect us against the proven inadequacy of our reasoning relative to our most important religious beliefs.

i) This means that we should not take seriously the views of religious people that contradict the best scientific information that is available. Religiously driven opinions of this type are demonstrably irrational.

ii) Most of us routinely do this with regard to the religious views of other people.

iii) It is much more difficult to follow the same rule regarding the religious view of our own group. However, not to do so is as demonstrably irrational as driving after drinking more than a very small amount of alcohol.

iv) The rational thing to do in this regard is to defer to science where it disagrees with our religious beliefs, and work toward gaining the perspective necessary to see the irrational parts of our religious culture for what they are.

v) And it is extremely unlikely that more than a small percentage of the population will do what I have just outlined because of the way in which religious beliefs are perceived by those who hold them to be foundational to life itself.

n) An important example of how Mormon perception fails is illustrated by the way Mormons and non-Mormons answer the question “Should Joseph Smith be trusted?” in light of evidence related to his history of error and/or deception regarding many important matters.
topic image
Brokeback Mountain - On Art and Social Change
Monday, Jan 9, 2006, at 08:14 AM
Original Author(s): Carl Smith
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
What follows was sent to me today by Carl Smith (Vanderbilt University - [email withdrawn]) a musician who is also a professor of music. It is wonderfully insightful on a number of levels. Carl would be happy to hear from any of your who have comments regarding his review.

Best,

bob.

Somehow I seem to have fallen into a pattern of posting a long piece around the first of the year. Perhaps it’s because by that point I have survived the rigors of Christmas as only a church musician knows them, or perhaps it’s because I’m not yet ready to face the rigors of the coming semester at school. Whatever the reason, here’s this year’s candidate for your “delete” button.

As I’m sure many of you have been, I have been utterly astonished by the Brokeback Mountain phenomenon. I can’t recall another new art work that has prompted anywhere near the quantity and quality of discussion and commentary this film has. There has already been an enormous amount written about it, and undoubtedly there will be a great deal more. The film is so huge in scope and so rich in its humanity that it can be seen and understood in many different ways and on many different levels. I have seen it a number of times and have read both the story and the screenplay several times. I confess to being - for once in my life - in agreement with the majority view, which is that the film truly is a masterpiece. Like most masterpieces, it is not without its flaws. But my intent here is not to write another review but rather to point out some interesting aspects of the film and what it shows us about how art works. Still, I do have to add that, as a creative person, what I appreciate most about this film is it’s effectiveness in raising all manner of themes and questions without ever appearing to do so. It is a story, a great story, beautifully told. Its meaning is what each of us understands its meaning to be, and that it allows us so readily to bring to it and take from it as much or as little as we are able is an indication of its greatness. If you have not yet seen it, I urge you to do so. There are more than a few of us who consider it essential.

For any of you who have not seen the film, here is an absurdly brief synopsis.

“Brokeback Mountain” is a short story by Annie Proulx, originally published in the New Yorker magazine; it was adapted into a screenplay by Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana.

Set in 1963 (in some ways a vastly different era from the present), two young men, Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar, “both high school dropout country boys with no prospects, brought up to hard work and privation, both rough-mannered, rough-spoken, inured to the stoic life” are hired for a summer to tend sheep high up on Brokeback Mountain. (Since this piece is basically about metaphor, and since I have not seen anyone as yet point them out, I will call to mind in passing our many traditional and religious associations with sheep, especially innocence, naivete, and gullibility.) Jack is the livelier and more emotive of the two; Ennis is much more stoic, taciturn and tight-lipped to a fault. They work high on the mountain, just below and then above the tree line, “looking down on the hawk’s back”. That sex could occur between two young men in such a situation is hardly worth mentioning; if it happened, it would be without comment or consequence. In an essay, Proulx quotes an old sheep rancher who claimed he alwayssent up two herders “so’s if they get lonesome they can poke each other”.

But in this case the two young men not only satisfy their immediate needs, they satisfy a deeper need they are not even aware of, they fall in love, in “once-in-a-lifetime love” as Proulx writes. That kind of love cannot be left behind, and it follows them down the mountain. And it haunts them until one of them is killed physically and the other emotionally. The story is a tragedy. The moral order is transgressed and a harsh penalty is exacted as a result. The sex is, per se, of little consequence to the story. It’s the love that is an offense to the natural order of things, and they die because of it.

When they come down off the mountain, they go their separate ways, although both know on some level it is the wrong thing to do. They marry and father children - and cause a great deal of pain to those around them. They get together a few times a year until Jack’s death, always in remote, desolate, locations - and always in the mountains. But they never return to Brokeback. They refer to it, and it seems ever-present in their lives whether they are together or apart, but physically they never go back.

It is a shame that someone somewhere christened this the “gay cowboy movie” and that the name has stuck. Whenever an exasperated Proulx has the opportunity, she points out that these young men were not cowboys, they were two guys who had pretty much nothing and knew just about as much. They called themselves cowboys in an effort to get by and to buy their way into the cowboy myth, hoping to find in it some kind of community and identity.

What I would like to consider is the dramatic role of that mountain in particular and of mountains in general in this story and in our on-going IRAS discussions of art. It only need be mentioned in passing that ‘going up to the mountain‘ or into the mountains has been used countless times to signify an intentional distancing of oneself for purposes of contemplation, or perhaps to seek inspiration. And God gave Moses the ten commandments on a mountain, Christ gave the sermon ‘on the mount’, from the Magic Mountain to the Seven Story Mountain to “Climb Ev’ry Mountain”, references to the metaphor of mountain are endless. And we all know immediately what is meant when we hear someone describe ‘a mountain-top experience’.

But there is another metaphorical use for mountain, less familiar perhaps, but one at least as powerful. Artists frequently use the metaphor of ‘going to another place’ when writing or composing. And we sometimes immodestly describe our efforts in Promethean terms, likening ourselves to the ancient Prometheus who stole fire from the gods on MOUNT Olympus. He was punished by torture for his audacity, for his trespass against the gods. We sometimes refer to the act of discovery in the process of creation as “stealing fire from the gods”, and in Christianity divine love is sometimes referred to, especially by poets, as celestial fire. As Jack and Ennis climb higher and higher on Brokeback Mountain, they remove themselves further and further from convention and societal restraint. They are high enough to look down on the back of the hawk, a predator; they are beyond both his reach and his interest. At the tree line, the strongest visual image in the film for me, everything of convention has been left behind. Theyare left to revel in the austerity and innocence of the place, the austerity my friend Belden Lane refers to in his book entitled “The Solace of Fierce Landscapes”. And it is precisely here that they unknowingly touch the gods’ fire.

For artists, crossing back below the metaphorical tree line is sometimes almost unbearably difficult; after the ecstasy of the heights, the mundane can seem stifling. Is should be of little wonder that many of us use drugs of one sort or another to remind ourselves of how much better it feels up there, above the tree line. But we artists are challenged, indeed expected, to bring something back down with us, something that through our art may be made to seem beautiful and of value. The most memorable creative experience I have yet had was in the summer of 1995 when I was given as a work space an almost bare room near the top of the bell tower of a monastery, which was itself located on the highest point on the highest hill in Rome, well above the tree line. It was wonderful, and it was hard work; I was being paid to create something and was expected to bring it down with me. But when Jack and Ennis come down off Brokeback Mountain, they unwittingly bring down with them some of the gods’ forbidden fire, and thetragedy begins to unfold.

Up to this point, everything in the story has taken place in Wyoming in 1963, a now distant time and - for most of us - place. Much in our society has changed since then, much has not. It has only been two years since the Supreme Court struck down the remaining sodomy laws. The story had already been published and widely read when Matthew Shepard was brutally beaten and strung up to die in Wyoming in 1998. (I cannot refrain from pointing out that a more common spelling of his name is shepherd, a sheep herder.) The so-called “religious right” was duped into turning an ill-conceived wish by some for gay marriage into a brilliantly conceived hot-button issue just in time for the last election. Frank Rich, writing in the New York Times, predicts that Brokeback Mountain will have a significant impact in the on-going arguments about civil unions and gay marriage. I am going to have a fine time watching to see if that happens; and, if an undeniably great work of art actually influences public thought and policy, itwill be an extraordinary thing. The last time I can think of when that happened was in 1541 when, after its first public viewing on Christmas Day, Michelangelo’s “Last Judgment” in the Sistine chapel caused such prudish outrage that graphic artists quickly produced prints of it, which were then distributed in Protestant-leaning northern Europe and were cited as further evidence of the corruption of the Roman church. He was devastated by the reception and misunderstanding of his masterpiece and by it’s politicization. A number of artists were hired in the century following its unveiling to overpaint portions of it. Contemporary accounts maintain that he never again set foot in the chapel where the now much-venerated frescoed ceiling and Last Judgment are to be found.

If Frank Rich is right and Brokeback Mountain does have some sort of societal impact, Michelangelo will have his revenge.

Annie Proulx, in the essay I mentioned earlier, gives us an extraordinary example of one of the ways art works. I will set it up and then quote from her. Somewhere there is a theater, and on a wall in that theater there is a screen, and there are some seats facing that screen, and behind those seats there is some sort of projection gear that throws images onto the screen that our suspension of disbelief allows us to belive are real. Ultimately though, it’s still all smoke and mirrors. Proulx: “Aside from the two-faced landscape, aside from the virtuoso acting, aside from the stunning and subtle makeup job of aging these two young men twenty years, an accumulation of very small details gives the film authenticity and authority: [here a long list of such details, concluding with] the switched-around shirts, the speckled coffeepot, all accumulate and convince us of the truth of the story. People may doubt that young men fall in love up on the snowy heights, but no one disbelieves the speckled coffeepot, and if the coffeepot is true, so is the other.” When you leave the theater, the image of that object (the coffeepot) might linger a bit in your memory. But the response you experienced to the portrayal of the story of their tragic love is not an object, a merely conjured-up image, it is true, a force in the shared human experience. And if you find the parameters of what you know of that shared human experience stretched a bit by watching Brokeback Mountain, you, too, will be guilty of having stolen a bit of the gods’ forbidden fire. Art’s like that.

Sorry this is so long, but you were warned.

Have a good 2006. It will be an interesting year.

CS
topic image
How Much "Color" Do We Need? - A Meditation On "Brokeback Mountain"
Monday, Jan 9, 2006, at 08:28 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
My wife and I went to see "Brokeback Mountain" last night. I have thought a lot about it since. What follows resulted.

Life for Ennis and Jake (the "gay" cowboys) was presented as grey slate punctuated by explosions of color when they could get together. When about to get together, or together, they were presented as having smiles on their faces and a spring in their steps. At all other times, they labored through what "they had to do". This was realistically presented. Life is like this for all of us. There is nothing the matter with grey. In fact, the process of "habituation" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automati...) will ensure that even days jammed full of color will quickly degrade into mostly grey, and we will need to find new sources of color. This continual search for novelty and learning is likely what impelled humanity to occupy its position atop (in some ways) the biological heap.

As I thought about Ennis and Jake’s “color deficit”, I recalled how I perceived my life while Mormon. This is best conveyed by summarizing a series of conversations I had with a close friend shortly after I was released from five years service as a Mormon bishop about 12 years ago. I will call him Bill.

Bill came to me for marital advice. My "bishop’s mantle” was perhaps still at least partly in place, he told me, and while bishop I had developed a reputation for giving at least occasional good advice as a marriage counselor.

Bill said that he was seriously thinking about leaving his wife. They had a number of small children and divorce would be hard on the entire family, but he thought that continuing to model dysfunctional mating behaviour would be worse for the kids. And he felt dead inside; he and his wife shared few interests; they were growing further apart; all they had in common where the kids and Mormon belief (they both were and still are active Mormons); and while he did not have another woman in mind, he dealt with so many at work who shared his hobbies (outdoorsy) that within a short time he would find a mate to compliment him instead of driving him batty. And he acknowledged that he was not good for his wife. She was an attractive, cultured woman who would have no trouble finding another man who would share her world with gusto instead dragging along, as was my friend. What did I think?, he asked.

My advice was that he had made sacred covenants and God would bless him to be able to find enough in common with his wife to make the marriage work if he was irrevocably committed to this; and that in any event, his expectations were too high. He wanted too much color. Life was mostly grey, I told him. Expect grey. Learn to like grey. And when the occasional flash of color comes along, enjoy it to the max because that is the best for which we can reasonably hope. I was merely relating my own experience and telling him that if it was good enough for me, it should be good enough for him.

Bill spoke with other people, got some professional counseling, and stayed with his wife. They are still together as far as I know. However, a few years after the crossroads I just described we happened to run into each other again and almost immediately went deep into conversation. He told me that life was still pretty grey, but that he had learned to cope. He went his way, and she hers, most of the time. They fought about some things, but had learned to predict and stay away from the contentious topics. And, he said, he was seriously thinking about having himself sterilized. “Snipped?”, I queried. No, he replied, "Sterilized. Become a eunuch”, he said.

I was staggered. Why?, I asked. He told me that he had been doing some reading about eunuchs and thought it sounded like a pretty good deal. Getting rid of the sexual tension in his life would make things so much easier. He would not be constantly bothering his wife for sex anymore. He had not discussed this idea with her, but was pretty sure she would be relieved to have sex out of the way permanently. And, he would not be tempted by sexual thoughts when he ran into attractive women. No more problems with masturbation. And he would have so much more energy to devote to business, hobbies, etc.

I told him that I thought he was sick, needed to see a counselor and that if my advice about accepting a grey world was responsible in any way for his circumstances, I was very sorry about that. He laughed off what I had to say, and so I didn’t push it. Within a year of this conversation, I was on my way out of Mormonism.

I now have quite a different take on Bill’s experience. Most of us need more color – more variety; more of what puts a bounce in our step – then his life contained. I needed much more color than I had, and this was in part what caused me to wake up. I was malnourished, but did not realize that until I was so weak that I was stumbling at every other step.

But, I did not need more of the explosive color that Brokeback showed coming into Ennis and Jake’s lives each time they got together. That is rare stuff. Wonderful, miraculous stuff, but rare. A life based on chasing that is likely to be an out of control roller coaster.

The question is, how can we balance our need for stability (and the way in which other lives depend on ours for stability) with our need for novelty, learning, etc.? I explore this to an extent at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/out%20o... starting at page 127. However, when I wrote that I had not read enough of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (see http://www.psychologytoday.com/articl... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Csikszen... for a primer) to understand how the process works. As the Psychology Today article just noted indicates,

“Flow tends to occur when a person faces a clear set of goals that require appropriate responses. It is easy to enter flow in games such as chess, tennis, or poker, because they have goals and rules that make it possible for the player to act without questioning what should be done, and how. For the duration of the game the player lives in a self-contained universe where everything is black and white. The same clarity of goals is present if you perform a religious ritual, play a musical piece, weave a rug, write a computer program, climb a mountain, or perform surgery. In contrast to normal life, these "flow activities" allow a person to focus on goals that are clear and compatible, and provide immediate feedback.

Flow also happens when a person's skills are fully involved in overcoming a challenge that is just about manageable, so it acts as a magnet for learning new skills and increasing challenges. If challenges are too low, one gets back to flow by increasing them. If challenges are too great, one can return to the flow state by learning new skills.”

Having lots of flow experience is correlated to just about every positive life outcome with which I am familiar. And to stay in this experiential space, we must have found ways to continually challenge ourselves; to continually learn; and so to continually grow. It is growth that feels good.

I think Brokeback is a wonderful film. It shatters stereotypes of many kinds, and by so doing increased my understanding of a way of life that I regard as legitimate, but have not had the chance to understand. I am therefore grateful for this movie and take its wide acceptance as a healthy “sign of the times”.

However, to make its tragic point Brokeback needed to emphasize a certain kind of pathos as well as a certain kind of joy. This useful caricature could lead some to look for life sustaining color in the wrong place.

Ennis and Jake had certain needs that their culture prevented them from satisfying. This social wrong should be righted. However, had their needs in this regard been met they would soon have habituated and their relationship would have become grey until they found ways to use the principles articulated so well by Csikszentmihalyi, Martin Seligman (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_S...) and others to enliven both their individual lives and their relationship. Continual growth, and hence sustainable growth, is the key.

And we should all continue to feel gratitude for the occasional miracles of joy, illustrated so well by Ennis and Jake, when they burst into our lives.

Best,

Bob
topic image
Analogies For "Leaving The Fold"
Wednesday, Jan 11, 2006, at 07:47 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I have said that our brains have to be re-wired and this is done by running new through patterns over new circuits that are formed by our new way of paying attention to reality and processing information about it while certain old circuits (such as those related to deferring to Mormon and other authority, being a conformist, etc.) fall into decay. This is like paths through a park. Those that are used become better defined; those that are not grow over. Or it is like the tracks water makes as it runs down hill. The first random grooves tend to capture subsequent water falls and become deeper. We need to take steps at the top of the slope to redirect the water into channels that we have determined to use.

I have said that I am like a sapling that has been deformed by growing out from under a boulder. When the boulder is moved, it is not enough to just "straighten out" the sapling. It will have to be staked and held straight for a long time before it will retain its new shape. And if the "sapling" is 44 years old when you move the boulder, you simply have to live with a crooked tree that will start to grow in new directions from its deformed base. With enough work this often produces unusual, beauty like the Diamond Willow, whose wonderful growth pattern is a reaction to its battle against a fungus. Or, you may just lop off entire huge branches because you realise that it is not a good thing for the tree's energy to be directed toward them. This pruning will be painful, but it will cause new growth to rapidly reshape the tree, and after enough time the warped foundation may be hard to see unless you know what you are looking for.

I have said that I am like a concrete foundation that is cracked all to hell, and even has some big chunks missing from it, such as was found to be the case with our house's foundation after a huge rainstorm that flooded our basement in June of last year. It took six months to repair, as a large section of the footings under the old foundation that was falling apart because it was not properly laid had to be jack hammered out one piece at a time and replaced. If the entire section of footings was removed at once, the front of the house would have collapsed. So, a few feet of footings at a time was hammered out, and then replaced. The remainder of the rotten concrete was enough to support this restoration process and in fact was critical to its success. But continuing to live with that old foundation was not an option. It had a high probability of collapsing. However, once the jack hammering, re-cementing, plastering, framing, insulating and drywalling were done, we had a wide range of decisions to make. What color would we paint? The carpet had to be replaced. What color would that be? Should we make some changes since we has to redo things? We eventually redecorated so as to change the look of many things about our home. This we chose, but it was in some ways driven by the things that had to be done. With that impetus, the inertia of what "was" would like have caused us to continue with little change. Still, there was a huge difference between the process that forced itself upon us, and the more enjoyable, creative exercise that it invited us to embark upon.
topic image
Why Do I No Longer Rage At Mormon Idiocy?
Wednesday, Jan 11, 2006, at 08:08 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I am not looking for the answer, “Because you are a pussy.” At some level it makes sense to rage at idiocy. But I recognized something that went way beyond normal in my reaction to Mormon idiocy. These were my people; my former idiocy; and it got to me so completely that I would rage. And especially when someone close to me rubbed my nose in it. I could feel the adrenalin hit like a freight train, and off I would go.

But think about this. If a casual acquaintance bears serious testimony that God loves me so much that he planted dinosaur bones in a 6,000 year old Earth to test my faith or that if I change the spelling of my name the course of my life will also change (I was told this – seriously – at a Christmas party a few weeks ago by a numerologist), I have trouble not laughing out loud while saying something like “How about that amazing Vince Young in the Rose Bowl!” or whatever, and then escaping the conversation as soon as I can. And then I do laugh out loud.

Why then, until recently, would I get so upset when my loved ones insisted that Joseph Smith was commanded by God to have sex with other mens’ wives and teenage girls, translated a book using the same magic peep stone he used to pretend to find (while not finding) buried treasure, etc.? And more importantly, why do I no longer feel the same degree of upset? Am I just "healing"? And in any event, what are the important things that have changed in my life to facilitate this?

I think most of the reason for this change in my experience is found in the branches of social science research related to attachment theory (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachme...) and individuation as they relate to religious and other social groups (see for example Lee Kirkpatrick, “Evolution, Attachment and the Psychology of Religion” - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1593...). This theory suggests that we need attachment to certain kinds of authority or security figures starting with a primary care giver and ending with intimate mates and various groups, and that we can be conditioned to have varying degrees of need in this regard by our experience. Mormonism supercharges our need for the group, and so attachment of that kind is a powerful drag on those who leave Mormonism. This is one of the many things that makes it hard to become a post-Mormon.

Until our attachment needs are met by a combination of connecting to another group or groups and weaning ourselves from the unhealthy dependency on authority of various kinds that Mormonism has caused, we will tend to react strongly to messages that confirm the unwelcome fact that we are sans group. That is, each time a close friend or family member rubs information in our face that demonstrates that we no longer belong to our only group of signicance, our tendency will be to persuade the person who has approached us (or whom perhaps we have approached) that she is wrong and we are right. If we succeed, we will have company in our loneliness.

And why do men tend to have an easier time with this hellish adjustment than women? Mormon men tend to have more non-Mormon attachments than do Mormon women. And men in general do not attach as thoughly to others as do women. Simple as that.

As we become securely attached to other groups and develop a set of healthy relationships that fill the need most of us feel for camaraderie, intimacy, identity with others, etc. our reaction to Mormon family and friends changes in many ways. In particular, the desire to persuade them declines. If they challenge us, we react less aggressively or not at all.

In short, we begin to treat Mormon idiocy (even when it comes from those closest to us) with the same kind of understanding and grace (or lack thereof) with which we treat other similar kinds of lunacy. And we can take this as evidence that we are healing.

Relationships to parents and other aspects of the family group are complicated by the way in which Mormonism uses parental and other forms of authority to control individuals and cause allegiance to the Mormon system. Hence, Mormon children do not individuate away from parental control to the same extent as do most other members of North American society. For some insight into how this likely works, see Richard Nesbitt “The Geography of Thought”.

It is often necessary to radically restructure the parental relationship in order to get past the conflict that results when Mormon authority is rejected. From the parents’ point of view, the rejection of Mormon authority is also a fundamental rejection of parental authority. This is another example of the problems Mormonism causes by confounding important aspects of life in order to reduc the chance that it will be jettisoned. For example, marriage is placed on a social and religious pedestal within Mormonism, and if you want to be at your grandchildren’s marriages in the temple, you have to toe a certain behavioural (and financial) line.

If you want to marry in the temple or go on a mission, both important rites of social passage for young Mormons, you have to promise absolute obedience to all kinds of Mormon authority while in a Mormon temple and that promise is sprung on you without warning in circumstances were it is highly probable that you will make it. Having made this promise, the psychologists tell us that it is likely to significantly influence behavior.

Having married Mormon, you committed to be obedient to Mormon authority as part of the marriage covenant. The marriage is hence based in large measure on a joint commitment to obey. To break that promise threatens the marriage, which radically reduces the chances of disobedience. I know many people who fake it precisely to avoid marital conflict and possible divorce. This impoverishes their lives, not to mention what it does to their children.

So, to reject Mormonism requires the rejection of a system of behaviour, social connections and relationships that go far beyond what would be required to leave many other belief systems.

During months of fighting with my parents over issues related to Mormonism we repeatedly agreed that we would not bring Mormonism up and all of us broke that agreement many times in different ways. I think attachment and lack of individuation on mostly explains this.

My parents are incomplete without me in the Celestial Kingdom and hence my disagreement threatened them at an existential level that is beyond articulation. I was still pscyhologically on them and their approval in many ways, though I would never have guessed that and nor would anyone who knows me well. Disagreeing pleasantly in that situation was extremely difficult to do.

Finally, I simply withdrew from the relationship. While difficult, this has been far preferable to being engaged with them as we were. And as my need for attachment to them and other aspects of Mormonism declines and other healthy relationships form, reengagement has become possible. Whether I will pursue it is another question. My life is peaceful now to a degree that is both new and enjoyable. The idea of visiting the cloister saddens me, much as I suspect would be the case for a Hutterite who has left the colony. I still love many people who are mired in pathetic circumstances. To be reminded of where and what they are does not lift my spirit.

I think that it is important to work at forgiving those who have harmed us as Martin Seligman (see http://www.authentichappiness.com) and other psychologists say is so important from a mental health and happiness point of view. However, the further down this road I go the more important I think it is to create a new life, think new thoughts, find new and more healthy relationships, etc. Processing the hurt works to an extent, but filling up with the wonder around us was more important for me.

As our life brims with enjoyable, healthy activities, we are more whole. If "psychological healing" metaphor is valid, this is where the process at its root mostly occurs. But I am not sure that this is so much a function of healing as just filling spaces that we need to be full.

In the long term, it makes sense to think about how large and of what shape those spaces should be. But in the short term, and particularly while in the midst of the trauma caused by leaving Mormonism, it makes sense to me to simply fill our emptiness with reasonable and more healthy substitutes for what Mormonism did in our lives. This is surprisingly easy to do. We are far more adaptable than we think. Most other people are more kind, generous, ethical and enjoyable than as Mormons we were taught to believe. And there are far more ways to connect in meaningful ways with these people. At the kids' school; at the kids' sporting activities; at community centres; through continuing education classes; through hobbies; through political or other “cause” oriented involvement; etc.

And art itself is a wonderful source of the perspective that in what seems a mysterious way causes us to heal. See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.art%.... Charing perspective changes the size and shape of our holes.

I think we can learn a lot about how well our recovery process is going by paying attention to our baseline behaviour when confronted by ideological idiocy exhibited by groups to which we have not been attached, and comparing that to how we react to Mormon idiocy. When our behaviour is each of these cases is similar, we are well along the road in the right direction.

Life is good. This good surrounds us, flowing by up to our gunnels. We need do little more than reach out our humble bowls and they will be filled to overflowing with human abundance.

Best,

bob
topic image
Are Heretics Good For Mormonism?; Are Liberal Mormons Bad?; The Dysfunctional Nature Of Mormon Decision-Making
Thursday, Jan 12, 2006, at 07:58 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
The following is a lightly edited note I recently sent as part of an email exchange with a well-known, well-informed liberal Mormon who continues to suppport Mormonism.

Best,

bob

I am not a Webberian prophet (as per his prophets v. priests distinction), but I am a Campbellite heretic. Joseph Campbell said that heretics are the life blood of most institution who act as an important part of the external nervous system that transmit important messages back to the decision makers in their bunkers. Your path is radically different from mine. I am not critical of your approach and think there is great value in it while being clear that I could not, and would not with to try, to do what you do. Let a thousand flowers bloom.

However, I tire while dealing with people in the liberal Mormon community of being given this label (the "180-degree-switched-true-believer"). It is a classic, and shallow, believers ploy, which I thank you for not applying to me.

Literalist Mormonism makes as much (or little) sense as literalist JW, Young Earth Creationist, alien abduction, etc. belief. To be clear on that point is not to become a 180 degree true believer. Nor is it a 180 degree flip to apply normal probabilistic, cost-benefit analysis to Mormon social practises. Having done that, I have concluded that while Mormonism offers much that is of value, at this point in its evolution it offers far more that is dysfunctional than is functional when compared to readily available other groups where I live, and I suspect in most places. Parts of Utah may be an exception to this general rule. You and I may disagree on this point, and that is fine.

Too many liberal Mormons use the 180-degree label to dismiss those who disagree with them. This is a common form of irrational behaviour that we should seek to weed out everywhere we find it. You would enjoy "The Wisdom of Crowds" (see http://www.randomhouse.com/features/w... and for reviews see http://www.metacritic.com/books/autho...). While not being without shortcoming, it goes a long ways towards explaining the dysfunctional, and functional, aspects of group decision making.

A lot of liberal or fringe Mormon behaviour is explained by the lingering and powerfully dysfunctional influence of the Mormon individual and group epistemic system. If you described how the Mormon Church makes decisions, and teaches its members to make decisions and then compare that to the decision making features that scholars tell us are calculated to produce dysfunctional decisions, the overlap is staggering. The opposite analysis produces similar results. That is, the mechanisms the scholars tell us are likely to produce functional decisions are notable in Mormonism mostly by their absence.

The more clearly and palatably this message is articulated, the more pressure for change will be brought to bear on Mormon leaders. In my view, many liberal Mormons are delaying this process of change by offering support for institutions that are profoundly dysfunctional.

I don't believe Mormon leaders will change until they must. This is consistent with org theory in general, and the history of Mormonism in particular. And the insular, dysfunctional decision making paradigm used by Mormon leaders makes it likely that a sledge hammer will have to be used on them to get their attention. The best sledgehammer I know of is declining baptisms, declining attendance, and most importantly, declining contribution of volunteer time and money.

However, I recognize the practical difficulties we face when trying to change a culture quickly. Those who wish to change Mormonism from the inside often, it seems to me, attempt to protect other Mormon from certain painful and harsh realities about Mormonism. In this they resemble the well intentioned family members profiled in "Goodbye, Lenin!" (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.good...). Frequently when well intended protection of this type is offered, the pain that must eventually be endured multiplies exponentially as time passes.

While I recognize how tough it is to deal with questions of faith and social foundations, I err on the side of telling it like it is and letting the chips fall where they may. When this strategy is considered from a multi-generational point of view, it has particular merit.

I also, however, note the analogy of changing Mormonism at large or its role in any particular life to a recent home renovation that nature forced on us. We had a 100 year flood in Alberta last summer, prompted by a storm of 100 year quality. This exposed weaknesses in the foundation of our home. The footings under about 25% of our walls were crumbling as a result of improper construction techniques. If the entire section of footings was removed at once, the front of the house would have collapsed. So, a few feet of footings at a time were hammered out, and then replaced. This took six months. The remainder of the rotten concrete was enough to support this restoration process and in fact was critical to its success. But continuing to live with that old foundation was not an option. It had a high probability of collapsing.

However, once the jack hammering, re-cementing, plastering, framing, insulating and drywalling were done, we had a wide range of decisions to make. What color would we paint? The carpet had to be replaced. What color would that be? Should we make some changes since we has to redo things? We eventually redecorated so as to change the look of many things about our home. This we chose, but it was in some ways driven by the things that had to be done. With that impetus, the inertia of what “was” would like have caused us to continue with little change. Still, there was a huge difference between the process that forced itself upon us, and the more enjoyable, creative exercise that it invited us to embark upon.

Replacing foundations is a tricky exercise.
topic image
What Does It Mean When We Feel The "Veil Getting Thin"?
Friday, Jan 13, 2006, at 08:05 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Karl Peters (see http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_on...) is a theological who participates on an email list to which I also subscribe. His views run along the naturalist/humanist (or even atheist) line. He teaches at a theological seminary and is a UU pastor. I heard him speak last summer. He is brilliant – moving, funny, huge range of knowledge regarding science, history, etc.

Earlier today Karl posted to our list a nice piece on what he called “thin places”. I would have liked to share it here, but Karl asked that we not post it off the list since it is part of a manuscript for a book he will shortly publish.

“Thin places”, Karl tells us, have been known in many cultures as those where we encounter the divine, or something real, or something special, and he tells a number of personal stories about his encounters of this variety as well as giving some interesting historical background. My response to his post is below.

This kind of interaction has been very helpful to me. It provides a context for my Mormon experience by illustrating how much of it is common to many groups of people, and how much of it is pure Bizarro.

Best,

bob

Karl,

I enjoyed that immensely. The concept of “thin places” has a prominent role in my inherited belief tradition (Mormonism), and as the post I sent out a moment ago regarding the meaning of the word “religious”, I still find many places thin.

I wonder if in your book or elsewhere if you have considered the concept of a “mirage thin place”? I also wonder what others who read here think about this. There are so many ways in which our sense of reality can be heightened, or our ego sense suppressed, to produce desirable states of mind. What guidance can you (or others) give as to how we can reasonably attach meaning to these?

Since you mentioned the “flow” state, I will illustrate my point with an example that will seem innocuous for at least those who do not take sports seriously.

It has been shown that statistically when a pro basketball player is "hot" he has no better chance than usual of hitting his next shot, and the same is true when he is cold. I have been hot on the basketball court many times, and but for the data I have reviewed on this point, I could never have been convinced that while "hot" I did not have a better than usual chance of hitting my shots. The feeling of "hotness" and "coldness" is as unconnected to realty in the gym as the casino, and likely in the performance hall, art studio and many other places. Our mind is a great trickster. In these cases, the adrenalin and other chemicals caused by certain kinds of success create a mental space that feels, and is, special while all of the evidence indicates that our physical abilities and circumstances remain within their usual limits. These are only a few of countless examples that can be marshalled to illustrate a “mirage thin place”.

The very idea of a “thin place” posits a barrier between reality as we dimly perceive it and something that is a more accurate perception of reality, or even what is “more real than real” to use Andy Newberg’s term. “Seeing through the glass darkly” is one of our most commonly used metaphors to describe the difference between normal and heightened experience. This has been used in one form or another in countless cultures, ancient and modern. Even Bill Clinton is in on this act (see http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichm...).

Without trying to answer the question “What causes the thin place experience?”, I note that where we find our most important thin places and the meanings we attribute to them correlate with our metaphysics – our unquestionable and often unfalsifiable foundational beliefs. In logical terms, these are our premises.

And on the other hand, we have an immense base of neurological, psychological etc. data that tells us a lot about cause and effect mechanisms that reasonably account for why we feel as we do in thin places. And this also correlates in interesting ways to social or cultural experience.

I also suggest that by mapping the thin places commonly frequented or sought out by members of a particular social group against the metaphysics of the group, we are likely to find interesting patterns similar to those that are found when we map group metaphysical beliefs against the tendency of group members to irrationally deny the accuracy of information produced by scientific investigation. This mapping is crudely described at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.does... starting at page 8. This notes were hurriedly put together. I think the core idea is sound, but a lot of the rest needs much work.

As an example of how thin places correlate to metaphysics, consider the following. An important and literal Mormon belief is that all humans lived prior to coming to Earth with God in a “pre-existence”. There, everyone who eventually will come to Earth committed to God to be faithful to His commandments and come to Earth to have their commitment tested in various ways. The test would not work if the pre-Earth life was remembered, so a “veil of forgetfulness” is drawn by God across the human mind that blocks both memories of our pre-Earth existence as well as perception of the “spirit world” that Mormons believe exists around us on Earth, in the kind of extra dimension that string theory postulates. Many intellectual Mormons like ideas of the string theory, QM sort that they think cast doubt on the “reductionist” views of scientists that question Mormon foundational beliefs. And in God’s world (the world we inhabited in our pre-Earth life) there is no time – the past, present and future are all before go simultaneously. “Thin places” in Mormon phenomenology, are thought to be caused by a literal thinning of “the veil”. This accounts for:
  • Deja vu experiences when we meet someone or experience something familiar (You knew this person or knew of this experience before coming to Earth).
  • The powerful impulse to do one thing or another we sometimes feel (God is speaking to us from the other side of the veil – see Jon Krakauer’s “Under the Banner of Heaven” for a chilling account of where that can go).
  • The way nature sometimes moves us (Nature is God’s handiwork and he often communicates his love to us while we are in tune with it, which means we must be in tune with him, and when we feel these wonderful feelings this is evidence that God continues to do His most important work through the leaders of the Mormon Church).
  • The reverence and awe Mormons feel when in the presence of their religious leaders, particular in large groups (These men are God’s literal representatives on Earth, are the only humans who communicate with God on an intimate basis, and hence the veil around them is thinner than usual).
  • The feelings of peace and joy that come to Mormons when they make tremendous financial and other sacrifices for their faith, believe that this earns them a higher status after death as a result of passing this part of God’s test for them, and are recognized by their community for those sacrifices (Sacrifice brings forth the blessings of Heaven, one of which is a thinning of the veil so that we can feel God’s love).
  • The feelings of peace and joy that come to Mormons when they are in Mormon temples, which are opulently decorated, reverent places filled with people dressed in white and in an attitude of worship (Mormon temples are literally the only place on Earth holy enough to accept God’s literal presence and hence to which he literally comes, and hence the veil is particularly thin there).
  • Etc.
The Mormon thin places are wonderfully moving. And I know them well. Nothing in my experience allows me to distinguish phenomenologically between them and other similarly moving and far more healthy experiences I have had in other environments, such as the chapel on Star Island listening to you.

I hope this post is not construed as a disrespectful attempt to unweave a rainbow. I treasure my thin place experiences, and would like to find ways to rationally decide how much to give myself over to them. I have some ideas in that regard. I will keep those to myself for now while learning from what others think.

Best,

bob
topic image
Art Therapy For Recovering Mormons
Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006, at 10:07 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Art Therapy for Recovering Mormons

I just returned for my first art class, and have had an experience so interesting that I need to write about it in order to process what happened. As I sit here, getting started, I have no idea where this is going to end up.

As indicated in my essay at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.art%... there is solid scholarly support for the idea that engaging the right brain through an artistic endeavor of some kind should help us break through mental log jams, enable us to perceive many thing more clearly, “restory” ourselves, and otherwise advance in our recovery from the effects of a lifetime of Mormon belief and practise. So, I signed up for an art class – figure drawing for beginners at the Alberta College of Art and Design – in my hometown (Calgary, Alberta). I was surprised to learn that ACAD has a world class reputation. I don’t get out much. The instructor, Richard Halliday, is the recently retired head of ACAD’s Department of Drawing. He is a pleasant, encyclopedic instructor. There are 20 students in the class, most with significant prior experience who were attracted to the class by Richard’s presence.

The class meets once a week – Tuesdays from 7 until 10 pm. Tonight the first hour was used for administrative stuff. For the second two hours we draw non-stop with a 15 minute break.

Richard had us start with some scribbling. I understand that I need to get into right brain space (a semi-meditative state) to draw and so while Richard talks about admin stuff and then we scribble, I am focusing on one thing or another in an attempt to shut down my chattering left brain.

A female model joins us, and Richard has us shift from scribbling randomly to scribbling her dynamically posing form. We are not to more than occasionally glance at the paper. We are to trust our hand, and to feel that we are scribbling on the model. I realize later that at this stage of the class I sink into the semi-trance I had earlier sought.

During the course of the roughly hour and a half that we draw, Richard has the model change position every 2 to 10 minutes, depending on the exercise he has us working on. And with each change we start a new drawing. We progress from quick scribbling to more deliberate scribbling to shading, which emphasizes “volume” (the perception of three dimensions) through the use of shadow. Time passes unnoticed.

By the end of the session I feel much as I did during our creative writing, and parts of our painting, experience in France. This is an odd sensation, one so rare for me that I want to record it while the memory is still fresh. I did not do this in France quickly enough to catch it.

Exhilaration is the wrong term. The feeling is both more full, and flatter, than exhilaration. The feeling is one of satiation; of being filled with something good almost to overflowing; but still vibrating with latent energy. There is no desire to shout or dance. The feeling is quieter and more fulfilled than that. It is more like roots going down deep and nurture coming up than fireworks going off. And this feeling held steady during a long walk to my car, a 20 minute drive home and only started to fade as I did a few chores and began to get ready for bed. As I realized it was fading I decided that I needed to do some writing.

Another sense that was so clear I could taste it was that what I did tonight was profoundly healthy. It was a little like just the right amount of physical exercise – when your body thanks you over and again for choosing to work out and stopping before you hurt something. I can feel my life forces giggling around inside into what seem more like their proper places. I feel profoundly at peace.

I am not sure where this leads, but am excited to continue the trip. My recommendation of “art therapy for recovering Mormons” just become more clear and enthusiastic.

Best,

bob
topic image
How Hard Is It To Be A "HalfMo"?
Saturday, Jan 21, 2006, at 09:53 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I personally have no criticism for people who are well informed and decide to continue to participate in the Motrix on their terms as long as their actions in this regard to do not impair their children's (or other's who rely on them) opportunity to develop in a healthy fashion. They are using religion – as should be the case – instead of being used by it. But this is harder to do that we might imagine.

Each path before us has offers different pros and cons and the one Maturin and other people who I know personally and respect have chosen has a few cons that are particularly difficult in some circumstances. It also offers important pros (peace at home; some business and community relationships of particular importance that are not severed; etc.) I don't minimize these, and understand that I can't understand how important they are to a person's life unless I had lived it. And finally, I think it is fair to consider how our personality types play into this. We are geared genetically and conditioned by experience to deal with stress and confrontation in different ways. For some people it would be impossible to do what I feel compelled to do. I don't fault them for that. Hence, it is somewhere between difficult and impossible for me to judge that the decision of any particular person is "wrong".

However, I think it is useful to consider that price the those who choose this particular path are required to pay. Having done so, I think that it is fair to indicate that in general, this path is not to be recommended. And again, I do so without any criticism for Maturin in particular. Here are the big "cons" from my point of view with which one must deal while on path of "inner darkness", as one of my friends likes to call it:

1. The kids. I think the children of those who remain "active" while they are "unfaithful" face particular challenges. Can they be raised within the Mormon conditioning system and somehow not be infected by it? My personal view is that up until 8 or perhaps 12 years old, the Mormon system works great. But when it is time to learn about the reality of Santa Claus, sex and many other things, Mormonism breaks down.

There are at least two sides to this coin. The first is the least important. The child raised within Mormonism does not have as much chance (and in some cases no chance) of learning many important things. I won't try to be complete, since that would mean writing a book. But a few things that come immediately to mind are:

a. Scientific (or merely "rational") thinking. The Mormon use of "feelings" to find "knowledge" is the antithesis of science and highly dysfunctional.

b. Metaphoric thinking. A literal minded approach to most things is unhealthy. Mormons tend to be far too literal minded. It is healthy to introduce children at the earliest possible age to metaphoric, symbolic thinking. This opportunity is degraded or killed by Mormonism.

c. Global thinking. Mormonism is tribal to the core. This means that issues related to the importance of breaking down tribal barriers are not dealt with.

d. Environmental/overpopulation issues. These not on the Mormon map because the conflict with basic Mormon beliefs, and this is not likely to change anything soon. This is likely to lead to a life out of sync with reality in many important ways.

The second side of the coin is much more important. Children raised Mormon are taught some profoundly unhealthy things, including the opposites of each of those mentioned above. But most of all, think of how confused the moral reasoning of a child raised Mormon by unfaithful parents is likely to become. At what age can a child deal with this kind of complexity: "The nice people at church mean well, but they don't know what they are talking about. So, you have to ignore them when the say … But don't tell them that you disagree with them, because that will only make them upset and cause trouble for our family. I know this is different from how we have talked about behaving at school and elsewhere, but church is a special place and we have special ways of behaving there. And, I know you had a lesson last week about how taking the sacrament renews your baptismal covenant and how that means that you are promising to obey all of god's commandments each week when you take the sacrament and that Dad doesn't obey everything the Church's leaders want him to obey. You need to understand that when we promise to obey at church, it is not like a promise to obey we give in other places …"

I suggest that there is no age at which that kind of thinking would be healthy, and that for a child it would be profoundly dysfunctional. As I noted on a recent thread, psychologists have shown that those who rationalize in this fashion in any environment tend to begin to do so in other environments. It degrades the moral fiber of those who do it.

2. Relationships with our kids. As has been noted on many threads here, the Church does its best to become a party to our most intimate relationships. That is what is at work here. The Church attempts, through its well intentioned youth leaders, to put itself in a position where if Mom and Dad stumble in their responsibility to teach a child the "truth", the Church can do it in their stead. And if the child chooses the Church over their parents at some point, it will be there to support the child. And in any event, this is an environment so rich in cog dis that I question how healthy it is. How early can a child learn to walk the mine field of inner darkness? Who can I speak to, and who not? And in each case, what can I say? This is a complex environment. It reminds me of the children of holocaust Jews in hiding who had to learn to be quiet in order not to threaten the lives of their families, and themselves.

I experience the trumping of parents by church in a minor way with my ultra faithful parents. When we married, my wife and I were counseled by a CES director in Edmonton that we should start our family immediately, and were provided with lots of prophetic advice to support that position. My parents encouraged us to wait a little while at least. We felt that they were "slipping" a bit in their faithfulness, and followed the prophets advice. Baby no. 1 was born 10 months after our marriage, and my wife was sick more or less constantly for the following 17 years as she had baby after baby. I was concerned about this. She felt that she wanted to continue no doubt out of a desire to be "faithful". I felt it was her decision, and so supported her in that. We had our heads up our asses. But I digress.

3. The kids friendships. Mormon friendships are largely condtional upon continued obedience to Mormon authority. When the kids are young, this is not a big deal. As they progress through their teenage years, and approach mission age, it becomes critical. A kid who gets off the "mission/temple marriage" path is likely to lose most of his or her Mormon friends. This alone gets some kids into the mission field where the worst possible conditioning takes place. I think it is much more healthy to allow our kids to form friendships that are likely to be less conditional/more authentic from the get go. Learning to pick kids from a large population at school or elsewhere that are compatible with you and whose company you enjoy requires the development of certain skills. The Mormon way (around here at least) is to have your friends picked for you by the few your age who are Mormon and in your ward or at your school. We spent years fostering friendships that were likely less than optimal. One son in particular was forced to endure endless hours with a mean kid his age who was in our ward. He came to regard that boy as his only "real" friend, largely because of the vast amount of time they spent together. This I am sure was not healthy for his self esteem. He is now developing a broader spectrum of friends who seem to treat him much more nicely.

I hope that is enough to make my point re kids. I decided that being raised mormon in the envrioment just described might make my kids strong, but so might naming each of my sons Sue, and I didn't do that. I think people who have children at home and attending church are in a much more difficult position re the path of inner darkness than are people whose kids have left (or almost left) home. I know some people who are well informed re the Church's history and take the position that their kids will figure it out, as did they and so do not say anything. I do not think that this position is morally sound, on any basis I have reviewed. To purposefully withhold important information that you would have wished to have had at the same stage in life is in breach of the golden rule, moral principles based in utilitarian theory, and most of what I understand about morality that is based on justice theory. Those are my three primary filters for moral reasoning. The same reasoning, precisely, condemns the Church's leadership for keeping the members in the dark – they do not wish to lose things they (the leaders) value like the followership of the members and so decide to withhold information that may cause the members to disobey them, even through leaving the members in such ignorance is bad for the members. If a parent chooses to leave his or her child in ignorance out of fear that the parent will lose status in the community, or that important relationships of the parent will be disrupted, it is my view that this is at best questionable for a moral point of view.

3. Self respect. Again, different people are affected by this kind of issue in different ways. I was not able to look myself in the eye for the brief time I tried to believe x and appear to most people to believe y. I felt inauthentic. I can tell that some people like Maturin struggle with this. It is part of the price they pay to keep the peace, or whatever. And I know some people who are not bothered by this at all. They cruise along, doing their own thing.

4. Support for something that is on balance more bad than good. I suspect that at least some of my parents university oriented friends who were active church members while I was growing up were closet doubters or apostates. But they never let on. As I matured, in this crowd of mormon university professors and professionals, it was easy to adopt a "if it is good enough for them, it is good enough for me" mentality, and so not question. The church's policy of silencing dissenters is designed to facilitate this. This is why it makes perfect sense from a policy point of view for the church to permit disbelievers who will keep their mouths shut to attend: the Church gets a free crack at conditioning their kids; and the very presence of intellectual types who do not overtly question makes it easier to persuade those who are less inclined to question in any event to follow along. This is kind of like following along with the Nazi's, but at least not bayoneting any babies yourself, in my view.

Let me conclude with a little analogy that I owe to the philosopher Alan Watts. He says religion is the boat we use to cross a lake so that we can find a place that works well for us from a spiritual point of view. We must cross the lake. There is unlimited space on the other side, whereas all we have is a boat launch where we come into this life. And while it is possible to swim the lake, but few can do that on their own. It makes the most sense to use a boat, and there are lots that are readily available. But, says Watts, make sure you remember to get off the boat when it reaches the other side. And if you are unlucky enough to have a boatman who insists that you stay on his boat as he travels back and forth (some are much worse for this than others), ignore him and get off anyway.

Maturin and others are in the regrettable position of being surrounded by people who insist on staying on the boat while it goes back and forth. That poses a difficult question – does one get off alone, or stay on the boat and pretend. Maturin and others choose to stay – sort of. He spends a lot of time looking through binoculars at what is happening on land. He sneaks off when the boat touches land, spends as much time as possible off the boat without getting caught, and gets back on when he has to. He might, perhaps, even arrange for a dummy who looks like him to be propped up in a corner on the boat for a full voyage so that he can really enjoy land life for a while. Not a pleasant position to be in.

I have nothing but encouragement to offer to those who, like Maturin, have awakened and then find that the price required to get out is so high that it is worth paying the price exacted of those (and their posterity) who stay in.

All the best,

bob
topic image
Ecological V. Deliberative Rationality - A Key To Understanding Human Behaviour
Thursday, Feb 2, 2006, at 07:49 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Another line of research identifies two kinds of rationality – one that is adaptive or practical (called "ecological rationality") that deals with things like social and moral behaviour and what is "rational" given a particular social and emotional reality. This is a species of the “bounded rationality” discussed above. And other that is more rational an less emotional in orientation, and is called “deliberative rationality”.

The laws that govern ecological rationality are not absolute in the sense that the law of gravity is absolute. Rather, they are relative to particular social structures and circumstances. For example, while I served a mission in Peru many years ago our Mission President authorized us to drink both tea and Coca Cola (both thought by most Mormons to be contrary to the Word of Wisdom) since they were safer than the water we might otherwise drink, and because he believed (wrongly as it turned out) that both had curative properties relative to stomach parasites. As our presiding religious authority, his instructions to us in that regard changed our “ecology”, and hence our behaviour. What was not socially acceptable in Mormon missionary society generally speaking became so simply because he said it should be.

On the other hand, while visiting Peru with my family a couple of years ago I took a great deal of abuse from some of them for drinking tea made from the leaf of the coca plant, from which cocaine is derived. This is the local remedy for altitude sickness (kind of like a mild case of the flu) in the areas between 11,000 and 12,000 feet above sea level that we visited. A glass of this tea has roughly the same effect as an extra strength Tylenol pill. But, its association with cocaine was off putting for my family because of their 21st century/North American/Mormon ecology. At the time, I was a faithful Mormon as well, but my experience years earlier in Peru had accustomed me to the use of herbs (including the coca plant) for various legitimate purposes. From my point of view, drinking that tea was as legitimate as taking Tylenol, and much easier. And just as Tylenol 3 is regularly abused, so is the drug that can be obtained by processing and refining coca leaves in a particular way to produce cocaine. And if we went back a couple of generations in time in North America, we would find a completely different ecology respecting cocaine itself. We forget that not long ago cocaine made Coca Cola the cultural fixture it is, and that during the same period of time cocaine was sold over the counter in North American drug stores as a cure all. Ecologies change, and as they do so does the ecological reasoning they produce.

A more jarring example of bounded or ecological rationality is the behavior of a battered spouse who chooses to remain with her husband in circumstances where she may not survive without his breadwinning assistance. That is, being physically or emotionally abused is rational if probable homeless and all that goes with it for self and children is the alternative. Other features of human psychology such as denial and cognitive dissonance (described below) often strengthen this process by suppressing information that if consciously acknowledged might compel the abused spouse to action that her unconscious mind fears. The same sort of mental processes may well apply to a male whose mate is having an affair with the most powerful individual in a violent social group, such as a primitive tribe, a Mafioso community or a group of chimpanzees.

Deliberative rationality, on the other hand, includes the kind of reasoning required by the scientific method.

As Matteo Mameli notes:

"Evolutionary considerations (and neurological data) indicate that emotions are very important (and in many more ways than people usually think) … for [ecological rationality, including] social and moral rationality. But things are different with deliberative rationality. Emotions do not help with deliberative rationality. Deliberative rationality is the ability that a person has when (i) she is able to form beliefs about which mental state she ought to be in, (ii) she is able to form the intention to be in this mental state, and (iii) this intention is successful (i.e. the intention causes the person to be in the mental state she thinks she ought to be in). A paradigmatic case of deliberative rationality is scientific rationality. The scientist examines the data at her disposal and (i) she forms the belief that she ought to believe in the truth of theory T, (ii) as a result of this belief she forms the intention to believe in T's truth, and (iii) as a result of this intention she believes in T's truth.

Evolutionary considerations (and neurological data) suggest that emotions limit the extent to which humans can be deliberatively rational. Intentions to have certain emotional reactions and to avoid other emotional reactions are often unsuccessful, and for good evolutionary reasons. The different roles that emotions play in (two different kinds of) rational behaviour explain why the debate about the rationality of emotions has been so long and so messy." (Matteo Mameli, Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, London School of Economics, "The Rationality of Emotions from an Evolutionary Point of View", to be published in "Emotion, Evolution and Rationality", Oxford University Press, March 2004)

For example, it is "rational" for me to wish to get along within my family and community, and the thought of being ostracized produces fear – a strong, negative emotional reaction. This is likely due to the historic connection between being shut out of society and non-survival. Hence, behaviour that prevents my expulsion from the safety of society is supremely rational in an ecological sense. And yet, that behaviour may require that I deny reality. To use a crude example, imagine the primitive male who has seen plenty of evidence that his mate may be having sexual relations with the group's powerful male leader. Further assume that a confrontation with the leader would not likely bode well for the first male's survival. It appears that our brains have developed mechanisms that will screen an amazing amount of dangerous information such as this so that we do not need to deal with it. Sometimes this is a good thing, and other times it is not.

While George Orwell did not use the terms bounded or ecological rationality, he recognized these concepts at work in his day. His lovely little book “Why I Write” was written in England during World War II. While providing fascinating insight into why Orwell wrote what he did (“Animal Farm”, “1984” etac.), it is mostly a viciously insightful critique of the British socials ills that he believed led to its national predicament at that time – the British appeared on their way to losing a life and death struggle.

While I recommend the book for a variety of reasons, its utility for present purposes to point out an interesting parallel between the forces that according to Orwell were at the root of Britain’s perspective problems leading up to World War II, and those that currently plague Mormonism. For example, read the following passages, written by Orwell in the context above, as if they had been written by a Mormon intellectual who was fully conversant with the strengths and weaknesses of the institution that sponsors his faith, changing references:

· from “democracy” to “literalist Mormonism”;

· from “totalitarianism” to a religious tradition other than Mormonism that has a cultish;

· from England to “the Mormon Church”;

· from particular British leaders to particular Mormon leaders, etc.

And when Orwell speaks of stupidity, think instead of denial. Here we see a classic example of bounded rationality at work. All page references are to Orwell’s “Why I Write”.

“An illusion can become a half-truth, a mask can alter the expression of a face. The familiar arguments to the effect that democracy is “just the same as” or “just as bad as” totalitarianism never take account of this fact. All such arguments boil down to saying that half a loaf is the same as no bread. In England such concepts as justice, liberty and objective truth are still believed in. They may be illusions, but they are powerful illusions. … Even hypocrisy is a powerful safeguard. The hanging judge, that evil old man in scarlet robe and horse-hair wig, whom nothing short of dynamite will ever teach what century he is living in, but who will at any rate interpret the law according to the books and will in no circumstance take a money bribe, is on of the symbolic figures of England. He is a symbol of the strange mixture of reality and illusion, democracy and privilege, humbug and decency, the subtle network of compromises, by which the nation keeps itself in its familiar shape.” (pages 21, 22)

“In spite of the campaigns of a few thousand left-wingers [who are the intelligentsia of whom Orwell was part], it is fairly certain that the bulk of the English people were behind Chamberlain’s foreign policy [that played into Hitler’s hands, setting up what looked like a war headed for disaster]. More, it is fairly certain that the same struggle was going on in Chamberlain’s mind as in the minds of ordinary people. His opponents professed to see in him a dark and wily schemer, plotting to sell England to Hitler, but it is far likelier that he was mere a stupid old man doing his best according to his very dim lights. It is difficult to otherwise explain the contradictions of his policy, his failure to grasp any of the courses that were open to him. …” (page 28

“England is not the jewelled isle of Shakespeare’s much–quoted message, nor is it the inferno depicted by Dr. Goebbels. More than either it resembles a family, a rather stuffy Victorian family, with not many black sheep in it but with all it cupboards bursting with skeletons. It has rich relations who have to be kow-towed to and poor relations who are horribly sat upon, and there is a deep conspiracy of silence about the source of the family income. It is a family in which the young are generally thwarted and most of the power is in the hands of irresponsible uncles and bedridden aunts. Still, it is a family. It has its private language and it common memories, and at the approach of an enemy it closes its ranks. A family with the wrong members in control – that perhaps, is as near as one can come to describing England in a phrase. (page 30)

“One of the dominant facts in English life during the past three quarters of a century has been the decay of ability in the ruling class. … The existence of these people was by any standard unjustifiable. They were simply parasites, less useful to society than his fleas are to a dog.

By 1920 there many people who were aware of all this. By 1930 millions were aware of it. But the British ruling class obviously could not admit to themselves that their usefulness was at an end. Had they done that they would have had to abdicate. For it was not possible for them to turn themselves into mere bandits …After all, they belonged to a class with a certain tradition, they had been to public schools where the duty of dying for your country, if necessary, is laid down as the first and greatest of the Commandments. They had to feel themselves true patriots, even while they plundered their countrymen. Clearly there was only one escape for them – into stupidity. They could keep society in its existing shape only by being unable to grasp that any improvement was possible. Difficult though this was, they achieved it, largely by fixing their eyes on the past and refusing to notice the changes that were going on round them.” (pages 31 – 33)

“It is important not to misunderstand [the leaders] motives, or one cannot predict their actions. What is to be expected of them is not treachery, or physical cowardice, but stupidity, unconscious sabotage, an infallible instinct for doing the wrong thing. They are not wicked, or not altogether wicked; they are merely unteachable. Only when their money and power are gone will the younger among them begin to grasp what century they are living in.” (page 37)

“England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality.” (page 40)

“It is clear that the special position of the English intellectuals ruing the past ten years, as purely negative creatures, mere anti-Blimps [the uneducated masses], was a by-product of the ruling-class stupidity. Society could not use [the intellectuals], and they had not got it in them to see that devotion to one’s country implies “for better, for worse”. Both Blimps and high-brows took for granted, as though it were a law of nature, the divorce between patriotism and intelligence. If you were a patriot you read Blackwood’s Magazine [a low-brow publication] and publicly thanked god that you were “not brainy”. … Patriotism and intelligence will have to come together again. It is the fact that we are fighting a war, and a very peculiar war, that may make this possible.” (page 41)

That is, England’s ruling class was making decisions that made sense to them in the context of their historic dominance, understandable reluctance to give up power and influence, etc. And these decisions put the entire country at risk. Intellectuals were scorned because they called the established order into question. Among the “faithful” ignorance became a badge of honour. And if shown this situation in any other culture, the British of Orwell’s day and Mormons today would immediately recognize it as a recipe for disaster. Then, if confronted by the proposition that they were headed down precisely the same perilous path, they would distinguish their case from the other on grounds that would leave most knowledgeable outsiders shaking their heads in amazement at the depth of denial these mental gymnastics show.

The parallels between the British leaders in Orwell’s time and Mormonism’s leadership today are particularly striking. Their circumstances blind them to the reality of both their position and the effects of their actions. Time will tell how far Mormonism’s fortunes will have to decline before fundamental leadership change will occur.

In conclusion regarding bounded and ecological rationality, I note that it may well have been Christ’s observation of this universal human trait that prompted him to note that only those who had ears for his teachings would hear them.
topic image
Reflections On Secular Anti-Mormonism
Friday, Feb 10, 2006, at 09:25 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism
by Daniel C. Peterson
http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2005...

DP: A prolific ex-Mormon now-atheist writer on Mormon historical topics, asked last week whether he was planning to attend this FAIR symposium, responded that, no, he wasn't.

bm: Those awful atheists! Peterson seems to believe that few slurs are more potent than this given the number of times he used it in this essay, and how he used it. I don't find the term to be useful and observe that it is mostly used by people like Peterson as a derogatory term rather than a way of communicating useful information about what someone else believes.

A "theist" is a person who believes in a god of some kind. An "atheist" is a person who does not so believe. But what kind of god are we talking about? Einstein referred to "god" as whatever caused the amazing reality he spent his life exploring. He said that this reality must have been created by an intelligence of such staggering magnitude that we cannot comprehend it and should reverence. However, he had no idea what kind of intelligence that might be or where it came from. It could have been a three line algorithm created by random chance, a nice old man with white hair, or who knows what. Was Einstein a theist (he believed in a god of some kind) or an atheist (he thought most of the ideas people have about god have an extremely high probability of being false)?

It is clear, however, that Einstein was uncertain as to about god's nature to such an extent that his idea of god would not be called god by most literalist religious people, and hence it is reasonable to say that he was agnostic (he did not know) about god. Hence, I would call him an agnostic instead of an atheist or theist. I use the same label for myself. I am agnostic regarding god. Or I am a non-theist. And many thoughtful people whom Peterson would call atheist because they don't believe in the kind of god he does, have beliefs similar to mine.

As an aside, I have found a great deal of wisdom in Einstein's writing related to the formation of culture and how his personal spirituality worked. I recommend in that regard:

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-...

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Albert-...

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Theolog...

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/q...

And, by the way, how many people to whom society owes a great deal were agnostics, deists (a lot like agnostics) or full blown atheists? Many of America's founding fathers were somewhere between atheist and deist, for example. Many of our greatest scientists and social innovators have held similar views. And what about all of those Buddhists, Taoists, etc.? Pretty much all atheists.

It is unreasonable to suggest that lack of any particular religious belief denotes moral defect. In fact, it is worse than unreasonable. It is foolish and increasingly tending toward the unwise if not immoral in our highly interdependent world. It is this kind of tribalism that must be broken down in as many aspects of society as possible if we are to avoid the kinds of disasters that occurred on 9/11, the riots that are currently going on in the Muslim world as a result of a few religious cartoons published in Europe, and a host of other silly and/or dangerous things. Furthermore, the kind of ignorance Peterson trumpets is precisely what must be overcome as people around the globe digest the facts regarding their interconnectedness with each other, their dependence on the planet's limited resources, and the tremendous difficulties humanity faces as a result of a population that continues to grow and consume ever more resources.

DP: I will, as advertised, reflect on "secular anti-Mormonism." I'm grateful for the assignment because, frankly, anti-Mormonism of the evangelical kind has come, with a few exceptions, to bore me intensely. It's not only that it tends to be repetitious and uninteresting--I think I've mentioned here before the film that my friend Bill Hamblin and I have laughed about doing: Bill and Dan's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell. It's not merely that the same arguments reappear ad nauseam, no matter how often they've been refuted, and that reviewing essentially the same book for the thirty-second time grows tiresome.

bm: "To refute" means to establish or prove that a proposition is false. While I don't think the Evangelicals come at Mormonism from the best perspective for the most part, I have read enough of Peterson, Hamblin and Midgely's responses to the Evangelical critique to know that most of the time they do little more than kick immense amounts of dust into the air for the purpose of showing that the Evangelicals have not quite pinned the Mormons to the mat on this or that point. To call what Peterson does in this regard "refutation" is offensive to anyone who understands the subject matter. However, he is likely convincing to the faithful Mormons who read this and assume on the basis of his hyperbole that there is nothing to be concerned about.

This reminds me of the FARMS reviews I read while still faithful of Todd Compton's book "In Sacred Loneliness". The book deals with the Joseph Smith' s plural marriages. FARMS tore the book apart. I had read a troubling review in a local newspaper, and heaved a sigh of relief when I saw that the scholars at BYU had panned it. Years later while beginning to investigate Mormonism using real scholarly sources I found Compton's rebuttal to the FARMS reviews, and felt ill. In a few minutes of reading Compton I realized that his approach was reasonable, and that I had been duped as a result of trusting FARMS and so not bothering to read Compton myself. See http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracl... This approach, whether conscious or not, characterizes what I read in Peterson's work.

I do not suggest that Peterson is dishonest, just completely taken in by his point of view. People like him fascinate me, and before I could happily relegate Mormonism to the rear view window I needed to feel that I understood how smart, well-intentioned, kind people (and I presume Peterson is all of those) could do what they do on behalf of something so obviously false as Mormonism. While writing a number of lengthy essays on this topic I found that people like Peterson are common in most religions and other ideology based social groups. See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.do%2... for example.

Time and again as I made my way through Peterson's essay I was struck by his denial of probabilities. We can't be certain about anything in the historical or current world. However, some things are demonstrably more probable than others. The best strategy for any purpose where knowing what is real is important is to adopt the information most likely to be correct as time passes. Apologists like Peterson tend to do this as long as that information does not conflict with their faith, which requires them to start with certainty as to what is real in certain cases, and defend that position against any disconfirming information that comes along. I examine the pattern of belief that this causes in many social groups, including Mormonism, at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.does....

So, as you read below something Peterson has suggested to be a real state of human or physical affairs and I propose an alternative, ask yourself which is more likely to be a reasonable estimate of reality.

DP: (You've heard the definition of insanity as when you keep doing the same thing over and over and over again, and expect to get different results.) It's also the deep streak of intellectual dishonesty …

bm: That's it - accuse everyone else of intellectual dishonesty. That is probably what is going on. Don't look for patterns of similar behaviour in similar groups and use that to understand Mormons, post-Mormons and many other groups of similarly behaving people. Consider, as an alternative hypothesis for post-Mormon behavior (as well as Mormon apologist behaviour), denial of the sort I describe in my essays linked above. Or how about cognitive dissonance? Denial and cognitive dissonance apply to post-Mormons as well as Mormons and other groups of humans. Emotional and social "proofs" are also applicable to one group as much as to the other. Once you get beyond dishonesty and stupidity as the presumed causes of behaviour with which you disagree a lot of things make much more sense. Some Mormon behavior is irrational, and some post-Mormon behavior is irrational. If you to think in these terms, you have a chance to sort out error, in your camp as well as that of others, from accurate observation.

The greatest gift I have received as a result of my exodus from Mormonism is increased humility. That is, I am now prepared to admit that I not only may be wrong in many of my current positions, but that I most assuredly am. This teachability does wonderful things, as does the idea that reality is what it is. It does not have to be what anyone, no matter how old or presumably sacred or wise, said it is. It just is. The respected biologist John Maynard Smith expresses beautifully the consequence of adopting this point of view in his interview at www.meaningoflife.tv, which is another fine source of useful big picture thinking.

DP: that runs through much of the countercult industry, the triumphalism that exaggerates and even invents problems on the Mormon side while effectively pretending that no problems remain to be addressed on the so-called "Christian" side.

bm: Peterson is being highly selective here. Many believing Christians apply the same scholarly standards to their own faith as to Mormonism. Throughout this essay, Peterson sets up straw men that will be recognized as such by most who are familiar with the relevant literature or phenomena. However, since his target audience is generally speaking ignorant of these things, many of them will find him persuasive when he says ridiculous things like this.

DP: (This couldn't possibly be more clearly illustrated than in recent evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant use of DNA data to cast doubt upon the Book of Mormon. In what can only be described as a display of either stunning ignorance or appalling cynicism, these anti-Mormon crusaders ignore the fact that the assumptions fundamental to current deep-historical DNA studies flatly contradict traditional and widely held conservative Protestant understandings of the book of Genesis.)

bm: As already noted, many believing Christians apply the same scholarly standards to their own faith as to Mormonism. But Peterson would likely disparage the faith of Christians of this type because they also tend not to be literalist believers in the Bible. And Peterson's assessment of the DNA research is laughable. This is classic apologistese. Even then-BYU microbiologist Scott Woodward is on record to the effect that the DNA case against the Book of Mormon is probably correct. However, it is not 100% certain. He did not mention that nothing in the empirical world is 100% certain.

DP: No, I'm quite content, for today at least, to concentrate on secular anti-Mormonism, which I often find much more interesting and intellectually challenging, and which, I'm coming to believe, constitutes the real locus of action in coming years.

bm: Not if Mormons are still trying to cozy up to the Evangelicals as Mormonism's traditional foundations, like the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's trustworthiness, continue to crumble.

DP: I will pass over very quickly a message board that I like to monitor that is, in its way, a kind of wildlife preserve for secular anti-Mormons.

bm: The Recovery from Mormonism message board to be found at [link removed] which I will refer to as "RFM". (NOTE FROM INFYMUS: Link Removed For Archive Purposes)

DP: Some of you are probably familiar with it. Although it is of unquestionable sociological and psychological interest, it offers little if anything of intellectual merit. What was once said of William Jennings Bryan could be said of even many of the star posters on this message board: "One could steer a schooner through any part of his argument and never scrape against a fact." Several, even, of the posters with the greatest intellectual pretensions on the board have consistently demonstrated themselves incapable of accurately summarizing Latter-day Saint positions and arguments, let alone of genuinely engaging them. It's hard not to think in this context of Groucho Marx: "From the moment I picked up your book until I laid it down," Groucho wrote to the novelist Sydney Perelman, "I was convulsed with laughter. Someday I intend to read it." Many on this particular message board seem to be of the same mentality as the academic who was asked whether he had read the new book by Professor Jones. "Read it?" he replied. "Why, I haven't even reviewed it yet!"

bm: Hilarious! These people at RFM (including me I presume) are obviously not worth listening to in any way and are to be pitied. What fools! Let's not compare RFM to anything that would put it in context or help us to understand it. And particularly, let's not compare it to any of the many other Mormon related on-line communities that display ignorance, ill will and silliness of similar as well as other types.

So, what is RFM? First, it is not designed as a forum for intellectual discussion. It is supposed to be a safe place to vent, and a lot of venting occurs there. Venting is not pretty, and usually contains a lot of irrationality. See the essay on my website titled "Chaos and Forging the Self" for a summary of my take on RFM in general. Until posted there it can also be found at [link to RFM Removed]. However, despite RFM's lack of academic pretension, I have read some brilliant stuff there as well as a lot of silliness, funniness, pathos and humanity. And I can name a dozen people who are either successful practising lawyers, respected university professors and/or practising scientists who regularly post at RFM right now. I am sure there are many more of this type who post there and I have not had the chance to get to meet in real life.

As he does consistently throughout this essay, Peterson has here set up a straw man to knock down to the cheers of those who are generally unencumbered by the relevant facts and trust that he is telling them an accurate story. As you read remember that I am one of the ill-willed, blasphemous, idiots Peterson has described.

DP: What the board does offer are displays of bravado, strutting, believers' arguments completely misunderstood and misrepresented, bold challenges hurled out to those who are barred from responding, and guffaws of triumph over enemies who are not permitted to reply. Dissent is rigidly excluded from this board, even as its denizens criticize the Church for its supposed "repressiveness.

bm: As already noted, RFM is a place for venting and recovery, not argument. Many topics are verboten there, such as political discussion of all kinds. And there is a certain amount of exercise of questionable judgement about how things are done there, as is the case in all human groups. Many people who post at RFM go to many other places to engage in debate and find information. Should this be surprising?

DP: However, notwithstanding the rigorous exclusion of all troublesome dissent from their domain, the faith these posters have in their own unanswerably brilliant selves is oddly refreshing to see in atheists, whom you wouldn't expect to believe in any God at all.

bm: More Peterson hyperbole. More straw-men. As noted above, RFM is a recovery site. And is it reasonable to assume that what happens at RFM is the sole source of information for people who participate there or that just because a person vents (or does anything else) at RFM that they have personally subscribed to everything said there? And what does God have to do with this?

DP: Voltaire once explained that "My prayer to God is a very short one: 'Oh, Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' God," he said, "has granted it."

bm: Brilliant! Let's not mention that Voltaire was one of the leading atheists (shiver) of his day who spent much of his time skewering the silliness of people where were apologists for the Christian position, much like Peterson. Peterson is precisely the kind of person Voltaire likely had in mind while making this statement.

DP: But this doesn't exhaust the pleasures of that message board. It is rife with personal abuse and bloodcurdling hostility, not uncommonly obscene, directed against people they don't know and haven't even met--against President Hinckley, Joseph Smith, the Brethren, the general membership of the Church, and even, somewhat obsessively, against one particular rather insignificant BYU professor.

bm: And some there, like me, are regularly dismissive of what I call the "stupid, lying bastards" approach to Mormonism. This does not do the people or social psychological mechanisms involved near enough credit. However, a lot of post-Mormons lose their marriage, relationships with their kids and countless other important aspects of life as a result of what happens when the deceptive actions of Mormon leaders come to light. And there is lots of scientific research that shows how violent a response should be anticipated when we learn that even small scale deceptions have been practised on us. I wonder why emotions run so high when people find out that they have consistently through out their lives purposefully deceived by religious leaders in whom they vested almost complete trust?

DP: Ordinary members of the Church--Morgbots or Morons …

bm: This is often, in my experience, the result of the unhappy (or happy) way in which keys on computer keyboards are set up. I can't count the number of times I have typed "Moron" while trying to type "Mormon" and have had to correct it. Believers in gods who disagree with the Mormon god may find in this a divine sign instead of the comic coincidence I see.

DP: or Sheeple, in the jargon of the board--are routinely stereotyped as insane, tyrannical, cheap, bigoted, ill-mannered, irrational, sexually repressed, stupid, greedy, foolish, rude, poor tippers, sick, brain-dead, and uncultured. There was once even a thread--and I'm not making this up--devoted to discussing how Mormons noisily slurp their soup in restaurants.

bm: Go read some posts at any of many LDS bulletin boards and you will find similar displays of ignorance and inanity.

DP: Posts frequently lament the stupidity and gullibility of Church leaders, neighbors, parents, spouses, siblings, and even offspring …

bm: Much of this is reasonably accurate.

DP: --who may be wholly unaware of the anonymous poster's secret double life of contemptuous disbelief.

bm: And what is the penalty in most Mormon communities for disclosing that kind of disbelief? And there is nothing of secrecy or information suppression within Mormonism, is there? I wonder where this tendency toward secrecy and suppression of information comes?

DP: It is a splendid cyber illustration of the finger pointing and mocking found in the "great and spacious building" of 1 Nephi.

bm: One of the many ironies in this circus piece is that Peterson does not see how that metaphor can be used the other way. In Utah particularly, those who stand up and publicly dissent from Mormonism are often mocked in various ways by those who control the great and spacious buildings that literally as well as metaphorically dominate Mormonism.

DP: Whenever the poisonous culture of the place is criticized, however, its defenders take refuge in the culture of victimhood, deploying a supposed need for therapeutic self-expression as their all-encompassing excuse.

bm: There is a lot more to it that that, and I don't know anyone who I consider thoughtful who would gives RFM top grades in all important categories. But there is some justification to the recovery approach.

I disagree with some aspects of the Alcoholics Anonymous program and philosophy, but would I be justified in going into an AA meeting and starting to debate my concerns with the people there who are struggling to put their lives back together? That is what people like Peterson have been shown to do time and again if given the chance at RFM. That he does not consider Mormonism to be a problem from which one needs to recover would put him in the same class as those alcohol vendors who say the same thing about alcohol. That kind of person, for good reason, would be barred from AA meetings.

I have no problem with the designation of a safe place where those who are critical of Mormonism can vent in peace and recover perspective and the security that goes with it (see Lee Kirkpatrick, "Attachment, Evolution and the Psychology of Religion"). Active Mormons have dozens of similar bulletin boards not to mention their meeting houses. And when you check out communities of people who have left or who dissent from other religious groups, you find much the same kind of thing.

We see here again Peterson's penchant for exaggeration and his attempt to present RFM and those who spend time there as particularly evil rather than looking for ways to understand RFM by looking for parallels in other groups. This is understandable given Peterson's apparent objective - to warn members of the Mormon community away from those inhuman beings at RFM. The is a lot of social psych literature along these lines (see Elliott Aronson, "The Social Animal" for example). We tend to dehumanize those we wish to justify ignoring or treating badly.

DP: Contemplating a depressing number of the posters on that board, I've thought to myself, "If this is what liberation from the Mormon 'myth' makes you--a vulgar and sometimes duplicitous crank, cackling with malice and spite--then I would prefer to spend the few brief years left to me (before I dissolve into the irreversible and never-ending oblivion many of the board's posters prophesy for me and all humankind) with people who haven't been liberated.

bm: Beautiful! What a move! Two birds with one stone! He nailed those terrible atheists again, while suggesting that people who leave Mormonism and spend time at RFM are scum!

DP: I think of the apostates of Ammonihah, mocking Alma and Amulek in prison, "gnashing their teeth upon them, and spitting upon them, and saying: How shall we look when we are damned?"1 Surely the damned will not look much different than this.

bm: This is wonderful. I could not have written a better foil myself. For the second time in a few paragraphs Peterson refers to a Book of Mormon passage as if it described a real event that could be used to shed light on other real events. Without attempting the kind of useful contextual analysis that Craig Criddle provides at http://www.i4m.com/think/history/Book..., let me make a few quick points of a similar nature.

If you were starting a new religion that would of course be small and likely to attract a lot of negative attention from other social groups, wouldn't it be great if you found some scripture that showed how God's plan included this kind of thing and it was predicted to recur in your case (the great and spacious building), but that anyone who disagreed with you would ultimately meet with terrible life events? And better yet, what if this scripture predicted that someone with your name would be the leader of this new religion? That would be too good to be true, right? Oh, and why not in God's name predict that when people found out that you were misleading them or maybe even trying to have sex with their wives or daughters that, that they would get really mad and try to prevent you from continuing to do that to other people?

So Peterson, after characterizing everyone at RFM in the worst possible way, uses a fantasy from the Book of Mormon in an attempt to legitimize his RFM fantasy. Two fantasies = one reality?

And if you good Mormons wish to avoid the pain all of those people at RFM suffer, you'd best not spend any time at RFM … And don't acknowledge that anyone who left Mormonism or changed their belief regarding God was ever happy about that choice. Don't refer to people like Robert Ingersol, for example (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.reli... at page 80. Etc. This is wonderful stuff.

DP: But I'm troubled by the capacity even of far less malevolent message boards to supply a supportive sort of ersatz community as an alternative to the fellowship of the Saints, and I worry about what participation on even relatively benign boards does to some Latter-day Saint souls. I have in mind one frequent poster in particular, who claims simply to be doubting and troubled, but who in fact never misses an opportunity for a snide remark about his Church, in which he remains active, and its teachings. These teachings involve weighty matters of utmost import. Millions have placed their hopes in the gospel's message, and, if this were false, it would be tragic and unutterably sad. Perhaps the cynicism that this poster and many others cultivate is no more than a psychologically understandable defensive shell, a self-protective whistling past the graveyard of doubt. But, even so, it is a shell that will, I fear, block the Spirit.

bm: I wonder if all forms of doubt block the access the Spirit presumably gives us to a greater reality? That seems implied. Since Peterson's spiritual leaders have all the answers, we need do nothing more than obey them. How comforting, and is there any idea that is older than this one? Just get in line and obey. Stop questioning and doubting.

DP: I am not optimistic about his long-term prospects, barring a fundamental shift in attitude (and, even less hopefully, perhaps in personality).

bm: Well, it looks like Peterson has buried RFM now, so I will give a brief description of the place myself. You judge whether his or mine makes the most sense.

There is a great deal of evidence that justifies the perception that many Mormons have been systematically deceived throughout their lives by well-intended religious leaders and family members. Whether this perception is right or wrong, those who come to have it should be expected to suffer serious trauma. The DSM-IV (used to diagnose psychiatric illness) has a category that deals with this. See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.art%... This type of trauma is experienced by a wide of range of people who come to regard their views with regard to religion as inaccurate and suffer a loss of relationships and other forms of security and/or self identity as a result. And there is a lot of literature about how to deal with/heal from this kind of trauma. Most of this recommends something along the lines of the well-known Kubler-Ross grieving process (see http://changingminds.org/disciplines/change_management/kubler_ross/kubler_ro ss.htm). Expressing anger is one aspect of this process. And people tend to pass through it and move on.

People tend to visit RFM often for a period of months and perhaps for as long as a couple of years, and then move on. While at RFM these people form a complex human community that includes idiots, savants, socializers, clowns, scientists, philosophers, bullies, babies, etc. As I said, it is a diverse human community, and has the strengths and weaknesses one should expect from such.

DP: Characteristic of much secularizing anti-Mormon participation on the Web is a corrosive cynicism that, in my experience, will erode anything with which it comes in contact.

bm: Are we talking about the same cynicism that led to the Renaissance, Enlightenment, American Revolution, etc. or some other kind? My guess is that Peterson welcomes cynicism that overturns blind obedience in old Catholicism, the Divine Right of Kings, the Muslim faith, etc. but wants to attack cynicism that questions any of his dogmas. Let's see how this plays out.

DP: It is not so much a reasoned intellectual stance as an attitude, or even, perhaps, a personality type. Those afflicted with such cynicism are like the dwarfs in the last book of C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia, who are, as Aslan expresses it, so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out. Such people claim to know the price of everything and everyone, but they seem to recognize the value of nothing. But the problem may well be in the cynic rather than in the object of his scorn. "No man," as the French saying goes, "is a hero to his valet."2 Why? The German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel is surely right when he responds: "This is not because the hero is no hero, but because the valet is a valet."3

bm: Nice. Let's again dehumanize those who disagree with us instead of looking for patterns in history and the social science literature that might help to explain persistent patterns of disagreement among groups of people. See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni....

DP: A more interesting form of secular anti-Mormonism springs out of, or at least is related to, elite European secularism generally.

Some years ago, with time on my hands following the close of an academic gathering in Graz, Austria, I spent the better part of a day looking through the city's bookstores. The dollar being weak, prices being high, and my luggage being cramped, I did much more looking and browsing than buying. I soon discovered an extraordinarily interesting topic: The treatment of Mormonism in travel books published for America-bound Europeans. Since then, I've enjoyed many similar books in French and Italian bookstores as well as across Germanic Europe. Almost uniformly, the tone is one of astonishment--subtly expressed or, often, quite open--at the stupidity and gullibility of the Latter-day Saints. Additionally, Mormon history and doctrine are plainly deemed too patently absurd to justify much effort at accuracy.

bm: Are we surprised at this? Are travel books known for their depth and accuracy? Or are we to believe that Mormonism is subject to a conspiracy by those who write these books?

DP: But Mormons represent merely an opportunity for a more general European attitude to focus on a particularly ludicrous target. In a recent book attempting to explain the American mind to bemused German-speakers, Professor Hans-Dieter Gelfert observes that,

"To Europeans, American religiosity must necessarily seem naďve, if not primitive. Here [in Germany], educated people are assisted, above all, by enlightened [aufgeklärte] theologians who reinterpret Christian teaching as an ethical doctrine suited for the everyday, but at the same time philosophically abstract. In the meanwhile, there are pastors who believe that they can get by altogether without mentioning God's name. It's completely different in America, where the Bible is still the Word of God."4

bm: Again, is this news? See http://wvs.isr.umich.edu/fig.shtml for a University of Michigan produced summary of where the US fits into the world picture in terms of secular v. religious values. Americans should be expected to appear Neanderthal to Europeans.

DP: According to Phil Zuckerman, of Pitzer College, rates of agnosticism or atheism in Scandinavia, the Czech Republic, and France reach levels higher than fifty percent.5 There and elsewhere, underused churches are being converted into concert halls, museums, art galleries, stores, restaurants, condos, even nightclubs. In Scandinavia, for some reason, it is popular to transform churches into carpet stores.6 It is well known that the late Pope John Paul II believed that the future of Catholicism lay not in spiritually dying Europe, but to the south, in Latin America and, perhaps even more so, in Africa. Benedict XVI appears to share that view, with reason.

bm: More news?

DP: "In the eyes of many if not most Europeans," Professor Gelfert observes, "American taste is equivalent to tastelessness."7 (One is tempted to suggest that, given their own still relatively recent history of something rather worse than poor taste, a bit of humility might be in order for the Germans, at least. And I say this as something of a Germanophile.) Thus, European disdain for American religiosity functions as part of a broader contempt for American culture, nicely embodied, as a surprisingly large number of residents of both the Continent and the British Isles see it, in our religious fanatic cowboy president. And what could be more American than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, widely known for its freshly-scrubbed, naďve, nineteen-year-old missionaries, hailing mostly from the American West?

bm: That is correct. Americans in general are seen in Europe as naďve and silly, and Mormons particularly so. This has been the case since near Mormonism's beginnings.

DP: Anti-Mormonism in Europe is overwhelmingly of the secular variety; evangelical anti-Mormonism, on the whole, is no more than a minor irritant because the same general European secularism that directly challenges missionary success on the continent and in the British Isles also confronts and hampers our evangelical friends. But secularist anti-Mormonism is doing real damage to many fragile testimonies there, and an adequate response has still not materialized. This is a challenge that apologists in Europe itself but also in the Church's American home base urgently need to address.

bm: Europeans regard Mormonism as merely another indication of America's tendency toward magical thinking. America's infatuation with various forms of New Age belief is another symptom of the same thing (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.what... for example), as is Young Earth creationism, the popularity of alien abductionist beliefs and a variety of other things in America. And the same kind of arguments are mustered in defence of each of these points of view by people like Peterson.

DP: [Peterson summarizes material to indicate that an increasing divide is visible between America's elite (secular) and regular (religious/magical thinking) populations. Then he says:]

In a recent magazine article, Joel Kotkin, an incisive observer of social trends, supplies a nice, concrete example:

When Fargo, North Dakota, businessman Howard Dahl boards a plane for the East Coast or flies to Europe and beyond, he is often struck by the views of the people he encounters, especially their preconceptions about his part of the country. "There's a lot of condescension. You'd think no one here ever read a book," Dahl says, "or ever had a thought about anything. They think we're religious fanatics." 8

bm: This condescension is regrettable, but understandable. There are many well-educated people in the US mid-west and west whose views are similar to those of well-educated people in New York, Paris or London. And there are a surprising number like Peterson. He is well-educated. He has read a lot of books, as he is demonstrating in this essay. And he is well-travelled, as he is also at pains to let his readers know. This man is a citizen of the world. And most well educated Europeans would regard him as hopefully parochial not as a result of what he has not read or not seen, but as a result of what he has absorbed from his experience as demonstrated by what he writes. As Einstein said, the theory we accept determines what we see.

DP: How much more so, then, Salt Lake City? Since, as studies have shown, journalists strongly tend, on the whole, to be secular, politically liberal, anti-corporate, and socially and morally "progressive," Mormonism constitutes a perfect target. They will be naturally antipathetic to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a church that is widely regarded as socially retrograde, politically conservative, and hierarchically corporate.

bm: Yup.

DP: "Still today," writes Hans-Dieter Gelfert,

"Americans promote a striking hero cult with regard to the great figures of their history. In England, a tendency to dismantle onetime heroes set in after the First World War, with Lytton Strachey's book Eminent Victorians (1918). The same thing happened in Germany after the Second World War. Whenever, among us, an article appears in Spiegel about a once-revered heroic figure from German history, one can just about wager that this person will have lost his luster thereafter."9

In this regard, American journalism seems very, very European. Since the days of Woodward and Bernstein and Watergate, it has tended to be adversarial, very often operating on the presumption of a guilty cover-up. What could be a more inviting target for contemporary journalists than a corporate church with a highly controversial, very visible, and widely documented history, wielding considerable economic power, and claims to be led by living prophets and apostles? It's heroes and valets, all over again.

bm: Let's see. We've got a prophet who purports to speak for god; who lies about his sexual activities; who controls his church and city through secret quorums; who runs for the US presidency; who has himself ordained King of the Earth; who smashes printing presses that are about to publicize what he is up to; etc. Why would any journalist want to write about that?

And against the odds, one branch of the church he forms becomes a vastly wealthy asset holding corporation estimated to rank at about no. 200 on the Fortune 500 list of the worlds largest business corporation were it in that category, that exercises political and cultural influence in the US in a manner that many people elsewhere find both disturbing and discouraging. Not newsworthy?

Or how about the habit leaders of this organization still exhibit of deceiving those who deal with them both by silence and by the publication of clearly deceptive accounts of their own history? How about their history of lying in public (including before federal government committees in the US) and justifying this on the basis that protecting the power that backs up their alleged divine mandate requires them to wield justifies these deceptions? None of this is newsworthy?

And to cut off an argument I often hear Mormons make, the Mormon Church's wealth has nothing to do with truth. The Catholic Church is incredibly wealthy. Quakers controlled huge assets bases at one time. Lots of other examples can be given to support this point. You get money by doing the things that get money. Telling a story that will persuade people to give you money is one of those. Mormonism's wealth is no more indicative of the truth of its message than is Amway's. In fact, there are many parallels between those two organizations.

DP: The prominent Pennsylvania State historian of religion Philip Jenkins, commenting on secularism among political and social liberals, notes

"a rich vein of bilious anti-clericalism, that class-based contempt that imagines every pastor as Elmer Gantry, every believer as a budding recruit for the Christian Taliban, and every Catholic as a mind-manacled helot of a pederastic priesthood. This tendency reached its apex at the [Democratic] party's 1992 convention, at which liberal and pro-labor Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey was excluded from the rostrum because of his opposition to abortion, while feminists handed out badges caricaturing Casey in papal robes."10

Amusingly, every element of the attitude toward mainstream Christianity mentioned by Jenkins, down to the very language, can be paralleled--indeed, finds almost daily parallels--on my laboratory message board with regard to Mormonism.

bm: Oh oh. Back to RFM.

DP: But this attitude isn't confined merely to the fever swamps of Web bigotry

bm: Ouch! More insightful, helpful analysis.

DP: In an article published as recently as 15 July 2005, in a New Zealand periodical but evidently also many other venues, the American leftist journalist Suzan Mazur, reporting on the corporate machinations of us Mormon theofascists, even included purported illustrations of the Latter-day Saint endowment ceremony. They were reproduced from that essential and utterly reliable 1882 classic, J.H. Beadle's Polygamy or the Mysteries and Crimes of Mormonism, and were accurate right down to details like the bishop's miters--clearly modeled on the popes' hat--worn by temple officiators.11 (To those who have actually attended the temple yet seen no such garb and no such rituals, Mr. Beadle might well say, with apologies once more to Groucho Marx, "Who are you gonna believe? Me, or your lying eyes?")

bm: So, let me get this straight. The Democratic national convention in the US, New Zealand newspapers and the American press see things pretty much the same way? And we have already dealt with the godless Europeans. This must mean that the good Mormons are pretty much surrounded. Are they an island of goodness floating in an evil world? Or maybe Peterson exaggerates. And maybe if so many people do think the Mormon worldview is unjustified, Mormons should take a hard look in the mirror. Sounds like someone might be spending a lot of energy arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I almost forgot - history tells that when almost everyone things the claims of a religion are silly, those claims are usually proven true eventually. Right? And the truth claims of a religion do not change over time in light of secular/scientific findings. Right? And Mormon truth claims have not changed over time. Right? Whew! I thought I was in hot water for a second there.

As an aside, see James Surowiecki's "The Wisdom of Crowds" for a summary of how to tell a crowd that is likely to give us accurate advice from one will not. In a nutshell, the more diverse, independent and well-informed a crowd is, the more seriously we should take its judgement. Compare the Mormon crowd to the crowd of non-Mormon academics who study Mormonism in this regard. Which is more likely to render accurate opinions on questions like "was Joseph Smith trustworthy?".

"But," many Mormons are likely to say, "the scholars don't have the Spirit and so we can ignore what they say" or some other excuse ("these are spiritual not intellectual matters") will be offered to justify dismissing all opposing points of view. And the fact that this is how countless religions (many of whom now seem laughable) have defended themselves since at least the Ancient Greeks does not matter to those who wraps themselves in these flimsy arguments now.

DP: Agnosticism or atheism is the default setting in most circles of elite opinion, in the United States nearly as much as Europe.

bm: Those elites. They usually do not know what they are doing. Particularly the scientists and other scholars. Intellectual pride causes this, as well as most of what makes our society the wonderful place it is to live. Go figure.

DP: To an extent, secular anti-Mormonism is merely an illustration, or even an echo, of that broader phenomenon.

bm: I would say that secular anti-Mormonism is such a small ripple in a huge current that it hardly matters. One of the few things that make it interesting for anyone other than the Mormons affected by it is that what most Christians went through generations ago Mormons are going through now as a result of having been until recently enclosed so effectively that they did not know what the rest of the world was doing. And then the Internet blew the doors off the cloister.

DP: An important articulation of this view is the British philosopher Antony Flew's essay "The Presumption of Atheism"12--though I note with considerable satisfaction that Professor Flew, probably the most vocally atheistic English-speaking philosopher since the death of Bertrand Russell in early 1970, recently announced that, compelled by what he sees as evidence for intelligent fine-tuning in the universe, he has abandoned his atheism and come to embrace a form of deism.

bm: But don't define deism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) or mention that it is merely atheism-lite. I am a deist or close to it because I revere whatever caused the universe, but I have no idea what it was (three line algorithm caused by chance, an old white haired guy or a pink unicorn) and I don't believe that whatever it is (if it is) has any idea about me.

DP: Some non-theists are rather passive about their unbelief--one wit recently coined the term apatheism to describe the indifference to religion and religious issues that he regards as a distinguishing mark of modern intelligence--but some are extremely aggressive, even if they rarely descend to the crudity of the message board that is my preferred research location for field studies in intellectual pathology.

bm: He can't seem to get enough of bashing RFM - someone there must have really gotten under his skin. But to give credit where it is due, I note that I like the term "apatheism". That describes many of my friends. They can't get worked up about religion in any way. That was Grandma's issue; Grandma's world. There are so many other things worth thinking about now, like how do we get the Earth's population under control and learn to live within the constraints of its environment.

DP: It is not uncommon, for example, to hear and read references to faith as "religious insanity."13 "Religiosity," said the psychologist Albert Ellis,

"is in many respects equivalent to irrational thinking and emotional disturbance. ... The elegant therapeutic solution to emotional problems is to be quite unreligious. ... The less religious they are, the more emotionally healthy they will be."14

bm: Amen, as far as literalist religion (like most of Mormonism) is concerned. But I think the metaphoric use of religious concepts has a great deal to commend it. See Karen Armstrong "A Short History of Myth" for example.

DP: In this, Ellis was only following the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud. Religion, Freud wrote, is "the universal obsessional neurosis of humanity."15

"Religion imposes equally on everyone its own path to the acquisition of happiness and protection from suffering. The technique consists of depressing the value of life and distorting the picture of the real world in a delusional manner. . . . At this price forcibly fixing them in a state of psychical infantilism and by drawing them into a mass-delusion, religion succeeds in sparing many people an individual neurosis. But hardly anything more."16

bm: For more recent and reasonable views, see Lee Kirkpatrick, "Attachment, Evolution and the Psychology of Religion", or Pascal Boyer, "Religion Explained", or Loyal Rue, "Religion is not About God".

DP: This is more sophisticated than the description of "Morgbots" given in my message board laboratory, but its general content is remarkably similar.

bm: So, Freud is as bad as those evil people who post at RFM? Or are they as bad as Freud? What about all of the other psychologists and psychiatrists? Remember, the DSM - IV provides for the diagnosis of a clinical disorder related to the stress of leaving religions precisely like Mormonism. The evil circle widens.

DP: Yet it is demonstrably wrong. The data rather consistently demonstrate that Latter-day Saints who live lives consistent with their religious beliefs experience greater general well-being, greater family and marital stability, less delinquency, less depression, less anxiety, and less substance abuse than those who do not, and there is very little evidence that religious belief and practice are harmful to mental health.17

bm: That is lovely. Refer to the studies that support your point, but do not mention the mountain of data that questions them. Duwayne Anderson, for example, has debunked many of the statistics Peterson references (The only data of his I could quickly google is found at http://exmormonfoundation.org/2005con... in the form of an audio file). And what about the stats re. Utah in general? It leads the US in various unflattering categories, like anti-depressant use, personal bankruptcies, some kinds of fraud, some kinds of spousal abuse, some kinds of sexual abuse, some kinds of suicide. And attempts by Mormons to show that active Mormons do not suffer from these problems are either flawed, or raise another serious question - what is it about living cheek to jowl with active Mormons that sends these statistics into the stratosphere for everyone else, because if active Mormons are not affected that means the incidence of these problems for non-Mormons and less active Mormons in Utah are astounding.

DP: As James R. Lewis argues in his 2003 book Legitimating New Religions, "attacks on alternative religious groups are attempts to psychologize--medicalize--a controversy that, on deeper examination, is clearly a controversy over ideology and lifestyle"18 In language that cannot possibly fail to remind Latter-day Saints of evangelical anti-Mormonism but that, oddly, forms a point of contact with the most virulent forms of secular anti-Mormonism as well, Thomas Langham, reviewing Lewis's book for the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, remarks that

opponents of new religious movements have worked to delegitimate them through acting as 'moral entrepeneurs' who have used anti-cult ideologies to market negative stereotypes, like the 'cult' label, to the broader community. Such activities have led new religious groups...to be classified as illegitimate "dangerous organizations."19

bm: This is delicious. Some new religious/cults are dangerous. And those who recruit are highly disruptive to the families of many of their recruits so it stands to reason that they will be resisted. And these are among the most emotional issues known to humankind (kids being distanced from parents; marriages being broken up; etc.) so we should expect the rhetoric used to be extreme.

Now, turn this around and see how it applies to Peterson's inhuman caricature of the people at RFM. There we have REALLY dangerous people who the good Mormons should stay away from at all costs.

DP: Yet, Lewis says,

it is not self-evident that secularism should be the standard by which religion is evaluated. ... [A] humanistic methodology...should attempt to describe religionists as acting out of reasonable motives rather than from errors of judgment or psychopathology.20

bm: I agree. That is what I try to do. Perhaps Peterson could try that with RFM and other aspects of the post-Mormon movement.

DP: In fact, as is increasingly recognized nowadays, religious people tend to be healthier, not only mentally but even physically, than their irreligious counterparts.

bm: Let's cast the net a little broader. Are Buddhist and Taoists irreligious? They are atheists. And yet psychologists are finding that the ways of life embedded in the practises that come from these traditions are particularly healthy for today's westerners. See Martin Seligman "Authentic Happiness" and Marvin Levine, "The Positive Psychology of Buddhism and Yoga".

To make sense, Peterson should define which kind of atheists he is talking about before making comparisons. Anderson (see above) used this technique over and again to show how the Mormon use of statistics uses a comparison point that skews perception. One he did not mention was the oft cited statistic that Mormon missionaries are safer while on their missions than 19-21 year old men generally. This is used to make people feel better when missionaries die or are severely injured while serving their missions. I have not chased this down yet, but I am willing to bet that the "19-21 year old men generally" category does not take into account the fact that we are comparing Mormon missionaries whose alternative would likely be university somewhere in the US west or mid-west to a Mormon mission. That is, most deaths in this age group occur in urban ghettos, where you are unlikely to find young men who would otherwise be serving Mormon missions. When you compare apples to apples, I would be astounded if the death and serious injury rate for Mormon missionaries was not higher than for the reference group.

DP: With specific regard to Mormons, Utah death rates are below rates in the nation at large and in the mountain states for most major causes of death, including heart disease, cancer, cerebrovascular disease, accidents, pulmonary disease, pneumonia/flu, diabetes, liver disease, and atherosclerosis. Utah suicide rates are higher than the national average, but lower than the mountain states as a whole. Studies of specific LDS populations in California, Utah, and Alberta, Canada, show that LDS men are about half as likely to die of cancer as other men. LDS women also have lower cancer mortality, but the difference is not as great as for men. Death rates are lower for Latter-day Saints who have higher levels of religious participation. In short, adherence to the Mormon code of health appears to lower death rates from several diseases.21 The benighted Morgbots seem to be doing rather well.

bm: See my comments above.

DP: But what of the atheists and the agnostics? Let's take a look at another laboratory: contemporary Europe, which has not altogether unfairly been called a "godless continent." Europe is in a state not only of demographic but, arguably, of cultural barrenness …

bm: Europe is uncultured compared to what? Utah? Peterson has an unusual definition of culture as well as rationality. I suppose that I should not be surprised. Mormons have long believed that they would become cultural lights to the world, despite a lot of evidence to the contrary. See "What is the Challenge for LDS Scholars and Artists", John and Kirsten Rector, Dialogue, Vol. 36, No. 2, Summer 2003, http://www.dialoguejournal.com/excerp... and http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.crea....

DP: , and it is certainly afflicted, these days, with a profound historical amnesia: Thucydides and the Enlightenment are mentioned in the preamble to the new European constitution as constituents of European identity--but not Christianity.

bm: See the U of Michigan studies above. We don't need Christianity or any other religion as a moral compass. There is a huge mass of social science literature to this effect. I can tell numerous stories of agnostics/atheists who I know personally and who live exemplary lives. One is a brain surgeon who spends one third of his time working for free each year in the Amazon jungle. This guy is smart, fun to be with, full of life, the kind of person most people want to be near because he emanates a feeling of love and good will. Sounds a lot like "the Spirit", doesn't it. Probably just Satan deceiving us, right?

However, a metaphoric Christianity could be helpful. I buy into Gould's "non-overlapping magisterial ("NOMA") concept, to a degree. See http://www.stephenjaygould.org/librar....

DP: A striking drop has occurred in European birth and marriage rates, which Pitzer College's Phil Zuckerman connects with the equally striking decline in religious belief. "Religion," he says,

"seems to be critical to people's decision to raise children. People in these advanced industrial societies see children more and more as a liability. Some realize that this life is better without children. And you don't even need to get married since there is no legal advantage to doing so."

bm: Peterson might want to bone up on some population science. This is arguably the planet's most critical issue right now, and he is lamenting a decline in birth rates? This is Mormon ignorance in full flower.

DP: But Zuckerman, who is himself professedly anti-religious, is alarmed at the contrast of the low European birthrate with the high birthrates of the rapidly growing Muslim minorities within Europe. Muslims already make up at least a quarter of the residents of Rotterdam, Marseilles, and Malmö, Sweden, and fifteen percent of the residents of Brussels, the capital of the European Union. Within the next few decades, several European cities will acquire Muslim majorities.22 Observers have begun to speak of "Eurabia," and "Europistan." Others have alluded to what seems to be a "collective death wish" among Europeans, as their birth rates have fallen below levels required simply to replace themselves.

bm: Hmmm. The Muslim countries take religion very seriously, even more so that the US. And they have huge birth rates and an aversion to scientific knowledge that contradicts their beliefs, similar to religious people in US. This issue is of great concern to population scientists. Peterson has obviously seen this data, but it has not penetrated him.

DP: During a trip to England a few years ago, I went beyond my accustomed haunts into certain relatively nondescript parts of the country. While I've long been accustomed to the large Muslim population of London, I was astonished to see halal butcher shops and Muslim garb in the most ordinary towns--everywhere.

bm: Low growth areas allow immigration from high growth areas in order to keep the low growth area economies going and for other reasons. This incidentally helps to educate the Muslim populace, which for the moment may be our best hope to change the way that culture thinks. How is this bad?

DP: Immediately after his assassination a few years ago, the Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn was portrayed in the media as anti-immigration, which was true. But he was also portrayed as right-wing, which was false. The reality was considerably more interesting than initial stereotypes suggested: He was, in fact, a man of the left, and a practicing homosexual, who feared that the demographic ascendancy of scarcely assimilated conservative Muslims in his country would doom the ultra-free sexuality that he and many others value as essential to the culture of the modern Netherlands. And, surely, the recent murder of the filmmaker Theo Van Gogh on a midday street in Amsterdam by a Dutch Muslim, and the very recent London bombings carried out by British Muslims, seem to bear out his worries. "The best lack all conviction," wrote the Irish poet William Butler Yeats, "while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

But, of course, however much she may wish she could, and however clearly she may see the benefits of belief, an unbeliever probably can't, in most cases, simply will herself to believe. It doesn't work that way.

One vocal ex-Mormon critic explained at the most recent Sunstone symposium that it was a specific case of God's apparent failure to intervene to prevent evil that, rather suddenly, killed his faith. I take him at his word. I find his reaction plausible, even understandable, and see his subsequent arguments against Mormonism as derivative from that initial conclusion, which serves as their presupposition.

bm: Or how about this. There is no god, or perhaps a deistic god. Who can tell? But here is what we can say with a high probability of being correct. Really bad things happen on a regular basis. And, our individual and collective choices determine the kind of society in which we and our children will live. We have plenty of reason for moral behavior, to keep our promises, be faithful to our spouses, etc. on this basis alone. And the social psych literature shows that our behaviour, regardless of religious belief, tends in this direction. We also have plenty of reason to simply enjoy life as it presents itself to us each day.

DP: But, here, an observation needs to be made: If, as in this case, the unbeliever's loss of faith stems from what she might well regard and characterize as a particular, almost revelatory, realization, then whatever arguments she puts forward afterward will be, to some degree or other, ad hoc, designed--no less than those of apologists for belief--to support a paradigm that was actually chosen on different grounds.

bm: Huh? I must not be smart enough to follow this. Peterson will at least agree with me on this point.

DP: Dan Vogel's take on the Witnesses, for example, strikes me as embarrassingly strained and almost desperate. From his presupposed atheistic …

bm: How awful he must be!

DP: point of view, however--having conceded that the Witnesses were both sane and sincere, but still unwilling to grant the accuracy of their statements--it is necessary, almost unavoidable, that he explain them away as nineteenth century visionaries to some extent culturally incapable of distinguishing fantasy from reality.

bm: I haven't read Vogel on this point. But how about this. The early 1800s were lousy with people who saw visions that supported the truth claims of various religions. Angelic visitations were common. Affidavits were sworn to this effect. Martin Harris (I think - I am going from memory here) eventually testified to the legitimacy of some of Strang's heavenly visitations.

Were only Smith's "revelations" valid? If so, how do we distinguish his from the rest? Of if they were all of the same kind, how do we explain them? There are plenty of scholars, staring with William James ("The Varieties of Religious Experience") and including more recently people like the neurologist Andrew Newberg (himself a deeply religions person with whom I spent a week last summer) ("Why God Won't Go Away") who do this nicely. The bottom line is that there are many explanations for this kind of experience that do not require a belief that what is reported to us really happened. See the section on "spiritual experience" at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni... staring at page 101.

DP: It's a matter of what are sometimes termed "prior probabilities." As Sherlock Holmes said to Dr. Watson, "First, you eliminate the impossible, and then whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truth."

bm: Prior probabilities is one of the keys to Bayesian probability theory, generally regarded, along with scientific investigation, to give us our most reliable understanding of what is real. It has nothing to do with Sherlock Holmes.

DP: The problem of evil itself--so lethal to the faith of that Sunstone atheist--will serve as an illustration of how paradigms and prior probabilities function in these matters. To an agnostic or an atheist, someone who assigns a very low probability (or even none at all) to the existence of God, the existence of massive human and natural evils in this world constitutes a serious and perhaps fatal, if not merely redundant, blow against theistic belief.

bm: That depends entirely on the kid of god one worships. Deists, for example, have no problem with this. I have no trouble with it.

DP: To someone, however, who regards the existence of a benevolent and powerful God as probable, even highly probable or certain, on other grounds, the existence of such massive evils represents merely a problem to be worked out in the light of her theistic presuppositions. Her proposed solutions will seem gratuitously ad hoc to atheistic critics, but, from within her paradigm, function much the same way as refinements to broad scientific theories function under the stimulus of new data and problems.

bm: One of the many problems with that position is that is can be used to defend anything. It does not give uncertainty its due. See the essay at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.does... for more on this point.

Why should we believe in the Mormon God instead of the Muslim God or the God of a pygmy tribe in the Amazon? Each is equally defensible, as well as indefensible. And there is more evidence of alien abductions than for any of these gods. Once we accept as probative of reality the feelings on which religious faith is based, we can prove anything and hence nothing.

DP: Similarly, defenders of the Book of Mormon are sometimes accused of ad hoc improvisations when, from their point of view, they are merely refining and making more precise a paradigm that they regard as reasonable and supportable on other grounds.

bm: I presume this to be a reference to the "limited geography" theory of the Book of Mormon. Or how about that paragon of logic and probability, the "two Cumorahs" theory? These theories tend to only be attractive to those who have deep seated social and other needs to believe. Mormon scientists have indicated that the limited geography theory and the Mormon response to the DNA research of people like Southerton (see http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index...) is improbable. The best Mormons can do on this front with justification is to say that the case against them has not been proved with 100% certainty. The Young Earth Creationists, holocaust deniers, alien abductionists and countless others Mormons regard to be cranks have long used precisely the same defence for their points of faith. This runs back at least as far as the ancients Greeks (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.apol...).

DP: However, as I've tried to illustrate, such refining is not restricted to theistic paradigms; it occurs just as clearly in naturalistic attempts to explain away claims of the divine. It's not a matter of black and white, but of relative plausibility and richness of explanation.

bm: Let's see how quickly we disappear down a post-modern rabbit hole now.

DP: Some atheists are positively giddy with the good news of unbelief. One reason, of course, is the sadly checkered history of religious believers. "When one considers how much blood has been shed in the name of faith--in whatever God it might be--one might perhaps wish," says Hans-Dieter Gelfert, speaking this time not as a mere observer of the Americans but as, himself, a religiously skeptical European, "that the founders of expansionist religions, among which Christianity figures, had chosen not faith but humble doubt as the royal path to God."23

bm: Consider how well those terrible atheists in Scandinavia are making out in most social categories important to Mormons.

DP: The very notion of strong religious belief has become suspect in the modern era, and particularly since 9-11. Take, for example the words of Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), a very intelligent man who represents, in more ways than one, one of the bluest of the blue states, during a June 2003 hearing on the nomination of William Pryor to serve as a United States appeals-court judge:

In Pryor's case, his beliefs are so well known, so deeply held, that it's very hard to believe, very hard to believe that they're not going to deeply influence the way he comes about saying, "I will follow the law." And that would be true of anybody who had very, very deeply held views.24

bm: A reasonable point.

DP: "Deeply held views," you see, is frequently a code term for religious views these days, and savors of theocracy.

bm: Why is this the case? There are lots of non-religious ideologies that have done mankind terrible damage. Hitler. Stalin. Pol Pot. Mao. Space craft cults. Etc. The problem is not religious belief per se, it is dogmatic and irrational ideology, such as many aspects of Mormonism.

DP: During a visit a few years ago to Iran, under the auspices and with the sponsorship of the regime there, more than a few of the two dozen or so other American academics who were part of the group pressed me to acknowledge the allegedly strong similarities between Utah and the Islamic Republic. It is fashionable in some circles to speak of Utah as a theocracy, and even of the Latter-day Saints as America's Taliban or, for short, the "Utaliban." Which is, of course, utter nonsense. But the avowedly anti-religious Jon Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven, which portrays Mormons and Mormonism essentially as a violent threat to non-Latter-day Saints, was a recent bestseller.

bm: Krakauer's fair point is that the seeds of irrationality that caused the murders he chronicled are found in mainstream Mormonism.

DP: Critics of religious belief point recently to al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, and Wahhabism. But they should not be permitted to forget Josef Stalin, nor, for that matter, the entire murderous twentieth century, in which atheists and quasi-atheists killed tens of millions. Hitler, a virulent anti-Christian, regarded humanity as a bacterium on the earth's surface. And Stalin railed against God even on his quite horrible deathbed in March of 1953.

bm: See my point above. More straw men. The point is not that theism or atheism are necessarily bad or good. It is that dogma and other forms of irrationality are bad. To the extent Mormonism relies on irrational dogma and encourages blind obedience, it is bad.

DP: He had suffered a severe stroke that had left his right side paralyzed, and his last hours were spent in virtually unbearable pain. Slowly, he was strangled. As his daughter Svetlana later reported, her father choked to death while those around his deathbed looked on. Although, at the very last, he had seemed at most merely semiconscious, he suddenly opened his eyes and looked about the room, plainly terrified. Then, according to Svetlana, "something incomprehensible and awesome happened that to this day I can't forget and don't understand." Stalin partially lifted himself in the bed, clenched his fist toward the heavens, and shook it defiantly. Then, with an unintelligible murmur, he dropped motionless back onto his pillow, and died.25

bm: And what inference are we justified in drawing from that story? A man in extremis on his death bed may have done something that appeared odd. Are we to assume that he saw God coming for him? This is too weak to be called fear mongering, though it seems to attempt that.

DP: I confess that I find those who rejoice in atheism baffling.

bm: No surprise here. Peterson's perspective should be expected to make many aspects of our world baffling to him.

One of the important things to note about Mormonism is the extent to which its worldview can prevent its faithful from grasping some of the most basic aspects of the society and culture by which they are surrounded. This is how you explain both people like Peterson, and people like me who until age 45 literally had no idea about the reality of the history and social practise of Mormonism (my own religion) while getting top of the class grades in an undergraduate program in the humanities (minor - religious studies, ironically), law and MBA.

DP: It's not merely the thought of the atheist's funeral: "all dressed up with nowhere to go." I think of Beethoven, hiding down in the basement with pillows to his ears, desperately trying to save his fading sense of hearing as he was working on his majestic "Emperor" Concerto. Or, a little later, conducting the magnificent Ninth Symphony, which he never heard, having to be turned around by the concertmaster because he did not know that the audience was applauding him. I think of Mozart, feverishly trying to finish his own Requiem--dead at thirty-five and thrown into an unmarked pauper's grave. So many lives have been cut short, leaving so many poems unwritten, so many symphonies uncomposed, so many scientific discoveries unmade.

bm: And many other stories can be told of atheists or agnostics who went peacefully and happily to their graves. What does this prove? More attempted scare mongering. See the interview with John Maynard Smith at http://www.meaningoflife.tv for something more realistic.

DP: In fact, it's hard to think of anyone who has achieved her full potential in this life. Tragic foreshortenings don't only happen to geniuses. A neighbor and friend was stricken with multiple sclerosis in her mid-twenties and now, in her thirties, lies bedridden in a rest home. Barring some incredible medical breakthrough, this is her life. Absent hope for a life to come, this is all she will ever have to look forward to. My own father, for the last six years of his life, blind from an utterly unforeseen stroke suffered during routine and relatively minor surgery, was incapable of any of the activities in which he had once found satisfaction, and pathetically asked me, every few weeks, whether he would ever see again. What comfort would there be in saying, "No, Dad. This is it. Nothing good is coming. And then you'll die."

bm: More fear mongering. Many people with even a moderately broad perspective don't seem to have this trouble. As the non-theist and respected biologist Ursula Goodenough puts it, "Life is like a coral reef. We each leave behind the best, the strongest deposit we can so that the reef can grow. But what's important is the reef.". I am content with my place in the reef; to enjoy life's miracle while it lasts; to learn to pay more attention to the tiny part of the miracle that is before me, moment by moment; and think less about those parts of the future that are beyond my influence.

DP: I can certainly understand coming to the sad conclusion that this is, in fact, the truth about the human condition: That we live briefly, then we die, and we rot. That so, too, do our children and our grandchildren. And that so, also, does everything we create--our music, our buildings, our literature, our inventions. That "all we are is dust in the wind." But I cannot understand those who regard this as glorious good news.

bm: This is likely one of those things that one must experience. This transition was a wonderful relief for me, and continues to enliven me. Many others report a similar experience. Again, see Maynard Smith's interview above for a nice summary. And see my account of dealing with a son in the ICU shortly after going through my transition at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.an%2....

DP: Perhaps, on second thought, though, I can understand those who might see it as a liberation. "If there is no God," says Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov, "that means everything is permitted." Why? Because nothing matters at all; everything is meaningless. However, this liberation comes at a very, very high price. "If we believe in nothing," said the great French writer and Nobel laureate Albert Camus,

if nothing has any meaning and if we can affirm no values whatsoever, then everything is possible and nothing has any importance. There is no pro or con: the murderer is neither right nor wrong. We are free to stoke the crematory fires or to devote ourselves to the care of lepers. Evil and virtue are mere chance or caprice.26

At the point where it is no longer possible to say what is black and what is white, the light is extinguished and freedom becomes a voluntary prison.27

bm: An old canard. More fear mongering. There is a mountain of social scientific data that shows that our moral instincts have nothing to do with religion and everything with our evolved biology. And this likely is simply explained on the basis that human groups populated by lies and cheats did not prosper. See the bibliography at the end of http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.van%....

DP: Consider, too, this supremely complacent remark, offered by a vocal atheist critic of Mormonism during a 2001 Internet discussion: "If there were a God," he reflected, "I think (s)he'd enjoy hanging out with me--perhaps sipping on a fine Merlot under the night sky while devising a grand unified theory." Only someone very comfortably situated could be so marinated in smugness about the question of whether or not God exists.

bm: I would enjoy both the Merlot (though Pinot Noir would be better, and some well chosen bread, cheese, olives, etc. would be presumed to be part of the deal) and the discussion as well. It is nice to feel comfortable with reality as best we can apprehend it.

DP: But the vast majority of the world's population is not so situated, and, for them, atheism, if true, is very bad news indeed. Most of the world's population, historically and still today, does not live, well fed and well traveled, to a placid old age surrounded by creature comforts. Most of the world has been and is like the favelas of Rio de Janeiro, the slums of Cairo, the backward rural villages of India, the famine-ridden deserts of northeastern Africa, the war-ravaged towns of the southern Sudan and of Rwanda. If there is going to be a truly happy ending for the millions upon millions of those whose lives have been blighted by torture, starvation, disease, rape, and murder, that ending will have to come in a future life. And such a future life seems to require a God.

bm: So what? How does that change the probability of what is real and what is not? Peterson needs a primer in reasoning far more than many he likes to criticize.

DP: Yes, the problem of evil is a huge one, but to give up on God is to give evil the final say. It is to admit that child rapists and murderers dictate the final chapters in the lives of their terrified and agonized victims; that Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot really did triumph, forever, over the millions they slaughtered; that, in the rotting corpses of Darfur and Iraqi Kurdistan, we see the final, definitive chapter of thousands of lives; that there is, really, no hope for those whose health is in irreversible decline; that every human relationship ends in death, if not before.

bm: A big part of Peterson's problem is his narrow point of view regarding how religious people think. When you approach these things that twist his knickers from a Buddhist, Taoist or any of many other religious points of view, they are not problems.

DP: This would not be good news, and I see no compelling reason to accept it. In fact, I see numerous persuasive reasons to reject the claim. But that is a subject not just for another occasion but, necessarily, for a great number of other occasions.

Secular anti-Mormons typically criticize The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on two broad grounds. First of all, they say that its claims are untrue.

bm: Amen. I would say that Mormon claims are highly probable to be untrue.

DP: Second, they accuse it and its leaders of wrongdoing--with respect, for example, to the origins of plural marriage, its supposed manipulation of history, and the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

bm: Amen again. The kind of deception Mormons leaders use is not justified.

DP: But it is not clear that, on a purely secular and naturalistic basis, either form of critique can be coherent. In order for one or both types of criticism to be coherent, it may be that theism is a necessary precondition.

bm: I can hardly wait for this.

DP: Permit me to explain, very briefly. I'll take them in reverse order.

First, the critics' basis for criticizing Mormonism on moral grounds is unclear, and its coherence needs to be demonstrated.

bm: See my point above. It is pretty simple. The deception of Mormon leaders is not justified. There are lots of other reasons as well, but this one is enough.

DP: "Rebellion cannot exist," observes Camus, "without the feeling that, somewhere and somehow, one is right.28 But on what basis can a materialist, whose universe is exhausted by material particles and the void, claim that something is objectively wrong?

bm: Here we go down the postmodern rabbit hole. Camus is one of the post-Modern philosophers who support the Mormon intellectual position that as long as it "works", "feels good" etc. Mormon belief and practise is justified. See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni... starting at page 10, and go to page 15 to cut straight to the point.

DP: Do right and wrong not become matters merely of personal preference, and, perhaps, of power? Not only existentialists but many superficial "life counselors" suggest that we should construct our own "meaning" for life. But is self-constructed meaning really meaning at all? Or is meaning not, rather, something that can only be received, from another intelligence? And why should anybody else pay even the slightest attention to somebody's self-constructed "meaning?"

bm: Elementary ethics rest on a number of rules, the most common of which resembles the Golden Rule (Kant's categorical imperative), while others are derived from utility theory and justice theory. Deception of the type in which Mormonism's leaders have engaged, and in which they still engage, run contrary to each of these. The idea that atheism implies immorality is preposterous.

DP: Camus observes of the atheistic French revolutionaries of 1793 that, when they effectively "guillotined" God, "they deprived themselves forever of the right to outlaw crime or to censure malevolent instincts."29 "From the moment that man submits God to moral judgment, he kills Him in his own heart. And then what is the basis of morality? God is denied in the name of justice, but can the idea of justice be understood without the idea of God?"30 If those who deny any objective basis for morality nonetheless go on behaving morally and invoking morality, we can only be grateful that they have not pursued the implications of their position to their logical end, and that they continue to live on borrowed moral capital. Of the nihilistic revolutionaries who are the subject of his brilliant meditation in The Rebel, Camus remarks that

All of them, decrying the human condition and its creator, have affirmed the solitude of man and the nonexistence of any kind of morality. But at the same time they have all tried to construct a purely terrestrial kingdom where their chosen principles will hold sway.31

bm: On whose side is Peterson citing Camus? His words don't fit in my mouth.

DP: It is not surprising that, just prior to his tragic and early death in a 1960 automobile accident, Albert Camus was evidently giving serious consideration to being received into the Roman Catholic Church. He was, I'm guessing, horrified by the revolutionary excesses of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and had come to suspect that only theism could provide an objective basis for moral judgments. It is precisely the same kind of reasoning that led the Anglo-American poet W.H. Auden to embrace Christianity: He found himself sitting in a movie hall in the late 1930s, in an area of New York City then heavily populated with German immigrants. As a newsreel played, depicting acts of Nazi barbarism toward European Jews, the audience around him erupted with cheers and surges of pleased laughter. Shaken by what he had witnessed, Auden realized that his secular worldview couldn't provide him with a firm moral ground from which to protest that Nazi brutality was objectively evil.

bm: More fear mongering and straw men. Why don't we talk about the social record of the Godless Scandanivian countries? Why don't we talk about the problems with Christianity in America (see http://harpers.org/ExcerptTheChristia...)? Oh, but I suppose of America were all Mormon - all like Utah - things would be much better. Peterson is compelling only to those who share his myopic point of view.

DP: Camus and Auden may have been right. On the basis of what moral principles do secularizing critics pronounce the Church wanting? How were those principles chosen, and why should anybody else defer to them? Even if one were to grant the factual claims on which they stake their moral judgments, it is not at all clear that those moral judgments are capable of bearing any objectively real weight.

bm: See the above. This is one of the reasons for which many Europeans are likely to regard people like Peterson as ignorant. The amount of reading the man has done to understand the little he does must be close to world record territory. And I don't accuse him of stupidity, ill will or anything else of a similar sort. He is a product of Mormon culture. Similar people are found with all other similarly narrow cultures that I have studied. See the long essays referenced at the beginning of this review.

DP: But then, neither is it clear, given secularizing principles, that concepts like "factual claims" and "personal preference" are even coherent--which brings us to the second type of secular objection to Mormonism: The critics' basis for criticizing Mormonism on intellectual grounds, saying that it is untrue, is unsure, and its coherence needs to be demonstrated.

bm: I think I can feel what is coming. This runs down the line of the post Modern Mormon position outlined in the Denial essay I reference above.

DP: Why? We all know essentially what it would mean to say that an astronomer's thinking about the atmosphere of Jupiter was correct, and what it means to say that the conclusion of a syllogism follows from, or is entailed by, the premises of the syllogism.

However, on a completely secularist, naturalistic view, it seems that "thoughts" are really merely neurochemical events in the brain, able (in principle, at least) to be described by the laws of physics. But the laws of physics are deterministic--I'll leave quantum indeterminacy out of consideration here …

bm: Good thing, because it is irrelevant above the quantum level and that is where our brains function.

DP: because I don't think it helps either side much--such that, if "thoughts" are merely physical, it is unclear how we can really say that a conclusion follows from premises. Why? Because any given brain state seems to be causally determined by the preceding brain state. And it is hard, moreover, to see how the neurochemical condition of the brain can have a relationship of either truth or falsity with the atmosphere of a distant planet--or, for that matter, with anything else. A lump of cells is neither true nor false. It isn't "about" anything else; it just is.

bm: I can't believe my good fortune to be witness to the public expression by a prominent Mormon apologist of something this ridiculous.

So we can know nothing about culture, history, etc. if we adopt a naturalistic position (see www.naturalism.org)? I can't believe what I am hearing. I just re-read the paragraph above. It is worse than I first thought. Peterson says that if I adopt the secular, naturalist point of view I abandon my claim to be able to find any reliable evidence about anything. This is incredible.

DP: Thus, truly consistent secularist critics of Mormonism may have sawed off the limb on which they were sitting. They may have deprived themselves not only of a standard of moral judgment that cannot be dismissed as merely subjective, but of a coherent claim to be able to address questions of truth and falsity (with respect to Mormonism and every other topic). Some form of theism, or, at least, of non-naturalism, may be required to save their position from being merely self-refuting. (If it is not, this will have to be demonstrated.) But if they adopt theism, or even mere non-naturalism, they will no longer be secularist critics, but will have become something else.

bm: I can hardly wait to forward this to my never-LDS scientist friends. They will bust a gut.

DP: Many years ago, as a missionary in Switzerland, another elder and I met a woman at the door while we were tracting. When we told her that we represented The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she smiled quite oddly and, even more oddly by Swiss standards, invited us in. She immediately fetched her husband, and asked us to tell him the name of the Church that we represented. He too smiled oddly when he heard it, and I began to wonder what sort of people we had found. But then he explained that he was a Yugoslavian-born physician who had once been a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in our Church. And he told us a story that, I confess, I have never checked since; I may have some of the details wrong, but the gist of it is as follows: Decades before, he had served as a counselor to a priesthood leader in his native country as the communists were consolidating their power there. Several times, he said, this priesthood leader had dreams warning him that members of his congregation needed to flee because the secret police would soon be coming for them. And the man was right every time. However, the former counselor, with whom I was speaking, had eventually made his way to medical school in Switzerland, where his studies had taught him that revelation was an illusion. But how, I asked, did he account for his former priesthood leader's remarkably accurate record of forecasting visits from the secret police, a record of which I knew (and know) nothing but what he had told me? "Brain chemistry and chance," he replied.

bm: That is a good answer.

DP: There was, in other words, no substantial or necessary link between the various brain states of the priesthood leader and external events. That they coincided was just sheer good luck for those who thereby escaped the clutches of the commissars. (I might add that the German missionary with whom I was working that particular day, a converted German merchant sailor who was, to put it mildly, plain spoken, thereupon asked if he could visit the home again with his tape recorder, because, he said, this man furnished an unforgettable specimen of how Satan deceives people. Visibly surprised by such bluntness, the man agreed that he could return.)

bm: Mormon arrogance based on the same kind of emotional epistemology, and unjustified certainty, that causes suicide bombings and riots over cartoons. And applauded by Peterson in the same way other such arrogance and aggressive behaviour is applauded in other ignorant religious communities. Blind faith is a beautiful thing to witness.

DP: If there were powerful arguments compelling us to forsake religious belief, and if there were no persuasive arguments for such belief, we might feel ourselves obliged to accept what I, at least, regard as the bleakness of the secular, naturalistic worldview.

bm: It is clear by now that arguments that many would find compelling are not acceptable to Peterson.

DP: But we are not so compelled, and there are persuasive arguments for belief. The question is at the very least equally balanced. And in such a situation, as William James brilliantly argued against W.K. Clifford, religious belief represents a rational choice. Even if one thinks the matter only fifty-fifty--which I emphatically do not--James's advice to "choose the sunny side of doubt" strikes me as eminently reasonable. Besides, as we now know, it's healthier.

bm: Whether the question is "equally balanced" depends entirely on the evidence one believes to be relevant. If you eliminate emotion based evidence on the basis that it is demonstrable unreliable, the question is far from balanced.

Consider the pattern of irrational belief related to religion described at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.does.... Basically, many religious believers (including Mormons) can be shown to generally accept the findings of science, but to deny them where the information produced by science conflicts with important religious beliefs. The Mormon attitude regarding many aspects of archaeology, DNA science etc. relative to the Book of Mormon are a prime example of this. The evidence Mormons and other religious people use to justify their irrational denial of scientific evidence in this regard is mostly emotional and/or social in nature. When the emotional and social evidence is eliminated, the question of belief in any particular kind of God (such as the Mormon version, who is alleged to have appeared to Joseph Smith, etc.) is far from balanced. There is no reason to believe that any of the these versions of God is any more likely to be true than the others. And ask any believer about the probability of the others being true.

DP: I'm grateful to Lou Midgley for drawing my attention to an anecdote related by the eminent Protestant church historian Martin Marty with reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It involves the famous eighteenth-century French hostess Marie de Vichy-Chamrond, the Marquise du Deffand, a friend of Voltaire and other leading intellectuals of the day. When Cardinal de Polignac informed her that the martyr St. Denis, the first bishop of Paris, had walked a hundred miles after his execution, carrying his head in his hand, Madame du Deffand replied that, "In such a promenade, it is the first step that is difficult." She meant, of course, that it is not the claim that St. Denis walked a hundred miles that poses a difficulty. Perhaps he actually walked only ninety-nine miles, or perhaps he walked a hundred and two--such differences are immaterial. The fundamental question is whether, after his beheading, he walked at all. Once that essential point has once been granted, the rest is mere detail.

bm: This is an apt analogy. It uses something extremely unlikely (walking anywhere after having one's head severed) to help us understand something else that is extremely unlikely (Mormonism's founding events being true).

DP: Marty uses the story to identify what is fundamental in Latter-day Saint claims, particularly as they have come under the lens of what he terms "the crisis of historical consciousness"--by which he intends the skepticism and intense scrutiny of modern historical scholarship, which has been directed against virtually all traditional claims, religious and otherwise, around the world. "By analogy," he writes,

if the beginning of the promenade of Mormon history, the First Vision and the Book of Mormon, can survive the crisis, then the rest of the promenade follows and nothing that happens in it can really detract from the miracle of the whole. If the first steps do not survive, there can be only antiquarian, not fateful or faith-full interest in the rest of the story.32

bm: As said above, these events are about as likely true as is a man to walk anywhere without his head.

DP: Whatever may be said about Church involvement with the Equal Rights Amendment and California Proposition 29, or about Brigham Young's personality, or about the Church's history with racial issues, or about Church finances or the Indian Placement Program, or about possibly imperfect local leaders, or about any number of other matters in which we sometimes become lost, the fundamental issues are really quite few. But they are fundamental. And, on them, I believe we fare quite well. We simply need to keep our eyes, and so far as possible, our critics' e
topic image
Daniel Peterson's "Reflections On Secular Anti-Mormonism" A Quick Reaction
Friday, Feb 10, 2006, at 09:19 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Yesterday I posted at the Recovery from Mormonism bulletin board the full text of an essay written by BYU/FARMS' (the Foundation of Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) Daniel Peterson, along with my commentary. I choose this format first because I simply read the essay and annotated it on the fly, and second because I did not want anyone to think I was taking Peterson's highly entertaining comments out of context.

Within a short time of my posting (no more than a few hours) the board monitors at RFM received a complaint from the people at the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research ("FAIR") that my post violated their copyright in Peterson's essay, which as noted below was on FAIR's website (see http://www.fairlds.org/). I find this in and of itself fascinating. The link to the article at FAIR was provided, and I would have thought FAIR would appreciate me advertising for them at RFM. And given the extensive nature of my commentary, I suspect that the way in which I dealt with Peterson's argument is well within the "fair use" exception to copyright law. Nonetheless, since they have complained and RFM wants to be well onside their copyright obligations, I wasted an hour chopping up yesterday's writing for re-publication at RFM. It is below.

I note in passing that the folks at FAIR have a long history of taking a legalistic approach to information sharing. They seem to have bought fully into the lovely idea that Mormons are engaged in a life and death struggle with the forces of darkness that seek to overcome them, and that a wide range of questionable means are justified by the righteousness of the ultimate Mormon end. Boyd Packer is no doubt proud of FAIR in this regard. So, it is OK to cyber squat in an effort to waste their enemies time, publish misleading pap of many kinds with a thin scholarly veneer, etc. The essay I review below is a prime example of this kind of thing.

I don't accuse the people at FAIR of stupidity, ill-will or anything of that kind. They are products of the fascinating confluence of powerful Mormon dogma and conditioning systems within a human group that has reached the critical mass required for the creation and maintenance of culture on the one hand, and the very secular forces Peterson is stumbling around on the other that are being injected with increasing regularity and potency into Mormonism's veins. I have further comments below, directed at Peterson, that deal with the idea that people who do the kind of thing he does are not bad, just the predictable product of a particularly narrow (and bad) culture that is struggling for survival in a rapidly changing world. The same kind of confluence is producing conflict in the Muslim world of a more violent kind as we speak.

Back to Peterson and his essay. It classically illustrates how Mormon apologists use straw-men arguments and a variety of other flawed analytical techniques to reassure a group that the belief system in which they are heavily invested is worth preserving. A friend drew a few of Peterson's comments about this piece to may attention. He apparently managed to make a copy of it during the short time it was up at RFM yesterday. Peterson said that,

"In my opinion, [McCue's] purported rebuttal substantially and grossly misrepresented my position at numerous fundamental points, creating a ludicrous straw man in which I can't recognize my own ideas."

I have preserved enough of Peterson's text below to allow anyone who wishes to judge how badly I have mischaracterized him.

I suggest that those who read this remember that Peterson's most important audience is people who are like I used to be. That is, faithful Mormons who think BYU is a respected academic institution when it comes to religious studies; who respect Peterson's academic credentials; who assume that Peterson is employing the usual scholarly standards in what he writes; and most of all, who fervently hope that Mormonism is true. For these people Peterson is compelling and this is precisely what I find so offensive about his writing - it does not present anything remotely resembling a fair case and hence whether by design or not, will tend to dupe trusting people. On the other hand, virtually anyone outside the circle of Mormon faith who takes the time to read this will likely be treated to a few good laughs and groans.

I have called this a "quick" reaction because I wrote my comments while reading Peterson's essay for the first time, and then re-read them once to edit for spelling and tone. Since I was forced by FAIR to waste another hour to re-read and chop up what I did yesterday, I added a few more comments while doing that. However, "quick" does not mean "short".

I simply start at the beginning of Peterson's essay and add my comments as they occur to me. I have excised at FAIR's request the portions of Peterson' s text that are not relevant to my comments.

Peterson's text is designated by "DP" and mine by "bm". I am sure there are lots of typos in what follows. This exercise is not important enough to me to justify the time that careful editing would require. And what I have done is enough to allow anyone with "ears to hear" to understand the nature of the apologist beast that Peterson typifies.

Best,

bob
topic image
Topic: Mormon Belief Interferes With Rational Decision Making? And Where Will This Take Mormonism?
Monday, Feb 13, 2006, at 07:07 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Rational forces have consistently throughout modern history overcome irrationality. However, during long periods of time irrational forces of various kinds have imposed heavy burdens on groups of people. For example, for centuries leading up to about 1100 CE the Muslim/Arab peoples led humankind with regard to secular studies such as math and science, and they were also the wealthiest and in many ways the most cultured group on Earth at the same time. At that point, religious forces gained the upper hand within Muslim society and they began to emphasize "spiritual" studies over secular, quickly lost their scientific, wealth and cultural advantages and began down the road that now has Muslims rioting and killing each other over cartoons published on the other side of the world (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia...). This is a temporary setback that has lasted, to this point, almost 1000 years.

I see something similar occurring within Mormonism right now, and the direction those who remain faithful to Mormonism take is likely to determine much regarding the diversity and richness of life their descendants enjoy for generations to come.

I am regularly (such as last night) in conversation with well-educated Mormons who struggle when trying to deal with rational concepts related to things like science, investment strategies, politics and other purely secular matters. And I see in their struggles infections likely attributable to the magical thinking at the heart of what is required these days to be a literally believing Mormon. The conversation in which I participated last night that sparked this piece had to do with an investment opportunity that a successful young Mormon had been offered. Since Mormons still respect my judgement regarding investments (that, evidently, does not require "the Spirit"), he wanted to run the proposal that had been made to him by me. I was happy to listen for a few minutes and tell him what I thought.

Five seconds into my friend's explanation, I gave him a thumbs down. He has been offered the chance to get in on the ground floor of a "perpetual motion machine" that is going to revolutionize the energy and automotive industries. I summarized the many similar "opportunities" I have encountered during my career and how each of them caused a lot of investors to lose their money while usually also being sincerely believed in by a "genius" inventor who the scientific community "did not understand"; I explained how humans are congenitally (it seems) unable to resist huge upside propositions like this that have no support in the scientific theory that ultimately must explain how they work; etc. That is, the speculative stock industry and Las Vegas are kept in business by the human inability to assess with reasonable accuracy what a small chance to win a large amount of money is worth. Our greed consistently causes us to pay more for chances like this than we should. And promoters of various types have from time immemorial taken advantage of this human tendency. It is far better to be a seller of chances to invest of this type than a buyer. At least, I told him, the people in Las Vegas are upfront about how they make their money. Everyone knows that most gamblers lose money and the "house" gets rich. And so most people who gamble treat the cost of gambling as the price of entertainment. Those invest in speculative stocks or real estate or multi-level marketing schemes are often sucked into the same game on the basis that they really do have a reasonable chance to make money.

And, I noted, when an idea has been around for a while and the people who have the most expertise in related fields have passed on it, you can be pretty certain that the idea does not work.

My friend was unconvinced. He told me that NASA and other branches of the US government were "looking at this concept seriously". I said that if the concept had any material chance of success, there were countless big companies that would have already snapped it up. I mentioned the Ballard Battery organiztion (see http://www.ballard.com/be_a_customer/transportation/electric_drives) as an example of a relatively modest technology that has attracted investment capital from some of the world's lartest corporations. A perpetual motion machine would make Ballard look like peanuts and so if it were any good there is only the tiniest chance that a guy like him would be given a look at it. If the idea had merit, there would be no need to present this idea to people like him who have no idea how the technolgy works.

My friend cited (no doubt using information the "inventor" had given him) planetary motion and the movement of electrons etc. around the nucleus of atoms as "proof" that perpetual motion machines were possible. I explained a little about the big bang theory of cosmology, what happens in black holes and how the laws of entropy work to explain that the analogies he was using did not support the idea his inventor was selling. I could tell that he remained unconvinced, and heard him later in the evening planning a trip to meet the inventor in person.

In short, my young friend did not take seriously the judgement of the scientific community or of wealthy investors (like General Motors or NASA) who rely upon the judgement of scientists to make billion dollar investment decisions. I suggested to him the places he should look to assess the merits of this invention on a scientific basis, how perpetual motion machines have been an inventors' Holy Grail forever and how credible scientists long ago abandoned the idea and have focused instead on converting energy from one form (atomic, fossil fuel, sun, wind, etc.) into another that is more convenient for us to use. But he was not interested in this. He had heard about something that "felt good" to him, and that feeling was more important (at this point at least) than anything he might find in a science book. Where would a well educated young Mormon get an idea like that?

I have run into similar attitudes in the Mormon community related to much more important issues.

The world overpopulated? Don't be silly. Science will be able to continue to expand our ability to support life on Earth indefinitely.

Global warming? What is all the fuss about? There is not enough evidence yet that humankind has anything to do with global warming for us to be concerned.

Godless Europeans (and particularly the REALLY godless Scandinavians) have fewer social problems than Middle America? Don't be ridiculous. That is impossible. And no I don't want to read anything about this.

Young Mormons marry too early, have children too soon and hence have marital experiences that lead to an increased incidence of depression? That could not be further from the truth. The surveys the Church does show that active Mormons are among the happiest people on Earth.

Across a broad range of critical issues Mormons tend to be ignorant of the relevant science, and when the science is presented to them they tend to accept even the fringiest minority positions as solid support for their dogmatic beliefs. You can always find a minority position based in science to support your view, including that alien abductions are real, the Earth is 10,000 years old and the Holocaust did not occur. The rational thing for us non-scientists to do is govern ourselves by what the majority of well informed scientists have to say on any given topic.

My young friend is one of those Mormons who has struggled through the evidence related to the Book of Mormon and other aspects of Mormonism, and has decided that despite the fact that he doesn't like a lot of what Mormon leaders do and have done in the past, that his experience with Mormonism overall (and most importantly how he feels when "The Spirit" moves him) is more important than anything else. So, he has decided against the evidence that the God Joseph Smith taught about is real and gave Joseph Smith special authority that was passed on to Gordon Hinckley, etc. For example, the scientific evidence regarding DNA relative to the Book of Mormon's historicity (see http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index...) is interesting, but does not prove anything. Again, how we feel is more important than any evidence of this kind.

Is it surprising that the same mind that would justify Mormonism against the scientific and historical evidence in the manner just noted would also:

. be prepared to invest in a perpetual motion machine that has not scientific support,

. spend time developing a Muti-Level Marketing "business" (Amway, for example) when the statistics regarding it show that 99+ percent of those who get involved lose money, not to mention creating painful false expectations and wasting years of time in many cases,

. not care about global overpopulation or ecological issues,

. get married at age 21 right after returning from his mission because "the Lord revealed to him on his first date with XXXX that she was to be his wife",

. encourage his wife to quit her job and start having babies "because that is the Lord's will" even though he does not have a reliable means of supporting their family and she has a great job,

. move from one city to another because he feels like the Lord has something for him to do there, even though job prospects there are inferior to those where he already lives, the cost of living is higher there, commuting distances are worse there, etc.,

. start taking anti-depressants instead of seeing a counselor who would help him to understand that his day to day pattern of living is virtually guaranteed to cause depression,

. tell his gay son that it would be best if all the gay people in the world were put on an island and blown up.

I have run into each of these situations during the past little while. Non-Mormons do silly things too of course, but I think it is fair to suggest a causal relationship between the Mormon need to deny science to maintain their religious beliefs and make decisions based on emotional experience, and the Mormon tendency I see toward making other kinds of bad decisions that paying more attention to the wisdom science has produced would help to avoid.

Time will tell whether Mormons will continue to turn inward, as the Muslims did 1000 years ago, or whether they will jettison their literal beliefs that are producting the mind virus I just described. What makes this particularly interesting is that a process that occurred in the Muslim world over centuries will be compressed into a few years within North American Mormonism as a result of the average Mormon educational level and access to information through the internet. This will supercharge the move toward either ignorance and the denial of science, or rationality.

My bet is that we will see a polarization within Mormonism quickly develop. The old guard do not know and will not be prepared to learn, so their behavior will not be affected. The real battle for hearts and minds will occur in the generation that is now under 30 years of age, and even more importantly with their children.

A friend told me recently about the radical changes that have occurred during the last decade on some Hutterite (like the Old Order Amish) colonies in Alberta (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite - this article does not capture the extent of this change as it was described to me).

Thirty years ago when I lived near these people many of them still did not have televisions, radio, and had virtually no contact with the outside world. Now many of them are almost indistinguishable from other rural folk. And many others still dress differently but have television, the internet and a degree of intellectual and behavioral freedom that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. That is, their worldview and culture has radically changed within a short time. And, a small number of hardcore traditionalists have become stricter than ever in their lifestyles (see for example http://www.perefound.org/towhom.html).

My bet is that during the next two decades we will see something similar occur within Mormonism as the generation of Mormon internet children reach maturity.

Best,

bob
topic image
Eternal Companions
Tuesday, Feb 14, 2006, at 07:56 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Grandpa smoked. I don't recall learning this any more than I learned that he was a tall, bald, Mormon farmer. His smoking caused my mother and her sisters no end of angst. Because of their behaviour when together, I still associate cigarettes with whispers and tears . Smoking was a terrible sin. And, it had made Grandpa sick.

Grandpa died when I was 11. Emphysema. He was in his 60s. It was a sad funeral. But I came away with the immensely relieving sense that somehow Grandpa had been forgiven for his sins - even the smoking - and would be in the Celestial Kingdom waiting for us IF we were spiritual enough to get there.

I was near the tail end of around 50 grandchildren, and was one of the few who lived far from Grandpa and Grandma. We visited the farm occasionally - maybe 15 times during the part of those eleven years I have some chance of remembering. Grandpa was a stern shadow during those visits. I recall him chopping the head off a chicken and telling me that it was after me when it starting flopping around. I was maybe three or four, and spent a good part of the next hour beneath my mother's broad skirt, wrapped around her leg. Oddly though, I can't remember the sound of his voice or ever seeing him smile, but have a clear image of Grandpa him walking through the spindly crab apple orchard behind "Grandma's house", far enough away that I couldn't see the wisp of smoke that no doubt followed him.

Grandma could also be mean. Scraping a living out of a dry-land farm and cow-calf operation in Canada's Southern Alberta made tough people. Winter temperatures often hit -30 Celcius and during the summer hit the other side of the scale. Lots of wind. Almost no rain. If crops didn't fail, markets did.

And Grandma was around hordes of grandkids. We were more like a plague of locusts for her than some kind of treat. She moved fast and demanded order. If you got in her way or broke a rule she gave you reason to remember the experience.

Grandma married a man named George within a few years of Grandpa's death. They didn't have a real wedding or discuss their plans with anyone. They just went down to the Town Hall, had their marriage formalized in the simplest possible way, and moved in together. I am not sure which followed which, and never wondered until writing this.

Mom's explanation of Grandma's remarriage was a bit red-faced. And with her sisters there was clucking about why Grandma "needed" to do this. She was, after all, going to be in the Celestial Kingdom with Grandpa. This was another of those facts that would be silly to state - like announcing that the Sun was for sure going to rise tomorrow. So a marriage to someone else seemed a bit - well - dirty.

Grandma's marriage to George was only "temporal" (which I learned meant "only for this life"). But (sigh) Grandpa George would "keep Grandma company until she could be with Grandpa again" and she would perform a similar service for George since he was a widower. This was one of those "enduring to the end" things and Grandma needed a little help to endure. That Grandma resorted to this suggested a weakness since she did not simply wait for her reunion with Grandpa.

There was some purposeful vagueness around whether George's wife was waiting for him in the Celestial Kingdom, and whether he was going there himself. George was not as spiritual a man as Grandpa was remembered to be. But oddly, Grandpa George made Grandma happier than anyone could remember seeing her. This ensured his eventual acceptance into our family. And after a time, there was no more discussion, or even hinting, about the Celestial Kingdom relative to Grandma, Grandpa or George.

When Grandma and George married he was in his late 70s or early 80s. They lived in Grandma's little white house on one of the clown-shoe wide streets "in town". She had moved in there from the farm after Grandpa died, and the house always smelled a little like decay and mothballs.

Grandma had a number of odd, and strongly held, beliefs such as that vacuums wore out carpets. She swept her carpets and lost patience quickly with grandsons who suggested that this didn't make sense. These she would dismiss with a quick turn of her head and a tone of voice that warned even the most obtuse against bringing the issue up again.

George didn't have a lot to say when company was over or while he was at family events. He was almost deaf and rather than make people repeat themselves, he smiled a lot. But when drawn into conversation with a loud enough question, he usually had something funny or interesting to say. And Grandma looked more at peace during these times than any others I recall.

I moved to Grandpa and Grandma's farm, then run by my uncle, for a year of high school. This gave me a chance to get to know Grandma, and since Grandpa George was her companion by then, I got to know him too.

Most Wednesdays I would go from basketball practise after school over to Grandma's for dinner so that I wouldn't have to go all the way out to the farm and then come back in for "Mutual", as Young Mens was then called. And after Mutual I would often return to Grandma's house to spend the night. This reduced the irritating financial and other burdens an extra teenage presence imposed on my uncle and his wife. Even through my well-above average adolescent stupor I could feel the tension I caused in their home.

My uncle simply said "yes" when asked to assume the duty of helping his youngest sister reform her wayward son. This put my aunt in a tough spot, as a result of which she often bit (or at least tried to bite) her tongue while doing her best to cope with this challenge on top of running a farm household, dealing with her own five children who were still at home, and managing her roles as grandmother and Bishop's wife. So having me out of the house one night a week worked well for everyone.

Hving dinner, bedding down (often after a cup of Postum or herbal tea) and having Breakfast with Grandma by herself exposed me to a different woman than the one I had known only while she ran huge family gatherings. She was stern, surprisingly well-informed and to my amazement, an irreverent non-conformist. As different news items came up, she would tell me without apology which family members and towns-people she approved of, which she did not and why. She was critical of local church leaders (in small ways), politicians (in big ways), and even (gasp) my high school basketball coach.

Grandma knew how both to tell jokes and laugh at them. She was learning to paint pictures but had to be cajoled into showing me what she was working on. Two of her paintings are now among my prized possessions. She comforted me in my trials with certain family members and people at church and school, and told me stories about similar challenges she had faced. And I learned a bit from her (but not nearly as much as I now wish I had) about what it was like to farm during the early part of the 1900s in Southern Alberta, and then fall in love, get married and raise a family of mostly giddy girls (five famously laughter prone sisters to one brother) on almost nothing through the Great Depression.

George tended not to participate in these conversations because as Grandma regularly reminded me in an unusually gentle tone, "He can't hardly hear a thing". Once when I came home in the middle of the night courtesy of some long-after Mutual goofing around, I saw George shuffling blindly toward me through the dark house in his underwear, headed toward the bathroom. "Good night George", I said. He continued without acknowledging me and then jumped higher than I thought possible when I had to get out of his way a few steps later. He really was deaf.

Most days George drove the 10 highway minutes that separated town from the farm he had carved out of the prairie and passed on to his sons. He "helped out" there. I am not sure how much he got done as opposed to being in the way. Well into his 80s George could beat all of the strongest cousins on my side of the family at arm wrestling. He was a diminutive, good-humoured, bull of a man. "Forearms like fence-posts" we used to say while bragging to our friends about the last time we had seen George, with a faint, satisfied smile, put down the arm of one of our strongest, reddest faced, cousins. This became a right of passage of sorts - being strong enough to think you could take Grandpa George and then being publicly humiliated. But as George aged his became one of the several vehicles fo which everyone else in town looked.

George's driving habits were well-known. He went to the farm every morning and later "uptown" (as opposed to "downtown" where other people went) to meet his friends at the Coffee Shop. I often wondered where you get "uptown" and "downtown" when one side of one block holds all a town's commercial establishments, but that is how it was.

In any event, George was so short that he could barely see over the dash board of his car. He often drove on the wrong side of the road and took baffling routes to get from point A to B. But I doubt that being taller would have made much difference. Grandma once pressed him into service to drive me several blocks to a game or meeting of some kind, and from then on I made sure I had an alibi whenever she offered this. Driving with George took more curage than I had. Grandma never drove with him. George was at that stage of life where the merger of time and space that Einstein talks about becomes real.

The rules of the road around town for people like George were clear. His license could have been taken away long before, but everyone in town knows each other so well that they exercise remarkable constraint regarding this issue. They know their turns will come. So, if you hit George while he was driving or he hit you, it was your fault - kind of like touching a hot stove and getting burned. You could see George coming and it was your responsibility to give him a wide berth, even if that meant turning into someone's driveway or parking in the ditch for a few seconds.

Eventually George passed away. And then Grandma. We mourned them each in turn, and were grateful for the way in which they brightened each others' lives, and provided a foundation in so many ways for ours. It was not until today that I realized that though I was a faithful Mormon when Grandma died, I never thought of her as joining Grandpa. Nor did I picture her with George. My mind had suppressed the hard question of to whom did Grandma belong in the Mormon eternity.

I had the chance to be with one of my cousins a few nights ago and talked about some of these things for the first time in many years. She had forgotten that I had the chance to get to know Grandma in the relatively intimate way I did. After a few stories, she asked me if Grandma drank "her tea" when I stayed at her house.

"What are you talking about?" I asked, shock registering all over my face. "Her tea? She drank tea?"

"Sure", said my cousin. "Mom told us that she tried to quit for years - kind of like Grandpa with smoking - but she just couldn't. It had a real hold on her. I can't believe you didn't know about this. All the other cousins do. And you lived with her? I used to see her tea pot and bags just sitting there on the counter."

I was stunned.

"I suppose you didn't notice that Grandpa George drank coffee."

My expression provided the answer.

"Yup", she said. "He had his coffee making equipment along with Grandma's tea brewing stuff there at the house. And he went to the coffee shop pretty much every day to have a cup or two with his friends."

I had never wondered until that moment - over 30 years since I regularly saw Grandma and Grandpa George - what he might have been doing every day in the only coffee shop in town other than visiting with his Jack or non-Mormon farmer friends. In fact, I had not wondered how a "coffee shop" managed to stay in business in a town that was 90+% Mormon. I assumed, without ever thinking about it, that they must sell a lot of stuff other than coffee.

Grandpa, Grandma and George were all from a generation of Mormons I know a lot about as a result of the reading I have done during the past three years. Their habits were formed during a time before the degree of uniform behaviour now required of Mormons came into effect. And it must have been stressful for them as their community's behavioural standards first changed and then became more rigid.

I knew that Grandpa had his "problem". But Grandma and George? It had never occurred to me that they were anything other than standard issue Mormons, though I knew that George did not take church that seriously.

What fascinated me the most is that when the rest of the family knew about Grandma's tea habit that she would go out of her way to hide it from me. She knew I was heterodox, and perhaps that is what motivated her. But I spent many evenings and mornings with her during that year, and I liked tea. I had starting drinking it a year or two before and if Grandma had offered me a cup I would have happily joined her. She must have put her stuff, and George's, away each of the many times I came over.

As is the case with so many other aspects of my Mormon life, as I think about my experience with Grandpa, Grandma and George, and what their lives must have been like, I regret that we did not celebrate much more than we did.

We appreciated George but not as we should have. What a blessing he was for Grandma. They fell in love! They made each other riotously happy for a time, as lovers do. And they helped each other find deep contentment for many years.

And I don't know much about Grandpa, but I do know about the life he and Grandma stared down together. It brimmed with hardship. While I wish he could have remained with her and enjoyed their declining years, since that was not possible we should have had the biggest party we could afford when Grandma and George fell in love. Instead, they snuck off to formalize their relationship, and then kept their heads down while people whispered.

What a shame it is that Grandma could not have shared with me how she dealt with the conflict between the way she chose to live and what her religious community attempted to make her do. Given how non-conformist she was in other ways, it does not surprise me that she cut against the grain with regard to the word of wisdom while holding a temple recommend the whole time. How much guilt did that cause her? How did she rationalize it? She was a smart, strong willed lady. I would have benefited from her perspective with regard to these things and many others of the soul. And I now feel more kinship with her than ever. My saltiness and insistence on charting my own course likely find some of their genetic roots in her.

George, as far as I know, did not hold consistently hold a temple recommend and simply lived his life as he saw fit while going to church occasionally. I was not close enough to have expected him to confide his deepest feelings in me, but would have been grateful were he prepared to do this.

It makes me ache to think of these fine people in the last years of heroic pioneer lives feeling censure from family and community members as a result of big things like falling in love and making each other immensely happy, and little things like drinking coffee and tea. And now that I see Grandpa in context as well, his smoking was nothing. He is a shadow in my life instead of a laughing grandfather largely because of the guilt that habit produced in him. He felt unclean. How tragic.

Guilt within the Mormon and other conservative religious communities has long been a stifling burden for many people. One of my friends, Joe Staples, is a talented writer who recently finished his PhD at the University of Arizona. He once shared with me the following poem.

"In one of his lucid hours, I could see a great anger come over him. He would not look at me or anyone else in the room, and seemed to wish we would all just go away. I asked him, "Are you angry?"

"Yes."

"Because you're still here?"

"Yes."

"Do you pray?"

"No."

"Why not?"

"Don't want to."

It was a surprise to me that my father, who had always seemed very prayerful and spiritually minded, would refuse to pray as Death approached. I wanted him to be faithful; I needed him to be heroic and stare Death down while telling his Heavenly Father that he was coming home. And that was my greatest betrayal; at the moment of his quintessential humanity, I asked him to be more than human.

Nearly ten years later I look back on the final week of his life, seeking to atone for the small injustices I perpetrated at his most vulnerable. He lived and died under the immense weight of a guilt he was never able to set aside. He was a better man than most, and far better than he believed himself to be.

But I stand now by the riverside, Dad, and am here to lay down my heavy load. Let me take yours, too, and lay it in the cool shade of the trees. We carried our loads a long time - picked them up from those who bore us. But we'll lay them down and carry instead my laughing children. We'll study guilt no more; we'll fish in the stream and sail paper boats and watch the grasses wave in the current. This atonement, too, flows both ways." (Joe P. Staples, Personal Correspondence, March 19, 2003)

As we harmonize our lives with reality, counterproductive guilt will bother us less and we will become more attuned to an inner voice that we have trained to warn us of self deception, approaching danger, and the opportunity to do good.

I now celebrate these grandparents lives - all three of them. The respected biologist Ursula Goodenough says that "Life is like a coral reef. We each leave behind the best, the strongest deposit we can so that the reef can grow. But what's important is the reef."

These were wonderful reef builders and having both experienced them in person and now having the opportunity to learn from them as I see more of their experience in light of my own, I choose to build my little bit of the reef differently than they built theirs. My children and loved ones will know of my inner most feelings - my loves, hates, struggles, triumphs and failures. They will know what I value and why I live as I do. I wish them to free them to explore their world in the broadest possible context, decide what they value, and have the greatest possible chance to bring that into being. So I will share that context as I see as well as I am able to do so.

I want my children to be content with their place in the reef; to enjoy life's miracle while it lasts; to learn to pay more attention to the tiny part of the miracle that is before them, moment by moment; and think less about those parts of the future that are beyond their influence. I aspire to all of this myself as well.

I find in my grandparents' lives many positive lessons, and at least one that is both negative and profoundly important. That is, I will not allow the innocent ignorance of my social group and their beliefs with regard to an improbable future after death to leach the color out of the wonderful picture life has painted and laid before me. I will, rather, immerse myself in life; revel in it; encourage it to seep into my every pore, and make of me what it will.

Life is so much more wonderful than I could have imagined a few years ago.
topic image
Magical Thinking Interferes With Rational Decision Making - A Meditation On The Thoughtful Mormon’s Choice Between Passing On Inherited Irrationality And “leaving The Fold”
Wednesday, Feb 15, 2006, at 08:20 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Magical Thinking
Interferes with Rational Decision Making -
A Meditation on the Thoughtful Mormon’s Choice Between
Passing on Inherited Irrationality and “Leaving the Fold”
bob mccue
February 11, 2006
http://mccue.cc/bob/spirituality.htm

Introduction

Rational forces have consistently throughout human history overcome magical thinking and other forms of irrationality. However, it often takes a depressingly long time for the majority of even the best informed human groups to accept what with the benefit of hindsight appears to be an obvious best practise, and humans are particularly obtuse when it comes to seeing the irrationality in ideas or behaviors that are foundational to their own social groups (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.does%20mormonism%20cause%20irrational%20belief.pdf). Both history and current social reality relative to this point provide eloquent testimony to how the individual perception of reality tends to bend to group opinion. Our evolutionary history as small group animals who were dependant on a safe place within a social group for our survival is likely responsible for this (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.denial.pdf, under the heading “What Causes Denial - A Synthesis” at page 119).

The struggle between rational and irrational forces in the religious world has been nicely chronicled by many scholars (see Karen Armstrong, “The Battle for God” for a particularly compelling read), and we find in the Mormon group a microcosm of this conflict. Many Mormons are at a tipping point with regard to this issue as a result of the ongoing collision between irrational Mormon beliefs and the information rich perspective provided by the Internet. The experience of other groups throughout history suggests that the direction those who remain faithful to Mormonism take on this issue will largely determine the richness of life their descendants will enjoy for generations to come.

I will conclude that individual Mormons who become aware of these issues have a choice to make of unprecedented importance as a result of what we know about how individual decision making behaviour tends to be largely determined by the behaviour supported by our dominant social group, and how slowly the behaviour of social groups tend to upgrade toward best available practises in this regard.

History

It is hard to sort out some aspects of early science from magic since science to a large degree emerged from magic, and the same people practiced both (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy). For example, when we look back on even fairly recent medical practises they often seem more magical than scientific. Think of bloodletting, for example, a practise that was common well into the 1800s (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting, and see John Brooke’s “The Refiner’s Fire” for a review of how the magical/alchemical tradition influenced early Mormonism).

Ideas such as bloodletting represented the best science of their day and we should assume that some of our science based practices will be regarded by future generations much as we regard bloodletting. This is because the scientific method has built into it a number of mechanisms that over time tend to winnow out inaccurate ideas while encouraging the adoption and use of accurate ones. That is, due to the diversity of opinion and competition among a huge group of people with different interests within the scientific community, it is by far the best source of accurate information about reality that humankind has ever seen. However, the scientific community’s self-correcting mechanism is far slower than most of us realize, and worse than that, it takes enormous amounts of time for even the most important, demonstrably accurate scientific ideas to penetrate the popular consciousness.

For example, in the mid-1800s Ignaz Semmelweis (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis), a Viennese obstetrician, carefully observed and reported that deaths after certain medical procedures declined from above 10% to below 1% after a hand and instrument washing program was instituted in various hospitals. The medical community viciously attacked him for taking this position. If he was right, they had been killing a significant percentage of their patients. Few ideas could be more abhorrent to medical practitioners and so their resistance was understandable to an extent. It took years in some places and decades in others for Semmelweis’ innovation to be adopted in the most educated corners of human civilization and in the meantime doctors and nurses continued to kill a significant percentage of their patients.

This and countless other examples from the history of science can be marshaled to show that it takes a lot more time what we assume to change minds that have formed around a way of doing things, regardless of how wrong. As both Max Planck and Thomas Kuhn have been reported to observe (with tongues no doubt only partly in cheek), “Science progresses on funeral at a time”. While this may be true, Einstein’s insight is more useful. He said that the theory we believe largely determines what we can see. Semmelweis’ observation was inconsistent with the general medical theory of his day. However, when the germ theory of disease was eventually developed (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory) hand washing and other forms of hygienic practise began to dominate hospital procedure and Semmelweis was recognized as a visionary.

If easily demonstrable, life-saving concepts like post-surgical hygienic practises are resisted, we should expect that ideas that run against the social norm and have more remote connections to our wellbeing should take much longer to be accepted. These, however, are often of immense importance and since they are not noticed can cripple entire civilizations.

For example, in the early 1600s Galileo used the newly invented telescope to revolutionize our understanding of Earth’s place in the Universe. It took at least a couple of centuries for his ideas to be widely accepted, and in 1992 the Catholic Church officially acknowledged its error in suppressing his work and in effect killing him. The Catholic Church’s tardiness in acknowledging its error is likely responsible in part for the staggering 1996 poll which reported that 20% of adult Americans believed the Sun to
revolve around the Earth (see http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1996/05/24/MN67867.DTLandhw).

Another of our most important innovators, Charles Darwin, has also been poorly received. Recent polls (see http://www.arachnoid.com/opinion/religion.html) have found that:

• 35% of US adults believe that evolutionary theory is well supported by the evidence.

• 35% believed evolutionary theory is not well supported by the evidence.

• 29% reported that they did know enough about evolutionary theory to respond.

• 38% said that human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.

• 13% said that human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.

• 45% said God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

And lest we think that beliefs of this kind don’t really matter, recall that for centuries leading up to about 1100 CE the Muslim/Arab peoples led humankind with regard to secular studies such as math and science, and they were also the wealthiest and in many ways the most cultured group on Earth at the same time. At that point, religious forces gained the upper hand within Muslim society and they began to emphasize “spiritual” studies over secular, quickly lost their scientific, wealth and cultural advantages and began down the road that now has Muslims rioting and killing each other over cartoons published in Denmark and other parts of Europe (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4684652.stm). The triumph of irrationality in many parts of the Muslim is a temporary setback that has lasted, to this point, almost 1000 years.

The struggle between rational and irrational forces in the religious world has been nicely chronicled by many scholars (see Karen Armstrong, “The Battle for God” for a particularly compelling read), and we find in Mormon history a microcosm of this conflict. The direction those who remain faithful to Mormonism take on this issue will likely determine much regarding the diversity and richness of life their descendants enjoy for generations to come.

When we criticize any group (including the Mormons) for the use of “magical thinking” that impairs their decision making, what we are often saying is that they are using an outmoded kind of science. This is often the result of religious beliefs that formed during a particular period of time that were consistent with at least some of the scientific and historical data then available. However, once those beliefs form they become foundational to claims religious leaders make to God’s authority, and hence will be resisted because if they are found to be false it will undermine the authority of a group’s leaders and hence the stability of the group. Most humans unconsciously fear such destabilizing forces, and hence will resist information that tends in that direction. This means that they have ridden science’s train so far, have gotten off and refuse to acknowledge that the train has moved from that spot even as they stare at empty tracks. The forces that impel this are the same as those that caused surgeons around the world to refuse for a long time to wash their hands in spite of what Semmelweis’ careful measurement of what happened in his hospitals showed.

Many aspects of Mormon belief and practise leap into focus when considered in light of the social and scientific ideas that were dominant during the late 1700s and early 1800s. The idea that Amerindians were Hebrew descendants; the Victorian idea of progress (“eternal progress”); the roles of men and women; what it means to have individual freedom (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.are%20mormons%20free.pdf); all fall into this category.

Mormon Irrationality or Magical Thinking

I am regularly (such as last night) in conversation with well-educated Mormons who struggle when trying to deal with rational concepts related to things like science, investment strategies, politics and other purely secular matters. And I see in their struggles infections likely attributable to the magical thinking at the heart of what is required these days to be a literally believing Mormon. The conversation in which I participated last night that caused this essay had to do with an investment opportunity that a bright, successful young Mormon had been offered. Some Mormons still respect my judgement regarding investments that seem not to require "the Spirit", and he wanted to run by me what had been proposed to him. I was happy to listen for a few minutes and tell him what I thought.

Five seconds into my friend's explanation, I gave him a thumbs down. He has been offered the chance to get in on the ground floor of a “perpetual motion machine” that is going to revolutionize the energy and automotive industries. I summarized the many similar "opportunities" I have encountered during my career and how each of them caused a lot of investors to lose their money while usually also being sincerely believed in by a “genius” inventor who the scientific community “did not understand”. I explained how humans are congenitally (it seems) unable to resist huge upside propositions like this that have little to no support in the scientific theory that ultimately must explain how they work. That is, the speculative stock and real estate “investment” industries and Las Vegas are kept in business by the human inability to assess with reasonable accuracy what a small chance to win a large amount of money is worth. Our greed consistently causes us to pay more for chances like this than we should. And promoters of various types have from time immemorial taken advantage of this human weakness. It is far better to be a seller of chances to invest of this type than a buyer. At least, I told him, the people in Las Vegas are upfront about how they make their money. Everyone knows that most gamblers lose money and the “house” gets rich. And so most people who gamble treat the cost of gambling as the price of entertainment. Those invest in speculative stocks or real estate or multi-level marketing schemes are often sucked into the same game on the basis that they really do have a reasonable chance to make money.

And, I noted, when an idea has been around for a while and the people who have the most expertise in related fields have passed on it, you can be pretty certain that the idea does not work. We are far better off following the advice of the people with the greatest experience and expertise in a give field instead of trusting our instincts. This is because we are relatively ignorant; the experts are relatively wise and their collective judgement is likely to be the most accurate evidence available as to what will work and what will not; and humans (like us) have a proven tendency to each be overconfident in their own judgement (see James Surowiecki, “The Wisdom of Crowds”). Again, this is what shady and incompetent investment promoters have intuited forever, and why our securities laws require a certain amount of “due diligence” of such promoters. This constrains their natural tendency to exaggerate while not having done the work required to know what real scientists say about their investment proposal, or worse yet, suppressing that knowledge because it contradicts what the “know” to be “true”. Does that approach to reality ring a bell, by the way?.

My friend was unconvinced. He told me that NASA and other branches of the US government were "looking at this concept seriously". I said that if the concept had any material chance of success, there were countless big companies that would have already snapped it up. I referenced (without using its name) the Ballard Battery organization (see http://www.ballard.com/be_a_customer/transportation/electric_drives) as an example of a relatively modest technology that has attracted investment capital from some of the world's largest corporations. A perpetual motion machine would make Ballard look like peanuts and so if it were any good there would be no need to present this idea to people like him who have no means to assess the technology’s merits. I thought later that I should have told my friend that if I had the details of the investment proposal I could reverse engineer the value the inventor is putting on this technology, and I am willing to bet that it is far less than the value the market places on inferior technologies (like Ballard’s) that have only been proven to have a reasonable chance of success. This approach would sound a warning bell of another kind.

My friend cited (no doubt using information the “inventor” had given him) planetary motion and the movement of electrons etc. around the nucleus of atoms as “proof” that perpetual motion machines were possible. I explained a little about the big bang theory of cosmology, what happens in black holes and how the laws of entropy work to explain that the analogies he was using did not support the idea his inventor was selling. I could tell that he remained unconvinced, and heard him later in the evening planning a trip to meet the inventor in person.

In short, my young friend did not take seriously the judgement of the scientific community or of wealthy investors (like General Motors or NASA) who rely upon the judgement of scientists to make billion dollar investment decisions. I suggested to him the places he should look to assess the merits of this invention on a scientific basis, how perpetual motion machines have been an inventors' Holy Grail forever and how credible scientists long ago abandoned the idea and have focused instead on converting energy from one form (atomic, fossil fuel, sun, wind, etc.) into another that is more convenient for us to use. But he did not seem interested in this. He had heard about something that “felt good” to him, and that feeling was more important (at this point at least) than anything he might find in a science book. Where would a well educated young Mormon get an idea like that?

I have run into similar attitudes in the Mormon community related to much more important issues.

• The world overpopulated? Don’t be silly. Science will be able to continue to expand our ability to support life on Earth indefinitely.

• Global warming? What is all the fuss about? There is not enough evidence yet that humankind has anything to do with global warming for us to be concerned.

• Godless Europeans (and particularly the REALLY godless Scandinavians) have fewer social problems than Middle America? Don’t be ridiculous. That is impossible. And no I don't want to read anything about this.

• Young Mormons marry too early, have children too soon and hence have marital experiences that lead to an increased incidence of depression? That could not be further from the truth. The surveys the Church does show that active Mormons are among the happiest people on Earth.

Across a broad range of critical issues Mormons tend to be ignorant of the relevant science, and when the science is presented to them they tend to accept even the fringiest minority positions as solid support for their dogmatic beliefs. You can always find a minority position based in science to support your view, including that alien abductions are real, the Earth is 10,000 years old and the Holocaust did not occur. The rational thing for us non-scientists to do is govern ourselves by what the majority of well informed scientists have to say on any given topic.

My young friend is one of those Mormons who has struggled through the evidence related to the Book of Mormon and other aspects of Mormonism, and has decided that despite the fact that he doesn’t like a lot of what Mormon leaders do and have done in the past, that his experience with Mormonism overall (and most importantly how he feels when "The Spirit" moves him) is more important than anything else. So, he has decided against the evidence that the God Joseph Smith taught about is real and gave Joseph Smith special authority that was passed on to Gordon Hinckley, etc. For example, the scientific evidence regarding DNA relative to the Book of Mormon's historicity (see http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/magazine/feature_article/2004/09/22) is interesting, but does not prove anything. Again, how we feel is more important than any evidence of this kind.

Is it surprising that the same mind that would justify Mormonism against the scientific and historical evidence in the manner just noted would also:

• be prepared to invest in a perpetual motion machine that has not scientific support,

• spend time developing a Muti-Level Marketing "business" (Amway, for example) when the statistics regarding it show that 99+ percent of those who get involved lose money, not to mention creating painful false expectations and wasting years of time in many cases,

• not care about global overpopulation or ecological issues,

• get married at age 21 right after returning from his mission because “the Lord revealed to him on his first date with XXXX that she was to be his wife”,

• encourage his wife to quit her job and start having babies “because that is the Lord’s will” even though he does not have a reliable means of supporting their family and she has a great job,

• move from one city to another because he feels like the Lord has something for him to do there, even though job prospects there are inferior to those where he already lives, the cost of living is higher there, commuting distances are worse there, etc.,

• start taking anti-depressants instead of seeing a counselor who would help him to understand that his day to day pattern of living is virtually guaranteed to cause depression,

• tell his gay son that it would be best if all the gay people in the world were put on an island and blown up.

I have run into each of these situations during the past little while.

Non-Mormons do silly things too of course, and as noted above, ignorance with regard to science is far from a uniquely Mormon problem. However, Mormon beliefs create one of the many worldviews that encourage some kinds of science to be denied. And this should be expected to encourage the denial of science in other similar situations, such as where emotional experience (including all kinds of greed and fear) or social trends conflict with the best advice science has to offer. Interestingly, Buddha said greed and fear should be resisted because they are the source of most human trouble. Scientific knowledge generally helps us to do this, while belief systems like Mormonism supercharge these emotion based forces.

I therefore think it is fair to suggest a causal relationship between the Mormon need to deny science in order to maintain their religious beliefs and the Mormon tendency I observe toward making other kinds of bad decisions. If Mormons begin to pay more attention to the wisdom science has produced, their decision making will improve.

In general, I subscribe to the division or labor between science, philosophy and religion described at http://progressiveliving.org/religion/culture_war.htm. And, there is no reason to believe that giving science precedence in its sphere of influence as this and many other books and articles define it will erode the moral fabric of society. In fact, there is good reason to believe that the attempt to retain Mormon belief and a connection to the Mormon social group in light of science will produce immoral behaviour. This is one of the reasons for which Mormon leaders in the early 1900s abandoned their institutionalized lying about polygamy. They became concerned that this endemic deception would canker their people. The only thing surprising to me about this conclusion is that they took so long to reach it.

In Which Direction Will Mormons Turn?

Time will tell whether Mormons will continue to turn inward, as the Muslims did 1000 years ago, or whether they will jettison their literal beliefs that are producing the mind virus I just described. What makes this particularly interesting is that a process that occurred in the Muslim world over centuries will be compressed into a few years within North American Mormonism as a result of the average Mormon educational level and access to information through the internet. This will supercharge the move toward either ignorance and the continued denial of science, or rationality.

I expect to see a polarization within Mormonism quickly develop. The vast majority of the old guard do not have the perspective to recognize that their worldview is deficient, and will not be prepared to absorb the information required to see that they may be a problem, so their behavior will not change. The real battle for hearts and minds will occur in the generation that is now under 30 years of age, and even more importantly, for their children. Some will stay with their parents’ paradigm and others will either leave Mormonism or radically redefine the role of religion in their lives.

A friend told me recently about the radical changes that have occurred during the last decade on some Hutterite (like the Old Order Amish) colonies in Alberta (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite - this article does not capture the extent of this change as it was described to me).

Thirty years ago when I lived near these people many of them still did not have televisions, radio, and had virtually no contact with the outside world. Now many of them are almost indistinguishable from other rural folk. And many others still dress differently but have television, Internet access and degrees of intellectual and behavioral freedom that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. That is, their worldview and culture has radically changed within a short time. And, a small number of hardcore traditionalists have gone the other way (see for example http://www.perefound.org/towhom.html).

My bet is that during the next two decades we will see something similar occur within Mormonism as the current generation of Mormon Internet children reach maturity. This is likely to strengthen Mormon fundamentalist groups and see the creation of new ones as some adults flee what they perceive to be chaos and gathering evil of society and attempt to shelter their children from it. M. Night Shyamalan's “The Village” (see http://movies.about.com/library/weekly/aavillage072904.htm) provides a compelling look at this psychological space. The same forces will increase the trend toward Mormon home schooling. Mormon programmed Internet filters and portals, and Mormon sponsored university or trade schools (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Virginia_University).

On the other hand, an increasing number of Mormons in the developed world will simply terminate their affiliation with the Mormon Church, or begin to participate on their terms instead of those dictated by Mormon leaders. This trend is evident across much of the religious spectrum where we see organizations like Rick Warren’s megachurch flourish on the basis of offering a wide choice of worship and communal experience wrapped within the same amorphous dogma (see http://www.gladwell.com/2005/2005_09_12_a_warren.html), New Age belief of many kinds rising in popularity, and the decline of non-democratic institutions of most kinds across the developed world (see http://wvs.isr.umich.edu/papers/postmod.shtml).

The Mormon institutional structure should be expected to remain largely unchanged due to its paralyzingly conservative decision making mechanism. All significant changes must be unanimously approved by the 15 top leaders, all of whom are old and male. This means that little if any formal change will occur for decades unless some kind of fundamental tipping point is reached as occurred with the Community of Christ (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/undeception.pdf). I think it highly unlikely that this will occur within my lifetime.

However, an increasing degree of individual flexibility will be permitted to members as a matter of practical necessity as Stake Presidents and Bishops are faced with more and more people like me. As I was told, it does not matter what I believed as long as I keep my mouth shut and so didn’t disturb the orthodoxy of others. As long as I kept that rule, I was free to participate on whatever terms I choose. This approach has become common, and will lead increasing numbers of Mormons to lead double lives. They will attend at least some Mormon services and often hold responsible leadership positions while participating anonymously on Internet bulletin boards and email lists where they can express their real beliefs and develop a sense of community with others and clarity of self perception that can only be achieved within this mode of expression.

This will cause increasing numbers of Mormons to justifying lying (or such creative use of language that the difference between it and lying is immaterial) during temple recommend interviews when asked to confirm their beliefs. It will cause increasing number of Mormon young people to enter a baffling world of grey as they begin to understand their parents’ ambivalent position regarding religious belief, practise, what it means to keep a promise and answers questions honestly, etc. This should be expected to cause a continued erosion Mormon community’s moral fabric.

On a lighter note, these same forces will continue to cause ironies like currently serving Mormon Bishops who consult with people like me regarding how they should counsel faithful Mormons about issues related to sexual morality, sexual practises within marriage, masturbation, whether young people or mature couples should serve missions, etc. These Bishops tell me that they don’t dare discuss these questions with their Stake Presidents or other Mormon file leaders because they are out of touch with the reality related to these issues, and in any event discussions of that kind would require the revelation of the Bishop’s heterodox beliefs. Bishops of this kind are usually closet heretics who believe that they can do more good “from the inside” walking what one such man eloquently labelled the “path of inner darkness”, then they can from the outside.

The Choice

The concept that the theory and data summarized above brings into sharp focus for me can be summarized as follows:

• The influence of the group is over each individual member’s perception of reality is far more powerful that most of us realize.

• Social groups tend to take much longer than we assume to accept even easily understandable realities.

• Social groups can take centuries to grasp things like the importance of science in general while suffering terrible deteriorations in their standard of living and imposing particularly cruel and arbitrary hardships on the weaker members of their group such as women, gay persons, etc.

• Those who reject the majority scientific view tend to make worse decisions with regard to a host of important issues than those who accept science on this basis.

• The world is increasingly divided into groups that choose to accept the best wisdom science has to offer, and those who don’t.

• Once socialized to a particular worldview (science accepting or science rejecting), many people are unable to change and the influence of parents on this process declines radically once children reach their teens.

Accordingly, I should expect that two decisions I make will echo for generations in my family. The first is how openly I will teach my children about how find wisdom and make decisions. That is, when should we give science primacy over religious dogma; where do we find the foundations of moral reasoning; etc. And the second, and by far the most important, is my choice of a social group or groups with which I choose to associate and cause my children to associate and how that group either supports or contradicts what I teach my children about how to find wisdom and make decisions.

The decision to distance oneself from Mormonism is hard. Great sacrifices are required of many who go that route. I have attempted to outline above what is at stake and why great sacrifices are usually justified. While I could never know enough about another person’s circumstances to weigh the costs and benefits in her case, I think it is reasonable to say that in most cases the benefits easily justify the costs; that our fears are overblown; that we do not know enough about what awaits us on the outside to understand how much we and our loved ones have to gain by starting a new life; and that most talk of “letting the kids make up their own minds” and “making personal sacrifices to avoid hurting my wife, my parents, etc.” are rationalizations for avoiding the personal discomfort required to take arrows in the back while leaving the Mormon community and facing the uncertainty of forming new relationships (see Lee Kirkpatrick, “Attachment, Evolution and the Psychology of Religion” or Steven Hassan, “Releasing the Bonds”, for a summary of why leaving a close-knit religious group should be expected to be extremely difficult).

I will conclude with a note that I received last seek from someone with whom I started to correspond last summer.

“February 7, 2006

Bob,

Just going through some of my old email and came across this one [a note I sent to him in the summer of 2006 answering some questions for him and trying to put an obviously anxious person at ease by sharing my experience with him].

So much has changed since then. Life is like a whole different reality since leaving the LDS Church. I am so much happier and have found a relationship with God that I never knew possible. It continues to grow and develop each day. I continue to search and learn of spiritual truth and hope to one day completely understand it all. However, I know now to seek God in trying to understand God. I certainly value the opinions of others but I never take for granted what they are saying and always seek to verify or dispel what they are telling me.

I just wanted to take a moment and let you know how much your writings and common sentiments gave me the courage to explore what I needed to.

Again, thank you and I hope this note finds you in good spirits and God's blessings.

Bill”

Sharing this kind of thing is useful in my view because it illustrates how quickly the world can move from dark to light when one has the courage to press ahead at a time when it is terrifying to do that.

I note that I do not necessarily agree with the beliefs this fellow now has, but do not generally do more in email exchanges than you see here. I make my thoughts available for what they are worth, and if that is useful to someone, great.

Conclusion

Well-informed Mormons have to tough choice to make that should be expected to profoundly influence their families for generations to come. If they remain within a conservative, irrational social group, ignorance and difficulty for their family are likely to follow for a long time. And if they leave that group, they are likely to experience significant discomfort but more importantly, they must face the terrifying prospect of disagreeing with their dominant social group. Throughout most of human history, it usually meant death to do this and our biology was set up on that basis.

As is the case with most decisions, perspective is often what is required to overcome fear and make good decisions. I hope the perspective in this essay is useful to some who read it.
topic image
How Far Can We See?
Monday, Feb 20, 2006, at 08:46 AM
Original Author(s): Anonymous
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world. Arthur Schopenhauer,

Introduction

I try to help my children see how wonderful and deep our experience with this world of ours can be and don’t feel that I get through to them that well. The occasional hint that a bit of message is sinking in keeps me going. I am also encouraged by research that indicates that what our children observe us do is more important than what we tell them about basic attitudes toward life. So, I will continue to relish my own experience and attempt to share my enthusiasm with them as I can.

I was recently struck by a few parallels between the difficulties I must overcome as I try to teach my children the importance of perspective in general and some of the basic problems I see within Mormonism, and want to note those before the slip through the increasingly rickety information processing system that is my brain. I will conclude that Mormon belief tends to limit perspective, hence creating an additional challenge for those who are trying to excite Mormons about the kind of thing this essay describes.

The main idea I am trying to get through to my children is that a great deal of what matters to most people about life is determined by the breadth of their perspective – how far they can see. This in turn is determined primarily by three things:

• access to information;

• perspective building habits that determine the degree to which they consistently spend time using that access to broaden their point of view; and

• the number of ideas they generate and put into use.

Only a modest amount of intelligence is required, thank goodness. The bulk of us in the “average” range have more than enough brainpower to live highly productive, satisfying lives.

Access to Information

We are awash in information. The key is to find the desire to access it, and to learn how to do that. This requires the development of a few basic skills. Each of these helps determine how far we can see in ways as important as the telescope, microscope, maps, the printing press and other important innovations did for prior generations. Some of these skills are new, but most are old.

• Interpretation. This sounds silly perhaps, but reading in one language is still the backbone of communication. Those who read widely have a broader context within which to understand and work with ideas. They also have better writing and speaking skills since the nature of language is drilled into us as we read. Kids are most likely to read what interests them. One of our sons owes his ability to read to Calvin and Hobbes. Another to Harry Potter. We read to them when they were small, and try to find the magic bullet for them as they get older – whatever will catch their interest and get them reading on their own. I used the word “interpretation” though because as we mature we find all kinds of other important sources of information. How well we listen and ask question as we network informally at the office, in the community and at home determines our access to important sources of information. One of my most successful clients does not read a lot, but spends hours every day on the cell phone trading information with his network of business associates and friends. He stays amazingly well informed about the critical issues relevant to his business primarily through this means. This unorthodox style would not suit most business owners, but in his niche it not only works, but works extremely well. As we learn more about our culture we read the tea leaves of which books sell, which headlines appear and which don’t, how others around us react to movies, which aspects of our artistic heritage fall in and out of favour, etc. Each of these functions involves absorbing and interpreting information of various types.

• Expression. This includes expressing ourselves through symbols whether spoken, written, drawn or otherwise. The most basic skill in this regard will for the foreseeable future be writing. Many commentators have noted how the internet is changing our culture in this regard. More people are writing more words than ever. And we are not talking about a moderate upward trend. This is a leap of many orders of magnitude. Much of this communication might be regarded as pointless. The same can be said of most speech. But most written communication is good exercise. When combined with lots of reading, this can be expected to naturally develop talent. I encourage our kids to email their friends and to develop groups of friends that extend around the world. As we meet people from other places and I see the sparks of friendship in the air, I try to facilitate internet friendships. Most of my efforts are fruitless. But occasionally something good has resulted.

• Science literacy. Science has always been important and will become increasingly so as communications technologies continue to dominate the creation of culture as well as economics, and the merger of technology and biology reshape life on more levels than we can now imagine. Many of the most important social, financial, political and moral opportunities and pitfalls during the foreseeable future will have large scientific components. Even those who are not inclined toward a career in the sciences are foolish to neglect that part of their education. I have a library full of science related books and encourage our kids, to no avail so far, to read them. However, as I read I regularly come across ideas that I know will interest them and this leads to conversation. Helen Fisher’s research related to how men and women signal sexual interest to each other lit up one daughter recently. A son was fascinated by the most recent speculation as to how a meteor approaching earth could not be prevented from hitting us and how that cataclysm would likely play out, step by grisly step. Another was interested in how groups make decisions that are wiser in many cases than what their wisest members are capable of.

• Basic computer and Internet skills. It is not hard to convince kids to become Internet literate. It is more challenging to get them excited about how to use this tool find information. We try to use school assignments for this. But more importantly, I ask my kids questions and then encourage then to use the Internet to find answers in the same fashion I do. And when they come to me with questions, I walk them through the process I use to find information including the interesting side trips that often come up while I am researching ideas that interest me.

I characterize these skills as access to high peaks with great views; or to powerful telescopes that allow us to see what is coming or where we are doing; etc.

Perspective Building Habits

The longer I live the clearer it becomes that we respond primarily to necessity. Some necessities are more obvious and powerful than others. We need food, water, safety, sleep, etc. and will do almost anything to meet our needs in this regard. Less obvious but equally important needs include intimacy of various kinds, the approval of others in our social groups, opportunities to “self actualize”, etc.

We are likely to do things on a regular basis only if we perceive them to be necessary. And many of the activities that we prefer and that are readily available to us have an anaesthetizing quality, such as most television watching, some computer use and certain kinds of food and drug consumption. On the other hand, other activities that are extremely important and enjoyable once we are engaged in them seem like work to us and are avoided.

For example, Martin Seligman (see “Authentic Happiness”) and other researchers have shown that depression in adults and children is strongly correlated with large amounts of unstructured leisure time and insufficient hours each day spent engaged in challenging activities that require high levels of concentration. Ironically, the adults and children who are not depressed and have the kind of challenges in their lives that would predict mental health tend to say that they wish they had more unstructured time and fewer challenges.

The lesson in this research is that our instincts mislead us to a large degree both in terms of what we need to be happy, and what is likely to put us in a position to choose how we wish to spend our time. We can fight this be using other instincts that we know from our experience pulls in the opposite direction. For example:

• Rewards. Most of us don’t like exercising and yet feel good when we do it. One of our young sons regularly thanks me for cajoling him into getting onto our exercise equipment, and yet is hard to persuade him to do that. I am the same way myself – once working out I marvel at how good it feels and yet don’t do it as often as I should. So, our 11-year son gets paid to work out. Not much, but enough to get him a 30+ minute workout (once he is going he is happy to keep going) at least three times a week. Once this becomes a habit, it has a reasonable chance of continuing under its own steam. I see no problem with doing this for all kinds of things – reading books; writing book reports; earning awards at school including certain grade levels; etc.

• Groups. We are small group animals by evolution and so are powerfully influenced by the groups with which we associate. And there is lots of chance to choose to be associated with different groups. Kids who are on sports teams and have committed to do things that will help their team are far more likely to be active than other kids. The same applies to kids who are on the debate team, in the art or drama club, or involved in other group oriented activities, including those as low key as taking an evening ceramics class. While I am taking a class of any kind I am far more likely to spend my free time doing things related to what I am learning in that class, and much of what I choose to do will be derived from cues I take from other people in the class. That is, I tend to become a bit more like the people in my class as long as I continue to associate with them. So, if I want to make progress in the development any kind of skill all I have to do is sign up for a series of classes and try to meet and hang outwith other people who have some of the talents I want to cultivate.

• Competition. If we are committed to doing something, we tend to invest energy in becoming better at it. As soon as our kids are join a sports team or start attending karate or dance class, it is amazing how quickly we see their behaviour spontaneously chance to spend time working on whatever skills their activity requires. In my case, if I commit to play in a golf tournament several weeks off, I will end up at the course to practise even though the tournament does not mean anything. As the worst student in an art class I feel a special motivation to improve myself and see ample evidence around me of what I can expect if I keep practising and taking courses since I know how long some of the other students have been at it. This principle can be used to motivate all kinds of behaviour.

• Feedback. Activities that allow us to measure our progress tend to more interesting to us and easier to stick with. This is one of the reasons that computer games seem addictive. Each player can find a “level” of the game that is appropriate to his skill level; the game gives him constant feedback as to how well he is doing; and as his skill level improves he can ratchet up the way in which the game challenges him. For years we had a Karaoke machine in our home that was seldom used. Then one of the kids computer game consoles came with some software that allowed Karaoke to the “played” like a game. A track would appear on the screen that showed when the singer’s voice was on, and off, key. And the audience response (cheering and booing) both followed the on and off key pattern, and could be programmed to various levels from novice to expert. Our kids and their friends immediately started to make heavy use of this game. I have noticed that the karate lessons are kids take use this structure. The constant feedback from the instructor and progression through the belt levels performs this function. What I have learned coaching kids sports also indicates the importance of this principle. The more feedback mechanisms we can incorporate into an activity the more likely it is that we will stick with it.

There are many other similar concepts but I am running out of time and so will stop here. The key concept is that we need to understand the environment that will cause us to feel either a need or desire to engage in the activities in which we have decided we wish to engage. Each of the perspective expanding activities to which I referred above can be made the subject of rewards, connected to group or competitive activities, become the subject of feedback, etc. Increasingly we find our groups, competition and feedback from internet based communities or even computer simulation.

Idea Generation and Action

A recent study showed that success in the scientific and academic communities and IQ of above 125 did not correlate to success in terms of publishing papers, registers patents, etc. However, the consistent production of ideas did correlate with success. Even the smartest among us have a relatively few ideas that are really good. Hence, those who regularly produce ideas and then work on them over time turn a small percentage of a large number of ideas into success. Those who produce a small number of ideas and work with them have the same kind of success in percentage terms and so accomplish far less than their more prolific peers.

This concept is connected to perspective because many of the ideas we come across as we build our perspective can only be useful if acted upon. For example, I discovered a while ago a line of research that suggested that getting involved in an artistic activity would be helpful to me as I continued to find my way through the post-Mormon world. Reading and thinking about that idea was of limited use. Taking an art course, however, turned out to be of great use (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.art%...). We live through the integration of what we learn with the things we choose to do. We are part idea and part action. Either without the other is empty or even dangerous. The way we combine these elements of our life influences how we interact with other human beings; the kind of physical and mental exercise in which we engage (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.camp...); the kind of human groups to which we attach ourselves (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.star...); etc.

Perspective Limiting Mormon Belief

All belief systems organize information, including beliefs, hierarchically. That is, some kinds of information are less important than others.

The Mormon system has at the top of its belief pyramid the idea that there is a God who has mandated certain human behaviours, and those who obey His rules will receive immensely important advantages both during life and after death. The basic ideas related to these beliefs are not disprovable or legitimately questionable. For example, when Mormon and non-Mormon scientists recently used DNA evidence to question the Book of Mormon’s assertion that the Amerindians are descendants of a group of people who came to the Americas from Jerusalem, the Mormon Church responded by indicating that, "We would hope that church members would not simply buy into the latest DNA arguments being promulgated by those who oppose the church for some reason or other" (see http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-...). The implication that a scientist who points out that an assertion of fact (Amerindians areof Hebrew stock) contradicts the extant data must is opposing the Mormon Church for some unknown and presumably illegitimate reason is classically Mormon, and laughable from a scientific point of view.

In the fashion just indicated, any information that purports to question Mormon beliefs must by definition, within the Mormon system, be incorrect. Since information produced by science and the scholarly study of history questions many Mormon beliefs, science and the other scholars are wrong to this extent no matter how persuasive they evidence they put forward may appear. This perception of scholarly unreliability and bad will cannot help but diminish the stature of the scientific and scholarly community in most Mormon eyes. This is why many well educated Mormons, like me, do not take science seriously and are hence both poorly informed and apathetic with regard to many issues that require an understanding of science to be appreciated, such as our population and ecological crises.

In addition, Mormons believe that God has seen the future and is in control of a plan for this Earth that includes its termination “soon”. Mormons have believed that the end was to come “soon” since Joseph Smith’s day. All we can do is make sure we are obedient so that whether we end before the earth or it before us, we will pass into God’s presence. This focus on obedience to Mormon authority instead of learning how human behaviour impacts other humans and the Earth drains human energy away from tasks that are critically important, such as educating ourselves and others with regard to the importance of these issues while changing our behaviour as well as that of other people.

Finally, Mormonism requires a large percentage of its members discretionary time. This intensifies at age 14 when young Mormons begin to attend “Seminary”. These daily religious education classes, along with Sunday and weekday evening activities, condition and socially isolate to a degree those who participate in them. And in most parts of the world outside Utah, Seminary is held before school leading many Mormon teenagers to suffer from sleep deprivation. A Mormon sapped of time and energy is a Mormon less likely to be interested in learning anything that might question her faith, or anything at all that she does not really need to learn, for that matter.

As a result, Mormonism both limits perspective and makes many healthy activities related to learning less likely. This is ironic because one of Mormonism’s stated fundamental principles is that Christ’s message (or gospel) embraces all truth, no matter its source. Hence, from the Mormon point of view as soon as “truth” shows up, it will be embraced. This makes it sound like Mormonism should encourage the development of a broad perspective. Practically speaking, however, this principle means that what is not embraced by Mormon authorities cannot be truth. Here we find the root of most Mormon problems. Mormon authorities will not accept anything as truth that may question their authority, such as the powerfully persuasive evidence that indicates the Book of Mormon to be a 19th century production instead of ancient history. The Mormon leaders’ protection of this insignificant piece of turf has spoiled what could have been a religion that embraced a no holds barred pursuit of truth.

Accordingly, when trying to persuade a Mormon to expand her perspective the challenges I noted above regarding my children are multiplied. We still have to deal with all the instincts that pulls toward mind numbing, depressing activities. We still have to find ways to create a sense of desire or necessity regarding the activities we want them understand. And we face scepticism regarding the usefulness of science and apathy towards important actions that is caused by the belief that we are in God’s hands in the end anyways. This makes a challenging job even tougher.

Conclusion

I think it is fair to say that Mormon belief tends to limit perspective, and hence that Mormons tend not to be able to see as far as other similarly educated non-Mormons. As I continue to try to teach my children to see, I will accordingly continue to remove the scales from their and my eyes that were carefully put there by generations of well intentioned Mormon leaders and family members.
topic image
On Apologetics - Short Enough I Hope - Even For Mormon Apologists To Read Right To The End
Monday, Feb 20, 2006, at 08:39 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Introduction

"Apologetics" is the systematic defence of a position (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologet...) regardless of its legitimacy. Apologetics usually start from the proposition that a truth has been found and must be defended. Hence, dogma (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma) is found at the root of most apologetic enterprises.

Apologetics can also be understood as the opposite of real scholarly pursuit. Scholars seek understanding with regard to the real, the beautiful, the useful, etc. Science has proven to be the most reliable branch of scholarship in terms of its ability to help us understand what is real and how relationships between real things work by way of theory formation and testing by experiment. Not surprisingly, as the study of science and history progresses they often contradicts dogma. This brings scientists and other scholars into conflict with apologetists who generally masquerade as scholars since that enhances their credibility. Academic institutions like Brigham Young University regularly lose credibilty with their peers as a result of their so-called scholars participating in apolgetic endeavors. An apologist in academic robes wears a particularly offensive form of sheeps clothing.

When I read religious apologetics of any kind I am bothered by a vertiginous feeling. This is largely the result of the need apologists have to obscure the evidence scientists and other scholars unearth that contradicts the dogma that apologists must defend. The purpose of this essay is to outline how the apologetic enterprise works in this regard.

How Many Hills Named "Cumorah" Are There?

To understand what I mean, consider a Mormon classic - the so-called “two Cumorahs” theory. This explains why Joseph Smith received the golden plates at a hill he referred to as “Cumorah” in upstate New York which has been found to be an extremely unlikely candidate for the events that are believed by Mormons to have literally occurred there. Since the alternative to finding a second location for these events was to admit that the Book of Mormon is fictive, Mormon scholars have brought us the "two Cumorahs theory", as lucidly described at http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?tabl.... This is closely connected to another masterpiece of logic, known as the “limited geography theory” of the Book of Mormon (see http://farms.byu.edu/publications/bom...).

Aside from contradicting nearly two centuries of Mormon prophetic statements, these theories would have us accept that the Book of Mormon events were played out in area of Central America that is small enough that it has not yet been discovered, and yet large and populous enough for battles that killed millions of people to have been fought there, and unusual in that it was the most scientifically and culturally advanced place in the Americas for most of about 1,000 years. And then, God moved the gold plates that told the history of this people to New York where Joseph Smith could find them without telling Joseph about on this, leaving him to believe that the epic described in the Book of Mormon was played out across the length and breadth of America and that all Amerindians as well as Polynesians were the literal descendents of the people the Book of Mormon says immigrated to the Americas from Jerusalem.

Are Mormon Apologists Unique?

Other religions do no better. Go read some Young Earth Creationist drivel (God put dinosaur bones in the Earth to test our faith), the Muslim apologists (Muslims own a toll booth on the only road to heaven and if you disagree they are justified in killing you), the Jehovah’s Witnesses explanation for their leaders numerous failed prophecies that Christ would return to Earth on specific dates (God is just testing them), etc. This stuff all comes from the same place – the desire to prevent ideas from changing and most importantly, to preserve the power that depends upon these ideas. And note the “God is just testing us” theme. When the going gets really tough, that argument is the last resort. Look for it to appear in Mormon apologetic discourse with increasing frequency.

The Worse the Alternatives Look, the Fewer Will Leave

Did I mention that I feel dizzy when I venture into any apologist's lair? This is because much of the apologetic effort is directed toward making any alternative to their cherished beliefs hard to understand, and fearful, so that people will not change their beliefs or behavior. Attachment theory explains why this strategy is a good idea for religious organizations who want to survive and prosper. That is, religion causes its believers to become dependant on its ideas and the social groups it sponsors, and then makes all alternatives look as risky and dangerous as possible. Things that are hard to understand are easy to make look risky and dangerous. The fear this causes triggers our attachment instinct, which drives us into the arms of the people and institutions to which we have become attached as a result of our life experience to that point. There are no evil gnomes sitting around and planning this stuff. It is just how humans in groups function. Nothing is clearer from a reading of religious and political history than this.

Evidence Gets in the Way

Another way to understand this process is to remember that science became what we think of as science when it began to test ideas against evidence. Tycho Brahe was one of the leaders in this regard. He measured the position of the planets and stars more carefully than anyone before laying the groundwork for the revolution of humanities understanding of their place in the universe. While carefully measurement of reality sounds like common sense to us, it was an Earth shaking innovation in his day. Until then, the unencumbered-by-evidence use of premises (basic ideas) assumed to be true and logic enabled the smartest people on the planet to reach pretty much any conclusion they wanted about religion, cosmology, or anything else. This caused questions like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin to occupy an amazing amount of serious scholarly time for centuries. And today, the Mormon belief system makes logical sense if you accept the basic ideas that there is a God of a particular kind who created us and had us come to Earth as the Mormon Plan of Salvation indicates. Accept those ideas (and they are drilled deep into young Mormons), and the rest makes a lot of sense.

Since modern apologists must persuade people who generally believe that the facts are important and we should compare the evidence to what the theory predicts, they need to find ways to minimize the importance of evidence that conflicts with their theory. The limited geography theory is a great example of how this works. Mormon apologists solve the evidence v. theory problem here in two ways.

Change the Theory

First, they change the theory without batting an eye. Two centuries of Mormon prophets, including Joseph Smith, simply misunderstood reality and what God had communicated them, and consistently misled their followers by statements about where Book of Mormon events occurred, who was literally descended from Book of Mormon peoples, etc. Opps. Why would God allow that to happen? To test us maybe?

The logic works like this. Prophets make mistakes. The Bible shows that. So, we should expect prophets to be wrong about some things. However, we must assume that in every case where a prophet has not been proven wrong that he was speaking God’s own truth, regardless of how many times we have found him to be unreliable or even flat out lying to us. Sounds like a sensible way to live, doesn’t it? Why would God put us in such a hard position? Life is full of such tests for the faithful, of all stripes it turns out when you start looking at how other religions work.

I bet people who think like this get taken advantage of a lot. Let’s check the data. Sure enough, Utah hosts more con artists per capita (as measured by rates of financial fraud and multi-level marketing companies) than any other US state.

Duck into a Post Modern Rabbit Hole

Second, Mormon apologists question the ability of scientific and historical analysis to tell us anything upon which we should rely if it contradicts Mormon beliefs. They resort to various versions of post-modern theory in this regard. History, science, etc. are not that reliable. No evidence of wheels, horses, steel, etc. in the Americas? How can anyone be certain about things like that? And maybe the “most correct of any book on Earth” (see http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?tabl...) used a kind of complicated code to communicate its sacred and all important message. “Steel” really meant “obsidian” or “copper”. “Horse” really meant “tapir”. Etc. Or maybe God is testing us?

I need to stop thinking about this for a minute. My head is starting to hurt.

And since some facts will be proved beyond doubt, what does a “fact” mean anyway? How can we ever know anything except what we experience in the moment? And what that experience means is a private experience. So if you feel good about your experience, you should not change it. Using this theory, it is possible to chase one's tail down any number of post-modern rabbit holes and find oneself having an earnest conversation with the Queen of Hearts, or Joseph Smith for that matter.

The use of extreme post-modernism is the friend of anyone who wants to resist the tide of evidence against her position. It was invented after all, by humanities profs who were sick and tired of the way the "hard" sciences were talking over the academic and cultural world. Alan Sokal showed those guys (see http://www.drizzle.com/~jwalsh/sokal/...).

Harness the Human Fear of Leaving the Dominant Social Group

Most people (even those who are abused) feel good enough about their social experience that they are not easily persuaded to leave their dominant social group. Humans seem to have been designed that way because our connection to a social group was so important to our survival. Hence, the "we can't really know what is going on - you'd better stay were you feel secure" approach plays nicely into the hands of social groups who are trying to slow down defections. Mormons use this approach against those who criticize them, as do other Christian groups against the marauding Mormon missionaries who seek converts wherever they can be found.

When the overall apologetic game comes into focus it would be pretty entertaining if it did not leave such carnage in its wake – retarded minds; broken marriages and families; damaged friendships; planes that fly into buildings; riots over cartoons published thousands of miles away; etc.

It is both comical and tragic to see science and history denying post-modern ideas walking arm in arm down the street with the Mormon position that Joseph Smith received God’s exclusive authority and absolute truth from God and all humankind who hears this message must either accept it, become Mormon and start to obey Mormon authority or miss countless blessings both while living and after death.

Sounds kind of complicated, doesn’t it. Are you feeling dizzy yet?

This Is Complicated Stuff

It is not easy to apologize for beliefs like the Mormon, Muslim, JW, young earth creationist in a fashion that will be acceptable to even a conservative community that badly wants to continue to believe. Hence, the nature of the task requires smart people with a taste for labyrinthine argument. And it is no surprise that apologists can be counted on to come at the most simple of concepts from odd angles in order to show how hard to understand they "really" are.

For example, take the proposition that the Book of Mormon, like so many other similar pieces of religious literature, was made up to look ancient so that it would be more persuasive. There is an extremely high probability, once all of the relevant evidence is considered, that this is the case. Non-Mormon scholars who study in this are believe that this is as incontrovertible as the idea that the Holocaust occurred more or less as the mainstream historians say it did, or that many well intentioned people are deluded in their belief that they have been visited by aliens.

What Would the Bishop of Occam, or Don King, Say?

I was reminded of the apologetic approach to life a short time ago while reading an entertaining piece in Sports Illustrated - a summary of a recent New York Friars Club roast of the fight promoter Don King. For King, it was said, the simplest truth requires no less than a three rail bank shot. I would say the same of Wieseltier and his ilk.

While Occam's Razor (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_...) is not a hard and fast rule, I think it is fair to say that when you run across people who serially, flagrantly and consistently violate it, you should keep one hand on your wallet and use liberal amounts of salt before ingesting anything. Nowhere is this truer than around religious apologists of any stripe.

Best,

bob
topic image
The Future Of Mormon Apologetics And Mormonism
Wednesday, Feb 22, 2006, at 07:34 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Where is Mormon Apologetics (and Mormonism) Headed?

The Internet and Persuasion

Apologetics is all about persuasion. What it takes to persuade a group of people depends on the state of their knowledge related to their subject, how many viable courses of action they have relative to the question at hand, and a variety of other things.

The Internet has become such a pervasive influence in our lives that it is the place to start if we wish to predict where Mormon apologetics, or Mormonism itself, is headed. As a result of the Internet, Mormons see their beliefs against a much broader set of information than ever. And this information set will continue to expand. Hence, the kind of naďve faith that has sustained most Mormons to this point will become increasingly rare, and will have to be chosen instead of being the usual case. Consider, for example, what has happened during the past few years regarding DNA research as it concerns Mormonism. The necessity of dealing with increasingly well informed members and potential converts will cause the LDS and other formerly isolated cultures to mutate more rapidly than ever as they attempt to retain their grip on each new generation of members who are ingesting loads of information that may not affect their well-conditioned parents, but will deeply affect them.

And now, I will prophesy. Unlike Mormon Prophets, I do not fear being wrong, and can comfortably express myself in probabilistic terms. I will then forget about this until someone reminds me years from now either how right, or how wrong, I now am.

In the Internet age, more believers are going to get to know their apologists and the line between apologist and believer, along with countless other lines, will be blurred. This does not mean that Mormons will suddenly become adventuresome and head for the border of their faith community in droves. Rather, it means that the border is moving toward them. It is no longer at some distant frontier. Rather, it is a vast area accessible at the click of a mouse, spilling out of news headlines, beckoning from Oprah’s magazine and, in areas where Mormonism is a significant social force (like most of the Western US), being talked about by co-workers over coffee.

Apologists are those who have seen beyond the border of their belief system and feel compelled to defend it. It used to be necessary to make a long journey in the company of a few elites to the place where this could be done. Now a wrong turn at the end of the driveway and bang – there you are in the middle of No-Mans-Land. And if you catch a glimpse of more than a few of the carefully hooded faces in the crowds teeming there, you are likely to be surprised by someone you know. They will be either muttering and shaking their heads in astonishment, or more surprising yet, saying things that imply a breadth of knowledge and heterodox belief that you could not have imagine in them. People will go to the borderlands to relax, learn, express themselves, be themselves. You may even run into Mom or Dad; Grandpa or Grandma there, checking out the new, speaking openly about what they think or chatting with far flung friends.

The New Apologists

I predict that a new kind of LDS apologist will result from democratization of knowledge and influence that the Internet is causing within Mormonism as elsewhere. This apologist will not be on average as extreme or strident as her predecessors. There will be many more “hers” in this genre than ever. And there will be a far broader range of apologetic opinion than we have seen. Institutions like BYU and FARMS will continue to be influential, but the “blogosphere” and whatever emerges from cyberspace next will play increasingly important roles in defining the opinions that matter within Mormonism and what springs up to trouble Mormon leaders from the grassroots. Increasingly, what makes sense will be repeated first in whispers and then openly and then will have to be dealt with somehow. The leaders power will decline. The people’s influence will increase.

This trend will create a new form of de facto Internet based group of General Authorities whose ideas will be quoted but for a while yet not attributed to anyone, or perhaps to some vaguely referenced “general authority” or “the scriptures”. What they say makes so much sense that it must be in the scriptures somewhere; or surely someone in authority said this. These faceless authorities might be called the Quorum of Plenty.

The rule that lessons and talks given in Church must use as their only information sources the scriptures will be flagrantly, consistently and quietly broken. But the scriptures will generally, at least for a while, be the only sources quoted.

The coming apologetic influence will probably take Mormonism down a path well worn long ago by Jews, Catholics and various Protestant groups. While travelling this road, apologetic theories like two (or however many) Cumorahs will quickly become laugh (or shiver) getters even at faithful Mormon gatherings on the rare occasion that they are mentioned at all. And they won’t be mentioned to non-Mormons at all by the few who are aware of them. Kind of like marrying other mens wives and ankle to wrist length wool garments designed to enable sexual intercourse without removal (shiver).

The Internet Crowd Will Be A Tougher Sell for Apologists

This new crowd of apologists will quickly and of necessity focus on themes that make sense to the average Mormon and his non-Mormon acquaintenances since he will be increasingly likely to need to defend the weak spots in his belief system while doing his missionary duty or chit chatting around the water cooler about the latest LA Times (or whatever) piece regarding how little sense Mormonism “used to make”. That was the “old way of thinking about Mormonism”.

This dynamic will change what flies and what does not in the apologetic world. No longer will we have a small group of elites speaking from their ivory tower to a few of the faithful below who are terrified about what they have just heard concerning Joseph Smith’s sexual predations or the Book of Mormon’s rickety historicity. The bafflegab that has dominated Mormon apologetics to date worked when preaching to those, and only those, who wanted to believe. But try that stuff around the water cooler or during a potential “missionary experience” and see if your buddies can keep a straight face. This is the force that will reshape Mormon apologetics.

I refer again to Surowiecki’s “The Wisdom of Crowds”. He makes a compelling case for the way in which a large, diverse group with access to abundant information quickly tends to produce the most efficient solution available to any problem. So, remembering that necessity is what causes most evolutionary change, let’s restate the apologetic problem in its Internet context and think about what the relatively well-informed non-Mormon crowd that will be interacting with their Mormon friends about the legitimacy of Mormonism is likely to cause.

As stated above, Mormons have their beliefs, they know that they are true, and recognize subconsciously at least that the very nature of their community depends on these truths, which confirms the idea that they must be true. And now those beliefs are being challenged by allegations that Joseph Smith was untrustworthy, the Book of Mormon seems less and less likely to tell a real story, and Mormon leaders past and present seem more error and deception prone the closer we look. What to do?

More and more Mormons will be disturbed by the cold reception theories like “two Cumorahs” and “limited geography” get from their acquaintenances. “If it is probably not true, then why do you believe it?” will be the repeated and increasingly troubling question from well-meaning friends and relatives. The crowd will sniff this out in a heart beat. And the crowd will not be impressed with the credentials of religious studies “scholars” at BYU, and after just a little googling will find all kinds of unflattering things said about them by other religious studies scholars. And not just the usual scholarly sniping, but allegations that they are not scholars at all. Their peers – respected people like Douglas Davies of England’s University of Durham – will say that some people from BYU are merely evangelists pretending to be scholars. And after hearing about two (or three) Cumorahs, that won’t be a hard sell for most non-scholars.

Which Approaches Are Likely to Work?

So, what are the alternative approaches to this problem? As noted above, various kinds of post-modernism could be used to say that we can’t really know anything. The crowd will instantly turn that one back on the poor Mormons, with a perhaps polite but nonetheless stinging recognition of its hypocrisy. “If nothing is certain, how can you be certain enough about your beliefs that I should pay any attention to them?” Next.

It is a surprising small step from “nothing is certain” to “everything is metaphor”, and given how many respectable religions have already gone that route, that is where I expect a large slice of Mormonism to end up. I was recently advised of a Stake Conference in which the members were told that when praying about the Book of Mormon, they should not ask whether its facts and details were literally true, but rather whether the message it teaches about Christ is true. I heard of another Stake Conference at which Joseph Smith’s polyandry was discussed, and the members were told that this was Joseph’s Abrahamic test – that he went to the beds of the many women who offered themselves sexually to him with the same kind of heavy heart that Abraham mythically bore as he carried Isaac to a presumed sacrifice. That is, Mormon leaders are beginning to assume that the members will know of the troubling aspects of Mormon history, and are beginning to create a narrative that will explain troubling facts in a way that themembers may be prepared to accept. I expect to see and hear more of this kind of thing.

I note as an apologetic aside regarding Joseph Smith’s alleged Abrahamic and sexual test, that this kind of excuse has a long pedigree. For example, in the 1600s a Jewish rabbi names Sabbetai Zevi rose to prominence (see http://www.conncoll.edu/academics/dep...) and due to his charisma and many signs and wonders that were perceived by his followers to accompany his ministry, he was accepted by many as the Messiah. As 1666 approached, one of the many years during history that Christians have predicted for the second coming of Christ, Zevi travelled to Turkey and said that the Sultan would give up his throne to him because he was the Messiah. Instead, the Sultan threw Zevi into jail and told him that the had three alternatives. He could prove his claims by performing a miracle, convert to Islam or suffer death. Zevi promptly proclaimed his allegiance to Allah. His followers, for a time at least, held onto their faith on the basis that Zevi was descending into the darkest pits of hell to redeem the last sparks of light that might reside there before ascending to his throne of Messiahship. They waited, with waning hopes, until he died for him to do something that would merit is former claims to Messiahship. After his death, some still believed on the basis of increasingly metaphysical claims.

Faith, false or not, dies a slow, hard death. I don’t doubt that with a bit of scratching around we could find those who still believe Sabbetai Zevi’s claim to Messiahship.

In any event, there is a halfway house between Mormon literalism and metaphor that will be filled for at least one, and likely two to three, generations. This will be required to allow those who have the virulent, literalist form Mormon belief in their bones to die off as their children and grandchildren mature without it. This is the tricky stage, but Mormonism handled it with regard to polygamy’s revocation (or was the suspension? – I am still confused) and can handle it here as well.

For the halfway house to work, there must be as little talk as possible – pro or con – about literalist Mormon beliefs in order to allow time for them to be forgotten. I regularly run into one approach now that with a bit of a push would do this. It is a variant on the “experience trumps all” idea described above. It would work like this.

Instead of refusing to talk about how many Cumorahs there are or what Joseph Smith’s lying means in terms of Mormon foundations, these would be deemed childish, unimportant questions and would be ignored. Those who insist on asking them would be labelled “superficial” and “naďve”, and pointed to the Catholics, Anglicans, Jews and others with disastrous histories while being reminded that many people in these communities live satisfying lives that are enriched by the religious belief and community involvement despite a problematic religious history. The only questions would dealing with would concern how we can better experience and enjoy life today; how various Mormon community functions and rituals (yes, including the temple rituals) correlate to Buddhist and other healthy individual and social-psychological habits, and how other similar habits can be incorporated into Mormonism since all truth belongs to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. These issues would be made to attract as much as possible of the attention Mormons, post-Mormons and non-Mormons have to dedicate to Mormonism.

The good news regarding this approach to Mormon apologetics is that it will likely cause Mormons to lose, eventually, their “one true church” arrogance. Again, this is a well trodden path. History beat this idea our of most Catholics and Jews ages ago.

I don’t expect Mormon leaders to get on this bandwagon. They will still ask for, and take, all of the time, energy, money and obedience they can from their faithful. However, a larger percentage of the faithful as time passes will use their religion instead of being used by it.

Many Mormons will for a long time suffer from the rationalization that will be required to answer temple recommend questions and behave in a manner that does not conform to temple covenants (like the one that requires 100% obedience to Mormon authority). However, once fully on board the metaphor train, this can be done. And many Mormons will have no trouble rationalizing this the best of available alternatives. It is still my view that it is morally corrosive to treat in metaphoric terms questions that are stated literally and understood to be intended literally by the person asking them. But again, for Mormons this will be for the most part considered to be the lesser of evils to the extent it is considered at all. Eventually, both the nature of the temple recommend questions and temple covenants will be toned down. But that is likely decades if not generations away.

Mormon Youth Strategies

In order to minimize the rate of change, I expect the Mormon Church to continue to pay special attention to its youth. For example, I expect to hear that young Mormons are overtly and covertly pressured to spend time exclusively with other Mormons so that they can be more effectively indoctrinated and conditioned. This will involve attendance at more and/or more professionally run, meetings and events (like “Especially for Youth”) where they can "feel the spirit" or as a sceptic might suggest, have their emotional buttons pushed and be conditioned.

I also expect young Mormons to spend more time learning the distinctive history of their people, and being taught to behave in ways that make them a socially distinct group. A General Authority once told me that that was what the Word of Wisdom was all about. It has nothing necessarily to do with health. It is a social marker. See Pascal Boyer, "Religion Explained" for a review of how social markers help to define and hold together groups of people. And, I expect young Mormons to be rewarded and punished in various ways for engaging in socially distinguishing behaviour (distinctive dress; distinctive eating or drinking habits; distinctive leisure activities; etc.) and for avoiding things that could challenge their beliefs, such as the Internet and certain other communications tools and forms of entertainment.

What Do Faithful Mormons Say?

After writing the initial part of my apologetics forecast, I decided to test it by reviewing posting patterns at LDS blogs and bulletin boards. This indicated that the Internet is bringing many newly troubled Mormons into contact with the boundary between belief and unbelief in the fashion just indicated.

Here are a few posts as www.nauvoo.com, a bulletin board restricted to believing Mormons, that are typical (see http://www.nauvoo.com/ubb/forum/ultim...) and confirm the pattern I expected to find. Each paragraph represents a different person:

“People sometimes fail to realize that it's ALL interpretation. A hyper-literal reading of scripture is interpretation. A conclusion drawn from scientific fact is interpretation. Everything we believe is constantly being filtered through our imperfect human minds, and in the end, nobody has a perfect grasp of "the facts". Nobody. All we can do is trust our consciences about what is right, and where we should be, independent of the ebb and flow of doctrinal and scientific arguments.”

“I never go to anti-mormon sites. I have found over the years as I have studied personally and tried to find doctrinal answers to my questions through prayer, study of approved LDS materials and the general authorities that there have often, as you state, been discrepancies and moments of shock when my neat little perceptions and testimony about "Mormonism" has been challenged. The question I ask myself is do I still believe or do I throw everything I have ever believed out the window. I choose to do as [another poster] has suggested - I rely on faith and try to humble myself. I do not trust trite and easy answers but seek to feel the spirit to help me find my way. I focus on the Saviour and the clear and simple knowledge I have that He lives, that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I also rely on the many significant instances in my life when I have received witnesses by way of answers to prayers, experiences and blessings which also bear witness that the path I am on is the right one. Do I struggle from time to time? Yes. But I also cling to the fact that it is living the gospel and having faith in the gospel that brings me the most complete happiness, peace and joy. I have had two friends leave the Church over intellectual discoveries and discrepancies. One of whom I consider a very spiritual person. I don't believe her decision to leave was simple or trite but I am not sure that she was willing to keep searching for answers. Bottom line is that it is Heavenly Father, the Saviour and the Holy Ghost that ultimately provide the answers. Not men.”

And here the one that hits the nail most squarely on the head:

“I should add that I do believe the gospel is true. But, I lean much more heavily on faith now than I ever did before. I used to be very confident that I "knew" that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, etc. I am more humble now. I have faith that the feelings and impressions I have and believe to come from the Spirit, really do come from the Spirit. I have faith that the good things that happen to me in my life are answers to prayers and blessings from God. I have faith that the transformation that takes place in me is the result of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. I believe these things while acknowledging the possibility that my perceptions and way of organizing my experiences could be mistaken.”

The reason I like this is that it shows what I believe will be the critical transition for many Mormons. Ever since I can remember Mormon leaders have been telling us that what we believe from a religious point of view is a matter of faith, not intellect. So, just believe. However, most Mormons do not understand what that means. I certainly didn’t. As our friend above said, “I used to be very confident that I "knew" that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, that the Book of Mormon was the word of God, etc.” Me too.

The transition to humility just described is what is required when the rickety foundations of Mormon history and social practise come into view. That is where a bit of post-modern theory, plus a focus on current experience and how a person feels about that will become crucial. And the emphasis on current feeling and de-emphasis on history will eventually take it our of the discussion entirely. A few decades or generations after that, Mormons will be comfortable discussion their beliefs on a purely metaphoric basis while acknowledging that their history does not provide a factual basis for literal belief.

Religions grow up very slowly.

So, I expect Mormon leaders to continue broadcast their message as they have, but with the necessary additional twists that will be required to get average Mormons over the hump this man describes. That is, the leaders will include enough allusion in their speeches and writing to post-modern and phenomenological (the overriding importance of present experience - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomen...) terms that the apologists will be able to take it from there.

The way in which people like those whose words I have just quoted perceive Mormonism and the rest of their lives related to it makes the apologists’ job both more important and trickier. And more importantly, it will redefine the apologetic community.

This Is Progress

The changes that I see coming represent an improvement. This pleases me despite the fact that I would prefer to see Mormonism simply disappear and feel very happy with my decision to leave it. I think that the probability of a complete Mormon collapse (or over substantial collapse) is so small that it is not worth spending any time on. I am a pragmatist.

When all is said and done, there are only so many fingers to plug holes in a rapidly expanding dyke that restrains an even more rapidly rising information tide. Thus, for the next while, despite the efforts of apologists, cultural change within Mormonism will occur more rapidly than ever in the ways noted above. This will particularly be visible between generations as a result of the way in which children seem designed to reappraise their environment in fundamental ways. In reaction to this, a gradually shrinking percentage of the Mormon population will become ultra-"faithful". They will become the equivalent of the Ultra Orthodox Jews, or Taliban, and will be subject to all of the dangers each of those groups carry with them. And, an increasing number o these will continue to flee the secularism that they will see “infecting Mormonism”, and become fundamentalists of one kind or another. Regrettably, Mormon history and theology favors polygamist fundamentalism.
topic image
How Solid Are Mormon Financial Foundations?; And How Much Does The Defection, Resignation Or Quiet Withdrawal Of One Tithepaying Member Matter?
Thursday, Feb 23, 2006, at 07:39 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I think many people underestimate the impact of each Mormon resignations, declaration of inactivity or quiet withdrawal of financial and other dediction. I have done this analysis before but can’t find it so I will redo for your benefit and then post it to the bulletin board at the beginning of a new thread. This kind of analysis is particularly important when you think about the way in which “tipping points” work, as described by Malcolm Gladwell describes in his book by that title.

Mormonism depends on a far smaller financial base than is typically assumed. There are likely less than 120,000 adults on whom Mormon finances rely in the long term. I get to this number as follows:

· Start with the official membership of 12mm, though it is suspect.

· Less than half are active. Let’s say 5mm, as defined by attendance at more than one meeting per month (the “active member” definition when I was involved in LDS leadership).

· About half of those are adult. Let’s say 2.5mm.

· About half of those are in North America. Let’s say 1.25mm.

· About half of those are male - 600,000.

· Not all adults will be full time wage earners, and not all of them will be full tithe payers. If I had to guess, I would say that on average 75% of adult ward members who attended regularly and are significant wage earners were also full tithe payers. But many of those who are not full tithe payers pay some tithing, and so to err on the high side I will assume that all “active” adults who earn substantial wages pay a substantial amount of tithing.

· Most of the reasonable money makers, and hence tithing payers, are male. I would say that there are no more than 600,000 people who pay close to 10% of their income (calculated in any way you wish to rationalize it) to LDS Inc.. These would be about 400,000 males and 200,000 females.

· Something close to the Pareto principle (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_p...) likely applies here. This principle is based on the observation that in many populations things like income and wealth are distributed so that roughly 20% of the population has 80% of whatever you are looking at. This would suggest that in the Mormon population of its most important tithe payers – adult wage earners in North America – that 20% carry 80% of the load.

· Hence, there are likely no more than 120,000 North Americans who play a very important part in the Mormon financial system. I will refer to these folks as Mormonism’s “Golden Geese”.

The reasonableness of this analysis is supported by the following calculation: LDS Inc.’s revenues were estimated at $6B per year (see http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/mo...). Some of this would come from its business investments, but even allowing nothing for that, all it would take is $10,000 per person per year from 600,000 people to produce $6B in revenues per year. This shows that we are in the ballpark given the business revenues that are likely to be involved. Hence, I don’t think that I am underestimating the number of “serious” tithe payers within Mormondom.

It is my view that the sole meaningful source of new Golden Geese is the maturation of well-educated, North American Mormons. I don’t have the time to work that out properly, but it could be done based on the population numbers described above coupled with demographic data related to how large Mormon age cohorts are, and many Mormons are college educated. In the roughest of terms, if there are 1.25mm active Mormon North American young people, and they are evenly divided into 24 groups (one for each year from one to 24 when we will assume some Mormons start earning a reasonable college grad wage), this would mean that each year there are 52,000 potential new wage earners each year. No more than half will be college grads – 26,000. Many of those will be female and less likely to become Golden Geese. We will assume that 20,000 new tithe payers will appear each year. 20% of them will eventually become Golden Geese – 4,000.

So in that context, what are the effect of resignations? Someone worked out last year (as I recall) that there must have been in the neighbourhood of 70,000 resignations if the LDS Church’s published numbers related to membership increases, baptisms, deaths, etc. were accurate. That number does not surprise me. And, for every member that resigns many others simply quit attending and/or reduce their commitment level so as to reduce both time and money donated.

The critical issue is how many of those who resign or otherwise fade away were Golden Geese. I am not aware of anything other than anecdotal information to help us here. However, I run into and hear about a lot of people who are senior former Golden Geese and who have recently stopped laying. My guess is that LDS Inc. has been seeing for the past several years at least year over year decreases in its Golden Geese. The enormous increases in the size of the North American economy and the amounts of money Americans in particular have earned during the past few years have perhaps disguised this. But I recall hearing regular pleas from visiting GAs to the effect that even this relatively wealthy part of the Mormon world was barely carrying its weight.

I would love to hear from anyone who has access to the data needed to estimate how many Golden Geese fly the coop each year.

LDS Inc. has a huge asset base and that will allow it to weather all kinds of financial storms as it reinvents itself. However, the realization that cash flow from members is drying up will be a big part of what motivates charge. This will put writing on the wall that the leaders won’t miss. It will be interpreted as a lack of faith; a sign of the evil times; an indication that the end of days is near; and at the same time it will move Mormon leaders to change their tune just as did the US federal governments forcing polygamy off the table and the pressure of civil rights groups in the 1960s and 70s.

Finally, think about the behaviour of people and organizations who depend upon the perception of stability and success to generate future success. Stock promoters are famous for having lavish offices at times when they are not paying their rent and the banks are calling for their scalps, for example. Banks must maintain the appearance of stability in order to stay in business. This dictates the kind of offices they maintain and a variety of other things. This rule applies to many other similar enterprises, and religions like Mormonism fall into this category.

So, count on Mormonism to present itself as the most rock solid institution in the world, and even if it becomes cash strapped. It can’t afford to admit that, and I would not put it by Mormonism’s leaders to continue to build monuments to themselves as revenues dry up on a “build it and they will come theory”. After all, the largest statues on Easter Island were carved long after all of the trees had been cut down making it impossible to move the statues from the quarry. The people there appear to have been persuaded by their religious leaders that if they had the faith to carve, god would provide the means of locomotion as well as restoring their economic fortunes. Not long after this, civil war broke out as the perfidy and/or blindness of the leaders became apparent. This pattern has been repeated in many cultures where religious faith dominated reason. Time will tell how far down this path Mormonism will do.

Best,

bob
topic image
Where Is Mormonism Headed And The "Who Benefits" Principle
Friday, Feb 24, 2006, at 08:11 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
The theory of biological evolution has produced more accurate predictions that arguably any other single scientific theory. It is, in the world of science, an 800 pound gorilla. And it is based on three simple features of our world summarized by wikipedia as follows:

“In nature, all organisms produce more offspring than will survive and successfully reproduce. All offspring show variations in characteristics which can affect their chance of survival and reproduction in the prevailing conditions. Characteristics which are heritable and increase the reproductive success of individuals (or related individuals) will tend to become more common and be preserved in the population over successive generations, whereas other less favourable characteristics will tend to be become eliminated. Darwin called this process Natural Selection.”

The question “cui bono” or “who benefits” helps us to bring the principles of natural selection to bear when trying to predict evolutionary paths that will result from a change in either an environment or a set of genes. For example, when soot from the Industrial Revolution darkened trees in England, who would benefit – dark moths who could better hide form the birds seeking them, or light colored moths that would be more visible? We would guess that the dark moths would prosper, and hence are not surprised to hear that within a short time the moth population, as a result of natural selection, became darker in color.

The principles of natural selection can be applied loosely at least to the formation of culture through various models using memes and analogues to other aspects of evolutionary theory . These are used to explain the formation, maintenance and transmission of culture and while they lack the rigour of evolutionary theory applied to biology, they offer the best tools we have at the moment to predict the evolution of human culture. Here again, we find the question “cui bono?” to be useful in a wide variety of circumstances.

Who Benefits?

The key to applying the “who benefits” principle is to bear in mind an insight perhaps best expressed by Richard Dawkins . He explains that it helps to think of the genes themselves as the winners and losers in the natural selection game instead of one animal in particular or another. That is, biological organisms for the most part simply replicate as much as they can which means that the different sets of genes they carry represent as much as they can. And then the environment determines which sets of genes survive, and which don’t. Genes that are well suited to the environment survive and multiply. Those that are not suited do not. From one generation to the another, it is sets of genes that win or lose.

A loose analogy, at least, to how it is the fitness of genes that determines the nature of the biological organisms that prosper as the generations pass can be found in how the “fitness” of ideas and social practises available to particular social groups will influence the rise and fall of social habits and institutions. So, as we see environments around social groups changing, we can gain insight into behavior – past, present and future – by examining the fitness of the ideas and social practises that are available. The question “what is reasonably available?” is complicated given the complexity of factors related to organizational intentionality not to mention limits as to how far an organism can change in a given period of time. And, there are usually many ideas and social practises competing at close quarters for resources within any social group. So, the analysis required to use this model with reasonable scientific rigorously is at this point impossible. Nonetheless, the model is now useful. The best wecan hope for is access to the most useful information available, and in my view the use of this model advances the ball in terms of our ability to analyze group behaviors.

I have been thinking about the excellent comments on the thread noted above in light of the “who benefits” principle. As already noted, we can predict evolutionary paths to a degree by looking at environmental changes and thinking about the traits (or in the case of social evolution, ideas and social practises) that are likely to be most “fit” in the new environment. The internet has created a major environmental change for Mormonism. The question becomes, what kind of ideas and social behaviors will Mormonism likely keep and which will it deep six because they no longer work. Here are a few thoughts along those lines.

· Keep the Golden Geese laying: The focus will be on keeping the Golden Geese laying, and finding new Golden Geese. Hence, look for a focus on reactivation efforts; look for more profile being given to successful Mormons (like Mitt Romney) who will make the Golden Geese more comfortable within Mormonism; look for ways to make the Golden Geese more comfortable with Mormon history etc. because young Golden Geese are among those most likely find this stuff.

· Information Suppression. Look for more Bushmanesque apologetics because suppression no longer works; the facts are out; someone needs to explain them; who better than someone like Bushman? Conversely, look for less of the crazy Peterson style of apologetics. The faithful crowd gets nervous after running things like Two Cumorahs and Limited Geography by their friends and dealing something between polite smiles or outright disdain. But Bushman you can sell with a straight face. This will be particularly appealing to the Golden Geese to people who don’t know much about Mormon history.

· Leader Selection: The Golden Geese have always tended to be leaders (that is, money = blessings = spirituality). Given the increasing importance of the Golden Geese, look for this trend to strengthen. The forces of denial, cognitive dissonance etc. (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni...) are more powerful while in leadership position because of how busy the leaders are, how often the have to affirm their beliefs in public, etc.

· Missionary Service: Missions cost money to run, and the return on investment will cause missions in Europe and North America to continue to be “consolidated” (closed). However, missionary efforts in the developing world will not produce cash flow either. So look for missionary work to be increasingly oriented toward the missionaries themselves. This has always been the case to a degree, but it will become more obvious. Which missionaries, for example, tend to return home and then go inactive? They are not worth the mission investment from the institutions point of view. I am willing to bet that pre-mission sin and quick repentance positively correlates with missionaries who are sent home early or don’t last long in activity after “returning with honor”. Hence, reduce the number of missionaries; focus on “quality” etc. And, send more missionaries to the third world where (like me) they will be less likely to learn about real Mormon history etc. while serving missions.

· Quality, not Quantity: Just as missionaries can be bad investments, so can members. Hence, raise the bar for who can be baptized. Particularly in developing countries. You don’t want tons of members who will be a cash drawn. But, if a well heeled professional wants to join (and that will happen on occasion), you can wave the rules because people like that know what they are doing.

· Volunteer Donations: As cash donations decline, look for increased reliance on the donation of time. Several posts above tagged this trend as already in evidence, and I agree. Prestige within the Mormon groups is an asset that will be increasingly converted into cash by LDS Inc. For example, older couples feel guilty about not going on missions. Look for the heat to be increased re. the older couples in this regard, and look for more opportunities for them to assuage their guilt by serving missions near home in ways that will save LDS Inc.’s cash flow for more important things, like being invested to generate more cash flow. The recent announcement that missionary couples will now be called to provide janitorial services runs along this line, as does the increasing opportunities to provide services that use professional skills like accounting and information processing.

· Non-Mormon Cash Needs: The Mormon Church has been criticized for its relatively small donations in aid of non-Mormons in disaster areas, etc. Other religious groups give many times per capita what Mormons give in this regard. Don’t look for this to change in light of the other pressures the Mormon financial system is likely to be under.

I am sure that others here can add to this list.

Best,

bob
topic image
A Message For All Apologists
Tuesday, Feb 28, 2006, at 08:34 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
For the most part, when I re-enter the Mormon world (or even its fringes) I experience vertigo. This is the world Lewis Carroll wrote about - a postmodern place where words mean what anyone wants, we must pretend nonsense is sense, and probabilities are ignored. Hence, we can prove anything, and nothing, to those who've passed through this looking glass.

We are the blind little boy in "Dumb and Dumber", cuddling our dead budgie and wondering what all that tape is doing around its neck while we try in vain to make it sing. And where it that nice man we bought the bird from? He was so nice, and we trusted him.

The Pythons' "Dead Parrot" sketch brings the point home (see http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Scripts/TheDeadParrotSketch).

Our religion appears dead. We are distraught. And so we take our problem to smiling men and women whom we have until recently paid regularly and dearly for our beliefs. During one recent year, for example, FARMS received $27mm in tax deductible donations. And Mormonism's revenues are estimate at $6B annually. That's one hell of a dead dubgie pile.

Our coversation with the nice shopkeepers is funny for everyone except we whose blood and tears by the bucket was handed over in exchange for what is now obviously a dead bird.

And so it maddens us, at least initially, to listen to your comic nonsense. Eventually we calm down, but our experience with you and your ilk have permanently jaundiced us toward you.

This is not Wonderland. Go consort with your own kind where intellectual survival depends on one's ability to skate the razor's edge between sense and nonsense, or numb yourself so thoroughly that it doesn't matter.

Your world is as Alice described Jabberwocky. "It seems very pretty," she said when she had finished it, "but it's rather hard to understand!" (You see she didn't like to confess even to herself, that she couldn't make it out at all.) "Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas--only I don't exactly know what they are! However, somebody killed something: that's clear, at any rate---" (see http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/jabber/jabberwocky.html)
. We have our bellies more than full of you and your upsidedown-ness.

We don't care how sincere you are. We don't care how smart you are. We don't care how many of you there are. We don't care how long you talk, how many books you write or if you swear that you are eternal and hence can never, ever go away. All we care about is whether you make sense. If you don't, either leave or we will throw you out. It is that simple.

And don't whine about how unreasonable and closedminded we are. Your whining is even more irritating than your talking. We are as interested in talking to you as to the Young Earth Creationists, Holocaust Deniers, JWs, Scientologists, Alien Abductionists and a host of others. You are all no doubt charming people in many ways. But we don't have time to explore every nonsense invented by man and desperately changed each time more of its puerility shows through. Particularly in light of all of the other wonderful things we have recently discovered.

So enjoy your lives. We are enjoying ours.

And you've got the count of three to be out of our sight. One, two ...
topic image
Why Bother With Debates A La Mccue / Peterson Proposal?
Thursday, Mar 2, 2006, at 07:49 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
A theme in a number of threads that have come up in the wake of yesterday’s little showdown at the FAIR corral is – “A debate with Daniel Peterson is pointless. Why Bother?” So let me address that.

First, Dan Peterson was telling all who would listen to him that I, and others here, hide in our protected, ignorant backwater (while publishing essays on the Internet, I note, where anyone can critique them) instead of meeting him where he can deal with us. This was undeniably the spark that lit the flame. I wanted to see if he really wanted to exchange views with me. We have the answer to that question now. I was dismissed as insufficiently credentialed; unprincipled in various ways and hence likely to waste his time in debate; unworthy of his special attention in part because I have shown unscholarly tendencies in Internet postings; etc. If I was as soft a target and as venerated in the post-Mormon community as Peterson says I am, I would think he would have been licking his chops at the prospect of giving me a public spanking, showing everyone how shallow and foolish people like me are, and hence striking a heavy blow in favour of “the truth”. In any event, I knew what I was getting into, and am not surprised at how things turned out in this regard. See FARMS treatment of Grant Palmer (http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpt...) for a primer on how Peterson and his friends deal with those who disagree with them.

A poster on another thread suggest that the best way to deal with publicity seekers like Peterson is to ignore them. In general I agree. And I stay away from FAIR and other similar places because they are a waste of time for me. However, in this case for the reasons I am in the process of stating I made an exception to the rules that I usually follow.

Second, most of what I write regarding Mormonism has the effect of putting Mormon experience in the broadest context of which I am capable. Nothing is more helpful when it comes to learning than perspective. Hence, this is what I do as I continue to try to figure out how I was affected by the Mormon conditioning system and how I can undo that effect both in me and those I love. A debate with Dan Peterson would force me to condense an immense amount of material into sound bites suited to the debating format. This is what I have to do when I go to court. And I am consistently amazed at the gems that can be squeezed out of mountains of data when under a requirement to present the best points in the most compelling format in a few minutes. Dan would have been forced to do the same with his defence of Mormonism’s emotional epistemology, and to explain why it is valid while all other emotion based epistemologies that produce contradictory “truths” are not; and why any such systems should be expected to be reliable given their general track record of unreliability. Dan and I would not agree with each other, that is for sure. But the debate would results in the concise articulation of two opposing ways of interpreting the evidence that life presents us. The only approach that is likely to work for Dan as he tries to defend Mormonism is one that relies on subjective, personal experience. My approach would be to show how unreliable that method of “knowing” is across a broad range of phenomena and cultures and to then ask over and over again on what basis Mormons justify certainty in their case against that background of unreliable outcomes. I think that it would have been useful for the contrast between these ways of knowing to have created in this format, presently publicly, and warehoused for future reference.

Third, as indicated on RFM religions like Mormonism depend heavily on “social proof”. A debate of the kind I proposed would attract attention to a variety of subjects related to Mormonism and hence would work against the power of Mormonism’s social proof.

Fourth, it takes energy to break through the cocoon surrounding Mormon belief. In my case, it was a request for help from a friend that got me on the Internet for the first time looking at Mormon issues. A month later I was intellectually out of Mormonism, and bleeding emotionally from every pore. A debate like the one I proposed would create a lot of energy. As a result, a lot of people whose perspective regarding their faith is limited as mine was would at one time or another be introduced to this debate and it would play a role in helping to reform their thinking. I say reform because most faithful Mormons use rational epistemic standards regarding most aspects of life other than their religious beliefs. The trick is to decompartmentalize their thinking.

Fifth, I am not under the delusion that a huge number of people would “see the light” as a result of this effort. The debate would have been a small step in the right direction. Since I had the ability to propose that the step be taken, and to take it if give the opportunity, I did that. I perceive myself as a member of a large choir, not as a soloist. If everyone takes the small steps of this kind of which they are capable, an immense amount can be accomplished. I still get feedback from people who read the letter I wrote to Jeffrey Holland (see http://www.i4m.com/think/intro/bishop...) or the radio debate/interview I had with Van Hale (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.van%20hale%20show.pdf). Those were other similar small steps. I felt like something needed to be said, and so I said it and let the chips fall where they may. My game is one of bunts, singles and stolen bases, not home runs.

And finally, there is a long tradition in religious and academic circles of precisely this kind of thing. This is the case even within Mormonism (see http://www.koffordbooks.com/petersen/...) though I am certainly no Sterling McMurrin, and I doubt that Dan would put himself in the same league as Hugh Nibley. But as I said at FAIR yesterday, despite my humble stature, I would do for this exercise.

best,

bob
topic image
The Fog Around Some Mormon Intellectuals
Wednesday, Mar 8, 2006, at 07:49 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I am going to have to restrain myself from overusing the word "mystagogery". How I have managed to miss that one, I don’t know. What a wonderful word. If you could pass me the cite for Rahner’s coinage of it, I would be most appreciative.

I have wanted to respond to Michael’s post re. the various usages of postmodern thought in the religious community since reading it, but have not been able to. And since things at work are getting hot and hence I may lose the ideas he prompted and your recent posts have pushed along, I am going to blurt something out now that will capture at least the essence of what deserves (and will hopefully eventually get) better treatment.

Postmodernism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmode...) is primarily a set of tools used to question the validity of a worldview. It started out in the aftermath of World War I as part of the existential crisis that disaster provoked, and played a useful role in critiquing the rickety assumptions on which many sources of social authority rested. However, it was quickly fashioned into a shield by those who were attacked by it, and from there it mushroomed into so many things that it is now hard to define. Some aspects of postmodernism are still profoundly helpful. It has sharpened many aspects of the social sciences. However, other aspects of what is now called postmodernism are worse then nonsense. And I suggest that it is the use of the basic postmodern critique to defend the indefensible that is largely responsible for its bastardization.

Postmodernism has been used in more ways that we can now count in different communities. Its use in the religious context is among the less prominent of these. Extreme cases are often useful in highlighting the operation of principles. These are like caricatures in both functional and dysfunctional ways. That is, they can get us right to the point, or mislead, and which of these is accomplished is mostly a matter of perspective. So with that caveat, I will summarize an extreme case - how postmodern theory is used in the literalist religious community. I don’t know the liberal religious community as well and would be interested in hearing others on that point.

If I am Biblical literalist and you attack my religious beliefs by "deconstructing" them using science, I will deconstruct your scientific beliefs using the philosophy of science, semiotics and any number of other academic disciplines that are at least vaguely postmodern. And, I will accuse you of "scientism", "reductionism" and "idolatry" for good measure. I will insist that you are trying to use a tape measure and magnifying glass to understand quarks; you are tilting at windmills; you should stop being so "simplistic"; you should leave the "flatland" and open yourself to the "mystery of being"; and you should allow god to communicate to your soul.

I will tell you to read some Heidegger (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidegge...) and get a grip on the primacy of the experienced moment and how little we can posit with confidence about "reality" (what a lame word!) beyond that; etc. And perhaps most of all, I will tell you to stop playing with the most sacred aspect of other people’s lives. This is ground that you should step onto with the greatest care because of its importance to other people’s lives. This is their ground of meaning. If they lose it, their lives may well spin out of control – into divorce, promiscuous sex, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. and it will be your fault. Many of these people are innocent and relatively ignorant. You, as a scientist, have credibility with them even though you really have no credentials regarding what you pompously and unjustifiably have chosen as your topic. You don’t venture opinions regarding scientific topics on which you are unqualified to speak. Hence, you should keep your views to yourself regarding the religious beliefs of other people since these are by definition private, subjective experiences that are not susceptible to your analysis. Hence, what you are doing is profoundly immoral and you need to go look hard in the mirror and think about that.

I will also remind you that science purports to provide the framework within which religious belief can be understood, and that this is unjustified in scientific terms because the most important part of religious experience is outside the scientific realm. You can no more analyze religion and justify your analysis as reliable than you can analyze the nature of life in other galaxies. This analysis is simply not possible, and hence no conclusions drawn from it are justified.

For a great example of this genre, see R. Dennis Potter's article at page 71 of November's Sunstone Magazine ("Yea, Yea, Nay, Nay: Determining What is Real"). I won’t outline the scientific response, but you can imagine it.

Once the issue has been joined between intellectually oriented religious people and the scientific community over the philosophy of science, it rockets into the definitional stratosphere within moments. Hence, for all but the few who understand the complex philosophical terrain being surveyed, the conclusion will likely be that the scientific critique of any particular religious belief is nowhere near as solid as it first sounded. Hence, continuing to adhere to whatever belief system was being questioned becomes more justifiable.

This is a profoundly relieving conclusion for the few faithful who have cared enough to follow the debate as far as they could. They, being trusted members of the religious community in question and often opinion leaders because they have the intellectual legs to follow things like a debate on the philosophy of science past the first sentence, convey that message back to anyone else in their community who noticed the brouhaha. "Don’t worry. We have been to the frontier and everything is fine." These words will be warehoused within the community and pulled out whenever one of the faithful runs across these issues and is troubled by them. And this is precisely the conscious or unconscious objective of those who apologize for any faith based position using postmodern theory or any of its variants.

I note that the word "postmodern" usually does not show up in these defenses. My father was surprised when I took his defense of Mormonism and lined it up with a typical postmodern argument in defense of a non-religious matter. He is thoroughly postmodern with regard to anything critical of Mormonism, while being a hard-headed, literalist, regarding his Mormon beliefs, and a skeptical, rational thinker regarding just about everything else. This is a pretty standard package within the well-educated corps of the literalist religious community.

Ironically, the body of the faithful who are comforted by the postmodern critique of science (and the same is done with history) hardly pause in their pursuit of life within a worldview that posits certainty regarding many things that are well within the competence of science to critique. So, the postmodern critique of science by a few intellectuals at the fringe of a faith based social organism blocks an easily justifiable postmodern attack on that organism’s certain ideological premises, which in most cases the intellectual defenders of the faith do not accept in the certain, orthodox fashion.

I think the mystagogery concept can be usefully employed to describe this phenomenon. Without knowing it, the dogmatically certain are defended by a few mystagogues at the fringes of their faith who are encouraged in this by literalist religious leaders simply because the defense works. Ironically, not long ago the mystagogues would have been thrown out of the religious community. Now they are encouraged, as long as they continue to profess faith and obey the leaders, because they are more useful than disruptive.

In many cases, the mystagogues believe that a continuation of the faith community is so important that it does not matter if the faithful really "get it" or not. The literalist leaders generally believe that this is the case. So as the mystagogues summarize to the faithful how they dealt with the scientific barbarians at the border and watch eyes around them glaze over, they are satisfied – they have done their job. All is well.

The religious leaders don’t talk about the mystagogues, and don’t want their views to be widely known. They tell the faithful that these things are "mysteries" that it is best to leave alone. But when one of the faithful is troubled by science, the mystagogues (I am badly overusing this wonderful word) are trotted out, the waters are calmed, and the new potential mystagogue is cautioned as to how this sacred, powerful knowledge is to be used. It should not be spoken of to those among the faithful who "would not understand".

The practical approach that eventually brought me through the morass I just described (which I later found is common to most literalist religious groups), is as follows:

- We have myriad decisions to make each day. We make these, generally speaking, on the basis of what we wish to happen in the future (our objectives) and what we perceive to be the most reliable evidence as to what is real and how cause and effect relationships work between real entities.

- Science provides that best evidence as to what is likely to be real, and how cause and effect relationships between real entities work. The continued creation of technology, medicines, etc. on the basis of scientific work supports this position.

- The opinion of the majority of the scientific community on any topic within the competence of science (including where the boundaries of scientific competence reside) is the most reliable evidence available to us of what is real, and how reality works. This is not guaranteed to be "truth", but it is the best we have.

- Science eloquently explains the power of the social group to influence perception.

- Beliefs that are well outside the realm of science often slop back into our scientific beliefs, and because of the power of the social group to control perception, will overcome our scientific worldview. Many scientifically thinking Mormons, for example, are strikingly ignorant of the world’s population and ecological problems because of the Mormon belief that each woman should bear as many children as she is physically able and can support financially and emotionally.

- Anyone who attempts to use a tiny minority position with regard to science (like "scientific realism should not be trusted to the extent it questions religious faith") to overturn a majority scientific view that questions the premises of a social group of which the critic is a member should generally not be taken seriously because he is highly probable to be within the grip of the perception distorting influence of his group, regardless of how well qualified he may be in other ways.

- We should take the lessons of postmodernism to heart, and particularly so when considering the ideological premises of our own social groups. A great deal of empirical evidence in support of the basic postmodern principle (don't be so sure of yourself) has been produced by psychologists. See for example, Arie Kruglanski’s "The Psychology of Closedmindedness" which I am told by one of my psychology professor friends is the leading book in this area. Kruglanski says, basically, that in order to survive we must truncate the information gathering and assessment process, decide what is real, and act. And it is more important to our continued survival that we be able to trust our own judgment than be accurate in many of our observations. Moment by moment, day to day, these imperatives shape our basic epistemic habits. Add to this to the importance of the social group to human survival and prosperity, and it is not hard to understand why we would tend toward accepting and feeling certain about interpretations of reality on the basis of "social proofs" even in the face of powerfully disconfirming evidence of other kinds. This emphasizes the importance of questioning our tendency towards certainty.

- On the other hand, when our foundational beliefs are questioned, we should not be surprised that we will instinctively use whatever is at hand to defend them. The confirmation and other biases make this human trait clear. So, our tendency will be to question the validity, certainty etc. of those who challenge us.

- The best way through thicket is to rely on the collective wisdom that humanity has created and will create from time to time to determine what is real. This is particularly hard to do when it comes to personal, emotional choices, and perhaps most important in those cases. For example, medical doctors are counseled not to treat their family members because their judgment is probable to be compromised in such cases. Likewise, in determining the reliability of any religious truth claim, it is likely best to rely upon the most knowledgeable and reliable people available who are not influenced by the biases of the group itself.

- It is also critically important that we restrain our instinct toward certainty regarding the unknown. Once we are unjustifiably certain about an unknown, this becomes part of our worldview and as the result of the confirmation and other biases, will likely have a limiting effect on our ability to perceive many things that may be knowable.

- In light of the best evidence available regarding the reliability of religious truth claims, we can make more clear headed choices as to which social groups (religious and other) we will associate with, and on what terms.
topic image
Chasin Skunks Down On The Fog FARMS
Tuesday, Mar 14, 2006, at 07:50 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Ideology based institutions like Mormonism are social organisms, much like animals, plants and other life forms. They need food and other energy sources and seek these; and they defend themselves against threats. Ideas form the foundation of these social organisms. These ideas must continue to be accepted as valid, believable etc. if the organism is to survive. Hence, when the organism is confronted by evidence or other ideas that question the validity of its foundational ideas, this is a threat as real as a skunk seeing a coyote creeping through the weeds. The organism should be expected to use whatever powers it has to deal with what threatens. In the skunk’s case, this would ultimately mean putting out a particularly offensive stench that would discourge all but the most ravenous coyotes from attacking.

Since an organism like Mormonism must defend ideas, it defences are intellectual in nature. This brings us to the stench emitted by a particular kind of postmodernism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmode...).

Postmodernism is primarily a set of tools used to question the validity of a worldview. It started out in the aftermath of World War I as part of the existential crisis that disaster provoked, and played a useful role in critiquing the rickety assumptions on which many sources of social authority rested. However, it was quickly fashioned into a shield by those who were attacked by it, and from there it mushroomed into so many things that it is now hard to define. Some aspects of postmodernism are still profoundly helpful. It has sharpened many aspects of the social sciences. However, other aspects of what is now called postmodernism are worse then nonsense. And I suggest that it is the use of the basic postmodern critique to defend the indefensible that is largely responsible for its bastardization.

Jacques Derrida is revered by those at the foggiest fringes of postmodern thought and reviled by almost everyone else who is familiar with his work (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/obi...). Derrida made a career out of accusing all who critiqued his work of misunderstanding him, while refusing to clarify his position. The whole point of the exercise seemed to be avoidance of understanding.

I read recently somewhere (I can’t recall where – it might have been in “Doubt and Certainty” by Rothman and Sudarshan) reference to an interview Michel Foucault (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_F...) gave in which he said that while developing his reputation as an academic in France during Derrida’s career, about 25% of all he wrote in his scholarly papers was “impenetrable nonsense”, because at the time such was required to be taken seriously as a French academic. Derrida was eventually more ignored than anything else in Europe, came to the US and was embraced by the postmodern community within the humanities here that was busily defending its ideological borders against science’s growing influence. Religious groups of many kinds (including Young Earth Creationissts, Mormons, JWs, Moonies, Scientologists and many others) made use of his ideas to defend themselves against historical and scientific critique, or those of others that came from the same kind of school. And it was precisely this perverse strain of anti-reason with the US humanities community that that enabled Alan Sokal to pull his famous trick (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_af...).

The smell around Daniel Peterson and his ilk at FARMS are symptoms of an ideological system in distress as much as the smell of decaying flesh is of a dead body. They are Derridian postmodern fog machines whose purpose is to make the terrain around the borders of Mormonism so hard to find and to appear so baffling and unattractive that the faithful who wander in that direction will turn back in dismay.

Don’t hold your breath (though it is hard to resist doing this) while waiting for Peterson or FARMS to clarify anything. But even smelly fog shows can be enjoyed at a distance. Peterson and his FARMSy friends put out some spectacularly pungent fog. One of my recent favourites is FARMS review of Carl Sagan’s “Demon Haunted World” (see http://farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename...). I have a half finished review that illustrates why is it best seen as a nice bit of postmodern fog that would produce laughter in scientific community (if anyone there cared enough to read it) while ironically causing the Mormon faithful to breathe a deep sigh of relief.

You can best assess what is raising the levels of cognitive dissonance ( see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitiv...)in the Mormon community by following the direction in which FARMS points its offensive, but effective, fog machine.
topic image
Phase Transitions And Candlelight
Tuesday, Mar 21, 2006, at 09:47 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
My Southern Alberta Mormon ancestors could see forever - to eternity even.

Mormon belief banished intellectual fog. Joseph Smith, Mormonism's founder, and the Mormon prophets who inherited his mantle, provided clear answers to many religious conundra.

"What is God like?" He is a perfected man, with a physical body like ours, but made perfect.

"How did that happen?" God used to be like us; lived on an Earth like this one; obeyed his God; and as a result, His body became perfected after death just as our can be.

"Was Jesus God's son?" Yes.

"Literally?" Yes. God physically impregnated Mary, and so Jesus is literally His son.

"Is Heaven real?" Yes.

"How does one get there?" By obedience to the living word of God's prophets who have inherited Joseph Smith's authority. This obedience will purify and perfect the Saints, and enable them to enter God's presence after death. These, and only these, will enter the Kingdom of God.

"Why does God permit suffering and cruelty?" To test and purify us.

The Mormon universe is capricious, but completely understood.

And real fog in Southern Alberta was a rare - even mystic - event as a result of near constant, bone dry wind. The high Canadian plain is pan flat to the east, and gently rises to the west toward the distant, glistening Rockies. But sometimes, and particularly in the Spring when we get most of our annual moisture, cloud touches ground. Nature secretes herself to prepare for renewal.

Today was one of those days. A thick morning fog swathed the vast expanse of slumbering, snow-rashed prairie in surreality. Mayor Magrath Drive's four dusty lanes narrowed into Highway 3 just south of Lethbridge and pointed me into white billows beyond which I knew lay Cardston.

As I started down the highway my mind turned cartwheels over the brilliant chapter from Philip Ball's "Critical Mass" I had finished minutes before. And I unconsciously smiled in anticipation of seeing old friends.

The boys slept. They were emphatic last night about not wanting to be awakened if I chose to watch an early morning game. I was their chauffeur. They were part of a recently crowned Zone champion junior varsity basketball team, and had persuaded me to drive them to Lethbridge to watch their friends on the varsity team play for the high school provincial championship. My alma mater, the near 100% Mormon Raymond High School, was in the provincial championship tournament as well, and I was headed to Cardston to watch them play. I would likely be back to the hotel before my charges stirred.

My "old school" team, and its ancient glories, were no match for sleep on a Saturday morning as far as the boys were concerned, though on the trip down they had thanked me for the story about my high school team that I told them in the locker room just before their championship game. History is starting to seem relevant to them as experience and education expand their vision of the present.

They were lucky to be in the Zone final game to begin with, and once on the court delivered their second upset of the day, and against a team that had beaten them by 30 the week before. This mimicked my most exciting Raymond Comet experience - the one that provided their pre-game inspiration. The boys said that my story was responsible for their explosive start in the biggest game of their lives. I didn't spoil their moment by talking about probability distributions and luck.

Highway 3 came back into focus as Welling suddenly appeared in the mist. I slowed down momentary to pass a few old houses and farm buildings scattered along the highway, and check for the highway patrol that sometimes hid there.

What was Ball's point that had me so revved up? It took me several reads to get it, but the effort had been more than worth while and now, even though I still basked in the glow of learning something important, it took effort to recapture these slippery ideas. Such is the lot of those of us who come late in life to appreciate the importance of what science has to say.

Ball used a branch of statistical physics to explain why it was reasonable to expect human groups to suddenly change their characteristics on the basis of a "phase transition" similar to what happens when a liquid starts to boil. This has to do with "power law distributions" and "self organizing critical systems" .

Different human groups will react in different ways to environmental changes due in large measure to how information flows within them. I knew from other reading that something analogous occurs within each human brain. Ball's focus was on how individuals interact in groups in complicated ways that are analogous to grains of sand being added to a pile and occasionally starting avalanches of different sizes. He showed how we tend to overestimate the importance of our individual psychology and "free will", and underestimate the extent to which our lives are influenced by how we in effect "bounce off" other individuals.

Thanks to Ball's lucid analysis, an image had sprung into my mind of what sometimes happens as new and disturbing information entering a group. It would have little noticeable impact for a long time, and then finally one individual would experience a phase transition at the neural level. That is, enough neurons would fire in a new pattern, consistent with the new information, to change one mind. Then, that individual would interact with others and help to cause mental phase transitions in them, and as they did the same with other individuals, a social avalanche of changing attitudes and behaviour would occur. This would abruptly release social or intellectual pressure that had built mostly unnoticed over a long period of time, just as avalanches release accumulated physical energy. Most avalanches would be small, and occasionally a landscape changing event would occur.

A social phase transition of this sort is likely what brought down the Berlin Wall and changed Eastern Europe in a period of a few years. As I passed the turn offs to Raymond and then Magrath , I thought about how the Internet had recently caused my rebirth. Old information is riding on new, slick rails deep into the Mormon heartland. As a result, Mormonism is in a phase transition.

An idea had tugged at me as I reluctantly put down Ball's book so as not to be late for the game. While driving, it blossomed. Using computer systems like those Ball described, I could model the kind of social change that may occur within Mormonism. And, I could create a visual representation of the entire process from neurons, to an individual, to a group, to that group vis-ŕ-vis other groups. This would look like a time series starting with an individual soldier fighting at a battle front, and ending with rapidly changing national boundaries. I felt the natural high that accompanies even minor inspiration as this idea came into focus, and settled back to enjoy the drive.

It had been years since I had last been on this winding highway that climbs from the prairie into the foothills, but I could likely have made the trip with my eyes shut. Dilapidated farmhouses, granaries and small towns loomed suddenly as familiar ghosts before leaping out of the fog and disappearing abruptly behind me. Each dip and curve into a creek carved coulee brought back memories of relatives who had homesteaded there, kids who had died in car accidents, hunting trips both real and hoped for. This road runs through my heart.

But there should be little here to bring me back. Many relatives and friends have moved away or died. I have trouble appreciating, and being appreciated by, most who remain. And somehow as years pass, my feeling for this barren place and those who live here becomes more palpable.

In the absence of water and the face of wind, roots go down deep or not at all. Mine are deeper here than I thought possible. This was proved a few years ago when I tried to pull them out, and then wither them through lack of nourishment. This morning told me that they are stronger than ever.

I cruised past an old truck, then a new Lincoln Towncar. In both cases, a stoic white haired gentleman was behind the wheel with his wife beside him. All were dressed in their Sunday best, on a Saturday morning, driving the speed limit, on their way to Cardston. It was a near certainty that they were on their way to do Mormon temple work.

A wizened farmer - faded as his land - walked purposefully in muddy black gumboots down a sideroad from a weather beaten house toward more-beaten outbuildings. His bent back and off-center gait told of countless hours sitting on a tractor and likely an accident or several. If he took his hat off to display his farmer's tan and put on a rumpled suit, he would be the man in the truck.

A familiar pit wrapped strong arms around my gut as each ghostly landmark begged me to stop and to pick up the shards of my Mormon soul. This rare combination of loss inspired angst and the lingering glow of Philip Ball's conceptual trip produced a soaring yen .

Tears welled up. No matter how often I leave this place or how long I stay away, to come back is to know where I was forged. No amount of digging and pulling can remove my roots from this windy moonscape. And I no longer think it wise to extricate myself. This is me; I am it. Life weaves us using threads available while we are rapidly growing, tender shoots. And thankfully, as long as we continue to grow, life still weaves.

A song I recognized caught my attention from the background. Its haunting quality embraced my mood. So I turned it up and listened carefully enough to understand some of the lyrics. They paralyzed me. I almost drove off the road while fiddling with my iPod to replay the parts I couldn't catch the first, or second, time through. This is what came into focus behind gorgeous, offbeat, minor key music and striking vocals.

Candlelight
By: Imogen Heap

La lay …

I am alone
surrounded
by the colour
blue

Inside a poem
the only
words I ever
knew

Ya I'm washing my hands
Many
years
untold

For now I am banned
My future
is to
unfold

Would you take my
candlelight
Would you take my
candle, I know
Would you take my
my candlelight
Away from me

I am blind
My eyes
covered
from the
outside

For I have lied
now all
there is
left for me
to do is hide

Take in a deep
breath
I lift
my head

For I am a new man
and I arise
from my
bed

Would you take my
Candlelight …

This is all there
is
I can see that
now

I have to be
careful with it
Now it's been
found ya

So fragile
but powerful,
Ya, this is
the light

Light of my destiny
come stay with me,
through every
night

Would you take my
Candlelight …

away
Ah
Away from me

I have no idea what Imogen Heap meant by her lyrics and the wonderful music they were set to, but they moved me deeply in a variety of ways. They vividly conjured my journey out of Mormonism. But most poignantly as I heard them on this misty prairie morning, they brought to mind the two old couples I had passed and the farmer on his way to a small barn - contented dust particles about to be swept up in the storm of social change Philip Ball helped me to see. These people stand as proxies for countless relatives and friends who have their roots here; roots formed immutably as were mine.

A single, fragile candle has lit the way for most faithful Mormons. It is the only light they know and so seems like the Sun itself. Forces far larger and more powerful than they can possibly understand are entering their lives, likely for the most part by way of children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. This makes the light that once seemed eternal and all-powerful suddenly fragile, threatening them and all they hold sacred with extinction. Depression looms as they watch their family be literally torn apart in many cases. Revelations' apocalyptic vision seems apt for this End of Days; this seeming dark, insane whirlwind.

Ironically, the fact that their candle is the only light they have known makes it the only light they can see. Such is the nature of human conditioning. So, the many lights that disturb their lives are off the visible spectrum. These bring terrifying darkness to those without eyes to see; and buzzing chaos to ears that cannot hear.

The few who push through this, and develop new eyes and ears, tend to be overwhelmed by a vast range of novel experience, and eventually joy. During a three week period I went from contented Mormon, to considering suicide, to marvelling at a human tapestry more glorious than anything I had imagined. My Mormon candle seemed a fascinating firefly that disappeared into an hour blaze of fireworks.

Mormons are for the most part kind, intelligent human beings, and don't make it to the point at which Imogen speaks of washing hands, being banned, etc. But they are the color blue; and they are trapped inside the words of the only poem they ever knew.

One of their worst nightmares is the death of that poem; the extinguishment of their light and the chaotic darkness they know must follow. This is so horrible a possibility that it can't be imagined, and so is characteristic of the most terrifying motifs of all time - an evil with which the mind cannot cope and so must modify. Hence, technology run amok becomes Frankenstein or The Matrix and Mormon apostates like me are branded sinners who have lost the Spirit but can't do more than menace the faithful. Mormon walls cannot fall, or change.

Imogen's character in the song painfully redeems herself and charts a new, precious course. For most people trapped in foundational social flux, however, this is not possible.

I love these people, and feel their terror as they clutch precious, flickering candles. But I can't bring myself to stand in the storm's way, and if I did would likely do more harm than good. The lives of younger, and future, generations are at stake. The Mormon candle will lead its holders into the abyss with rapidly increasing certainty as society changes. New lights, and new eyes, are required and will be developed, though the cost makes my knees tremble.

And so I grieved as I pulled into Cardston and parked in the shadow of the Mormon temple before going to find some of my old teammates in the high school gym next door. An old truck and Lincoln Towncar drove past and pulled into the lot on the Temple's west side, and four peaceful old folk made their slow way toward the massive granite Temple - a symbol of the blazing, unchanging light by which most faithful Mormons assume they walk.

My great-grandparents sacrificed to build this symbol. My grandparents were married in it, as were my parents, in-laws, brothers and sisters. My wife and I married there too, and as had all those who went before us, we solemnly promised our unconditional obedience to God and his exclusive agents on Earth, the men who lead the Mormon Church.

The four Sunday dressed Mormons - one couple well coiffed and the other rumpled - were certainly on their way to perform sacred ordinances for the dead, like baptism, so that if the deceased accepted Mormonism in the spirit world they could enter God's presence. Without this help from the living, the dead cannot be saved. And if the living are unwilling to lend this assistance, they will not be worthy of salvation themselves.

Mormon temple ritual, modelled on Masonic rites , satisfies a variety of deep human needs - for community; connection to the numinous; the perception of certainty amid life's chaos. Thus, generations of Mormons have busied themselves inside the Mormon hive with matters of eternal consequence, leaving little time or opportunity to consider insignificant gentile concerns.

One of Mormonism's dominant motifs is found in the Book of Mormon and describes the "rod of iron" to which the faithful must cling when they are required to pass through "mists of darkness" and other difficulties. This iron rod is the utterly reliable word of Mormonism's leaders. Those who hold fast to it will not be lost in the fog and are less likely to experience anything that would make that fog enticing. So when Mormon dogma seems like blazing light, it should be followed. When it seems a flickering flame, follow it still. And in utter darkness, it is still the only reliable guide. Dogma of all stripes extracts comforting clarity from chaos.

Metaphors are slippery things. One man's fog is another's life giving moisture. What is certain, however, is that human minds grow around these metaphors, and once mature in a particular form, large scale change is somewhere between difficult and impossible. As Philip Ball put it several times while describing the various human group interactions that have been modelled using computer simulations, "history matters". In these models, identical individuals in identical groups in identical conditions, but with different histories, have radically different futures. Our experience as individuals and groups has a lot to say about our future.

So as life giving intellectual fog douses Mormon candles, many must cling to their iron rod. They have grown so completely around it that nothing is else possible. Some will be torn away, and while they may never recover from the trauma this causes, their sacrifice is likely to provide the best possible platform from which their children and grandchildren may develop. And a few - particularly those who are still growing - will against their initial will thrill to the feel of moisture on their faces and marvel as tender shoots come through in the most unexpected places. New eyes and ears will eventually emerge. They will not so much let go of the iron rod as wonder where it went and why it ever seemed real. In them the Universe is reborn. What seemed a terrifying fog is a womb. As the myths of so many cultures tell us , we are often reconstructed through a terrifying immersion in chaos.

Regrettably, there is an unbridgeable chasm between those who cling to iron rods or tiny candles of all kinds and those who cannot see them. Nothing can be done about this. So the wise accept it, and speak of this distance as little as possible to their loved ones. To shake an iron rod or attempt to douse a candle disturbs the foundation upon which existence depends, and will produce fear as deep and desperate as the harsh words that accompany it. Elephants in corners are preferable to this, let alone the suicide bombers these emotions create in more violent societies. And while overarching themes such as our need in a shrinking world to get along and live within planetary means will eventually build usable bridges, this is a generational task. It will not reunite us with more than a few of the believers we most love.

I smiled, and sighed, as I entered the Cardston High School, walked toward the gym and saw a cherished friend with his elephant in tow. I had not spoken to him for more than a few minutes during the past 30 years, and I had never before seen his elephant. Nor had he seen mine.

The four of us enjoyed a wonderful visit.

http://mccue.cc/bob/spirituality.htm
topic image
The Evolution Of God And Morality: The Role Of Cheaters And Suckers In Social Groups
Friday, Apr 7, 2006, at 09:36 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
The Evolution of God and Morality
The Role of Cheaters and Suckers in Social Groups

One of my favorite sayings comes from Goethe:

As Man is
So is his God
And thus is God
oft strangely odd

Since our Christian tradition (including its moral concepts) has its roots in Hebrew, that is an interesting place to look for an understanding of how god, and morality, have evolved. I was reminded of this when I received an email from a Jewish friend that included the following information:

“I am reminded of something I shared with my Rabbi a few weeks ago. It comes from a [somewhat uneven] book by Douglass Rushkoff titled Nothing Sacred. Quoting ...

’Iconoclasm leads to the conclusion that any God must, ultimately, be a universal and nameless God. The natural result of settling for an abstract and unknowable deity is to then focus, instead, on human beings and life itself as the supremely sacred vessels of existence. There's no one around to pray to, so one learns to enact sanctity through ethical behavior. Iconoclasm destroys all man-made symbols and leads to abstract monotheism, which in turn leads to an ethos of social justice. …

Jewish community became the new temple. The emerging Talmudic law stressed that God was experienced differently by everybody. Accordingly, the Israelites who witnessed him "directly" at Mount Sinai each saw a different image of God. Likewise, wherever Jews prayed together, the spirit of God was present even though each person experienced him personally and uniquely. There was no longer any official doctrine on what God was. His name could no longer be pronounced; his meaning could no longer be conceived.

From then on, most Jewish thinkers have understood God more by what he is not than by whatever he is. Medieval philosopher Moses Maimonides developed what is now called "negative theology." God is not a creature. God has no hands, and neither does God have emotions. Since any positive attribute of God is "inadmissible," he can be referred to only in the negative. If we are to appreciate God, we must do so by contemplating the underlying order of the natural universe. God is in the beauty of the logic, the details. Maimonides understood that any fixed conception of God must also be a form of idolatry. Negative theology prevents Jews from going backward and reducing their abstract God to a particular image, concept, or icon. But what happens when one moves forward from there?

Let's push the envelope just a little further, along with the existentialist philosophers of the twentieth century: If God cannot be conceived in any way, if his existence is utterly out of reach of human systems of belief and intellect, then for all practical purposes he does not exist. The evolution of God -- from Abraham's fire-breathing warmonger through Moses' righteous savior and Isaiah's compassionate father to Philo's allegorical character in the human drama -- is from real, to the ethereal, to the inconceivable. This is why the spiritual crisis of the twentieth century, precipitated by the success of the scientific model and rationality that came with it, need not threaten one's spiritual foundations. As long as faith finds its foothold in something other than the authority of God or the testaments of those who claim to have encountered him, logic and spirituality are not at odds. God is just not something Jews are suppose to worry about.

In this light, abstract monotheism is not the process by which a people find the one true God, but the path through which they get over the need for him. Whether he exists or not, he is beyond human's perceptual reach or conceptual grasp. He is increasingly inaccessible and rendered effectively absent. This is no cause for sadness. Our continuing evolution beyond the need for a paternal character named God doesn't mean we have to become atheists; we might just as likely become pantheists, learning to see God in everything and everyone. For at each step along the way, the Jews' focus on an external master whose hunger they need to quell or whose edicts they need to obey is replaced by an emphasis on people's duty to one another.”

This, and other communications over the past few days with friends who have a Jewish and scientific background, reminded me of another of the many insights I harvested from Philip Ball's book "Critical Mass". The bottom line I read between Ball's analysis of one corner of the game theory research and the development of Jewish theology is this: Just as the notion of God within Jewish culture evolved in response to events such as the Babylonian captivity, the notion of morality everywhere has evolved in similar ways.

Ball summarized part of the game theory research dealing with the old Prisoner's Dilemma. For those who want some background as to how this works, I have cut and pasted some notes below.

The short version of this story is as follows. Various populations of agents that play different versions of the Prisoner's Dilemma game are set up in a computer model, and then allowed to play against each other. They can also change the way they play the game if they run into a better strategy. You will recall that in this game the communal pie is maximized if people trust each other and hence cooperate with each other; the communal pie is minimized when everyone cheats on each other and no one cooperates; the piece of pie an individual takes is maximized if she cheats while everyone else cooperates (a cheater surrounded by co-operators - many religious cult leaders and other flim flam artists fit this description); and the individual piece is minimized if she is a habitual co-operator in a population of cheaters.

In the cases that are of the most relevance to the current discussion, the starting point is chaos - almost everyone cheats on everyone else at every opportunity. There are only a few non-cheaters in the system. Occasionally they start to interact with each other and quickly become richer. They then take over the game - their behaviour spreads.

And once cooperation dominates, a few cheaters almost always remain and prosper, as long as they don't become too numerous or congregate. Cheaters need to be spread throughout the population and remain in the minority to do well. They are analogous to parasites. Again, the leaders of some religious groups exhibit this behaviour.

It is interesting to note that the only way that the initial cycle of pervasive cheating can be broken is through the adoption of a rigid "tit for tat" system that closely resembles "an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth". "...'Tit for tat is the pivot, rather than the aim, of an evolution toward cooperation'. In other words, it is needed to establish cooperation in a diverse population; but once that has been achieved, "softer" cooperative strategies will take over". (Ball, p. 435)

It is also notable that many biological systems operate on a tit for tat basis (Ball, p. 423) "including vampire bats, stickleback fish, money and even viruses". ... Edward O. Wilson argues that as civilization revolved, such modes of human behaviour will have become converted from instinctive impulses to social norms, then to legal imperatives, and ultimately to moral principles."

As noted, tit for tat produces a communal pie that is still far below optimal. The optimal systems for most circumstances are forgiving or “generous” versions of tit for tat, like for example that I will start by trusting you, and then give you two or three strikes before I reciprocate your cheating behaviour. For obvious reasons, however, this would not work in a group of consistent cheaters. They would never reciprocate my trust, and after two to three cheats I would start cheating too. However, in a population of primarily tit for tat people, generous tit for tat makes it so that good behaviour can spread more quickly and the odd mistake does not automatically crash us back to consistent cheating.

In the most realistic models that have been developed, it takes a long time for populations to evolve from chaos to tit for tat, and from there toward more compassionate models that gets us close to maximum communal benefit, and when this happens it looks like a phase transition - critical mass is achieved and a radical behavioural change spreads through the population, much as what seems to have occurred with the simultaneous blossoming of the Golden Rule during the Axial Age (BCE 800 to 200) in Hebrew, Greek, Indian and Chinese cultures.

And these phase transitions can operate in reverse as well. That is, the models also indicate that at times groups do crash back toward chaos. This is often caused by the population becoming too soft - too unconditionally forgiving; too generous and not enough tit for tat - which makes such an inviting target for cheaters that they emerge in large number. And when they thrive sufficiently the entire population is driven into chaotic poverty. There appears to be something to be said for maintaining a relatively firm stance against cheaters.

Another model that does better than all others in many cases is generous but opportunistic tit for tat (I will play generous tit for tat unless I run into a real sucker whom I will happily swindle). This keeps the unconditionally forgiving (“sucker”) population under control and it is an overstrong sucker population that opens the door to hardcore cheaters. Though we are loath to admit it, there are many among us who are opportunistic in this way. The idea that these people are doing us all a service is a slippery slope that I don’t want to think too much about.

However, what is clear is that anyone who counsels unconditional forgiveness is either not thinking clearly, or perhaps is one of those people who wishes to be surrounded by suckers.

How many times did Joseph Smith say we should forgive those who take advantage of us?

Best,

bob

ps. These models are just that - models. Hence, while we can learn about our social reality from them, they are so much simpler than we are that it would be unwise to simply assume that what the model indicates is "true" or "justified". Models of this type provide what is likely the best information we have as to how social groups will behave in the long term. Armed with that information, we should be better able to decide what we value and how to behave in light of what we wish to being into existence.


Here are a few quotes from Ball that lay out the basics of the Prisoner's Dilemma.

Page 416 - 419: Temptation is arguably the fundamental problem for human societies. It sometimes pays not to be the good, kind, considerate citizen but to rebel, to cheat, to fight, to do the dirty. If my neighbours are all meek, law-abiding people, what is to stop me from appropriating some of their land, or gods, or cattle? A Hobbesian individual in a Hobbesian world is as miserable as everyone else. But a Hobbesian in Eden can run riot, amass a fortune, gorge himself, and fear no reprisal (unless he believes in God). Temptation is a part of the human condition, and that is the problem for all utopias: not everyone is nice, because sometimes crime pays.

It is not obvious how to devise a "particle" that can be led into temptation. But in the 1950s, Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher at the RAND Corporation did more or less just that. They developed a simple mathematical model that incorporated the element of temptation into an interaction between two agents.

The model was presented as a kind of game. Flood and Dresher were exploring the theory of games devised by the mathematical physicist John von Neumann in the 1920s. One of the most formidable mathematicians of the twentieth century, von Neumann helped establish the theoretical basis of the computer and made crucial contributions to the Manhattan Project during the Second World War. He cultivated something of a reputation as a playboy genius, which his passion for gambling and poker did much to enhance. But von Neumann didn't just want to play these games; he wanted to understand them.

For sheer complexity, a mathematician can do no better than to study the game of chess. There is a sense, however, in which poker is much more challenging, for it incorporates the psychological element of bluffing. The question is not, as in chess, what the next best move is, but which move will anticipate, mislead, or disconcert your opponent. The elements of risk and uncertainty in games like poker led von Neumann to see a connection with economics, and in 1944 he set out his ideas in a book coauthored with the economist Oskar Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.

The game devised by Flood and Dresher involved a gamble. It has become known as the Prisoner's Dilemma, and it introduced game theory into sociology, biology and political science. The game is played by two agents, who are depicted in the explanatory metaphor as prisoners suspected of committing a crime. Each is offered the inducement that if he testifies against the other, thereby securing the other's conviction, he will be set free. If neither agrees to testify, both will receive a sentence - but only a light one, because of the paucity of evidence. If both testify against each other, the sentences will be heavier - but not as heavy as that of the convicted party if only one of them testifies, since the evidence in the former case is equivocal.

The temptation is, of course, to testify against the other prisoner. ...

The essence of the Prisoner's Dilemma can be expressed in terms of a choice either to "cooperate" or to "defect". The best outcome - the maximal payoff - for one agent comes if he defects (testifies) while the other cooperates (that is, refuses to testify - the cooperation here is with the other prisoner, not the authorities). In that case, the other player is the "sucker" and gets the worst outcome. But if the agents play rationally, they get neither this optimal payoff nor the next best thing, which is the payoff from mutual cooperation. Instead, they get the meager rewards of mutual defection, which are a little better than the sucker's payoff.

To recast this dilemma in terms of individuals living in a society, we can regard cooperation as being law-abiding and defection as breaking the law for one's own gain at another's expense. ...

The frustrating thing about this game is that the players - the prisoners, if you like - can't communicate. It is obviously in their interests to agree to cooperate rather than to both defect. But since they cannot convey to each other a readiness to do this, they are better off assuming the worst of the other player, which implies that they must defect.

If you play the game more than once, however, there is scope for communication of a kind: even if the players cannot correspond directly, they can signal their intentions by the way they play. If one player reveals a willingness to cooperate by doing so in one round, the other player might decide to reciprocate in the next. The players who, having both begun with ruthless defection, later begin to cooperate find that they achieve better outcomes as a result. They do not need to experience any sense of guilt or moral obligation to switch to cooperation. Pure self-interest is enough to make that the best choice.

This means that the impasses that compels defection from both players in a single round of the Prisoner's Dilemma can be broken simply by playing the game repeatedly. And that is how we commonly encounter comparable situations in real life. If I cheat on my neighbour, he as plenty of opportunity to retaliate. Most businesses deal again and again with the same clients. If two countries share a border, they cannot avoid ongoing political, economic and social interactions. [end quote]
topic image
A Broad Perspective On Recovery From Mormonism
Thursday, Apr 13, 2006, at 06:44 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Most topics are best understood in the broadest possible context (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.rena...). So, I think it is useful to attempt to place the discussion of changing one's religious orientation - and in particular moving from the Mormon to the post-Mormon world - in the broadest historical, psychological and sociological framework possible within the constraints of space and time I have imposed on myself. This is particularly the case regarding religion because many religious people, including Mormons, have been trained to think of their religion as uniquely important and hence not subject to understanding in the same way other aspects of human experience. This is referred to in the psychological literature as "compartmentalization" (see http://www.planetpsych.com/zPsycholog...) and is essential to the maintenance of religious beliefs that are inconsistent with much of the rational thought required to earn a living and generally to exist in harmony with secular society.

Hence, much of the recovery process relates to breaking down the manner in which Mormonism has compartmentalized our ideas with regard to religion; how it has trained us to think that our religious beliefs are not subject to rational analysis and cannot be understood in terms of the same psychological and sociological mechanisms that have been extensively studied in other contexts. My story illustrates the power of compartmentalization (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.the%...). After returning home from my Mormon mission to Peru in 1979, I decided to prepare myself for more missionary service in the Kingdom by learning about how other religions work, about the psychology of religion, etc. Hence, religious studies hence became my undergraduate minor. I made it through many religious studies courses of various types, many of which directly challenged my compartmentalized Mormon point of view, and was confronted by one professor who was offended by my closed minded approach. None of this moved me. I recall thinking that some of the books I read in that regard were "shallow" when compared to Hugh Nibley's wonderful scholarship (he was my main academic guiding light in those days; see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.leav... for some of my current views regarding Nibley) and that the professor who challenged me and tried to point out my own narrow mindedness was unethical and without God's spirit. I don't recall even a moments thought that my LDS beliefs might not be true. At the time, this was simply unthinkable by my congested brain.

I of course do not allege that psychology, sociology etc. has everything figured out for us. But we do know a lot about how beliefs in general and religious beliefs in particular are formed and maintained, and the work the scholars in various fields have done in this regard is enormously helpful for those who are trying to understand how the world could have seemed to certain for so long, and then suddenly (or gradually for some people) turned to dust. The perspective gained by standing on the shoulders of the scholars who have done this work can be crucial in different ways. For some, it takes the edge off the terror they feel while moving from one state of seeing religious "reality" to another. For others, much more importantly, it provides the courage necessary to pass through the "narrow gate" and acknowledge reality in the first place. And for yet others, perhaps more important still, it provides the balm needed to heal wounds that have been largely ignored after leaving Mormonism for one reason oranother long ago, all the while feeling vaguely deficient and guilty as a result of not having lived "up to" the standard set by the Mormon community.

The transition out of Mormon belief was more painful than anything else in my experience, and paradoxically, some of my life's greatest euphoria followed close on the heels of my worst misery. Joseph Smith captured this paradox in his description of how his vision of God and Christ was immediately preceded by a struggle with the forces of darkness. In this he echoed an ancient mythic theme. I do not suggest that this means he was inspired, but rather acknowledge his ability to identify and push important psychological buttons that have been used by countless religious and other social leaders before and since him to attract and hold the attention of their peers. Charisma, power and the ability to persuade are generally speaking what are perceived to be divine inspiration.

So, here are several perspective broadening exercises we will undertake to enhance our understanding of Mormonism and how it affects us.

First, we will set the process of changing belief in what is likely its broadest possible context - that of mythology. That is, people have been going through this kind of thing in one way or another ever since humankind began to record her history. I found this idea in and of itself profoundly comforting and enlightening.

Second, we will review a couple of succinct analyses of the process of spiritual transition. The first is a bare bones description of the process as described by an insightful post-Mormon, and the second is a summary of James Fowler's robust treatment of this topic in his well-worth-reading book "Stages of Faith".

Third, we will focus on the part of the process described by Fowler that is likely of greatest interest to those who will read this essay - the transition from the narrow, group-controlled belief (Fowler calls this "stage two" or "stage three" faith) through the anger and terror of Fowler's "stage four faith" into the light and wonder of Fowler's "stage five" faith. This is of particular importance to both post-Mormons and those who deal with them because the terror and anger of stage four discourages some people from ever going there, and is frightening to anyone who has to deal with someone who is going through it. Perspective here is of particular importance. We will review some of what the psychological and sociological literature has to say about this transition, what it is reasonable to expect of it in terms of time and energy, and how to try to manage it. This will include an extensive analysis of what might be called the "Stage of Grief". That is, the literature with regard to how we grieve losses and adjust to them is of great help to those who are going through this process in terms of the removal of Mormonism or any other major ideological pillar from their lives.

Fourth, we will review a variety of the principles that relate to building a new worldview, and why that is for many people one of life's highlights.

And finally, we will wrap up with more mythology since we remember stories far more effectively than we remember theory, and so we will attempt to attach the most important principles we have discussed to one of the worlds most famous and memorable myths that is relevant to this process.
topic image
Newspaper Series In Canada Re. Spirituality And How Mormonism Fits In
Monday, Apr 17, 2006, at 06:37 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
A few weeks ago I gave a long in person interview and several email interviews to Jeremy Loome, the writer at large for the Edmonton Sun, part of a large chain of newspapers in Canada. The interview was part the research Jeremy was doing for a five day series on spirituality. You can find day one at http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmon..., as well as a summary of the other four days which will run Monday through Thurs. of this week.

Day 4 features two guys named "Bob", one is Bob White, a lawyer and last I heard Mormon Area General Authority whom I have known for over twenty years. I am the other. Jeremy told me that I would likely be disappointed with the way day 4 is reported. He says he did not have enough space to do the "Mormon issue" justice. I will not prejudge why he feels that way or guess at which of the hundreds of pages of information I reviewed with him that he will choose to use. He did tell me, however, that of the many people he spoke to while preparing for this piece, I was among the most helpful in terms of bringing spiritual issues in general into focus for him. And the structure of his series reflects a lot of the information I summarized for him, and people I suggested that he call. For example, I introduced him to Andrew Newberg's research and told him I was sure that Andy would be pleased to speak with him (I spent a week at a conference with Newberg last summer) - see Day 3. And, I told him about David Oler's secular humanist (that is, atheist) Jewish synagogues that are headquartered in Chicago, and introduced him to Oler - see Day 5.

I should also say that I had the pleasure of lunch with Jeremy just over a week ago in Edmonton, and was very impressed with the amount he had learned about religion and the social science related to it since we had spoken. He is one of these people who ingests and processes information at a rapid rate, and taught me a number of fascinating things over lunch. He also told me that doing the series had changed his view of seriously religious people - he is much more tolerant of them than he was.

What I propose to do is annotate each day of Jeremy's series. Today's offering will follow.

best,

bob

Here is the article's text:

Day 1

THE GURU AND THE GIRLFRIEND

A local guru who promises the path to inner truth. But to some, John de Ruiter is the latest in a long history of people substituting psychobabble and self-worship for spiritual growth.

Day 2

LOSING HER ILLUSIONS

Joyce De Ruiter's time as the wife of Edmonton spiritual guru John de Ruiter taught her that being enlightened isn't always what it's cracked up to be. But plenty of others still disagree.

Day3

GOD ON THE BRAIN

For every person who's had a spiritual awakening, Dr. Andy Newberg has a message: we're all the same when we have God on the brain. Newberg's research may revolutionize how we view faith.

Day 4

LATTER-DAY DEBATERS

This is the story of two Albertans named Bob, both lawyers, both smart and, as bookends in the debate over the roots of the Mormon Church, proof that faith can affect how anyone interprets facts.

Day 5

TRANSFORMING RELIGION

In Chicago and across the U.S. and Canada, formerly orthodox Jews are reinterpreting their faith and concluding man created religion, not God. But they're also among its biggest fans.

The people are looking for answers, but don't show it yet. On a warm Saturday night, the 400 or so who file into a west-end auditorium exhibit no anxiety or curiosity.

- - -

Grandmas mix with middle-aged professionals and little kids. People mill between the seats, surrounded by 40-foot marble pillars and a roof accented by crystal chandeliers. It could be a church five minutes before service, though there's no pulpit on stage, just a table, some flowers and a chair.

The people who run this building would tell you John de Ruiter is a "philosopher," not a guru or religious cult leader. His website, which trumpets the recent construction of the $1.7-million building on 177 Street, even cautions he's not there to solve problems, just to offer "core-splitting" truth.

It doesn't stop people from seeking advice, as they've done for a decade. They fly from across the globe to pay homage - and cash - to de Ruiter, a Jesus type in a suit. His outing by media as a marital cheat five years ago didn't visibly dent his popularity.

In the crowd is "Anne." A few months back, her boyfriend would've sat next to her. But he returned to the U.S. West Coast alone and spends his time trying to coax her back. He has proposed, but no longer thinks marriage is realistic. But he tries because he loves her. Dave thinks John de Ruiter's teachings could be dangerous. He isn't alone.

- - -

Health problems and curiosity brought Dave to Edmonton, common among de Ruiter's followers. He'd seen de Ruiter at a U.S. meeting, one of dozens around the world annually.

"It was almost like there was an energy radiating from him," Dave recalls. "He didn't seem to really say anything that made much sense, but he just had this presence that made you want to come back and figure it out."

Dave had supported other charismatic spiritualists. "Vincent Bugliosi, the lawyer, once said of Charles Manson's followers that if you looked into their eyes, you could tell they were true believers. That's kind of what it was like," he says. "The people, they hung on John's every word."

Anne was one of the most devoted, he says. They hit it off immediately, and a relationship followed. "I felt like I'd maybe found some of the answers I'd been looking for my entire life and the woman I loved at the same time."

Weeks later, Dave was beside himself. He'd given up his life to devote it to a man he thought could be a prophet. He'd asked questions, but the answers to him and others from de Ruiter seemed garbled, useless. He felt he had nothing left.

"There wasn't any substance to him, but she insisted on staying. I listened and he talked. People asked questions and he talked, or he'd just sit and ignore them. But nothing he said ever made much sense."

- - -

De Ruiter was a Catholic as a child but joined the Lutheran Church in adulthood and studied to become a pastor. Known within the church as having an uncommon fervour, de Ruiter once gave testimony - an accounting of religious experiences - to the church's board of directors for nine straight hours.

A few years earlier, at 17, he claimed a revelation. De Ruiter has said he was overcome by bliss-like peace that led to a full year of happiness and certainty. In an effort to reclaim the sensation, he started studying alternate religions and philosophies, and eventually left Christianity

By 1994, the shoestore worker met Boots Beaudry, an ex-army medic and clerk turned spiritualist. Beaudry saw de Ruiter's effect on people, and believed his claim of tapping a wellspring of inner truth.

She'd hidden her interest in mysticism while in the army for fear of ridicule, but opened her Whyte Avenue clinic to de Ruiter for public meetings.

His following grew to hundreds. Larger, rented venues followed. He also started lecturing outside Alberta, charging hundreds of dollars for four-day "retreats" and attracting followers - some quite wealthy - who moved to Edmonton. One couple, businessman Peter Von Sass and his wife Ilona, moved to the city from Calgary to be near de Ruiter and invited their daughters, Benita and Katrina, into the fold. Others came from Britain, Germany and Australia.

Initially, de Ruiter denied to his wife, Joyce, that he was sleeping with the sisters. Eventually he admitted it and sought her acceptance, she says, claiming his "ultimate truth" had OK'd it. Many followers accepted it, but Joyce publicly rejected him. Five years later, the bitterness continues.

- - -

"What John talks about is staying within what you know to be true," says Beaudry. We're in a diner near her clinic. She's out of the inner circle, but still reveres de Ruiter.

"Let's say you're in pain. If you stay within what you know to be true, that means you don't make it more than what it is and you don't make it less than what it is. You just let it be."

Beaudry joined up with de Ruiter after leaving the military. She'd been a medic during the Edmonton tornado in 1987 and decided the military was not a safe occupation.

With just three years left until her pension, she opted out. At the same time, she believed she could see forms of energy around people. New-age healing beckoned.

She says de Ruiter's philosophy is to look for answers within, a capital-T "Truth," uncluttered by human convention or experience. She supports his contention his inner truth told him he wasn't cheating when he slept with the sisters, even though he'd counselled his followers against infidelity.

"I don't think it's right, some of the stuff that he has done, but that doesn't mean to say it's not true," she says.

I suggest that listening only to your heart without considering others could be a recipe for selfishness.

"Ah, but if you're walking with a hardness of heart towards yourself or anyone else, it just doesn't work," she says.

"When you're walking with an open hand, it's like ... it's like with Benita: I knew that was coming long before it actually happened, and long before I talked to him about it.

"And I said to him, 'This is not right.' And he said, 'This is not what you think it is.' He didn't say whether he was messing with her. He's talking from the inside, from that place of honesty. Honesty and truth are not the same things as morality."

Isn't "honesty," at someone else's expense, selfish? I ask.

"Yes," she says simply. "But it's a wonderful selfishness. And we should all be more selfish. If I'm paying more attention to what someone else wants or what they believe is true to them, then what about what I want?"

Selflessness, she says, is a waste of time. "What good will you do? You're not going to change anything. The people who might've been hurt will still be hurt by something else."

- - -

De Ruiter's claim of offering philosophy, not guidance, is considered even by some supporters a legal manoeuvre. At least one, a B.C. man with pre-existing mental health issues, committed suicide prior to de Ruiter placing warnings on his website.

There's no suggestion that attending the meetings played any role in the man's death, but when a man's allegedly answering some of life's great questions, it pays to be careful.

"People reveal their souls to him, their deepest secrets and their greatest anxieties," says Dr. Stephen Kent, a cult expert at the University of Alberta. "And he responds in ways that give direction to them.

"The practical consequence of his teachings is that people will continue to bond with him, first and foremost. So people who support him date together, live together, socialize and party and bring the kids.

"Despite the fact that his teachings have a highly individualistic dimension, the practical consequence is that he's building a community around himself.

"What's interesting about John's message is that there doesn't seem to be an emphasis on social action. I've never heard anything about helping to develop a sense of self by doing charitable work, by helping society."

Though Kent says that could be dangerous, he also notes that people might find enough comfort in the procedure of opening up to de Ruiter to stave off problems for a while.

It's a lucrative trade-off. Beaudry concedes z's following - which happily purchases his dozens of DVD and audiotape lectures -has raised a lot of money.

"People would hand him envelopes stuffed thick with cash. He talked about building a community where people could explore philosophical truth together, getting a big piece of land where people could build homes," says Beaudry. Then she laughs.

"I told him 'John, make sure you don't call it Jonestown' and he just laughed at that," she says. "I think some of the others were offended but I've never worried too much about them. I told him, 'Don't go serving any Kool-Aid.' "

To the outside observer, Anne's loyalty and Boots's certainty may seem puzzling.

What would compel people to drop everything and follow a man claiming to embody truth without proof? To give him money, adoration and support?

But it's not uncommon. In fact, science may soon explain why humans seem compelled to support spiritual beliefs despite overwhelmingly contrary evidence that they are irrational.

- - -

Over the next four days this series will explore why we ridicule others' beliefs but hold on to our own, why such beliefs can be both beneficial and dangerous, and why, ultimately, human beings will nearly always be able to accept what comforts them over harsh realities.
topic image
Faith Chemistry Research Suggests Link Between Brain Function And Spiritual Experiences
Thursday, Apr 20, 2006, at 09:20 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I continue to be impressed by the volume of information Jeremy Loome has summarized in these articles. Today’s is the best so far. And, the edition of the paper contained two other related articles both of which cover research I discussed with Loome. I suspect that he had a hand in them. They can be found at http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World... (“Science Seeking Answers”) and http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World... (“Achieving Meditative Bliss”). I will review all three articles together.

Loome summarizes the basics of Andrew Newberg’s research as found in “Why God Won’t Go Away”. For more on that topic, see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni...starting at page 105. This explains the state of bliss experienced in deep meditation. More importantly, in its milder forms it explains what induces Mormon testimony. My experience in this regard is summarized at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/out%20o... starting at page 77.

In “Achieving Meditative Bliss” at http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/World... the mechanics of my testimony experience are adequately summarized as follows:

“Cult leaders use artificially devised punish-and-reward scenarios - often combined with informational and sense deprivation - to brainwash people into supporting them. The reward part can include reaching the bliss sensation, which allows the procedure to become self-perpetuating. The tie is strong enough that sometimes merely being in their guru or leader's presence or around something that reminds them of him will cause the brain to dissociate.”

I pause here to note that Newberg says that a mild state of bliss – or absolute unitary being, as he labels it – can be induced by causing anxiety and relief to coincide. My testimony experience was induced by angst over not having a “testimony” when all of my friends said they had one and were committing to go on, or were leaving on, their Mormon missions. Relief was induced by my finally accepting that the Mormon Church “must be true”. This amounted to a surrender to social pressure. Hence, the creation of extreme social pressure becomes its own proof of truth because the relief created by surrender to it causes bliss. The greater the angst one feels, the greater the relief upon surrender, and the greater the bliss. Hence, the “Saul to Paul” type of person should be expected to have the most powerful, blissful experience.

The “Achieving Meditative Bliss” article continues as follows:

“Every mainstream religion has tapped into the technique over the centuries, he says, either through direct meditation or through chanting, hymns and other mantra-like focusing techniques that can produce the same reaction, perhaps explaining why people in evangelical church congregations see the same visions and have some of the same physical reactions as modern spiritualists.”

Mormonism uses these techniques as do most other religions. Another interesting form of group psychology exists in Mormon temples where the most faithful Mormons share a socially bizarre ceremony that amounts to an initiation rite (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/temple%... starting at page 20). Many studies have shown how enduring a painful initiation or paying a significant price of any kind to be part of a group increases commitment to the group. While the Mormon temple ceremony is not physically painful, it is so odd that few people who go through it could imagine their non-Mormon friends thinking anything other than it is crazy. This makes it a bit of a dirty secret (I actually do the things made fun of on the Simpsons and elsewhere in terms of secret handshakes, bizaare costumes, etc.) This joint participation in something socially bizarre sets people apart and amounts to paying a price to be a group member. The group submission to authority, group movements and actions, long periods of silence, etc. in the temple will produce a mild dissociative state – a connection to that “something greater” Newberg described – that many people find comforting.

The article continues:

“It boils down to agenda," says Martin. "With a cult, the flow of power is always towards the leader, and in a traditional religion, hopefully the flow of power is more evenly distributed towards the group.

There are important parallels between mainstream orthodox religions and cults, says Martin. In each, people become utterly subservient to the extent of giving up free will, in the hope of achieving a leader's "transcendent" state - whether that's explained by the leader or his supporters as going to heaven, knowing inner truth, being one with the universe, or other status elevating them to spiritual bliss.”

Mormonism is not as bad cult as many. If the Moonies are an 8 out of 10, Mormonism would be a 6 in my estimation. And Mormonism is less monolithic than the Moonies from what I can tell. That is, Mormonism will take as much as a person will give and will encourage all to give far more than is healthy, but will accept lower levels of commitment than most hard core cults.

I have said for some time that the key regarding religion is to determine who is using whom. If the religious institution or leader is using the believer, the relationship should be changed. I like they way this concept is described above in terms of power flows. The question to ask is whether individual members are empowered by their relationship to the institution or leader, or whether the institution or leader are weakening individual members while aggrandizing themselves. Insiders are rarely able to see what is going on this regard.

Back to Loome’s article. He makes an important point when he refers to the research related to how many people undergo basic personality change – 5%. That is, once we have established a basic belief pattern it is unlikely to change. Michael Shermer’s extensive survey reported in “How We Believe” reaches the same conclusion. And Loome summarizes Newberg’s explanation for this, which I find convincing. That is, all religions use a combination of attraction to a powerful, uber-confident leader, a supportive group, and the kind of other-worldly bliss noted above to attract converts.

Because Loome is writing in the context of cultish behaviour (See Day 1 and 2 re John de Ruiter) and had the usual tiny amount of space with which journalists must work, he does not deal with the literature related to the conditioning that occurs once a person is in a group, and in particular, when one is raised from childhood within a group. This is how you can get Harvard PhD’s in paleontology who believe the Earth is 6,000 -10,000 years old (see http://www.towersonline.net/story.php...) and Mormon “scholars” who seriously argue that the word “horse” in the Book of Mormon really means “tapir” as well as countless other nonsenses.

Loome approaches his conclusion by quoting Newberg as saying that all religions start more or less the same way, based on the principles outlined above. I spent a week with Newberg last summer and found him to be both charming and sharp. His personal belief is that there is perhaps something “out there” to which we connect when in the state of absolute unitary being, and perhaps this state of perception is the most real in our experience. However, he does not support any particular conception of god nor does he purport to understand god. And he is clear as to the difference between what he believes is supported by science, and what is at this point speculation.

I also note how ancient and universal this attraction to the absolute unitary being state is. The religious historian Karen Armstrong in her recent book “The Great Transformation: The Origin of Our Religious Traditions” (pages xv, xvi) notes that in the ancient world:

“People usually experienced the sacred as an immanent presence in the world around them and within themselves. Some believed that gods, men, women, animals, plants, insects, and rocks all shared the same divine life. All were subject to an overarching cosmic order that kept everything in being. Even the gods had to obey this order, and they cooperated with human beings in the preservation of the divine energies of the cosmos. …

Ancient religion depended upon what has been called the perennial philosophy, because it was present, in some form, in most premodern cultures. Every single person, or experience on earth was a replica – a pale shadow – of a reality in the divine world. The sacred world was, therefore, the prototype of human existence, and because it was richer, stronger, and more enduring than anything on earth, men and women wanted desperately to participate in it. The perennial philosophy is still a key factor today in the lives of some indigenous tribes. The Australian aborigines, for example, experience the sacred realm of Dreamtime as far more real than the material world. They have brief glimpses of Dreamtime in sleep or in moments of vision; it is timeless and ‘everywhen’.”

A scientist (see Meera Nanda, “Trading Faith for Spirituality: The Mystifications of Sam Harris” at http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_on...) who was raised in the Hindu tradition describes the same experience Newberg and Armstrong are talking about in these terms:

“[beware of] the noetic, or intellectualist, trap that William James identified in The Varieties of Religious Experience when he noticed how mystical experience has the quality of a profound knowing: “although similar to the states of feeling, mystical states seem to those who experience them to be also states of knowledge. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance… and as a rule, they carry with them a curious sense of authority”.

At their peak, meditative experiences invariably bring about a feeling of having touched something far deeper and far more real than what is normally experienced by the five senses in our ordinary lives. And this conviction itself becomes a source of validation of the of the objective reality of what they have seen: what they see in their minds, they assume, must exist outside. Vision gets fixed into metaphysical systems built on super-sensory entities and processes. The experience of losing the boundaries of one's ego, the feeling of having transcended time and space, gives the feeling of becoming one with the universe, of “seeing” the entire macrocosm in one's own mind. It is not a coincidence that the teaching of Vedanta – “Thou art That” – has been interpreted by so many as implying that I (the enlightened one) am Brahman, that I am the universe, that my mind is the mind of the entire cosmos and by controlling my mind, I can control the cosmos.”

One of the traps (often well intended) into which religious believers of all stripes sometimes fall is precisely what James points out above – the bliss Newberg describes is taken as confirmation that the beliefs of a particular system are correct, even though there is no evidence to support them. Such is the emotional force of the experience of seeming to touch something beyond ourselves; seeming to become part of a larger organism or reality of some kind. We crave this as surely now as did our ancestors as far back into history’s mists as we can see.

And in conclusion, Loome sounds a caution note as follows:

“In some cases, gurus have exhibited the same lapses in moral and personal behaviour outlined in traditional religious documents, proof-positive the experience is not fundamentally benevolent.

In the worst cases - Jim Jones, the Solar Temple, David Koresh's Branch Davidian and the Heaven's Gate cult would be modern examples - increasingly irrational behaviour can lead to mass suicide among members more comfortable with the security of an irrational belief than in facing reality.”

While these extreme cases are worth remembering, they seem so remote from anything we might experience that they don’t move us – kind of like the chance of a plane crash is so small that it does not stop us from traveling by air.

It is much more productive, in my view, to focus on how most religious groups to one degree or another take advantage of some of their members in small ways, thus stunting their growth, making the unnecessarily fearful, inducing ignorance to protect belief, etc. is the real issue.

For example, I was talking to a friend the other day about the population and other problems in Africa, and he told me about a documentary he say the other day in which a religious worker was interviewed in Africa who was doing all kinds of good things to relieve hunger and other terrible living conditions there. But, his organization would not educate regarding birth control or distribute birth control devices because that was against God’s law. Good comes constantly mixed with bad. Our task – whatever our belief system happens to be – is to better connect it to reality so that we will not be take advantage of by well intended (or other) people.

By coincidence, a few days ago I received an email from one of Jim Jones relatives – a man who left the Jonestown cult a short time before the mass suicide to which Loome refers. I will conclude with a quote from his message to me that ties this all together:

“I grew up in the Peoples Temple. Jim Jones was my …principal mentor …. For me as a child, teenager, and young adult, the Temple was the great citadel of hope and Jim, the man of the age. After I graduated from ****** … I came to see the church more clearly. Naturally, my dedication waned and I found myself increasingly under suspicion. Even so, I wrestled (much as you did) with my growing disbelief but escaped … before the Guyana massacre. My entire family and my community died in Jonestown. Jim, much like Joseph Smith, was a huckster pretty much all along.”

I deal with lots of “hucksters” in my legal practices. One of the mental habits that defines them is the ability to rationalize. Exaggeration or outright lying is OK as long as it serves a greater purpose. For example, lying to get money from investors or banks is OK as long as you believe you really will pay it back, and everyone will be rich as a result. The improbable scenarios in which these people sincerely believe are the best testimony I can offer to the power of denial.

In the Jim Jones, Joseph Smiths, John de Ruiters and other similar types of the religions world I see this principle in action. And in the end, whether they believe what they say or not, and how much is “noble lying” (lies told for some higher purpose) and how much is honest mistake, does not matter. All that matters is how trustworthy these people are. Once we have decided that they are unreliable sources of information, we should dismiss them and move on. This task is made far more difficult when we have had our own experiences with the kind of bliss Newberg describes in a particular belief setting and under the influence of particular religious leaders. Worse yet, our family and social lives are often formed around a particular set of beliefs.

The first challenge is met fairly easily by learning how to have the same experience Newberg describes in other settings. I can induce this myself almost at will, in mild and what I consider to be healthy forms, by meditating, drawing, riding my motorcycle, etc. Loome told me some stories about his avocation as a jazz musician that indicate the same kind of experience.

The second challenge – that posed by a tight knit social or family group – is much more difficult. We are existentially threatened by anything that might disturb important social relationships (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni... at page 119). The only way to deal with this to go through the painful, terrifying process of pulling away from the unhealthy group and finding others that serve us instead of forcing us to serve them while distorting our view of reality. This birth canal is the most awful I have known, and what waited on the other side more wonderful than anything I could have conceived as possible.

Best,

bob
topic image
"A Complicated Kindness" By Miriam Toews - A Post Mormon Maker?
Monday, May 1, 2006, at 07:01 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
As I move through my recovery, I am tending more toward art and creativity than I did during my initial stages. See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.art%... for an indication as to why it would likely have been a good thing had I made this transition earlier. This is a wonderful change in a variety of ways. Hence, a guy who has read very little fiction is starting to read fiction. I am half way through "A Complicated Kindness" by Miriam Toews, and want to recommend this as a great read, and possibly the wedge that will break open many a Mormon psyche. Let me explain.

First, you can find some commentary regarding the book at http://www.janmag.com/fiction/ack.htm.... It has won several awards in Canada this and last year.

Toews is/was a Mennonite and is writing about her people. Many of them (and their community) are caricatures of the most literalist mainstream Mormons. Hence, the dogmatism, mind twisting, cognitive dissonance, unhappiness, forced happiness, etc. that are part of Mormon culture are displayed so obviously in this book that it may cause a moment of clarity for some Mormons with regard to their own culture.

I have not finished the book yet, and while I love most of it (Toews' word play and use of humour to spice the book is particularly fine), I don't think she has done justice to what literalist religion looks and feels like from the inside. But boy, does she paint a chilling picture of the mind warping nature of literalist belief coupled with a strong social group and information from the outside world pushing into the community.

A number of people have been kind enough to encourage me to write a book, and I will likely do that. However, I am deferring for the time being in part as a result of what Karen Armstrong noted in her fine memoir "The Spiral Staircase". She regrets writing her first memoir a decade ago (Through the Narrow Gate - about her departure from the nunnery) because she did not have sufficient distance from (and hence perspective of) her religious experience to comprehend and hence do that aspect of her life justice. I am waiting in part because I know how raw I still am, and can feel perspective continuing to change for me in significant ways.

One book that I plan to write will be similar to Toews' (and was conceived a couple of years ago), except I will use several narrative voices to tell the story. I have not chosen the voices yet, but the story will be set in a small Mormon town on the fringes of non-Mormon society (Raymond, Alberta or Thatcher, Arizona several decades ago would both work fine; I have ancestors who pioneered both places; I grew up in part in Raymond) and will include people like a Bishop who knows the whole Mormon story and does not believe it in a literal sense, but keeps this to himself while piously lying on a regular basis for various reasons so that he can try to change a culture he loves from the inside; a overtly apostate basketball coach who is only tolerated in this little Mormon town because he is a "winner", but often steps over the line in terms of what the good Mormon parents of most of his kids will tolerate in terms of free thought and hence corrupting influence on their kids (he and his non-Mormon wife are backin his ancestral town because his wife fell ill and they need, and deeply appreciate, the wonderful support they receive from his Mormon extended family and friends); a 100% faithful, spiritually oriented Mormon boy on the basketball team dominated by kids who don't take religion seriously but assume that they will eventually straighten up; a near genious science teacher at the high school who cannot see that his beliefs cost him a career as a serious scientist, whose mission in life is to help his Mormon students integrate their faith with the science he loves passionately and teaches to them, and whose cognitive dissonance rises during the story as science continues to evolve and more acutely question his literalist beliefs; various well intentioned literalist Mormons who combine the best and worst traits of that species, etc. Voices drawn from this crowd will combine to tell one story from radically different points of view.

I want to illustrate the goodness of the people who can't see anything beyond their faith; the tension in those who see both sides experience; the complete disgust we should expect from those who "don't get" religion at all; the guilt most kids experience as they "succumb" to doing things like drinking, masturbation, having sex; the way the "faithful" can be so kind and cruel in the same breath; the way in which faith justifies and motivates both the best and worst of our inclinations; and most importantly, what it is like to have one's worldview fractured as a mature person. Toews' story is mostly about coming of age. Mine will have some of that in it, but will deal more with what I will call "the second coming" - that painful, miraculous coming of age that occurs for those of us who do not individuate until well into adulthood.

The kind of cognitive dissonance related stress Toews describes will be part of the story too, but the extreme nature of the shunning and information control in the group she is writing about makes that so blatant that it is not as helpful as the Mormon example, where in most cases a more subtle kind of control is exercised and is amazingly effective now that I can see if from the outside.

My only criticism of Toews so far (and perhaps she will get to this) is that she does not capture the full humanity of characters like "the Mouth" (the leader of the religious group) in her story. These are complex, interesting characters that are easy to villify. This, in my view, can become the pulsing heart of a good story.

I mentioned a few days ago a loved on who is about to change, I hope. This person told me that the thing that finally made the penny drop was some information that showed how in other cultures wonderful, well intentioned people who seem in many respects to be the best humanity can offer have done horrendous things in the name of faith while being revered by those who follow them. When I do get around to some serious writing, it will be my intent to illustrate how this comes about, and what it feels like to be on the inside, on the outside, and to move from one state to another.

In the meantime, if anyone else is up to this task, please have at it. And if anyone can suggest things I might read to refine my sense of how this dynamic works or might be described, please let me know.

best,

bob
topic image
What Is The Single Strongest Argument Against The Book Of Mormon's Historicity?
Friday, May 5, 2006, at 07:34 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I know there are many strong arguments. If you've got a few minutes with a TBM loved one, and the chance to make one argument, which would you make?

Here is my choice, at least when dealing with TBMs who are generally rational and well informed regarding how science works. Since I was that kind of TBM, this approach and why I did not find it persuasive while I was TBM, is a source of fascination for me.

Not a single credible non-Mormon scientist to my knowledge has advocated the Mormon side of any of the many scientifically testable claims implicit in the Book of Mormon. And here is why that is such powerful evidence against the BofM's claims.

The scientific community is the single most productive group in human history when it comes to producing reliable information about reality. It is set up for the express purpose of doing this. Almost all who participate in this process pool their information so that science will adance as rapibly as possible. And countless people check each piece of significant work that is put forward as "science". Scientists usually don't make a lot of money. They are rewarded by reputation.

Science can be thought of to a large extent a competition in the establishment of ideas that accurately describe reality where the biggest winners have new elements, theories, species, etc. ("Darwinian evolution", "Brownian motion", for example) named after them. Points are scored both for showing that ideas thought to be reliable descriptions of reality are not, and that ideas thought not to be reliable in this regard, or new ideas, accurately describe reality. Thousands of really smart people with immense resources under the control, worldwide, play this game 24-7.

And none of them are prepared to give the ideas about reality that are dear to most Mormon hearts a second glance. Think about that.

Imagine the reputation a scientist could garner were she able to posit even a reasonably likely case for elephants or horses in the Americas around the time of Christ? Or steel at that same time. Or that the migration hypothesis on which the BofM rests has a reasonable chance of being correct. There are literally dozens of other scientific hypotheses like these embedded in the BofM and other aspects of Mormon theology. Mankind starting in Missouri? The sun deriving its energy from another celestial body, whatever its name? Dark skin color as a social-pathology indicator?

And remember, for a scientist to score huge points it is not necessary to prove than any of this stuff is "true". All they have to show is that a semi-plausible case for it can be made. And not a single one of these people, who would score huge points in a game to which their lives are dedicated are prepared to argue in favour of any of these ideas. Not a single one. This should tell us something about the quality of these ideas as desciptors of reality, and the reliability of the people who first put them forward as real, and worse yet, who continue to teach them as reality in light of what science has to tell us.

There are many analogous situations. The people who believe that the Earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old continue to publish garbage that has a striking resemblance to FARMS output re. the historicity of the Book of Mormon (see for example, "Young Earth Creationists: Creation Conference in Lynchburg" by Jason Rosenhouse in the Volume 12, No. 2 of Skeptic at http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/i...). But no serious scientists do not take their side in peer reviewed journals. Is this a conspiracy, or is it a huge community of knowledgable people who have tested something so thoroughly that the horse is dead and not worthy of more beating, or attempts at revival? Most Mormons would quickly agree with the latter statement.

The alien abduction research is even more interesting in this regard. A few scientists did, until recently at least, take the position that the hypothesis that alien abductions are real should be taken seriously. Peer reviewed papers have been published along this line.

And yet, not a single peer reviewed paper has been published that suggests taking any of the many Mormon theories about the Book of Mormon Americas seriously.

Is this a conspiracy by the scientific community against Mormonism, or should we admit that aliens visiting the earth and abducting people for breeding experiments, etc. is more likely than the Book of Mormon is historically accurate? Or should we admit that the Book of Mormon being accurate has roughly the same probability as the Earth being about 6,000 years old? That is the consensus of the huge community of scientists who are the people most knowledgeable with regard to the many scientific disciplines that are relevant to this topic.

The best Mormon apologists can do against this, as illustrated by the debate related to DNA and the BofM (see http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index...), is to establish that the case against the Mormon position is not airtight. That is, it can't be proven with 100% certainty that the Mormon position is false any more than it can be proven that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old, or is not flat, or that humans descended from mice as well as apes. However, given all of the evidence relevant to questions of this kind, we can determine roughly speaking how probable it is that the Earth is 6,000 years old, or flat. And the probability is vanishingly small.

We intuitively use probabilities to govern countless decisions each day based on our perception of the evidence, and hence reality. And it is this hugely important question of probabilities that religious apologists work as hard as possible to obscure. They focus on the absense of absolute proof, and avoid the examination of probabilities.

I remember years ago reading one of Nibley's essays in which he alluded to the fact that scientists, linguists, etc. did not take the BofM seriously, and argued that as soon as they finally came to their senses and considered his brilliant theories regarding the BofM, BofA, etc. they would agree with him - that Mormonism can't prove its case, but is worth taking very seriously. For years that idea was compelling to me. And then one day the scales fell from my eyes. They never fell from Hugh's. They have not fallen from my father's, many of his highly intelligent friends' or many brilliant people of my acquaintance.

To the end of my days I am likely to be engaged by the mystery of what causes some to see and other similarly situated people in all discernible ways, not to see. I am as well versed in the science related to perception now as all but a tiny fraction of the population, and this question still grips me.
topic image
What Does The Gospel Of Judas Mean?
Monday, May 8, 2006, at 07:54 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong. Voltaire"

Introduction

The Gospel of Judas is shaking up the religious world. While it has many messages, perhaps its most important is that when it was written, as now, people perceived present and past events so as to justify their most important beliefs.

Background

The Gospel of Judas (see http://www9.nationalgeographic.com/lo...) was discovered in Egypt in the 1970s, decomposed while lost in the murky antiquities trading world until the late 1990s, and then dramatically surfaced and was restored and recently authenticated as ancient using a variety of modern technologies. It was likely written within a hundred years of the four canonical gospels, around 200 CE, and was known of well 180 CE. The canonical gospels, of course, were not reduced to writing until between 35 and 65 years after Jesus death (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospels#..., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_c..., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical...).

New information about foundational social beliefs tends to make people both excited and uncomfortable. In this, the Gospel of Judas is a little like the Dead Sea Scrolls. They turned some parts of the religious world upside down in the decades following their discovery in the 1940s (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea...) while casting bright new light on the world Jesus inhabited. Compelling evidence that many of Jesus teachings most important teachings were in circulation well before his birth forced a radical reappraisal of his role as a social innovator and original teacher. Compared to this, the Gospel of Judas is not much. But it is interesting, and it is causing a stir.

What Does the Gospel of Judas Say?

Judas’ gospel tells us that Jesus trust Judas Iscariot more than any other disciple, and so chose him for that most difficult and important – seeing to it that Jesus’ was executed and so performed his divine, redemptory function. As the National Geographic puts it:

The text begins by announcing that it is the "secret account of the revelation that Jesus spoke in conversation with Judas Iscariot during a week, three days before he celebrated Passover." It goes on to describe Judas as Jesus' closest friend, someone who understands Christ's true message and is singled out for special status among Jesus' disciples.

In the key passage Jesus tells Judas, "'you will exceed all of them. For you will sacrifice the man that clothes me.'" Kasser, the translation-project leader, offers an interpretation: "Jesus says it is necessary for someone to free him finally from his human body, and he prefers that this liberation be done by a friend rather than by an enemy.

"So he asks Judas, who is his friend, to sell him out, to betray him. It's treason to the general public, but between Jesus and Judas it's not treachery." (see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/ne...).

The Gospel of Judas also says that Jesus told him that the other disciples (and hence now all of traditional Christianity) worshipped a subsidiary God; a God that may have created humanity but was in turn created by and subject to a higher god - the creator of the universe – which was an all-powerful entity beyond human comprehension. In Hindu terms, this is the difference between Brahman (all powerful and indescribable) and Indra (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra) . In Mormon terms, it the difference between Elohim and the eternal law to which Elohim is subject (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/out%20o... at page 22).

Gnostic Context

No one suggests that the Gospel of Judas’ story is more likely an accurate account of the interaction between Jesus and Judas than the versions contained in the New Testament. In fact, the scholarly consensus is that most of Jesus’ recorded sayings never fell from his lips (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Se...). Rather, his teachings were probably part of popular culture and eventually assumed to have been his because they were assumed to be true. So many human cultures have evolved this way in similar situations that it is not reasonable to assume Christianity was different.

In a variety of ways, the Gospel of Judas displays Gnostic characteristics (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostici... and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...). The Gnostics were an early Christian sect that believed itself to have secret, sacred information conveyed by Jesus to special followers that was essential to salvation. Mainstream Christians did their best to stamp out Gnostic belief and practice. For example, Jesus’ message to Judas about the nature of God and Judas’ role in Jesus sacrifice was part of the secret “gnosis” or wisdom. Much of the storyline that has made “The Da Vinci Code” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Da_V...) the blockbuster it is comes from this tradition as well.

Gnostic roots run deep and broad. For example, they believed in a collection of lesser gods that represented the dual nature of humanity (good vs. evil; ying vs. yang). This idea is found at the core of the oldest religions, Zoroastrianism and Hinduism, and so long pre-dates Christianity.

Zoroastrianism originated in ancient Iran and taught that there is an all-powerful, but unknowable, God. Hinduism’s Brahman is similarly indefinable, potent and pervasive.

The Zoroastrian god has two aspects that are represented as a series of lesser angels (or gods) representing good and evil. Hinduism has similar subsidiary divinities that are derived from Brahman. These lesser beings are in some ways like the Christian God described by the Gospel of Judas (see http://www.avesta.org/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastr... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman).

Hindu belief says that we are bound to this plane by a form of that evil, manifested as desire or fear, which are two sides of the same coin. Shed desire and you will transcend the human limitations that prevent us from understanding ultimate reality. But that’s a tall order (see http://www.stephen-knapp.com).

And Buddhism came out of Hinduism much as Christianity came out of the Hebrew tradition. So it also emphasizes the unity of humanity with the ultimate being and the importance of overcoming the desires that blind and bind us.

At a minimum, the Gospel of Judas is another significant link between early Christianity and these far older belief systems. It indicates, as did the Dead Sea Scrolls in countless ways, that Christianity was derivative from earlier traditions instead of having been created in a blinding flash of divine power.

Social Morality – More Deep, Broad Roots

Our most basic moral rules also run deep in our religious traditions. For example, most reject "moral relativism" – the idea that there is no absolute good or evil; that right and wrong are mere matters of agreement within groups of humans (see http://www.moral-relativism.com/). Zoroastrianism does this by telling us that the duality of good and evil is part of everything. Judaism, Christianity and the Muslim faiths say that their respective Gods have told us what is good, what is bad, and how to tell the difference, and that is that. However, the best argument against moral relativism may be sociological instead of religious for practical reasons, among others.

And most religious believers reject the validity of all basic religious tenets that differ from their own. This makes the it somewhere between difficult and impossible for people with different deeply held religious beliefs to agree regarding moral principles – or even who owns which piece of disputed property. This is the problem that has caused so much violence in places like Palestine and Northern Ireland.

Science, however, has credibility in most religious communities and so can answer questions about all religious and other social groups more persuasively than can any single religion. That is not to say that religious people defer to science when it questions their beliefs. Far from it. However, science is often the basis upon which all non-believers of a particular religious tradition will agree to critique that tradition. And over the course of generations, religious beliefs that are inconsistent with science tend to be modified to conform, or are simply (and quietly) dropped. Think of the Catholic resistance, and then acquiesce to the shape of the Earth, that the Earth revolved around the Sun, and Darwinian evolution (for the most part, at least).

This historical pattern gives hope that science will eventually become the unifying force regarding how we perceive reality, and that religion will take on the kind of role that art and community service organizations now play. That is, I will regard my religious beliefs as an important part of how I relate to life and my community. These beliefs will resemble my relationship to sports (I prefer basketball over hockey for various historical reasons that I am prepared to defend on mostly irrational, aesthetic grounds), art (I prefer moderately abstract art over representation; certain kinds of music over others; etc.), literature, etc. In each of these cases, my views are passionately held and not likely to change, while at the same time I understand why others who have had a different life experience will passionately hold different points of view.

I will also regard my religious beliefs as a crucial organizing factor around which much of my social and family life will gyrate. It will provide much of my social context, and so the social and ritual framework that stabilize me and my most important relationships.

However, my moral sense, political views, opinions regarding economics etc. will come from science and philosophy. These will inform my religious experience as they inform my athletic and artistic experience. And, in the depths of each of these kinds of experience I will sometimes glimpse essences or feel meanings that are inarticulate – part of the massive unconscious ocean on which our sliver of consciousness rides – and I will be reminded that my ritual and community life influences me in ways that are unfathomable.

Social Forces as God

Scientists and historians have observed that moral codes based on the "Golden Rule" principle became part of almost all cultures (and religions) at about the same time, during the Axial Age between 900 and 200 BCE. This suggests that morality was crucial to the formation of civilization as we know it. Modern research in areas such as game theory (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner...) provide a strong theoretical foundation for this position. And it makes sense that each human group in pre-scientific times would attribute their important rules to their god (see Karen Armstrong, “The Great Transformation – reviewed at http://www.latimes.com/features/relig...).

And there's a widespread pattern that ties religious beliefs to how social groups are organized. For example, agrarian cultures tended to develop belief systems that used rituals consistent with their relationship to the annual fertility cycle. This gave rise to female imagery and some matriarchal social and religious structures. And hunter, herder, warrior groups (like the Aryans who gave us Zoroastrianism) tended to develop belief systems that ritualized the conflict that was so large a part of their lives. They also emphasized, from both religious and social points of view, the masculine traits necessary to survive in a violent environment (see Joseph Campbell, “The Power of Myth”, and “Thou art That”).

The notion of god that evolved along with these radically different rituals and beliefs were quite different in some ways, while sharing many socially important basic concepts such as the Golden Rule. As the Lutheran scholar Loyal Rue sees it, “Religion Is Not About God” (see his book by that title, and a related podcast at http://faculty.juniata.edu/braxton/Lo...).

Stephen Prothero illustrates this point in a modern context in “American Jesus: How the Son of God Became a National Icon”. There he describes the radically different ways in which Jesus has been perceived, and the social uses to which he has been put, in a variety of American sub-cultures ranging from post-slavery black communities to the various incarnations of Mormonism.

To many scientifically oriented people, God now seems more like a mirror into which human groups look than an all powerful independent being. They largely agree with Goethe, who said:

As man is;
So is his God;
And thus is God;
Oft strangely odd.

Conclusion

And this, perhaps, is what the Gospel of Judas most clearly says. The Gnostics shortly after Jesus seem to have interpreted his story in a fashion that was consistent with their worldview, just as did the more mainstream Christians of their day. And various religions and irreligious groups are now doing precisely the same thing.

The more things change, the more they seem the same. At least in some ways.
topic image
Guilt Eats From The Inside Until We Falsify Mormonism, And Heal
Monday, May 15, 2006, at 08:28 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I went to an after work social function in honor of our articling students (Canadian legalese for “one year indentured slaves”) who recently qualified to become lawyers. While there a woman I did not know (had never before seen) called me aside and told me she was a former Mormon, had heard a few moments ago that I had a “Mormon website” and wanted to talk about it. A story came out that is so typical that I think it should be told in this kind of forum and dissected. I will do that with a generic story instead of hers in order to preserve her anonymity.

I will call the person in this story Gail. Gail grows up Mormon and is “rebellious”. During her teens she experiments with things that are contrary to the Mormon way. But she does not repent, and eventually leaves her family to get away from the constraints her parents and community try to place on her. She considers herself no longer Mormon from her teens on. But when occasionally called to repentance by family members, or when visiting home and feeling the rebuke (silent or otherwise) of family, former friends and neighbors, she still intensely hurts and feels badly about herself in ways she can't explain. She believes she is living in a fashion that is just fine, but still she feels bad about something she can't describe or define.

These are subtle feelings. She has consciously rejected Mormonism, and yet feels sick to her stomach when she knows one of these confrontations is likely to come up, and for days afterwards finds herself thinking about it, and wondering if she should change the way she lives and then yelling at herself because of how ridiculous these feelings are. She feels hesitant about breaking Mormon rules years after outwardly rejecting Mormonism, and then shakes her head at herself. Where does this craziness come from, she wonders.

Gail knows that Mormonism doesn’t make sense, but can’t explain why. When pressed, she simply says that she doesn’t believe it because it doesn’t make sense. But when asked how she would react if a Young Earth Creationist told her she was going to hell because she did not believe the Bible is literally true, she says that would not bother her in the slightest – she would laugh it off as someone else’s crazy beliefs. And when asked why she doesn’t just laugh off the Mormon beliefs that she is occasionally confronted with, she doesn’t know but says that “laughing them off” does not describe how she deals with them. She doesn’t believe them, but she can’t laugh them off. And she intensely dislikes – even fears – those moments when she knows she is likely to have to listen to Mormons tells her what they believe and either tell her or imply in a million ways that she is less than they are because she does not conform to their beliefs and standards of behaviour.

I know a number of people who have lived decades of life in the state I just described. In each case, once they finally got around to completely falsifying Mormonism they were able to deal with significant life problems that had plagued them for most of that period of time. I believe that these problems – in some cases crippling in nature – are related to their self esteem. Their relationship to Mormonism had caused them to believe, at varying levels of consciousness, that they were defective because they could not live “up to” the standard of life required to be a faithful Mormon. In each case, once they falsified Mormonism they began to see themselves as different, and better, people. And they no longer allowed Mormons to make them feel inferior.

This is not an event, but rather a process that requires a re-wiring of the brain that occurs as we think new thoughts over and over again. Much of my writing is the product of the continual reworking of a set of thoughts that run along the healthy lines and that I decided to establish as my main mental framework. I would read books related to these ideas and then write notes to myself (some of which become posts here or elsewhere, or essays) that over and over again reprocessed the thoughts I want to characterize my mental processes. I would look for threads here and elsewhere to post on related to the same general ideas. I travelled to conferences where I could connect with people to whom I could talk about these issues, and then with whom I could maintain a correspondence along the same lines. Some people do this by chatting, reading books, watching movies, etc. I mostly do it through writing. If we want to change the way our brains work, something like this needs to be done.

I explained this to Gail, and volunteered to send her a few things to read, websites that I have found to contain helpful information, links to places like this and information related to how I have seen people use them. She had no idea this world existed. I told her that there is no one best way to rewire her brain, but that there are lots of ways that have worked for different people and that as she reads and asks questions in places like this and then tries out different approaches, she will likely find something that works for her.

Gail asked in particular how to deal with friends and family members who insist, from time to time, on bearing their Mormon testimony to her and so trying to save her while crippling her with guilt. What a beautiful picture. One has told her that she is not only destroying herself, but preventing their entire family from going to the Celestial Kingdom. I explained that this kind of issue has been dealt with for a long time in the counseling literature that deals with individuation, attachment, grieving and related topics. And I note in passing that each of the people I am aggregating in this personality pastiche presents confidently and attractively. The hurt is buried deep.

As Gail works through this process, she will learn to set boundaries and demand the respect of her family members, or she will withdraw from association with them. Sometimes that is necessary for a period of time to make a point. Sometimes that becomes permanent, but rarely.

I am consistently impressed by the importance of falsifying the Mormon paradigm on the way out the door, and finding ways to realistically validate the goodness of the person leaving. For most people who have been conditioned as believers, it is not enough to simply withdraw. And Mormons vastly prefer a relationship that subconsciously at least allows them to stand on the high ground, looking down on the weak souls who cannot live by their exalted standard.

In a perverse way, many Mormons draw strength from pointing to others who are not married, who drink, who smoke, who are not having children, who are gay, who have children out of wedlock, who have not gone on misssions, etc. All of these people are presumed to be living below their potential and to be unhappy, and this belief strengthens the Mormon belief that by obeying the Mormon law happiness will come. And at the same time, it is an ironic fact that the Mormon community is likely taking more anti-depressants per capita that the presumably sinful, unhappy people on which they smuggly look down. There must be a reality TV script in this somewhere.

It does not matter so much that the Mormons be knocked off their perches (though I must confess to enjoying this when it happens), but for the reasons already noted, it is critical to the mental health of most of those who leave that they feel in their guts as well as their brains that it is only a limited perspective – ignorance – that causes Mormons to act and feel superior. They have no justification on rational or moral grounds for their position, and this is obvious to the vast majority of well-informed non-Mormons. In fact, many Mormons wallow in muck so dark they can’t see where they are. If there is a heaven and hell, few will be more surprised upon death than many hardcore TBM Mormons.

I would be interested to hear if my folk psychology is consistent with what others have observed, and what related patterns have been observed.
topic image
The Delayed Reaction Factor In Mormon Testimony Deconstruction
Monday, May 22, 2006, at 08:05 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I asked for suggestions as to the best single argument against the Book of Mormon, and got a lot of great suggestions. I agree with many on the earlier thread who said that of course there is no one clincher; that for most people it is the cumulative weight of many factors; and that for most Mormons it does not seem to matter what you tell them, they remain committed to their belief position. However, we have to start somewhere when deconstructing in a loving, humane way the beliefs of those people who matter most to us. And so it makes sense to think about how this is best done, and hence where to start.

And, it is important to recognize that this is a long term process in most cases, and that despite the appearance that what we say or do about Mormonism has no effect on the people with whom we interact, important things are often happening between their ears.

As I was giving this a bit more thought this morning, I decided to outline and put forward for discussion a few things I think are important about the deconversion process. The most important of these might be called the “delayed reaction effect” of information related to important religious beliefs.

But first, a little background.

In the thread yesterday I noted my favorite approach when dealing with scientifically oriented people is to describe the scientific consensus that the Book of Mormon theories about reality are without merit. That puts them on par with other religious theories that can be tested like the earth is 6,000 years old and biological evolution is a myth. Scientists ignore these as well, while vigorously pursuing all known theories about reality that have any material chance of being correct, or even that are taken seriously by other respected scientists.

My favorite approach for non-scientific people is that when we consider Joseph Smith’s story from front to back, even as told by faithful Mormons like Richard Bushman in Rough Stone Rolling”, Smith is not trustworthy and should not be believed about anything important. See xxxxx for my usual tedious treatment of this subject.

And I note that my introspection on this subject is directly related to the fact that one of my loved ones is in the process of deconverting at the moment, and I am both celebrating and thinking about how trying this process has been for all concerned. While on that subject, I note that my initial celebratory cheer here was picked up at FAIR (see http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?s...). I seldom darken FAIR’s door, and was alerted to this by a friend. I suggested that she advise the folks at FAIR, if she felt so inclined, that my celebration relates to the fact that an intimate relationship was ruptured when I left Mormonism. I celebrate the return of that intimacy, and the knowledge that a loved one is becoming more connected to reality and hence will be far more likely to make wise life decisions than would have been the case had he/she remained a literalist Mormon. It’s as simple as that. I have no trouble with the morality of attempting to disabuse most people of erroneous beliefs. While I don’t agree with some of Sam Harris’ points in “The End of Faith”, I am fully on board with him in this regard – it is time to end the deference accorded to irrational religious belief.

So, when trying to deconstruct the testimony of someone we love (and this is such hard work that it is not likely to occur outside this context), here are some ideas that I find useful. I don’t put this forward as “how it is”, but rather for discussion. I am sure that lots of people here have experience that can be added to mine with a view to creating a model that might be buffed up, and summarized for Eric to put on the website here to aid future generations of those who are trying to find the Mormon exit, and move their family members or others toward it while doing as little damage as possible.

1. Our social lives are formed around Mormonism, and hence the potential cost of a change in belief in this regard is huge. This causes denial, which means that our subconscious minds override our perceptive powers to prevent us from seeing dangerous information (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni...).

2. Conditioning related to religions beliefs affects how our brains format and function. Think of how baby cats raised in a room without vertical lines cannot see things like table legs when released into the “real” world, and walk right into them. Our ability to perceive is fundamentally affected by the kind of conditioning Mormonism uses on us. That is why science arguments of the kind I outlined tend to be ineffective when made to faithful Mormon scientists. This explains the compartmentalized brain concept that was nicely articulated at on the other thread.

3. It takes time to change our ability to perceive since this requires some brain reformatting and that we overcome denial. It is nowhere near as simple as being presented with new evidence and saying “Oh, so that’s it!” Neural patterns must be changed to allow us to in some cases see the information at all, like the little cats, and in others to realistically interpret that information. I am reminded of the tame cats our neighbours imported at great cost from England when the immigrated to Canada a short while ago. They let them out to play in our rural community, and the coyotes enjoyed a tasty imported snack. These cats did not recognize the significance of sounds and signs that keep many other cats in our area safe.

4. Points 1 through 3 mean that patience is a must. We should expect the information we present contra Mormon belief to be rejected. We should expect it to cause pain. We should expect our loved ones to feel threatened. We should expect to need to comfort them and show them more love and offer them more evidence of our commitment to them than at any other time in our relationship. Attempts to force acceptance ahead of perception are likely to be interpreted as threatening and contrary to the interest of the person threatened.

5. Different people are moved by different kinds of information. Science oriented people are likely to eventually be moved by the kind of approach I took. In that case, I would go down one science thread after another as opportunity presented itself. Sight is likely to gradually develop if this process is permitted to continue long enough. Other people are more oriented toward history and might find Mike Quinn useful. Many women are moved by books like Todd Compton’s “In Sacred Loneliness” or by Newell and Avery’s “Mormon Enigma”, which are about polygamy. In the end, lots of different kinds of information are generally required. We see what was persuasive by hindsight.

6. Mormonism harnesses powerful emotional forces that have been drilled right into our DNA by evolution (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni... starting at page 119). Generally, intellectual forces are no match for these.

7. Emotional forces can be dealt with in two ways. First, other emotional forces can be mounted to go head to head with them. For example, if it appears that a marriage may end as a result of faith differences, this can sometimes cause eyes to open. And it can cause marriages to unnecessarily end or to suffer damage that will make them permanently limp. For many women reading about the reality of polygamy and the way Mormon men like Joseph Smith and Brigham Young lied to and about the women in their lives is an emotional experience. It is an emotional experience for some parents to understand what Mormon belief does to many young women; how gay people are treated within the Mormon system; how so many other religions leaders have through they spoke with God and then used the power this experience gave them to horribly abuse those who followed them; etc. When we think in emotional terms, we can often find other issues that will work in this regard for particular loved ones. Second, emotional forces can be gradually defused. Much of our emotion related to Mormonism can be explained by attachment theory (see Kirkpatrick, “Attachment, Evolution and the Psychology of Religion”, for example). We depend upon the things we are attached to. This is often healthy, and sometimes not. For example, as we develop a broader group of friends (ie. non-Mormon friends), our dependence on Mormonism declines and our brain allows us to see things that would threaten our Mormon beliefs. Hence, introducing Mormon loved ones to new situations where they can see how other people live, and ideally become emotionally intimate with non-Mormons, can be a huge step toward breaking the bonds of literalist Mormon belief. Some important things happened in this regard last summer for my family at Star Island (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.star%20island%20overview.pdf). The changes that some family members experienced there were related to, and see by way of changed behaviour, other family members when we came home. That has in turn caused further changes to occur.

8. In summary, individual humans, as well as human groups, seem to change their behaviours often on the basis of a “phase transition” similar to what happens when a liquid starts to boil. This has to do with “power law distributions” and “self organizing critical systems”. Different human groups will react in different ways to environmental changes due in large measure to how information flows within them. Something analogous occurs within each human brain. Individuals in groups interact in complicated ways that are analogous to grains of sand being added to a pile and occasionally starting avalanches of different sizes. We tend to overestimate the importance of our individual psychology and “free will”, and underestimate the extent to which our lives are influenced by how we in effect “bounce off” other individuals and the information by which we are surrounded. Those who wish to influence the deconversion process hence should focus on changing the environmental conditions around the loved one for whom a deconversion is hoped.

What do you think? Let have some critique of these ideas and others to add to the mix. We will then summarize.
topic image
Paul Dunn, Joseph Smith, And "The Spirit"
Monday, May 22, 2006, at 08:20 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
What did Paul Dunn and Joseph Smith have in common (hint – see http://www.watchman.org/lds/page1may.... and http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/lying_f...)?

- They were both Mormon religious leaders, holding special power and standing as Christ's especial witnesses to all humankind.

- They were both powerfully charismatic speakers who moved audiences to feel “the Spirit”.

- They both lied for the purpose of persuading their followers to do what they believed was God’s will.

- Many people who were deeply moved by their stories while they seemed to be true stopped being moved by them once they were determined to be false. This shows how context dependant the Spirit is. That is, the feeling of “the Spirit” does not reliably indicate anything other than that our emotional buttons have been effectively pushed.

In general, when we change our belief in what is real, the time and place of our feelings of emotion related to spiritual things changes. Jon Haidt (The Happiness Hypothesis) and others have shown that atheists “feel the spirit” and have “sacred” places as well as do religious people. However, the language they use to describe these experiences and places are different. This pattern indicates that our beliefs, rather than some greater reality, is responsible for what we feel.

Now, what is the main difference between Paul Dunn and Joseph Smith? Dunn was not foundational to Mormonism and so when he was found to be a liar, and hence a liability to Mormonism, he simply disappeared. I asked my adult kids a while ago about him. None of them knew who he was despite years of church, Seminary, etc.

Smith, on the other hand, is foundational to Mormonism and hence it will take longer for Mormonism to distance itself from him. However, it is highly probable that this will eventually occur. In the meantime, he will continue to be described either falsely (see any Mormon lesson manual, the missionary lessons, etc.) or as an impossible to understand paradox (see Richard Bushman, “Rough Stone Rolling”, for example). The truth, however, is usually much less complicated than the stories people use to defend their beliefs (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_...).

Joseph Smith found that he was able to use religious rhetoric to get people do what he wanted, including giving him a better living than he had ever enjoyed, lots of influence, and lots of sex. His earlier endeavours (like paid treasure hunting – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_li...) had not been anywhere near as successful.

L. Ron Hubbard (see http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/...), John de Ruiter (see http://www.globalserve.net/~sarlo/Yjo... and http://www.rickross.com/groups/ruiter...) and countless others took advantage of similar persuasive powers after failing in more mainstream lines of work. And, human power tends to be self-justifying. That is, when a man has power he is likely to imagine or interpret God's will to justify that power.

In Joseph Smith's case, that took some doing. He kept what he was up to secret and lied about it until long after the fact. This caused marriages, families, businesses and an entire culture to be been built around him and his stories before his failings were recognized. So when the truth finally came out, there was so much at stake that people continued to lie about him. When that no longer worked, far more was a stake and so people said that Joseph was such a deep mystery that we had best just not think about him. And that will increasingly be the case. The more Mormons know about Joseph Smith, the less they will talk about him. Kind of like Brigham Young.

This is kind of like what they say about borrowing money from a bank. If you borrow a little money and you get into trouble, the bank will squash you like a bug. But if you borrow a few billion from them and get into trouble, you have a partner. If you do down, they might too. Or at least a few of their officers might be fired. So they will do all the can to get you on your feet again. And only with the greatest of reluctance, and in secret if possible, will your remains be disposed of.

That is the difference between Joseph Smith and Paul Dunn. Mormonism can't afford to take Smith down - or at least not yet. Books like Bushman's, however, are the first stage of that. Joseph's sexual habits, lying and other flaws will eventually become accepted just as have been Brigham Young's crazy statements on various subjects. The Book of Mormon will continue to look more like fiction and less like history. And at some point in the future, Mormon leaders will admit what most Mormons will have then long known - that Joseph Smith is not an essential part of Mormonism. But they will wait to do that until it doesn't matter - like the Pope acknowledging in the 1970s (see http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10...) that the Catholic Church was a bit hard on Galileo, and that the Earth does go round the Sun.
topic image
The Fear We Feel When We Contemplate A Change In Belief
Friday, Jun 2, 2006, at 10:44 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
The following is part of an edited version of an email I sent to a close friend a short time ago who is trembling at the thought of what she faces as she "comes out" as a post-Mormon.

best,

bob

I want you to know that I think about you a lot - and always have - though I don't often call or write. I have always been better at responding to those who communicate with me than initiating communication. I don't know why this is, but it is.

If there is anything I can do to make things easier, let me know. I will try to listen instead of talk. I also recognize that to some extent this kind of thing is a solitary burden. One has to work it out, and do it, on one's own after books are read, advice is taken, plans are made, etc.

It may help to bear in mind that we are hardwired to be conservative. That is, making mistakes often caused death in our evolutionary environment whereas missing an opportunity was not such a big deal. Think of a noise in the bushes. It might be rabbit for the stew pot or a wolf. Those who assumed it was a wolf and ran tended to survive longer than those who took the chance it might be a rabbit.

Hence, we tend to be more cautious and fearful regarding most things than is now merited (our environment now is far less risky than our evolutionary environment), and this is particularly the case when we are confronted with something that might put us sideways with our family or an important social group. This prospect triggers deep, irrational, existential fears in us because for most of human history this kind of thing could mean death (get too far sideways with the family or tribe, and you are expelled with means you likely die and are far less likely to reproduce). And our minds are set up to rationalize, and justify, the fears we feel. Religious and other ideologies have always used fear of the unknown to make humans more obedient. This is now, for example, both Hitler and Mussolini came to power. Neither of them were ever elected by majorities. They came to power as the leaders of minority governments, and then took advantage of social turmoil (which they appear to have exaggerated to a degree) to make the populace fearful, and give their governments the power they said they needed to quell the turmoil. And then one thing led to another.

For example, when I hear you talking about the concern you have re. hurting other people when you tell them what you believe, I in part hear your sensitive nature, and in part your rational mind trying to explain to yourself the deep fear you feel with regard to doing what that same rational mind feels it needs to do.

Our minds are funny things. The huge subconscious regularly interferes with the relatively small conscious part of the mind, leaving the conscious mind to find a rational reason for that interference. But there is no visible rational reason for this. Hence, the conscious mind confabulates. Many psych tests demonstrate how this works. Our pattern finding skills go to work and we confidently indicate reasons for what we have observed that have nothing to do with the real reasons for our observations in cases where stimuli is controlled in a laboratory and hence the real reasons for our observation are known. Jon Haidt's book (The Happiness Hypothesis) is the most recent of many I have read that outline how this works. One series of tests uses images flashed so rapidly that the conscious mind does not pick them up, but the unconscious does and uses the image to manipulate the conscious mind.

For example, an image of a chicken is put up on the screen and a shovel is flashed so that only the unconscious picks it up. When the subject is asked what he associates with chicken (you would think egg, right?) he says "shovel". When asked why, he says that shovels are used to clean out chicken coops. He is unaware of the real reason for the association (the micro flash), and thinks he has simply made a logical connection. Were he shopping for a chicken, he would be much more likely to buy a shovel too because of that micro flash. Advertisers use this kind of trick on us all the time.

Much of our conscious perception is driven in this fashion by associations suggested by the unconscious. And this is only one of many ways in which the unconscious leads us around while "we" (the conscious part of us that perceives itself to be in control) are under the deeply mistaken impression that all we consciously perceive and remember is all we perceive and remember, and that this is all that goes into our decisions. The idea that our conscious self is in control is one of the most important psychological fallacies I have come to understand. The wonderful injunction that we come to "know ourselves" largely means that we need to come to know the unconscious part of ourselves.
topic image
Fast Pitch Softball And The Pareto Principle; Or “the Good Life” Comes From Between
Wednesday, Jun 14, 2006, at 09:08 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
The Pareto Principle[1] states, in its broadest form, that something like 80 or 90% of all results come from 10 or 20% of causes. For example, in most economies 80 to 90% of the income is produced by 10 to 20% of the population. 80 to 90% of the problems in any group will be caused by 10 to 20% of the people. Etc. The Pareto principle hence directs us toward identifying those critically important 10 or 20% of the causes, and spending most of our effort on them. This is one of the reasons for which a few of our decisions will have a huge effect on how our lives go, and why it makes sense to spend a fair bit of time to identify these decisions, and then make them as well as possible.

A little background (OK, a lot of background) is required before I will be able to connect the Pareto principle to fast pitch softball, and then life in general.

I used to be a serious athlete. Not a great athlete, but a serious one. I played three sports (baseball, basketball and volleyball) well enough to compete at the university level, and enjoyed recreationally pretty much every other sport that was played in our community. Then, I repented of my sins, went on a Mormon mission and decided when I came home that it was time to “stop playing around” and “get serious about life”. So I did not return to sports. I became a serious student for the first time ever (there was reasonable doubt as to whether I had a functional brain up to that point), got married, had kids, etc. As a result, aside from a few slow pitch softball games and a little recreational basketball (until osteoarthritis struck a decade ago), I became a non-athlete. Arthritis put golf on the agenda, that seemed to satisfy my need for being physically competent at something as well as creating a bottomless source of humility. Golfers who read this will know what I mean.

Fast forward thirty years from my last competitive baseball game, and 25 years from my last recreational slow pitch team.

I left Mormonism a few years ago. I crave community of various kinds for reasons I will outline below. My body and mind are waking up – my mind in a brand new way, and my body toward its former, more active state. A guy at the office sees me play in a once-a-year-meet-the-young-lawyers slow pitch game, and asks if I would be interested in playing for his commercial league fast pitch team. I have never played fast pitch softball and have heard how hard good pitching of that kind is to hit, but think “What the hell. I’ve done so many new things during the past several years, what’s one more. And this might be fun.”

So I told him that I would go to a batting cage, and if I could hit a fast pitch softball (it has been literally 30 years since I have tried to hit a real baseball pitch, and I have never stood up to an 80 mph underhand pitch), I will come out. So off to the batting cage I go a few days later, with my 11 year old son in tow since he enjoys that sort of thing.

As we pay, get bats and helmets, etc. I am watching a couple of guys who are obviously baseball players swing at some medium speed pitches (40 – 50 mph) and hit them solidly. Then, just before I am ready, they move to the fast pitch cage (70 – 80 mph). I settle in behind them to watch, and to get a feel for how fast the ball is coming. It is quick – hard-to-see quick – and the first of these seemingly competent players wiffs on 20 consecutive pitches, and exits the cage with his tail between his legs. His buddy is laughing so hard he has trouble standing up, and waves off his friend’s demand that he “Shut the F*** up and get in there show me what you can F***’n do!!”

So in I go, adrenalin pumping. The first pitch hits the mat behind me before my bat starts to swing. I laugh at myself, aware that the two guys who just finished, and my son, are watching. I am handcuffed by the next several balls, but manage to wave at them like my Grandma might. Then I hit the ball, but just above my fists. The ball dribbles weakly toward the pitching machine and my hands go numb from the bat’s vibration. I am obviously too close to the plate and so move back six inches. And from then on I hit most of the pitches, but weakly. My hands ring with almost every hit. And then finally, a solid shot. It is effortless, and the ball rockets across the cage and into the net on the far side. I glance at my son and am pleased by the shocked look on his face.

Of the first 20 balls I only hit a couple solidly, but am elated. The miracle of muscle memory has shown itself again. The thousands of balls I hit as a kid make it possible for me to still hit balls that are coming so fast I can’t see them. You hit them based on instinct and subconscious information processing, or not at all. I stay in the cage to swing at 80 balls in all, and the next day can barely open or close my hands.

So I signed up for the team. It is not, I find, a great team. Should I have thought otherwise? They recruited me, after all.

We are 2 wins and 8 losses as the season’s halfway point approaches. The guys are regular guys. A few lawyers. A banker. A few business people. A few guys who work construction or in industrial jobs. Their ages range from early 20s to mid-50s. Regular, decent guys. We talk on the bench about nothing important. Mostly the game. And occassionally we have a beer after the game where the conversation runs along similar lines. We celebrate our rare wins with gusto.

Some of the guys have played for this team for 25 years, and during those years they have won a championship or two. One of the long term players died of cancer recently. We were law firm partners. Three of his teammates, in full uniform, gave part of the eulogy at his memorial service. It was one of the most touching, funny, and appropriate, I have ever heard. That is how this team initially came to my attention. One of those guys last night asked me some questions about the scholarship fund he is helping to set up for his departed teammate, and we retold a couple of our favorite stories about him.

I don’t enjoy watching baseball despite having played it competitively for ten years (ages 8 to 18). However, playing baseball is radically different from watching it. For example, my partner who died of cancer was the third baseman and since that is one of the positions I used to play, they gave me a chance there. During a given game I will see two or three balls if I am lucky. Some games I see none. And in an average game, about 30 batters go to the plate and receive an average of 4 pitches, for about 120 pitches in total during the game. And each of those could come screaming down the line toward me, fast enough that instinct alone protects my face and other precious body parts from surgical reconstruction. This means that for every one of those 120 pitches I go into my most athletic crouch, and move right or left instinctively based on the speed of the pitch and how the batter starts to swing at it. I subconsciously process immense amounts of information on each swing, and as a result come out of my crouch in one direction or another well before the swing is complete. What might happen with each pitch ensures that I am fully present – fully engaged. And time disappears. Playing third base is a flow activity for me[2]. My teammates appreciate the contribution I make to our effort when I play that position.

I am not a great player. I am an adequate third basemen in an insignificant softball league in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. And I am starting to skip rope again because I feel sloppy sometimes when the ball comes at me. This is likely because my mind is writing cheques my feet can’t quite cash. If I can just get the juices flowing a bit more …

I was never a fast runner, but was well above average. Now I am a slow guy. And worse than that, I feel awkward when I try to run hard to beat out a ground ball or chase down a fly. Why? Maybe because I haven’t done this in literally 25 years? And if I feel awkward that means I look awkward, like one of those old guys I told myself I would never allow myself to resemble. “I’ll slit my wrists with a rusty spoon before I let myself look like that”, I used to tell my friends when we were the young hot shots on the diamonds and courts. “If you see me out there looking like a fool, just shoot me” we used to say to each other. And here I am. As result, I am interested in getting on the elliptical trainer, stretching and lifting weights, and am tending to do that instead of coming home at night and crashing in front of the TV.

And boy, I suck at the plate. These fast ball pitchers are tough. This is an unpleasant experience for me. I am one of those people who does things well or not at all. And after half a dozen games, I did not have a hit. I strike out more than half the time. These pitchers are not the best in the world, but unlike the batting cage, they change the speed of their pitches, throw curves, risers, knuckleballs, etc. and I look and feel like a fool at the plate.

Nothing in my experience as a baseball player prepared me for this stuff and so I have no relevant muscle memory. I have to learn something new to cope.

The pitchers are closer to the plate (60 feet instead of the 90 in baseball). They are almost as quick as the baseball pitchers I faced so long ago I can barely remember it, and their off speed pitches are far harder to deal with because the shorter distance provides less time to identify the pitch and adjust the swing. I almost fell down a couple of times when swinging at a fast ball that turned out to be a change up.

During most games a player or two gets hit when a pitch gets away from the pitcher. Sincere apologies from the pitcher are almost always made, and the hit player only occasionally has to leave the game. And it is a rare trip to the plate that does not include at least one close call as a too-far inside pitch (and significant pain) has to be avoided. There is nothing like the risk of pain to make a guy feel fully alive, and to think about things he might do to improve his reflexes …

The challenge of learning to hit real fast ball pitching has me in its thrall. So I go to the batting cage regularly before games, and occasionally at other times. I limit myself to 20 balls a trip so that my hands will only be sore, instead of paralyzed, the next day.

I am getting pretty good at hitting the 70 – 80 mph pitches at the cage. Just like learning a new sport, video game, driving a car or riding a motorcycle, what seems impossibly fast and complicated at first gradually slows down and becomes manageable. Lots of life analogies in that one.

But the pitches at the batting cage are all one speed, and don’t curve, wobble or rise. I have no way to get in front of a real pitcher and practice, as I would like to. Our team doesn’t practice. We don’t really even warm up properly. The guys have families, jobs, etc. This team, and the game they love, is squeezed in between all of that, and seems to spice it surprisingly well.

And so I continued to suck as a batter. Last night I struck out twice and then grounded out once. The next time up, I noticed that when the pitcher was going to throw his knuckleball (an off speed pitch), I could see him hold the ball with a distinctive knuckleball grip (I used that when I pitched baseball) as he started his windmill motion, giving me a spit second’s warning as to what was coming. Even with that knowledge, I missed his pitch and then grounded out on a fastball. But the next time at bat I waited for the knuckleball, and belted a line drive into left field. That felt amazingly good. I will live on that feeling for at least a week. And the time after that, my last at bat for the night, he walked me. Rather than going straight at the strike zone as he had before, he tried to play cute, and missed.

So, at age 48, I have a significant first – the first sold hit of my life off a good fast ball pitcher. I felt wonderful last night, and am still mildly euphoric today, hence this essay.

But does this matter? Let’s keep it real, as Simon Cowell might say. I play for a piddly-ass, bottom half of a nothing beer league, fast pitch softball team. And I hit a single after weeks of striking out. This thrills me? Maybe I should get a life.

Or maybe we need to make sure we see both trees and forest. This insignificant fast pitch team has put a spring in my step. I am excited about getting into better shape because my teammates rely upon me to field balls and get on base occassionally. Incompetence at third base, and at the plate, can be painful or even dangerous. This gives me an incentive I haven’t had in a long time to become more fit, flexible, quick, etc. And the evolutionary path on which the homo sapiens male still walks makes activities like throwing and hitting rapidly moving objects, working as a team, and competing, very attractive.

And finally, I have been welcomed into a nice little community the core of which has been stable for well over 25 years. Will I discover any deep truths here? Not likely. Will I meet a few long term friends? The choice is mine. This community richly rewards those who are consistent, long term contributors, as do most communities,

As odd as this may sound, being part of a pathetic little softball team for many people is one of Pareto’s crucial 10 – 20% causes of the good life. And this is consistent with what Jon Haidt says in his book “The Happiness Hypothesis”[3].

Haidt says that happiness comes “from between”. He means that happiness should not be pursued as a primary objective. Happiness is derivative of things like intimate relationships (with all their warts, pain and joy), meaningful and challenging work (see “flow” above), our attachment to stable small groups that appreciate our contribution to them (even pathetic softball teams), and our perception that our actions and lives have meaning in some kind of larger than us context.

Many other scientists, philosopher and writers over the millennia have made the same point Haidt does. But Haidt makes this point particularly well. And while he does not mention Pareto, his book is laced with Pareto’s insight – that a few of the choices we make and things we do (or don’t do) have an immense effect on how satisfied we are likely to be with our lives. And oddly, if we are thinking much about how satisfied we are, we are not likely satisfied. Satisfied people are usually engaged on enough fronts that they don’t spend time wondering whether they are satisfied. And well-adjusted people – those who have life as good as it gets – generally think they need more.

Nature has designed us to quickly habituate to whatever we have, and reach for more. Much of the trick to the good life relates to directing this predictable impulse toward things that build relationships, community and the ability to do more of what we are good at since this is where we find most of what stabilizes and spices our lives.

These concepts are particularly important for those of us who have left Mormonism and are hence at loose ends with regard to several of the factors Haidt says are crucial to the good life. Mormonism provides a one stop shop for the small group interaction and big picture meaning aspects of life. And its rules govern how most of our intimate relationships work. People who leave Mormonism hence have a lot of fundamentally important re-tooling to do.

The answers to the big questions related to relationships, meaning, etc. will often be found in the simple things that have proven over time to provide us with joy. In my case, some sports and the opportunity to connect to people through them is part of this equation. I am also turning over new leaves related to the artistic side of life[4]. This is immensely, and surprisingly, satisfying.

The idea that we will find satisfaction “between” is one of those simple concepts that I think has great potential. If we are unsatisfied, the question we should ask is not “what do I need to do to find satisfaction”, but rather what kind of basic nutrients (turn to Haidt and other similar scientists for suggestions as to what these are) does my life lack? For example, do I give and receive enough intimacy? Am I sufficiently challenged and engaged by the work I spend most of each day doing? Do I regularly interact with small communities (at work, community, recreation, etc. endeavors) where my contribution is appreciated? Do I perceive that my life is connected to something that has a meaning that is beyond me and my immediate group (like improving our schools; teaching kids sports; working toward a more sustainable consumer culture; politics; etc.)?

And for those of us who have the chance to do so, listening to those whose judgement we trust about these things can be invaluable. It is near impossible to self diagnose. Most systems (including us) cannot be fully understood from a point of view inside the system. Some things can only be seen from the outside. Hence, taking the advice of those who observe us and have the broadest perspective possible (that is, the most wisdom) is usually helpful.

Satisfying, resonant music is not created because we watch the instruments and will music into existence. Music is made by people who have talent, have developed their talent, and have chosen to collaborate. Likewise, the good life is largely the result of getting our circumstances right, and choosing to be as engaged as reasonably possible in those circumstances. And this is not like walking the Mormon tightrope to the Celestial Kingdom where the slightest slip can throw you into the abyss. Rather, all we need is to be in the ball park; to show up and give it our best shot. There are so many ways to succeed that we can’t count them. And we are far more adaptive than most of us can imagine.

But we do have to know where the ball park is, and sometimes need some help getting there and knowing what to bring with us.

And the oddest things – even piddly-ass softball teams – sometimes provide critically important tools, or bridges, or whatever (you choose your metaphor) as the stunningly beautiful stories that are our lives unfold.

Best,

bob

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

[1] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_p....

[2] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(ps....

[3] See http://www.happinesshypothesis.com/ .

[4] See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.art%....
topic image
Cognitive Dissonance At www.fairwiki.org
Monday, Jun 19, 2006, at 08:09 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I have not revisited cognitive dissonance - one of my favorite topics - for quite a while so this is as good an excuse to do so as any. I take it as a compliment that the Mormon apologists think that this issue is one they need to address, in their usual unwitting-self parody way, and that they have put me front and centre. I copied the material below from their site on June 16, 2005. I won't bother to attempt to edit it there since that would quickly devolve into a time wasting war with the people who control the site. Instead, I will post my comments in other places where they can stand as testimony to the tactics, shallow thinking and probable cognitive dissonance of Mormon apologists in general.

I will place the www.fairwiki.org text in quotes, and my comments in square brackets.

"Critics of the Church are fond of portraying all members as either naive, ill-informed dupes or cynical exploiters."

[rdm - I hope that they do not include me in that camp. This is a classic straw man argument. The Mormon apologists speak for the critics and do so in terms that are easy to show as silly. In contrast, see my essays at: http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni...;
http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.do%2...; and
http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.does...;
where I go out of my way to show how the smartest among us, the most objective among us, are subject to the distorting forces of denial. Cognitive dissonance is only part of the equation. This applies to Mormons, post-Mormons and all other believers and non-believers of every stripe. However, it applies differently to each of us and this predictable in part on the basis of how we have been conditioned, as I will set out below.]

"Unfortunately for the critics, most fair-minded people realize that-just as in any religion-there are many intelligent, well-informed people who become or remain members of the Church."

[rdm - I agree with this, except most of the critics I know are in the fair minded camp. More straw man treatment of the critics. This makes sense once we recall who this stuff is written for - faithful Mormons who are starting to question. See http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon... and http://www.exmormon.org/Why%20We%20Be... (Day 4) for a summary of how apologists work. Much of this is the result of their own denial and cognitive dissonance. That is, once their shallowness is pointed out to them, they work hard to fix it. As a result, there is no doubt that this article will be fixed or perhaps even scrapped once the more knowledgeable among the apologetic crowd look at it. And, it is precisely this kind of process that led me and others who were apologists of one kind or another, out of Mormonism. The fellow who developed the Mormon apologetic site at http://www.whyprophets.com, for example, thought his way out of Mormonism more or less in lock step with me as we exchanged emails and questioned a variety of things.]

"To get around this, critics appeal to the psychological concept of 'cognitive dissonance' to try to 'explain away' the witness of intelligent, articulate members."

[rdm - As noted above, cognitive dissonance is part of the picture, but far from all of it. See the essay on Denial noted above.]

Source(s) of the Criticism
· Bob McCue, "Notes for Van Hale's Radio Show"; e-mail posting (5 September 2004), copy in author's possession.
· Bob McCue, "Van Hale's 'Mormon Miscellaneous' Radio Talk Show," Version 3, 20 Sept 2004.

[rdm - See the other essays above as well. "How Denial Works" is the most complete of these. The Van Hale essay can be found at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.van%...]

"What is cognitive dissonance?

Cognitive dissonance theory was first described in the mid 1950s by Leon Festinger.
Cognitive dissonance explains behavior by pointing out that all people have various beliefs, thoughts, or ideas, called "cognitions." From time to time, these cognitions will come into conflict-for example, someone might believe that their child is honest and law-abiding. However, they might learn one day that their child has been charged with shoplifting. There are now two cognitions in tension:

· cognition #1: "my child is honest"
· cognition #2: "my child has been arrested for shoplifting"

These cognitions create conflict, or "dissonance" because they create internal conflict-it is not readily apparent how both cognitions can be 'true'. This realization is a psychologically unpleasant experience, and according to the theory, people seek to minimize or resolve dissonance. This can be done in a number of ways:

the former cognition can be rejected
"I guess my child isn't as honest as I thought he was."

the new cognition can be rejected
"My child wouldn't take something without paying. There must be a mistake." or "It's a lie! He was framed!"

a new cognition can eventually be formed which reconciles the two conflicting cognitions
"My child put something in his shopping cart, and forgot to pay for it on leaving the store. Thus, he was not trying to be dishonest, but it is understandable why he was arrested. It was a misunderstanding."

The important point is that all people experience cognitive dissonance whenever they encounter something that does not match what they have thought or believed previously. People may choose appropriate means of reconciling their dissonance (e.g. accepting new truths, adopting new perspectives, rejecting or modifying previous beliefs) or less appropriate ones (e.g. denying new truths, clinging to false ideas). "

[rdm - I agree with this for the most part. For more background see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni... starting at page 52.]

"The presence of cognitive dissonance alone says nothing about the quality or truth of someone's beliefs. For example, in the third case, the child might really have forgotten to pay for the article, or the parent might have seized on a rather threadbare excuse (not bothering to ask, "How did you forget the radio was hidden under your jacket?") and accepted it uncritically, because rejecting the first cognition-my child is honest-is too painful. The presence, or resolution, of dissonance proves nothing about the facts."

[rdm - Agreed. Cognitive dissonance is a function of conflicting cognitions. The accuracy or truth of the cognitions has nothing necessarily to do with it. However, cognitive dissonance is often the product of beliefs that are false colliding with more accurate apprehensions of reality. Religious history is full of this. And Festinger's seminal research into cognitive dissonance related to religious beliefs.]

"How do the critics misuse it?
Michael Shermer, an agnostic and writer for Skeptic magazine, specifically dismissed the idea that "cognitive dissonance" could generally explain religious believers:

'It would be a long stretch to classify [millions of white, middle class American Christians] as oppressed, disenfranchised, or marginalized…[millions of apocalyptically-inclined] Americans are anything but in a state of learned helplessness or cognitive dissonance. Indeed, some recent polls and studies indicate that religious people, on average, may be both physically and psychologically happier and healthier than non-believers.[1]'"

[rdm - This is another straw man argument. I am very familiar with Shermer's work. I have three of his books on my self at home ("Why People Believe Weird Things", "How We Believe" and "The Science of Good and Evil"), all well marked and thumbed, and I attended a conference he put on last year at about this time at Cal Tech where I had the chance to chat with him. In the quote above he is talking about the entire breadth of religious believers above, including liberal Protestants and many others.

On the other hand, in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things" Shermer quotes with approval psychologist Raymond Nickerson (1998) who published a comprehensive review of the literature on the confirmation bias, as follows:

"If one were to attempt to identify a single problematic aspect of human reasoning that deserves attention above all others, the confirmation bias would have to be among the candidates for consideration. It appears to be sufficiently strong and pervasive that one is led to wonder whether the bias, by itself, might account for a significant fraction of the disputes, altercations and misunderstandings that occur among individuals, groups, and nations." (quoted in "Why People Believe Weird Things", p. 299)

The confirmation bias is one of many forces that causes many beliefs to be so securely held that no conflicting cognitions can take root. See "How Denial Works" for a list of other forces that perform a similar function. Depending on how the term "cognitive dissonance" is used, this kind of thing may or may not be included in it.

Cognitive dissonance can only exist once a conflict between cognitions has been subconsciously, at least, acknowledged. For example, "Joseph Smith is a prophet" and "Joseph Smith lied about his sexual activities and had sex with young girls and others means wives" are conflicting cognitions for most people, but will only produce cognitive dissonance after the latter cognition has a been acknowledged to some degree.

In classic apologetic fashion, fairwiki is taking the concept of cognitive dissonance out of context and misapplying statements made about it in an attempt to persuade the ignorant or those who need to believe that cognitive dissonance is irrelevant to their religious faith.

The best part of this is that fairwiki is using Michael Shermer to defend precisely the kind of religious beliefs that Shermer specializes in debunking. He just uses different concepts to do the job, such as the confirmation bias. I am going to send this to him. I am sure he will get a kick out of.

This is what happens when people know a little about something (cognitive dissonance and Shermer's writing) and think that they know a lot.]

"Critics like to pretend that talking about 'cognitive dissonance' is very scientific, and objective. However, they usually ignore one of the most important principles of a scientific explanation: falsifiability.

The criterion of falsifiability...says that statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable, observations.[2]

The hallmark of pseudoscience is its inability to be falsified. That is why neither religion or any other philosophical system can ever be called science, or tested by science."

[rdm - I agree with the above three paragraphs, except that some concepts that are closely related to a religion or philosophical system can be falsified because they are scientific hypotheses. For example, the statement "Israelites emigrated to the Americas circa 600 BCE" is a statement that can be falsified, subject to the collection of adequate data. It is important to remember that falsification with regard to anything in the empirical (physical) world is not a matter of 100% certainty. So, while most people feel comfortable saying that "the Earth is not flat" and "the Earth is far more than 6,000 years old", neither the hypotheses "the Earth is flat" nor "the Earth is 6,000 years old" has been falsified with certainty. We must be content with probable falsification to one degree or another.]

"God made it all out of nothing in seven days, and faked the evidence," says the young earth creationist. "Any Mormon who doesn't interpret the evidence as I do must be suffering cognitive dissonance," says the anti-Mormon."

[rdm - So, anti-Mormons (presumably, anyone critical of Mormon belief) are here compared to young earth creationists. This is rich. Young earth creationists are famous for denying scientific evidence that contradicts their belief that the Earth is about 6,000 years old. What scientific evidence about Mormonism do anti-Mormons deny? None to my knowledge. What scientific evidence to do Mormon's deny? The list is extensive. Start with DNA evidence (see http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index...) related to the Book of Mormon origins, and go from there remembering in each case that we are not looking for certain proof that Mormon belief is false, but rather evidence that makes it seem highly probable that Mormon belief is false. Mormon scientists, for example, have stated that the evidence is against them on the DNA point, but that since proof is not certain enough yet they are justified on continuing in their Mormon beliefs. This is similar to the way in which evidence mounted in favor of Galileo's position and against the Catholic Church's. It took many generations for some Catholics to accept what many scientists believed much earlier, and what we have virtually all accepted now - Galileo was right and the Catholic Church was wrong.]

"How could a faithful Mormon's behavior or attitude toward the evidence prove that he or she is not subject to the critics' "cognitive dissonance"?"

[rdm - Lets suggest a falsifiable experiment. How about the one I outlined starting at page 18 of http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.does.... That involves the concept of "belief maps" and is consistent with the studies used in the academic cog dis research related to how people seek out information that is consonant rather than dissonant with their own views, so as to avoid cognitive dissonance (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitiv...).

For example, most Mormons are comfortable accepting that much of the Bible, and particularly the Old Testament, is metaphoric. The time it took the earth to be created, for example, is not taken literally by most well-educated Mormons. Nor is the worldwide flood. However, the Book of Mormon is believed by Mormons to be literally true. So, we would predict that Mormons will believe the Bible to be literally true to the extent that it is consistent with the Book of Mormon and that Mormons would tend to be more ignorant of information that conflicted with their beliefs than other similarly well educated people.

I have not tested this hypothesis (other than in casual conversation with some of my Mormon friends and relatives, where it passed with flying colors), but it is testable using standard social science tools. For example, I am confident that we would find that most Mormons believe that the Tower of Babel was a real historic event, whereas the creation of the Earth did not literally occur in seven days. Why? Because the Tower of Babel is referenced in the Book of Mormon and literal creation is not.

And, I would be willing to bet that a given group of university graduate Mormons are more ignorant of the linguistic theory that shows how silly the Tower of Babel story is than would be a similarly educated, and otherwise similar, group of non-Mormons.

Another way to use "belief maps" as noted in my essay above to construct a falsifiable hypothesis for testing cognitive dissonance would be to generalize the experiment I just suggested. For example, we might predict that religious beliefs tend to create both non-acceptance of scientific principles and ignorance of information related to them to the extent that religious belief conflicts with science, and then take several groups of religious believers who are university graduates and indicate that they are generally in agreement with the scientific point of view, and map their religious beliefs against their areas of ignorance or non-acceptance of science, and then compare that to the belief map of a group of agnostics. How do you think the Mormon population would do relative to the science related to sexual orientation (probably biological), or human origins (Africa), or the evolution of the human species (from mice)?

There are all kinds of ways to scientifically test cognitive dissonance and other denial related concepts on Mormon populations.]

"There is nothing which the critic could not shoe-horn into his theory-cognitive dissonance is thus little but a handy club to beat anyone who does not share his interpretation. "Of course you see it differently," the critic can kindly, but oh-so-condescendingly assure his Mormon friend. "You're still in the grip of cognitive dissonance." "

[rdm - See my comments above. This is ignorance writ large.]

"The anti-Mormon (ab)use of the theory is especially vulnerable to the charge of being unfalsifiable, but a lack of falsifiability has long been the chief criticism of cognitive dissonance theory generally:

One continuous criticism of Dr. Festinger's theory is that is may not be falsifiable. That is, there is no solid empirical data that proves without a doubt that people will react in a specific manner in a given situation or when dealing with dissonance.[3]"

[rdm - This is simply the criticism that is made of the social sciences in general. They are much less precise than the hard sciences, and hence one should take care when applying theories from the social sciences in any real life application. However, there have been countless cog dis experiments performed under falsifiable conditions. Cog dis and attachment theory are two of the best established psychological theories to date. This science is as solid as social science gets, while still being subject to the caveat that it cannot be applied with certainty to any real life application.]

"Dissonance is easier to point to when a group of people is exposed to the same situation and choices under controlled conditions. Trying to tease out why a given individual holds to or rejects religious or philosophical positions is a much taller order. There are no controls on the critics' rampant speculation."

[rdm - I have addressed this concern above.]

"Is turnabout fair play?
This is not to say that cognitive dissonance cannot play a role in religious belief. It might play a role in some Mormons' refusal to accept an uncomfortable truth. It could also play a role in the critics' experiences, in which their expectations and beliefs did not meet their perceptions of reality. Each critic is the only one able to make that assessment."

[rdm - I have been upfront about this all along. I have numerous times at www.exmormon.org and elsewhere chided people who seem to have forgotten that the same biases that affect Mormons affect post-Mormons. And we would be testable in the same as the Mormons are.]

"But, lacking access to others' reasoning and spiritual experiences, a critic cannot objectively judge the influence (if any) of cognitive dissonance in others' decisions."

[rdm - Much of the point of science is to assess what is objectively accessible from the outside, using the perspective that can only be gained through the comparison of many experiences. Science acknowledges that it cannot directly deal with the subjective nature of the experience, its qualia. However, what does it mean to a Mormon when she finds that countless people all of the world in different belief systems have precisely the kind of "testimony" experience she has? And that their brain states, measured during this experience, are doing exactly what her's do (see http://www.exmormon.org/Why%20We%20Be... - Day Three). This is a testable hypothesis and all of the evidence so far indicates that there will be nothing to distinguish the Mormon spiritual experience from that of countless others. This would explain the tenacity of Mormon as well as many other beliefs, and would cause some Mormons to wonder what kind of god would give so many different people with different conflicting beliefs precisely the same experience. Other cognitive dissonance suffering Mormons will cling to the possibility that somewhere, somehow, their belief is different and superior and god will in his due time explain all this.]

"He can worry about the dissonant beams in his own eye; others' motes are out of the reach of his self-justifying inquiry."

[rdm - Or maybe he is humble enough to recognize that there are beams and motes in all eyes. An understanding of science leads to this conclusion. It also allows us to measure these to an extent. How many Mormons would likely believe that hard core Moonies are not subject to heavy cognitive dissonance? Would we trust a group of well trained psychologists to measure the Moonie cognitive dissonance relative to reality and compare it to that of, say, some Reform Jews? Why not Mormons v. Moonies v. Reform Jews? There is another interesting, falsifiable, hypothesis. Moonies - worst; Mormons - second worst; Reform Jews - best (of this group).]

"Many critics seem unwilling to recognize that men and women of good will and sound intelligence might honestly disagree on the interpretation of evidence, even if considered with all the objectivity they can muster. This is, for example, why some people will buy stock at a price at which other people are eager to sell. (But perhaps the entire economy is merely an exercise in cognitive dissonance?)"

[rdm - In fact, denial, the confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance have been shown to play a large role in market crashes and manias.]

"LDS critics often have a naďve, super-simplified view of the historian's work whereby anyone who disbelieves a religious account is somehow automatically more free from bias than a believer. Such a stance ignores the fact that unbelievers may feel at least as great a stake in disproving uncomfortable and uncompromising religious claims as believers might in supporting them."

[rdm - I have already acknowledged that we are all subject to the same forces. However, one can predict blind spots using tools like the confirmation bias, which allow a belief map to be drawn and areas of ignorance and possible cognitive dissonance to be predicted. And this can be done using falsifiable hypotheses as I have indicated above.]

"It is therefore no surprise that critics label interpretations with which they do not agree as examples of "cognitive dissonance" in action, while the critics' positions are portrayed as merely the product of dispassionate analysis.

One critic fond of this 'theory' tells us:

The most important part of this analysis, by far, is to recognize that the forces we are about to discuss [cognitive dissonance] operate mostly at the subconscious level. To the extent we drag them into the conscious realm, they largely stop operating.[4]

"Subconscious" forces which are used to explain behavior, especially by the outside observer, are a classic unfalsifiable hypothesis. How can we know that a "cause" which has been supposedly dragged from subconscious to awareness is the genuine article?"

[rdm - The subconscious forces are part of the cognitive dissonance theory. People show signs of cognitive dissonance in measurable, falsifiable ways, and are unaware of their source. This is by definition the result of the unconscious part of our minds.]

"Why isn't our "discovered" reason simply a rationalization, which is driven in turn by an even deeper "subconscious force" and so on down forever? Since a person is-by definition-unaware of unconscious processes, how can the critic know with any confidence that the "forces we are about to discuss" look anything like the unconscious ones?

[rdm - See above. ]

"How can you say that A and B are the same thing if no one can get a certain look at A?'

[rdm - More silliness. These people need to do some reading.]

"If this is difficult in oneself, how much harder is it in another person, to whose mind and experience the outsider has no direct access? Despite these major hurdles, the critics seems to presume that they can reliably determine what others' unconscious processes are and "drag them into the conscious realm." Freud would have been envious."

[rdm - I have not suggested anything beyond what the scientists who work in this field have done many times over.]

"The critic then makes the equally strange assertion that these effects "largely stop operating" if we are but aware of them. Even if the critic, by the greatest fortune, has indeed identified a proper "subconscious force"-something of which he can never be sure-this belief is extraordinarily optimistic. Anyone who has spent any time in counselling or mental health work knows that awareness of a problem rarely provides a direct line to altered thinking or behavior. If it did, therapy would be just a dump of information to the patient. "

[rdm - Here is what I meant. Cog dis is part of the complex of forces related to denial. Cog dis starts when we become aware - often at the subconscious level - of conflicting cognitions such as those related to Joseph Smith's lying about sexual activities and his prophetic status. This conflict produces the kind of pain cog dis theory described, and that pain produces various rationalizing behaviours. Once we become aware enough to assess the best evidence relative to both cognitions in light of how denial works (including the role of cognitive dissonance) we tend to be able to resolve the dissonance by rejecting false belief. Think of the abused spouse example that is so often used to illustrate cognitive dissonance. One cognition is that her husband loves her and is committed to her and her children; the other is that he occassionally beats her. All her friends tell her to leave him. She tells them that they don't understand him; that he is really a good man. Often learning about how denial and cognitive dissonance work, and being introduced to objective evidence about how abused spouses in her situation tend to act; how their friends tend to act; how the abusers tend to act; and acknowledging that her life fits this pattern, etc. helps her to overcome her denial. Thus, her experience of cognitive dissonance declines (or even ends) on that issue.]

"The critic goes on:

The message that booms through the above evidence to me is that the denial inducing nature of cognitive dissonance makes it difficult to self-diagnose.[5]

Unfortunately for the critic, if we assume that this is true, then critics are equally vulnerable to the same treatment. The Mormon could just as easily respond that an anti-Mormon's perspective is all due to cognitive dissonance. He just doesn't know it, because such a condition is "difficult to self-diagnose."

[rdm - I have already agreed. So, why don't we line up a bunch of Mormons and post-Mormons and run a controlled experiment conducted by non-Mormon psychologists to measure the cognitive dissonance relative to science and Mormon belief in the two populations. I bet I can find some psychologists who would love to do that.

This is the kind of experiment Mormons would be unlikely to participate in, because in general they don't want to know. This contrasts with the statements of earlier Mormon leaders who said things like "The truth cuts its own way" (J. Smith) and "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." (J. Reuben Clark). Most people are like that to an extent. However, those of us who have experienced the pain of having our most important beliefs debunked tend to be more willing to expose our new beliefs to scrutiny, and are far less likely to be come as committed to our new beliefs as we were to our former, and so are more inclined to this kind of testing. And I note that this is in and of itself a testable hypothesis.

I now go out of my way to seek the advice of third parties in an effort to identify my blind spots. I would welcome the change to be the subject of a professional psychological study that would help me to identify the sources of cognitive dissonance in my own life, since I acknowledge that I am unlikely to be able to that on my own, in spite of my best efforts.]

"This illustrates that whatever else might be said about the flaws in this theory-the lynch-pin ("most important part…by far") of which is an unfalsifiable and unverifiable claim about subconscious motives-it is not rational and not scientific. "

[rdm - I address this above. It is flatly wrong. This person knows somewhere between little and nothing about the social sciences.]

"But, appeals to "cognitive dissonance" allow the critic to fit the evidence to his biases, and "diagnose" flaws in others. No matter how much his Mormon target might insist that the critic does not understand the Mormon's point of view or evaluation of the evidence, this just serves as stronger evidence to the critic of how deluded the Mormon is. Cognitive dissonance in the critics' hands is nothing but self-fulfilling prophecy, or a variation of the observer-expectancy effect. It is full of fallacies, a substitute for rational discussion of the evidence and the witness of the Spirit. "

[rdm - He repeats himself over and over. I have addressed this above. If cognitive dissonance and denial theory cannot be applied to Mormonism it can't be applied anywhere. And as I indicated above, it is one of the more thoroughly tested of psychological theories.]

"Conclusion
"Cognitive dissonance theory," when applied in the critics' idiosyncratic way to explain away the witness and convictions of others, is hardly scientific. The critics' efforts fail on many grounds:
· it cannot be falsified
· the critic can explain and dismiss any attitude, any belief, or any conviction
· the critic relies on claims about hidden, unverifiable, "subconscious" motivations as explanations
· the critic arrogantly assumes that the interpreter knows more about the person and his/her experiences than the person him/herself, even if the subject disagrees with the analysis
And, any argument which the critic uses against a member can be used in just as strong a form against the critic in turn."

[rdm - I have already addressed each of these points.]

Endnotes
1. [back] Michael Shermer, How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science (New York: WH Freeman and Company, 1999),211-212.
2. [back] Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations (London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, 1963), 33.
3. [back] M. Bruce Abbot, "Cognitive Dissonance Theory," class notes for ADV382J, University of Texas at Austin, September 2003 (accessed 31 October 2005). *
4. [back] Bob McCue, "Notes for Van Hale's Radio Show"; e-mail posting (5 September 2004), copy in author's possession.
5. [back] Bob McCue, "Notes for Van Hale's Radio Show"; e-mail posting (5 September 2004), copy in author's possession.


[rdm - My essays lay out the theory relative to cog dis and denial, and maps it against a host of my own and other Mormon experience that I believe is explained by that theory as well as much other religious experience that has been subject to scientific observation or testing in this regard. In this so-called critique of my position there was not a single substantive comment relative to my approach. The entire argument of this critique rests on the assertion that it is impossible to apply cognitive dissonance theory to Mormon experience. This is flatly wrong. Much cognitive dissonance research has been done relative to religious belief, and there is nothing special about Mormonism in this regard.

From what I saw today looking around www.fairwiki.org, this is as good an illustration of cognitive dissonance as anyone is likely to find.
topic image
The Risks Of Leaving Mormonism, Or Living On Its Fringes
Tuesday, Jun 20, 2006, at 07:14 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Mormon culture is set up to sabotage those who will not play by its rules. This make sense, since it tends to cause those who leave Mormonism and hence do not conform Mormon standards, fail. This supports Mormon claims that God blesses obedience and curses disobedience.

For example, in his excellent talk at last year’s exmo conference, Duwayne Anderson reviewed a number of questionable use of science statistics by Mormon apologists. I can’t now find the talk on-line in any form. Anyone who can help in that regard will be greater appreciated.

One concept Anderson trotted out caught my eye particularly. It had to do with life expectancy in Utah. An LDS researcher had claimed that Mormon’s in Utah had a much higher than average life expectancy. Anderson showed, however, that once certain adjustments were made that were necessary in order to make the Utah data comparable to the national averages, that Mormons in Utah were bang on the national average, and that non-Mormons or less than active Mormons in Utah were far below the average. As I recall, the same kind of analysis was performed re. suicide rates. The conclusion was that being anything other than a full blooded Mormon in Utah was harmful to your health.

And we all know about Utah’s nation leading use of anti-depressants, bankruptcy, commercial fraud and other indications that things are not going well for a lot of people there, Mormon or otherwise. I have not seen any statistics that break these categories down on a Mormon v. non-Mormon (or less active Mormon) basis, and again would be indebted to anyone who could point me to that. My bet is that active Mormons, less active Mormons and non-Mormons in Utah are all shown to be less functional than the average American in these areas.

The question, of course, is why would being a non-Mormon or less active Mormon in Utah cause problems?

I thought about this recently when hearing about some wayward children of my Mormon relatives and thinking about my own teenage waywardness. Most Mormon kids are not equipped with a healthy context in which to interpret they own behaviour outside of the Mormon norm. That is, they tend to see behaviour as either good (as prescribed by the Mormon community) or bad. There is not much in the way of a gradient that goes from good behaviour to questionable behavior to dangerous behaviour to “you must be nuts” behaviour when it comes to the Mormon rule book.

For example, I recall while serving as Bishop being taken to task by a ward member (one of our stake most respected members) for talking to the kids about what to do on dates in a context that presumed there would be some kissing and touching. She told me in no uncertain terms that she wanted her children taught that there would be no kissing or touching of any kind. I told her that I lived on Earth, understood what teenage kids were like and valued the credibility I had with them. I was not going to waste my time and theirs, not to mention destroying my credibility with them, by giving advice that was unrealistic. “Who”, I asked her, “was listening to these kids (including hers) in worthiness interviews and was charged with the duty to give them the most useful advice possible there and elsewhere?” (just typing those words give me the heebie jeebies). She reminded me that I was charged with instructing the kids to keep God’s commandments. I politely suggested that I was doing a difficult job as well as I could and would continue to do what I felt was best regardless of her opinions, and that I thought recognizing “normal” teenage behaviour and helping the kids to cope with in the most healthy manner possible was the best route to helping them in the long term to comply with as many of God’s rules as possible. Again, the act of remembering what my former head space was like, and what I told those poor impressionable kids, makes my shiver involuntarily.

In any event, once a Mormon kid has started down the “bad” path, it is natural for them to perceive themselves as bad all over. This kills self esteem. Kids with poor self esteem seek similar companions. And it does not help that Mormon kids like this have to lie to survive at home, and the psychologists have clearly laid out data that shows how once a few lies have been told in one context, the probability of lying in general skyrockets. Deceptive behaviour further degrades the social opportunities available to disobedient Mormon kids. And dysfunctional, low self esteem, naďve kids become adults with similar problems even if they have two or three degrees from BYU and have one of Utah’s relatively good jobs.

In a nutshell, Mormon culture is set up to sabotage those who will not play by its rules. This make sense, since it makes faithful Mormons look good to the extent that those who do not conform to Mormon standards fail.

As is so often the case, we can see a more extreme case of Mormon behaviour be looking at the FLDS. Around here, many FLDS kids have recently left that community and are woefully equipped to survive in the “real” world. They are poorly educated; have been taught from the cradle that the world is wicked and to be avoided and so are dysfunctionally fearful; have been conditioned to think in simplistic terms and obey instead of making decisions on their own; etc. Hence, many of them do not thrive outside of their community, or utterly fail. This means ending up with addiction problems; in trouble with the law; dealing with unwarranted pregnancies; etc. This of course provides evidence to those on the inside that their way is God’s one and only, and that those who disobey will be punished.

I am thinking of several people I knew growing up who were very talented, and ended up living what seems to be to be well below their potential. One in particular was (is) high end smart, charismatic, attractive - he has the whole package. He and I both became near pathological liars as teenagers in order to experiment in what I now see as harmless teenage stuff. He lied his way into Ricks, lied while there, lied his way through a mission and got ex'ed shortly after coming home. Until his mid-40s, he lived outside of Mormonism while believing that he was not good enough for it. During this period, he had a host of different troubles. He has now falsied Mormonism and moved on, but a lot of water under the bridge can't be changed.

I wonder what he would have been like had he been raised in an environment that rewarded creative thought and brass balls, which he had in abundance.

It is likely not possible to test this scientifically, but I bet that persons who are of the type that is likely to non-conform would thrive in many environments while being chewed apart by Mormonism.

In conclusion, I believe that Mormons sets up its members for similar familiar for the same reasons, those in not the same radical terms as its more pure FLDS version. I don't suggest that any of this is by conscious design, though some of it may be. This is how organizations, acting as organisms, defend themselves. Only the organizations with good defence mechanisms survive. Mormonism's perimeter is well set up in this regard. The anology to the human body's immune system is apt.
topic image
The Anti-Gravity Machine
Wednesday, Jun 28, 2006, at 07:39 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I was on a business trip this weekend (spent part of a day at Canada’s National Art Gallery in Ottawa – Emily Carr was the focus artist – wonderful – another story), and as usual watched more TV than I customarily do as a result of using that to wind down at the end of the day and to wake up in the morning.

A news clip caught my eye. I think it was on CNN.

Somebody with a lot of money in the US is making it possible for science teachers in large numbers to experience zero gravity on the theory that this experience will excite them about science, and this excitement will be communicated to their students. As the announcer described this idea, I noticed my eyes involuntarily rolling. “Another weird philanthropist who ought to visit Africa”, I thought.

But I was still getting dressed and so continued to watch.

They take a specially equipped jet, fill it with science teachers, take the jet up to 34,000 feet and then put it into a nose dive at 30 degrees down to 24,000 feet. This lasts about 30 seconds, and during freefall zero gravity is achieved. They showed this happening in the plane. The teachers were free to move around, and went giddy. They were laughing at each other; flipping through the air; imitating various kinds of flying; squeezing globules of water out of bottles and then diving through the air trying to pick up the globules with their mouths like dogs leaping to catch treats, but in slow motion; etc. In short, they were clearly excited by this experience. So the idea worked to at least that point.

Just as I was about to shut the TV off to head out for my meetings, one of the teachers – a young woman – was interviewed after the flight. While describing her experience, she said something like “It was amazing. Nothing was pulling me down. It was like all of a sudden I would do anything. I felt so powerful.” This power and the new degrees of freedom than came with it, were euphoria producing.

I was suddenly struck by both how well her description fit my experience on leaving Mormonism, and how the exuberance she and her colleagues exhibited while cavorting in zero gravity matched what I felt during in the days and weeks immediately following my rebirth. A powerful force that had been pulling me down – a form of social gravity – had as if by magic disappeared.

I recalled the days when I would tear up while driving to work because I thought of what I would do that weekend instead of going to LDS meetings; or how I would feel like my heart would burst as I walked through a park, saw people playing with their families and felt a kinship to them that was new to me. I recalled the immense energy that it had taken to break the bounds that had held me down. Countless other memories flashed by.

There a lot more that could be said using the gravity metaphor. It is gravity that paradoxically creates the muscles that give us the feeling of power when gravity is relaxed; we habituate quickly to anti-gravity and muscles start to deteriorate; etc. Some of these aspects of the analogy work, and others don’t. So I am not trying to say that the “anti-gravity” aspect of the post-Mormon experience fits across the board.

I am trying to communicate the joy that release from arbitrary, senseless, harmful bonds produces. This is so different from those who are made to feel that they exit from Mormonism is evidence that they are defective. The dysfunction this causes allows them to be used as evidence that Mormonism is indeed true.

Do a back flip today. And if you find someone suffering from Mormon guilt, which is a side effect of this form of social gravity, lovingly snip as many of her bonds as you can while passing by.
topic image
Does Attachment Theory Help To Predict Mormon Behavior And How We Will Respond To Exiting Mormonism?
Thursday, Jun 29, 2006, at 08:00 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Lee Kirkpatrick’s excellent book “Attachment, Evolution and the Psychology of Religion” is a great read for many reasons. Among other things, for example, he does a find job of putting the religious experience in a social science context and in this regard resembles such scholars as Scott Atran (“In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion”), Pascal Boyer (“Religion Explained”), Loyal Rue (“Religion is Not About God”) and Daniel Dennett (“Breaking the Spell”).

However, Kirkpatrick is particularly helpful for those of us who are wondering at some of the profoundly difficult aspects of the “leaving the fold” process. And, I have found while reading him answers to questions about some of my most basic behaviors that will be helpful to all aspects of my life. This note is intended to give a taste of how useful Kirkpatrick’s wares may be for some trying to find a satisfying path outside of Mormonism.

Much of Kirkpatrick’s books is based on attachment theory (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachme...), developed in the by John Bowlby and one of the most carefully studied, fruitful areas of psychological research.

The basic idea of attachment theory is that children develop different “styles” of attachment to their primary care giver, based to some extent on that caregiver’s behavior. The child’s genetic propensities (often inherited from the caregiver) are also important. Then, the attachment style developed in childhood to a large extent colors the “attachment” relationship between romantic partners. And, Kirkpatrick explains to us how religious institutions and/or “god” act as attachment figures.

The three main attachment styles in children are “secure”, “insecure” and “avoidant”. Secure attachment correlates with caregivers who are available, consistent, loving, etc. That is, ideal caregivers. Insecure attachment correlates with caregivers who are available but conditional or controlling. Avoidant attachment correlates with caregivers who are not available.

The basic behavioral characteristics of the three styles are:

- Secure: Uses the caregiver as a secure, protective base from which to explore; becomes anxious when caregiver departs, but recovers quickly upon caregiver’s return and then continues exploring.

- Insecure: Less willing to explore even in the caregiver’s presence; more distressed by strangers; more distressed when caregiver leaves; alternatives between punishing caregiver and demonstrating high needy behavior when caregiver returns; tends toward more temper tantrums; can be controlled with withholding, or offering, intimacy; has high needs for intimacy.

- Avoidant: Not as willing to explore in any case; not afraid of strangers; does not treat caregiver and strangers with much differentiation; not very distressed when caregiver leaves; not demonstrative when caregiver returns.

In adult romantic relationships, securely attached people tend to get along well and make wonderful mates. Insecure and avoidant people demonstrate variants of the behaviors noted above, and make less attractive mates.

Many Mormons will tend toward the insecure attachment style because of the kind of parenting encouraged within Mormonism (lots of arbitrary rules; love conditional to a degree upon those obedience to those rules; etc.), and the Mormon conception of god and his reflection in the Mormon authority figures and community are consistent with this.

And this, ironically, works out well for Mormonism since insecurely attached people are more controllable than the others. In a nutshell, they are dyfunctionally dependant on the relationships in their lives, and the Mormon system should be expected to produce this. And as a result, they are more susceptible to control through the threat of the loss of these relationships, and through the offer of the kind of intimacy that intimate relationships usually contain. And, their personal relationship will be characterized by heightened displays of distress or anger, demands for control, and conditional offering of their own intimacy while feeling more need for intimacy both with individuals and groups than is the norm.

The Mormon institution did not, of course, study attachment theory before developing its strategies that lead many Mormons to become insecurely attached as just indicated. Rather, Mormonism seeks to control its members. Since insecurely attached people are easier for an institution to control, Mormonism over time developed a host of foundational concepts that influence its members’ behavior toward insecure attachments to each other and the institution.

Hence, insecurely attached Mormons confronting the possibility of changing their beliefs will feel more distress than most people in similar situations. This is the result of an insecure attachment to the institution and/or god, as well as insecure attachments to spouses and family members within the Mormon group. And if a person leaves Mormonism and perhaps some of his most intimate relationships as well, one can expect more “needy” and “angry” behavior to result, which will manifest itself as a complete rejection of the former attachment figure – the caregiver who has abandoned or perhaps even abused her charge.

Not all Mormons will be insecurely attached, but many will be. Since that is the dominant stream I detect in my psychology, I am more interested in it than the other forms of attachment, and am working on some ideas with regard to how those of us who are insecurely attached to one degree or another can rewire ourselves to the extent possible in this regard. I would appreciate hearing of any ideas others may have in this regard, or with regard to attachment theory in general as it applies to religion.
topic image
We Thank Thee Oh God For Depression
Monday, Jul 17, 2006, at 07:20 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Many people who leave Mormonism and other controlling ideologies struggle with depression on the way out the door and for a long time afterwards. Depression is a frequent result of cognitive dissonance (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.denial.pdf at page 51). That is, as the tension between our connection to Mormon family, community and ideology is increasingly noted by our subconscious to be in conflict with common sense, history, science, etc., mental tension (cognitive dissonance) builds. The depression that often results from this and many other (but not all) sources is part of the warning system that has been built into us to let us know when our lives are not working as they should - kind of like pain when we touch a hot stove. This is a blessing.

Mildly depressed people tend to perceive reality more accurately than most of the rest of the population, who are often described as wearing rose colored glasses. A bit of depression gets rid of those distorting lenses.

The fact that Utah leads the US in anti-depressant consumption is an indication of how extensive depression is in Mormondom. Dealing with depression (and hence cog dis) in this way is one of the many defense mechanisms the Mormon Church has developed as it struggles to bring itself into a position that is more consonant with reality as most people understand it without admitting that to the massive deception its leadership has perpetrated.

The last thing Mormonism wants is a bunch of members whose perception of reality is heightened by a bit of depression. Those people tend to become dissatisfied with Mormonism, which is a clear sign that they are sick and must be medicated, at least as far as the therapists to whom these sufferers tend to be referred are concerned. It would be impolite to note that these therapists are employed by the Mormon Church, who set up this counselling system after finding that non-Mormon therapists often pointed the finger at Mormonism when dealing with depressed Mormons. So, Mormon family, friends, RS Presidents, Bishops etc. are taught to refer their depressed loved ones to LDS Social Services or Mormon therapists who are in league with them.

Through depression is often a blessing, it also frequently becomes a weed that once rooted is hard to root out. For example, depression and insomnia go together. While it is hard to tell which causes which, once a person is depressed and not sleeping well the insomnia tends to reinforce the depression and vice versa. A classic vicious circle. This is one of the many things that those of us who have had to fight our way to, and out, the Mormon door sometimes have to deal with, and why getting professional assistance is a good idea. It is hard to self-diagnose with regard to this kind of thing.

Post traumatic stress symptoms are also commonly experienced by those who leave a controlling religious group, like Mormonism. Again, depression and sleep disorders regularly haunt this type of person long after Mormonism is in the real view mirror. Wounds heal, but slowly. And the worst traumas leave permanent marks.

But for all of the difficulties associated with it, I am grateful for the fact that I experienced some depression during the years leading up to my departure from Mormonism. While I did not know what was wrong, I knew something was. And as I look back on what I did to cope with that (taking anti-depressants want not one of those), it is clear that the discomfort I felt played a big role in the steps I eventually took to bring more sanity into my life. I thank god (or fortune) that I was not medicated into submission.

So, in praise of depression, I have re-written an old hymn ...

We thank thee, oh God, for depression
To guide us through our latter daze
We thank thee for opening our eyes
Helping us see through the Mormon haze

Perhaps someone could finish this for me ...
topic image
Wonderful Graphic Representation Of Mormon Faith Collapsing
Thursday, Jul 20, 2006, at 07:38 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
If you want to see a wonderful graphic representation of Mormon faith collapsing have a look at this strange attractor as it disappears ...

If you want to see a wonderful graphic representation of Mormon faith collapsing, go to http://brain.cc.kogakuin.ac.jp/~kanam..., scroll down the left hand side to part 5.4, open it, and then view the simulation. This depicts the collapse of a "strange attractor" in a "complex system" as a result of which the system shifts to a new state.

Note how no perceptible change occurs for a long time, and then how the nature of the system changes radically and rapidly. This is a common feature of change in natural, complex processes and I believe applies to changes in important beliefs like those related to the truth or falsity of a religious tradition. It is not that there is not change. Rather, the cumulative effect of changes that are occurring become perceptible relatively late in the process.

Basically, a strange attractor is one kind of dominant pattern in a complex system. The human brain is a complex system, and some of our modes of thought (like belief in Mormonism) are strange attractors. Human social groups are probably strange attractors (at least in some ways), and the tendency toward a particular pattern of social behaviour based on beliefs accepted by the group (ie. religious group behaviour) is likely a strange attractor. See http://brain.cc.kogakuin.ac.jp/~kanam... at section 2.2 (view the simulation) to get the idea of how strange attractors form. You can vary the parameters of this simulation and produce different, but similar, patterns. So, the human form or that of other species can be thought of as strange attractors. As the parameters of the system that give rise to the strange attractor change, it changes and in come cases can disappear entirely. As it changes (whether on theway to disappearance or not), the universe of behaviours that it captures changes.

The model at section 2.2 shows only behaviours that fall within the range of the strange attractors. Think of marbles being tossed into the basin in such a way that they roll around the sides. Some have enough energy to escape the basis. Others do not. Section 2.2 shows only what happens to those that stay in the basin.

Think of a basin that is either becoming smaller or shallower. Think again of marbles being tossed into the basin in such a way that they roll around the sides. Some have enough energy to escape the basis. Others do not. As the basin become smaller and shallower, the set of marbles that will stay in the basin upon being tossed becomes smaller because the energy required to escape becomes smaller.

Staying in the basin might be "good" or "bad" depending on the nature of the attractor as well as one's point of view. For example, the basis might represent the educational system. The larger and deeper it is, the broader the set of behaviours it can accommodate while effecting its educational and socialization function. Or, the basin might represent Mormonism and one of the parameter's affecting its size and depth might be the degree to which it can prevent its members from discovering evidence that probably disconfirms its foundational premises.

And finally, here is a description of my "deconversion" process that I wrote a long time before I had so much as heard the term "strange attractor".

"Why Did The Deconversion Process Take So Long?

I have often shaken my head over that one. I am, after all, a reasonably well educated if rather slow witted fellow. One Calgarian friend suggested in jest (I think) that the problem was likely that my university degrees are all from the U. of A., in Edmonton (Calgary's rival city). Another suggested (likely not in jest) that I am wonderful proof of how linear in their thinking lawyers tend to be.

I think two issues nicely explain my experience. First, the psychologists make it clear that the forces of cognitive dissonance are far more powerful than most of us wish to believe (See for example, Shermer, "Why People Believe Weird Things"; Aronson, "The Social Animal"; and Levine, "The Power of Persuasion"). That is, once we have a particular belief lodged in our head, and we have built our life around it in terms of family and social relationships, we will be highly resistant to any information that suggests our belief to be incorrect. A number of examples of how thoroughly cognitive dissonance can block information in a variety of religious contexts are summarized starting at page 43 of an essay titled "Religious Faith: Enlightening or Blinding?" and in another titled "The Mormon Use of Persuasive Technique", both of which can be found under the Spirituality (Post-Mormon) button on my website (http://mccue.cc/bob/spirituality.htm).

Second, the Mormon Church enhances the power of cognitive dissonance within its membership by suppressing all troubling aspects of its history in the manner noted above. And, Mormons are taught that those who write the "real" history of Mormonism are not trustworthy. Because obedience to leadership authority is paramount within modern Mormonism, I chose not to read anything that questioned my religious leaders or the beliefs they approved. Most faithful Mormons do likewise. And so I made it to age 44 in a state of almost complete ignorance respecting the most important aspects of Mormon history and culture formation, and hence the information most relevant to whether the spectacular claims Mormonism makes with respect to exclusive divine authority, and hence being God's "only" true church on earth, are justifiable. Ironically, I considered myself well informed respecting Mormonism and religion in general, and was looked up to within the local Mormon community in that regard.

James Fowler' book "Stages of Faith" describes six stages of spirituality and how many people progress through them. This book has also helped me to make sense of my experience.

The third stage Fowler describes is the "my faith is the best or only true faith". People in this stage make great followers, and so it is encouraged by many institutional religions, including Mormonism. The fourth stage is the realization that many aspects of one's faith do not square with reality, and involves a painful reappraisal of belief, often followed by a rejection of it. The fifth is a joyful, wondrous stage in which the good of many faiths is appreciated and spirituality becomes less bounded, more flexible. Often during this stage one is able to reappraise, and reconnect with, one's "old" faith. In this case, however, it usually becomes part of a much broader, richer spiritual tapestry. I note in this regard that my personal spirituality continues to be informed by many of Mormonism's basic teachings.

My overall summary of how the evolution of faith works is as follows: Our religious beliefs are supported by social networks, our conditioning, education, etc. Cognitive dissonance results whenever any information challenges those beliefs. This is, in effect, a weight that holds our existing religious beliefs in place regardless of whether they are correct.

Whether we can overcome that cognitive dissonance, and how long that will take, depends on our ability to learn and change, as determined by genetics and conditioning. Michael Shermer in his book "How We Believe" cites extensive social science research that shows that the more open a person is to new experience, as measured by a personality trait called "openness", the more likely it is that she will become less certain or more liberal in her religious views as time passes. I have collected data in the post-Mormon community online that indicates that certain Meyers-Briggs personality types are more likely to question their religious beliefs than others. Particularly, those who are introverted (as opposed to extroverted); intuitive (as opposed to sensing); and thinking (as opposed to feeling) are more likely to seriously question Mormonism. My data sample size and the manner in which it was collected, however, were such that these conclusions are tentative at best. I am in the process of preparing a larger and more reliable survey that will address the same issue.

Our psychology seems to be designed to promote stability - to cause us not to change social groups unless the cost benefit advantages are obvious, and often not even then. This makes sense in light of the importance of being part of a well functioning group to our survival throughout most of humankind's evolutionary history. Hence, the threat of expulsion from our primary social group causes profound fear. This buttresses cognitive dissonance and makes information that challenges our beliefs more difficult to rationally evaluate. This irrational fear of leaving the group is exploited to a tee by Mormonism and other similar groups.

It takes a massive amount of learning for even a personality type predisposed toward change to overcome the weight I have described in the case of a well-conditioned Mormon. I visualize this as an old fashioned set of scales, like the scales of justice. Disconfirming experience and evidence has to be piled on the side of our scales opposite religious belief until they begin to tip. That is, we have to experience enough cognitive dissonance to make us finally question the reality we have assumed to exist. The epiphany experience many people have as they leave a controlling religious faith is related to what happens when we reach the "tipping point" on our scale. Then, suddenly, it is as if a switch were thrown and we can see all kinds of things that have been building up just out of view as a result of the work our mind has been doing to keep us in denial. Suddenly, much of this information and insight is released into the conscious mind because the unconscious can no longer hold it back. It is as if the lights suddenly came on. This experience changes most people irrevocably. Afterwards, they can perhaps fake being who they were, but they are and always will be different in fundamental ways.

For the reasons just indicated, I doubt very much that I could have thought my way out of Mormonism without several years of decompression after my stint as Bishop, which ended just over a decade ago. I needed that much time, space and energy to slowly take weight off the Mormon side of the scale and to experience cognitive dissonance producing things that would add weight to the other side.

And, perhaps most importantly, I needed time to become sentient again. I was so busy for so long that I no longer felt much outside of a narrow range of the emotional spectrum. It was the realization that something had died inside of me that got my conscious attention first. I was depressed but not so badly that I could be diagnosed as such. I went to various doctors, assuming that something was physically wrong with me. I checked out clean in each case. Only as I emerged from Mormonism did my vitality come back.

The term "rebirth" is often applied to this process. I think it is apt."
topic image
The Covenant With Mystery
Wednesday, Aug 16, 2006, at 06:51 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Ursula Goodenough coined the term "covenant with mystery", and used it in her book "The Sacred Depths of Nature"[1], to convey the idea that not knowing nourishes us in myriad ways, and that hence we should take care to resist the persistent human tendency to think we "know". That is, humans tend to be certain about a host of things regarding which certainty is not justified. The better we can become at resisting this tendency, the richer life tends to become.

I have recently stumbled across uses of Ursula's lovely concept with regard to particular phenomena that we don't (and perhaps can't) understand. For example, some argue that what precedes the Big Bang is an impenetrable mystery; others that fact that anything at all, as opposed to nothing, exists.

It occurred to me that a covenant with any particular mystery is a violation of the basic humanist tenet that all conclusions (including that something is a mystery) are tentative. To make matters worse, it is similar to the "god of the gaps" - the tendency to use "god" to explain whatever science has not gotten around to explaining. This god - the one who hides in the gaps in our knowledge related to what is real - has seen many of his presumed favorite hiding places carefully examined by science without any trace of him being detected. Theologians and others who seen now to locate god in the fog surrounding post-modernism, quantum physics, string theory or the science of emergence are playing a very old game.

As an aside, I note that Mormon readers may see a similarity between the god of the gaps and the location of the Book of Mormon narrative. That is, when science has shown to a high degree of probability that the Book of Mormon is not real history with regard to the Americas as a whole, a gap in scientific knowledge small enough to seem impenetrable, and hence permanently defensible, is sought. In this case, the so-called "limited geography theory" of the Book of Mormon resulted, which tells us that narrative found in that book was played out in such a small, remote area of Central America that it likely will never be found. If accepted, this theory of the Book of Mormon renders it non-falsifiable, which is precisely the objective (conscious or not) of most god of the gaps theories. A kind of god that acts in ways beyond our examination, and hence falsification, is sought.

The problem with this approach regarding the god of the gaps, Book of Mormon and covenant with mystery is the same: Science often advances in unanticipated ways, and ends up closely examining the supposedly impenetrable. Therefore, my covenant with mystery is an admission of epistemic humility first, and second expression of awe with regard to the amazing aspects of reality I am capable of perceiving, including so many awe inspiring, beautify, wondrous aspects of reality that I cannot count them. These are my current mysterium tremendum et fascinans[2] - my mysteries - any one of which may at any time be explained to my satisfaction.

The broader our perspective and more aware we become, the more clear it is that we are not justified in the belief that we can accurately apprehend what is within our view, let alone all that is. Godel's theorems[3], deterministic chaos[4], quantum mechanics[5] and other phenomena, as best we can now understand them, underscore this. And more is on the way. For example, the implications of Godel's theorems have recently been extended by Greg Chaitin[6] to suggest that there are limits to what math can describe, and that we are hence limited in our effort to apprehend what is real.

And yet we must make important decisions. In the face of our ignorance, well-understood perceptive foibles and in mystery up to our eyeballs, we need to find ways to avoid mental paralysis and make the best decisions we can. Science, properly used instead of slavishly followed, unquestionably provides the most reliable means of doing this in a thoughtful fashion, while denial, cognitive bias, etc.[7] as well as amazingly efficient heuristics[8] are our de facto decision-makes in most cases, for good and ill.

As a group becomes more self aware, its members tend to rely more on the wisdom of diverse crowds[9]. And yet the confirmation and other biases in the scientific community (one of our most self-aware groups) are still so strong that Max Planck famously said that science progresses one funeral at a time.

Somehow, in spite all this, technologies that make us more powerful continue to come into being. This is irrefutable evidence that we have enough knowledge of realty to manipulate a few of its bits.

Meanwhile, some of our most farsighted fellow travellers[10] are trying to understand the connection between what we can control - our power - and the rest of what is. They tell us that as we exercise control over small things (like our desire to travel large distances and heat or cool large houses) we set in motion forces that we can only dimly perceive as a result of the frames of time and space over which they operate, a bit like the monkey who having discovered a saw and figured out how to use it, is about to cut off the tree branch on which he sits far above the jungle floor, and thrilled with his "progress".

And so our seers, knowing something more about saws, trees and gravity than the rest of us, are deeply disturbed by what they see in the tea leaves available to them. The warning they and others sound have aroused signs that parts of humanity are becoming conscious enough of our power that they choose self restraint. Whether this will be enough to defuse what might be called the KKR ("Kaufman Kauffman Rue"[11], not "Kohlberg Kravis Roberts"[12]) Emergency is arguably our most important social imperative.

So, what are the consequences of a human act? Can we act otherwise than through mostly mental and social inertia? Are we building our future or sawing off the our tenuous ties to existence?

We will never run short of mystery. However, the extent to which we perceive and react to the wonderful mystery at the core of reality is more connected now that ever to how long and well the human aspect of life's drama will continue.

Mysteries can be created out of any nonsense. We don't need more of these chimera that are at best entertaining and at worst an increasingly dangerous distraction.

Now, more than ever, certainty is our enemy, while mystery of the most real and hence highest sort, is our inspiration and may be our Savior.

[1] See http://www.sofn.org.uk/Bibliography/u... and http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.the%....

[2] See http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/eng....

[3] See http://www.exploratorium.edu/complexi... and http://www.ams.org/mathmedia/archive/....

[4] See http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/CHAOS.html.

[5] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_....

[6] See http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin....

[7] See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni....

[8] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_Gig....

[9] See Surowiecki, James, "The Wisdom of Crowds", reviewed at http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0525/p1....

[10] See for example, Diamond, Jared "Collapse"; Wright, Ronald "A Short History of Progress"; Ehrlich, Paul "Human Natures".

[11] Gordon Kaufman (Harvard theologian), Stuart Kaufman (Santa Fe Institute and U. of Calgary complexity theorist) and Loyal Rue (Luther College religious studies professor) were the most outspoken proponents of the "we are in trouble and need to pay serious attention" point of view at the recent Institute of Religion in an Age of Science 2006 conference at Star Island, New Hampshire on "emergence" and the science of complexity.

[12] KKR is a well known investment fund and money manager.
topic image
Fast Shorts
Thursday, Aug 17, 2006, at 06:40 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
One of my joys in life is teasing, and playing with, our four year old grandson Ayden. As a result, he has learned to tease back and last night was threatening me with his Captain Jack Sparrow sword[1], and calling me names while I occassionally karate kicked at him, causing him to shape-shift[2] from pirate to ninja.

Since Ayden has a relatively new pair runners, he regularly needs to demonstrate how fast he is by sprinting in his slightly lopsided way from one end of the house to the other with a hilariously determined look on his face. It is mandatory (enforced by Grandma) to ooh and aah after this performance, and then to pay similarly serious attention as Ayden explains the various features of his runners that make them so fast. These include the amazingly "sharp" grips on the bottom, racing stripes on the side (the are mini-Asics[3]), etc.

During Ayden's runner recitation last night I told him that I was way faster than him, and it occurred to me that while we have had little races inside before, we have never taken this particular game outside. So after he got mad, I challenged him to "have a real race, outside". Though I am sure he had no idea what that meant, the idea that this was "real" (he thinks he understands what that means) and new (that is, "outside") appealed to him, and he got excited. I was still in my suit from work and having dinner (including a nice glass of Merlot), and he came to check on me at least half a dozen times during the next 15 minutes to see when I would be ready for our race. When I finally finished dinner, he followed me to my bedroom, telling me all the way how badly he was going to beat me, while I teased back in various incisive ways.

"Pooky head", I would say.

"Crack butt!", he would reply and then triple karate chop and kick the air while making "whoosh" noises since his hands and feet don't go fast enough to make them. I would reply in kind, and try to graze him with a kick and punch or two. Any more than a graze and he will run crying to Grandma. He does not bother with his Mom with this stuff because she doesn't give the kind of reaction he wants.

I proceeded to change into a pair of denim shorts and my favorite soccer jersey (Bayern Munich, Owen Hargreaves[4] team in Germany), hoping to one-up him - overawe him with a cool logo - "You don't have a soccer jersey! Ha ha!". But before I could do that, he went straight for the jugular I didn't realize I had.

"Those are not fast shorts", he deadpanned, while looking me square in the eyes.

"But soccer players are really fast!", I said, "look at my soccer Jersey! Bayern ...".

There was no point continuing. All I got was an eye roll before he looked away.

I was being out trashed talked by a four-year-old. But then I realized that I had never heard him trash talk before. That is, he does not (as far as I know) pretend to believe realistic things for teasing purposes. He says what he really believes or drifts into a complete fantasy world involving becoming various characters, dinosaurs, etc. The idea that he might misrepresent a realistic belief for the purpose of teasing me was innovative. But after a few seconds thought about his past and present behavior, I satisfied myself that he has not reached that level of cognitive sophistication yet. I was faced with his real belief. My shorts were not fast, and he hence he had me in our race.

So we finally went outside. It was a perfect Alberta summer evening on our small acreage. About 25 degrees C. (77 F.) and just enough breeze to keep the bugs down. The Rocky Mountains were in full grey blue splendor behind the house and the faded fields that surround it. Harvest was well underway, and so each field emitted a different sweet smell, and the rich greens of the alfalfa and grain golds have been leveled to their dull roots, seasoned by green bales and yellow swaths. Myriad wildflowers hid in the tall grasses where the prairie sod has not been broken. The sky was light with the kind of fluffy cloud that would produce a spectacular sunset within a couple of hours.

We were to run out about 30 years to a big pine tree planted in the middle of a garden that makes a roundabout in our driveway, around the garden, and back. Grandma had been recruited to act as starter and umpire. Ayden tried to cheat by edging ahead before Grandma said "go". I protested so loudly that he came back to the starting line, with a sly smile on his face.

Finally we took off. It was brutally close. He pulled ahead first, but I caught him at the turn and passed him on the inside as he came back toward the house, causing his little face to convulse with fear and determination. He gradually reeled me in and I thought I had engineered a tie as we passed the finished line. The corrupt umpire, however, gave the race to Ayden. He was elated and ran shouting inside to tell the whole house about his win, and no doubt high-five his uncles, while Grandma laughed as she told me that the look on his face as he caught up to me was too much to toy with by doing anything other than declaring him the winner.

I awoke this morning with the thought that in addition to making a cute story, this incident speaks of something basically human. We habitually use the combination of our pattern finding skills and perception of things that are beyond our comprehension to support what we need to believe about ourselves. For example, it is hardwired into every child I have even known to think that he is fast. Ayden will find out soon enough that he is slow, as did his Mom when she was in elementary school (it took one race at one track meet to get this message across, and a pretended stomach cramp after the message sunk in to deal with it) and Ayden seems to have inherited her physique in this regard, as well as her artistic flair. But for the time being, he feels fast when he runs; he looks fast since he has the same kind of stuff the really fast people on TV wear; and in an instant he spotted the fact that his stuff looked faster than mine. He is not old enough to understand the physics of muscle power and limb length, or to notice that I do a lot of things that would like indicate he does not have a chance in a real race with me. Then, courtesy of the kind of show that also bring Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny into a child's life, he is encouraged to feel good about his budding physical abilities. This confirms to him that he was right - anyone wearing shorts like mine has no chance in a race with someone like him.

There are a few concepts that have been thoroughly studied by social scientists that relate to my race with Ayden. The first is "bounded rationality"[5]. That is, what is rational is determined by context. Were I raised in the Artic and have never seen a cell phone, I am not stupid or irrational because I can't figure how to turn it on. If I am a 15 year old girl raised within certain Muslim sects or the Fundamentalist Mormons, I am not irrational if my most fervent desire is to marry a 60ish man who already has a dozen or more wives.

The second is feedback. Human belief is largely determined by feedback. If we have lots of feedback that supports an idea (polygamy is good; foot binding is good; self flagellation is good, especially around Easter) and none to contradict it, regardless of how bizarre the idea may seem to those who have received a different kind of feedback respecting it, we will tend to accept it. This is an important part of the boundedly rational concept, but worthy of special attention.

And so how can we expect Ayden, having never had any feedback that indicates anything except that he runs really fast, to believe differently? He is boundedly rational.

And finally, there is social mass[6]. During most of human history, if our group did not survive or if we got kicked out of it, we died. Hence, whatever seems to hold our group together and keeps us in it must be true. Our feelings of comfort and security within the group, and fear when we venture to its edges, confirm that there is something special about our group. Our pattern finding skills show us countless examples of why other groups do not measure up to ours. They dress differently, act differently, believe differently, etc. Since these things would cause difficultly within our group, they are clear signs that others do not enjoy the same exalted status as do we. Etc.

As long as a child's perception remains in place, Santa is real and all races with people wearing slow shorts will be won. As that perspective gradually expands, Santa morphs into Mom and Dad in an inexplicably good mood, and races of all kinds are determined by ability instead of clothing. In fact, we relish it when the "posers" are exposed.

The expansion of adult perspective is more difficult to engineer. Adults largely control their own worlds, and are past that wonderful stage of life during which the mind is slowed down and cracked wide open so that it can learn. Adults are those beings evolution designed as doers. Learning uses so much brain power that not much is left for doing. So, the tradeoff is that each generation of children would learn and so adapt to the environment as it changed without doing much more than that, while their parents and other adults produced what was necessary to allow for this species-saving luxury. This means that the parents - the doing-instead-of-learning-adults - will be so busy doing that they cannot perceive much beyond what is required to keep their group on an even keel. And so they will be boundedly rational, shaped by their lack of feedback and inability to learn, and as a result should be expected to regularly mistake reality for whatever works to keep their world moving in its orbit.

So the next time you hear an adult (or child for that matter - it is all the same) say something that sounds profoundly irrational, like "I know that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true church on the face of the Earth, and that Joseph Smith restored the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its Fullness to the Earth, and that Gordon B. Hinckley is God's only true prophet on the face of the Earth today", you should think about bounded rationality.

But you only really need to remember one thing: "Those shorts are not fast".
topic image
Psst, I've Got A Dirty Little Secret To Tell You
Monday, Aug 28, 2006, at 10:32 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Democracy, civilization – all of that stuff – depends on the obedience of the people to rules. There is a unwritten deal between those who are in charge and all of the rest of us. That is, we will obey as long as their rules are reasonable. When the people who make the rules breach this agreement, we stop obeying. And when even a moderate percentage (like 20%) of the people stop obeying certain important rules, the system breaks down and hence is forced to change. As few examples from the world of income taxes – one of our most common and difficult to enforce kinds of law, can perhaps help to make this point. Bear with me; this does have to do with religion in general and Mormonism in particular.

For example, a few years ago in Canada the tax on cigarettes was raised to a ridiculous level in an effort to make them so expensive that their use would decline. Result – massive, importation of illegal (that is, untaxed) cigarettes into Canada from the US across several native reservations that straddle the Canada-US border, and eventually the establishment of underground cigarette manufacturing operations. This led to a roll back of the tax, which eliminated the black market profit, which radically pruned the black market.

Or, in the late 1980s in Canada the so-called “goods and services tax” was introduced. This is a 7% tax on almost all goods and services purchased in Canada. In some Canadian provinces, there was already a provincial goods or services tax in the rage of 5 to 7%. Hence, the tax on every purchase in some places was well above 10%. At the time, income tax rates in Canada at the top end were well above 50% in most places. This additional 7% tax was the straw that broke many a Canadian law abiding back. As a tax attorney, I saw more people than I can count during the late 1980s and early 1990s who asked for advice as to how to cheat the system. They were not going to pay that damn GST, and this meant opting out of the system to a large extent. I had to tell each person who asked for advice as to how to cheat that I could not help them, but if they called any number of offshore financial institutions they would find plenty of help. During the late 1990s and so-far in this century, the Cdn. trend has been toward lower taxes, and as a result I have not had someone come to me for “cheating” advice in several years.

Or, in the 1980s New Zealand’s income taxes had risen to ridiculous levels – something like 80% at the top end for individual income. New Zealand’s economy was flat on its back. A new socialist government came to power, and then realized that if they wanted to run nice social programs someone, somewhere in the country had to be making money and paying taxes. One of the first things they did was to halve income tax rates. Incredibly, tax collections immediately rose. Why? Because at 80% a lot of people had decided to “cheat”. But in their minds it was not cheating, since the government had breached its unwritten agreement to be reasonable in what it required of the people. At 40 or 50%, the people were prepared to pay tax and so voluntarily re-enrolled in the tax system, and tax revenues went up as a result.

Each of these tales points to the fact that when governments become too unreasonable, it backfires on them. This applies to religious government as much, or more, than to civil government.

So, what is likely to happens when a religious government (say, the Mormon government just for discussion purposes) starts to behave in unreasonable ways? Or, what happens if the Mormon population suddenly begins to perceive the Mormon government to have been behaving in unreasonable ways for a long time? And again, purely for discussion purposes, what if that perception comes about from the sudden realization due to the Internet that Mormon leaders have been behaving from the beginning as if the Mormon rules related to being honest don’t apply the them, and hence deceiving the Mormon population?

In such a case, I would predict something similar to what happens in the tax cases I outlined above, as well as many other kinds of cases that I could outline. That is, many people will quietly begin to disobey. There will be a few who are in-your-face disobedient, but since in the beginning at least this risks becoming the focus of unwanted institutional and community attention (think of the academics and others who have been excommunicated; many divorces that have occurred; jobs that have been lost; etc.), this will be the exception instead of the rule. The rule will quiet disobedience; rationalized lying in temple recommend interviews and PPIs; faked or non-existent home teaching; regular internet lurking and posting under pseudonyms; more vacation homes in and retirement to places that don’t have LDS chapels close by; more quiet encouragement of children to become educated away from BYU and Utah, not to go on missions, to marry outside Mormonism, etc.

I believe that we are at the beginning of this trend. What do others who are looking at the tea leaves see?
topic image
Corridor V. Non-Corridor Mormons
Tuesday, Aug 29, 2006, at 06:00 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Where are the potential costs of clearly observable disobedience highest? In the Corridor, of course, where economic, family and Mormon networks overlap to a very high degree. From this simple observation we note the following:

Expect more “under the radar” disobedience in the Corridor and less overt disengagement/disobedience. This creates the irony of Corridor Mormons going to places outside the Corridor and being surprised to find more committed Mormons than in Utah. This is because those who remain Mormon outside the Corridor will tend to be pretty straight laced because the less-straight laced tend to leave. The less-straight laced in the Corridor have so much to lose that they remain nominally Mormon while not committing the energy to Mormonism that it theoretically requires, thus creating a nonchalantness – an apathy – around being Mormon that is off-putting for non-Corridor Mormons who experience it. The often-pejorative term “Utah Mormon” communicates this outside the Corridor. “Utah Mormons” bring a feeling of weakness or wishy-washiness to their Mormonness that “real Mormons” do not like.

Among other things, this explains the reaction of so many Corridor Mormons to people like me – formerly uber-committed non-Corridor Mormons who are profoundly distressed when they find out about the rot in Mormon foundations. “Why didn’t you just quietly go inactive?”, I have been asked more times than I can count by Corridor Mormons. Where I come from, that is not an honorable option. In Utah, however, it often is because while the foundational rot is not spoken of, its presence has been felt for so long that it shapes Mormon behaviour.

This brings up something foundational about how humans communicate. A lot of our most important communication is non-verbal. This is how oligopoly pricing works, for example. Even wonder how gasoline prices are arrived at? Where there are only a few players in a market, they communicate with each other by where they set their prices. They know that lower prices mean lower profits for all of them. If one of them drops its price, they all have to match. So why would anyone step out of line? This is a problem our competition laws have not solved.

The same thing happens during war. Either side can bomb the other's supply lines at any time. Why don’t they do this? Because unless this appears likely to create such weakness that it will bring the war to an end, it will just cause misery on both sides because there will be immediate retaliation in kind. So, the bombing of a supply line says “please bomb our supply lines” and non-bombing communicates the continuation of the tacit agreement not to bomb supply lines. The use (or non-use) of other weapons during wartime is similarly communicative. Some of the clearest evidence of this phenomenon was gathered during WWI by observation of the average soldiers' (on both sides) unwillingness to shoot clearly exposed soldiers in the opposite trenches.

So, when a young Mormon in the Corridor sees all kinds of successful professionals, business people, university professors etc. attending church but not accepting demanding, high profile leadership positions, this communicates something profoundly important. In my case, growing up outside the Corridor, I saw most of the people in the classes just described in leadership positions. This communicates quite a different message about what certain kinds of people should do. Social mores are based in this kind of signaling behavior.

And what happens (as it is now where I live) when those who accept Mormon leadership positions are often chosen mostly for their willingness to follow orders? This leaves an increasing percentage of those most qualified for the leadership of human groups taking care of Mormon membership records, teaching primary (a great and important calling, by the way) or holding no calling due to “family issues”, "health concerns" (read, "Mormon callings depress me") or “other commitments”.

This kind of communication will have a profound effect on the nature of Mormon communities in various places over the course of the next generation.

We should also expect social evolution to occur more slowly within the Corridor than elsewhere. This is because a greater percentage of the population will at least pretend to follow the Mormon rule book. This will slow down the dissemination of new cultural ideas and behaviors.

Now, consider the state of Mormon affairs in the Mormon hinterlands (places like New York, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc.). The use of the word "hinterlands" to describe those places says something important about Mormonism in and of itself - this is an Alice in Wonderland kind of world.

In any event, in the "hinterlands" we should expect to find a larger percentage of people than in the Corridor who when troubled by the differences between Mormon theory and reality simply walk out the door and don’t come back. Their jobs don’t depend on Mormonism; their families likely include people who are already integrated with the non-Mormon community; most of the people in their neighborhoods are non-Mormon; most of their kids friends at school and on sports teams are non-Mormon; etc. The transition to a non-Mormon way of life is not easy for them, but it is far easier than for those in the Corridor.

When we visit a Mormon congregation in NYC or the other non-Corridor cultural centers, we might think we see evidence that contradicts the hypotheses above. For example, we might see a wider array of dress tolerated; less conformity in terms of lessons being taught straight from the manual and scriptures; more working mothers; etc. However, if you tracked the non-conformists for a period of time, you would find that a large percentage of them and their children have left Mormonism while those who stay toe the line pretty carefully. This amounts to saying that the “core” of the Mormon community outside the Corridor is more stable (or conservative) than the core within the Corridor. However, around the non-Corridor core (too many “cors” here) there is a group of Mormons that are waking up, holding a wider range of beliefs and engaging in a wider range of behaviors than their parents and other members of the core, and then leaving instead of hanging around in a state of suspended animation. One has to wonder howlong this can last before a near complete collapse occurs, starting at the perimeter. What is holding this house of cards together?

Non-Corridor Mormon populations are renewed in two ways. First, through baptisms. There was a time when this was a significant source of new blood. Those days are gone. In North America, it is rare for a stable family to join Mormonism. Some “golden” university students join, but they are rare. Most Mormon converts are needy - a net loss in the unspoken physics of Mormon leadership. These converts are tolerated, not sought. Look for a concerted move toward higher membership criteria in North America.

The other source of new non-Corridor Mormons are Corridor Mormons who move to “the mission field” as my parents did in the late 1960s (from Utah to Victoria, BC, Canada).

Corridor Mormons are often converted into serious, uber-conservative non-Corridor Mormons as a result of this move. They are almost immediately put into leadership positions, which brings the “saying is believing” bias to bear on them (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni... at page 86). They then try raise an uber-Mormon family outside the Corridor, and have to deal with the pressures of having kids many of whose friends are not Mormon, have access to the Internet etc. The gap between uber-parents and quasi-secular kids widens. Many relationships have been and will be shattered in these rocks - more "justifiable" Mormon collateral damage, just like gay kids who commit suicide. These sacrifices must be made to keep the Mothership and her revenue streams safe for as long as possible.

The observations above relate to trends. It would be easy to find exceptions. And, many of the statements above could be rephrased as scientific hypotheses in the sense that they could be tested if we had access to the relevant data. Since the data can only be gathered by extensive interviewing of active Mormons (or access to Mormon records), this would be tough to do.

Again, what does your look at the tea leaves indicate?
topic image
The Expansion Of Human Compassion And Complexity Theory
Monday, Sep 18, 2006, at 12:21 PM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
We started to talk the other night about the connection between the Axial Age (900 BCE to 200 BCE) and the compassion that came into being then [Note: This is when the “eye for an eye” rule in the Hebrew world gave way to the golden rule. While Christ is commonly credited with this social innovation, most scholars now believe that it pre-dated him by at least a couple of centuries.] and what is happening now in terms of human expanding the circle of compassion again to include more life forms and the planet itself. You mentioned group evolutionary theory, which I think has some traction but is likely not the important factor in this case. I think both the Axial Age and what is happening now are better understood using complexity theory.

Karen Armstrong's "The Great Transformation" offer’s one of the best treatments of the Axial Age I have seen from an historical point of view. Philip Ball in "Critical Mass" has a nice chapter in which he uses game theory to explain the Axial Age shift toward compassion without mentioning the Axial Age. Ball summarizes the game theory research that uses the prisoners dilemma to show that the best way to break out of a pattern of constant cheating (the law of the jungle) is "tit for tat", straight up. That is, "a eye for an eye". However, more wealth (opportunity) is created for all players if they moderate tit for tit into something that might be called "compassionate tit for tat". We start out assuming our partners will be trustworthy and not screw us, and even if he screws us once or perhaps twice, we will forgive him and give him the chance to become trustworthy and maximize the size of the pie for everyone. But if he screws us enough times, we label him a cheater and expend more of our resources than is justifiable from our individual point of view alone to warn the group that we have a cheater in our midst. This trusting pattern allows the group to be the most productive, it is hence the most efficient and hence is one of the minima - the attractor basins - in energy landscapes that will attract behavior in various ways (Note: see the graphics linked to <http://www.learning-org.com/01.09/005...>). That is, human individual and social behavior is drawn to what is most efficient - what “works” - to produce the things the individual or group needs to achieve what they want, and particularly, to survive and propagate.

We don't need to rely on group evolutionary theory to support this idea, though the same kind of thing would be at play in the altruistic behaviour of flocking birds (warning against predators, etc.) and other small group animals. In the human case, the observation that another group is using a social or other technology that gives them an advantage is enough to cause new behaviours to be incorporated into some other groups. We would not need to wait for biological evolution. And the groups who adopted the more efficient practises would tend to amass more resources than the others and hence take over. The compassionate tit for tat social environment would tend, for example, to facilitate technological innovation. And so when war breaks out, the "compassionate tit for tat" people had more technology and resources of other kinds, and tended to win. And of course, compassionate tit for tat only applied within the social group. A completely different set of rules existed for group outsiders. This is exemplified by the way in which Christ talked about families breaking up, the eye being plucked from the body, etc. as a result of differences in religious belief. Compassionate tit for tat was mostly limited to in-group interaactions. Differences in religious belief drew important lines between groups.

I don't like to use meme theory to explain the move from tit for tat to compassionate tit for tat. Meme theory is only useful in a loose metaphoric sense. In this I differ from Dennett, though I agree with him regarding most other things. I think other paradigms are more useful for understanding how and why culture forms and evolves. And eventually, an information theory like what Terry Deacon (Note: see <http://ls.berkeley.edu/dept/anth/deac...> and <http://www.amazon.com/Symbolic-Specie...>) is working on (as previously discussed), coupled with far better measurement capacity than we have now, will be required for the foundation of a rigorous, falsifiable theory of social evolution.

So, when I add up Armstrong's history and Ball's game theory regarding the Axial Age, I see human social groups in four different parts of the world (Europe, the Near East, China and India) all reaching an age, size and complexity at which the conditions were right for compassionate tit for tat to emerge. Since this state represents an efficient state or energy minimum for groups of the kind we are talking about in their time and place, it was just a matter of time before this happened. It may have emerged separately in all four places, or seeding events could have resulted from the relatively little social interaction between these regions. It would not take much give the conditions just noted.

This is the old biological story of organisms growing together, giving up adjacent possibles, becoming interdependent, and eventually becoming a single organism.

Now we come to what we see emerging currently. The planet is on the verge of being overrun by humans. In complexity theory terms (Note: See for background and definition of terms) This amounts to more energy in the pot. So much energy that the pattern that sustains life is starting to break down. In order to maintain a the pattern required for human life as we know it, more ordering principles are required to channel, diffuse, or reduce the energy we produce. The rule of compassion amounted to this kind of social ordering principle in the Axial Age. The energy that would have been released against a fellow human being as the result of a slight was muted by compassion. And when fellow humans were suffering (needing an energy infusion) in cases where the old rules would not have elicited any help, the new rules required that help be given (energy released). So the compassionate rule reduced energy during times when the social pattern was at risk of being destroyed because more people were living in close quarters with more resources than ever. It also caused more energy to be released in cases where it was helpful to the social order to do so. What a brilliant adaptive response.

I see the same thing happening now. Our numbers and the resources under our control (machines, fossil fuel, etc.) have us bouncing off each other and other life forms and releasing more energy than ever, by far. Hence the problem Gore points out re. global warming. Social conflict of various kinds is similarly explained. Likewise for some new diseases that result from our exercise of power over the microbial environment.

The necessity this situation creates is that we constrain or re-channel some of the energy we now produce. Feeling compassion toward other life forms (including humans on the other side of the globe and yet to be born) is a means to this end. And that is what we are seeing start to spring up all around us. Europe is far ahead of us in this regard. Parts of the East never joined the western trend toward technology and consumption and we are now ironically learning to live from those who never followed our path, while they are adopting our technology and in many cases trying to live in the way we are realizing will bring impoverishment (if not death) to many of us.

So, new mores related to our interconnectedness to all life will come into being for the same reasons as compassionate tit for tat (including the golden rule) did in the Axial Age. This process can be aided by international conventions related to the great commons of the planet (sea, air, rainforests, etc.) since the golden rule does not work well unless there is a fairly close connection between humans. I doubt that most humans are capable of conceptualizing the relationships over time and space required to make the kind of short term consumption decisions required to avert disaster. But we humans are well suited to following rules established by credible authority figures and connected to a compelling story - a mythology.
topic image
The Thoughtful Mormon's Evolution From Dogmatism To Relativism To Realism
Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006, at 06:33 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I have observed a pattern in the changes that occur as thoughtful Mormons (I hesitantly count myself in that group) move toward the fringes of Mormonism, develop intellectual legs and often “leave the fold”.

Most Mormons are dogmatic. That is, the evidence is ignored or interpreted in odd ways to make it support (or at least not seriously question) Mormon belief. Mormon apologists twist the evidence or redefine belief to provide the raw material for this process.

However, as a thoughtful Mormon begins to read science (like Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel” or Ursula Goodenough's "The Sacred Depths of Nature" (about biological evolution)) and Mormon history (like Michael Quinn’s “The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power”, or John Brooke’s “The Refiner’s Fire” or Todd Compton’s “In Sacred Loneliness”), the evidence against dogmatic Mormon belief mounts to the point at which many beliefs cannot be maintained. So metaphor begins to replace literal belief. But most Mormons can’t go all the way with this, which forces them into a kind of dogma protecting relativism. That is, they find a worldview that justifies the insistence that no one may legitimately question their most important beliefs. This is the only shield left to the former thoughtful Mormon dogmatists once they are familiar with the scientific and historic record.

The philosopher Heidegger and his version of phenomenology are often inarticulate participants in this relativizing process. He is, for example, the uncredited source of much of the “what you feel justifies your belief” worldview that is becoming increasingly important in Mormon circles.

Relativism is a step in the right direction in one sense because it means that Mormons are not justified in pressing their dogmatic point of view as they still do. That is, relativism is a far better shield than sword. Were Mormons consistent in this approach, the most they would do in terms of missionary work is invite others to try Mormonism to see if it makes them feel as do the Mormons who love their way of belief and the life it creates. And when others don’t feel the same way, this would mean nothing more than they don’t feel the same way. It would not mean that they are disqualified for the Celestial Kingdom, or anything else of a negative sort.

Of course, Mormonism has a long way to go before its relativism will be consistently applied, if that ever occurs. Mormonism’s dogmatism, like dark roots under blond hair, will probably always show through. For example, “You can’t question our beliefs because they are based on our feelings, but if you don’t feel the same way we do you won’t go to a real Heaven after death, and our real Heavenly Father who loves you deeply because you are His literal spirit children, will weep through eternity as a result of your loss.” WTF!? Where are my anti-deprssants?

This kind of dogma protecting relativism is very common in North American liberal religious circles. It is at the root of something scholars call the “evaporation of creed”. That is, many religious people are turning their attention toward what they do, and discounting the importance of particular beliefs. This has recently made it appearance in fringe Mormon circles through an article on "praxis" in Sunstone.

Nothing new in this either. Many Jews have perceived their religion this way for centuries. Likewise the Mennonites, but for a shorter period of time. Much of liberal Protestantism is going this way. And the evaporation of creed coupled with an emphasis of golden rule based praxis may be our best hope for getting rid of a lot of the religious tension in the world. Imagine the Muslim world with an “evaporated” creed and golden rule orientation toward non-Muslims as well as Muslims. That would be real progress.

Many Muslims, I note, seem at the moment to be irony impaired. "We are a peaceful people as Mohammed taught!" they scream while rioting and threatening death to all who dare contradict them by quoting from the Koran or pointing out that they are rioting, etc. An evaporation of creed there would do us all good.

And I note (consisent with my current fixation) that the evolutionary turn I have just noted in religious circules is consistent with what complexity theory predicts for social evolution.

Relativism is, however, an inadequate worldview. It is sometimes a useful crutch for transitional purposes or to paper over ideological differences until the go away. And it is sometimes a way to highlight dogmatism. But it does not permit the clean analysis of worldviews, and largely for that reason has mostly fallen out of philosophical favor except in populations (like the Mormon) in which it plays the kind of pivotal role described above.

The philosophies that tend to dominate intellectual public discourse (again, unconsciously for most of us) are pragmatism, realism and naturalism. Google these if you want the details. While these terms are used in a variety of ways (I have Richard Rorty's goofy neo-pragmatism particularly in mind here - see http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/... and http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/1... ), their mainstream heads toward a common sense view of reality as science discloses that to us. It presumes that there is an objective reality that we can come to know a lot about it through science without ever being 100% certain that we have that right. And importantly, it indicates that we should not believe in alleged “realities” (like the Celestial Kingdom or the even more baroque version of the same thing in which many Muslims believe) that are beyond science’s ability to assess. It also illustrates for us why people tend to believe in all kinds of absurdities that are beyond falsification (that is a reliable form of social glue), while not being able to see the absurdity of their own beliefs as the often openly ridicule those of other groups (to see would wreck the social glue). The maintenance of social groups is an imperative that has been hardwired into us by biological evolution (see http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni... atpage 120).

I find in my own experience as well as in discussion with various Mormons in varying degrees of “out-the-doorness”, that elements of dogmatism and relativism cling as we evolve toward some kind of realism or naturalism.

Those who have not gone to far down this path tend to be terrified that the “atheist” or “nihilist” view of life will be too dark for them. They are generally surprised at how full of life, love and energy this world view is. Nature is truly enough. She has depths that are far more sacred than can be imagined while the dogmatic or relativist blinders are still on. See http://www.naturalism.org/ for ideas in this regard.
topic image
A Random Exmojo 2006 Conference Report - Walking In The Salt Lake City Rain
Tuesday, Oct 17, 2006, at 11:43 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I had a flight home Monday afternoon, having planned to visit some people at BYU before heading home. That did not work out, which was good in some ways since I had no idea how tired I was after our wonderful series of late nights and early mornings until Monday arrived. So I had breakfast with a couple of old friends, and then went for a long walk around SLC before heading to the airport.

As an aside, I stopped at a book store and bought Jeff Anderson’s wonderful new book “Second Genesis”, a science thriller with spiritual undertones that Jeff is uniquely suited to write. Half way through, I am glad I bought it. Jeff and his wife Kari are insightful SLC post-Mormons with whom I have had the pleasure of spending some time.

This long, slow walk in a soothing, nourishing rain gave me a chance to allow my thoughts about the exmormon conference to coalesce. This is the first chance I have had to record them. And it will have to be quick since a number of small fires are burning in my office as I type this.

From my point of view, the biggest kick by far in this experience (my first) was the chance to be able to interact “in the flesh” with people I felt I already knew a lot about. The face to face communication, with all of its non-verbal elements dwarfs what can happen on-line or even over the phone. While I don’t like the word “spiritual” in most contexts because it carries so much baggage, it can be appropriately used to describe this experience. There is so much about a person (subconscious smells, micro facial expressions, body language, etc.) that is conveyed subliminaly. This means that when you are in close proximity and are focused on each other, experience occurs at a level not duplicable by remote. And to have all of this information layered (in some cases) onto the long histories of correspondence over several years was an amazing experience.

In one particularly bizarre and touching case, I spent time twice this weekend with a post-Mormon friend whose wife is TBM. She and I dated right after my mission and have not seen each other since. However, she knows all about my apostacy by way of her family, and held some predictably skewed opinions about who I had become.

During our first, chance, meeting this weekend, we each remembered one date, but it was a different date. She went home, looked up her journal, typed out the relevant pages for me, and called to suggest we (with her husband) meet again.

There were two dates. She was 19; I was 21. We were both thinking about marriage. Her record of my description of my earlier “troubles” and how I had repented of them and was committed to living so as to please my Heavenly Father is as good a record of my self loathing at that point in life as I could possibly have. Her husband (a close internet friend and one who I was pleased to finally meet in person for the first time) was concerned that the first meeting would go badly. I think it went well for all concerned, and am very happy to have had that chance to reconnect with someone for whom I used to have strong feelings, and who has been quite upset by my change in belief and the erosion in character that this is presumed by many faithful Mormons to cause.

I was most touched by the four person panel on Sunday morning. The trip would have been justified for me by that experience alone. That is not to say that it was in some way objectively better than the rest, but rather that it was particularly touching for me given the psychological space I now occupy. Each was wonderful in its own way.

Jarom’s statement that his faithful LDS wife “passionately does not give a shit” about the LDS – post-LDS conflict will resonate forever with me. I had the chance to chat with them for a few moments afterwards and could feel wonderful things from both of them.

Tracy’s willingness to share her point of view while still in such a raw state was remarkable. The couple seated next to me said she should write a book. I agree. She poignantly described the feelings of loss and hopeless that we experience upon giving up the “social capital” earned by a lifetime of Mormon activity, and facing the fact that this capital is largely unrecognized and without value as far as most of civilized humanity is concerned.

Tracy's description of her relationship to her mother was particularly touching – the conditional love she experienced as a child, how once her mother’s Mormon beliefs cracked she for the first time in her life had a mother, a person who simply loved her, was there for her, wished to help her become who she is uniquely suited to be, etc.

Dennis’ wry insight into the social and mental processes that anchor Mormonism was fabulous. He described the self loathing I felt, and people like Martin Seligman (“Authentic Happiness”) have described as one of the Judeo-Christian tradition’s primary failings. I loved his description of the pretzeled logic that results when you start every thought with “Since the Church is true …” His story of meeting with Dallin Oaks is a classic. When Oaks said “Don’t leave Mormonism until you find something better?” Dennis replied “Nothing IS better.” When Oaks completed his summary of the evidence regarding certain of Mormonism’s truth claims by saying that against all of evidence, he chooses to believe – to have faith, Dennis replied that the last time he looked, faith was supposed to be used to leap from what we have good reason to belief to be true into what we cannot know. It is not used to suppress the near certain truth.

And Dennis’ description of how he all the information he needed to put the puzzle together for years, and how it took a disaster in his family (his wife’s mental illness) coupled with finding the Book of Abraham literature to make it all coalesce. As another conference attendee told me, “I kept putting my questions up on the shelf, and one day the shelf broke off”. This is all consistent with what I have observed – the chaos (or a de-ordering of life) of some kind is a fundamental requirement to the kind of growth that many of us experienced as we left Mormonism. When Dennis finally talked about this to his convert mother, she admitted to him that going through the temple was the worst day of her life, and that she had lots of concerns with Mormonism. None of these had been expressed to Dennis, in obedience to the Mormon tenet that the Brethren not be questioned (no “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed”). Dennis’ reply was “thanks Mom”, and his warning to the audience was that those who are taking their timeabout this should think about their kids. The Mormon machine is set up to condition young people, and it does a highly efficient job of this.

Another conference attendee told me that he was leaving his kids to make up their own minds, and told me about a friend of his who had let his daughter “have it with both barrels” right before she married in the temple, and how this did not good. My comment was that by then it is too late. The conditioning process is gradual, and largely driven by social associations and related condition during the teen years. We either have our influence at that stage by changing the environment the kids are in, or not. Words are inadequate. These are human psyches – a species of plant – that are growing and will to a large extent faithfully reflect their environmental conditions. To allow that to happen within Mormonism and then to lash out with words is like shotting popguns from intellectual rowboats in the general direction of fully armed emotional battleships.

And Sandy’s description of her journey hit me like a truck. I am particularly grateful that she has the courage to express herself in public. During her first few nervous words, I was willing her to continue.

The idea of a blessing that promised that she would recover from a speech impediment if “faithful” and die if not faithful, is too painful even for me to think much about. The image of that fateful day when the ward superwoman admitted that she was on anti-depressants, thus giving permission for half the women in the ward to “come out of the closet”, will stick with me. I love the idea of her daughter who at age 10 was saying “I know the Church is true …” thus waking Sandy up, and then watching her daughter blossum into a 20 year old jazz musician. And most of all, I was stunned by the idea that a woman who is being abused would be told that all she needed to do was be a better mother – satisfy her husband more thoroughly; cook better meals; keep the house better; etc. – and the abuse would stop. This was painful beyond words.

I am so proud to count myself as fellow travelers with people like Jarom, Tracy Dennis and Sandy.

Let me also record what I think is the best story I heard while at the conference. A post-Mormon friend who I spent a bunch of time with this weekend told me that he was a classic hardcore Mormon boy. He returned from his mission 100% committed to Mormonism, and shortly thereafter went on a date with a girl from his high school in whom he had been interested before his mission. They went to a rock concert, during which she pulled out a bag of “weed” and tried to get him to partake. This scared him half to death, and that was the end of that relationship. He eventually married a 110% committed Mormon woman, they had several children, made each other miserable and after some years, divorced. He later ran into his weed smoking former girl friend. She had also married, divorced and still had her free spirited ways. They romanced, married and have made each other happy while growing and struggling as all couples do. He is now a pretty laid back guy on the fringes of Mormonism, balancing business issues related tomany Mormons with whom he deals, his still-Mormon children from his first marriage, his very non-Mormon children from his second marriage (some of whom are doing things that make him cringe a bit), his still evolving non-Mormon beliefs.

And here is the best part. While going through some therapy to try to understand himself, my friend's psychologist told him that his second wife has “unlocked him”. Her orientation toward freedom of expression and her intuitive grasp of life’s beauty and wonder (she cares nothing for the post-Mormon or Mormon dialogue – she passionately “does not give a shit” about this stuff) has helped him to unlock one part of his psyche after another – the very elements of his personality that were buttoned down by his Mormon childhood, teenage and young adult conditioning. She was and is his key to freedom. I had the pleasure of meeting briefly, and embracing, this wonderful woman.

I was thrilled to see the young people at the conference. Rogue Guitarist and his friends where the ones I had the chance to chat most with. Evan Mark was another. They have their own way of communicating with each other and their peers. That is where the game is really being played, btw. We old farts are just lucky to have gotten out. The scholarly literature is clear on this point. The young people – and particularly the teenagers – are the ones who have a chance to really change things. I hope RG and his buddies will apply themselves to this task. Youtube in particular seems to me to be a powerful medium. I will post something else along these lines.

My primary regret regarding the conference is that I did not get to spend more time in intimate conversation with more people. I so much enjoyed the chances I had to do this. But there are only so many minutes, and energy is limited. And in particular, I was looking forward to meeting a number of people who I now see by reading the board were there, but I did not get to meet. Thank you to those who sought me out and took the time to introduce themselves and allow me to feel your goodness.

What a wonderful weekend that was. Thanks to all who put it together. And particularly, thanks to our pioneers. The Tanners; Juanita Brooks; Fawn Brodie, Richard Packham, Eric K.; etc. We owe them a great debt.

This place (and the conference) is part of a therapy cooperative. We end up walking on each other’s sacred ground – mid-wifing the emergence of our own and others souls. What a privilege this is. And this is why being at the exmojo 2006 was such a treat for me.
topic image
Does Any Kind Of Christianity Work?
Friday, Oct 20, 2006, at 06:05 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Many self described "Christians" who happen in here seem to have the impression that we must choose between some brand of Christianity (usually dogmatic Christianity – the liberals don’t seem as interested in this kind of discussion) and atheism (defined as disbelief in their particular brand of Christian god). This is a false dichotomy.

I spend a lot of time with liberal theologians like Phil Hefner, Karl Peters and Gordon Kaufman. These men have religious beliefs that are consistent with science in that the probability they assigned to their beliefs tends to be consistent with the evidence available to support them; and their conception of god is similar. Kaufman (a Harvard theologian) defines god as the creative force in the universe, whatever that turns out to be.

I have no problem attending Catholic mass, Anglican communion, Jewish shabat, and other religious services as I experience community and seek to understand the human experience (including my own stumbling steps). I have an allergy to Mormon ritual as a result of my Mormon conditioning. Perhaps that will subside, perhaps not. I am not worried about it one way or the other.

Religious ritual has been developed over centuries for a purpose, and as a result of this trial and error history is a highly effective community building and self exploration tool if properly used. And community is important to most humans.

However, dogma is an intellectual weed that should be pulled out of every crack in the sidewalk where it springs up. Science has a highly developed mechanism to suppress the dogma that tends to appear among its ranks as well as everywhere else. Most religious groups, on the other hand, encourage any dogma that supports them.

There is no justification for refusal to constrain religious beliefs by science. Many liberal religious people’s beliefs are so constrained. Religions that refuse to accede to this rule are generally more interested in preserving their power base than in helping their people. Mormonism is in this group. So are most fundamentalist Christian, Muslim and Jewish groups.

My personal experience and what I observed in many other people indicate that in many cases religious belief is the product of how we were raised and the people with whom we spend our time. Larry Iannaccone, for example, recently showed how people who move from an area where religious belief is common to an area in which it is not common tend to become irreligious. Their beliefs change to match those of their closest associates. The same happens in reverse. That is, people who move from an area where religious belief is uncommon to an area where it is common tend to become religious believers. It is reasonable to conclude based on this research that our “mimetic” (copycat) tendencies are stronger than we like to believe. This, in my opinion, explains much of religious and other socially originated behavior.

Another social innovation worth paying attention to in this regard is illustrated by David Oler’s Jewish synagogues around Chicago. Oler is a clinical psychologist who spends roughly 50% of his time acting as Rabbi of a Jewish synagogue and supervising the affairs of approximately 40 others. Each of this group of 40 synagogues is explicitly secular humanist (atheist) in belief. Oler and the other members of this group believe that their tradition, the rituals that go with it, and the particular kind of community that forms around those are important. Hence, they invest significant amounts of time, money and energy in maintaining their community, while being as dogma free as any religious organization I have ever encountered.

Oler and his group illustrate something religious scholars refer to as the “evaporation of creed”. That is, in religious circles these days the tendency is increasingly toward the emphasis is increasingly on behavior as opposed to believe. Interestingly, this has been the case in secular humanist circles for a long time. This is the approach that offers the most hope in terms of dealing with the Muslim world.

This trend has shown up to some extent and Mormonism. For example, about one year ago I saw an article in Sunstone magazine that referred to the importance of “praxis”. That is, what we do is more important that what we believe. The Jewish community was used as an example in this regard.

It is interesting to note that ant colonies have life cycles of approximately fifteen years. During the course of that life cycle, it has been shown that ant hives and other similar insect organizations seem to have the ability to process information and learn. As the ant hive matures, its overall behavior becomes less aggressive and erratic. For example, foraging members of an adolescent hive (a hive that is less than fully mature) tend to fight when they come into contact with each other. Members of mature hives, on the other hand, tend to tip their hats and go on their way when they encounter each other.

Human religious groups are similar. As time passes they learn from their experience, and determine over centuries (ants do this in about ten years, I might add) that it is unwise to invest much energy in fighting over little scraps of grass or intellectual material. Hence, the older religions such as Judaism and Catholicism tend to be much less aggressive than the younger religions. Likewise, religions that have been in isolation and hence have not had the opportunity to learn from experience bumping into other groups tend to remain more aggressive. This explains the difference between Muslim behavior in North America and the Middle East.

When people ask if I am Christian I tell them that I am in the sense the Bishop John Spong is. If they don’t know who he is, I tell them that I am a very liberal Christian. That I was raised Christian and that I will always likely have a preference for some Christian metaphors as I make my way through life, but that I do not hesitate to reject any and all Christian ideas that seem off to me. That fact that it was written down a long time ago is not good enough reason for me to believe anything. The fact that my ancestors believed it is an even worse reason for belief. And that fact that a lot of people who happen to live around me believe it is the most unreliable reason for belief of all.
topic image
Personal Boundaries, Mormonism And Marriage
Monday, Oct 23, 2006, at 06:17 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
One of the themes that came up a number of times at the exmo conference last weekend was the role of personal boundaries in mental health, and how Mormonism interferes with the establishment of these. I have written a number of pieces that touch on this subject and since the last time I addressed it have read several things that have changed my thinking a bit.

While I can’t attempt to be thorough on this topic in the few minutes I have this morning for this, I want to raise the subject for discussion and ask those who are inclined to share their thoughts about one aspect in particular – how dysfunctional personal boundaries affect marriage, and how those of us who are still struggling to re-tool in this and other regards can address this issue.

Mormonism and other heavily group oriented organizations emphasize the importance of the individual acceding to group standards, usually as dictated by tradition and those who lead the group. Personal boundaries are hence broken down to prevent resistance to this by, for example:
  • Personal interviews related to “worthiness” by parents and religious leaders (kids are taught that they have no secrets – god knows all and parents and other leaders must be told about any significant breaches of community standards);
  • Rituals that encourage self doubt, guilt, dependence (think of what is supposed to be done during the sacrament each week; need to read scriptures and pray daily multiple times to gain god’s strength, or expect to fail);
  • Acknowledgement of authority (kids worthiness interviews and temple trips; temple recommend interviews for adults; “bow your head and say ‘yes’” how many times each temple ceremony; putting garments back on after making love and before falling asleep; etc.);
  • Giving up what is precious to you on a regular and continuous basis (meeting attendance up the ying yang, for example); etc.
I could keep going indefinitely.

In Western society at least, the lack of adequate personal boundaries is more trouble than help. For the moment, all I wonder about in this regard is how Mormonism affects marriage in this regard.

Without well established personal boundaries, we are likely to think that our family members (as well as others) have a far greater role to play in our lives than they should, and we are likely to think we that we belong in other’s personal space more than we should. While I realize that co-dependency is probably an overused term (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codepend...), I think it might fit here. Mormonism makes us dependant on it in dysfunctional ways, and this slops over into how we behave relative to other significant parts of our personal landscape. We hence tend to become over-dependant on our spouses, and they on us.

This might, for example, cause a father to tend to be less involved in the care giving at home and hence miss establishing a healthy connection with his kids, and a mother to be far too little involved in the family’s financial affairs and in disciplining her children; etc. Dad’s role is x; Mom’s is y. Dad and Mom are “one”, and each has to “do their duty” properly in order for the family to make it to the celestial kingdom. The person and the mask (see http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index...) tend to merge.

Because of the Mormon focus on doing our duty, we lose touch with the feeling of being connected to our emotional environment which in the family setting means each other (as spouses), the kids and all that goes into being a successful parent, lover, producer, community member, etc. This is in part because war is at the center of the Mormon meta-narrative. We are fighting the cascading evil that threatens to engulf us. Our kids are rebelling against us and the behavioral standards we seek to impose on them, which proves that we are at war and need to redouble our efforts. We do not have the leisure required to feel what is going on around us. We have a supremely important job to do, so get on with it.

Without realizing it, this mentality causes us to get lean and mean. We give up the non-essential aspects of life, this giving up time spent doing and feeling a broad range of things, thus give up the stuff from which our life experience and in fact our selves must be woven one thread at a time or not at all. We become more human “doings” that “beings”. We move from being artisans with a wide array of skills and experience to being factory workers, and experience a similar deadening; a creeping death if it goes on too far or long. We define ourselves by out ability to accomplish the supremely important Mormon task – reach the Celestial Kingdom with our families, which practically speaking means at a minimum to be personally obedient to the Mormon behavioral systems, and cause our children to be similarly obedient. Any feelings, inclinations, doubts, etc. that get in the way of this must be shut down.

There is no question that we each to an extent change our behaviour to suit different contexts (see Richard Nisbett, “The Geography of Thought”). Easterners tend to be more inclined this way than westerners. Mormons are likely more Eastern than Western in this behavior because of Mormonism’s tendency toward emphasizing the collective in some ways over the individualistic. But Westerners exhibit the same kind of chameleon behavior as Easterners, just not as strongly.

Another way to think about this is in complex systems terms. Complexity theory tells us that we should expect to give up some of what we are capable of doing in order to fit into a complex adaptive system (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_...). In economics this can be seen in the specialization by function that causes us to become reliant on each other. I can’t farm, but I can help the farmers (or others) with their tax planning. They need me (sort of); I certainty need them. We are dependant on each other in a way we regard (mostly) as healthy. And as Jared Diamond chronicles in “Collapse”, these dependencies can result in big problems as economies or ecosystems start to unravel.

Marriage and other intimate relationships are similar. Marriage causes us to emphasize some behaviors and de-emphasize others, partly in response to what our partner does, her nature, etc. Some of this is inevitable. The question, how much of this behavior is functional in different contexts?

The question I want to put forward for discussion is whether the kind of weak personal boundary person created by Mormonism is likely to intertwine a person to “become one” with his or her spouse in an unhealthy manner, and if so, what kinds of therapy would likely be helpful in this regard.

For example, I have noticed in my marriage and others that when one spouse is away from home for a period of time, the behavior of the entire family changes and the behavior of the spouse at home alone changes in particular. Passive spouses become more assertive; distant or cold spouses become more demonstrative; etc. Likewise, I have noticed in some divorces have both spouses have suddenly come to life, like anchors have been cut off both their ankles. I wonder how much of this results from a lengthy, or permanent, change in the relationship environment forcing a dysfunctional co-dependency to change.

Does the lack of adequate personal boundaries combined with the crazy behavioral objectives Mormonism imposes on us causes a hyper “specialization by function” within the marriage relationship that causes each spouse to feel less dimensional – less human – than is ideal? Might this explain why when one spouse is absent and the other spouse is required to play an expanded role, he or she experiences this as a coming back into life or at least life more fully experienced?

I believe that the hyper clear Mormon objective of making it to the Celestial Kingdom causes the kind of radical specialization by function that we seen in highly competitive markets or harsh social systems (like the military of primitive tribes struggling for survival in a harsh environment like the Australian outback). That is, achieving the all important entry into the CK is a tough trick to pull in our pluralistic society. It hence requires a lot of cooperation and effort. Mormons in good faith attempt to do what is required, and this ironically and tragically often creates problem instead of solving them because it disconnects the couple from each other and puts them under immense pressure because they end up behaving in ways are far our of line with the norms within our society:
  • Mom is at home full time focused on conditioning the kids, maybe home schooling them. This tends to make Mom depressed because homemaking has morphed into a the kind of job that does not provide the kind of time absorbing challenge we need to feel engaged and growing (see Seligman, “Authentic Happiness” and Haidt, “The Happiness Hypothesis”).
  • Mom has lots of kids, because that is what god wants. In fact, if the kids are going off the rails it may be god’s punishment for not having enough kids, so have a few more. But having a lot of kids increases the financial pressure on Mom and Dad, which is known to cause relationship pressure.
  • Mom does not develop talents that are respected “in the world”. This serves as an anchor to hold Mom in the Mormon world since she knows from hard experience that the honor badges she has earned as a Mormon mother qualify her for sympathy and little more in she is moving in many parts of non-Mormon society.
  • Dad has to bring home the money to keep the family ship afloat and moving forward, which means that he tends to be away from home a lot and hence is emotionally disconnected from what is going on with his family.
  • Dad is the decision-maker because that is the priesthood model, and after Mom has been overruled enough times she doubts her own judgement and degrades as a decision-maker in her own right, tending to get pushed around by the kids until the decision maker gets home. This further depresses Mom and infuriates Dad.
  • If Mom and Dad appear to be successful while walking this tightrope, they are given Mormon leadership callings which increase the emotional stakes while making both their jobs more difficult. They are now apart even more. They must appear functional, and believe that they are functional, because they are gods anointed. The women suffer more than the men in this regard in part because the men get more ego gratification from their jobs and church callings then do the women. And it is not surprising that women medicate themselves with anti-depressants far more than do the men.
  • Etc.
I just described a horrifically dysfunctional marital situation, and one I bet that many people who read here will recognize.

Then, let’s assume that this couple leaves Mormonism with all of their bad habits, want to remain married, and want to change their relationship. They have little in common except their kids. They have spent a life time living in different worlds and learning to do their duty and shut down feelings that might get in the way of that. Now there is no more Mormon duty, but there are not many feelings either likely in large measure because they have both become adept at shutting a lot of things down. They try to just “get over it”, but they can’t seem to act outside their old roles relative to each other.

Am I exaggerating? If so, give me another way to frame the experience I have described. If not, what are some alternative hypotheses and their therapeutic upshot?

I have also noticed in many Mormon and post-Mormon relationships an orientation toward hierarchy that I suspect is a carry over from Mormonism and also a function of inadequate personal boundaries. This is perhaps rooted in the idea that there is “one right way” to do things, and that someone in authority is the best person to determine what that is.

Sometimes this is true – there is a best way and one person should bed in charge. But usually there are multiple ways to accomplish the same thing and we are not smart enough on our own to figure out which is ideal in the case that confronts us. Teams with different points of view and a mechanism for selecting the best point of view in different contexts have been shown time and again to be our most effective decision-making tools (see James Surowiecki, “The Wisdom of Crowds”), and a marriage that includes different points of view, access to lots of outside information and a good measure of mutual respect has the potential to be a great decision making organ.

I don’t see a lot of marriages like that within Mormonism. I see a lot of marriages in which the husband thinks that he is in an “equal” partnership with his wife, but since someone needs to be in charge and god has said the man is in charge, whenever there is a difference in opinion the male opinion trumps the female. But they are still “equal” because she gets to have babies in exchange for him being in charge, and in some magical sense they will be equal after death since she will also hold the priesthood then, but he will somehow still be in charge while they are equal …. My head is starting to hurt.

It is not surprising that after this kind of a mind-screw for half a lifetime that post-Mormon men and women struggle while trying to balance their relationships. Men say they want to give up power, and then find themselves acting like babies when the women have the nerve to disagree with them. And many of the women don’t want to exercise more power badly enough to carve (initially at least) painful new behavioral grooves and put up with male whining and angry acting up that will likely occur during the process of change.

This is a therapy cooperative. What do you think about the issues I have described above?
topic image
Forest Fires, Revolutions, Dogma And Anti-Depressants
Monday, Oct 23, 2006, at 07:36 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Jared Diamond described in his book “Collapse” how some decades ago the U.S. Forest Service established the seemingly sensible goal of putting out all forest fires the morning after they were reported. And they were successful. As a result, undergrowth did not burn every decade or so, and eventually grew so high and dense that small fires started to leap into the canopy before they could be put out, creating the infernos hundreds of feet high we have been experiencing for the last while. These decimate the forest, destroy the seed bank from which the forest had traditionally regenerated, destroy wildlife habitat in unprecented ways and otherwise wreak havoc.

The relatively small forest fires that seemed so destructive to us were, it turns out, a pruning mechanism used by nature to maintain a delicate ecosystem. Small fires are a form of renewing chaos. They destroy, surely, and by so doing create the conditions required for continued growth. On a long term cost-benefit basis, they come out way over on the benefit side of the equation.

The principle illustrated by forest fires can be seen operating in many other contexts. Traffic flows, for example, can be regulated to such agree that very few small traffic jams occur. However, when a traffic jam finally slips through the system it is likely to be catastrophic. The same thing applies in economics. Small recessions and the occasional and seemingly destructive market downturn prune the economy and make catastrophic collapse less likely. Regulation that attempts to control these makes severe depressions or other forms of highly destructive collapse more likely.

The same thing applies to the use of antibiotics and our exposure to pathogens. If we control the diseases that put our bodies under stress too well, we weaken ourselves, making death and serious illness more likely. The recent rise in allergies and immune system disorders in children has been linked to this, for example.

And in politics, pick your poison – the regular, relatively mild chaos surrounding democratic processes or the stability of a communist command economy (or dictatatorship) for many years followed by wrenching revolution.

The principles just described apply in general to self organized systems. These systems are the type that co-evolve in order to remain in contact with their sustaining environment. Life itself is such a system. Ecosystems too. Market economies as well. It appears highly probable that each individual human being is also such a system, as well as many relationships among human beings.

Because of our limited perspective, it seems that we often act with regard to our personal lives as the well intentioned foresters described above. When we experienced pain or difficulty in life, our first instinct is to attempt to quell it. And our increasing power to control our environment (including our personal bio-chemistry and social environments) gives us more rope with which to become our own hangmen.

For example, I acknowledge the legitimate use of Prozac and other anti-depressants, but it seems clear that we often use avoidance mechanisms of this sort to smooth life’s way too much. We do not want the destruction of a pruning personal forest fire, no matter how small because we do not understand the rejuvenating nature of these minor crises in our lives.

We use many of these avoidance mechanisms. Anti-depressants. Dogma. Remaining within tight knit social groups where our point of view will not be questioned. Clinging to sometimes dysfunctional, limiting relationships that are not amenable to change and hence growth. We need to grow. It is grow, or die for most humans. I felt death creeping up on me for years as a Mormon, but did not know how to name it.

We need both order and chaos. Our biology inclines us toward order. We are conservative by nature and often too a fault. While chaos has its risks and too much will kill us, our tolerance for it is far greater than we generally imagine and mild dozes are amazing catalysts. This can draw back the curtain on ourselves in ways nothing else can. The wonderful surprises waiting there are earned by confronting our fears; launching ourselves into the void. And much of the risk in this enterprise can be removed by learning from the experience of those who have gone before us.

We post-Mormon adventurers owe a massive debt of gratitude to many in this regard. They disbelieved; disobeyed and the world did not end. They carved new behavioral paths and found new joys. They went in a multitude of directions instead of marching in file, and chaos did not consume them but rather enabled them to paint an incredible mosaic.

We are late to this game. Many started down the path that seems to miraculous to us during the Renaissance. Others followed during the Enlightenment. The more faithful the Mormon, the more likely it is that her thinking will be characterized by Medaivel patterns, the more terrifying will be her leap into a pluralistic world, and the more joy she is likely to find once that leap has been made.
topic image
The Anatomy Of Crumbling 20-Something Mormon Belief
Tuesday, Oct 31, 2006, at 07:25 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I had the pleasure a while ago of sitting and mostly listening as a couple of well-educated, successful 20-something post-Mormons (one still in university and the other on his way to a successful business career) asked each other questions and talked about what led them to decamp Mormonism. Some aspects of their stories, and both their inconsistencies and consistencies with each other and my experience, are instructive.

This will be another of my introspective, exploratory self-therapy sessions, so those looking for something concise had best stop here.

I will refer to these young people as Dick and Jane, and note that I am mixing up genders and other facts so as make it improbable that anyone who knows me and who I might talk to can guess who they are.

Dick was raised in a liberal Mormon household and since his teens was aware of most of “the issues”. He participated in Sunstone for a number of years after his mission. He contacted me shortly after my apostasy became well known. At that point (about three years ago) he had a full deck of information related to Mormonism’s problems. I introduced him to some social theory that was new to him, but he was mostly tuned in to that before he met me. He did not believe he would ever leave Mormonism. He could be a believer while tuned into the paradox of religious belief in general and Mormon belief in particular. He would be a classic Dialogue or Sunstone Mormon who relied on a kind of mixed up postmodernism to make sense out of Mormonism and his role in it. Given how long he had been in the know, I took him at his word while shaking my head. "How could someone so sensible and well informed keep his head in the sand like that", I wondered.

During the course of the two years following our initial contact, it gradually became more difficult for Dick to continue to participate in the Mormon institutional setting. Mormon meetings gradually seemed less relevant to anything real in his life, and in some cases flat out silly. The temple became irritating; nonsensical. And the "We need to meet so that we can figure out how to get more people to come to meet with us, so that we can figure how to get even more people to come to meet with us ..." attitude that underlies so much of what makes Mormonism tick increasingly irritated him. What an enormous waste of time and energy. Mormonism started to seem to him like the eternal circle jerk it is.

And, Dick gradually became depressed. He did not associate this with his Mormon beliefs or lifestyle at the time. He eventually began seeing a physician and taking anti-depressants to cope with daily life.

There was no identifiable collapse of Dick's faith. Rather, it wasted away. He gradually realized that what he once considered paradox and mystery was mostly nonsense - the same kind of irrational mumbo-jumbo he had known for years characterized the core beliefs of other religions. One after another his Mormon beliefs fell into this category, but he rationalized that he "was" Mormon (like he was Cacausian - his Mormonism was an unchangeable attribute) and that Mormonism offered a great deal of good that was worth keeping in his life.

Slowly, however, the realization dawned that the things he felt were most important - integrity; democratic institutions; free speech; access to information; rational thought; the scientific method; human rights; etc. - were attributes of secular society that had worked their way into Mormonism for the most part in spite of (not because of) Mormonism's core beliefs, and that far too often Mormonism's distinctive aspects at least had to be ignored and sometimes were at odds with the innovations of secular society that Dick cherished. He had the information in his brain about these things for years, but had not put the puzzle together. As time passed, these ideas became increasingly clear and troubling. James Fowler in "Stages of Faith" says that this kind of disillusionment is common during the 30s. Dick got there a little ahead of schedule.

The thing that increasingly troubled Dick included Mormon leadership deception and suppression of important information; Mormon leadership authoritarianism; Mormon racism; Mormon sexism; Mormon dogmatism; and various forms of Mormon dogma based prejudice.

Gradually Dick moved from seeing himself as a Mormon with liberal views that often required a dose of mystery and paradox to dovetail with what institutional Mormonism taught and did, to a secular humanist liberal person who had jettisoned his former Mormon induced ignorance, but still had attitudes and preferences that were to an extent influenced by his Mormon upbringing and likely always would be. This occurred during a roughly two year period. Dick also found that he enjoyed using his time to associate with non-Mormon groups and causes far more than sitting in Mormon meetings.

Dick was teaching the Elder’s Quorum when he finally reached the point where he no longer wished to participate, quietly announces his disbelief to his EQ Pres. and Bishop, quit his calling and stopped attending. Shortly thereafter, his depression cleared up, he stopped taking meds and has not had to return to them.

One of Dick's close friends, on the other hand, is married to a hardcore TBM woman and divorce is likely if he does not continue to believe and behave as do faithful Mormons. He started taking anti-depressants in order to be able to control his anger sufficiently to attend LDS meetings, do his LDS priesthood duty, and stay married. Dick told me that this friend has an “anger management problem”. I noted that I thought his behaviour sounded pretty normal. I would have a similar problem in similar circumstances, as would many people I know. He is being forced to compromise his best judgement in order to remain married and hence avoid the kind of disastrous fight many divorces become.

Dick continues to associate most of his LDS friends. Many of them have never asked him why he no longer attends or believes, but all know that he has had a change in belief. His friendship with these people covers such a broad range of interests that the elephant in the corner is relatively small. I noted the difference between this situation and the one I have with almost all of my former friends who are Mormon. Very little of my relationship with them remained after my beliefs changed. The elephant in the room is huge relative to what we had left. Hence, we have little to do with each other.

Dick is prepared to talk to anyone who wants to talk about Mormonism and why he left, but has no desire to bring the topic up. This helps him to get along with active Mormons. Dick’s way of handing his departure from Mormonism is consistent with his low key, intellectual, introverted personality.

Jane’s experience is quite different. She was raised hardcore TBM. In personality terms, she is similar to Dick – introverted, intellectual, nice – and her manner of dealing with her departure from the LDS social group and her change in beliefs is consistent with that.

This raises one of the points that was most striking to me about this discussion – that we should expect that the way in which we deal with a change in belief will be consistent with how we deal with other kinds of trauma. Some people hide from things like this or deal with them as quietly as possible while others take the bull by the horns and then make a blood sport of the event. I don’t think it is possible to say which is best, but it is reasonable to suggest that thinking in terms of a style of departure that suits your strengths and weaknesses is a good idea.

Jane learned about LDS historical and other problems while on her mission and got by that using the same kind of magical thinking Dick used. But she never really “got into it” as Dick did. The information was simply there in the background, and she thought about it as little as possible.

While in university, some of Jane’s friends started asking her questions about Mormonism. She is an open, approachable, thoughtful person and two of her classmates were dating Mormons and occasionally had questions that they were not comfortable asking their boyfriends/girlfriends. Jane gave the pat LDS answers to these questions (“Why can’t non-Mormons go into the temple to witness a marriage?”; “Why would god ever have racially discriminated the way he did with the Mormon priesthood?”; etc.), and when her friends would say “That doesn’t make much sense because ...”, she would think about it, tend to agree with them, and promise to get back to them.

These unanswered questions built up until Jane started dating a non-Mormon boy, and fell in love. Then during the course of a two week period, Jane went looking for answers to her stockpile of questions and all of the information already in her head reorganized into picture that made much more sense than the Mormon version of events ever had. She simply took her garments off and stopped going to church. She continue to pray for about a week, and then quit that too. If Mormon authority was false, then her ideas about God were likely wrong. Prayer had to stand on its own two feet, and it failed that test. However, meditation and other forms of "spititual" exploration began to make sense in new ways.

Jane started to attend other churches looking for an alternative spiritual point of view, and did not find anything that made sense. She is still poking around, but is mostly happy with an agnostic position.

The hardest part for Jane was telling friends and family. She tried to do this on her own terms, but word got out and quickly spread. This led to several tearful, angry, painful encounters that still cause her obvious discomfort. All of her friends eventually said that they understood her and were still her friends. Most of them don’t call anymore. She understands that and is not angry or bitter about it.

So Jane doesn’t have much to do with LDS people anymore. She does not like talking about religion much and would rather just get on with her life. She feels that she learned a lot of good things while Mormon, and is content not to think about it much beyond that. She is reluctant to talk to Mormons about Mormonism at all. Go in peace is her watchword, to everyone (and especially to herself).

Dick and Jane say that they don’t think they have changed much. They discussed the gay issue, and they both said that their position prior to becoming post-Mormons was that the Mormon beliefs related to gay people were somewhere between confusing and wrong. They are now more comfortable with what they always believed in that regard, and did not experience a radical reappraisal of how they feel about gays and others types of people Mormons tend to consider broken or sinful.

Both Dick and Jane are the type of person who were lauded as near perfect Mormons while they were Mormon – helpful; kind; thoughtful; 100% faithful; holding leadership positions. Neither of them “sinned” on the way out the door. Both of them now live a secular life in many ways that is contrary to LDS standards, while continuing to be honest, trustworthy, kind etc. They are still the type of person any group would want to have on their side. So while they say they have not changed, Mormons would see huge behavioural changes that would be unacceptable. These would include doing lots of things on Sunday instead of going to church; perhaps having the occasional alcoholic drink; perhaps doing things of a sexual nature that is beyond Mormon standards (we did not talk about the last two specifically, so I am not sure); etc.

Dick lurked on RFM and other similar places for a while, but they did not perform a function for him. Jane can't imagine why she would want to do that, but doesn't judge anyone from whom on-line interaction about Mormonism makes sense.

Dick and Jane said that the information that created the important triggers for them was delivered in a more or less neutral way. The forceful, angry arguments against Mormonism did not seem to affect them much, though they agreed with me that this information did penetrate their minds and had an effect on them. But the straws that broke the camelss backs were quiet, sincere statements of fact made by relatively neutral parties or the gradually dawning acknowledgement that what the equally sincere Mormons were saying and doing did not make sense.

They also spoke with passion regarding the plight of many young Mormon women they know. The Mormon women who are most talented tend to pass their “sell by” date in the Mormon community because they intimidate young Mormon men. And once they hit 23 or 24, the marital pickings become awfully slim. And so time passes as they pine for a Mormon man or with great feelings of guilt begin to date in the non-Mormon market and struggle to maintain their “standards” while often getting chewed up in an environment they are not equipped to gracefully negotiate.

In both Dick and Jane's, cracks in their Mormon testimonies correlated with their increasing disgust at how these wonderful women were falling to the bottom of LDS society in some ways, and the consternation and frustration they felt while listening to Mormon leaders crack the whip over the heads of young Mormons about the importance of early marriage, child bearing etc.

I should note that neither Dick nor Jane is married. This is a likely a key factor since marriage ups the stakes by imposing a lowest common denominator mentality on the couple. It is much less likely that two will smell the coffee at the same time, and the risk of divorce makes it less likely that either will wake up enough to rock the boat.

But for those become more conscious, and the longer one remains unmarried and continues to gain an education the more this tends to happen, the increasing gap between what makes sense to the average, well informed college age young person with regard to how relationships and marriage are dealt with outside of Mormonism as opposed to inside it, is likely to become an increasingly important flash point.

Both Dick and Jane have expanded their horizons radically in terms of what the future might hold for them. Having babies is optional. Environmental and population related issues are on the front burner. Lots of travel and education are planned. Lots of charitable works are planned. These are two idealistic, wonderful human beings who are likely to continue to become broad thinking, talented and well educated as they mature. They are the kind of people I hope my children marry.

The impression that stuck with me after listening in on this conversation is one of optimism and gratitude. Somehow these kids were not as dramatically and negatively affected by Mormonism as was I. Jane's case is particularly striking since she was raised in a Nazi Mormon environment, and yet never bought into the negative Mormon attitudes toward gay people, women who decide to have careers instead of raise kids, etc. So, Dick and Jane both are capable of walking away from Mormonism without anything like the kind of trauma I experienced.

As noted above, Dick and Jane feel like they haven't changed much as a result of leaving Mormonism. I made a few comments above in that regard. Another way to think of this is within the complex systems framework.

The adaptive landscape on which Dick and Jane exist has changed radically. They are same the same old ethical, trustworthy, altruistic individuals they were before. And now they are open to cultural and other influences from a far broader range of sources then before. That is, the range of life - the good - they will allow themselves to experience will be far more diverse than what they could have experienced as Mormons. This will change them as time passes. They will mature differently. They will become more dimensional; wiser; deeper than would likely have been possible had they remained Mormon.

Influential young people like Dick and Jane will have huge impact on LDS. Dick is a particularly interesting and potentially influential case. Ironically, the Mormon fringe trained him to be comfortable in paradox and so there he remains to a degree. He continues to associate with active Mormons who feel as he does about a lot of things. They talk about issues related to Mormonism without talking about Mormonism. He is often an educating force in their lives relative to scientific or philosophical currents. And they tend to re-work those ideas a bit and then release them into the Mormon population. This is precisely the kind of process that causes social organisms to mutate.

All of this made me feel joy and contentment; to be more hopeful with regard to the way in which the Mormon population is likely to evolve as people leave Mormonism and Mormonism itself changes in response to the pressure this blood letting will cause.

And make no mistake, this is a blood letting. Many people elike me have left. Enough to hurt financially. And many of the next generation of leaders are checking out or putting themselves in a position where they will not make the big sacrifices my generation was prepared to make.

This is all good.
topic image
You Might Be On Your Way Out Of Mormonism If
Thursday, Nov 2, 2006, at 07:02 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I am sure that the bright minds here can do better than this, but here are a few ideas.

You might be on your way out of Mormonism if ...

- Choirs, uniforms and white shirts start to irritate you.

- You visit temple square with your kids to help them understand their ancestors, and spend most of the time there rolling your eyes, shaking your head or cringing.

- You realize that during the past few years, "mystery" and "paradox" have become the most important words in your Mormon vocabulary, and feel sophisticated for a while.

- You realize that absolute certainty based on mystery and paradox makes no sense whatsoever.

- You get mad when an intellectual Mormon friend tells you that absolute certainty based on mystery and paradox is the most wonderful paradoxical mystery he has ever heard of, and that you should start speaking at Sunstone and write an essay for FAIR.

- You are suprised by your feelings of empathy for the male leads in Brokeback Mountain.

- You learn the history of Mormon tithing, realize that there are lots of ways to calculate your annual "interest" or "income" for tithing purposes, that many of these calculations end in "zero", that this accounting is entirely between you and God, and wonder if buying a vacation property for your family might be possible after all.

- It occurs to you that the doctrine of prophetic fallibility means that prophets might be wrong about everything instead of just what they have been proven to be wrong about.

- You realize that the fact that Mormon prophets have been found to be deceptive or mistaken about many important things means that they probably were deceptive or mistaken about other important things.

- A colleague at work hits you up to come to an Amway presentation, and you realize that you used all the same tones of voice, facial expressions and half truths the last time you tried to invite a friend over to meet the missionaries.

- You go to an Amway meeting, find half your Mormon friends there and think you have walked through the looking glass into some kind of bizarro testimony meeting.
topic image
My Teenage Sons Persuaded Me To Watch The Matrix With Them Last Night
Monday, Nov 6, 2006, at 09:17 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
This was the first time I watched that movie since just after it came out, which was before my exodus from Mormonism. I saw parts II and III for the first time as a post-Mormon.

It is very unusual for me to enjoy watching a movie the second time. This was an exception.

I was transfixed by the sequence, in particular, where Neo was "awakening". He comes to in the vat; he struggles and we see him inadvertanely break the membrane that maintained his world; he thrashes around in the fluid, gets his head above it and pulls the long apparatus out of his mouth, wretching because this parasite had made itself part of him but continuing because his instinct (now that he was conscious) told him that this foreign object must be removed; his lungs gasp into operation for the first time; his muscles are atrophied; he watches as the many tubes that had been syphoning off his life's energy disconnnect; he sees the "watchman on the tower" notice that he had become disconnected, inspect him, and then flush him into the sewer to dispose of him since his utility to the "institution" has ended; he throws up when Morpheus succeeds in getting the message through; he hears Morpheus say "I have a rule never to wake someone up after they have reached a certain age because it just doestn't work, butyou are special" or something like that ...

This is powerful stuff.

After the movie I tried to explain to my boys, aged 16 and 12, how I identified with that aspect of Neo's character, and how his experience is a accurate portrayal of what it is like to emerge from a restrictive worldview. After only four years outside the Motrix they have no idea how it worked and had a hard time understanding why I thought Neo was relevant to my experience. This makes me happy. They were respectful and interested, but they I could tell that they could not imagine how the physical wrenching Neo went through could be caused by not going to church any more. This is a lesson I hope they don't have to learn. I will continue to try to innoculate them.

I also found the relationship between Morpheus and his crew to people like Neo fascinating. Awakening causes pain. There is a cost benefit calculus to be performed in deciding whether to try to awaken someone. And each is given a choice - the blue or red pill. This is a limited choice since those awakening have no idea what lies ahead. The choice of the red pill is either the sign of an adventuresome personality, or blind faith in the icons who have already passed the great consciousness divide.

Having taken the red pill, some can't handle it and choose to return to darkness. The "desert of the real" is too much for them.

I thought this part of the movie misses an important point the point. A percentage of every ideologically restricted group will not fit and will break through the membranes designed to hold them. In some times and places that means death, but many individuals still do it.

And it is not the desert of the real that does them in. That same real is paradise for many of those conditioned to it. It is the shock of transition that gets them. And this is largely a matter of how they have been conditioned to see what is, not what the nature of what is.

As an aside, I recall a short time ago being shocked by the realization that if I lived in China, I would probably be one of the idiots who smuggles in contraband literature on pain of death if caught. This epiphany occurred to me as I was reading about some of these people, shaking my head and thinking "It is crazy to take that risk for a book ..." when it hit me. I am one of the crazy ones, and am deeply grateful for that.

Despite it silliness and violence, that movie will be one of my alltime favorites.
topic image
Mormon Scientist Says DNA Evidence Does Not Disprove The Book Of Mormon, And Big Foot Is Real
Thursday, Nov 9, 2006, at 08:00 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Mormon Science is flourishing. First we have nut-bar conspiracy theorist Steven Jones (see http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249...) and then I was reminded last night of the accomplishments of Book of Mormon defender D. Jeffrey Meldrum.

Meldrum is an LDS scientist at Idaho State who has published a number of articles and at least one book related to science and Mormonism. He weighs in on the “you’ll never refute the Book of Mormon using DNA evidence” side of the DNA argument (see http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.p...). There, after offering a silly mixture of scripture, J. Smith’s meandering ideas, magical thinking and unparsimonious science, Muldrum and his co-authors conclude:

“Ultimately we are impressed by the realization that the fundamental question of the veracity of the claims of the Book of Mormon lies beyond the ken of modern DNA research. The final implications of the book, as a witness of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and as another testament of the divinity of Jesus Christ, remain within the realm of faith and individual testimony.”

Hmmm. Might the same be said about the proposition that the Earth is very old? Indeed, there are many people with PhD’s in geology, mostly on staff at Biblical literalist educational institutions (using that term a bit loosely) who argue that the case has not been definitively made that the Earth is much more than 6,000 years old. “You can’t prove it!” is their battle cry.

I was reminded of this last night when I heard that Meldrum was interviewed on CBC with regard to one of his other research interests – proving that Big Foot is real. Here again, Meldrum is piecing together scraps of evidence against long odds. Says Meldrum, “I'm not out to proselytize that Bigfoot exists. I place legend under scrutiny and my conclusion is, absolutely. Bigfoot exists."

Does anyone see a pattern yet?

See http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.h... for a sample of Meldrum’s Big Foot work, and http://www.dailytidings.com/2006/1106... and http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.x... for summaries of how his professional peers view his research. The typical comment runs as follows:

“… many scientists are embarrassed by what they call Meldrum's "pseudo-academic" pursuits and have called on the university to review his work with an eye toward revoking his tenure. One physics professor, D.P. Wells, wonders whether Meldrum plans to research Santa Claus, too.”

Another of Meldrum’s colleague’s puts his finger of the problem’s root, as follows:

“A scientist should not be a believer, said Martin Hackworth, a senior lecturer in the physics department at Idaho State University.”

Indeed.
topic image
The "Joy Book"
Friday, Nov 24, 2006, at 08:03 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
The “Joy Book"

I have noted before my impression that literalist religious people are "irony impaired". While this is both true and funny, it hides a disturbing truth.

I thought of this the other night when I stumbled across the Larry King Show’s summary of Warren Jeffs pre-trial hearing. The "joy book" used in the FLDS community was mentioned several times. That is the book into which the names of girls as young as 14 years of age are entered by their fathers when they are ready to be married. Given the supply and demand equation within that community. That is, there is a chronic shortage of women to fuel the polygamist fire. Practically speaking, human populations tend to be divided pretty evenly between males and females. So if some men have more than one wife, others will not have a wife. This means that many young men will have to be kicked out of the community since there is a high correlation in virtually all human communities between populations of unmarried adult men and social unrest -- go figure. And in then there's the problem of finding enough new young wives to reward your faithful lieutenants. The number of wives has in the FLDS community is a bizarre measureof social status. Having spent some time speaking with prominent Mormon polygamist, I doubt that the sexual dimension of the potential relationship with a new wife has much to do with their behavior, at least at the upper leadership level. Imagine, for example, having 10 wives already in being offered the opportunity for number 11. This is much more important as a trophy -- the symbol of social status -- than the opportunity for more or different sexual stimulation.

In any event, it is easy to predict that within the FLDS community there would be a lot of pressure on fathers to put their daughters forward to be married as quickly as possible. And Joseph Smith took a 14 year-old wife, didn't he. So the age of 14 is likely not coincidental.

One of the women interviewed on the Larry King show described her terror when she found out that her father had entered her name in the “joy book". She resorted to various kinds of acting out in an attempt to try to delay the announcement of her marriage. She eventually escaped the FLDS community at age 16. In most cases, only a couple days notice was given between the announcement of marriage and the marriage itself.

The key witness at the Jeffs trial described her experience in similar terms. The men she was married was her first cousin. He was 19; she was 14. He had regularly bullied her throughout their lives. She touchingly described the emotional trauma she faced after a lifetime of being that sex was dirty and then suddenly at age 14 start having sex with someone she not only did not love, but instead feared and detested.

The "joy book"? This is straight out of Orwell's 1984. And, more to the point, straight out of mainstream Mormonism. Remember the "Courts of Love"?

Regrettably, Orwell had many things right. If you call something the "Court of Love", and succeed in getting enough other people to call it that as well, you will change the meaning of the word "love". It will become loving to inflict a certain kinds of pain on people, just as in the FLDS tried it is "joy" to experience a certain kind of terror while submitting yourself obediently to the will of your group's leaders.

I have pimped James Surowieki’s fine book "the wisdom of crowds" a number of times here. Let me do it again. One of the key concepts there is that smart crowds encourage diverse points of view and the circulation of lots of information. Any time you see a social group established on a basis that limits information flows and the expression of different points of view, you can count on it becoming stupider as time passes. This is a social law that may not be quite as reliable as the law of gravity, but it comes close.

Authority of many kinds is used to anchor this kind of institutional stupidity in place. In this regard, there is not much difference between the "wisdom" governing the FLDS group, and what passes for wisdom emanating from the mainstream Mormon quorum of the 12 apostles.
topic image
More Parallels Between The FLDS And Mainstream Mormonism
Monday, Nov 27, 2006, at 06:29 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
There was an interesting article in most Canadian newspapers this morning – full page – summarizing the goings on with respect to the Warren Jeffs pretrial hearing last week. One of the statements attributed to the star witness was that women within the FLDS culture were completely dependent on men. This included the idea that men mediated the relationship between women and god. For young girls, this relationship passed through their father; when they married, that relationship continued to through their husbands; and at all times, their relationship to god was circumscribed by what the prophet said. I inferred from other comments she made that the FLDS are told to seek a personal relationship with god. However, in the event that anything a woman (or anyone, for that matter) feels about that relationship or what god wishes her to do is inconsistent with what she is told by her father/husband/prophet, this was clear evidence that she was not hearing god's authentic voice.

I read this article over breakfast this morning, and then talked about it for a few minutes with my 25 year old daughter. She is a single mom. Her son is a four year old who challenges her; anchors her; motivates her; sometimes makes her miserable; etc. - in short, a normal mother-child relationship. She made an anguished decision as to whether to keep him or not; had selected his adoptive parents and did not decide to keep him until the day she went into labor. In fact, it seemed that her body was waiting for that decision befor being prepared to deliver the baby. He was about two weeks overdue.

She suffered significant damage at hands of the LDS social services in particular and well meaning Mormons in general during the process of deciding whether to give the baby up for adoption. This played a significant role in my post-Mormon awakening.

But I digress, as usual.

As we chatted this morning about the testimony described above, my daughter told me that soon after her son was born, a young man she attended high school with, and who had just returned from his Mormon mission, was chatting with her in a casual social setting. He mentioned, in a matter of fact way, that having had the baby out of wedlock was not such a big deal since all she had to do was find a man to take her to the temple, and she would still be able to go to the celestial kingdom. While this is not, technically speaking, correct Mormon doctrine, it is easy to understand where ideas like this come from in the Mormon population.

The more one learns about the way the FDLS community works, the more clear it is that mainstream Mormonism differs by degree, not by kind. Unfortunately, this concept is not the coming out in the news. I’m waiting for some good journalism that ties the FLDS culture to mainstream Mormonism, and highlights their similarities. The same could be done to a limited extent with the mainstream evangelical Christian culture. Magical thinking and patriarchal authority come to us in large measure through Christianity, at least around here.
topic image
Piaget, "Formal Operations" And The Mormon Ability To Comprehend Reality
Friday, Dec 1, 2006, at 08:08 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
One of my friends is a successful clinical psychologist with a background in theology. He is one of the sharpest people with whom I regularly deal when it comes to understanding the academic psychological literature, and practically applying it. Here is part of a note he sent to me and a number of other people as we were discussing the difficulty we have observed in trying to communicate with literalist religious people about matters that question their faith.

He says:

“About 90% of the world's population never achieve formal operations as Piaget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Pia...) defined them. When these are plotted against socio-economic status (SES) on the vertical axis, the resulting graph is almost a perfectly inverted pyramid. Higher SES accounts for nearly all formal operations capacity.

As you know formal operations consists, among other things, of the ability to manipulate abstract concepts which in turn is essential for critical, analytical thinking. Objectively appraising one's religious beliefs would be an example of the latter. Brain development in early adolescence (of various frontal regions) makes formal operations possible. Thus in high school formal operations first manifest themselves but they reach their full fruition in college.

Literalist religious beliefs are not confined to lower SES but they are more common there.

There is some question as to whether Piaget's system can be extrapolated from the Western European culture from which it was derived but its validity seems to remain relatively intact in the Northern West.

With many literalists, you may be speaking the same words but you are talking a different language.”

As I have noted elsewhere, I think cognitive dissonance and various cognitive biases are highly explanatory with regard to why most of us have trouble dealing with information that conflicts with our important belief. See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.deni... for my treatment that subject. This analysis is particularly helpful when it comes to understanding the situation of well-educated people who confront inadequacies in their belief system. They are capable of abstract, critical thought and hence experience significant cognitive dissonance as they wrestle with issues that pit scientifically sound theory and evidence against dogmatic belief. And, they tend to resort to sophisticated rationalizations in an attempt to relieve their cognitive dissonance. These rationalizations include things like Heidigerian philosophy (the experienced moment is the most reliable reality, etc.), various strains of postmodern ridiculousness, and the other kinds of strained rationalizations for which farms and fair are infamous within the post-Mormon community. "Intelligent design" and "creation science" are examples of the same sort of thing in other parts of the literalist Christian community.

However, I have noticed that with many people discussions with regard to the nature of religious belief do not even get off the deck. All they can do is respond by bearing their testimony -- they "know" on the basis of their experience, what is true. That is where Piaget comes in. Just as things like the intricacies of string theory and quantum mechanics are simply beyond me, abstract ideas with regard to the disconnect between our emotional experience and reality are beyond the grasp of many members of our families and communities. It is not realistic to expect people of this sort to change their beliefs, or even understand ours, as long as their emotional and social experience continues to run along Mormon lines and as long as their intellectual experience leaves them below the formall operations watermark.

Interestingly, many people leave Mormonism because it simply does not work for them without understanding of why that is the case. That is, their emotional experience within Mormonism does not justify the investment of time, effort etc. Mormonism requires. Sadly, people of this type often carry a burden of guilt with them because they have not falsified the Mormon belief system. All they know is that it does not work for them; that it does not feel right. Many of these people still hold Mormon beliefs, which ironically indict them. They believe they were not good enough to live by the Mormon rulebook. They feel guilty. And without the ability to place their religious experience and beliefs in context, it is difficult for them to shake these feelings. This is also often a function of not having abstract thinking skills at or above the level required to get out of the Mormon box.

One of the good things we can say about Mormonism is that it emphasizes education, and hence encourages the development of Piaget's formal operational thinking. It therefore has sown the seeds of its own demise. That is not to say that the Mormon Church will go away; rather, I believe that it will be forced to change because it has created several generations now of people who are capable of abstract, critical thinking. As my friend pointed out above, these people tend to be successful. Either Mormonism will change to accommodate them, or it will lose them. If there is one thing that Mormonism's leaders understand, consciously or not, it is hanging on to cash flow. So bank on it -- Mormonism will change to become acceptable to those of its members who are capable of abstract, critical thinking. This is likely, however, to take several generations.

Consider the difference between mainstream Mormonism and the FLDS in that regard. I have long said that Mormonism retards its adherents. I still think it is a fair statement. However, we are talking about relatively minor retardation. It is far more difficult for a disaffected member of the FLDS faith to leave that cloister that it was for me to leave mine.

From my point of view, a big part of letting go of Mormonism in a healthy way comes down to being able to accept and forgive others for doing what they do in being what they are. As we come to understand that people who have lied to us, stolen time, money and energy from us, and otherwise harmed us were acting in ways that were not only predictable, but in most cases unavoidable, it is easier to let go and move on. The same kind of understanding with regard to those who cannot understand our current beliefs and behavior is helpful. And this of course applies as well to that person to whom it is often most difficult to extend forgiveness - ourselves.
topic image
Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" – A Meditation On Healing Religious Wounds And The Breadth Of Religious Symbolism
Wednesday, Dec 6, 2006, at 07:32 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I spent about 18 hours driving this weekend, and it had the opportunity to listen to a lot of music as well as a couple of books on tape. Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" has long been one of my favorites, and I listened to it probably a dozen times during the course of my drive. The following stream of consciousness is the result.

Leonard Cohen has achieved near iconic status in the poet/singer/songwriter community, while barely being able to sing. For an introduction, see his biography at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_...) and a recent, well-worth watching documentary – “I’m Your Man” (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478197/) that features U2 and numerous other luminaries and their accolades to Cohen, as well as performances of famous Cohen pieces by many of the same people. His website has a lot of useful information as well - http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/. This essay (http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/ - see "UNDER THE SPELL OF STRANGER MUSIC - LEONARD COHEN'S LYRICAL JUDAISM" under the "Analysis" button) lays the foundation for understanding the religious influence in his work.

Cohen’s "Hallelujah" is particularly meaningful to me. In it, he uses various symbols from his Jewish background in a way that produces a particularly powerful experience for those of us who have had intense experiences with the same symbols. As an aside, I remember being in Peru as a missionary, and being taunted by children in the street with a feigned ecstatic chorus of "hallelujahs". And, ironically, I remember thinking at the time that we were not anywhere near as ridiculous as the Pentecostals and other charismatic evangelicals who used that term as part of their worship. Little did I know how much more ridiculous we were in so many ways that were they. But I digress.

My walk with Cohen this weekend made me think about the transformative process many people who come from literalist religions backgrounds undergo, and how during the later stages of that process we reintegrate and reinterpret our inherited symbols. James Fowler describes this in his book "Stages of Faith". Elizabeth Kubler Ross alludes to the same thing in her stages of grief paradigm (google that), and much of ancient mythology plays with the same theme in countless adventurer into chaos, transformation there, and eventual return and reintegration into society. I deal with some of these concepts at http://exmormonfoundation.org/2006Con....

It is a measure of my recovery that I still feel an intense allergy to Mormonism’s foundation symbols – the silhouette of J. Smith; of the handcart pioneers; of the Salt Lake Temple; of the beehive; and most of all, of the Angel Moroni with trumpet. Hence, I am fascinated by Cohen’s treatment of his ancestral symbols, both because of what it will mean for me when I can do the same with mine, and because Cohen’s work is simply brilliant.

I have decided that part of the next phase of my recovery will include a concerted effort to integrate some of Mormonism’s foundational symbols into others that have become more meaningful me of late, such as Dali’s Geopoliticus Child (see http://dali.urvas.lt/forviewing/pic12...), Escher’s various metamorphosis pieces (see for example, http://imagecache2.allposters.com/ima...), the oroboros (see http://www.asetusa.com/sc/oroborus.jp...), the ying-yang symbol (see http://www.csusm.edu/rms/images/yingy...), evolutionary landscapes (see http://www.dillgroup.ucsf.edu/dl_imag...), the windswept tree (see http://www.cyprusbyclick.com/CITY_GUI...), Etc. . This is part of a therapeutic method some psychologists refer to as de-sensitization. For example, an arachnophobe might be exposed to images of spiders in a sufficiently safe environment to allow her to wrestle with her fear on a regular basis. Gradually, in some cases at least, she will be able to deal with more intense images and with sufficient familiarity her fear can be overcome. I'm not sure to what extent this will help me to slay some of my Mormon demons, but I have been convinced that it is worth a try. Leonard Cohen is one of my guiding lights in that regard.

Cohen’s voice is so bad that I don't particularly like his rendition of the piece. My favorite cover is by k.d. lang. My favorite is her Juno aware performance. Her emotion, and the crowd reaction, put this over the top. k.d., btw, is a lesbian candw artist who hails from a small town not far from Calgary. When she came out of the closet close to 20 years ago, that was even less trendy around here than it is now. Quite a human being; a fitting transmitter of Cohen's art. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCJzn0... . A more restrained version can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW_H-V....

My second favorite cover is by Rufus Wainwright, which you can find in both audio and video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMrZ7l.... It is also included in the documentary noted above. Imogen Heap does a wonderful rendition of part of the song, which you can find at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE1OFH... .

I have cut and pasted the lyrics in full below, in both their versions. The owner of a piece can change it as he wishes. The more sensual nature of the later rendition is even more provocative than was the original.

There is far too much in this piece for anyone to comprehensively analyze it. So I will simply let the words stand for themselves. Depending on how others responde to this, I may add something later to indicate what partiuclarly resonated with me.

Enjoy.

best, bob

Leonard Cohen Hallelujah (CD - Various Positions – 1984)

Now I've heard there was a secret chord
That David played, and it pleased the Lord
But you don't really care for music, do you?
It goes like this
The fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah

Your faith was strong but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof
Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
She tied you
To a kitchen chair
She broke your throne, and she cut your hair
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah

Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah

You say I took the name in vain
I don't even know the name
But if I did, well really, what's it to you?
There's a blaze of light
In every word
It doesn't matter which you heard
The holy or the broken Hallelujah

Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah

I did my best, it wasn't much
I couldn't feel, so I tried to touch
I've told the truth, I didn't come to fool you
And even though
It all went wrong
I'll stand before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah

Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah, Hallelujah
Hallelujah

(CD - Leonard Cohen in Concert – June 1994 )

Baby, I've been here before.
I know this room, I've walked this floor.
I used to live alone before I knew you.

Yeah I've seen your flag on the marble arch,
But listen, love is not some kind of victory march,
No it's a cold and it's a very broken Hallelujah.

Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, (Hallelujah...)

There was a time you let me know
What's really going on below,
Ah but now you never show it to me, do you?

Yeah but I remember, yeah when I moved in you,
And the holy dove, she was moving too,
Yes every single breath that we drew was Hallelujah.

Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah.

Maybe there's a God above,
As for me, all I've ever seemed to learn from love
Is how to shoot at someone who outdrew you.

Yeah but it's not a complaint that you hear tonight,
It's not the laughter of someone who claims to have seen the light
No it's a cold and it's a very lonely Hallelujah.

Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah.

I did my best, it wasn't much.
I couldn't feel, so I learned to touch.
I've told the truth, I didn't come all this way to fool you.

Yeah even though it all went wrong
I'll stand right here before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my lips but Hallelujah.

Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah.
Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah.
topic image
I Am A Recovering Mormon
Tuesday, Jan 23, 2007, at 06:33 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
If this were a Mormon testimony meeting, I would stand up, start with the obligatory “brothers and sisters, I want to bear you my testimony that I know this is the one and only true church on the face of the earth blah blah blah”, and then get into what I really wanted to say – that I just got back from a wonderful vacation in France that I am sure you all want to hear about, and then go on to deliver a ten minute travelogue that would have only the most remote connection to religious belief or experience.

Since this is not a Mormon testimony meeting, I will simply tell you that I just got back from a wonderful vacation in France where I saw all kinds of interesting art, architecture, met some fascinating people, read all or parts of about a dozen books, and while immensely enjoying the experience found very little that that to do with Mormonism, post Mormonism or religion, practically speaking. Hence, I don’t have much to say that is relevant to the topics under discussion here, and I will spare you the travelogue.

Perhaps what I just said does not mean much for most people, but in my case it is significant. For the past five years, I have not been able to read so much as the badly translated assembly instructions for my grandson’s new bicycle without finding deep and intensely important significance with regard to religion in general and Mormonism in particular. Everyone teases me about this. My children can be downright vicious at times in this regard.

And so, as week after week in France went by and I read book after book and visited interesting place after interesting place and found little that drew me back into Mormon related themes, I realized that I am indeed recovering. And I felt good.

Maybe if I get some energy going here once jet lag has subsided and I am caught up at the office, I will cull some of the religion related stuff from my book review notes and post them. Most of that has to with human growth in general; how we deal with crises; how our relationships work; what makes art art and why are we attracted (or not) to it; etc. The books are Frances Mayes – Under the Tuscan Sun; Chaim Potok – My Name is Asher Lev; Michael Kimmelman – The Accidental Masterpiece: On the Art of Life and Vice-Versa; John Gottman – The Relationship Cure; John Gottman – The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work; Pascale Quiviger – The Perfect Circle; Eleanor McKenzie - Beyond the Kama Sutra; Baron Baptiste – The Yoga Bootcamp Box; Harry Rasky – The Song of Leonard Cohen; Alberto Manguel – Reading Pictures: What We Think About When We Look at Art; Lao Tzu – Tao Te Ching; Christopher Hansard – The Art of Tibetan Living; Erica Brealey – The Spirit of Meditation; and a couple I left in France the titles andauthors of which I can’t now recall.

In any event, it is good to be back home and to do some RFM reading. I am starting to feel like an RFM grandpa(ma) – kind of like SL Cabbie, Randy J., Stray Mutt, Dagny or perhaps even Richard Packham or Eric K. (bless their holy names). You know – I care but do not feel the kind of panic that hits a new mother when her baby gets really sick for the first time. That is, experience has finally made me comfortable with the fact that as bad as Mormonism was, it can't really harm me. Victor Frankl survived, didn't he. Life hurts as well as it wraps us in wonder; we usually overestimate how bad its going to be and underestimate how much fun we will will have; we usually over-react; shit happens and gets cleaned up.

Don’t misunderstand. I still feel the agony and panic of those posting as they achieve their first painful glimpses of the massive fraud practiced on them. For example, here is the text of a message that was waiting on my email when I arrived home, changed sufficiently to protect identity:

“I find myself going in circles. I can see and argue both sides of the story. (The church is true/no church has the all-encompassing truth.) I see them both clearly. I am leaning more and more towards atheism, and on those days my garments are off. On days when I rely on the old framework, my garments are on. I feel miserable and scared no matter what I wear. I am torn and longing to be free. I am waiting for an answer from God and digging for any answers I can find in books in the meantime. I know that I have a strong sense of ethics, yet I have found that they still remain unscathed--with or without the belief in God. I don’t know how to get past this point and I feel as though my heart could break at any given moment. I just want to be able to make up my mind once and for all without the fear of being cursed for doing so. I am afraid to live and afraid to die. I don’t know how to adequately make sense of the spiritual experiences that I have had.”

Nice. They should build a missionary discussion around that one. "Bro. Brown, do you feeling that grinding, churning feeling in the pit of your stomach? What does that mean to you?"

And, I empathize with the endless stream of tortured spouses who try to find help coping with unraveling relationships. But since I am no longer so raw myself, I accept these feelings without having my own hormonal cascade set off again to twist me into a typing, reading, thinking, sleepless frenzy.

As I read RFM, I also note the way in which many of the same cognitive biases that hold people inside the Mormon tribe are immediately turned into tools that solidify a variety of beliefs that contradict Mormonism, some of which have sketchy rational foundations though in almost all cases, being relatively benign.

And as time passes, I find that I have more trouble getting worked up over whether J. Smith was consciously fraudulent, delusional, well-intended but mistaken, or any combination thereof. He was untrustworthy – that much is as clear as it is that the Earth is almost round. Hence, without compelling, objectively verifiable evidence to support what J. Smith says, he should be ignored. If anything, when he said "white", maybe put money on "black".

I don’t care about the degree to which G. Hinckley is conscious of the role he plays as the current chief con in the Mormon game. A con man sells confidence instead of substance, and whether he is aware of this or not is irrelevant. The best salesmen make themselves believe in their products. Why? Because if you are a salesman, this helps you to sell. Measure Hinckley for that suit and see how well it fits.

Serious jet lag twice in a few weeks is a form of mental enema – it clears the circuits through exhaustion and so allows life’s most recently formed pieces to find their places. This is like what sometimes happens when a writer accidentally deletes an almost finished but troublesome chapter, curses himself, starts to try to re-create it and then watches in amazement as the problems he was struggling with seem to resolve themselves while his story takes off in a fresh direction.

So, as I come back to myself here at home, I notice lots of things. For example, life feels more comfortable. This is not because there is more joy and less pain than when I was Mormon or recently post-Mormon. Rather, it is because my expectations are gradually becoming more realistic. I expect to be sad, angry and bored as well as contented, wondrous and ecstatic. And instead of continually needing to tell myself this, it is becoming instinctual. These new instincts bring peace.

And I increasingly notice that most of life’s satisfaction is found in the daily grind. I am finally past persuading myself of this, and accept it. I don’t need to become God, or save the Earth, or be great in any way. The gradual accomplishment of anything fills us and so enables our occasional glorious overflowings, and provides the stamina we will sometime call upon as we stagger through life’s deserts.

Keeping promises. Encouraging each other. Becoming more constant; more present; more conscious; more real; more interested in more aspects of life; more creative (thus, as said the Chinese sage, living twice - once while experiencing and a second time while recording and interpreting the experience through art). All these fruits and many others may the recovering Mormon expect.

I have never felt more positive with regard to life’s short, medium or long term prospects, for myself as well as those I most love.
topic image
Mormon Decision-Making – Feelings Of Peace V. Feelings Of Darkness
Thursday, Feb 15, 2007, at 09:49 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I am in the midst of making a significant career/business decision, and was struck last night by how different this process feels this time around as compared to how I experienced while Mormon. This is the first time I have made a decision of this kind since leaving Mormonism.

While Mormon, a significant part of my decision-making model was drawn from the DandC 9, which advises us to use feelings of peace (as the "burning in the bosom" is usually interpreted) as opposed to darkness/confusion to decide what God wants us to do. For those of you who may have forgotten this bit of wisdom, here it is:

8. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it be right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore you shall feel that it is right.

9. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong …

When deciding whether to accept a new job or business opportunities; move from one city to another; change intimate relationships; etc. we are generally speaking in a state of high emotional arousal or turmoil. Evolution has programmed us to fear the unknown, hence many of these feelings. The bigger the decision, the more likely we are to be in this state. Hence, if we only do what we feel peaceful about, we will tend toward what is safe; what we know; what we are already doing. Not surprisingly, this tends to keep most Mormons close to their Mormon roots and within the behavioural grooves carvedk into us by our conditioning.

And, when we feel this same angst about decisions that Mormonism encourages (getting married young; having babies young; going on a mission; etc.) we are told that these feeligns of darkness come from Satan. Where else could they come from? God has commanded us to do certain things ... Obviously, we obvious must obey what the Mormon prophets had said ...

Tails, Mormonism wins. Heads, we lose.

I remember, in particular, as a young lawyer being offered several opportunities to leave the law firm I was then working with in Vancouver, British Columbia. As I look back now, it is clear that the main reason I remained there for a decade is that whenever an opportunity to go somewhere else presented itself, I went through the process of fasting, praying, listening to my feelings, etc. and found that I did not feel adequately peaceful about taking the new opportunity. In some cases, these were opportunities that I had actively pursued because they seemed to make so much sense, but when the time came to make the decision I didn't feel peaceful enough and so let them pass. I remember weeks of listening to my emotions boil and feeling confused as to why God would veto chances that had seemed so good. That should have been a clue, but I was pretty dense. Once again, all I can do is laugh at myself as I consider my history.

When we understand a bit about the biochemistry of emotion, it is easy to predict we will have many strong feelings as we consider opportunities that require us to leave established behavioral patterns and perhaps relationships in order to undertake something new. Excitement; fear; rising energy to meet a new challenge; etc. are all part of this. But peacefulness or a burning bosom (the classic Mormon testimony feeling), generally speaking, will not be a significant part of what we feel. At most, we will get glimpes of this.

Hence, my family and I remained in Vancouver for close to 10 years in circumstances that became increasingly unbearable. The level of discomfort on a variety of fronts had to rise to the point where as I went through the Mormon decision-making process, the darkness, angst, etc. I felt at the prospect of staying with my law firm in Vancouver was worse than the fear, etc. I felt at the prospect of leaving. Once again, Mormonism had nuetered or infantilized me. It harnessed me in place.

Now, as I consider various kinds of significant opportunities I expect to feel agitated and have a reasonable understanding as to what my biochemistry is doing to produce these feelings, and how long they are likely to last. I understand that this emotional state is a short-term phenomenon, and that whether I choose to take an opportunity or not, I will shortly return to what might be called my "normal" emotional landscape. That is, my typical long-term emotional state.

The emotional spikes that occur as we contemplate, and sometimes make, significant life changes interfere with our decision-making process far more than they help us think clearly and make good decisions. They should be ignored for the most part, and we should consult with trusted friends and advisors who can help us see through this fog as we attempt to see the pros and cons of our too-rare chances for major, productive change along life's way.

Ironically, what I now regard as a miasma is the centerpiece of the Mormon decision-making process. That is what I was taught to focus on to the near exclusion of all else. And until mid-life, that is what I did.

All I can do is shake my head. Yet again.
topic image
Public Relations - "Spin" - Mitt Romney – How Will Mormonism Evolve? - Cognitive Dissonance
Monday, Feb 26, 2007, at 07:33 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I just finished listening to an excellent CBC presentation with regard to the current state of culture, and a number of the factors that will influence where we go from here in that regard. You can find the program at http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/spi.... Today is a work day for me, but I will jot down a few thoughts that were stimulated by CBC before hitting the books.

Edelman, the Mormon Church’s spin doctor, was interviewed. He talked about the importance of the democratization of information, and the radical and beneficial effects that will have with regard to our society. The Hinkster might want to talk to him about where this is headed. Or, the big H can call me. I won't even charge for my advice.

The way in which the use of communications devices, and in particular video cell phones, are now used to transmit information from anywhere into the public consciousness was discussed at some length. For example, it is easy to find uncensored video footage taken by soldiers with regard to the war in Iraq (or any other war in which you are interested) on the Internet. Gone are the days during which governments could control the perception of war (or other elements of social reality) by controlling press access to the events in question. To its credit, the US government has not attempted to prevent soldiers from taking or sharing video footage of this type. Some of the US government's most recent and acute embarrassments with regard to the war effort have been a direct result of video footage of this type. There is a new kind of accountability between the government and the public as a result of the explosion of communications and information technologies.

On the other hand, there is a lot of handwringing (mostly by journalists) with regard to the reduced role journalists play in the culture formation process. They used to be the gatekeepers of the massive news enterprises that decided what kind of information most of us ingested each day. They held the government's feet to the fire by asking tough questions, and then reported and analyzed what they were told. Now, many governments (and most notably the US government) understands that they can deliver their message directly to the public through the Internet and other forms of media. So, they sidestep the journalists.

The decline of mainstream journalistic influence may cause an increase in governmental power (and executive power within government) as a result of a decline in governmental accountability. If journalists are not there to ask hard questions, who will ask? I think that is a fair point.

However, journalists and others now have access to massive amounts of information generated by the democratic information gathering and dissemination processes I have already described. A lot of people are now in a position to ask tougher questions than ever before. Think Guantanamo Bay.

The real problem is that governments are developing various excuses not to deal with journalists, or anyone else who wishes to call them to account. This is what should be resisted. As long as we do this, I think the overall trend is great.

In addition, when we think about how the dynamics described above function in the context of the secrecy oriented, non-democratic institutions like the Mormon Church, the same concerns don't exist. The Mormon Church has never been more than marginally accountable to journalists, or to anyone else. Now, the information democratization forces that are putting pressure on the US and other governments are also putting pressure on the Mormon Church. This will likely continue, and can be counted upon to fundamentally shape the way the Mormon Church functions in the future.

Think, for example, of the kind of meta or non-verbal communication I mentioned a day or two ago on SLDrone’s thread. Since some of that is relevant here, and that post will eventually disappear, I will repeat what I said.

“I have come to believe that those who remain quietly on the inside of Mormonism with changed beliefs may be the key to radically modifying Mormonism over the course of a generation or two. The reason for this has to do with how social communication works. Military studies have shown that, for example, a kind of meta-communication occurs as different kinds of weapons are used (or not) and initiatives are taken (or not) during military exercises.

For example, if one army bombs the supply lines of the other (which can be done at any time), guess what will happen next? This is a kind of conversation.

Similar examples can be found within economics. For example, business corporations routinely skirt the rules against price-fixing by nudging and winking at each other in different ways while setting their prices within certain ranges and refusing to budge. Those who see this often respond by holding their price line as well. When on party breaks rank, most others follow suit. This works particularly well in markets what that are dominated by a few players. Think OPEC, though it is big enough to be hard to control.

Consider, then, what happens within your local Mormon ward when many of the people who seem to be successful, intelligent, etc. tend to decline significant callings, don't hold temple recommends, don't bear their testimonies and on the rare occasion when they are asked to give talks or teach lessons, they talk about metaphor, art and science instead of Scripture and testimony.

This kind of behavior sends powerful messages, many of which operate below the conscious spectrum. Over the course of a generation or two, the very nature of Mormonism will change as a result of this alone.

The presence of moderates of this kind within Mormonism, even if they dare not talk about what they believe, will cause significant changes from the inside that would not likely occur if everyone who disbelieved simply stood up and left.

Larry Iannacconne's research indicates that one of the best ways to keep a religious institution strong is to maintain the cost of membership at a high level. This could mean throwing out everyone who is not prepared to bear testimony in black-and-white terms, do what was required to hold a temple recommend, et cetera. The Jehovah's Witnesses use this system, and their growth has been significantly above the Mormon growth levels for a long time.

So, my view has moderated. I still encourage everyone who can to speak out. But I recognize that those who feel that they cannot will still play a significant role from the inside in remodelling Mormonism. Those who hope for utter collapse are, I fear, waiting for Santa Claus. And I think, overall, that the combination of these two forces (contricism from outside and quietly changing behavior from within) is likely to lead to the most desirable outcome. My thinking related to that point is too convoluted to attempt to lay out here.”

Think of all this in the context of Mitt Romney's current run for the Republican nomination. He is a sharp double-edged short sword from a Mormon perspective. A Mormon in the White House sounds like a dream come true from the Mormon perspective. What could more clearly indicate that Mormonism has "arrived"? However, courtesy of Mitt Romney many Mormons are going to learn an awful lot about their own religion. It will be hard for them to stick their heads in the sand and simply avoid the message this time. They are intensely interested in the outcome of this political process, and hence will read the newspaper reports with regard to Romney and the progress he is making toward the US presidency. Whatever is discussed in that regard will enter the Mormon consciousness in an unprecedented way.

If people like us play our cards right, we can have a significant influence over how much Mormons learn about Joseph Smith and Mormonism during the next little while. Remember, the journalists now have access to democratically produced information instead of the relatively narrow sources upon which they used to rely. With many people like us feeding the same basic information to as many journalists as possible, the probability of Romney being put on the spot with regard to various Mormon issues approaches 100%. And the probability of his answers to those questions ending up in the public spotlight courtesy of the mainstream media approaches the same number.

Hence, it is extremely probable that Mitt Romney will in effect teach many Mormons far more than they have ever before had the opportunity to learn about the reality of their religion.

The basic issue to emphasize is that of trustworthiness. Every time we get the chance, we should put this front and center.

Start with Joseph Smith's trustworthiness. Given the man's track record of deception with regard to his sexual affairs and many other important issues that came up during the course of his leadership of the Mormon community, why should he be trusted with regard to anything that is not nailed down tight by trustworthy third-party verification? What standard of trustworthiness should be used? In general, the more important the issue of the higher the quality of evidence required. But in Joseph Smith's case, let's not set the bar too high, and use the standard required for a relatively modest investment. When anyone who's not already socially or emotionally committed to Mormonism applies this to Joseph Smith, they tend to be unwilling to accept anything of importance the man has had to say. The only people who believe Joseph Smith after becoming familiar with most of his story are those who already have a significant commitment to Mormonism. Social psychology eloquently explains why we should expect this to be the case. It applies to Mormonism as well as to the Jehovah's Witnesses, Young Earth creationists, alien abductionists, Scientologists, et cetera.

The most reasonable way to characterize Joseph Smith in this regard is to say that he was often in tight spots. That is, he got himself into trouble and found his control over the Mormon group slipping away. In these cases, he needed to find ways to get people to obey him, and then said and did what he needed to do to get that job done. This is not an unusual human characteristic. And, Smith was charismatic and hence able to get away with far more than most other people in similar situations.

The fact that a lot of Smith’s lying had to do with sexual indiscretion makes his the kind of story that should make headlines.

The trustworthiness issue can then be extended from Smith through various generations of Mormon leaders into the present generation. For example, given the nature of scholarly work with regard to Mormon history, on what basis is it reasonable for Mormon leaders to now use the lesson manuals they do with regard to missionaries, Sunday School, and even for credit classes at the university level? If Mormons are so happy, what about all that anti-depressant use in Utah?; Utah's bankruptcy rate?; Utah's MLM participation, spousal abuse, etc rates?; etc.

Again, these issue should be put front and center with regard to Romney whenever we have the opportunity to communicate with members of the press and others who may have the ear of those people. I have sent a couple of e-mails to journalists who have written articles with regard to Romney, I intend to continue to do that from time to time, and encourage others to do the same. I think many perhaps underestimate the power, at a time like this, that can be exercised in this way.

In short, Mitt Romney's run for the US presidency will create a massive information spike that will be driven into Mormonism's heart. It is highly probable that this will reduce the power of Mormonism's leaders, and increase the power the average Mormon perceives herself to have relative to the Mormon institution. You don't have to accept callings; give money; go on missions; etc. Do what makes sense, not what you are told to do. etc. This is what almost happens when information circulate is improved within a human group.

One of the reasons for which this spike has the potential to be so influential is that Mormons will, in the case of Mitt Romney, have a rare opportunity to compare their personal reaction to bits of information related to Mormonism's foundational beliefs, to the reaction of the general public to the same information bits. Consider the following in this regard.

Generally speaking, the populace at large does not care about Mormonism. Hence, the debate with regard to Joseph Smith's deceptive nature, Book of Mormon geography, DNA and the Book of Mormon, etc. is carried out at the fringe of the Mormon community. The few Mormons who hear about this at all, generally only hear what exmormons say (and we know exmormons are not credible because they're generally sinners like Simon Southerton), as well as what Mormon apologists and leaders have to say. It is easy for most Mormons to brush the issues off in that context.

It is entirely another thing to see Mormonism's foundational truth claims debated in national newspapers, become the subject of jokes by people like Jay Leno and Bill Maher, etc. in a context where it's obvious that virtually everyone with even half a brain just shakes their heads and laughs at the Mormon position. Mormons will come to see themselves as they should -- as people who resemble in many ways the young earth creationists and Scientologists when it comes to the credibility of their core beliefs.

It will be extremely difficult for many Mormons to tolerate seeing themselves in this way. So, the information Mormons will ingest courtesy of Mitt Romney will dramatically raise the levels of cognitive dissonance within the Mormon community. This will bring many thoughtful Mormons to the point at which they can no longer hold literalist Mormon beliefs, which in turn will dramatically decrease their willingness to obey Mormon authority.

Near the conclusion of the CBC program, one of the commentators indicated that the ability of those who wish to manipulate culture to use spin for that purpose depends upon two things: ignorance and apathy. Mitt Romney's run for the US presidency will create an intense interest within the Mormon community that will cause everything relevant to that (including "real" Mormon history) to receive an unprecedented degree of attention. This will work against both the ignorance and the apathy that has to date kept many issues with regard to Mormonism's history and current social practices off the radar screen of the typical otherwise well-informed Mormon.

All of this almost makes a guy want to shout "Hallelujah!".

So, how will the Mormon Church attempt to spin this? I don't think they will have any choice but to use Mitt Romney's run for the US presidency as part of the Mormon mainstreaming project. They cannot credibly dispute the nature of the information that will be put on the table with regard to Mormons history, and the history of its beliefs. All they will be able to do is distance themselves from that, using institutions like the Catholic Church as their model, and claiming that this is always been what they have done, though some misguided (and likely unintelligent) former Mormons did not see that. I sure hope they play this card in public, since many of the newly enlightened Mormon crowd will feel insulted since they too did not read or question because they were obedient to Mormon authority.

And, the Mormon Church will of course emphasize Mormonism's similarities to mainstream evangelical Christianity every time that chance offered.

I doubt that the Mormon Church itself will make any official pronouncements. They will leave this to the goons at FARMS, Meridian, various blogs, etc. These are Mormonism's modern intellectual Danites. You got a dirty job to do, you know who to call (indirectly, of course).

However, the perception these Danites will create will not be questioned by Mormonism's highest leaders, and over the course of a decade or two will cause a significant reshaping of the way in which the average Mormon person coming to maturity will perceive her relationship to the Mormon institution.

One thing I wonder about is the extent to which the Mormon Church will attempt to use tools such as the so-called "viral" marketing we are beginning to see on the Internet. These take advantage of the fact that for the time being at least, what we see on the Internet at youtube, on bulletin boards, on blogs, etc. is generally perceived to be more genuine -- less "spun" -- than what we see in newspapers or on television, at least as long as what we're looking at has a homemade look and feel. People who wish to shape public opinion for commercial, governmental, or ideological purposes, are beginning to take advantage of this, thus creating a new kind of spin. Hence, video footage (such as the famous "wig out" bridal video) is staged to look like a real-life event, put in a place where it is likely to be assumed to be a real-life event, while in fact being an early step in a marketing campaign for shampoo.

I have no doubt that the Mormon Church and other ideologically based institutions have already begun to use tools of this kind. We should be on the lookout for them.

Edelman, the Mormon Church's public relations guru, is clearly tuned into this kind of thing as indicated above. I doubt he will have any moral compunction with regard to using this kind of thing to further Mormonism's interests.

So, in this communications rich age, Mormonism does have a God, and He does provide Mormon prophets with direct inspiration. But his name is not Elohim, it is Edelman.

These thoughts are rambling, incomplete and can no doubt be critiqued from a number of different points of view. If anyone cares to do that, I will come back later and respond.

Now, I'm off to read some of the best literature known to humankind -- the Canadian Income Tax Act.
topic image
A Proposed Talk For Sacrament Meeting (or Wherever) - Quote Not To Use "Mormons Are Like Redwood Seedlings Being Pruned Into One Foot Tall Bonsai"
Tuesday, Apr 17, 2007, at 08:05 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I have been intensely busy at work for the last little while, and accordingly not either posted or read much here for several weeks. However, I had the opportunity to read a few threads this morning, and wrote my first extended post in weeks on the "a lost Elder" thread. As I was finishing it, an interesting thought occurred to me for which I thought it was worth creating another thread. So here that is.

I know that people read this board still attend Mormon meetings, teach Sunday school lessons, etc. And, I have from time to time collaborated with friends of this kind, some of whom hold significant Mormon leadership positions, as they prepare talks to be presented at ward conferences, stake conferences, and in more mundane Mormon settings. Don't let it out that rank apostates sometimes help with the church talks that make everyone feel "the spirit". That will our little secret.

I used to write talks like this fairly regularly because I thought it was so ironic that I had the chance to do so, and I was always tickled by the positive responses, and to my knowledge, the response was invariably positive. However, eventually this came to feel like how CS Lewis described the experience of writing "The Screwtape Letters". Lewis said that one of reasons for which he stopped writing the newspaper series that eventually became that book, was that it cost him too much to twist his mind into Satan's persona. That is, he did not like being in that psychological space, and he did not like the kinds of things that he began to perceive emerging in his behavior, which he attributed to spending too time thinking like a senior devil (Screwtape) mentoring a junior tempter who had been tasked with bringing a particular human being over to the dark side.

Likewise, the further away I find myself from the Mormon mindset and community, the less inclination I have to put myself into the excruciatingly narrow mental framework that is required in order to write what would be a well-received Mormon sacrament meeting talk, for example, while spicing it with concepts that have within them the seeds of greater things.

In any event, as I concluded dictating what I posted on the other thread, it occurred to me that most of it would fit in nicely in a presentation at any Mormon leadership meeting, or other meeting, of which I could think. However, in that setting the wonderful concepts I had just outlined would be applied quite differently than I had intended.

There wonderful irony in this. What I was attempting to explain is the way in which human beings have an immense potential for growth and evolution. Mormons are relegated to a tiny portion of that potential development space by virtue of their belief system. Their use of the ideas that so excite me (and would likely excite many of them) would amount to turning redwood seedlings into one foot tall bonsais. "Wow! Just think what kind of stay at home Mom I could be?!" thinks a young woman who is bright and energetic enough to pick up either a Pulitzer or a Nobel, and maybe both. And by that I do not denigrate stay at home Moms. The same woman, with maximum degrees of freedom, might choose the role of stay at home mom, and I would applaud that. What still makes me weep is the perception of that one foot space as the only space within which a human being must grow. If there is a god, she has surely reserved an especially uncomfortable place in hell (watching endless mormon infomercials?) for those who sell this idea.

In any event, I hereby license anyone who wants to use the ideas below in Mormon meetings to do so. But, you will have to put your own "Mormon wrap" on it. I no longer have the energy for that task.

And I encourage you to encourage those who listen to you, to walk to the edges of their tiny world and see what they can discern through the the miasma that has been purposefully constructed at that border by their Mormon leaders, and the hand-puppet apologists who serve them. (see http://www.mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs....).

*****

Excellent comments.

I am a big fan of Kohlberg's theory regarding moral development. James Fowler's "Stages of Faith" analysis is useful too (he attributes his ideas to Kohlberg in some ways), as well as Elizabeth Kubler-Ross' "stages of grief" analysis when it comes to both leaving Mormonism, and the psychological landscape we must navigate once on the outside.

I also agree that the best way to understand our experience is to think in terms of these concepts on a multi-dimensional basis. We are complex systems, and we interface in countless ways with other larger and far more complex systems. These include our intimate relationships; our family relationships; our relationships in the various communities of which we are part; our relationships in the workplace; etc. not to mention our connection to the ecosystem and the rest of reality.

For example, there are infinite possibilities for permutations and combinations of traits between our attributes and those of our single most intimate partner. Multiply that infinity as many times as you wish to understand the nature of the complex space in which we function.

Accordingly, for some purposes our personalities are overdeveloped in some ways, underdeveloped and others. And, different people at different life stages have different capacities for continuing growth and development.

One of the most important conclusions coming out of the recent work related to personal productivity and satisfaction with life, both in the workplace and elsewhere, is that we are usually better off focusing on expanding our capacity in those areas where we have demonstrated both special strength, and interest. Evolution seems to have designed us to be interested, not coincidently, in those areas where we have strengths that are deemed useful in our place and time. See Martin Seligman "Authentic Happiness" for some of this (www.authentichappiness.com).

Conversely, it seems to be counterproductive in a variety of ways to spend very much energy trying to change basic character attributes that might be characterized as weaknesses. Rather, we are usually best off finding ways to protect ourselves from these (if you are disorganized, hire a good admin assistant; if you are Bill Clintonesque and want to stay in a single, intimate relationship ... I don't know what you do ...)And of course, these traits are to a large degree a function of social and other circumstance.

In some societies, for example, certain traits are considered to be strengths, whereas in others the same traits are liabilities. In many cases, these considerations are rooted in what at least once where survival imperatives.

For example, I have a very quick metabolism. At almost age 50, I can still eat more than I probably should and get away with it without exercising as much as I should, while still seeming to remain relatively fit. In our environment of abundance, my biology in this regard is advantageous in many ways. However, were I living during a time of famine, my need to consume relatively large amounts of calories in relation to the energy I put out would probably make me a social and survival liability relative to my group, and likely drive me into starvation much sooner than people whose bodies make more efficient use of the calories they take in.

In any event, in my opinion one of the most important concepts to bear in mind is that the complexity I described above is not a cause for lamentation. Rather, it demonstrates a fundamental fecundity in the reality of which we are part that is so exciting that sometimes it makes me feel like I want to get up and dance around my desk (or wherever).

We have so much potential for continued growth or personal evolution when combined with those whom we love the most, not to mention the rest of this incredible reality from which we have emerged. That is one of science's basic lessons for us -- that brand-new stuff continually emerges as a result of some kind of yet not understood creative force that operates within all aspects of reality (from the smallest -- quantum physics -- up to the largest -- cosmology --, and at every known level in between). We are one manifestation of that creative push. And from within us, and each of our social relationships, the same creative push wells up and from time to time produces new, cool stuff.

Think of it. Put any two living things together in a relationship, and a brand-new creative push comes into being. Remove one living thing from a complex relationship, this changes the relationship and so a brand new creative push comes into being. If energy is directed toward that, we can expect brand-new stuff to simply pop into existence. To the extent that we have the ability to control the nature of the energy directed into the relationship, the nature of the conditions that influence the relationship, etc., we have some ability to control the kind of "new stuff" that pops out.

Life is way better than Christmas every day, when you think about it in these terms.

Not all of the new stuff that pops out will please us, but much of it will end, we are capable of training ourselves to focus for the most part on what pleases us, is useful to us, etc. We can, in this limited sense, construct our own reality. Jon Haidt's chapter with regard to Buddhism (see "the happiest hypothesis") was very helpful to me in that regard. He differentiates in a clear and easy to understand fashion between reality as it is (including the real nature of our social relationships) and the web of values, memories, imperfect perceptions, and other lenses through which we must interpret that reality.

The better we understand the way in which our minds work in this regard, the more likely it is that we will be able to both deal with reality as it is a functional way, as well as constructing for ourselves lenses that will enable us to shape and enjoy this wonderful ride.

As is the case with most aspects of life, some of us have greater natural talent to bring to this task than others. However, Haidt and scholars that work in his field (positive psychology and its social psychology branches) are developing an increasingly impressive suite of tools that are likely to improve each of our perception of life.

The bottom line in all of this, in my view, is that we participate in, and are an integral part of, an ongoing miracle.

In any event, the best we can hope for from theories of the type discussed above (Kohlberg, Fowler, Kubler Ross, Piaget, and countless others) is a basic idea with regard to how things fit together.

And, most importantly, exploring the potential for how our lives could be - literally choosing and then constructing our lives - is exciting, and endlessly fascinating.

I just got up and danced around my desk, and then tried to see if I could jump high enough to touch my head to the ceiling, as I used to be easily able to do as evidence of what used to be a 30+ inch vertical. Could not quite make it. Got to start working out again ...

Life is good.
topic image
Let Us Celebrate Our Heroes
Friday, May 4, 2007, at 10:54 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Let us celebrate our heroes, and empathize with the vast majority of our social groups (including, even, religious leaders) who have no realistic chance when pitted against their social forces. These thoughts were stimulated by my reading of a recent article posted at http://www.edge.org. I have mentioned, perhaps too many times, that this is one of my favorite places for intellectual stimulation.

The article (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/zimba...) is an interview with the famous Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo. His "prison experiment" was one of the first to expose the power of social context to shape individual behaviour. Within days, well-adjusted students who were randomly selected to be guards became abusive, and similar students who were randomly selected to become prisoners began to display classic prisoner type behavior. The behavior was so extreme that it had to be terminated after six days, instead of running for the two weeks for which it had been planned.

In this interview, Zimbardo describes the experiment in the context of other studies he has undertaken with regard to heroism, and notes the unusual character of the few individuals who tend to swim against social currents. These he calls "heroes". To use his words,

"In her analysis, [Hanna] Ardent was saying that from everything we knew about his history, Eichmann [a German leader at Auschwitz] was essentially a normal person before he went into Auschwitz. And when he came out of Auschwitz he was again assessed as a normal person. So the interesting question is, what was the process of transformation from before to after his being embedded in that situation. As a social psychologist, I bring forth the power of situations to transform good people into evil, which is what I've been studying since my Stanford prison study way back in 1971. I argue that there are some features of special situations that can corrupt the best and brightest. Normal people, even good people. Not all, but most. And the ones who resist, the ones who somehow have the street-smarts - the situational sophistication - to resist are the exceptions. In fact, I'm going to call them heroes.

Arendt's analysis is really a forerunner of the situational analysis, although she doesn't express it as such. There is no question that what Eichmann did was evil, but there's also no question that when he was outside that situation, he was normal. The issue then is, what is it about the particulars of that situation that was able to transform this person."

Zimbardo has spent a lifetime probing this question: Why do a few resist social forces while most can be persuaded to engage in even "obviously" immoral acts once certain kinds of social dynamics push in that direction?

However, before we brand all who resist Mormonism's influence heroes (and start to celebrate our own heroism) we should recall that many who swim against social currents are misguided, disillusioned, nut cases, etc. The difference between a hero and a nut job is often largely a matter of perspective. However, with the benefit of significant historical perspective, it is possible to identify special individuals.

For example, Zimbardo's studies on heroism involved interviewing people of many cultures who assisted Jews to avoid extermination during the Holocaust. And, his studies with regard to the powerful effects of social context have helped us to understand how many of the Auschwitz guards were normal, upstanding citizens, good parents, charitable individuals, both before Auschwitz, and after Auschwitz. There was something about being in the environment created around Auschwitz that radically changed their character, and enabled them to participate in some of the most atrocious acts that have ever been chronicled. His prison experiment elegantly disclosed how easy it is for powerful circumstances of this sort to be created, and how rapidly they take effect. For more of the same sort of thing, see Stanley Milgram's famous "shock" experiments related to the power of authority (or perceived authority) to shape behavior.

We should also remember that our heroes for the most part do not feel that they "chose" their course of action. They simply acted out of the role genetics and circumstances have molded them to play as the agents of change at the fringe of society. Many people who read and post here are heroes in small ways, and some in very large ways.

Among the many bits of useful advice Zimbardo (and other social psychologists) have for us in light of their research findings is contained in the following paragraph:

"My research really says several things. One, that we have to recognize that some situations, some social settings, some behavioral contexts, have an unrecognized power to transform the human character of most of us. Two, that the way to resist - the way to prevent a descent into Hell, if you will - is precisely by understanding what it is about those situations that gives them transformative power. It is by this understanding that you can change those situations, avoid those situations, challenge those situations. And it's only by willfully ignoring them, by assuming individual nobility, individual rationality, or individual morality that we become most vulnerable to their insidious power to make good people do bad things. Those who sustain an illusion of invulnerability are the easiest touch for the con man, the cult recruiter, or the social psychologist ready to demonstrate who easy it is to twist such arrogance into submission."

Therein lies much of my rationale for taking radical, decisive action to remove my children from Mormonism's influence. And, for those who would change the Mormon community, this points the way forward. That is, just as context shapes individual human behavior, the context within which social organisms like Mormonism is set will shape their behavior. Accordingly, the big issues with regard to Mormonism are things like how information flows between the Mormon community and the rest of the world. Imagine, for example, the effect of high school educational requirements with respect to the sociology of religion and how religion works across a broad range of societies.

Similarly, think about the possibility of rules that would restrict the representations religious groups can make with regard to their history and other issues that are within the grasp of history and science. Or, what about rules that might affect the way in which religious organizations and other charities can use donations made for religious purposes to run huge businesses.

In any event, reading Zimbardo's interview made me think about a number of things. First of all, I thought of the recent article on Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2165033/entry...) containing excerpts from the recent book "God is Not Great". The slate piece provided a thumbnail sketch of Mormon history. While it was accurate for the most part (and I don't have time to set out the quibbles here), it irritatingly cheeky and deeply misleading because of its failure to place Mormonism within its social-psychological context. I have the same criticism for Richard Bushman's recent "Rough Stone Rolling". It is unreasonable to attempt to describe the history of Mormonism and understand the behavior of those within it, now or at any other time, unless the relevant social-psychological forces are sketched as background. I will further suggest that it is irresponsible to even undertake the description without that background context. I am critical of Hithchens in this regard, as I am of Bushman. The behavioral patterns of both the religious leaders and followers in contexts similar to that of Mormonism in all its stages have been studied extensively by social scientists. Failure to even mention this context indicates ignorance, at best. I did not watch the recent PBS series, but so far have seen nothing to indicate that it use social psychology as a lens the understand the Mormon experience. Perhaps someone who saw it could chime in on that point.

More importantly, Zimbardo reminded me of the massive debt I owe to a number of heroes within Mormon culture. These include people like William Law, who stood up to Joseph Smith. People like Fawn Brodie and Juanita Brooks, who swam against powerful tides when they publish their groundbreaking books with regard to Mormon history. My favorite hero -- and ironically still at least in some ways a faithful Mormon -- is Michael Quinn. His books were tipping points for me and members of my family. A single appendix (I can't remember which one -- it summarizes Mormon history in point form) to his "The Mormon Hierarchy -- Origins of Power" drove a spike through the heart of the ignorance that I used to call my Mormon testimony. Mike Quinn has laid more on the altar of faith as he has followed his convictions than anyone else I personally know.

I also pay tribute to Steve Benson. The first time I read one of his essays (it was called "Letting Go of God", I think), it chilled me to the bone. I was not ready for that kind of thick, rich, caustic soup. And, in that essay Steve displayed the acerbic wit that makes him the world class political cartoonist he is. Again, I was not ready for that when it came to beliefs I had not yet rooted out of my head. I know other members of Steve's family, and thought that while I might be on my way out of Mormonism (and I was just starting the journey at that point) and so resembled Steve in some ways, that I would never come to see the world the way he did. Several months later, after my journey was well underway, I ran across the interviews with Dallin Oaks (one of my former heroes), and Neil Maxwell that Steve and Maryanne transcribed. This abrupt pulling back of the Wizard's curtain confirmed for me in modern terms what Quinn had so beautifully established in historical terms -- that is, the Emperor had not onlybeen naked in the beginning, but had not found any clothes in the meantime. Naked, naked, naked. And so Steven and Maryanne became my heroes. I honor both of them for what they did.

The list is long, and I arbitrarily stop here.

So, thanks to Phillip Zimbardo, today I feel deeply grateful for my heroes. We each have our heroes.

And at the same time, I feel a deep empathy for the large percentage of the Mormon mass that cannot be realistically expected to change or even to see the possibility of change. Zimbardo and other social psychologists have nailed this down tight. We might wish that our loved ones will change and some of us might even still pray for it, but it is not going to happen except in a few cases, and if we wish to live our lives in peace, we must find ways to accommodate ourselves to this reality and not allow ourselves to be consumed by feelings of loss, anger and sadness in that regard.

Why was I one of the few to find new eyes? I have no idea. And so I simply try to accept this, and that most will not be like me. Maybe, in the end, I just a nutjob (and I know many people who bow their heads and say "yes" on that one.)

Both ends of the emotional spectrum are always with us. Joy and pain; exhilaration and despair; light and dark; ying and yang. However, the early stages of this journey for me were characterized by breathless peaks of joy, wonder and exhilaration, followed by equally radical moments of terror and despair - kind of like the ocean during a storm. As time passed, both the mountains and valleys began to level out, and as I have found new and more healthy places to invest my energy. A stable foundation to life, independant of man's authority, that I do not recall ever experiencing has made its presence felt. I believe this has to do with a simple acceptance of reality as I now perceive it, including our inability to know many things respecting it. This means accepting the pain, suffering and other unpleasantries that are part of life, as well as consciously putting myself in places where I expect to experience off, wonder and joy.

So, the new vines that I feel growing up around my soul are increasingly dominated by emotions such as acceptance, gratitude and a deep satisfaction that encompasses, and is more than, joy.

Life is good.
topic image
When Was The Book Of Mormon Written?
Thursday, May 17, 2007, at 06:54 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Steve Farmer (see http://www.safarmer.com/Farmer.Beijin...) is a former Harvard prof who uses a complexity based computer program to help date ancient documents. He has told me that he thinks he may be able to shed new light on when the B of M was written. I am aware of another similar complex pattern finding system that is right now being applied to assist in determining where the B of M came from, who likely wrote it, etc.

Does anyone else sense a noose tightening? Or maybe I am a hopeless optimist.

And we can thank Mitt for the fact that countless people who knew nothing about Mormonism until recently (including most Mormons) are now hearing lots about it. This news should soon include the kind of issue I am raising here.

As probable reality's noose tightens, I predict that concepts related to "mythic truth" being almost as good as literal truth (per Santayana and other post modernish thinkers (see http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~kerrlaw...) will begin to circulate more broadly within Mormonism. LDS Church historian Leonard Arrington used to quote Santayana as his authority for the proposition that whether something is mythically true or literally true is not important. This is part of what got him fired as the only real historian ever to hold the position of official LDS church historian. As a result, he and the entire "church history" (an oxymoron is there ever was one) department were moved to BYU where they could be more easily controlled and ignored, as it suited those at the top of the Mormon power pyramid.

Who was it who said something about the truth not needing our help because it cuts its own way?, and the silliness of a puny human arm attempting to hold back the mighty Mississippi River?

I guess some things take a while to sort out. 200 hundred or so years is not so long in the big scheme of things. Right?
topic image
Bill Bryson’s "A Short History of Nearly Everything" – On Perspective
Monday, Jul 2, 2007, at 08:01 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I am in a contemplative mood today. This likely has to do with the fact that work and family life have been frenetic for months, and while the pressure is still high, today it has backed off enough to allow breathing room. The weather reflects my outlook. As I look out my office window, rain is falling on what started out as a beautiful day in the foothills of Canada’s Rocky Mountains. A few minutes ago, lightning punctuated a moment, blasting the ground no more than two miles away. The skies are overflowing; black clouds running for cover as light begins to break through in the Southwest. After brief, wrenching chaos, it will be clear and sunny again.

The motivation for writing something this afternoon is twofold. First, last night one of my daughters pointed out that exactly one year ago, she had been doing something memorable. I was sure that it had been two years, such has been the living packed into the past 12 months. I have been telling myself for some time that the waters around my personal life have stabilized. But last night when I took account I had to acknowledge that I am still in flux. A daughter and grandson moving back in with us; my wife and three youngest children living in France for six months during what will likely be for all of us a watershed family experience; our eldest son becoming engaged to and marrying a wonderful non-LDS woman (the wedding was just under two weeks ago); changing law firms for the first time in 14 years; various other personal and family milestones as well as challenges.

While this degree of change is somewhat uneasy, it is welcome.

My second reason for writing is to record some thoughts provoked by Bill Bryson and his magnificent “A Short History of Nearly Everything” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Short_...) . A scientist for whom I have immense respect calls this arguably the best science book ever written for a popular audience. I have the picture-included version at home, but had not done the work necessary to appreciate it. As an afterthought, I tossed the book on CD into the car for a trip last weekend, and finished it while commuting to and from work this week. Information like this changes the world by disclosing it. Few experiences grip me as does this. A few hours with Bryson recalled my early days on the way out of Mormonism. Hence this note.

In amazingly few words, Bryson sets human life (on average, 650,000 hours for each of us, as he notes) in the context of the universe and earth’s histories, and the evolution of life. His pulls this off with humour, and so as to engage people like my pleasantly inattentive 16 year old son, who enjoyed a couple of hours of the book while in the car with me.

Bryson’s account is exhilarating, humbling and terrifying in more or less equal parts, at times consecutively and at other times simultaneously. It was not so much that I learned new things (which I did in spades), but that Bryson organized and held together so much of what I now realize I barely knew in a way that I could see parts in relation to wholes. To suddenly perceive a whole is often a radically different experience than any amount of looking at the parts. The bigger the whole, the more likely this is to be a dazzling experience. Think of a bin full of sheet metal, rivets and fans suddenly replaced by a jet in flight. That is what Bryson did for me with science.

I won’t try here to repeat Bryson’s trick, but will re-emphasize the feeling that overwhelmed me as I listed to this master teacher.

Life is a delicate miracle – far more miraculous than I had appreciated. The word “miracle” has been redefined for me relative to processes I thought I understood. The ordinary will never seem ordinary again, as least when I take the time to think.

At the risk of degrading the idea of miracles, we are each a miracle – every one of us, each bacterium, and everything in between.

Our species is at most a spark of inscrutable origin floating precariously within reality’s boundless, draughty expanse. Somehow, we have the unfathomable opportunity to protect and nurture that spark into what we cannot imagine, while at this point seeming far more likely to snuff ourselves out as a result of a staggering combination of collective ignorance and indifference.

Fascinating.

Stunning.

Terrifying.

Energizing.

Have you ever tried to build a fire outside on a wet, breezy day when you were freezing cold? Maybe you were winter camping with some Mormon Boy Scouts. Do you recall how you felt when a piece of almost dry moss you scraped from under a log started to catch? Can you feel the impulse to open your coat and completely surround the tiny flame to allow it to ignite, and then to lay in the snow and do whatever is necessary to breath life into it? This is how I felt at moments while listening to Bryson, except that my very existence danced in the balance.

Bryson’s book would not have hit me this way several years ago while my Mormon testimony still stood firm. God was, after all, in the wheelhouse. I didn’t know what was going on, but He did, and everything would be okay in the end. The scientists were groping their way through the first few steps of an infinite road that was entirely within God’s immaculately conceived and fastidiously groomed backyard. Science was an interesting sideshow, as was the entirety of our earthly existence. The main event would start when we re-entered the eternal realm on death.

This is like walking a tight rope with the unshakable belief that there is a huge, soft net three feet below. As long as you hold that belief, people who are really good at tightrope walking and offer to teach you will probably not attract your attention. In fact, you will probably believe that those who walk carelessly and fall off the rope to the applause of their similarly walking friends are cool. Once you understand that there is no net, things change. Learning how to stay on the rope becomes more interesting.

As I wrote that analogy, I was struck by the fact that I have often used similar ideas for different purposes. For example, while Mormon I perceived my life as a continual tight rope walk (sans net) toward the Celestial Kingdom, while the passage through this life was not worth worrying about for its own sake. Earth was a kind of hothouse where we sprouted before moving on to greater things.

The question, as it now appears, is not so much whether we have a tight rope to walk, but rather where it is. Add to that the realization that real tight ropes don’t come with nets.

The narrow Mormon path was fraught with danger. There were so many ways to disqualify myself for that glorious, eternal life after death. I was terrified that my children might fall off, and so attempted to control their behaviour in ways that will probably cause difficulty for me and some of them for the rest of our lives. The overwhelming importance of making it into the Celestial Kingdom caused such an intense focus on “the rules” that life’s present wonders escaped me. One of my unexpected responses to throwing away the Mormon rulebook was a sudden revelling in the present as it burst into my field of vision for the first time. I hasten to note that there are still many rules I regard as crucial, the golden rule chief among them. But we are talking kind and gentle compared to the heavy tome I used to carry with me.

These simple guidelines keep my eye on the future to an extent, but if my orientation used to be 90% future and 10% present, it is now more like 50-50 most of the time, and I try to spend part of each day 100% focused on just being. This is a wonderful change. As one of the meditation books I’ve read indicates, being in the present is an “off button for the ego”. It is an off button for many of the other ills that trouble our frenetic, Western psyche. Modern, mainstream Mormonism is a classic example of Western consumerist, pseudo-spirituality run amok.

In any event, the tight rope Bryson talks about radically differs from the Mormon balancing act toward the CK. Bryson’s is not an individual tight rope. Rather, it describes our species’ improbable trajectory from origin to here, and our long-term prospects. So long term, in fact, that our brains are not designed to deal with them. Getting out of those mental handcuffs is one of our greatest individual and collective challenges. Listening to Bryson is as good an antidote for this ill as any I know. I am making sure each of my children become familiar with this marvellous piece of work. I have to be careful about how I do this. If they know how badly I want them to read Bryson's book, they won’t as matter of principle.

Put another way, Bryson describes the pinhole through which the elephant somehow passed, and points out narrow passages which it must also eventually navigate. Our choice is not whether to go through the tight spots, but if we will sacrifice anything now in order to avoid suffering in future generations.

Imagine that you will have to complete a marathon two years from now. If you cannot finish the course, your only child will have to carry you. If she cannot, you will both die. You hate exercise. How much will you do to train for that marathon?

While this analogy is inadequate in many ways, it does get to the heart of the issue. In the not too distant future, humanity (including its most wealthy and profligate parts) will probably need to live in a fashion that is much less destructive than ours. The more we each consume, the heavier the burden that will eventually fall upon our children’s children.

When I imagine one of my daughters trying to drag my lazy lard-ass up a mountainside, I “get it”. I am about to buy a new car. This image will influence the kind of car I buy. I have been thinking for some time about moving nearer to where I work and my family engages in most of their activities. This image will influence that decision.

I want to do what little I can. I will do some things, but no doubt far less than I could and probably should. The better the images I construct to carry Bryson around with me, the more I will probably do. We are narrative animals. Bryson is a good story teller. But even his story is too hard for most of us to grasp, let alone remember. So I visualize myself having a hard time finding the will to exercise with clear knowledge that about my skinny little daughter will have to drag me through a mountain marathon with both our lives at stake … Yup, that works.

Perhaps here we find love’s defining test. To whom, or what, does our love extend? How far does it surpass our cultural tribe? To how many future generations? To what forms of life?

As Bryson stunningly illustrates, all life comes from a single font. It is “one” is the most literal sense. This is the most blindingly true, stunning statement science has produced. It runs far deeper than the usual chit-chat about the interconnectedness of life. We have far more in common with bacteria and all other life forms than that. However, the degree of our interdependency is enough. We will kill our offspring, if not ourselves, if we continue to neglect reality.

One way to deal with the issues Bryson raises is to throw up our hands in acknowledgment of the fact that no single one of us, or even a large group of us, can conceivably have any affect on such gargantuan processes. A fly might as well attempt to rebuild the World Trade Center or bring peace to the Middle East. However, I can imagine our ancestors less than 100 years ago being justified in a similar belief with regard to man’s first footprints on the moon, or many kinds of communication in which we now engage thoughtlessly and constantly. How does a cell phone work, by the way?

This, really, is my point. So much has been accomplished by people who caught a glimpse of what needed to be done, or they wished to do. They simply started; they did what they could. Bryson brought this point home as well. “Do what is right, let the consequence follows”, as the children’s song says. Pretty simple. Hugely powerful idea.

Nothing Bryson taught me has changed my basic orientation with regard to the future versus the present. However, it has changed the way in which I will choose to enjoy the present, and the aspects of the future to which I attend.

In an odd way, the experience I had this week with Bryson’s wonderful book is a microcosm of the decamping Mormonism experience. Both's flavour and thrust are provided by changing perspective. Culturally imposed mysteries are replaced by real mysteries. Imaginary tight ropes dissolve in some places, and imaginary nets in others. We direct our effort and attention toward things over which we have a real opportunity to exercise influence, instead of tilting with windmills. We have a much better chance of accepting what we cannot change because we can identify it, or at least some of it. We still, however, live by faith. That is what I am talking about – a better informed faith.

In this context, as we choose when to orietate ourselves toward the future and when the present, the entire experience seems more peaceful. This is consistent with what social psychologists like Daniel Gilbert (“Stumbling on Happiness”) tell us. That is, when we improve the sense of control people have over their environment, their sense of well-being dramatically improves along with their physical health. Having an idea with regard to what is controllable and what is not is a first, and very significant, step along that road.

Part of Bryson’s story is disturbing. His description of climatic catastrophes of various kinds that come and go for reasons we have yet to determine made me queasy. Then there are the catastrophes we do understand, and that visit earth regularly – comets, volcanoes (including the one bubbling beneath Yellowstone Park that is more or less due as I write), earthquakes, etc. These are terrifying, and inescapable. Regardless of what we do, any of these monsters could snuff us at any time. However, when we work out some quick probabilities with regard to any of these events happening during the next several thousand years, they are tiny. We take more risk traveling to work in a car each day. More the point, we can do nothing whatsoever about certain risks, and given what our species has done at the positive end of the scale during the last couple of centuries, it is foolish to place any limits on what we may achieve during the next few millennia. Let’s just chip away at it and allow our progeny to see what happens.

Human beings are psychologically well-equipped to deal with unavoidable risks. Unfortunately, this usually means pretending they don’t exist. We need to find a way to change that tendency, and have a recent history of being able to do so at least in some cases like CFCs and leaded gasoline.

We are much less able to deal with social rules that are constructed to control us by way of maintaining in a double bind. That is, unless we fit into the particular box that has been designated for us, no matter what we do, we are wrong and bad, and the organizations that control our lives are right and good. This is a killer. The opportunity to take that monkey off my back in exchange for facing the very occasional earth sterilizing comet, ice age or volcano feels like a fine deal – like I won some kind of lottery.

I have no idea what my life or the world will be like even 30 years from now. I hope I’m still alive and vigorous. As I approach my 50th birthday, I don't take that for granted. I’m at peace with whatever comes.

In the meantime, I will walk more lightly and spend more time simply enjoying what is before me as I pass along – smelling the flowers without cutting them.

The sun is now shining; the streets still slightly damp. High wispy clouds float instead of scuttling through darkness. Life is wonderful. A delicate miracle.
topic image
Stephen Colbert - New Ideas Produce "Confusion" That Make "The Mind Scab Over"
Friday, Oct 26, 2007, at 04:36 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
While I do not care for everything Stephen Colbert does, I have been chuckling aloud for a couple of days while listening to his CD "I am America, and so can you!" The man is such a beautiful walking parody of what is wrong with the right end of the American political and religious spectrum, that you have to love him.

I won't try to summarize the CD, or even provide highlights. There are far too many for that, at least from the point of view of those of us who have decamped Mormonism or other literalist religious groups. I will, however, mention one of his concepts.

In Colbert’s considered, expert opinion, there are many things wrong with America. One of those is higher education. If a little information is dangerous, a lot of information is disastrous, he tells us. Accordingly, how can going to university be a good idea? Adam and Eve were doing just great until they partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Fruit and books both come from trees, and so you don't have to be a biblical scholar to figure out that books are bad. The only book you should ever read (or listen to), is Colbert’s book.

As an aside, without ever talking about the way logic works -- starting with a few premises and then building upon them in an orderly fashion, in accordance with the rules of logic -- Colbert provides example after example with regard to how ridiculous conclusions can be produced by what sounds like logic. The example I just provided is one of many. That is, we start with the premise that the Bible is true, and then move from bad fruit, to the connection between fruits and books, to the conclusion that books are bad. This takes advantage of one of our consistent cognitive flaws -- when we agree with something we use a radically different mental process to check it out than when we disagree. Some scholars refer to this as "naďve realism" or, the "it makes sense -- stop" rule. If we agree with something, we give it a superficial spot check before reaffirming our belief. If we disagree with something, however, the standard we tend to use is that our existing belief must be proven wrong before it can be changed.Since most things are too ambiguous to be proven right or wrong, this anchors our existing beliefs in place. From an evolutionary point of view, being secure within a social group our most important intimate the relationships has been far more important throughout most of human history than holding accurate beliefs with regard to most of reality. It has therefore been much more adaptive to persist in holding the beliefs that dominate within our social group than it has been to accept any other belief, regardless of truth or falsity. This explains the cognitive flaw I just explained, as well as many others. But I digress.

One of the parts of Colbert’s "book" (he said he did not write anything, and therefore that it is not a "book", but rather he shouted into a dictaphone for a weekend, and then gave the tape to his agent and said "sell this”) that I thought was most interesting was his explanation with regard to why new ideas are bad. In a net shell, new ideas produce confusion. Confusion is a clear sign that your body is resisting a foreign intruder. Confusion is the feeling of your mind scabbing over to protect itself against bad stuff. When you feel confused, reject whatever is making you confused, is Colbert’s wise advice.

I am willing to bet that Stephen Colbert is unfamiliar with section 9 of the Doctrine and Covenants, and the wisdom contained therein – that truth is discerned through feelings of comfort and peace, and falsehood through feelings of darkness and confusion. And yet, he hit the nail squarely on the head. This is not surprising. The line of pseudo-reasoning he parodies so wonderfully has been used in countless cultures. DandC section 9 is just one of its many manifestations.

We need a post-Mormon Stephen Colbert. Humor is a far more effective tool that logic because it approaches serious topics through the emotional backdoor, and accordingly will make it much more likely for people to consider new ideas than any frontal approach. I have long said that in the battle for minds and hearts, intellectual rowboats have virtually no chance against emotional battleships. Colbert is a battleship.
topic image
Mother Teresa And Karen Armstrong - Two Different "Dark Nights Of The Soul"
Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007, at 08:58 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Life is good. One of the things that makes it good – or better – is taking time to record whatever we find satisfying. These are not necessarily highlights. They are, more simply, whatever resonates with us. So that is what I’m going to do this evening. I will reinforce the nice feelings I had today by writing what I am about to write. If this makes someone else feel good too that would be a bonus. My apologies in advance to MSMom. This is not going to be short.

As I write this, I am looking out a window in the Fairmont Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montréal, straight up Boulevard René Lévesque. I am here to speak at a conference, having flown in from Calgary this afternoon. On the plane, I got a lot of work done, had a nice meal with a glass of wine, and a nap. Great afternoon. As soon as I arrived at the hotel, I went down to the gym to get the blood circulating through my old body. I was tired from reading technical material most of the way out on the plane, and so did not bring any with me down to the gym. Rather, I picked through the hotel’s magazines for something to keep me company on the exercise bike, and was attracted to the September 3, 2007 issue of Time, as a result of Mother Teresa’s picture on the cover. As I rode, I learned about her 50 year long crisis of faith that has been recently made public by the Catholic Church as a result of the publication of her extensive private correspondence with various spiritual mentors (all male, btw) within the Catholic Church who attempted to assist her travail.

The book is called “Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light”. It is the rough equivalent of the Mormon Church publishing Spencer Kimball’s diaries and private letters (were there such) in which he indicated (if he did) that he had felt nothing that remotely resembled communication with God while serving as God’s prophet.

This brief article fascinated me for a variety of reasons. I kept thinking about it as I swam for about half an hour after getting off the exercise bike. And it stayed with me as I enjoyed about an hour of mildly endophine enhanced walking up and down Saint Catherines Street, Montréal’s social center, and while hanging out in a coffee shop to enjoy a late evening chai latte and the crowd's energy.

As an aside, Montréal is one of my favourite cities. Second only to Québec City, it is the most European place in North America. Tonight is Halloween night. In Canada, that generally speaking means “cold”. But Saint Catherines Street was not-quite-crowded with people wearing light jackets on this Wednesday evening. Some of the sidewalk cafés still had their tables out. People watching is not quite the sport here as it is in Paris, but you can see that influence. I love the feeling of diversity and energy in this place. I love the old architecture. I know something about Québec’s history and unique culture, and the older I get the more interested in that kind of thing I become.

Until roughly the 1960s, this was the most Catholic, religious place in North America. Then came a societal rupture caused by radically increasing flows of cultural information into this backwater. Sound familiar? Now, the birth rate in Québec is the lowest in North America, and it is one of the most secular of places. That is what sometimes happens when a weird social eddy gets too far out of touch with the mainstream perception of reality. Are you listening Gordo?

Many of the people from Québec I have met who are one generation older than me went through experiences with Catholicism that are remarkably similar to the one that I went through with Mormonism. This, perhaps, is what makes me feel a kinship with this place and its people. In it, I see my future's shadow as well as my childrens'.

Back to Mother Teresa. She was, of course, Catholic. Montréal still bears Catholic markings on almost every corner. Montréal, however, has reinvented itself. It followed the example of Paris and countless other European cities in that regard. Mother Teresa, on the other hand, was faithful to the end - sort of. That is what her recently published letters are about.

The Times article is titled “Her Agony”. It starts by contrasting two statements she made a few weeks apart in 1979. The first typified her public persona, and was part of the speech she made upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. She said: “It is not enough for us to say, 'I love God, but I do not love my neighbour,' because in dying on the cross, God “[made] himself the hungry one – the naked one – the homeless one.” Jesus hunger, she said, is what “you and I must find” and alleviate. She condemned abortion and bemoaned youth drug addiction in the West. Finally, she suggested that the upcoming Christmas holiday should remind the world that “radiating joy is real” because Christ is everywhere – “Christ in our hearts, Christ in the poor we meet, Christ in the smile we give and the smile we receive.”

This is contrasted with something Mother Teresa wrote three months earlier in a letter to one of her spiritual advisors within the Roman Catholic hierarchy. In that letter she wrote “Jesus has a very special love for you [referring to her advisor] but as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great ... I look and do not see, -- listen and do not hear – the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak… I want you to pray for me ….”

The letters published in this book excerpt a roughly 50 year long stream of angst of the type indicated above. Surely this was punctuated with contentments of various kinds. But if we are to believe Mother Teresa's most private, personal correspondence, she was in a spiritual wasteland. One at least one occasion, her letters record concern that she would become a “Judas” – doubt as to whether she had the strength to continue doing her work without and maintaining Christian faith in the absence of any subjective evidence of Christ’s satisfaction with her, awareness of her or even of his existence.

Ironically, this feeling of darkness started in Mother Teresa's life shortly after she began to experience success in her ministry to the poorest of the poor in India.

During her rise to prominence within the Catholic Church and in secular circles, Mother Teresa kept her struggles for the most part to herself. However, she developed relationships with a series of mentors within the Catholic hierarchy each of whom attempted in different ways to be of assistance to her. Only one, it appears, was of great assistance. She thanked him profusely for his advice, which was as follows: (1) There was no human remedy for her feelings of separation from God and that therefore she should not feel responsible for this; (2) that feelings of intimacy or connection to Jesus are not the only proof of his being; and (3) that her very craving for God was a “sure sign” of his “hidden presence” in her life and that this absence was in a mysterious way part of the spiritual side of the work that she was doing for Jesus. She came to interpret her sense of separation from Jesus as a taste of what she believed that he experienced when while on the cross he said “my God, my God, why have you forsakenme?”

Mother Teresa attempted to have the letters that have now been published destroyed, but was overruled in that regard by the Catholic Church. The compiler of the book is a prominent Catholic priest, who is one of those who has been agitating for mother Teresa’s elevation to Sainthood. He and many others believe that the tenacious fashion in which Mother Teresa continued with her ministry in the absence of the kind of spiritual connection most people assumed she had to God or Jesus is one of the things that makes her remarkable, and that the lesson contained in her letters may become Mother Teresa’s most enduring legacy. These letters, they say, rank with the most profoundly moving to ever have been written by Catholic saints, and because they relate to a person whose life has been so well-known and documented, will have an even more profound impact. The lesson, for the Catholic (and other) faithful, is that even the Saints doubt, and yet they are faithful. In this, Mother Teresa epitomizes modern sainthood, and hence believerhood. In a doubt drenched world from which she was not immune, nothing could overcome her faith though she struggled with this issue throughout the most productive part of her life.

Time magazine canvassed various views with regard to why Mother Theresa experienced what she did, and why she reacted to that experience as she did. Christopher Hitchens, for example, indicated that Mother Teresa probably “woke up” but could not admit it. He compared her to the diehard Western Communists late in the Cold War who suffered huge amounts of cognitive dissonance as they watch the Soviet Union and other communist countries collapse. To admit that communism was a failed theory would have rendered their lives meaningless. Rather than do this, they found reasons to soldier on.

Richard Gottlieb, a teacher at the New York Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, who has written extensively about Catholicism, thought that perhaps Mother Teresa had imposed this punishment on herself. “Psychologists have long recognized that people of certain personality types are conflicted about their high achievement and find ways to punish themselves.” Gottlieb notes that Theresa’s ambitions for her ministry were tremendous. He is fascinated by her statement, “I want to love Jesus as he has never been loved before.” Yet her letters of full of inner conflict about her accomplishments.

These explanations are, of course, rejected by religiously oriented people. For them, God, Christ and the various metaphysical propositions related to them are real and beyond questioning, and therefore all of reality testifies to their truth. This includes Mother Teresa’s remarkable and painful life. As one commentator puts it: “Everything she’s experienced is what average believers experience in their spiritual lives writ large. I have known scores of people who felt abandoned by God and had doubts about God’s existence. And this book expresses that in such a stunning way that shows her full of complete trust at the same time. Who would’ve thought that the person who is considered the most faithful woman in the world struggle like that with her faith? And who would’ve thought that the one thought to be the most ardent believers could be a saint to the sceptics?”

The Time article concludes with the following passage.

“Consistent with her ongoing fight against pride, Teresa’s rationale for suppressing her personal correspondence was “I want the work to remain only His.” If the letters became public, she explained, “people will think more of me – less of Jesus.” The particularly holy are no less prone than the rest of us to misjudge the workings of history – or, if you will, of God’s providence. Teresa considered the perceived absence of God in her life as for most shameful secret but eventually learned that it could be seen as a gift abetting her calling. If her worries about publicizing it also turn out to be misplaced – if a book of hasty, troubled notes turns out to ease the spiritual road of thousands of fellow believers, there would be no shame in having been wrong – but happily, even wonderfully wrong – twice.”

As I rode the bike, swam and then walked the streets of Montréal feeling the wonderful energy of this community, the passages I have just quoted and many others rolled around in my head. I think that in Mother Teresa and the way in which this book is now being published, we can gain some fascinating insights into the differences between various types of religious institutions, and worldviews. The following is little more than a stream of consciousness in that regard. I do not have time tonight for more than that, and I’m going to post these notes as they are since I do not expect that I will have time to reread or improve them any time soon.

The Catholic Church is a much older, and more mature religious institution that is Mormonism. It is accustomed to dealing with the difficulties of its history. It has learned the lesson to a much greater extent than Mormonism that it is best to deal with reality in an upfront manner, while of course putting the best possible interpretation on it. The only thing remotely resembling Mother Teresa’s book that we’ve seen come out of Mormonism is Richard Bushman’s “Rough Stone Rolling”. It deals with more of the reality of Joseph Smith than any other Mormon church sanctioned publication before it, and it is apologetic in much the same fashion as is at least the commentary emanating from Catholic apologists with regard to Mother Teresa’s letters. If the Mormon Church continues to mature, we can expect over the course of at least decades but more probably centuries, its behaviour to gravitate toward what is currently demonstrated by the Catholic Church with respect to Mother Teresa. Again, just imagine the Mormon Church publishing all of Joseph Smith’s secret correspondence and journals let alone the mountains of other documents they have with respect to various aspects of Mormon history. This would take a confidence in both itself and its membership that is still not comprehensible within the context of the Mormon institution as it is now.

As I indicated above, for a person who is certain that a god of a particular type exists and that the metaphysical details of life after death, etc., are known as a result of dogmatic religious faith, everything that happens can be interpreted in a manner consistent with those beliefs. Perceived miracles are evidence of God’s blessing. Life’s trials are evidence of God’s admonitions and his attempts to purify us and prepare us for celestial glory. But in Mother Teresa story, this kind of logic is taken to a new pinnacle. That is, the profound and persistent feeling that God is not present is taken as evidence for god’s existence, and even worse, of a kind of twisted love that he has for a particularly faithful believer. Finally, the very craving the institution has installed in us for a connection to god is evidence of god, though that craving goes unsated. The same could of course be said of any crazy idea, such as those installed in the head of Truman in "The Truman Show" through a different kind of socialconditioning.

This point is worth a bit more thought. What if we applied Mother Teresa's faith to the structure of the solar system or the age of the earth? Neither evidence for nor evidence against should be allowed to change our beliefs. What our tradition says is, is. That is that. Accordingly, Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler were all wrong. Modern geology is well intended, but incorrect.

A more rational approach, of course, is to go with the evidence and to attempt to interpret the evidence in the most reliable fashion possible. This leads us to not take seriously our subjective impressions. Those can be manipulated by circumstance and hence by the people who control our circumstances, far too easily to be reliable. These subjective impressions are the bedrock of countless conflicting religious beliefs. Why should we trust our own impressions of this kind anymore than we are prepared to trust the similar impressions other people have that lead them to beliefs that are inconsistent with our own?

And, what does the persistent unsuccessful seeking for evidence of something generally indicate? What if that were evidence that the Noah's Ark existed, or that the earth is indeed about 6,000 years old? Eventually, the rational person adds up the abundant evidence that suggests something different that what we believed, and the absence of evidence in favor, and allows belief to change.

To be fair, I should not talk in terms of rational and irrational people. The evidence is crystal clear in this regard. We have a limited ability to overcome the beliefs we inherit and with regard to which we are sufficiently conditioned within our dominant social group. Some scholars refer to this as "bounded rationality". If our perspective is limited, then certain conclusions that from a broader perspective might be considered ridiculous are, in our limited case, rational. And once we have held particular beliefs for long enough, and those beliefs are practically speaking important enough to the way in which we live our lives and get along every day within a particular kind of social group, they are extremely difficult to change. Our brains have literally wired around them, like the way in which kitten raised in a world without veritical lines cannot see things like table legs.

In the case of the nature of God and his/her/its relationship to man, people like Gordon Kaufman at Harvard, Philip Clayton and Claremont University and the late Arthur Peacocke have developed theologies that are much more consistent with the evidence both found and not found than traditional belief systems. For example, Kaufman's position is that God is whatever we eventually come to understand is the creative force that underlies all nature. He accepts that this conception of God probably means that God is utterly unaware of us and accordingly did not create the universe, or this earth, with us in mind. This belief system is much closer to deism than theism, and is completely consistent with science. It is a kind of naturalized belief, which most believers indicate guts their personal belief system. It is increasingly, however, the resort of the professional clergy and many of the most thoughtful people who attend religious services of various kinds on a regular basis. I expect that it will become the bridge of choice for many young people who are raised within religious communities, while at the same time being exposed to the full range of secular, rational information about the way the world works and in particular, the way religious communities work. This will allow them to reduce the cognitive dissonance that would otherwise exist between their religious and secular worldviews.

As indicated by the spiritual confidant whom Mother Teresa credited with bringing balance back into her spiritual life, “Feeling Jesus is not the only proof of his being”. So, it is possible to have one’s cake and eat it too. If you feel Christ’s presence, that is great evidence of his existence and love for you. If you don’t feel his presence, that is evidence of his existence too and that you are so special that you have to be tested in a particularly severe way. Hmmmm.

This idea seems to me to be derivative from the self abusive tendency within Catholicism and certain other religious traditions. This tendency within Christianity comes from the abominably crude and backward idea that we need the sacrifice of other living things for our own metaphysical redemption. If God would, in effect, torture his most beloved son to death in order to do something good, then our own self torture and other kinds of self abnegation are in some bizarre way virtuous. Joseph Campbell and others have indicated that these ideas probably have their roots in humankind's early recognition that life depends on death. Sacrificial rites were probably part of a complex suite of psychological coping mechanisms that enabled our ancestors to find a uneasy truce with their need to kill other things, and ultimately to face death themselves. That is where Christ's sacrifice comes in. Thankfully, our dawning consciousness allows us to simply reject these antiquated, dysfunctional notions. Death may be a necessity, but it is death. Life is sacred in the sense that all living things are connected, and to kill another thing is in a sense to take something from ourselves. I heard on the radio a few days ago about the massive jellyfish blooms that are now dominating vast tracts of our oceans. Wherever sufficient overfishing or other ecological damage occurs to weaken the ocean food chain to a particular point, jellyfish become the only creatures that are able to survive and multiply. And then they take over, making it all but impossible for the formerly dominant ecosystem to reestablish itself. We do indeed need to become more sensitive to the sacred nature of life, and everything that supports it. Our disconnectedness from the death that is required to sustain us makes it easy to eat fish, for example, without awareness of what their overharvesting has done to our oceans. Likewise, when we cut into a nice steak we do not feel the trauma of branding and castrating calves, let alone the horror of the feedlot and slaughterhouse. Slowing down and returning to something that connects us to the reality of what it is to be alive remedies this to an extent. Each year, largely for that reason, I return to my roots and spend a day wrestling with calves as they are branded, dehorned (the worst part, for them) and castrated. I take as many of my children with me as I can. I want them to understand as much as they can about this process. At a minimum, it changes their relationship to what they eat. But I digress.

Most people build their religious faith on subjective experiences. I have written elsewhere about “emotional epistemology” (google my name and “denial”) – that is, the practice of knowing that something is real as a result of the feelings that one has. Religious institutions play this game to a tee by setting us up to experience strong feelings in a context where the institution can take credit for those. Marriages; baby blessings; healings; mission farewells and welcome homes; etc. Strong feelings are almost guaranteed to be present, and the institution is right there to take the credit. And, it gets better.

For example, imagine a teenage girl who is just had a terrible fight with her mother about something like how short her dresses are. She then goes off to a Mormon youth conference, and while there under the influence of talented, cool college kids who run these programs, is put into a position where she appreciates all the things that her mother and family have done for her, and has a profoundly moving emotional experience that culminates in her bearing her testimony (after a bunch of other kids have done same) mostly about how she feels with regard to her family, but also with regard how she feels with regard to Mormonism since those two things are inextricably linked in the minds of young Mormons. As a result of this experience, she has one of those rare epiphanies probablyh caused by her sympathetic and parasympathetic systems (that is, the systems that relate to the fight or flight response on the one hand, and the quiescent system on the other – I can never remember which is which) are both high functioning at the same time. This is a rare and wonderful experience. One of the other times at which human beings experience this miracle is during lovemaking. It is arguably the most profoundly moving mental and emotional state we can experience. So if a person stumbles into that as a result of something that happens in a religious setting, it is not surprising that they will associate that profoundly moving state with the religious institution that has created the experience. One of the ways this can be done is by combining a sense of agitation or grief or fear (think – horrible fight with Mom) with a sense of relief (think – I just realized that I love my Mom and we can get along). Why do you think sermons that are movingly presented with regard to the terror of sin, hell, etc. and the wonder of grace through Christ’s redemption are so effective? Or how about grieving the loss of a loved and accepting the concept of salvation and life after death, which brings instant relief and as a result of what I just noted,an epiphany.

These are among the many ways in which powerful emotional experiences tend to be manufactured within the context created by religious institutions, with the result that people have subjective or emotional experiences on the basis of which they believe that they have had a direct experience with God or his influence. Experiences of this kind are, in general, the pillars of religious faith.

Back to Mother Teresa’s experience. After she overcame the intransigence of the Catholic institution and establish her missionary program in India, her life became flat. She did not have the kinds of emotional experiences I’ve just described. And now we have been provided with the explanation – that the absence of the type of emotional or subjective experience upon which most people wrest their religious faith does not justify a lack of faith. In fact, Mother Teresa’s sanctification sends a clear signal that the most pure kind of faith is the type that does not rely upon subjective, emotional experience. Raw, completely dogmatic faith in the absence of justifying evidence is, following the example of Mother Teresa, the most creditworthy faith of all. As I said before, here we see religion having its cake and eating it too. Note the conservative tendency - it does not matter what the evidence says, do not change what you beleive.

Hitchens indicated that Mother Teresa “woke up”. While I agree with some of the other things he said, I don't agree with this.

The human mind is far too sophisticated to allow a person to wake up if that will put them in a position that is untenable. This has to do with the distinction between the conscious and subconscious minds, or as Jon Haidt so wonderfully put it in “The Happiness Hypothesis”, the rider and the elephant. Larry Iannaconne explains how this works by using concepts drawn from economics. He talks about spiritual or social capital, and the influence that this capital has on our subconscious decision making processes. He notes, for example, that economists have illustrated how when making decisions we engage in a subconscious cost-benefit analysis, and then consciously justify the decision that has been reached in this regard. When considering the decision-making behaviour of people who are presented with information that might incline them to leave a religious tradition, Iannacconne illustrates how useful this concept is.

For example, the older a person is when confronted by this kind of information, the smaller the benefits to be realized by leaving the religious institution. It takes time to make new friends; it takes time to integrate into a new community; older people have less energy and less flexibility; etc. On the other hand, the costs that an older person would suffer upon leaving a religiously oriented community tend to be larger than those that a younger person would suffer. The longer a person is within a religious community, the more embedded they become in their friendships, social relationships, etc. Presuming that their reputation is good, the more important and useful that reputation becomes as time passes. In addition, many people perceive rightly or wrongly that they make more contributions to their community then they take out in withdrawals, and therefore that many people owe them favors. They know the songs; they know the rituals; they know the rules and procedures; they know the small “p” politics withinthe group; they know the group’s history; they have the respect of other group members; they know how to use the group to do all kinds of things that are useful to them; etc. The longer a person is within the group of this kind, the more significant these assets become.

For a person like Mother Teresa, who was not only a member of a religious group but was a leader of the group, the situation is compounded. She is subject to the “saying is believing” bias referenced in the “denial” essay I mentioned above, as well as the confirmation and other biases. These are exacerbated as a result of her position as a leader within the group.

In short, Mother Teresa did not wake up. Rather, while she was focused on the goal of creating her missionary movement, that goal justified her existence and kept her focussed on something other than the absence of communication with god. In fact, the enlivening influence that the pursuit of this goad had on her made her feel in some cases like she had received communication from god. The more successful she became, the less challenging and engaging she found her task. She habituated to her success and to the horrifying nature of much of what she confronted on a daily basis as a result of for ministry, and life became flat. This is all consistent with the basic propositions of human social psychology.

It does not appear that Mother Teresa had a large “God Spot” in her brain. In this, she is in contrast with someone like Karen Armstrong about whom I will say more below. I also probably have a large God Spot in my brain. This part of the brain lights up during particular kinds of emotional or spiritual experiences. I have had more profoundly moving spiritual experiences than you can shake a stick at. Another way to put this is that I am easily excited or emotionally moved. I am the kind of person who cries during movies, becomes very excited about new pieces of art, or new books, etc. I’m willing to bet that Mother Teresa is not that kind of person. Accordingly, she did not have the kind of subjective, emotional experience on which most people build their religious faith. In the absence of those experiences, she still had to deal with the cost-benefit equation related to a renunciation of her faith. That would’ve been done at the subconscious level. She found a way to rationalize her experience with her beliefs, and so soldiered on.

The single most moving autobiography or memoir I have read is Karen Armstrong’s “The Spiral Staircase”. Armstrong is one of the world’s foremost religious historians. She was a Catholic nun for many years, and after a crisis of faith quite different from the one Mother Teresa suffered, Armstrong left the Nunnery. She was later diagnosed as having mild temporal lobe epilepsy, which means that she had a massive one spot in her brain. This probably accounted for the abundant, moving spiritual experiences she had from an early age, which led her to enter the convent. Her wonderful memoir tells the story of how this faith gradually came undone, how she entered a deep depression, eventually left the convent and rebuild her life on the outside. She has published many books, the most recent of which is called “The Great Transformation”, and is about how the Golden rule arose well prior to Christ simultaneously in the four major cultural centers around the world during what is called the axial age, between roughly 900and 200 B.C. Her book with regard to Buddha is a classic. Her book “A History of God” was one of the first that I read after my Mormon faith shattered. Her book “The Battle for God” is another one that I found profoundly helpful.

I won’t have the time to do this, but it would be very interesting to read the book containing Mother Teresa’s letters and Karen Armstrong’s “The Spiral Staircase”, back to back while wondering about the reasons for which their experiences and reactions to their experiences could be so different. Off the cuff, Armstrong had far more evidence of God’s presence in her life than Mother Teresa ever had. However, Armstrong’s personality was such that the discipline oriented and relatively sterile life of a nun did not work for her. It was killing her a bit at a time. Eventually she collapsed into depression and that led her to leave. Had she been in a different circumstance as a Nun, the combination of her profoundly spiritual nature with her now legendary academic gifts might have turned her into a Catholic saint of a different kind. She left the convent when she was relatively young, and therefore the cost-benefit equation with which her subconscious wrestled with have been radically different than the one withwhich Mother Teresa began to wrestle after she had achieved significant success within the Catholic hierarchy.

Now, to be fair to Mother Teresa, we should wonder what she might have done had she left her successful, but still nacsent ministry in India many years ago as a result of her perception that God no longer called her. Where would she have ended up? Her drive, ambition and toughness are legendary. Might she have taken on child proverty world-wide? Or maybe she would have stayed in India and helped to deal with birth control there, before launching that internationally. Or maybe ecology would have caught her attention. She might have had a much larger impact outside, then inside, her faith community.

This is the kind of thinking that won't be done inside the religiously faithful world re. Mother Teresa, just as few there are likely to wonder about the differences between Mother Teresa and Karen Armstrong. We each see what we need or wish to see in ambiguous data. And there are few kinds of data more abiguous that those related to religious belief.

In summary, I am encouraged that the fact that the Catholic Church would publish Mother Teresa’s letters. This is the kind of thing I expect to see as human culture with regard to religion continues to evolve. The fact of the matter is that doubt and healthy scepticism are increasingly important parts of the mental equipment with which most educated human beings are equipped. It makes sense not to deny this, since a large percentage of the people who are thoughtful with regard to their faith are going to reach that conclusion on their own. And remember what happened in Quebec in the 1960s. It was a conservative Catholic backwater, and it blew up. Are you listening Gordo?

Mother Teresa was legendary before her death, and will rapidly rise to the status of Saint within the Catholic Church. The fact that she achieved what she did within Catholicism while doubting as completely as a skeptic can doubt is remarkable, but understandable on the basis of the principles I have noted above. That does not prove the existence of God, however, any more than Fidel Castro proves that communism is the true political way. It simply provides more evidence of how powerfully the behaviour of those by whom we are surrounded influences our own. I expect institutions like the Catholic Church to use examples of this kind to their advantage. The reconciliation of doubt of the kind experienced by Mother Teresa and her continued fidelity to the Catholic dogma and way of life requires a Herculean effort that will become more commonly required if the Catholic Church is going to continue looking like it wants to look. I predict that other religious groups will follow the Catholic lead on this one, and offer this option to their faithful – it is OK to doubt as long as you are discrete about it, and as long as you still obey.

Mother Teresa was of course doing a lot of good. Some (including Christopher Hitchens) have questioned this, but even taking what has been attributed to her with a significant grain of salt, and then cutting it in half, what she accomplished his remarkable.

Life is full of ironies of this kind. Off to bed. Tomorrow will another fine day.
topic image
Are Post-Mormons Happier Than Mormons?
Saturday, Nov 10, 2007, at 12:53 PM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
The following is a note I sent to a friend this morning on this topic.

best, bob

As it happens, I have thought a lot about the way in which our degree of choice influences happiness, and why it seems that to an extent at least, the more choice we have, the more unhappy we are. I have not read the "Paradox of Choice" by Schwartz that you referenced, but several of the other books I have read recently deal with that topic. I cannot recommend "The Happiness Hypothesis" highly enough. It is the best single summary of the way in which our behavior, and the choices we make, relate to happiness as well as the extent to which happiness makes sense as a life objective.

For example, the topic you have raised is dealt with at pages 101 in 102 of that book. The author, Jon Haidt, refers to Schwartz's book on page 102. He distinguishes between maximizers and satisficers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing), which goes back to the philosophy of polymath Herbert Simon, though that is not mentioned in the book. Haidt does not explicitly indicate a solution to this "problem", but that can be inferred from other things he has to say, as well as from other reading I have done. See for example, http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.why%... starting on page 6.

Daniel Dennett also deals with this in "Freedom Evolves". The idea in a nutshell is that we are still maladapted to our own consciousness, and our freedom. The environment that creates our freedoms evolves. Our consciousness evolves in large measure in response to that environment. Therefore, our consciousness is well behind the environment. The tension Schwartz and others describes is part of what causes our consciousness to continue to evolve.

We should not expect to evolve into a state of comfort with our own consciousness, and the environment it still dimly perceives. A state of comfort in that regard would be inconsistent with our basic evolutionary nature. However, we can choose our own filters to help limit the choices we need to make and therefore make ourselves more comfortable. We each do this in different ways. While we were chatting at the conference, I described one of my daughters and her friends to you. The clubbing oriented social environment in which they feel comfortable is radically more complex than the environments in which you and I feel comfortable. They have developed choice limiting algorithms that we do not need. And, they did that at a young enough age that it happened automatically for them. I hasten to add, as I mentioned when we were chatting, that I do not think this environment is particularly healthy. I don't understand many of my daughters behaviors. I don't encourage them. However, I realized some time ago that oncemy children reach about the age of 15 or 16, my choice is either become their cheerleader and therefore remain there confidante, or to cut myself out of their lives. For obvious reasons, I have chosen the former.

In any event, for you or me to attempt to transition into the kind of complex environment with which my daughter and her friends are comfortable would be extraordinarily difficult. This is kind of like learning a language -- you have to start young in order for the brain to be plastic enough to learn how to do it really well. The older we are, the less our ability to become fully fluent in a language. Social fluency appears to be governed by similar principles.

However, you and I have developed efficient choice truncating algorithms of our own that relate to our environment. Everyone does this with regard to the decisions with which they need to regularly deal. As the environment becomes more complex, new algorithms develop to the extent the brain is capable of developing them. People who present data to us and try to get us to do things like buy products design some of these algorithms. We come up with others on our own. See "Goodbye, Lenin!" for an artistic take on this process in East Germany, just after the Berlin wall came down. This movie, in German with English subtitles, touched me so deeply a few years ago that I wrote an extensive review. You can find that by googling my name and the title.

For example, I had the opportunity to choose between a large number of law firms, across Canada and internationally, when I graduated from law school. This, of course, occurred long before I had any idea with regard to the kind of things we are now discussing. As I look back at the way I made that decision, it seems clear to me that I was unconsciously groping toward a manageable, satisficing choice. I had an interest in international affairs and business, and so my first selection criteria was that the firm needed to have a substantial international business law practice. In order to maximize the probability that I would continue to be a faithful Mormon, I had decided not to move to any of the large financial centers, and to stay somewhere near my family. This limited my choices to law firms in Calgary and Vancouver. The combination of these two selection criteria cut the number of firms to below 10. This created a manageable decision making process. Had I needed more decision-making criteria to get the number down to a manageable size, I believe that I would've invoked those additional criteria. If you think about your own life, and look at the way in which other people you know make decisions, I believe that you will see this pattern -- add selection criteria until the array of alternatives becomes manageable.

All of us to an extent rely upon upon social institutions and dogmatic beliefs to simplify life. While this is unavoidable to an extent, I think that most people would find life feeling better if they made more choices and become more conscious of those choices. That is, I think that we will be far better off encouraging people to make conscious decisions with regard to how they will satisfice than allowing dogmatic social institutions to dictate to them.

I do not believe that the changes in young adult behavior we were discussing have much to do with this point, however. You might find the literature at www.worldvaluessurvey.org interesting in that regard. See in particular the data related to the "post-materialist generation". The causal factors are difficult to discern. It is likely that they relate to a relief of necessity. This trend is, overall, healthy. Our earth does not need more production and consumption. This may be the ultimate driving factor. I hope that somewhere in our unconscious is the concept that we need to slow down -- reduce the energy in the cauldron. One way to read the axial age is consistent with this. See Karen Armstrong's wonderful book "the great transformation". I summarize my thoughts in this regard at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.star... starting at page 74. It is possible that meta factors of this type are slowing down the most advanced, wealthy part of humanity. Ihope this to be the case.

Another concept that has come into focus for me during the past couple of years relates to the desirability of happiness itself. You would probably find Darrin McMahon's book "Happiness -- A History" interesting in that regard. The idea, for example, that "men are that they might have joy" only came into existence a few centuries ago. That is one of the many things that brands the Book of Mormon as a 19th century, as opposed to a meridian of time, piece of literature. But I digress.

As a result of our continuing discomfort with our own recently evolved consciousness, living so as to maximize happiness is probably a bad idea. That would, in and of itself, disconnect us from reality.

You are probably aware that mild depression correlates strongly with accurate perception. It is difficult to discern the direction of the causal arrow in that regard, but the correlation is clear. This brings us to Socrates question as to whether it is better to be ignorantly happy, or somewhat more sorrowful but attached more securely to reality. He reasoned to the conclusion that the latter is a far more desirable state. Recent survey data indicates that most people agree with him. I would be in that group.

The research with regard to habituation, which Haidt nicely summarizes, indicates limits to the extent we are capable of experiencing happiness. For example, when people ask me if I am happier as a post-Mormon, on the rare occasion when I decide to give a real answer, I end up talking about habituation. The first few months after leaving Mormonism were like the first few months in a new intimate relationship. I was intoxicated with my new sense of freedom and choice; once every few weeks I spontaneously teared up as a result of a profound sense of joy; I was consumed with a desire to learn and consumed more exciting, productive information on a weekly basis than at any other time during my life. In fact, I consumed hundreds of times more information of this kind during this period on a weekly basis than at any other time during my life. Those months will without question stand out as among my most memorable. Then, I habituated to my new state. That is the way life goes. No matter how wonderful, or how bad, anexperience we tend to habituate to it. The research indicates, surprisingly, that we deal better with significant tragedy than minor, ongoing, irritation as a result of the way in which we habituate.

While habituating to my newfound sense of freedom and opportunity, I also had to deal with a sense of loss with regard to many family relationships and friendships, as well as a sense of insecurity as a result of being outside the embrace of by far the most important social group in my life, while realizing that I had been retarded in many ways as a result of the encompassing nature of that embrace. In this difficult state, I simply soldiered on. I quickly came to understand that what I was feeling had to do with breaking old, and bad, neural habits and allowing my brain the time and opportunity to develop new neural habits. The angst and pain I felt gradually subsided. My circle of interests gradually expanded. My circle of friends gradually expanded. My life gradually became more complex, and nuanced. My understanding of how life works radically improved during this period of time. My ability to predict how I will feel in certain circumstances, and how satisfied I will be with my decisions, radically improved. But am I much happier? Clearly not. Am I better off? I believe so.

True to the research Haidt and other people have summarized so well, I don't believe that right now my sense of happiness is any different than it was throughout most of my career as a Mormon. This has to do with what the research indicates is a set range for our happiness. For some people this is higher than for others. There does not appear to be much we can do beyond lives so that we will approach the upper end of our own set range.

Thankfully, there is much more to the good life than happiness. For example, I believe that right now there is much more symmetry between the various layers of my consciousness than was the case while I was Mormon. At page 142 - 144, Haidt summarizes some of Dan McAdams research, which I've found profoundly helpful in this regard. His field is narrative psychology. He talks about three levels of human personality. He calls them "basic traits", "characteristic adaptations", and "life story". Basic traits are due to a combination of genetics and early conditioning. In Haidt's terms, this is about the elephant. Characteristic adaptations, on the other hand, have more to do with basic values, goals and that kind of thing. This is part elephant, and largely due to the influence social institutions have on us. The life story or life narrative is all about the rider. This is our consciousness attempting to explain the way we live, and so reconciling tensions between our basic traits and characteristic adaptations, and often helping us to find ways to change our characteristic adaptations.

One of Haidt's points, drawn from McAdams research, is that the resolution of tension between these three levels of our personality brings a sense of authenticity, stability, etc. to our existence that does not register on the happiness spectrum. Happiness is an elephant trait. That is why it has a set range. That is why it is subject to habituation. Its mechanisms are mostly below the conscious waterline.

Most of McAdams work has to do with the way in which people rewrite their own narratives, recharacterize or change their characteristic adaptations, and explain their basic traits as they become more conscious of various aspects of themselves. Some of his most interesting work has to do with people like Orthodox Jews who become aware of their homosexuality, and as a result engage in a fascinating process of rewriting their script. Those who attempt to remain Orthodox Jews are the ones who end up with the most creative rewriting. Many analogies can be found within the Mormon community in that regard.

I have not done a good job of summarizing a massive literature. But I'm out of time for this morning and so will have to leave this where it stands.

The bottom line, from my perspective, is that while happiness will of course continue to be one of our objectives, it should not be the dominant objective. Being connected to reality is more important in some ways. Some people will have a greater ability to tolerate tension between our perception of reality and our need for happiness. These people will tend to be more conscious than their peers. Artists tend to be this way. I have some theories as to why that may be the case. See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.art%.... People who tend to perceive life more through the right side of the brain are also more accurate perceivers of reality. I do not know if there is a correlation between artistic ability and depression, but I suspect that this is the case.

The more I think in terms of McAdams three levels of human personality and encourage myself to learn more about my basic traits (if you want to get to know your elephant, see Harvard's https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit...), become more aware of my characteristic adaptations, and encourage myself to rewrite my life narrative, the more authentic and secure I feel. This is odd in some ways. The more I appreciate the uncertainty of life and the tenuousness of both my personal position within it and the ephemeral nature of humanity itself as a feature of life, the more secure I feel. Grasping even a difficult, harsh reality is comforting. Life is riddled with irony of this type.
topic image
Re-Read The Book Of Mormon, Etc. - A Response To A Mormon Leader
Thursday, Jan 10, 2008, at 07:16 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
This does not happen much anymore, but I still occasionally get a letter from an LDS leader asking in a polite way what happened to my testimony and why I don't do what he thinks might bring it back.

In this case, the questions and comments were as follows:

- My questioner understands that I have displaced Steve Benson as the guru of “anti-momons” and so he writes to me as an expert.

- How would an articulate anti-mormon respond to this: Read the Book of Mormon, including Third Nephi, and answer this question: "Could an evil man have written that? And would a righteous man write it and lie about it?"

- How is my quest for a debating adversary coming? My questioner understands that Dr. Peterson declined my invitation for a debate.

My response (lightly edited) is found below. If anyone can tighten up my argument or provide better illustrative examples, I would be happy to become better edcuated.

best, bob

Hello **,

I am not sure where you are getting your information about Steve Benson or me. I doubt he ever characterized himself (or would have been characterized by many others in the post-Mormon community) as anyone's guru. Same for me. I have never attracted more than a small amount of attention within one corner of this immense, and rapidly growing, community. It is too amorphous for guruship to take hold, and the central dynamic of the vast majority of the community is anti-authoritarian, as a result of its largely reactive nature to its member's inherited faith tradition. This explains in part the fact that Steve has been the frequent focus of attack and controversy within the part of the post-Mormon community with which I am familiar as a result of his sharp witted and tongued style. There is no equivalent to “Follow the Prophet” in post-Mormonism.

Since you are a thoughtful, well read person, I suspect that you are already familiar with the social science and neurology related to belief transition. From my perspective, the idea is basically this. Belief and behavior appeared to be completely the function of genetics and conditioning. This is reflected in the patterns formed by our neural networks. As long as our intended behavior and thought patterns are inconsistent with these neural networks, we will feel something like the force of gravity pulling us back toward where we were. Changing basic beliefs and behaviors requires the growth of new neural networks, and permitting the old ones (or least some of them) to fall into decline. This is a biological process that causes pain (not unlike the pain caused by the significant development of new muscle), some of which is described by the people who study cognitive dissonance. The growth process takes a significant amount of time and energy.

As I look back on the first several years after I decamped Mormonism, I now see the massive amount of reading, writing, analyzing, rewriting, reanalyzing, etc. that I did as an instinctive effort to rewire my brain. As the new neural patterns gradually stabilized, my impulse to continue with all of that declined. Accordingly, my interaction in the various online post-Mormon communities declined. By a little over a year ago, the time and energy I was spending in activities of that type were below 10% of what they had been at their peak, a period of time that lasted several years. I now seldom spend more than a couple of hours a week reading, writing and thinking about Mormon issues. This e-mail will absorb a substantial part of this week's unconscious allotment. I now go for weeks without doing anything of a material nature relative to Mormonism. Those who are concerned about me as some kind of serious foe (if those there be) are looking in the wrong place. Dozens like me have already sprung up and are frantically writing, posting, etc. as they re-wire their brains. Who knows where they are. Some are in Latin America and Africa, though. I know because they have been in touch with me. Steve Benson was one or two generations (these are short generations) before me. A cat (or whole bunch of cats) is out of the bag. I am glad I don't feel the need to try to keep track of this. If you want a military metaphor (since Packer seems to favour these), think Vietnam or Afghanistan. The dissent just keeps springing up from the grassroots in unexpected ways.

The time that I spent for most of my adult life on Mormonism, which was then shifted to recovering from Mormonism, is now discretionary. I use that reading about a wide variety of things, spending more time than ever at the gym, hiking, interacting with my kids, interacting with a wide range of scientists and intellectuals who live all over the world, drawing, painting, etc. Given the little I know of you, I suspect that the existence I now enjoy would appeal to you. It took a mighty effort to put myself in the position I am now in. I am deeply grateful that my life has evolved in the way it has.

The pattern I just described is typical of many, if not most, people who leave Mormonism and other literalist, authoritarian sects. During the initial stages of this process, people are emotionally battered, insecure, and accordingly may for a relatively short period of time pay serious attention to someone like Steve Benson, or me, but it is more likely that they will rely upon the Fawn Brodies, Mike Quinns, Jan Shipps, Todd Comptons, etc. of the world who are more or less permanent figures as a result of their publishing and academic standing. Small eddies of local popularity within the post-Mormon world develop on the same basis as some people become coveted book club members – they make useful, local contributions to understanding or are in other ways enjoyable conversation partners. It is no more complicated than that.

This period of insecurity does not, in any event, usually last long. The typical tenure of people at the recovery from Mormonism website, for example, is somewhere around one year. A few stay on for longer periods of time, primarily in mentor roles, but for the most part people move through a recovery process and then disappear into the cultural ether. I think this is a healthy process.

This brings us to the subject of Dr. Peterson. He did decline my offer of debate. I can't recall how long ago that was. Two years? Three years? I basically wanted to call his bluff, and that is what I did. He had been going on about how people like me (and me in particular) were afraid to visit the places on the Internet he tended to frequent at that time, and deal with him there. So I paid him a visit. I would've been happy to fly down to Salt Lake City to deal with him in person (the proposed debate topic was "Was Joseph Smith Trustworthy?"), but he did not want to do that. I was not out looking for any old debate, and have made no effort to set up anything of a similar nature up since dealing with Peterson.

As you might suspect, the challenge to re-read the Book of Mormon, pray about it, and ask the standard missionary questions is one that I thought about a lot before leaving Mormonism, and the suggestion that I repeat the process has often been made to me. Here is something from my stock answer.

In general, we are talking about epistemology. One of the most unjustifiable epistemological systems ever invented is the one that relies upon feeling -- and especially feelings that depend largely upon social context for their power (read the Book of Mormon and tell us how your feel while we love bomb you or implicitly threaten you with the withdrawal of our approval or love ...) -- as a means for determining what is real. This system is designed to create a false sense of certainty that is primarily helpful for the purpose of binding social groups together. It is unreliable from an epistemological point of view, but the way in which it is used within particular social groups can tell us a lot about their nature.

How do the JWs, for example, justify their beliefs? How about the Moonies? The Hare Krishna? If you read the cult deprogramming literature relative to groups like those, you will find a description of cult belief induction techniques that bear a striking similarity to the way in which the Mormon missionary and fellowshipping system works, and you will find a deprogramming response that attempts to break through the reliance upon feeling to discern reality. I think you and I have corresponded on this topic before, and so I will leave that point there.

If you cleave to something like the categorical imperative or golden rule, how would you justify adopting this as your epistemological standard while denying others the same right? If you permit others the same right, how do you deal with the contradiction that arises when they, on the basis of their feelings, reach the certain belief that their system is the only true system at the same time you reach the same conclusion with regard to your system? There are many ways to establish the inadequacy of emotion-based epistemic systems.

So, bearing that in mind, how would I likely respond to rereading the Book of Mormon? I would, of course, try to set the book in context and understand as much as possible about the book as I attempt to discern its reliability as a source of wisdom or knowledge. I would purposely suppress my initial gut reaction. This is how I try to approach everything I read. In some cases, this allows me to overcome an initial negative reaction based on an inadequate appreciation of the context surrounding a piece of literature, so as to put myself in a position to learn something significant. In other cases, the result of doing the kind of work required to understand a text as well as possible is its dismissal as unworthy of additional time or energy.

As you know, or at least suspect, I spent a great deal of time during the initial stages of my brain retooling focused on the Book of Mormon. I therefore have a lot of context in my head with regard to that book. The way you posed your question suggests that I should somehow eliminate that from consideration when I attempt to reassess the book. Is that what you are suggesting? If so, can you provide me with examples of other situations in which you would suggest the same thing (ignoring the best scholarship available with regard to origins, context, etc. with regard to a piece of literature) while making a serious effort to understand an important text, and particularly a text that is potentially one of your life's foundation pieces?

I am aware, for example, of studies occurring right now at *** [well known US university] that will lead to a new kind of word pattern analysis of the Book of Mormon, and will point to Sydney Rigdon as its primary author. This research will be published in peer-reviewed journals. I do not have the expertise to critique this, but from what I've read about it I think it will at the minimum cause additional scholarship and will increase the academic understanding of the Book of Mormon. The hypothesis underlying this work is that Rigdon sincerely believed in the need to reform Christianity's direction. He accordingly borrowed from Ethan Smith, Solomon Spaulding and others to create a pseudepigrapha that would move Christianity in the direction he thought it should go. He told what he regarded as a noble lie in that regard, and recruited J. Smith to help him do so. Smith probably bought into the noble lie aspect of the project, and likely had his own reasons for participating as well in light of his straightened financial circumstances and history as a treasure seeker for hire. His talents in this regard are what attracted Rigdon's attention. There is now evidence of pre-Book of Mormon contact between Ridgon and Smith. Again, I don't profess to be expert in this area. I lost interest in it long ago. I am barely aware of the developments in this area of Mormon-related scholarship.

As you know, biblical scholars believe that significant chunks of the Old and New Testament were written as psuedepigrapha. A variety of other important religious and historical texts are also understood to have originated in this fashion, including Jewish Kaballah's foundational documents. It would hardly raise an academic eyebrow if it were up established to a high degree of probability that the Book of Mormon came into being in this fashion.

About a year ago, during one of my last fits of activity re. Mormonism, I corresponded with people like Steve Farmer (see http://www.safarmer.com/Farmer.Beijin...) who use complexity theory based programs to date ancient documents. I tried to persuade him and his collaborators at Harvard to publish a peer reviewed article on the Book of Mormon, using his system. I offered to fund this. After reviewing the Book of Mormon literature re. archaeology, etc. they declined. They said that the problem was "trivial" from an academic point of view. That is, after they did months of painstaking work that showed the BofM to be of 19th century origin to some very high degree of probability, their academic peers would look at them in the same way they would anyone who spent months on a geological study designed to show that the Earth is well more than 6,000 years old. Time is short for these folks. Other academic projects are far more important tothem. The offer of substantial funding did not come close to turning the trick for them. It takes an interest in the post-Mormon community of a personal nature, it seems, to motivate a serious academic to spend time on Mormon studies, as is the case with the study proceeding at *** [the other university mentioned above].

Given the fact that I have the opportunity to understand the Book of Mormon in this type of broad, rich context, why would I choose to limit myself to the type of superficial analysis you suggest? Given the wonderful scholarship related to how religious organisms come into being and evolve, why would I choose to limit my understanding of Mormonism to my personal phenomenology? I do not approach any other aspect of my life in this kind of shallow fashion. How could I possibly justify treating what is arguably the most important aspect of my life in this way?

If the response is that we must walk in the light of faith; not rely on the arm of man or his puny intellect, etc. I would respond that we should acknowledge that the same applies to Mormonism's religious competitors. We don't exclude the best scientific and historical work when we question the legitimacy of the Taliban, the JWs, and the alien abductionists. The exhortation to ignore the most reliable evidence available is predictable when social organisms are defending their turf. Outsiders see this quickly. Insiders struggle to see it at all. This has nothing to do with intelligence. Some studies suggest that really smart people who are committed in various ways to a social system are more strongly affected by cognitive biases than the less intelligent. This has to do with the ability of intelligent people to find patterns in ambiguous data and persuade others around them to their point of view. This applies as much to political, economic, quantum mechanical and other similarly ambiguous fields of scientific endeavour as it does to religious belief.

Furthermore, to frame the question in the way you have poses a false dichotomy. I doubt that you recall the letter I wrote to Jeffrey Holland (see http://i4m.com/think/intro/bishops_letter1.htm), but in that I accused both him and Gordon Hinckley of the same thing. This is a cheap debating trick. Those who see it as such will punish those who attempt to use it in various ways. Such people are not to be trusted, for example.

The issue is not one of black or white. The question is not whether an evil man or a righteous man wrote the book, or whether a righteous man could lie about the book. The motivations that underlie individual human behavior are far too complex for that to be a useful approach. The Rigdon hypothesis (which I of course know is not new) and other psuedepigrapha cases illustrate how complex these things are. And the mechanisms that underlie group behavior are exponentially more complex still. The study of complex adaptive systems, and the way in which they apply to the social sciences (including things like Daniel Kahneman's studies of bounded rationality, and the various reincarnations of Adam Smith's invisible hand and other forms of collective or hive mind), have shed wonderful light on how social groups behave in general. It does not take a rocket scientist to read this stuff, and apply it to Mormonism.

I wrote the foregoing on the assumption that you would use whatever information I provided to you for the purpose of better countering information that is making its way into the Mormon community. While our interests might be construed to be adversarial in that regard, you will note that I have given you a relatively full, and utterly frank, assessment of the issues you presented to me. I think greater understanding on both sides of the Mormon (and other religious) divide(s) is important, and hence I proceed as I do when approached by sincere members of the Mormon faith, or other believers.

I hope that you and other Mormon leaders are making progress toward frank and full disclosure with regard to Mormon origins. I continue to regard the way in which the Mormon leadership deals with its history and claims to authority to be immoral. Not excommunicating people like Bushman and leaving his book on obscure shelves does not go anywhere near far enough. As long as missionary lessons, Sunday school lessons, etc. contain versions of Mormon history that would fail miserably the standard required for even middle school history texts, Mormon leaders should feel ashamed of what they are doing. It was largely my inability to remain associated with deception of this type that led me to distance myself from the Mormon institution. The "We can't tell them because they might disobey/implode/become sex fiend alcoholics etc. likewise does not cut the mustard. There is no justification for this view of which I am aware. The unconscious motivation of Mormon leaders to retain their power over the Mormon group is clear to outsiders. These things are almost never clear to insiders. You can see these forces operating in other groups. They should be presumed to operate within Mormonism. The idea that "our group is immune from corruption because it is God's group" has a long, dishonourable pedigree.

I hope you will use your considerable influence to cause those at Mormonism's pinnacle to come clean.
topic image
Stronger, Better Educated Females -- A Silver Bullet For Humanity's Current Demons?
Monday, Jan 14, 2008, at 07:39 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Stronger, Better Educated Females -- A Silver Bullet for Humanity’s Current Demons?

Years ago, I ran across E.O. Wilson's wonderful essay "The Bottleneck" (see http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?arti...). Since then, from time to time, I have wondered whether we have available to us a more powerful social medicine than female education and empowerment. I have not found one so far, and was reminded of this yesterday while watching Isabel Allende's powerfully entertaining TED presentation (see http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/204).

What do you think about this? And to be clear, I am talking about the biggest issues we confront -- issues related to the sustainability of life on this planet; the ecological issues related to that; and the way in which our essentially tribal mentality makes it increasingly difficult to get along in our increasingly cozy and interdependent world. And, since I still can't read or hear anything that seems significant to me without running it through my "religious filter", let me ask how you read the tea leaves in this regard re. the world's many literalist religious faiths, including my favorite, Mormonism? These depend to a large measure on patriarchal social structures. Would the education and empowerment of women, in and of itself, gradually bring down the curtain on this aspect of human history? And I don't mean the kind of female education that occurs in places like Brigham Young University. While that is better than nothing, it carefully inculcates the beehive mentality, thus bifurcating minds as they become more conscious, and perpetuating the patriarchal attitudes that offer far greater opportunity for individuation to men than women, while holding both well below the levels available to them in other more individualistically oriented social groups.

As I listened to Allende, I was touched (as I have been often in the past) by the realization that my Mormon difficulties are trivial when considered in light of the plight of females and children throughout most of the world. I feel fortunate to born as, where and when I was, and to hence have a real opportunity to create a better work for my children and grandchildren. This is not the case for a large percentage of today’s humanity. When I write, as I'm doing now, it is still largely an attempt to pound ideas that I consider to be important enough into my thick skull that they will influence my behavior.

For those who have not run across the ideas Wilson sets out in his essay (and are not inclined to plough through it and the related literature) a few of the key insights are as follows.

As women become more financially secure and better educated, they choose to restrict the number of children they have. This has only become apparent during the past several decades, and was a profound relief to population scientists, since many of them were concerned during the middle of the last century that as women in the West became more wealthy, children might be regarded as a luxury good, and therefore family sizes would increase. This would accelerate what was already seen as looming disaster. As noted above, the contrary occurred.

The evolutionary explanation offered for this phenomenon was that throughout most of human history there has been a shortage of human capital, and the larger the family the more workers were available. In light of our historically immense mortality rates, this made it more likely that enough children would survive, and thrive, to care for the mother during her decline years.

Nature forced mother to play an unwitting numbers game. She had to hedge her offspring bets in order to maximize the probability of her own survival. This meant that the weaker of the brood would not have access to the resources necessary for even a reasonable chance of survival, and few if any would have the opportunity to optimally develop their individual talents. Nature is, after all, red in tooth and claw. Mothers never have been capable of seeing their situation in this way. Our subconscious systematically suppresses troubling insight of this type, in the same way that it generally prevents people from seeing the worst problems with their worldview.

I think it was Wilson who also noted that the mother’s life expectancy declined (and still declines) with each child after the first. I am going from memory here, so forgive me if I do not have this precisely right. Historically, this downside appeared to be more than offset by the advantages of having a larger potential pool of providers, as noted above. As the environment within which we live became more secure, this trade-off no longer made sense.

Accordingly, as women become better educated and therefore more aware of their environment, and have more assets under their control, they choose to have fewer children. This allows them to lavish greater attention and resources on those children, thus increasing the probability that each child would survive and thrive. It also allows women to spend more of their time and energy on personal and social issues that do not directly relate to their own offspring. That is, women were given the opportunity to individuate.

I note that what I have just described is, in part, the transition from a collectivist (or hive) worldview to an individualistic worldview. That is, throughout most of human history (and still in the less conscious parts of human society), women devoted more of their life energy to the betterment of the group than tends to be the case in more individualistic societies, which tend to be found in the democratic West. Groups like the Mormons, Muslims and fundamentalist Christians are anomalies in that context.

This is what having children is about at its most foundational level. In general, the more children the group produces, the better its long-term prospects. This factor has been noted as a primary competitive factor with regard to both Mormonism and the Muslim faith.

That is, at a time when birthrates throughout most of the world are declining, they are there not declining as quickly (and in some places, not at all) within the two populations I just mentioned. If you play the numbers out over a hundred years, you find a world dominated by the Muslim faith, with Mormons on the basis of birthrate alone, accounting for a far larger percentage of Christianity than they do now. These mathematics, however, require that Muslim and Mormon women continue to dedicate themselves much more to raising the children that will strengthen the social organisms to which they belong than would be the case were they "regular" members of modern democratic societies.

This concept sheds interesting light on the emphasis of the beehive mentality within certain social groups. Women are maneuvered in this regard into a position whereby they will unconsciously continue to sacrifice their individuality, and that of their children, on their community altar. The use of birth control is suppressed. The act of giving birth is lionized. The traditional, subservient role of the mother is placed on a pedestal, at least in some symbolic ways.

This reminds me of one of the female mantras within the fundamentalist Mormon community -- "Keep sweet!". That is, remain pliant, subservient, obedient -- "Sweet!". Within the Mormon community, the term "spiritual" when applied to women has a similar meaning. Men are counselled to seek "spiritual" lives who will, if necessary "drag the family into the Celestial Kingdom". Once this image of the ideal wife has been accepted, female behavior within the social group is easy to predict.

The relationship between dragging, anchors, inability to move, downward motion, and death by asphyxiation seems to be lost on the people who use these metaphors.

So again, what kind of difference would it make within particular social groups, and the world as a whole, if women became less pliant, more powerful, and more self-determined?
topic image
Lyndon Lamborn - Dancing With Evangelicals At The Red Mountain Community Church
Monday, Jan 21, 2008, at 08:50 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I watched Lyndon’s you tube presentation to the Red Mountain Community Church near Phoenix, and thoroughly enjoyed it. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECjddl.... He is an eloquent spokesman for the post-Mormon movement. His personal style is folksy, and pleasant. He is the kind of guy that most people would probably love to spend an evening chatting with. I certainly fall into that category. I "felt the spirit" while listening to him.

I was also particularly interested in the way in which Lyndon described his current beliefs. I am not sure whether he was pulling some punches in order to avoid discomfiting his hosts too much. I doubt that. I remember many of my beliefs being similar to his during the first short while after I bolted from the Mormon cloister.

Overall, I found Lyndon’s presentation thought-provoking enough that I decided to make some notes will listening to it, and then dictated the following stream of consciousness set of comments. While I don't always agree with what Lyndon had to say, I want to make it clear that this is not an attempt to criticize him. On the contrary, I applaud what he has done, his courage, and the style with which he conducts himself. I also think that discussing different perspectives with regard to important issues is helpful, and I therefore offer what follows. Given the way Lyndon explained his approach, I am confident that he will not feel threatened by this and hope that he will be inclined to provide additional insight into the process as he is following. The more different examples we have of how people have dealt with the challenges related to crossing a major personal and social boundary, such as that between Mormonism and the rest of social reality, the better served all who come behind us up this interesting pathwill be.

I use voice dictation software, and do not have the time to proofread this carefully. Please forgive the plethora of typos that no doubt follows.

Personal situation

I was particularly pleased to hear Lyndon’s description of the way in which his wife reacted to his change of belief. She is an unusual woman. They are fortunate to have each other. As he put it, their relationship is far more important than any set of religious beliefs. His wife and son continue to attend Mormon meetings, and they are all comfortable with that.

I love the fact that he continues to get along well with all of his brothers. I think he called them a "tribe". He also indicated that within 20 years, most of them will have probably left Mormonism, and all of them at present are well informed with regard to the issues related to Mormonism. However, in some cases his brothers may face the loss of a marriage and/or family in the event they openly disavow Mormonism. This makes the decision difficult. He therefore indicates that we should be respectful of the decisions people make with regard to how they will continue to associate with Mormonism.

I could not agree more. This is particularly the case where people are well informed. I have much less respect for those who cannot bear to inform themselves, than those who go to that point and then make the difficult decision Lyndon identified. I don't believe that anyone other than the individual involved can make the crucial cost-benefit call that must be made when determining how to recalibrate, or completely change, one's relationship to an inherited religious tradition, family and community. I believe that it is somewhere between unwise and the immoral for anyone to attempt to make someone else's decision in that regard or to be unduly critical once it has been made.

I was glad that Lyndon was able to report that for the most part, his Mormon friends and family are treating him well. This indicates the Mormonism has matured beyond the vicious shunning evidenced in the fundamentalist Mormon community, certain aspects of the Muslim community, and the most archaic and tribal of other parts of the religious world. Explaining this to evangelical Christians helps them to understand that Mormons are not so different from them in this regard.

Were I Lyndon, I might have dealt with the questions along these lines by asking what the Evangelicals would do with a family member who converted to Islam, Mormonism, or became an atheist, and showed up on youtube describing how crazy the evangelical Christian belief system was. The way in which Mormons deal with Lyndon might be usefully placed in context against how the Evangelicals deal with that kind of situation. They would likely indicate that there would be a range of responses. The more "Christlike" and mature members of the community would probably deal with the situation better than some of the hard-liners. The same thing occurs within Mormonism.

Over and over again, I will come back to the concept that Mormonism and evangelical Christianity are extremely similar in terms of their social dynamics, belief structures, and other attributes when considered from the perspective of social organisms competing for resources within an evolutionary landscape.

Spirituality

Lyndon indicated that he is "once bitten, twice shy" when it comes to institutional religion. He is going to study carefully before making any other commitments. He believes that spirituality, for the most part, transcends institutional religion.

He and I seem to be on much the same page in that regard. I decided that it was important that I stand apart from all institutional religions for a period of time. Mormonism and other authoritarian religious groups tend to breed an unhealthy dependence on authority and institutional structures. Various schools related to "attachment theory" within psychology described how this works in our most important nurturing relationships as individuals. These patterns appear to extend into adult intimate relationships, and also to our relationships with important authority figures and institutions. As a result, people within religious communities like Mormonism do not tend to individuate in a healthy fashion. Their personal boundaries are more porous than tends to be the normal case within Western society, and they are therefore more prone than usual to unhealthy co-dependent relationships. In many ways that is how I characterize my former relationship to Mormonism -- as an unhealthy co-dependency. Mormonism exploitedthis by causing me to make many unhealthy choices in terms of how I used my time, how hard I was on myself and otherwise how I lived my life. Ironically, the more faithful and committed a Mormon is, the more unhealthy choices of this type tend to be made. The more casual Mormon, the less Mormonism tends to interfere with a healthy lifestyle.

As an aside, I see precisely the same pattern with the Evangelical community.

Having spent a period of time after leaving Mormonism in my mid-40s to individuate as I probably should have should have in my late teens or early adulthood, I now would be comfortable associating with a religious institution. However, I feel no need to do so. I have identified a wide variety of religious groups within the Christian and other traditions that are orientated toward helping individuals come to understand themselves, and to make the most of who they are as they choose to do so. I think that the environmental movement is going to evolve into, among other things, various quasi-religious manifestations, and believe that I could find the same sort of benefits that would be provided by many religious institutions in that, or other similar, social contexts. I am not actively seeking associations of this kind, but if I bump into something that makes sense I would not be shy about pursuing it.

Whether to continue attending Mormon meetings?

I started out thinking that I would perhaps become a force for change within the Mormon institution. I was familiar with what Lavina Fielding Anderson and others have attempted to do in that regard, and believed that that might be the way to go. As I come to better understand the dynamics of change within social institutions, I decided against this. Social change is caused by both insiders and outsiders. Where one falls in that regard is largely a matter of personality and circumstance. I am most comfortable as an outsider, just as some people are more comfortable emigrating from difficult homelands, while others could not consider it. I am reading Michael Ignatieff’s biography of Isaiah Berlin at the moment, which contains some fascinating material in this regard. Hence it is on my mind.

In addition, my thinking was influenced by one of the ideas that Lyndon pointed toward. That is, anyone who attends Mormon meetings and abides by the requirement that Mormonism not be criticized will be for the most part viewed as endorsing the Mormon way. The better I came to understand what Mormonism stood for, the less comfortable I was with lending my reputation to it in any way.

Even more importantly, I came to appreciate the crucial role our associations with other human beings in social contexts, within the epistemic and other rules that define those contexts, has on our personal evolution. Human beings coevolve as a function of the nature of their closest associates, and their social context. In a very real sense, we make each other. Some of the best research with regard to what causes changes in religious belief indicates that it is the belief of our six or so closest associates that is the most reliable predictive factor with regard to what we will believe. And believe creates behavior. The social science statistics coming out of Utah speak eloquently to the downside of Mormon belief in that regard.

As I thought about these concepts relative to my children, it became crystal clear to me that I did not want to have them come to maturity within the social context defined by Mormonism, having most of their closest associations being within the Mormon community. This is the issue that nailed shut my decision to exit the Mormon community, and to do everything I could to have my children come with me. As a result of the fact that Lyndon appears to be comfortable with his son continuing along the Mormon path, I believe that he and I see things differently on this issue.

While I realize that one off examples are not good guides to life, and that we should seek the broadest possible empirical evidence to support or disprove our theories, let me share a story the underlying principles of which I believe can be substantiated by the academic research.

A friend of mine left are relatively small, close-knit Mormon community at age 18 because she wanted to get as far away from it as possible. She became a professional, married a fine non-LDS man, and raised a successful family. She left her name on the membership rolls, and allowed each of her children to be blessed and named in a Mormon meeting with her father performing the ordinances. This helped her to remain connected to her family, and she did not see any harm in this.

Because her children were “of record” in Mormon Church, and because her parents kept the church up to date with regard to her location, she was from time to time contacted by well-meaning Mormons as her children grew up, and they occasionally attended primary and youth meetings within the Mormon community. The city where they lived had a reasonably sized Mormon population, and her children became acquainted with the Mormon kids in that community as a result of what I just indicated. When her children went away the university, they sought out the Mormon Institutes of Religion because of the ready-made community of friends they knew they would find there.

I note as an aside that this is much of what Mormonism offers these days. At a time when communities of many types are breaking down, Mormons are going out of their way to build cohesive, strong communities that can be easily found in virtually every major city across North America. They love bomb potential new converts. They provide things to do within the community for most participants, which the social psychologists tell us will tend to provide a feeling of meaning, security and connectedness to something larger, each of which is important to human feelings of happiness and satisfaction. In short, the Mormon institution follows the social science textbooks very closely in terms of how to build human groups that will satisfy basic human needs. This is why it is successful. It is successful in spite of its weird history, and our beliefs. The price for admission is, among other things, at least the willingness not to be critical of odd beliefs and to play the social game as Mormons define it. This is similarto the requirement for social membership in smokers group at the office, or the runners group at the gym. Do what they do. It is pretty simple at this level of analysis.

I do not suggest that Mormon leaders pour over the textbooks, and then decide how to do things. Rather, evolutionary forces are present within our social strata, and accordingly the social groups that survive tend to behave in a somewhat predictable fashion. Mormonism is simply another religiously oriented social group in that regard -- man-made from the ground up. The same can be said of evangelical Christians. But it is difficult for any of us to see this with regard to our own social group, but very easy for us to see it with regard to all others. Hence, the evangelical Christians are intellectually hamstrung in almost precisely the same manner in which our Mormons.

Back to my friend's story. Two of her children married very faithful Mormons as a result of associating with the Mormon university crowd, and are now temple attending Mormons who are raising their families in a traditional, conservative Mormon fashion. It is not coincidence, by the way, that Mormons invest heavily in resources located at the crucial life juncture that is young adult and university life. People are malleable at this point, and social connections do most of the moulding.

Anyways, Grandpa and Grandma are somewhat suspect in that context. Their access to their grandchildren and children is much more limited that they would like. This is a source of great pain for my friend. She deeply regrets permitting the tentacles of Mormonism to remain in her life. I have cut those off to the extent I can. They are like creeping vines, and regularly attempt to get back into the house. I therefore regularly patrol the perimeter, cut off the vines that are continually attempting to get in and rip out the roots whenever I can.

Mormonism's crazy beliefs and irrational treatment of those who leave their group

Lyndon was not going out of his way to dwell on these points, but they came up naturally as he answered questions and talked about his experience. He talked about Smith's polyandry, nutty beliefs with regard to the book of Mormon, et cetera. He noted that Mormons seem to need to believe that he had done something terrible, and that this was his real reason for leaving Mormonism. He noted the Mormon belief that since he had left Mormonism, he would probably become an alcoholic, porn addict, immoral person, since it is not possible to expect otherwise if you have left Mormonism. He mentioned that people within his congregation asked his wife when she was going to divorce him. Note that the question was not whether she would divorce him, but when.

My experience was close to identical in this regard. Note the correlation between publicity, and the need within the Mormon community to tear a person apart. People who leave quietly are not treated in this fashion, generally speaking. This is consistent with the hypothesis that religious groups like the Mormon Church are social institutions engaged in an evolutionary struggle for survival. Publicity with regard to a person leaving amounts to a threat against the institution. The institution, through its members, responds to that threat.

Lyndon noted in particular that he had been told that his excommunication was going to be announced from the pulpit. He went to the meeting on the appointed Sunday so that he could witness this. The announcement was not made. The stake president who wrote him a letter indicating that the announcement would be made was at the meeting. Lyndon asked him what was going on, and was told that he had not really made up his mind, and so the announcement would not be made. Lyndon inferred, I suspect correctly, that the stake president had been advised by his superiors not to make the announcement because of the defamation action that might follow from Lyndon. Accordingly, yet again we see the way in which the rights given to individuals within democratic society restrain the actions of a religious institution. Rather than pillorying Lyndon in an explicit fashion, the institution must rely upon rumor and innuendo of the type described above instigated by the membership independently so as to excise troublesome former members from the Mormon body, and neuter their ability to exert influence. Hence, the more publicity a person's departure receives, the more vicious we can expect the rumors and innuendo to be. In my case, the rumors included that I was having an affair with my assistant at the office, and that one of my sons and I have become addicted to pornography. There was no substance to either of these rumors. They were fabricated out of thin air. My wife was also encouraged to divorce me.

Lyndon did not go on to note how common each of the characteristics described above is within human groups, and how these characteristics tend to be stronger in those groups that are more tightly knit. Authoritarian religious groups are among the tightest on the planet, and therefore we should expect to see these characteristics strongly manifested within those groups. For example, virtually all religious beliefs seem crazy to those who do not hold them. Try talking to people outside the Christian tradition with regard to the idea of the virgin birth and the resurrection.

The more conservative, primitive and tribal a group, the more likely it is that the group will differ so radically from the rest of society that its members will have a high probability of failure if they leave their own group and try to make their way in other societies. Think of a 45-year-old African tribesmen who moves to North America. His or her prospects are slim. The prospects of a fundamentalist Mormon, old order Amish or Hutterite who leaves his social group at midlife are similarly constrained. In the case of the African tribesmen, poor prospects in a radically different culture are a simple function of social physics. He doesn't know the language; he doesn't know the cultural customs; he doesn't have a good social network; he does not have social credentials; et cetera. He is therefore going to have a very hard time getting things done.

Cases involving close-knit, nonmainstream social groups that are embedded within a broader culture are quite different in some ways. The social physics noted above are purposefully manufactured. These social organisms are in competition with those surrounding them for the resources that allow social organisms to thrive. Those resources are primarily the human beings that make up social organisms. Those human beings dedicate energy to the social organisms to which they belong. This energy can come in the form of time, or money which is really just a stored form of time and other kinds of human energy. Accordingly, social organisms that are embedded in a broad landscape with many other social organisms are in competition with regard to human resources. They try to hang on to the resources that they have in virtually all cases, and in many cases try to attract new resources by way of conversion of one kind or another. At a minimum they will have developed various means to discourage dissent, mutiny and disengagement. Social isolation, and the threat of divorce, work well in this regard.

This brings us back to the example above. If the education, socialization, etc. within the small group differs radically enough from the larger culture within which it is embedded, it will be more difficult for people to leave. And many of those who do leave will fail. They will drift to the bottom of mainstream society, and become cautionary tales that reinforce the beliefs within their small group. That is, God will punish those who leave. The "world" is an evil and harsh place, ill-suited for the chosen who should remain within the community of the chosen. Et cetera.

Only a few generations ago, Mormonism was what the FLDS are now. Since then the Mormons have moved toward the mainstream of North American society with a vengeance, and the differences between Mormonism in mainstream society are therefore much smaller. However, vestiges of the old system remain, and Mormons are to an extent hamstrung if they attempt to leave their own relatively simple social group, and make their way in a much more complex mainstream society. This problem is greater for Mormon women than for men, since they do not tend to have as much to do with the "world". Mormon men are required to earn their livelihood in the world, and therefore move more comfortably within that environment. They are therefore less afraid of it. They have social networks in it. They are credentialed in a way that facilitates their movement in it. This, in my view, explains most of what we see in terms of many more men than women moving across the Mormon boundary into mainstream culture and completely rejecting Mormonismas they do so. However, those men are still hampered by their Mormon beginnings. This digression is already so long but I will leave that there.

The social statistics coming out of Utah bear this out. Without telling that long story, Utahans on average suffer for more depression, are in their naďveté more preyed upon by financial fraud artists, and participate more in multilevel marketing organizations than do people in any other state. I believe that this is a reflection of the Mormon culture within Utah. One of the first objections Mormons make to this kind of analysis is that Utah is only 70% Mormon, and therefore the Utah statistics are not a good proxy for Mormonism. I think they're probably right. I would love to see a study that limited these statistics to temple recommend holding Mormons. The Mormon Church could do such a study. I would be surprised if it had not done such a study already. I would be astonished if the results of this kind of study were favourable to Mormonism that they have not already been made public. The Mormons are too good at marketing to have missed this trick were it there for the taking.

The fact that the results have not been released suggests that, as I believe would be the case, the statistics with regard to temple recommend holding Mormons are even worse than the statistics with regard to Utahans as a whole.

I also note that when the Utah as a whole statistics work for the Mormon Church, they use them. This happened recently on the official Mormon church website in response to a Los Angeles Times article that was critical of Mormonism in a number of ways. One of the criticisms was that Mormons continue to "bleed like cattle" or something like that, at a time when it is environmentally immoral to do so. The response from the official Mormon church website was that the rate of live births in Utah was not much more than the national average. Again, I would love to see the live birth statistics with regard to temple recommend holding Mormons. I know that those statistics are available to the Mormon church. As a Mormon bishop, I used to help compile them, and they would show a birthrate far above the Utah average.

Accordingly, the response provided by the Mormon Church to the Los Angeles Times article is at best disingenuous, and is more actually described as misleading. There is nothing new in this. The territory between disingenuous and misleading his home turf to those who lead the Mormon church. While saying that, I agree with Lyndon's assessment that these men and women (though women) are probably well intended. They are classic philosopher kings, who believe that lying in order to protect the reputation and prospects of the Mormon Church is morally justifiable as a "lesser evil". The worst evil would be the decline and prospects of the Mormon church. People who hold this kind worldview are dangerous. I believe that many evangelical Christians have a similar mentality with regard to their own faith.

I would say that Mormonism has evolved to pretty much the point now where the evangelical Christians had been for some time. But right now, there is not much difference between these two groups in terms of how they socialize their people, and the difficulty with which these people move into secular culture. I think it would be helpful for the evangelicals to become more accustomed to thinking of Mormonism as a mirror in which they can better see some of their (the evangelicals) less attractive features. Mirrors of this type are extremely useful, readily available to most of us, and habitually ignored.

Differences in belief between Mormons and evangelical Christians

I thought that Lyndon did a good job for the most part in illustrating that the differences between Mormons and evangelical Christian beliefs are not that great. He pointed out that the concept of Christ within the Mormon faith is different in some ways than it is within the evangelical Christianity. I think that he might explain more with regard to the similarities. The sparring between Mormon and evangelical Christian academics with regard to these differences illustrates that the deeper one goes, the more similarities one finds. And I note that the moderator’s concluding comments after Lyndon’s presentation came back to this issue, and reemphasized it. He wanted make a clear that there is a huge difference between the Mormons and the evangelicals when it comes to their belief in Christ, and God.

This issue, and the way in which the moderator framed it, is in my view a red herring. The evangelical Christians are attempting to maintain their tribal boundaries, and will continue to do so as long as Mormons continue to proselytize on the basis that they are the one true church thus appropriating evangelical resources. As soon as the Mormons stop doing that, and begin to play the Christian game on the basis of more or less the same rulebook that the evangelical Christians use, the doctrinal differences will be put aside.

This brings us back to the social organism competing for resources within an evolutionary landscape. The evangelical Christians and the Mormons are at the moment competing. This leads to the adversarial interaction of which Lyndon's presentation to the evangelical church was part. Lyndon was being used to reinforce the organism boundary around the evangelical Christians, and to marshal resources to the defense of that organism against the threat of Mormon missionary work. Lyndon did some good things in terms of breaking down the organizational boundary by refusing to play all of the role they wanted him to play in terms of reinforcing beliefs with regard to how odd and different Mormons are. For example, one of the questioners indicated that in the highest, secret teachings within Mormonism require Satan worship. Instead of dismissing that as ridiculous, Lyndon indicated that he had no knowledge of that kind of thing, and doubted the accuracy of the idea.

It might have been better to point out that this is precisely the kind of belief that circulates within the Mormon community with regard to Catholicism and other non-Mormon groups, in order to strengthen the resolve of Mormons to do their missionary work, and to make sure that none of their loved ones drift into the grasps of the "horrible the earth", for example. This is how Muslims dehumanize Americans, Americans Muslims, etc.

In that question, and in many other aspects of other questions as well as the very format of the meeting itself, including the opening prayer and the moderator’s closing comments, we see the evangelical Christian organism marshaling its resources in defense of its own perimeter.

Consider in this regard what we have seen happen with regard to differences between the Lutheran perspective that emphasizes grace over works, as opposed to the Calvinist and other Christian perspectives that put a greater emphasis on works. Once the fight over resources (converts, along with the time and energy they bring) is put aside, doctrinal differences become less important. This is also a sign of a maturing social organism. Through interaction with other organisms, its rough edges of being knocked off and it has begun to play a cooperative instead of a competitive game. Within economics, this is the natural drift toward oligopoly. Dominant market players can make out far better if they agree to cooperate instead of competing head-to-head. Mormonism, within North America, is knocking on the door of the evangelical Christian oligopoly.

The crucial issues, as far as I'm concerned, relative to both evangelical Christianity and Mormonism relate to epistemology. Lyndon gave Evangelicals a pass in that regard. That is, he did not apply the same epistemic and social standards to the evangelicals as he did to Mormons. Mormonism is crazy, he said, but Evangelical Christianity might be okay.

Would it not have been better to illustrate that precisely the same dynamics within social psychology are responsible for both of these highly similar types of organizations? The primary difference is that Mormonism’s foundational tenets are more susceptible to disproof than are evangelical Christianity's. However, magical thinking underlies both.

It is in some ways better that magical thinking be based on this provable premises. That makes it easier to get rid of. The evangelical Christian system is in some ways worse than the Mormon because its premises are more difficult to disprove. As Lyndon indicated, he is grateful for some of Joseph Smith's most egregious errors, because that made the Mormon system susceptible to disprove in his case. That having been said, once one digs into the literature with regard to Christian foundations, it is easy to find evidence that more than passes muster from my perspective it least with regard the illegitimacy of Christian foundations.

As noted above, Lyndon illustrated the similarities between Christian belief and Mormon belief. This helped to bridge a gap -- breakdown of tribal boundary. I thought that was great. Another useful way to deal with this topic is to use the history of Mormon belief to illustrate the way in which Mormonism started out as a radical innovation with regard to Christianity, and as it has become larger and getting along with the rest of mainstream North American society has become more important, it has moved back toward the mainstream.

Consider, for example, the theocratic and polygamists foundations of Mormonism during its early Utah phase. Or how about the doctrine of blood atonement in general, the blood oath that used to be sworn during the temple ceremony with regard to the people who murdered Joseph and Hiram, the Adam-God doctrine, J. Smith ordaining himself King of the Earth after using his stature of God’s representative on Earth to bed many young teenage girls and the wives of other men, et cetera. The Mormon religion, as is the case with many religions, has truly bizarre origins. It purposefully defined itself as a group apart, created cities like Nauvoo and Salt Lake City in order to establish itself in a position where it could grow to social critical mass (nothing new here by the way -- anthropologists say that in order for a new religion to survive long term, it must have a social growth phase of this kind). Then, having achieved critical mass, it found it increasingly useful if not necessary to interface with mainstream society. After shedding polygamy in order to become a state, the pendulum swung in the other direction and Mormonism became an uber American religion. It's continuing tilt toward mainstream evangelical Christianity is therefore extremely probable.

Mitt Romney's run for the US presidency is only the most recent symptom of this trend. Mormonism as an institution, and the vast majority of individual Mormons, desperately want the approval of both of the worlds they inhabit – the Mormon and the mainstream American. They unwittingly set out to serve two masters who can be predicted to become more similar to each other. This means that the once radically different values within Mormonism are gravitating toward mainstream, evangelical Christian, North American values. This defines spirituality to a large extent in terms of financial success, and the materialist, consumerist ethos that dominates the North American evangelical community.

If you want the Christian analogy to what I just indicated, think about the Puritans and other similar religious groups coming to North America. This analogy does not work completely, but I think there is a lot to it. Social evolution can certainly be seen in both cases, as well as the initial distancing in a radical state, followed by maturation and a reconnection to be mainstream culture.

While this kind of analysis does not make friends within the evangelical community, this is the way in which I approach dialogue across the evangelical boundary. I believe that it is helpful to break down tribal barriers. This is how to do it -- to illustrate common foundations and similarities between groups.

Perhaps more to the point, I refuse to be used as a tool in the hands of the evangelicals to perpetuate cultural war. When I was invited to speak at a evangelical Bible college last year, I made this an explicit condition of my appearance. The pastor who asked me to come agreed to it, and I delivered a lecture that was a significant test of the faith of the young future pastors who attended. They were friendly, and our dialogue was I thought productive. One might say that I was still perhaps used as a form of inoculation. I could be viewed as a germ that was allowed to infect the body in a relatively safe place. After I left, many other resources could be used to shore up the damage I might've caused to the budding faith of these pastors and training. If that is the case, that is fine. That is the way the evolutionary game is played. Given the e-mails I exchanged with the instructor who invited me to come and speak, I know that least in his case I've caused a lot of deep thinking. I doubt that he will leave his ministry, and I also doubt that he will ever look at Mormonism and other similar religious groups in the same way. He now knows much more about the overlapping foundations between his group, and countless others.

Why do Mormons put their head in the sand with regard to the evidence is out there with regard to Mormonism?

Lyndon answered that the issue in this regard was more or less lack of awareness. He described how Mormons were warned against doing the kind of things he had done -- questioning, reading, etc. -- and therefore that they should remain unaware. He indicated that he believes the Internet is going to be a radical force for change within Mormonism, because it makes it so much easier for information to slip through Mormonism is organizational boundaries.

Lyndon did not point out that precisely the same issues apply to evangelical Christianity, subject to the greater difficulty of this proof as I noted above. He alluded to cognitive biases and other aspects of epistemology as the cause of Mormon problems. He used a great analogy in that regard. He referred to each Mormon carrying around with him or her a force field made of Kevlar, or something similar, that was designed to keep out all kinds of information that might cause problems for the Mormon testimony. He did not describe how cognitive biases create these in the religious and other contexts. This is precisely the case with regard to the evangelical Christians, and virtually every other dogmatic religious group. The same thing applies with regard to political beliefs, environmental beliefs, and any other set of beliefs that relates to difficult to assess, ambiguous data beliefs regarding which have for whatever reason become foundational to a religious group.

Many many many examples in this regard could be dredged up to illustrate how historical contingencies have caused certain beliefs to become foundational to a religious group. One of the oddest with which most of us would be familiar is the reorganized LDS Church, one of whose foundation planks was that Joseph Smith did not participate in polygamy. It took decades of scholarly research with regard something obvious (think of the young earth creationists in this regard) before this issue is finally accepted within that community, and simply because of the foundational nature of this single belief, discarding it caused the community to come close to collapse.

Lyndon described the RLDS saga just indicated, and used it as a cautionary tale with regard to Mormonism. He said that for this reason, Mormon leaders would not be able to acknowledge the errors in mainstream Mormon history, and make an overt move toward evangelical Christianity. While I agree with him that it's extremely improbable that the Mormon leaders will come clean, I disagree with regard to his reasoning. The larger and older an institution, the less likely it is that it will undergo radical change. The RLDS group was relatively small, and is now smaller. Hence, discarding one crucial belief was much more probable to set in motion a chain of events that would radically restructure the community. The Mormon group is much larger, and therefore it would be able to handle a lot more ideological change. The study of religious groups indicates that it is praxis -- the day-to-day way of living -- that is most foundational. I believe that if Gordon Hinckley stood up tomorrow, and indicated that the Book of Mormon was a metaphor, inspired by God through mysterious means, and that much of what we had thought was true with regard to Joseph Smith perhaps is not true, that the Mormon church would continue ahead. In fact, I think it might be strategically wise for him to do that, and push Mormonism straight into the evangelical Christian fold. This is what the Mennonites have done, and they have been extremely successful in that regard. I think the RLDS example is probably inapplicable because of the massive difference between the size of the two institutions.

However, I agree with Lyndon that it is extremely unlikely the Mormon leaders will acknowledge the institution's historical problems. Rather, they will allow the academic information to leak out and put themselves in a position where they can say that the information was always out there, but it is not important in any event because the "truth" is what is important, not the mysterious means through which God decided to deliver the truth to the Mormon people. If you feel it is true, is must be true (do the evangelicals differ in this regard?). Mormonism will eventually be regarded as evangelical Christianity with a somewhat odd history, and hence flavor. The same is now said with regard to the Mennonites.

By the way, did you know that Matt Groening, the creator of "The Simpsons", is a lapsed Mennonite? Trey Parker is not quite a lapsed Mormon, but has a significant historical connection to Mormonism. These similar way in which religion is treated in these two shows is indicative, I would suggest, of a post-literalist religious sensibility that these two creative minds bring to their art.

Conclusion

Welcome to post-Mormondom Lyndon. You are off on a wonderful trajectory. I hope we have the chance to break bread at some point.
topic image
Birth Control Causes Divorce; Therefore The Pope Was Right; Therefore The Catholic Church Is True?
Monday, Feb 11, 2008, at 09:18 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
If this were five years ago, shortly after my exodus from Mormonism, I would probably be reporting that I awakened this morning in a panicked, cold sweat after one of those crazy mixed up dreams in which I had come to the certain realization that the Catholic Church was God's one true, and only authorized, religious organization on Earth. As it is, I had a funny dream last night and woke up with a smile on my face, shaking my head. The craziness is still fading in the rear view mirror.

I'm certain that last night's sleep entertainment was provided by a combination of some things I reviewed while preparing for the presentation I made in St. George last weekend, and a conversation my brother Rich and I had with Mo and Jannypanny just as our excellent St. George adventure was breaking up.

The back story is this. In the human species, women make the mate choice. Men think they make the choice, but the biological and cultural evidence is crystal clear -- men make themselves available (and are not terribly choosy); women make the choice.

Women are drawn to men that first of all are in the right ball park (similar grade of social standing, physical attractiveness, intelligence, education, etc.). That leaves a lot of potential mates. From there, female choice is driven by a combination of mutual availability, historical quirks (both had independently developed a love for the same obscure punk rock band, for example) and most importantly, subconsciously registered smells and other perceptions.

There is very strong evidence to support the theory that women, through smell or some other means, are able to sense a good genetic match. That is, contrary to what most women think, they are not looking for a mate that will make them happy. They are choosing a mate that will probably produce strong offspring, even if they don't want offspring. And ironically, the very traits that are attractive for the purpose of making strong babies tend to irritate the hell out of us as long term mates.

If there is a God and he/she/it is in charge of this, he/she/it has a wicked sense of humour.

What her sense of smell does not do, a woman's sense of taste does. That is, women are drawn to a man who smells the right way, and after a heavy makeup session or two, the deal has either been sealed or not. It is not that she says "Wow, he tastes good!" but rather that she feels a deep sense of comfort after swapping spit. This is as romantic as it gets. The guy - he is just happy to be swapping spit, and hopes for more.

This female ability to sense the right mate is heightened during ovulation, suppressed during pregnancy, and at other times averages out somewhere in between.

This points to a little problem with the birth control pill. It tips the female organism into something resembling its pregnancy state, and therefore suppresses the female ability to sense the right mate. There is a lot of evidence to indicate that women who fall love with a man while on the birth control pill and then years later decide it's time to have a baby and go off the pill (or go off the pill because they have entered menopause or had a hysterectomy), often suddenly finds that their mates are no longer attractive. It appears that this has to do with a newly heighted ability to smell and taste. Quite simply, taking the birth control pill threw off their mating radar, and they ended up with the "wrong" guy from a baby making perspective, even if they never intended to make babies.

What breathtaking irony and rapacious hilarity this is.

This process, of course, operates at a subconscious level. The conscious mind -- the rider on the elephant who laughably believes that he is in charge -- compulsively makes sense out of everything that goes on and justifies what the elephant is doing, like some kind of sock-puppet narrator up on the corner of your TV screen.

That is, the rider self-justifies in a horribly confabulatory way. Among other things, this means that after most of a life spent investing time and energy in Mormonism (or any other "ism"), few back away while most confabulate and justify their investment. This tendency is at the root of the mechanisms that cause cognitive dissonance, keep people in bad investments, bad relationships, and cause ideas of all kinds to change slowly (Max Planck said that science changes "one funeral at a time"). It has historically been far more important to our survival and reproductive prospects that we be confident in our own judgement and attract resources to us within the social group on that basis, than that we are right in all our beliefs. Witness the continued success of those who promote scuzzy multi-level marketing organizations, questionable investments and other quasi-frauds, not to mention actual frauds.

So, she suddenly doesn't like him anymore and the rider's job is to explain why. The rider does not say, "He smells wrong and that means he won't help you made a good baby so you had better find a way to get out of this, unless you don't want to have babies with him, and in that case just go have fun. He's a good guy." Rather, for reasons beyond her comprehension he suddenly starts to irritate her far more than usual (bearing in mind, of course, that every man at his best seriously irritates the lady in his life).

He leaves the toilet seat up. He doesn't clean up after himself. He does not call when his plans change. He is insufficiently attentive to her. Etc. Of course, this is all true, and it has been true since near the beginning of their relationship. But it is suddenly takes on new importance. When he is angrily confronted and either become unjustifiably defensive or accepts the charges like the pathetic wimp he is, that is the last straw. The rider points all of this out, and the flake is gone within days. He will be angrily (or dismissively) remembered so as to ensure that no questions are raised that might question the wisdom of this landmark life-shaping decision.

So, back to my main point. The moral of the story is clear - the pill is a marriage wrecker and therefore simply wrong. That means the Pope has been right all along against the tide of scientific evidence on this point. And if he was right about that, surely he must be right about everything else. So, there is a God, just as the Pope has always told us, and He communicates to us through Rome. Therefore, the Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church is the one and only true church on the Earth today. We know with certainty that those religious groups that claim to be in touch with God but have accepted the use of the birth control pill within their membership are not guided by God.

Whoa! Coming out of my dream state I found a gaping hole in my own theory. Female mate-dar is not thrown off by condoms and other forms of birth control. OK, let's rethink this. The pill is wrong, but other forms of birth control are OK because we do have to get the population under control so that we don't destroy the planet. That means the Pope was wrong, and so were all of the other religious groups. God has not told any of them (to my knowledge) to use birth control, but not the pill.

This leaves only two possible defensible conclusions.

There is a God, and he has a wicked sense of humour. If you believe in the traditional Judeo-Christian God, this point of view is hard to argue persuasively against.

Or, shit happens and we have to learn to make tough choices and roll with the punches.

Isaiah Berlin and other students of intellectual history refer to the latter as part of life's tragic aspect - that we are regularly put in positions where we cannot achieve several good objectives because they conflict with each other.

For example, we cannot enjoy the euphoria of unrestricted sexual behaviour without giving up a variety of goods related to health, long term intimacy and as we have just learned, "mate-dar".

And, we cannot benefit from the clearest available view of reality while continuing to enjoy the comfort of being securely embedded within large and in many ways admirable social groups that are founded on demonstrably false stories that preserve North American frontier social values circa 1800.
topic image
"The Namesake" - On Cultural Immigrants And Flourishing In A Post-Mormon World
Tuesday, Feb 19, 2008, at 08:05 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
The “Namesake”

As often happens these days, I had a fine experience a few nights ago as a result of tagging along with one of my children. My 17-year-old son brought a movie home -- "The Namesake" -- at the suggestion of his girlfriend's mother. I decided to sit down and watch it with him. Time well spent. You can find reviews at http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20014... and http://www.boston.com/movies/display?.... It pleases and humbles me each time my children teach me.

“The Namesake” is based on a Pulitzer Prize winning book, and explores ideas related to what it means to be a member of more than one society as a result of immigration. The movie has a variety of interesting subplots, and I won't try to explain those. However, I would like to say something about the main theme.

A young man from India comes to North America to study, and becomes a literature professor. He returns to India and goes through the traditional process leading to an arranged marriage, and then brings his bride with him back to New York. They have two children in short order, and become an American family with strong Bengali roots, which are nurtured as a result of their regular participation in the New York City-based Bengali community. Their first child – a boy – is named “Gogol” after the great Russian writer whose work has particular significance to the father. The role this name – connoting a third cultural influence – plays in the boy’s life and his relationship to his father, gives the movie its title.

Both the father and mother become Americanized, but he much more so than she. She barely speaks English upon arrival in the US, but eventually adjusts enough to hold down a job as a librarian, while continuing to dress in traditional Bengali fashion. Their children, however, are almost completely American. The story eventually brings them back to their roots, to an extent. However, some of the most touching moments relate to the gulf between mother and children. Try as she might, having spent the first two decades of her life in India and then as much time as possible within the expatriate Bengali community in the US, the mother cannot understand what goes on inside the heads of her children, and nor can they understand her.

Some of these painful moments reminded me of my own family. There is an unbridgeable gulf between my parents and me, and an even greater gulf between them and my children. There is significant distance of a different kind between my wife and I, on the one hand, and some of our children on the other. This is, for the most part, a good thing. They are being raised in a non-Mormon world. Having placed them in that world, told them that there are nowhere near as many important rules as we once thought, and encouraged them to make their own decisions, we struggle at times to understand them. Hesitant acceptance of their choices is at times the best we can do. Our upbringing as Mormons that makes it as difficult for us to understand our children’s rapidly evolving non-Mormon social world as for the mother in “The Namesake” to understand her children’s New York.

I am happy with this situation. I accept it as the best of the possible alternatives. I have launched my children as well as I can, and know that my ability to perceive their world is limited. I have adopted Mordecai Kaplan’s statement as part of my credo:

Our responsibility to our forefathers is only to consult them, not to obey them. Our responsibility to our descendants is only to impart our most cherished experiences to them, but not to command them.[1]

I am proud of my children. Most of what they do pleases me, as the introduction to this essay indicates. And when what they do does not please me, I remind myself that for the reasons I am about to indicate, they (as adults at least) have eyes for their environment that I do not. I must trust their judgement ahead of my own.

Generation Gaps

In virtually every culture there are gaps between generations. This is what has kept the human species alive and evolving, and recently, made it dangerously dominant on this planet.

The human brain does not mature until roughly age 25. This requires a significant amount of brain formatting outside the womb, and therefore causes brains to be shaped by the environment by which children are surrounded[2]. This means that each generation of humans is custom fit to its environment. As ice ages come and go, wars wax and wane and various other massive environmental changes occur, this constant reformatting and the flexibility from one generation to the next that it causes, has been our salvation. Tension between parents and children is a small price to pay for this, in a sense. However, there is little solace in this knowledge as we struggle to understand our children. This illustrates life’s tragic aspect – the price of many goods includes foregoing what is also precious to us.

Immigration between cultural groups exacerbates generational differences. Children quickly and thoroughly format to their new culture[3], whereas parental lack of brain plasticity prevents them from doing the same. "The Namesake" movingly illustrates this.

Cultural Immigration

Those of us who have left Mormonism, or other literalist religious traditions, are cultural immigrants. Most of us had no idea how isolated we were from a cultural perspective until we left the Mormon cloister. As I try to fit into non-Mormon culture, I regularly feel like the newly blind.

While Mormon, I did not worry about office politics or community affairs. These were at best games – and usually silly games – that in the eternal scheme did not matter. I was above them. I did not hang out with the folks at the office after work, and tended to find excuses to avoid all but the most important work related social activities. I was involved in my children's sports and school activities, but beyond that remained aloof from community affairs. I was so busy with matters of eternal significance that I did not have time to dedicate to these relatively unimportant issues. Not all Mormons are just like me. There is a probability distribution of behavior in this regard in the Mormon community. Some Mormons are socially adept outside of Mormonism. Think of Mitt Romney, for example.

But on average, Mormons are more like the kind of person I just described than non-Mormons. If the average Mormon was raised outside of the tight-knit Mormon community, much more of her energy would have gone into these “silly games”. And, significantly, the more serious the Mormon the more likely this is to be the case. Once again, those who were the most devoted to Mormonism suffered the most damage. There is something profoundly wrong with any organization of which this can be said – the people who adhere most completely to the organization’s values suffer the most damage.

Now that I have lifted my eyes from Mormon eternity, I see social activities as the rich stream of human communication that they are – a social life-blood. These games now have my full attention. However, as I try to play I find that my instincts are underdeveloped. The Mormon social system is relatively simple. Lines of communication and authority are clearly drawn. The play is well scripted. I did not have to have my antenna up or use my communications skills to their fullest in order to get along. I simply did what I was called to do, and that kept me more than busy. I did not very often have to decide what I wanted to do, and then marshal the resources necessary to bring that into being. At about age 50, it is not surprising that I find it difficult to radically upgrade the only way I know to play. I am, nonetheless, trying.

So, I empathized in particular with the mother in "The Namesake". Having left India, she was an outsider on those occasions when she returned. She had become just American enough that she did not completely fit in there. This had a lot to do with her perspective. She saw the old world, her family and their society differently than she did before spending time in North America. This is not necessarily better or worse – it is just a social fact. Exposure to new points of view irrevocably changes what and how we see.

And the children did not fit in India. There were tourists – and reluctant at that – there. Her ties to them meant that even after her husband died and she returned to India, she would always have one foot firmly planted in American soil. But she was never completely comfortable in America. She missed her family. She did not understand to a lot of what was going on around her. Her instincts were, largely, “off”. Her children's behavior baffled her. The best she could do was accept that while still loving them. She demonstrated how to do this admirably, even while Gogol rejected his tradition (and her) for a time.

One of the many important things I’ve learned as a result of the reading I did while re-wiring my Mormon brain is that we are better off focussing on our strengths than our weaknesses. This will make us both happier and more effective. The best research in a variety of fields points to this.[4] We should identify the strengths we have inherited as a result of genetics or circumstance, and spend most of our energy working with those strengths to the extent possible. We should protect ourselves against our weaknesses instead of trying to remedy them. For example, if I am poorly organized, I will be much better off hiring someone or investing in technology to help me to become organized than changing my most basic habits. Disorganized people are often creative, good salespeople, etc.. If I am one of those people, I am likely to be much happier and more successful if I pour my energy into feeding my creative (or sales) talents instead of trying to force myself to become a detail oriented guy. If I employ people like this, I will likely make the organization stronger if I tell them that all they have to do is get their sales (or creative output) up to some defined level and I will hire them a fill time administrative assistant and they will never again have to fill out a form themselves, or keep their offices organized.

So, let’s assume that we have worked through the grieving process, vented our anger to the extent it is productive to do so[5], recognized that it is dysfunctional to continue to do so, and are trying to move on. We have figured out that the brain’s nature orbit is more negative than positive, and hence that we have to make an effort to stay in positive territory, and that when we do so, lots of good things follow.[6] We have decided to spend more time on the things that promote satisfaction with life[7]. Having recognized all of that, we ask ourselves, “What is it about this new world into which I have been thrust, when combined with my native strengths, that offers me the opportunity to flourish?”

This is an individualistic exercise, and so I can’t do more than offer my point of view and time requires this not be exhaustive. So I am going to mention a few of the opportunities that have presented themselves to me, and I would love to hear about what others have found to be the best of the post-Mormon opportunity in their lives.

Chaos and Growth

See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.star... at page 22 in this regard.

Leaving Mormonism broke the main patterns in my life, bathing me in terrifying, life giving chaos. My intellectual life exploded. My desire to learn was insatiable for a time, and continues to be unusually potent. I suspect that this attribute will characterize me as long as I have energy. Not all people react to this post-Mormon experience as I did in this regard, but a large number of people open new intellectual chapters upon leaving Mormonism.

Art and Creativity

Again, my life has literally exploded. I think this has to do with the importance of symbols within the mythic systems that underpin our personal narratives. We all perceive ourselves as characters in a grand story of some kind. We are narrative animals. If we come to perceive ourselves as not fitting into the story comfortably, we usually change the story as well as the nature of our character within it. This can happen for many reasons. Maybe we discover that we are gay when the narrative we inherited from our culture impugns gay people. This requires that we come to perceive ourselves differently, and that new aspects to the foundational narrative be discerned, or that narrative be abandoned. This causes us to re-write our foundational narrative and our role within it, and to seek the company of people with whom we can communicate and be understood on this basis – to find a new tribe[8]. Most of the time, even when we think we are abandoning our inherited narratives, we have kept as much of what we inherited as we can. We do not let these things go easily.

Or maybe we find that as our perspective matures and we learn more about the foundations of our inherited story, it no longer makes sense. Our foundational narratives or worldviews do not need to be true in order to perform their function in our lives, but they must make sense to us in light of all of the rest of what we believe to be true. This is the story of spiritual maturation that when combined with social change drives the evolution of religious institutions.[9]

Or maybe our society collapses, or is overrun by another stronger cultural group and a new story is forced upon us. In the Middle East we can see two kinds of war being waged, with the same effect in this regard. The military action raging in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine is re-writing foundational narratives in many ways, and Western culture is riding on slick internet rails into the heart of societies dominated by powerful people who are unsuccessfully fighting to hold it at bay. They play a fools game in this regard,[10] but the tides of history mean little to dogmatists. The important point for present purposes is that the energy invested on all sides in their literal and cultural wars is forcing individuals to re-write their foundational narratives.

As we re-work our life frameworks, symbols play a crucial role. Jungian psychology (or at least metaphors drawn from it) speaks to this. The artistic urge that led Jung to his archetype theory[11] is similar to what I and many other people who have re-worked their worldview from the foundation up have experienced as we groped toward ever-elusive essential meaning. The deeper we probe the more we find ourselves using a language of basic symbols that is probably a function of our biology, including our brain structures, and the common nature of human experience. This is the language of art. Spending more time in this space, and less in analytical activities, helps most people who are re-wiring their brains.[12]

As an aside, many have noted the negative correlation between literalist religious belief and high quality artistic output. This is likely due in part at least to the fact that most good art requires the recognition of irony and life’s tragic foundation. Dogmatic belief creates irony impaired people who tend to see the world in black and white terms. They write hagiographies in stead of biographies. Their attempts at art tend toward propaganda, or as James Joyce put it, “didactic pornography”.[13]

Outsider Perspective

Isaiah Berlin's story suggests something in this regard.[14] He is one of my favorite scholars, who started out as a philosopher and became an intellectual historian.[15] I mention Berlin because he attributed much of his success as a scholar to his outsider status, and hence “The Namesake” reminded me of him.

Berlin’s Jewish family immigrated to London, England from Latvia just before the second world war. He never felt fully part of British society, while being considered by many who knew him well to be quintessentially British. His self perception radically differed from the perception of those around him. His self-perception created the emotional distance that was part of what made him a great scholar.

During the second world war, Berlin played a significant diplomatic role between Britain and the United States, and spent a lot of time in New York and Washington in that regard. His acute observational powers and abilities as a politician and communicator brought him into contact with many of the most powerful people in America and Europe during this period. But he never felt like he belonged in the United States either. He returned to his homeland, as well as spending a significant amount of time in the Soviet Union where his family had ties.[16] Again, he was the outsider. He was a non-believing Jew. Again, an outsider.

Berlin believed that his role as an outsider in every conceivable circumstance gave him the ability to see things within the various social groups of which he was part that the insiders could not see. He yearned for greater connection, while the same time recognizing the fact that his disconnection largely made him what he was. And he revelled in what he was.

Berlin describes something relative to this irony that captures a deep truth with regard to human existence more efficiently than I've ever seen it captured. This idea is so obvious once it is properly stated it almost doesn't seem worth stating. However, the more I think about it and use it to explain what I see on a daily basis, the more powerful it becomes for me.

The idea, as Berlin put it, is that life has an essential tragic aspect that provides much of the emotional force we feel. This is most easily visible in the fact that we are often confronted with many good things that cannot be simultaneously achieved. This forces us to make decisions that cause pain to ourselves and others.[17] These forces operate at the macro (societal, species, etc.) as well as personal levels. His life illustrates this tension – as noted above, while longing for the full social embrace most members of society feel, he recognized that his inability to experience this made him what he was. There are countless other examples of this tension. Here are a few that are on mind this morning.

· As I noted above, generational gaps and the pain they cause are the price we pay as a species for our tremendous inter-generational flexibility. The family that left India for the opportunities North America offered could not have these, as well as the comfort of remaining embedded in their native culture.

· When leaving Mormonism, I had to choose between hurting my parents and others I love by publicly rejecting beliefs they hold sacred, or hamstringing my children by allowing them to continue to be influenced by a social system I had decided was extremely dysfunctional.

· One of the best descriptions of intimate relationships I have seen captures this tension with the following words:

THE ACHE OF MARRIAGE by Denise Levertov

“The ache of marriage:

thigh and tongue, beloved,

are heavy with it,

it throbs in the teeth

We look for communion

and are turned away, beloved,

each and each

It is leviathan and we

in its belly

looking for joy, some joy

not to be known outside it

two by two in the ark of

the ache of it.”

In our most intimate moments we feel a simultaneous ebb and flow. We want both merger and independence. Both can’t be satisfied.

The same concept can be explained in terms of complex adaptive systems[18] terms using the concept of the “adjacent possible”. We (and social institutions such as Mormonism) can be thought of as social organisms that exist on an evolving landscape much as do biological organisms.[19] As the landscape changes, the organisms roll into different valleys. In all cases, these organisms automatically seek the most efficient alternatives available to them – those that require the smallest expenditure of energy. This means that moths may change color to better protect themselves from predators as their environment changes, but won’t turn into elephants. In graphic terms, it means that the balls won’t suddenly roll up to the top of a hill. However, with the expenditure of a bit of energy or as a result of a small random change in the landscape, they may roll over a low pass into the adjacent valley. The different environments represented by neighboring, accessible valleys, are “the adjacent possible”. However, each time we roll from one valley into another, our adjacent possible changes – what was adjacent and accessible before each move is different afterwards. This means by taking advantage of one opportunity, many others are foreclosed.

Returning to intimacy, Kahlil Gibran memorably told us that “For even as love crowns you, so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning.”[20]

When I think of this process in evolutionary terms, I see more co-evolution than one partner pruning the other. I think this is the concept toward which Gibran groped as he juxtaposed growth and pruning.

We evolve to fit our environment. Our closest human companions are a major part of that environment, and have more influence than any other factors on what we are from moment to moment, and hence what we will become. I noticed this first during my mission. My personality changed significantly on the basis of the personality of my companions. And I liked myself more in the form I took with some companions than others. The same dynamic is at work in our intimate relationships. It is not that one prunes or shapes the other, but that they both change as a result of the presence and therefore influence of the other. It is a mutual grinding, or refining, or perhaps better yet, intertwining growth. The shape and growth characteristics of each influence the other. Kind of like the way in which each little valley in France has managed to produce at least one wine and cheese that go together incredibly well. This is co-evolution.

I will not become anything like Isaiah Berlin, but have seen something that evokes him emerge in my life. As noted above, my cultural immigration has made me an outsider. I have chosen to leave the only culture to which I fully belonged. Late in life, I am trying to become a secular North American, with full knowledge that my brain will not allow me to make this transition. This gives me a perspective few people have. Like Berlin, I know a tremendous amount about many social groups – Mormons; literalist religious people; secular westerns; law firms; etc. while having a degree of emotional detachment from each of them that allows me to see things that are going on differently (if not more clearly) than most other people. I can use this ability in a variety of ways, and since I am more than out of time today, I will stop here.

Conclusion

Most cultural immigrants have not chosen their path, but rather suddenly found themselves thrust into an initially terrifying world. The better our perspective, the more beauty and utility we are likely to find as we continue along this way.

[1] Mordecai Kaplan, “The Meaning of God in Modern Jewish Religion”, at page 98.

[2] Quartz and Sejnowski, “Liars, Lovers and Heroes: What the New Brain Science Reveals About How We Become Who We Are”.

[3] Language learning is one of many areas in which studies related to this have been conducted. There is a clear correlation between language and cultural proficiency that is possible and the age at which immersion occurs.

[4] See Seligman, “Authentic Happiness”, for example.

[5] See again “Authentic Happiness”.

[6] See Jon Haidt, “The Happiness Hypothesis:, and various works by Daniel Goleman, some of which is summarized at http://www.affirmativeactionhoax.com/.... Here is a sample Goleman quote:

“Good moods, while they last, enhance the ability to think flexibly and with more complexity, thus making it easier to find solutions to problems, whether intellectual or interpersonal. This suggests that one way to help someone think through a problem is to tell them a joke. Laughing, like elation, seems to help people think more broadly and associate more freely, noticing relationships that might have eluded them otherwise---a mental skill important not just in creativity, but in recognizing complex relationships and foreseeing the consequences of a given decision.”

[7] Like meaningful work and other activities that allow us to use our strengths, active leisure, developing long term relationships, promoting social causes important to us, meditating, becoming more healthy, etc.

[8] Some of the foundational studies in narrative psychology relate to the acknowledgement of sexual orientation. See Dan McAdams et al, “Turns in the Road: Narrative Studies of Lives in Transition” and “Identity and Story: Creating Self in Narrative” in this regard.

[9] See Fowler, “Stages of Faith”; Farmer, “Neurobiology, Stratified Texts and the Evolution of Thought: From Myths to Religions and Philosophies”, at http://www.safarmer.com/Farmer.Beijin...; Boyer, “Religion Explained”; Atran, “In Gods We Trust”; and Rue, “Religion is Not About God”.

[10] History has not treated kindly social groups that shut themselves off from the world. Islam circa 1100 CE led the world in most ways scientific and cultural. A religious resurgence then occurred, and Islam’s leaders turned it away from science and international relations, and toward more important “spiritual” matters. As a result, Islam was soon a scientific and cultural backwater. By the 1400s, China was far ahead of the rest of the world in terms of scholarly knowledge, navigation, military power, culture and wealth. The rudder on the huge Chinese trading ships of this era were almost as long as the entire flagship Columbus used in his landmark voyage almost a century later. The Chinese imperial library included over 4,000 printed volumes at a time when the two of Europe’s most power figures – England’s Henry V and Florence’s Francesco Datini – had six and 12 handwritten books respectively in their libraries. Printed novels were routinely sold in Chinese markets; Europe would not discover the printingpress for decades. Then, a change in Chinese domestic and foreign policy occurred in the mid-1400s, caused by purely secular considerations, and China turned inward. It is only now beginning to recover. See Menzie, “1421 – The Year China Discovered the World” at page 62 and 63, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing. For a smaller scale example, consider the difference between mainstream and fundamentalist Mormons. While Mormons are backwards in many ways, they are positively urbane when compared to their FLDS cousins.

[11] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetyp....

[12] See “Art Therapy for Recovering Mormons” at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.art%....

[13] See Joyce, “A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man”, and “Does Religious Belief Affect Creativity?” at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.crea... .

[14] See Michael Ignatieff’s masterful biography with regard to Berlin, titled "Isaiah Berlin -- a Life".

[15] As an aside, among the many ideas Berlin traced is that the greatest exercise of freedom is the making of the decision to be bound by a powerful social authority. He illustrates how this idea’s modern incarnation occurred in the late 1700s and shows how it influenced the fascists of the 20th century. Though he did not indicate this, it is easy to see how this idea, being dominant during the early 1800s, became foundational to Mormonism and was then freeze-dried. See “The Mormon Conception of Freedom”, at http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.the%..., which compares ideas Berlin collected from the late 1700 and early 1800s to statements made by Mormon leaders up until as recently as a few years ago. The late Enlightenment philosophers (such as Rousseau) who came up with these ideas, fascist leaders and Mormon leaders were all dipping their buckets into the same stream. Mainstream political philosophy continuedto evolve, and either completed abandoned or substantially re-worked Rousseau’s ideas. Mormonism did not largely as a result of being conservative (we have the truth and the truth should not be changed) and not being subject to the forces of democracy and the information transparency that it requires.

[16] A fascinating sidebar in Berlin’s story, from a post-Mormon point of view, is the difficulty Berlin and other expatriates had in understanding the intellectuals who chose to sacrifice themselves – in many cases submitting to what amounted to a death sentence – by refusing to flee places like Russia. On the other side of this divide, those who remained committed to their countries of origin could not understand how anyone could leave. Along the same lines, Berlin was criticized for not becoming more passionately involved in many of the burning issues of his day, including the conflict between socialism/communism and capitalism. Her remained the aloof and incisive observer, while many of his colleagues gave their lives to these causes. Similar differences – often passionate – can be seen in the ways in which the people react to the post-Mormon phenomenon.

[17] Interestingly, after studying Berlin's life for over a decade and writing the biography I mentioned above, Michael Ignatieff (a Harvard professor at the time and now a Canadian politician ) continued studying the theme I just mentioned and eventually gave a series of influential lecturers and wrote a book titled "The Lesser Evil" (see http://press.princeton.edu/titles/757...), the roots of which are found in Berlin's work. As an aside, I note that I am proud to be a citizen of a country (Canada) where those who wish to have a chance to be elected to high office do not have to declare their belief in the functional equivalent of the Great Pumpkin.

[18] See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.star... at page 9.

[19] See http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.star... and the diagram on page 10 in this regard.

[20] Kahlil Gibran, “The Prophet”.
topic image
The Bird In The Garage
Monday, Mar 10, 2008, at 07:50 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
At this time of year, it is still dark when I arrive home from work each evening. A few nights ago, I pulled up to the garage in the usual manner, hit the door opener, waited the required moments, and then drove slowly inside. Our garage is usually a mess, and is particularly disastrous right now. The leftovers from a kitchen renovation forlornly await their trip to the dump, and make even getting to and from my car akin to walking a mine field.

As I manoeuvred around the one pile that intrudes into my parking space, a bird fluttered past me, hovered as it tried to decide what to do in the corner of the garage, and then shot back past me on the way to the other side. This has happened a time or two -- a bird somehow gets trapped in the garage, and we always have a hell of a time getting it out. A couple have died there.

I got out of the car and tried to shoo the bird out the garage door as I walked toward the house. I was ready to crash, but the thought of finding a dead bird the next morning made me pause. After getting out of my coat and putting my briefcase away, I decided that I would see if I could flush the bird out of the garage before supper. I tried to recruit Ayden, our six-year old grandson, as my assistant. Television was far too interesting for that, and so I went out on my own.

We have a three-bay garage, and at this point all but one is filled with junk. This made my bird chasing task more difficult.

After three or four trips from one side of the garage to the other, it became clear that the bird was terrified of the wide-open, huge dark spaces that meant its freedom. It occurred to me that the lights in the garage might be tricking it. It kept trying to fly out a window that that I could not open. The glass reflecting light back into the garage made the bird think that this was the way out. It flew into the window time and again. Whenever I tried to steer it out the garage doors, it veered wildly away.

This reminded me of something I read a long time ago about moths. They have an amazing navigational system that allows them to find their way by reference to the moon and stars. Ironically, the same system causes them to fly in ever smaller circles around an open flame, or light bulb, often causing their death. Evolution designed them over a long period of time in an environment where the lights were generally speaking so far away that they could be used as fixed navigational points. The kind of lights human beings use fool them into suicide.

I thought something similar might be happening with the bird. Its eyes were acclimatized to the light in the garage. It makes sense to me that birds would prefer to fly where they can see, instead of in the dark. It might be as simple as that.

Many human instincts appear to be dysfunctional in ways that are similar to what I've just described. In particular, our instinct to remain with our inherited tribe, even when it is sucking the life out of us, produces behavior strikingly reminiscent to moths flying ever closer to a flame or birds flying terrified away from dark doors.

In any event, it became clear to me that I was not going to be able to chase the bird out of my garage as long as it was light on the inside and dark outside. I knew that I would leave home in the morning before light, and therefore decided to try one more strategy before leaving the bird to fend for itself for another 24 hours.

By this time, I had several good looks at the bird. It was a medium-size sparrow; brown feathers, with delicate blue markings on each wing; a beauty. It was designed for short, quick flight as opposed to hovering. It laboured to stay aflight inside the garage. And, I recently heard a story about a fellow who ran down a deer. Apparently, you don't have to be as fast as a deer to do this, but rather have to be able to keep the deer moving for long enough to exhaust it. I thought the same strategy might work with this bird. So, for the next several minutes, I scrambled around the garage staying close enough to prevent it from landing and resting. After the bird seemed barely able to stay in the air, I allowed it to alight on its favorite spot, beside the window against which it crashed at every opportunity. Odd, I thought, how much it likes that damn window in spite of the pain it has suffered there.

As the bird landed, clearly exhausted, I gently scooped it up. It did not resist until I had it in my hands, and then it fluttered wildly and released its bowels. I quickly walked the few steps to the nearest garage door, stepped out into the dark and gave the bird a gentle toss upwards. It rocketed out of sight.

What a series of disasters from the bird’s point of view. It had somehow ended up in a bad place. It was trapped, struggling to get out and smashing itself up in the process. However, what appeared to be an opening was barred by something invisible to the bird. Over and over again it ran into this barrier, no doubt injuring itself, but unable to behave differently. As always, it took special care to stay away from the dark places where it could not see its way. Then, one of those terrifying predators chased it to exhaustion, and caught it. This meant certain death, which seemed about to occur as the bird was dragged from the light into darkness, where it inexplicably found itself free. Go figure. That bird and its descendants will be telling this story in testimony meetings forever.

Life is weird. For birds, apparently, as well as the rest of us.
topic image
Jon Haidt And "The Happiness Hypothesis" - A Long Book Review
Friday, May 2, 2008, at 07:20 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
The following is something I will send to my clients shortly. It is still in draft form, but I thought some here might find it useful.

Happiness Hypothesis letter – April 2008

Dear *:

Re: Jon Haidt's "The Happiness Hypothesis"

I thought you would enjoy the enclosed book on CD. Please accept it with my best wishes. This had been intended as a Christmas gift, then a New Year's gift, then a Chinese New Year's gift. One thing after another delayed this letter. So, now "The Happiness Hypothesis" ("THH") is an April 30th (tax filing day in Canada) gift. I hope that it will make those of you writing large cheques that day feel a bit better.

THH’s author, Jon Haidt, is an up-and-coming social psychologist who teaches at the University of Virginia. THH is one of several books that were published during the past couple of years that treat this topic, and is head of the class.[1]

As its title suggests, THH is about what makes us happy. However, it covers a lot of territory while telling that story. Most of us will find something here that is useful when dealing with customers and colleagues at work, loved ones at home, or looking in the mirror.

This review is long and dense enough that you may want to save it for reading on a plane, or for putting yourself to sleep at night. It is set up so that the main ideas are captured in the section immediately below, plus the conclusion. This amounts to about eight pages. The remainder of the letter summarizes THH in its entirety as well as setting it in context. That amounts to an additional twenty pages and enables my personal objective with regard to a book of this quality – to summarize a lot of useful information in a conclusion I can remember and hence use to influence my behavior.

Ten Ancient Ideas – An Overview

THH is organized around 10 ancient ideas with regard to what makes us happy and the current social scientific research that is relevant to them. Haidt indicates that the first two ideas are foundational to the rest. They are: (1) that the mind is divided into parts (the recently evolved conscious and the much older unconscious, which Haidt calls the "rider" and the "elephant"), and that these often conflict, and (2) to what extent does "thinking makes it so", as Shakespeare, the Buddha and many other sages have said?

Next, Haidt analyzes two important ideas related to the social aspect of our lives. They are (in their order from the ten ancient ideas) our tendencies: (3) to reciprocate and (4) to be hypocritical.

Having dealt with foundational ideas, Haidt summarizes the research with regard to what actually makes us happy, as opposed to what we assume will make us happy or remember making us happy. He does this by addressing four questions. They are: (5) Does happiness come from getting what we want?; (6) Does it come from our relationships?; (7) Do we need adversity to be happy?; and (8) Does happiness come from being virtuous?

Haidt concludes with a consideration of how two “big” questions: (9) How does happiness relate to the Sacred or Divine?; and (10) How does happiness relate to the meaning of life?

Before summarizing a few of the concepts that caught my eye with regard to these ideas, I will cut to the chase for those with limited time to read this kind of material.

The Bottom Line

We first need to digest and accept the fact that we do not perceive or remember accurately due to our “cognitive biases”. Until we do that, we are not likely to make much progress toward being happier.

Most of our cognitive biases are tooted in our elephant and its need for security.[2] This causes us to have trouble admitting that we or our social group are often wrong in what we perceive, remember and believe. This includes many of our foundational beliefs. If we can’t trust our judgement, we will be paralyzed by fear and indecision, which throughout most of human history would have quickly killed us, and now will at least spoil our golf game.

So, the elephant screens the rider from a lot of disturbing information, regardless of how accurate it may be. The rider, after all, evolved to make the elephant more effective. The rider’s illusion of control and reliable judgement (also caused by the elephant’s need for security) does just this. As a result, however, the rider cuts a tragically comic figure as it rides through life supremely confident in its finery – our own personal Emperor in New Clothes.[3] That parable illustrates many aspects of the rider on the elephant as well as any. And, our difficulty accepting this unflattering reality with regard to ourselves[4] is itself also explained by our elephant’s security deficit, and perhaps best summed up by “Flatland”[5], another classic. There, two dimensional figures struggle to grasp and then explain to others in their world, the third dimension. The moral of the story is that our difficulty in understanding has nothing necessarily to do with a reality that once grasped suddenly seems childishly obvious.

Basic paradigm shifts, such as that illustrated by “Flatland”, are among the most difficult and painful to achieve, while often offering life’s richest payoffs.

Many of our cognitive biases lead to what Haidt calls “happiness traps” – behaviors to which we are instinctively drawn and that make us consistently unhappy. Training our elephant to avoid these is crucial to our happiness.

One of the most efficient ways to remember the important concepts related to happiness is through the use of a formula:

Happiness = S + C + V

That is, happiness depends on our: Capacity for happiness that is set (S) by our genetics and history; the relatively hard to change conditions (C) of our life, and the choices we make with regard to particularly important voluntary (V) or discretionary activities.

Our set happiness range refers to the fact that some of us are naturally more morose, and others more bubbly. The somewhat depressive also tend to perceive reality more accurately than their cheerful peers. We can choose to live so as to move toward the top of our set happiness range, and things like meditation, cognitive therapy and anti-depressants help in this regard. But it does not appear that we can change this range, no matter how much we will this or how many exercises we do. Understanding this helps us to establish realistic expectations, and to identify the strengths which, if developed and regularly used, will enable us to spend more time near the upper end of our happiness range.

The conditions of life relevant to happiness are relatively difficult (and in some cases impossible) to change, and include things like our race, sexual orientation, and the nature of our family and community. For example, a person born into a stable family in a stable democracy with adequate opportunities for education, health care and meaningful employment has a much higher probability of living a satisfied life than an orphan in an impoverished, war-torn country.[6] The gargantuan effort necessary to leave abusive relationships, escape from unstable communities or drag oneself out of poverty pay massive dividends from a happiness point of view.

It is important to note that we are often far more capable of changing the basic conditions of our lives than we believe. THH sheds light on why we tend to unnecessarily stay in unhappiness producing circumstances.[7] On the other hand, the massive effort required to drag oneself from the middle class into the super wealthy category or achieve other significant social status markers, appears to pay negligible happiness dividends unless the process by which these symbols are obtained is itself enjoyable. That is, happiness is about the journey. Those who endure the journey in hope that the destination will pay off are almost invariably frustrated. And continuously arriving at seemingly desirable destinations (buying as opposed to earning, for example) is ironically depressing. Many major life events, such as moving to the climate that seems most desirable, winning the lottery, or becoming a paraplegic have surprisingly small happiness effects.

Understanding how the conditions of our life affect happiness will help to bring into focus the cost-benefit equation with regard to some of our most important decisions. The bottom line in this regard is that for most of us living in the developed part of the world, the "big" issues (race, health, education levels, wealth, etc.) have a much smaller effect on happiness than most of us assume.

Our voluntary or discretionary activities have a much greater effect on happiness than we tend to appreciate. We can choose, for example, to spend more time cultivating our most meaningful relationships instead of accumulating status symbols; we can choose to reduce our commuting time; we can identify our strengths and choose to spend more of our time using them;[8] we can identify the causes for which we feel passion and spend more energy there; we can choose to spend more of our time in environments that are more predictable or over which we have more control; the jack of all trades can choose to master something at a level she has not previously experienced; the expert may push himself out of his comfort zone into a period of chaotic personal and professional growth; etc. Taking action of this kind tends to improve our happiness. However, most of us consistently choose not to do these things.

So, to the extent that we are involved in a relatively intense way in activities that we enjoy because of their nature, not where they lead, we will be happy and things that interfere with this (like long commutes; consistent exposure to irritating noise and unstable or out of control environments; etc.) will reduce our happiness. Happiness is in this small stuff, not life’s seemingly big issues or the achievement of the elephant’s goals.

Haidt is at his best when explaining why we continue to do what has consistently made us unhappy while assuming that this time things will be different. Even more interesting is why, after we have had all of this lucidly explained and have decided to change our ways, so few of us are able to do so. Our elephant and the cognitive biases it inflicts on our rider are largely responsible for much of our tragically errant judgement.

Haidt's overview of what makes us happy (as well as what depresses us) provides important insight into a host of important business, family and personal issues. How can office environments and career paths be made more attractive to the increasingly "post-materialist" younger generations?[9] How can middle aged people at the peak of their productive capacity be enticed to remain fully engaged in their business or professional endeavors? How can marriages and other long term intimate relationships be continually revitalized? After earning money declines in importance, what kinds of activities are likely to provide fulfillment?

Most importantly, Haidt explains why[10] the richer and hence more focussed on happiness humanity has become, the more depressed we tend to be. Among children and teenagers in particular, clinical depression is now called an epidemic by some medical practitioners.[11] Haidt explains this by noting (as indicated above) that happiness is a by-product – it results from our progress toward goals, not their achievement. Today we effortlessly obtain more than any prior generation dreamed possible and are faced with a supreme irony – we have reached the Nirvana toward which our ancestors climbed, and it turns to dust as we grasp it.

The solution? There is no silver bullet, but it is a good start to understand more about the nature of happiness and why our instincts formed in a radically different environment long ago are not designed to make us happy. Just as overeating every time we had the chance made sense throughout most of human history but does not now, many of our instincts run contrary to our conscious objectives.[12] An increased awareness of why we do what we do makes it more likely that we can train ourselves to behave more functionally.

Importantly,[13] during the last decade or so we have finally accumulated enough evidence with regard to what actually makes people happy, instead of what they think makes them happy or remember having made them happy, to identify the best guide to happy living. Instead of relying upon the typical survey data, social scientists began contacting many research subjects multiple times each day by cell phone, finding out what the research subjects were doing at that moment, and asking questions designed to measure various psychological states. Many hundreds of thousands of data points have been collected in this fashion with regard to a wide variety of different types of people in varying circumstances. This still growing database enables us for the first time to compare what similar people tend to remember feeling in certain types of situations, or think they will feel in that type of situation, to what they actually reported feeling while in that situation. The actual reports differ radically from the remembered or the anticipated experience. However, when confronted with this evidence, our tendency to feel that we are special generally speaking causes people to ignore whatever conflicts with how they either remember they felt, or think they will feel.

For example, the evidence is clear with regard to the stress and unhappiness that results from many aspects of child-rearing. A large percentage of divorces occur near either the birth of a couple’s first child or that child’s thirteenth birthday. However, people tend not to remember the extent to which they struggled with child rearing, and have a difficult time accepting the probability before becoming parents that they will struggle. This misperception is to some degree responsible for our species’ survival. But in any event, the same psychological tendencies that are responsible for most people feeling they are above average also appears to be responsible for how most people react when confronted with research findings that summarize how the population reports their actual, in the moment experience. That is, if what is reported disagrees with what we expect (that is, being a happy parent), we tend to feel confident that we will beat the odds. We can radically upgrade the happiness we experience by accepting that we are likely to react as most other people do in similar situations, and train our elephant to accept and be ready for that.[14]

I suspect that this introduction will be more than enough for most recipients of this letter. Those who want to stop reading here should skim the conclusion and then enjoy THH itself. However, largely for selfish reasons I have written a substantial overview of THH and include that below on the chance that you may find it useful. I often produce documents like this when I discover books that offer insights so important to me that I want to make them part of my worldview. This is part of how I try to train my elephant.

Cognitive Biases

I picked up THH because I wanted to learn more about happiness. To my surprise, however, I found that THH ties directly into one of my favorite topics – cognitive biases – and came at it from an angle that helped me to answer questions I have been chewing on for a long time.

The study of cognitive biases maps our mental blind spots[15]. Those who sell us things and control us in other ways routinely exploit many of these. For example:

· We tend to seek confirmation for our beliefs and to avoid or suppress the perception of evidence that questions them. That is, we are not truth seekers, we are confirmation and affirmation seekers. The more people around us share our beliefs, the stronger this bias is. Our memories, perceptions and judgements all bend to this and the other forces noted below. This has to do with our need for security. This need explains most of our mental foibles, as well as the happiness traps Haidt describes.

· We underestimate the importance of the natural probability of events and so tend to see meaning were there is none. This likely also has to do with our need for security.

· Reality is often more complex than our ability to comprehend it. Since we don’t deal well with the fact that we are often wrong, we unjustifiably simplify what we observe so that we can believe that we understand it. The culprit here is, again, our need for security.

· We are more persuaded by stories, metaphor and analogy than data. We are narrative animals. This is part of our tendency to simplify, and so is also related to our security needs.

· We tend to trust people perceived to be experts more than can be justified. For example, a man dressed in a business suit will tend to be believed, and obeyed, more than the same man dressed casually. Again, this has to do with our need for security. I have likely made the security point by now and so won’t tie the rest of the points into it.

· Vague, distant sources of authority tend to sway us more than present sources. (“You must do this because (science, the Government, God, etc.) says you must” v. “You must do this because I say you must”).

· Our beliefs tend to change in the direction of the things we say (“The Chinese brand of Communism is better than Western democratic capitalism”), even when we speak solely for the purpose of participating in a classroom exercise. If the elephant said it, the rider is under pressure to believe it even if the rider “knows” that it is not true. This tendency is used by sales organizations that have their sales people memorize and publicly repeat their sales messages even if they do not believe them. Over time, sales person buy-in to the message has been shown to go up dramatically as a result of this technique. The “saying is believing” bias illustrates a counter-intuitive connection between our physical actions and our mental states that has been shown to exist in a wide variety of circumstances.[16]

· We tend to reciprocate in unexpected circumstances. For example, a waiter’s tips tend to go up if mints are delivered with the restaurant’s bill.

· Our actions are influenced by context far more than we think. For example, we are more likely to make a donation if we are first asked for something enormous (“Would you be the overnight supervisor in our homeless shelter for the next two weekends?”), and when we decline are then asked for a donation. We also tend to pay more for an item if during the sales process we are shown something very expensive and similar to what we plan to purchase. This explains why stores stock expensive items that they never seem to sell.

· We react far more strongly to the appearance of others than we like to believe. For example, people tend to sue barely negligent doctors who don’t smile a lot, but do not tend to sue grossly negligent doctors who are at the friendly end of the spectrum. In general, physical factors like the height of a male, the attractiveness of a male or female, or how much a person smiles, are far more strongly correlated with social, financial and other forms of success than most of us in the meritocratic West believe.

Much unhappiness is the result of frustrated expectations. So, if we are consistently wrong about reality we will tend to be unhappy. An understanding of how cognitive biases work helps us to establish more realistic expectations and to get more of what we want from life. That is only part of the happiness story, however, and this brings us to where Haidt and his unruly elephant can take over.

The Ten Ancient Ideas

I will now return to Haidt's ten ancient ideas. First, the two foundational ideas, that the mind is divided into conflicting "rider" and "elephant" parts, and that to an extent "thinking makes it so".

The Divided Mind

Like a rider on the back of an elephant, the recently evolved[17] conscious part of the mind has limited control over what the elephant does, and the elephant's tendencies (our instincts) were for the most part developed in an environment that differs radically from the one we must navigate today. For example, the elephant pursues the security and status that will help it win the evolutionary contest to pass as many of its genes as possible on to the next generation. The rider evolved to help in this regard. From a survival and reproduction point of view, confidence in self and one's group is often more important than accurately perceiving what is going on around us. That is, it is better to be wrong and alive than right and dead. Even today, many contests go to the most confident and loudest self-promoter instead of the most talented. For this reason, an important part of the rider's job is to justify whatever the elephant happens to do, and the rider does this while believing that it is an accurate perceiver in pursuit of truth and justice. To perform its function, the rider must be unaware of much of what is going on, like sales people who are most effective while unaware of their product’s shortcomings.

The rider's tendency toward inaccurate perception and overconfidence explains a lot of human behavior that seems irrational. This is why most people believe that they are above average and that their perceptions are accurate and objective while other people are strongly influenced by emotions and biases. It also explains the ease with which most people can pick out flaws in other people's belief systems while being unable to do so with regard to their own.

The elephant is like tried and true hardware, and the rider like recently developed, buggy software that is under the powerful delusion that it is in control. In contests between the two, the elephant tends to win. It operates automatically and wears down the rider's will. The elephant can be trained (a laborious process), or manipulated by taking him into environments where his behavior is predictable. Elephants are highly mimetic. For example, if I want my elephant to exercise more and eat less I simply need to get him to spend more time in gyms with other elephants who have been trained to workout, and less time around food.

Haidt uses the rider on the elephant metaphor throughout THH to communicate the tension that exists between our conscious and unconscious selves. Much of what we experience as unhappiness is the result of this tension, and much of what we perceive to be irrational behavior in other people and they in us (but not generally us in ourselves or they in themselves) is the result of what our elephants automatically do on the basis of eons of adapting to an environment that has little in common with our current reality. For example, current research suggests that most people would be happier if they lived closer to work, spent less time commuting, worked less, spent more time engaged in activities related to their most important relationships and causes, and spent their discretionary income more on experiences and less on objects.[18] This would require, however, that we give up the type of status symbol the elephant instinctively pursues, such as higher incomes, larger houses and other visible status social artefacts. As noted, the elephants win most contests of this type, and as a result we tend not to find the happiness we seek.

The elephant, and the automatic processes it represents, is relatively easy to predict. Think about what kinds of behavior are most probable to enhance survival and reproductive opportunities in a primitive environment, and you can predict the elephant's impulses. This boils down to a simple attraction and withdrawal system that Haidt calls "yuck and yum". Anything that is likely to improve prospects for survival or reproduction will feel good and attract the elephant (the nice smell of food cooking; the sight of an attractive potential mate). Anything that might prove threatening will repel the elephant (the bitter taste of toxins or a sound in the bushes that might be a predator). And because it's much more serious to miss a threat than an opportunity for a meal or sex, the elephant has a negative bias. That is, if you don't notice a ripe piece of fruit, you've missed a tasty treat, but if you do not react quickly enough when you hear the sound of a potential predator, you might be dead. So, our brains arewired to react much more quickly and dramatically to potential threats than opportunities for food, sex, etc.

Thinking Makes It So

“There is no reality, only perception.” “As a man thinketh, so is he.”

Countless self-help programs, and many religions and quasi-religions have been built on principles like these, including the recent "Law of Attraction"[19] and "What the Bleep Do We Know"[20] phenomena. There is no doubt that people feel empowered by these ideas, and that they are as literally false as they are metaphorically true.

Current research indicates that we are limited in a variety of ways by our genetics, not to mention the laws of physics. To the extent that we can cultivate a positive attitude, this will enable us to do more or differently than would otherwise have been the case. However, we have limited control over our moods and no matter how positively we think, there are many things we will not be able to change. As Einstein put it, reality may be an illusion, but it is very persistent.

Recent research has taught us a number of significant things about the negative bias mentioned above, and as a result we now know more than ever regarding what we can realistically expect to change in terms of our general attitude toward life and what we should plan to accept.

For example, our negativity bias explains why the mind at rest tends toward depression. By day three of a long weekend or vacation of planned "down-time", most people feel somewhat depressed unless they've kept themselves busy, which would mean they did not have downtime. Watching a lot of television does not create enough mental activity to short-circuit the negativity bias, and accordingly the more television a person watches, the more likely it is that she will be depressed.

One of the best ways to overcome the negativity bias is to spend many hours a day in a "flow" state.[21] This is the mental state that accompanies being engaged in a challenging activity that you regard as meaningful. If the challenge is too great, you will become frustrated and feel stress. If the challenge is not great enough, you will be bored and eventually depressed. The immediacy of feedback is important. It is hard to stay in flow if you have to wait hours to find out if each step you take is on track. Flow is that ideal combination of challenge, feedback and meaning during which time seems to disappear. Evolutionary forces seem to have shaped us to need hours of flow activity per day. This makes sense in light of the tasks our ancestors needed to perform in order to survive.[22]

Ironically, both adults and children tend to believe that they will be happier if they have more leisure. The data indicates the opposite. Children who are permitted to do what they want to do (spend more time watching television, playing video games and hanging out at the mall with their friends) tend to be significantly more depressed than their peers who spend more time doing homework and engaged in active hobbies such as learning to play a musical instrument or participating in competitive athletics. Adults who take early-retirement without finding significant challenges, and hence flow, outside the workplace similarly report increased levels of depression and health problems, and tend to die sooner than their more engaged peers.

So, is the solution to depression remaining busy all the time? While that helps in some ways, it has also made many in the Western world uncomfortable in their own skin. A synthesis of Eastern and Western wisdom appears to be helpful in this regard when it comes to elephant training.

Meditation, whether combined with yogic practices, deep relaxation techniques, cognitive therapy or otherwise, correlates powerfully with reduced levels of depression and increased happiness. It seems to loosen up our mental systems so that they are better able to identify, and adapt to, reality. In fact, a combination of meditation and cognitive therapy has been shown to be as effective as pharmaceutical antidepressants with regard to a wide range of mental illnesses, while providing many other benefits and avoiding the side-effects that often accompany the use of anti-depressants. Cognitive disciplines like meditation, that have their roots in Eastern spiritual traditions, tend to orient us toward the present and its peaceful acceptance, and accordingly provide a healthy counterbalance to the Western tendency to continually look over the horizon. At the same time, ideas with regard to the importance of striving for improvement and passionately embracing life are moving from the West to the East, with many positive as well as negative consequences.[23]

History and literature are full of stories of people who achieved some important insight into their life's condition, and were changed forever more. The research indicates that while this is possible, it is unusual. Generally speaking, our epiphanies have short-lived effects. This is because they are a conscious (rider) phenomena, and therefore do little about the nature of our elephant. If we want to change the elephant, we have limited tools at our disposal. As already indicated, if we can change the elephant’s environment we can often change its behavior. If the environmental change lasts long enough, this may retrain the elephant. Meditation and cognitive therapy also work, as already noted. Initial positive effects are felt quickly, but significant and lasting change requires consistent effort over long periods of time. Think of this as a life-style change. Pharmaceutical antidepressants are also effective for some people, but have many side effects. Haidt tells the story of how he determined that he hasa moderately depressive personality type, and decided that he should take antidepressants. He encourages their use for people who are positively affected by them. In his case, however, the antidepressants had a side effect -- they impaired his memory. As an aspiring academic, this was intolerable. He accordingly, and with great reluctance, gave up the wonderful feeling of calm the antidepressants gave him in order to recover his ability to recall and process information.

Next we consider two important ideas related to the social aspect of our lives. They are our tendencies to reciprocity and hypocrisy.

Reciprocity

Virtually every long-lived human civilization has something resembling the Golden Rule near its foundation. It is therefore clear that this principle is of tremendous importance to human society. It is important, however, to distinguish the Golden Rule from the "turn the other cheek" principle, which is prominently featured in the New Testament, and to subject the Golden Rule to a variety of other exceptions. For example, there is a great deal of evidence that something more closely resembling the Old Testament’s "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" is the required for successful social groups.

It has been demonstrated, for example, that the most productive behavioural rule in most societies is what has been called "modified tit for tat" and that this is our most common social behavior. That is, when someone cheats us we will not immediately cheat or punish them, but rather we will give them one or two opportunities to reciprocate our fair behavior, and then we will reciprocate their cheating behavior and/or punish them in other ways. In countless social simulations this strategy has been found to outcompete others, and it has also been found to closely reflect actual social behavior. In cases where people constantly "turn the other cheek" when cheated, the cheaters continue to cheat and the group becomes less productive and in some cases collapses under the weight of widespread cheating.

The vast majority of people with whom we deal socially reciprocate our positive behaviors and do not cheat us. However, we occasionally run into cheaters and after we have provided them adequate opportunity to play fair, as already noted, we feel compelled to punish them and warn others about them. From a purely selfish perspective, this does not make sense. The time, effort, personal risk and other resources we expend while attempting to punish a cheater and let our friends and others know about him do not make sense in light of what we as individuals are likely to recover as a result of these efforts. However, what we do in this regard makes sense when the benefits to be gained by our group are taken into account. The damage a cheater can do will be limited if news of his habits spreads, and this saves other people from loss. Accordingly, our tendency to gossip and engage in other activities that alert others to cheaters of various types, while reinforcing the conceptions of fairness within our social groupthat will cause other cheaters to be ferreted out and warnings sent in that regard, are more important than we perhaps appreciate. Similar behavior has been observed in other small herd animals. For example, the bird that sees an approaching predator generally sounds a warning that maximizes the probability that the flock will escape, while drawing the predator's attention to the warning bird and therefore increasing the probability that it will die. This type of self-sacrificial behavior indicates the importance of our social connections.

A good part of our mimetic behavior can be explained on the basis of our instinct to reciprocate. If someone smiles at us, we tend to return the smile. If someone gives us a gift, we likewise tend to reciprocate. The more we are trying to impress someone, such as while on a date with an attractive potential mate or in a meeting with our boss, the more we are likely to mimic their movements. They lean back in their chair, we lean back in ours; they put a hand on their chin, we follow; they tilt their head left, we incline ours in the same direction, etc. This physical solidarity says louder than words "I am with you, I like you, and I even want to be like you". When the words we use are inconsistent with our body language, the words are not believed. Studies have shown that body language is much more difficult to fake than words.

Marketing experts long ago intuited what social science has now laid out for all to see, and developed programs around these principles. For this reason, salesmen mirror our movements and requests for donations are often preceded by a small gift, such as the old War Amp keychain license tag and the Hare Krishnas thrusting a flower into people's hands before asking for a donation. Even the salesman’s smile and cheery “How are you today?” are designed to harness our reciprocity instinct. We feel that it is rude not to reciprocate, and once engaged by the salesman it is more likely that we will purchase. Countless goods advertized for sale are accompanied by a "free gift" that we all know is not free. Nonetheless, sales increase once the “gift” is offered. Waiters' tips go up if mints are provided along with the bill for dinner.

When negotiating, if one party concedes a point the other party tends to follow, and if not, the first party will be upset. However, the urge to reciprocate does not require symmetry – a compromise needs to be reciprocated, but something small will often do. The opposite side of the coin is that sales people who distribute moderately helpful information or take potential customers to hockey games are often rewarded with multi-million dollar contracts. As an intimate relationship deepens, the process often involves escalating and reciprocal personal disclosures, such as with regard to prior romantic relationships and why they went wrong. But if you go too fast, this can take the relationship off the rails as surely here as a too large gift from a sales person will “not seem right” and make the sale less likely. So, when negotiating anything from a multi-billion dollar deal to the time at which your 15 year old will arrive home on a Saturday night, it is a good idea to put something on the table that you are prepared to give up so that you can reciprocate the compromises you will probably receive. Our children are as irritated by a lack of reciprocity as any business executive.

The better we understand the human instinct for reciprocity the less likely we are to be taken advantage of by others, and the more power we are likely to have over them. Hopefully, we will resist the temptation to improperly use this power. The odds are against this, however, and we are likely to justify whatever we do, because we tend to be hypocrites.

Hypocrisy

Yes, we are all hypocrites. This appears to have a lot to do with our need to feel secure, and hence justified in what we do. Our rider exacerbates the problem by acting like the elephant's lawyer. That is, the conscious part of our mind tends to explain our behavior in its most flattering light. We tend to overemphasize the importance of the positive contributions we make in any situation, and to minimize or overlook entirely the negative things we have done while perceiving the positive and negative contributions of other people in precisely the opposite fashion. This means that most people believe that they are better than average spouses, better-than-average roommates, smarter than average, better drivers than average, etc. Intelligence and education levels do not appear to have much of an effect in this regard. A recent study showed that something like 90% of all university professors believed that they perform at above-average levels.

Most of us use something that has been called the "makes sense" stopping rule as we perceive and reason. For example, after we have taken a position or made a decision (such as to buy a particular make of car) we look for evidence that supports it and once we find enough evidence to conclude that our position "makes sense", our analysis stops. However, when confronted with evidence that contradicts a position we have taken (a bad consumer report with regard to our car that we could have easily found while shopping), we tend not to admit that we were wrong until the evidence is incontrovertible. The more important the position we have taken ("I married the right person" or "My religious (or political) beliefs are justified"), the higher the standard of proof we require before admitting that we are wrong. In many cases, we set the bar so high that it cannot possibly be hurdled. It is easy to do this regarding uncertain phenomena, like politics, religion, global warming, personal relationships, etc. This makes it possible, for example, for people to hold PhDs from Harvard and other similar universities in geology while persisting in their life-long belief that the Earth is about 6,000 years old. The most staggering fact in this regard is that most people – and therefore probably you and me – hold important beliefs that are close to as demonstrably false as young earth dogma, and that we do not falsify for the reasons just noted. If you are like me, as you read that last sentence (and as I typed it), the thought “That can’t really be true about my important beliefs” crossed your mind. This means we are normal. We are close to constitutionally incapable of accepting that we have the usual frequency of the usual human flaws.

When considering the position other people have taken, we tend to believe that they are motivated by emotional and personal reasons that distort their judgment, whereas we are objective and rational. As it turns out, we are relatively accurate in our perceptions of others, and grotesquely inaccurate when it comes to ourselves. This emphasizes the importance of relying upon the judgment of objective third parties regarding our personal decisions. Ironically, the more important the personal decision, the more likely we are to suffer from impaired judgment, the more important it is that we rely upon others’ judgement, and the less likely it is that we will do so.

Studies involving the negotiated settlement of disputes have provided interesting material in this regard. In simulations, when each participant knew which side of the dispute they would be on before reading the materials related to the dispute, more than one quarter of the cases failed to reach a settlement. However when they didn't know which side of the dispute they would be on until after they had read all of the materials, only 6% did not settle.

Since this tactic is not possible with regard to real disputes, other attempts were made to find ways to "de-bias" disputing parties. Having participants read a short essay about the nature of biases that affect people while attempting to settle disputes proved ineffective. All the participants seemed to do was use the information about biases to predict their opponents behavior, without changing their own. This caused both parties to dig into their positions further and faster. Even worse results occurred when each party was first required to write an essay arguing the other side's case as effectively as possible. Where this happened, the parties appeared to become better able to refute the other side's case as a result of understanding it more completely, without appreciating the weaknesses in their own case.

Only one strategy appeared to help real disputing parties reach settlement. This required each participant to read an essay about biases as well as writing an essay about the weaknesses in their own case. This appears to address the essential nature of our essential bias -- the inability to see our own case as others are likely to see it.

I've noticed something similar with regard to the tax litigation I do. Tax litigation cases, as well as most other kinds of court cases, tend not to settle until shortly before trial. This may be because as trial approaches, the reality that a judge will hear the evidence and form an opinion about it finally begins to sink in. As both clients and lawyers begin to think about the questions the judge is likely to ask and how the judge is likely to perceive the evidence, weaknesses in the case begin to appear that months and often years of preparation before trial did not disclose. This facilitates settlement.

The less we know about other people, the more likely we are to believe that they cannot possibly be correct when they disagree with us. Our tribal tendencies in this regard reinforce what has been called the "myth of pure evil". That is, we tend to grossly overestimate the bad intentions, ignorance, and lack of moral fibre of those who disagree with us. The less we know about the other people and the more important the issue, the stronger this tendency. Post-9/11, this made it easy for Americans to demonize Muslims, and vice versa. This lack of understanding between groups, coupled with our tendency to be unjustifiably certain that our way is the right way, is near the root of many of humankind's worst moments.

The negative tendencies described above are part of our elephant, and therefore difficult to change. As already indicated, meditation and cognitive therapy are useful tools in this regard. We can also engage in exercises designed to bring us face to face with our own weaknesses. The settlement exercise noted above exemplifies this. As we attempt to do this, our rider (the elephant's lawyer) will likely complain. However, as we digest insights with regard to our often disappointing reality (we often make mistakes; many of our important beliefs are false; we are not always above average; etc.), we tend to feel empowered. Our elephant will recognize that the information we are gaining will make us better able to deal with reality, and therefore constitutes a form of power. Haidt also indicates that doing what is "right" in this regard, especially when it is costly for us, will in and of itself produce a flash of pleasure that is associated with what he calls "elevation" – the experience of witnessing moral and otherwise admirable actions.

The more realistic in assessing our own flaws we become, the fewer will be our disappointments, and the happier we are likely to be. And, when dealing with even the most difficult people, we may also harness their reciprocity instinct. Admissions with regard to our own faults and latent hypocrisy tend to produce similar admissions from others. Admissions of our own biases and hence tendency to misperceive, despite our best intentions and efforts, tend to do the same. The road to understanding, compromise and “win – win” is often paved in this way.

Haidt next addresses four ways to happiness that many people have suggested. They are: Does happiness come from getting what we want?; does it come from our relationships?; do we need adversity to be happy?; and does happiness come from being virtuous?
topic image
"I Am Not As Happy As I Used To Be While Mormon"
Wednesday, May 28, 2008, at 08:25 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
“I am not as happy as I used to be while Mormon”

I addressed this in part about with the idea that we will always be restless. However, there is a bit more that should be said.

I posted something earlier that was quite extensive with regard to the current social science of happiness. You can find out by searching the board using the term "The Happiness Hypothesis".

All I will say for the moment is that the straightforward idea that what we think will make us happy should be followed is unlikely to produce a satisfying life. I prefer to think in terms of what will make us better off. This is often the difference between short-term and long-term satisfaction. In the short term, we would rather not know that our spouse is cheating on us or that our religious leaders are systematically deceptive, because that news will make us profoundly unhappy. In the long term, however, we are generally better off if we learn about dangers of this type as early as possible so that we can take corrective action that will minimize the damage we suffer.

One story that illustrates this point very well is told by Elie Wiesel in his classic book "Night". He tells of someone from his village who was captured by the Nazis, machine-gunned along with hundreds of other Jews, thrown into a pit and left for dead. He was not on top, and so was not bayoneted to death (as were many who survived the bullets), and instead of running away spent several months hiding and traveling back to his village so that he could warn his family and friends of the impending disaster. At that time, the Nazis activities were not widely known, and there was still an opportunity to escape.

When he finally made it back to the village and told his story, he was dismissed as a lunatic. For weeks he wandered around the town trying to persuade people that they needed to flee. He had very little if any success. Many of the villagers were eventually taken by the Nazis, and died in concentration camps.

Thinking of the story in terms of happiness, if a villager had believed the survivor, would that have made her happy? Probably not. It probably would have meant she had to liquidate her belongings to the extent possible, and leave the only place she had probably ever known to start life over. But, would she have been better off? Probably so. The likelihood of dying would've been much reduced; the likelihood of creating a new life in another place was far greater than she probably understood.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Were the people who refused to believe the survivor happier as a result of their denial? Probably so. But were they better not? Obviously not.

I'm not suggesting that those who leave Mormonism will be unhappy. What I'm suggesting is that we should not think of short-term happiness with regard to a departure from Mormonism or with regard to most other things. Human beings habituate very rapidly to the big changes that occur in their lives. If you were unhappy after leaving Mormonism, you're probably going to within a short time habituate to your new environment, and experience a level of happiness that was very similar to whatever you had within Mormonism. On the other hand, if you react to leaving Mormonism as I did (experience a period of radical euphoria) you'll soon habituate to your new environment of increased freedom and again you will be back to the baseline experience of happiness that you had while Mormon. That is my case.

This leads us back to the real question -- are you and the ones you love the most better off as a result of no longer pouring the energy you did into the Mormon community, and instead directing that energy elsewhere? In my case the answer is clear. I am far better off, and so are the people I love the most. There may be a few cases in which the answer is less clear, and some in which it appears that a person is probably worse off outside of Mormonism than within it.

Some people need be stability of the Mormon environment much more than others. The same can be said with regard to the FLDS and other cults. Particularly once a person has been conditioned within that environment for a long time, in some cases it may cause more harm than good to remove them. The question then becomes whether the personal sacrifice of happiness in one generation is worth what it will produce in subsequent generations.

Before leaving Mormonism, I made the decision that if I needed to suffer a great deal in order to put my children in a position where they would live in an environment where they would probably be better off, I would do that. The same sort of decision has been made by countless immigrants drought human history. That is how we might think of ourselves – we are social immigrants.
topic image
"You Are The One Who Broke Our Marriage Covenants By Disobeying The Church, So If We Get Divorced Its Your Fault!"
Wednesday, May 28, 2008, at 08:38 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
“You are the one who broke our marriage covenants by disobeying the Church, so if we get divorced its your fault!”

One of our companions the other night raised the old notion that somehow when one spouse leaves Mormonism and the other does not, the one who leaves is breaching the marriage contract, and is therefore at fault.

This argument does not hold water. Contacts are based on representations. If a foundational representation is false, the contract is void. For example, what if I enter into a contract to purchase 1967 Mustang convertible in mint condition, and just before paying for it find out that it is a clever reproduction instead of the real thing. This would render the contract void, and release me from my obligation to purchase.

To cast this in religious terms, what of a couple who married and at the same time agreed that they would both be faithful to Jim Jones. If one spouse became uncomfortable with what Jones was doing, discovered the ways in which he was misleading and abusing his followers and insisted on leaving his cult, would that be a breach of a marriage contract or wise behavior based on the discovery that a basic representation (or assumption) on which the marriage was based was false? The same applies to Mormonism.

However, it is extremely hard for people to accept reality when it comes to religious beliefs. This explains why marriages did break up prior to and at Jonestown, with some spouses leaving and others remaining to die. It similarly explains the divorce rate (80% in one study) found in cases where one spouse leaves Mormonism and the other does not.

Having been through the marriage wars on my way out of Mormonism, I have a great deal of empathy for people who find themselves in this situation.

My approach, for what it's worth, was to be up front with my wife regarding the fact that I was no longer prepared to abide by the Mormon Temple covenant. This amounted to me going to her, telling her that I felt that that aspect of our marriage covenant was based on a grotesque misrepresentation, and was therefore not binding on either of us, and inviting her to engage in a discussion with me regarding the kind of marriage we wanted to have. This was an extraordinarily difficult time for us. She was still a fully believing Mormon, and was suspicious of me in many ways. I tried to persuade her, both by what I said and by what I did over several years, but I still loved her; that I wanted to be a better husband and I had ever been before; that this was a result of my own desires and choices instead of out of a wish to qualify for the celestial Kingdom or fear of God or anything else and therefore was more genuine and reliable than anything based on Mormonism’s false representations could ever be; that I believ
ed that our life together could be better than it had ever been. It took a long time, but eventually she was persuaded.

No marriage is perfect and ours certainly is not. However, it is better now than it has ever been.
topic image
"I Am Hutterite" By Mary-Ann Kirkby
Wednesday, Jun 4, 2008, at 09:11 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
“I Am Hutterite” by Mary-Ann Kirkby

I saw this book sitting on a stand in and airport bookstore as I was walking past this afternoon, picked it up on impulse and finished it a few hours later. I highly recommend it. This is not a great work of literature. It is, however, a nicely crafted little book that is somewhere between important and very important for people who have left Mormonism, or who are sitting on the brink of leaving and terrified by that prospect.

The Hutterites are closer to the fundamentalist Mormons and the Mormons. They are the cultural relatives of the Old Order Amish, and live primarily in Canada in a communal environment. "I Am Hutterite" is the true story of a family who left a Hutterite colony. It is written by a women who was approximately 10 years old when her parents took the extremely unusual step of deciding that they could no longer abide by the strictures of their community.

This story parallels the experience many of us have had while leaving Mormonism. However, it is more extreme than our experience in almost every way. Hutterites are raised in the same sort of cloistered environment as the fundamentalist Mormons. They are accordingly hamstrung when it comes to surviving outside of their communities. The cultural adjustment they go through as they attempt to acclimatize to life outside the "colony" is exponentially more difficult than the adjustments post-Mormons have to make.

Mary-Ann Kirkby is a journalist, and therefore well-suited to telling this story. She writes from a child’s perspective, observing the stresses in her parents and other community members’ lives and how that affected her experience. She went through the adolescent hell of being an odd dressing, accent speaking outcast after her family left the Hutterite faith and community. She describes in fair, clear headed and loving terms both the strengths and weaknesses of her former community. She emphasizes the importance of forgiveness in the healing process after departing an authoritarian community.

In particular, Kirkby communicates the warmth and complexity of the relationships within her former community, and the relative desolation she initially experienced in the “outside” world. She describes in convincing fashion the iron rule within the Hutterite group, the love demonstrated by the rulers and others, and the ignorance dominated life the Hutterite faithful lead. The book's primary weakness is it lack of comment relative to the negative effect of the Hutterites extreme "beehive" mentality. The price paid for the community's warm embrace is surrender of nearly all opportunity for personal development.

Gradually, Kirkby and her family acclimatized to the “English” world. However, the first year was excruciating and the first several were difficult. For her parents, the difficultly went on for much longer. They made the same kind of sacrifice immigrants make – they gave up potentially everything in order to purchase a better life for their children. This kind of courage moves me.

One of the aspects of this book that I found most interesting was the difference between the way the men dealt with the conflict that resulted in Kirkby's family leaving the colony, as compared with how the women dealt with it. The men tended to draw lines that were much more black and white, and based on principle. The women seemed to be more orientated toward preserving relationships, regardless of principles that needed to be breached in this regard. The women, for example, tended to break the rules in order to maintain contact once family members left the colony. The men tended to be the ones who forced issues, and hence forced change. The women then reacted to contain the energy that was generated in this regard so as to preserve relationships. This caused that energy to remain within the group, and caused additional change because the dissidents could not be excised cleanly as would have been the case had the men ruled with the iron hand they have on paper.

Women are bridge builders who ease transitions and exert an influence outside the formal structure of the Hutterites community.

When Kirby's father finally decided he had to leave the community, he went away on his own for a few weeks to attempt to lay the groundwork. He was well over 40 years old, had a grade 8 education and had never done anything other than farm work. He and his wife had seven children. The prospects for him being able to support his family were minimal.

While he was gone, community members told Kirkby's mother that he had run away and would not come back for her, but that if he did come back she should lock the doors and not permit him into the house. During their wedding ceremony years before, he had covenanted that if he had a crisis of faith and left the colony that he would not attempt to take his wife and children with him. That is, Hutterite marriage is a three party deal - husband, wife and Church.

In the parts of the story that deal with the way in which the Hutterite community is structured, countless parallels can be found to the Mormon community. For example, Hutterites believe that the colony is the "ark of God", and that only those who remain within the ark are safe. All those who refuse to enter, or who leave, will perish. As a little girl, Kirkby was so disturbed by the stories of judgment day she heard, that at one point she concocted a plan to do something really good for her mother and then kill herself. She reasoned that life was so difficult overall, and in particular it was so difficult to get to Heaven, that it would be better for her to do that (her good deed just before death would ensure her entrance into Heaven) than to continue to struggle through life. She was pulled back from this plan by the knowledge that killing herself would hurt her mother and father too much.

I was particularly touched by the author's description of the loneliness Kirkby and her family experienced as they adjusted to life outside of the warm Hutterites community. For example:

"The summer of 1969 was the loneliest summer of our lives. We lived in the middle of nowhere and knew no one. It rained all the time, and the flies and mosquitoes were intolerable. If we went outside to play, we were up to our elbows in muck. If we stayed in, with no television or toys to amuse us, the boys would wrestle or play tag, tearing the house apart. On the colony, we would have been to Essenschul for breakfast and off playing with our friends by 8 a.m., but the social and physical structure that had given order and purpose to our lives had been ripped out from under us. In Faireholm [the colony], we had spent relatively little time with our siblings except for evening prayers and bedtime routines; our new circumstances brought us in much closer contact with each other, and that led to a lot of arguing as we worked to define our new relationships. Mother found herself with a house full of lively children who didn't know what to do with themselves." (Page 123)

"Mother struggled to put meals together. There was no more running to the community kitchen for fresh, home-cooked meals or buns, pies and cakes just out of the oven. In Faireholdm the bell rang at 15 minutes past seven and 11 in the mornings, and 15 minutes past five in the afternoon for what was known as "first call". Those with very young children sped toward the kitchen, for it signalled that the meal was ready and they should come to fill their pails and dishes with a delicious vaariety of fresh food to take home. Older people have the option of having their food delivered to their homes instead of going to the Essenstuben. On the half hour, the bell would rign again and the rest of the community would stop what they were doing and head to the kitchen to eat."

"Since she was a teenager, mother had followed the traditional pattern of work rotation on Hutterite colonies. She was 17 when she was first assigned a cook week in Rosedale, the age when all women step into their adult roles and are paired with other women between the ages of 17 and 45 to spent alternating weeks baking, washing dishes, or cooking. With up to 100 community members to feed, good organization was important; the menu was set out in advance by the head cook, and the supplies were always on hand in the kitchen. Had mother stayed on the colony she would, at age 45, have been eased into retirement as the younger women took over, but now her retirement was put off indefinitely."

"She was an excellent cook and with the proper ingredients could replicate all the mouthwatering Hutterite meals our spoiled palates were used to, but we couldn't afford the ducks for Sunday dinner or the cream for Schmond Wacken or the fresh strawberries so readily available on the colony. All Father could manage on his salary was food at bargain prices. A sympathetic Jewish grocer in Winnipeg who ran a small corner store agreed to sell him produce that had outlived its shelflife." (Page 125)

"We hardly ever saw Father anymore. He was gone most mornings before we awoke and arrived home late in the evenings after everyone was in bed. Mother craved adult companionship, and sometimes I would find her gazing longingly out our kitchen window, watching a single car drive past until it was out of sight. What she would give to share a cup of coffee with Katie Hofer or fold laundry with Oma, who made every crease vanish, and our underwear and towels look as if they had been ironed.” (page 130)

"I sensed her loneliness and started to stay up with her to keep her company. Every night, often until midnight, Mother stroked my hair and told me Bible stories of faith and perseverance while we sat by the picture window looking out into the darkness. I could tell she was trying to shore up our own faith, and the stories were as much for her benefit as mine. On the colony, the family had no worries about food and shelter, paying the bills, or caring for children. In our new lives, far from the security of [the colony], mother had no idea how we would survive if something happened to Father, or what we would do or where we would go. When we saw the headlights of the truck turning onto our deserted lane, we would both be relieved, and I would rush upstairs to my bed before Dad was in the front door." (Page 131)

[Comments with regard to a return visit to the colony without her family] “I missed seeing my mother working with the other women, hearing her laugh and swap stories with her gardening partner, Katie Hofer. During our daily ice cream break, the older women patted my head sympathetically and proclaimed me “innocent". I knew that they blamed my parents for what had happened. I was still too attached to let go, not ready to give up the silky sand beneath my feet, the dusty, winding paths, and the sound of the kitchen bell. I ached for the structure of the days, the familiar, lined faces of the women in the kitchen, the smell of baking buns, and the guttural sound of our language. My heart was not ready to accept that this was no longer home." (Page 150)

Overall, this book is both touching and profoundly encouraging. Those of us who have been through difficult cultural transitions will find the description of the stresses Mary-Ann experienced as a young person attempting to adjust to a new way of life moving. And, if Hutterite families can leap the massive chasm described in this book successfully, Mormon families should cope with the changes required to adjust to life outside Mormonism. We should expect to be frightened by the prospect of this transition. We should also expect it to be manageable, and that we will thrive in the more complex, richer environment outside of Mormonism.

"I Am Hutterite" is about human social evolution - a testament to our adaptability.
topic image
How Long Does One Continue To Engage Mormon Apologists In Debate?
Thursday, Jun 5, 2008, at 07:52 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I still receive email on a fairly regular basis from the faithful of various stripes (Mormon, FLDS, Evangelical) who encourage me to take the time to consider their latest theories and evidence as to why they have "the truth".

Early on in my recovery/exodus process, I diligently followed up on much of what I received in this regard, and actively sought out the best informed Mormon apologists in an effort to make sure that I had considered every possible argument in favour of my rapidly crumbling faith. It would have been far easier, after all, for me and my family had I been able to reconsile Mormonism with common sense sufficiently to have remained within the Mormon community.

As time has passed, my willingness to spend time in dialoque with the irrational, dogmatic faithful has declined. The following is representative of the kind of response this type of person now receives upon asking me to, yet again, re-plough dogmatic ground that I have been over in one form or another many times. It deals with Book of Mormon archeology (specifically, the latest geography theory re. the BofM), but could be re-worked for many other similarly low probability theories.

I note, as an aside, that this is the approach I also use with people who suggest that I should spend a bunch of additional time to re-consider my position that is is extremely unlikely that there is life after death on the basis of the most recent non-scientific accounts of near death experiences, or whatever. No matter what our most important beliefs are and how crazy they may look to others, it is really hard to consider the possiblity that they are highly unlikely to be correct.

In all cases, I continue to be willing to consider scientifically respectable material that questions my position. I am not willing to spend time on the latest faint hope for the faithful.

The "sacred land bridge" noted below is worth special attention. It is a great analogy to Book of Mormon historicity. All the same players are involved, including highly educated apologists arguing for what to outsiders is a laughable theory.

best, bob

Thanks for writing. I have thought a lot about the kind of beliefs you put forward, and have found so little to them that it no longer beleive makes sense for me to spend time studying this kind of thing.

For example, it makes as much sense for me to continue reading the BofM acheological literature as it does the most up to date young earth creationist theories and evidence re. why the earth is about 6000 years old. It is not possible for some people to see that a horse is dead no matter how long they have beaten it.

I now treat Mormon craziness to the same yawns I have for religious craziness of all other types. Hence, as long as the respected scientists studying in an areas pay no attention, I pay no attention.

Mormon theories in favor of BofM historiscity are in more or less the same credibility camp from a scientific perspective as young earth creationism, alien abudctionism, Scientology's belief in Thetans, and whether dredging a proposed shipping channel near India will destroy the remnants of a sacred land bridge created anciently by an army of Monkeys working under the direction of Lord Rama (see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news...).

In each of these cases, zealots (some of them well educated, smart people) will defend the ridiculous to their death beds, and will be hailed as heroes by their fellow dogmatists for this irrational act. They can each see the nuttiness in other religions, but not in their own. What a pathetic waste.

There are too many important things to study to spend time debunking other people's fantasies over and over again.
topic image
Big Picture Religion And Atheism
Thursday, Jun 12, 2008, at 08:53 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I found Jon Haidt's reference in The Happiness Hypothesis to the literature related to ethics of community versus ethics of individuality to be useful. In particular, it was his suggestion that perhaps we would not want to completely eliminate either one or the other that got me thinking about this concept.

There is lots of evidence that the ecosystem is a massive information processor with an immense intelligence. For example, it is teleological in the sense that in many ways it appears to move toward a state that preserves, and perhaps enhances, life. If a certain part of the globe becomes overrun by a particular species of animal or plant, disease and conflict within the population can be counted on to knock it back the point where a more diverse environment can regenerate. These richer, more fecund environments are kept in balance by an intricate series of tension dominated relationships. Predator versus prey; disease versus immune system. At every level, death spawns life and vice versa.

I see the tension between the ethics of individuality and ethics of community perspectives within the human species as analogous to these many other tensions. And, for certain purposes and in certain environments the ethics of community orientation will be much more important than the ethics of individuality, and again, vice a versa. It therefore makes sense to me that the vast ecological system of which we are a miniscule part would wish to preserve both of these attributes of humanity. To lose one or the other would be to lose system strength.

Just as largely undetectable information flows cause Adam Smith's invisible hand to operate, there appear to be for all intents and purposes infinite other information flows around and within us that cause similar intelligent mechanisms to function. It may be that our behavior is governed to a large extent by our subconscious reaction to some of this information. It may be that we subconsciously sense forces around us that cause our perception to be screened, in much the way important social relationships will prevent people from perceiving evidence that could upset those relationships.

The conclusion I am stumbling toward is that even the most seemingly conscious, high functioning ethics of individuality people among us are still part of a hive mind, and part of the role they play within the vast human organism is to keep the largely disruptive, creative, individual driver alive even during periods dominated by something akin to the Spanish Inquisition. Nature will see to it that there will always be some people who are constitutionally incapable of living in any other than this way. On the other hand, we should expect that even in the most liberal, ethics of individuality corners of our planet during times of plenty that encourage maximal exercise of human freedom, that strong pockets of ethics of community oriented people will be preserved. The religious impulse in this direction is one of many, but historically a strong one. Good times will not last forever, and strong communal fabrics are particularly important during times of struggle. I recall hearing a story about one of the Africancountries in which massive conversions occurred to the Muslim faith during war as a result of the way in which that community nurtured sufferers of all kinds.

As the environmental pendulum swings back and forth from scarcity to abundance, people near the middle of the spectrum will swing one way or the other based largely upon the social dynamics dominant within their group. Of course, they will perceive themselves as reacting to "reality" or "truth" as they perceive it, but when their behavior in large groups over significant periods of time is a viewed from 10,000 feet, they will be indistinguishable from ants reacting in predictable fashion to changes around or within the hive.

This reminds me of Larry Iannaccone's fascinating paper called "Accidental Atheists". You can find it at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf... . There, if I recall it correctly, Iannaccone provides support for the idea that one of the best predictive factors with regard to changes in religious belief is the religious belief of your six closest associates. As people move back-and-forth from the coasts of the United States to the interior regions, you would expect that this would cause a gradual averaging of the theist versus atheist views in those regions. Over a long period of time, that has not been the case. He suggests that this is because (in part at least) that once a critical mass of believers (or disbelievers) has been established in an area, they draw a large percentage of new entrants into their orbit. Of course, the atheist who moved to Utah and has a conversion experience to Mormonism there experiences this as a radical encounter with new truth of some kind, just as does the Mormon and moves to New York City and "loses his faith". The perception of the experience appears confabulatory, just as is the perception of "being hot" is while shooting a basketball. In one study, some statisticians followed the Philadelphia 76ers around for a season and determined that if a player’s shooting percentage was, for example, 45% that the probability of him hitting his next shot was exactly 45% regardless of whether he reported feeling hot or cold either before or after taking the shot. That "can't miss" feeling is probably a confabulatory after the event phenomenon. I happen to know a lot about this particular issue, having been a basketball player until recently. The same thing applies for golf and other physical activities, and in its purest and easiest to identify form is experienced by gamblers.

As you know, I am far from an advocate of the overtly religious path, but the longer I study these issues and more value I see in some of the behaviors they manifest.

Another model that fascinates me is Denmark, and other Scandinavian countries. This illustrates how the ethics of community and individuality work at different levels within the same group. These countries at the macro level are among the most socialistic in the world, and therefore strongly oriented toward the ethics of community at that level. Ideologically and intellectually, however, they are among the most ethics of individuality oriented in the world. One of the ways in which this manifests is the formation of countless robust clubs and community associations, which are in Denmark at least, generously funded by the government.

The more I think about these issues, the more attracted I am to the idea of attempting to study religious groups in a way that will allow us to identify the ideological and behavioral main springs of their community of ethics behavior. The trick would then be to see how these can be recreated in secular environments. I believe that the absence of options in this regard in the United States in particular is a significant barrier to people leaving close-knit religious groups.

Returning again to Denmark, the way in which a massive network of clubs and community associations have been encouraged by the government appears to perform much of the role performed by churches in the United States. Canada, which is much less overtly religious than the United States, seems to me to be much like the United States in terms of its secular community associations. That is, nothing special happens in that regard. It may be that our governments could take a significant step toward reducing the power of institutional religion (and I think that is important) while strengthening our communal fabric if more effort was made to encourage and fund the formation of recreational and other secular groups. In particular, the encouragement of the formation of groups and clubs related to preserving the environment, cultural and language exchange, and other activities orientated toward expanding the average level of consciousness regarding the world around us could pay particularly large dividends. These issuesare big enough that they may have a resonance similar to that of the religious groups, and indeed, I think we will see some religious devolve into something akin to secular clubs. The UU are a small example of that. Mainstream protestants who no longer take seriously the Bible’s ahistorical, miraculous claims are haemorrhaging members and looking for a new source of life blood. It would not surprise me to see them move in this direction.
topic image
Why Do Older People Have More Trouble Seeing Through Mormonism Than Younger People?
Monday, Sep 1, 2008, at 10:19 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the probability of changing one's foundational beliefs declines as age advances. There are at least two reasons for this. First, the older we get the less plastic our neural connections become. The second reason, however, is far more compelling from my perspective. Larry Iannaccone explains this using the term "spiritual capital", which is analogous to "social capital", a concept developed elsewhere in the social sciences.

The idea, basically, with regard to spiritual capital is that our brains perform a subconscious cost-benefit analysis with regard to big decisions like changing our foundational beliefs, and therefore probably being forced to change most of our social context. If we do not pass this subconscious hurdle, our conscious minds never have the change to decide whether it is a good idea to change our belief system or not. Why is this process subsconscious? The most likely explanation is that we are not truth seekers, but rather were designed by evolutionary forces to behave so as to maximize our survival and reproductive prospects. Being conscious of deeply troubling issues related to the legitimacy of our primary social group was, historically, likely to reduce our survival and reproductive prospects. Hence, except in the most egregious cases, our subsonscious mind suppresses evidence related to this in the same way it tends to suppress the perception of certain risks and costs related to an attractive sexual encounter.

Changing our basic beliefs usually causes a significant loss of both spiritual and social capital. That is a cost. The benefits must outweigh the costs in order for us to incline in this direction. We generally don’t have the information necessary to assess these benefits, but have had the risks drummed into us throughout life (“Without Mormonism, you would probably be a drunk in the gutter somewhere!!!”). Hence, there is a profoundly conservative tilt in this analysis in most of our cases.

However, some of us are more risk-averse than others, and therefore in those cases the benefits must be perceived to outweigh the costs of change even more than in the usual case. And, most of us are conservative by nature. That is, we are more risk-averse than is optimal from our individualistic perspective. In addition to the reasons already noted, this is probably due to the importance of preserving social groups historically – lose your social group and you die was the rule until recently. Therefore, even for those of us who tend toward the more risk accepting the end of the spectrum, the benefits must be perceived (subconsciously) to significantly outweigh the costs before we will move toward changing our basic beliefs.

Think of social capital in the following terms: The longer we remain within a given religious community, the more people we know; the more people owe us favors; the more we know about how the "system" works; the more hymns, rituals and routines we know and hence the more secure and hence comforting we find the institutional and social environment; the more likely we are to be able to get through the dialogue at the veil in the temple without assistance; the more respect we have within the community; the more secure we feel; etc. It is, obviously, difficult to leave all of this and start over in another community where we are not known; we don't know much about what is going on; we feel less secure; people don't owe us favors; we are not respected; etc. In order to do something drastic of this nature, we must perceive the benefits to be enormous. The younger we are, the more likely it is that we will see the world this way. In our 20s and 30s, before marriage or just starting to raise our children, it is particularly likely that we will be able to justify starting over. We have lots of time to build those new connections, learn a new system, etc. and if we believe that a new environment will be better for our kids, this is a particularly strong motivating factor that will in many cases move us toward a rebuilding project. In our 40s or 50s, it is much less likely that we will see things this way - the costs are greater (marriage locked into Mormonism; kids locked in; maybe career dependant on Mormon connections; etc. with less time to live and hence reap the rewards of a success rebuild project). It is even less likely in our 60s and beyond, though I know a handful of people who have left Mormonism posts 60. Anyone reading this who is in that category should pat themselves on the back. You are remarkably brave, and unusual, people.

The most fascinating thing about this analysis to me is that it is almost completely subconscious. We can tell this by observing the way in which people in different circumstances and at different ages react in large numbers, and then asking them why they behave as they have. The answers they give relate to things like the “truth” of the Book of Mormon or the Young Earth Creation theory, whereas their behavior is explained by the relatively simple calculus just noted.

James Fowler, in his excellent book "Stages of Faith", backs this up. He summarizes the progression many people go through with regard to their spirituality as moving from childlike faith (stage one) through the inflexible dogmatic faith that characterizes most fundamentalist leaning religions, like Mormonism (stage three), through the rupture that occurs when one realizes the inadequacies of her inherited faith (stage four), into what in the best cases becomes an integrative, inclusive perspective with regard to spirituality (stage five). The transition from inherited faith, through rupture, to inclusivity in most people occurs in their 30s, according to Fowler. That is consistent with my experience, and makes sense in light of Iannaccone's and other academics' empirical work.

There are a couple of additional factors that appear to be relevant to this analysis. First, the extent to which one is orientated toward introversion and analysis as opposed to extroversion and emotion may correlate with a willingness to leave one’s inherited faith tradition. On the Myers-Briggs scale, the first letter (introversion versus extroversion) and the third letter (thinking versus feeling) identify this. The literature with regard to Myers-Briggs, as well as an informal survey I did a few years ago, support the idea that introverts will have less social capital than extroverts because introverts are less dependent upon other people than are extroverts. Therefore, introverts will be more inclined than extroverts to walk away from an inherited social system. Likewise, people who are more oriented toward thinking and analysis than feeling will be more likely to see the flaws in their social system, and therefore are also more likely to walk away.

Second, the only real scientific study that has been conducted with regard to the reasons for which inherited beliefs change found that the only factor the correlated strongly with rejecting one's inherited belief system was the psychological characteristic related to openness to new experience, adventuresomeness, continuous learning, etc. The explanation offered was that people of this type live in a conceptual world that continues to expand, and it is therefore more likely in their cases that an inflexible inherited belief system will eventually seem inadequate relative to all with which they become familiar.

Finally, I note that IQ, degree of education, wealth, and a number of other factors that one might guess would correlate with an ability to see through a ruse like Mormonism so far have not correlated to with leaving inherited belief systems. In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that at least some of the smartest among us have a harder time than most seeing through the faithful fog. These really smart people have the ability to find patterns in ambiguous data better than most of us, and when they find a pattern that seems plausible, their fellow believers immediately rally behind them and congratulate them for being so smart as to be able to justify the inherited belief system. In some cases, we call these "apologists". This may explain people like Hugh Nibley and many other Mormons whom I know well and respect. It also explains apologists for failed political and economic ideologies, environmental apologists and a wide variety of other similar people.

I left Mormonism in my mid-40s, and feel fortunate that I was able to make that massive change relatively late in life. Kudos to those of you who have done so later. However, those who made the transition earlier should feel doubly fortunate because you have the time necessary to build a new life foundation without having a long-term marriage, teenage children, etc. in tow who have been thoroughly conditioned by their Mormon experience, and whose pain you must share or face further losses.
topic image
The Power Of One
Monday, Sep 1, 2008, at 10:19 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
The power of example has been so over worked that I hesitated to compose this note. However, recent experience has revived this concept for me in a way worth recording. So here I go.

Almost 20 years ago I began developing knee problems while attempting to train for what I thought was to be my first marathon. I was in my early 30s, and well past my serious athlete days. Exercising without chasing a ball or playing some kind of sport had never been a favorite activity, but the taut schedule of a father of five children, trying to work up the partnership ladder at a large law firm while serving as Mormon Bishop, made jogging an attractive form of exercise. A taste of running was quickly turned by my type A personality into a desire to run marathons.

After a few weeks of training, my left knee began to throb. I tried the usual things (or at least what I thought were the usual things) to alleviate the discomfort, but each time I tried to run again the pain came back. This eventually led to arthroscopic surgery to repair what the doctors thought was probably cartilage damage caused by my years of playing basketball and other sports.

When I came out of surgery, I was told that the good news was my cartilage was not torn, and the bad news was that I was in the early stages of osteoarthritis, which basically meant that my cartilage was wearing out far too quickly. I asked the doctor whether it was something I had done, not done, etc. such as failing to take the right kinds of vitamins and minerals, or whatever. He said no, that I just drew the short straw in the genetic lottery when it came to knee architecture. "Put it this way.", he said. "If you were a horse, you wouldn’t be breeding."

The doctor told me that I didn't need to modify any of my activities. He said that the discomfort I would experience after playing basketball and doing other things would gradually increase until I just didn't want to do them anymore. He was right.

Six or seven years later I had arthroscopic surgery on the other knee, and the diagnosis of advancing osteoarthritis was confirmed.

After a longer than anticipated recovery from each surgery, I tried to run a few times and on each occasion felt the same kind of discomfort in my knees. Running, therefore, was over for me.

I started to cycle and for years did a fair bit of that, but found it harder to fit into my schedule and that it was more weather dependant than running. Cycling petered out.

I also continued to play basketball and other sports occasionally, but found that true to the doctor's word, the amount of pain I experienced gradually increased until I seldom wanted to play. If I play a hard game of basketball now, it takes a couple of days on anti-inflammatories to get the swelling in my knees down. For better or worse this is kind of like child-birth - we quickly forget how bad it was and are hence willing to give it another whirl.

So, for the past almost 20 years I have not done any running.

I was at a conference recently, and ended up sitting for lunch at a table with an extremely fit looking fellow with whom I had a great conversation. It soon became apparent that he was a serious runner. He has finished eight marathons, including three Boston Marathons. He says he's not very fast, and certainly not an elite runner, but he enjoys running and probably puts in something like 20 or 25 miles per week.

I quickly summarized for him my bad knees tale of woe. He responded by explaining to me that he did not start running until after he had serious cartilage problems that resulted in the removal of much of the cartilage from one of his knees. He assumed that he could not be able to run after that, but was told that if he started slowly, he probably could do some running, and that this would be good for his recovery. He accordingly got involved with a running program that basically forced him for the first three months to run at what felt like an old man shuffle. He was required to wear a heart rate monitor and stay below 70% of his maximum heart rate. He could power walk as fast as this so-called run.

This training program (which is utterly pedistrian - sorry, couldn't resist) is based on the idea that it takes a long time for bones, joints, tendons and muscles to catch up to lung capacity, and that if we run anywhere near as quickly as we feel we are able at the beginning of a running program, we will damage something. So, for three months he shuffled along, and gradually began to run faster while staying at 70% of his maximum heart rate. After the three months were over, he entered a more serious training regimen, and to his surprise before too long was running close to marathon distances at a slow pace. He then stepped up his training again and after a while qualified for the Boston Marathon.

“Amazing and wonderful”, I thought. I didn't really believe that this would apply to me, but since there was no downside and lots of upside decided to give it a try. "An experiment", I told myself. Lots of good things start out for me that way.

I already owned a heart rate monitor, and late the same day I met this gentleman I left my hotel to go for an extremely slow jog along the canal system in Ottawa, Ontario - my first run in at least a decade. He was right about the old man shuffle. I was embarrassed to have anyone see me running as slow as I had to run to keep my heart rate below the required level, which for me is about 130 beats per minute.

I won't bore you with the details regarding how I felt so good after a few of these shuffles that I decided the rules didn't apply to me, ran faster than I should have (do you have any idea how humiliating it is to be passed by mothers pushing their babies in strollers?), pulled some tendons or muscles, had to take a couple of weeks off, and then humbly returned to the training program. However, I will report that it has now been six weeks since I picked up this idea, and I'm comfortably running 5 km three times a week at between a ten and 12 minute per mile pace, which is a bit better than the 14+ minutes per mile shuffle I started with. Even growth from one stage to another that would be embarrassing to a real runner feels great to me. And so far I've had no knee pain.

I've also read several books (or parts of books) with regard to running. Ironically, I owned most of them already. I just had to go down stairs and take them off my bookshelves. There I found a description of precisely the program my new friend explained to me over lunch. I had probably read about it before, but assumed that it did not apply to me because of my osteoarthritis and so the information did not register.

I don't expect to become a marathon runner, but there is something different about the kind of workout I get while running that is better from my point of view than what happens when I ride the exercise bike or otherwise work out in the gym. I am outside where I can feel the wind, sun, rain and see a wider swath of life. It is more social. I can feel my metabolism quickening. I feel more energized when I get home, as a result of the nice little endorphin high that comes from even a slow half an hour run. This all makes it easier to get my lazy butt out the door more often to work out.

For some time I've been in the stage of life where I have been saying goodbye to physical abilities. I can't tell you how good it feels as my capacity increases.

Numerous times during the past six weeks I've thought about the transforming impact a tiny bit of information had on my ability to do something important. It renewed me in a meaningful sense.

All I had to know was that someone in a situation similar to mine had done something important to me, and I immediately became more capable than I thought I was and wanted to try what moments before I would have dismissed as impossible. Then I did it, with ease. Utterly amazing.

Ironically, it took someone else to reveal myself to me. While my potential did not change, my reality did, solely as a result of being shown something about my potential. My revelator hence became part of me, as much as if he had given me a lung to replace one of mine as it failed.

This has to do with faith. Faith is the motive force of most of what we do, and in order for it to work we must believe that the investment of effort required of us in order to do something has a reasonable probability of paying off. Given what I had been told by the doctors and the experience I had while trying to jog (too far and fast, as it turned out) and play certain sports made me believe that it was unrealistic for me to expect to ever run again.

In particular, I experience terrible knee pain after playing relatively slow paced three on three basketball. It didn't occur to me that jogging would cause significantly less stress on my knees than old man style three on three basketball.

And so, with the books explaining exactly what I needed to do sitting on the shelf in my library, and already having read those books, I spent close to 20 years not doing something that would've significantly increased my well-being.

Not running and playing the sports I love made me feel and act old. I felt ackward, and was becoming more ackward became of the "use it or lose it" principle. Six weeks later I feel like I have a new lease on life.

Again, I am stunned and grateful, for the transforming power of a bit of information about another human being's experience.

I can think of many other cases in which something similar has happened to me. Just before going into what was then called the Language Training Mission to learn Spanish on my way to serve a Mormon mission in Peru, I found out that one of my friends had broken the LTM’s record with regard to learning the Navajo language, one of the most difficult languages for English speakers. This guy was no genius. He was a jock like me. Up to that point in life I had not done anything to indicate that I had even average ability to learn. And, I had been an abject failure when it came to learning French. I was worried about my ability to learn Spanish. However, when I heard about my friend’s experience, I decided that if he could do that with Navajo I could master Spanish. I assumed that the fact that he was a missionary, and therefore had God’s help, had a lot to do with his success. Since I was going to be in the same position, I assumed that I would have the same opportunity.

To again make a long story short, I became much more proficient with Spanish during my stay at the LTM than most Spanish-speaking missionaries, and to this day attribute that largely to the fact that I had the idea in my head when I arrived there that it was possible for me to do this. I later discovered that the ability to learn is one of my strengths, but that I have to put in a lot more effort than some before I see results.

On my way out of Mormonism, I ran across a number of people who demonstrated crucially important possibilities. Without the Internet, this would have been impossible. Without them, I would not be who, what and where I am.

I met people who had faced the terror of losing their families, their friends, and other important aspects of their social environment, and nonetheless acted in accordance with their deepest beliefs; refused to accept the gag orders Mormon authorities attempted to impose on them; left Mormonism; reinvented themselves. In most cases they did not lose anywhere near as much as they thought they would respecting marriage, families, friends, etc. And they gained far more than they could imagine. Because I found them, my imagination had some help.

I also met people who demonstrated that beliefs that seemed unshakeable – part of my very being; impossible to let go of – would dissolve into ridiculousness after a relatively short period of time (some in weeks; other in months; others in years) of being subjected to careful scrutiny.

Once outside of Mormonism and embroiled in conflict with certain family members, I met people who gracefully dealt with similar conflicts. These people demonstrated that while it may not be possible to restore our intimate relationships to their prior status, it is possible to create new forms of relationship that will satisfy our basic needs.

The common denominator in each of these and many other examples is that our capacity to do is galvanized by the knowledge that someone else in circumstances similar to our own has been able to do what may have seemed impossible to us the moment before we heard of them. Knowledge of these others is among the most empowering forces known to humankind.

I think about this in terms of the so-called butterfly effect -- that principle from complexity theory that shows how a miniscule force within a complex system (such as the single flap of a butterfly's wing in Brazil) can produce a massive force elsewhere in that system (such as a tornado in Texas).

Many people who have left Mormonism and other fundamentalist leaning religious belief systems struggle with a perceived absence of meaning in their lives. I believe that this largely results from the way our brains have formed around the Meanings that are emphasized within Mormonism – becoming a God; getting to the Celestial Kingdom; etc. Compared to these, the meanings that drive most human lives are so small that they are hard to notice. Giving up the Mormon Meanings and learning to get along with regular meaning is like living with (and loving) to Death Metal until middle age and then being forced to transition to the philharmonic. It takes a while to learn to appreciate sublety.

Consider, for example, the way in which our seemingly insignificant actions contribute to the creation of human reality. Like the tiny organisms whose secretions build coral reefs, our day to day living builds and maintains the base on which future generations of humanity will rest, as well as occasionally acting as the butterfly's wing. Even more rarely, something we do or say may empower another human being in the way my mundane conversation over lunch six weeks empowered me, or the way in which reading something someone had left on the Internet gave me the courage to take difficult steps while I was leaving Mormonism, or while attempting to rebuild shattered relationships with family members. In most cases, we will not know this has happened, while knowing that given how human beings function, it must happen many times during the average life. We are drenched in meaning that we rarely see.

Note what people have done to empower me. These were not acts of heroism or even the result of strenously setting a difficult and noble example. Rather, it was just people living their lives and sharing their experience. The guy from lunch six weeks ago has no idea how he affected me. Likewise for most of the people a tiny part of whose trail of interactions with others I have read on the Internet or elsewhere.

What made all the difference for me was the fact that these people exist, and that I became aware of them. Our very existence – each of us, one by one – is the key. We are embodied meaning. And the Internet makes it a lot easier for us to become aware of each other.

We thus paradoxically become acquainted with ourselves largely through our reflection in other lives. The more authentic and less muffled by corrupt authority these lives are, the more varied and true the mirrors they hold up to us, and the more of ourselves we are likely to see.

But in any event, we are they; they are others; others are we. All connected; interdepent. Largely moved by a collective intelligence into which we each unconsciously contribute. Gloriously beautiful. Sometimes terrifying.

Awe completely stills me when I think about this as Celestial glory never could.
topic image
Do Liberals Need Conservatives And Vice Versa?
Wednesday, Nov 5, 2008, at 03:56 PM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
While contemplating life the day after an historic US election, I decided to jot a bit about basic, ironic, differences between political liberals and conservatives, and how small group dynamics (in particular, religious group dynamics) play into this. For background, I highly recommend Jon Haidt’s TED talk at http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jo.... Haidt is one of our most consistently insightful social psychologists. I look forward to his soon-to-be published book with regard to religion.

We consistently hear conservatives, such as many Republicans, talk about the importance of individual rights and liberties, and therefore the importance of electing governments that will leave the people alone to the greatest extent possible. This sounds like an individualistic stance, but as Haidt points out and I will explain below, conservatives tend to be more community oriented in some ways than liberals. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to be more individualistic and yet end up supporting minority rights and other similar social issues such as universal health care that are foundational to strong national communities. What follows is my attempt to explain this paradox.

Before going further I should define my terms. In the United States, Republicans are generally conservative and Democrats generally liberal. Conservatives tend to favor retaining the status quo in social terms (keeping the traditional definition of marriage, for example), reducing the size and influence of government, and therefore lowering taxes. Liberals, on the other hand, are generally more prepared to innovate socially (and otherwise), and believe that government intervention in a variety of ways is a lesser evil than what would occur without that intervention. A larger government influence, such as would be required to create a publicly funded health care system, publicly funded educational systems, etc. inevitably leads to higher taxes.

As Haidt and others have pointed out, liberals tend to be more individualistic than conservatives, and conversely, conservatives tend to be more community oriented than liberals. This is what causes liberals to emphasize individual choice, and to protect the rights of minorities. The gay marriage issue exemplifies this. Liberals also tend to be more oriented toward continuing exploration of various kinds. In fact, one of the best ways to predict whether a person will vote liberal or conservative is to measure her openness to new experience. The more open to new experience, the more likely that person is to be individualistic in orientation, and to vote liberal.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are not as open to new experience and are more orientated toward a particular community -- their small tribe. They often like the beehive or choir metaphors as ideal community descriptions. This means that the emphasis is on the majority -- those who make a choir a choir. Discordant voices – minorities, for example -- are viewed more as threats and less as sources of creativity. “Stand on your own two feet” and other individualistic slogans are, ironically, commonplace in conservative communities. Conservatives tend to fear forces that will disrupt their closeknit communities, and tend to fear change in general. Many of these behaviors can be explained in terms of their collective relatively closed stance when it comes to new experience.

Big picture social behavior is easier for me to understand if I think of social groups as organisms, co-existing and competing with each other in an environment. Once using the organism analogy, the next step is to remember that individual organisms tend to cluster together into macro organisms. For example, our bodies are comprised of a multitude of individual organisms. At the most macro level possible with regard to the human species, that species itself is an organism. It competes against other species and life forms for resources within our ecosystem.

As we move from one level of macro analysis to another, wonderful irony often appears. Within our bodies, for example, the integrity that we experience as human individuals is made possible by a multitude of tensions. Cancer is an example of what happens when one of our physiological processes becomes inadequately constrained by others. Many of our vital functions are performed by organisms that were once separate from us -- and often were parasites -- that through time and close association became part of "us". They continue to create a dynamic tension with other parts of us that allow us to function. Creative conflict and competition between integrated parts is one of life’s most common themes.

So, it should not be surprising that when we look at life from the perspective of the human species as a whole, the differing attributes of liberals and conservatives look a lot like part of the human toolkit that helps us adapt to varying environmental conditions. Those who are less open to new experience, and therefore more oriented toward maintaining stable small group relationships, are particularly valuable during times of strife and scarcity. Think of how the Mormon pioneers survived in 19th century Utah, let alone how the Hebrews got along in the desert before taking over their Promised Land.

Conservatives, however, are less likely to innovate and therefore find ways to solve their problems. For this, the individualistic and more-open-to-new-experience liberals are more likely to be of use. And, in times of plenty, liberal individualism and creativity will produce a blossoming in the arts that will be both pleasing and disturbing, and a plethora of other behaviors. The liberal tendency toward chaos could, if unconstrained, lead to the disintegration of society. A conservative counterbalance in this regard is useful. So, as is so often the case, the dynamic tension between opposing forces facilitates long-term growth and creativity.

Within a large, pluralistic group, there will be conservatives of many stripes. Each of these forms a separate tribe within the larger group. And within these tribes, allegiances are felt primarily with regard to the small group, not with regard to the nation and other larger groups of which is a part.

Words like "God" and "patriotism" are used liberally within these groups. However, these words are so vague that they can be used for many purposes. Hence, radically different notions of God and patriotism are used to strengthen the walls around individual tribes, instead of applying to the large group as a whole. This is particularly ironic when it comes to patriotism. The patriotism, for example, of a literalist Southern Baptist in Texas has little in common with the patriotism of a gay couple in San Francisco. However, Southern Baptist patriotism has a profound effect in terms of strengthening the Southern Baptist community.

Vague concepts like patriotism and God are basically social mirrors into which we look. When we see there our most important values, highlighted for us by our group’s history, our group is thus strengthened. This is a classic self reinforcing feedback loop. And, as Goethe put it:

As man is
So is his God
And thus is god
Oft strangely odd.

Understanding the nature of the small tribe conservative orientation makes sense out of the paradox I outlined at the beginning of this note. That is, if conservatives are so community-oriented, why do they tend to consistently elect governments and vote against initiatives that would strengthen the communal fabric of their nations? Countries that tend to be more conservative, for example, tend to be less supportive of universal health care, have weaker employment retraining systems, have weaker welfare systems, provide less funding for public education, and tend to have more social unrest and distress than countries that tend toward more liberal political systems.

The answer to this conundrum is found within the conservative definition of community. The conservative orientation is toward the small tribe, not the large, pluralistic group that comprises a nation. Therefore, conservatives tend to maximize the influence of the small tribe. They do this by electing governments that promise not to interfere with individual rights, which means that the small group will be free to exercise maximum influence over its members. Think of Brigham Young in Utah's early days. His explicit objective was to establish a theocracy. Once Utah was part of the United States, that goal had to be modified. So, within the US system, the Mormon Church tried to maximize its influence. The larger the influence of federal, state and local governments, the smaller the influence of the Mormon Church. Hence, Mormon politics tend to be conservative.

This can get a bit ugly. For example, in places where there are universal health care and generous unemployment and job retraining funding, individual reliance on small social groups (such as religious institutions) is radically reduced. This weakens tribal influence.

Within Mormonism, for example, a 10% tithe is extracted from the membership. Part of the rationale for paying Mormon tithing is that in times of trouble, a strong Mormon social institution will be there to back you up. In the United States, where health insurance is often difficult to get and frequently coverage is denied, this is of particular importance. However, financial assistance from the Mormon Church in the case of medical emergency, loss of job, etc. is only available to fully participating members. Dependency on the religious tribe in this way is a powerful incentive to obey. This contributes significantly to the strength of the membrane around the social organism.

I would never accuse the Mormon institution, or individual Mormons, of voting against initiatives with regard to things like universal health care on the explicit basis I just outlined. The fact remains, however, that the tendency of social organisms like the Mormon Church is toward maximizing their influence, and this means minimizing government influence. As the regrettable consequences of this social dynamic become better understood, it will hopefully moderate.

The conservative tendency to weaken national communal strength is not the end of our irony. The individualistic liberals, whose tendencies are feared to lead us toward chaos, end up championing minority rights and hence strengthening national institutions. This is a result of the liberal orientation toward self-determination – a strong form of individualism -- combined with the democratic ideal that the rights of every individual should be protected. It is as simple as this -- liberals take individual rights more seriously and apply those rights to larger groups than do conservatives.

Therefore, liberals are the ones who tend to back universal health care, public education, workers rights, job retraining rights, etc. This creates a communal fabric that spans a nation, thus creating a powerful economic platform on which small groups of a conservative nature can prosper. And, the larger group orientation of liberals will likely be crucial as we move into an unprecedented period of international cooperation. The primary problems facing our species are now global. Environmental issues; terrorism; pandemics; overpopulation; global financial crises; etc. None of these can be solved on a small group basis. Precisely the same kind of principled one protect-the-minority orientation that leads to the establishment of universal healthcare within a nation, is required to make the individual sacrifices in Canada, for example, that will ultimately be necessary to slow the melting of the Antarctic ice fields.

But then, the ironic screw continues to turn. Those liberals are a difficult bunch to herd around. They will come up with the ideas, but in terms of coordinated action, they may well deliver too little, too late. On the other hand, once the leaders of important small groups choose to define global problems as problems for a particular small group, the communal orientation of these groups will instantly marshal potentially massive resources.

The bottom-line is this. Our liberal or conservative tendencies appear to have genetic roots, and this appears to be yet another part of mother nature's genius. The human species has been endowed with different capacities that will come to our collective aid in different ways as our environment changes. The dynamic tension between these orientations is useful in many ways. However, we tend to tribally cloister so as to hear as little of the irritating views from other tribes as possible. This is unwise. Organizations that foster dialogue across tribal divides are far more likely to create wisdom than organizations that follow traditional paths. And civility while in dialogue is crucial to learning.

It behooves us all to devote more energy to listening, and understanding points of view that differ from our own.

Wisdom is found in the strangest of places, for both liberals and conservatives.
topic image
Prediction Of Apologetic Responses To The Criddle Wordprint Study
Sunday, Dec 14, 2008, at 09:04 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
So, what if the non-Mormon academic community agree with these wordprint studies in more or less the same fashion they did the Mormon related DNA research? Here are a few of the strained arguments in support of the Mormon position that I expect to see trotted out before the Book of Mormon is eventually acknowledged to have been fictional, and Mormons begin to read it metaphorically, if at all. Consider in that regard how often you hear reference to the Book of Abraham in Mormon circles, and most of them don’t even know how flawed that document is.

Feel free to add the many I have no doubt missed. Those folks need all the help they can get.

• The wordprint analysis selects the most probable of authors from among those offered. Though the match is very high in some cases to Ridgon and/or Spaulding and it is unlikely that a more probable author could be found for some chapters, this is still possible. So, it is possible that if J. Smith’s authorial voice could be composed he would be found to be the more likely author. OJ got off a murder charge on this kind theory. Why shouldn’t it work for J. Smith’s authorship of the BofM?

• Once J. Smith’s voice has been composed from his most recently released personal writings, and that is found to be a poor match for the BofM text, it could be pointed out that he “translated” the BofM when he was nearly illiterate, and hence his wordprint as a relatively mature person who had learned an immense amount should not be expected to match the revelatory voice he used to dictate the book. So this disproof of Smith’s involvement is far from conclusive.

• The revelatory process God used in Smith’s case re. the BofM was less precise than previously believed. Smith may have gone into a trance like state, and channelled voices that may have been in his consciousness as a result of various influences. God would not care about a detail like this, and as pointed out below, may His reasons for allowing this to occur. This might come to be called the “Multiple Author Channelling Theory”, or “MACT”. I think I copyright that before anyone else uses it. I tried to make “Channelling Revelatory Authors Perspective” work (“CRAP”), but couldn’t get there.

• Rigdon’s voice may be similar to a typical preacher’s voice from Smith’s day, and there is evidence that Smith spent a lot of time as a young person listening to this type of preacher. So, it is not surprising that one or more of the voices Smith channelled sounded a lot like Rigdon. Smith may have been attracted to Rigdon and vice versa because of the natural resonance they had for each others voices and ways of thinking. God may have put this Rigdon-like voice in Smith’s head to create the attraction that eventually brought them together.

• The way wordprints that match various authors show up in the book in material attributed to one person, such as Mormon, could be explained by MACT, and Smith not having control over which showed up. The voice is not important. The truth of the concepts is important. The much maligned (by Mormon apologists) literature regarding automatic writing could be used to support MACT.

• The conceptual truths in the book should not be discounted because the voices used do not correspond to what we would expect from normal human interaction and writing. This was an inspired process, and hence subject to different rules.

• The stronger the evidence against the BofM, the greater a test of faith this is for God’s elect. Therefore, the more non-believers and apostates are convinced that the BofM is not true, the more important it is for believers to maintain their belief on faith. This is like Mother Teresa. He clung to her faith in what appears to be the almost complete absence of spiritual or other confirmation for decades. And she did not even have the truth we Mormons have (warning – don’t think about that example too carefully if you want to hang onto your Mormon faith).

• And finally (drum roll), with a tip of the hat to the young earth creationists, God caused Smith to use different voices in his translation to test the faith of believers.

Believe it or not, I could keep going. There is no end to this garbage. But I am out of time.

So, after increasingly bizarre arguments are trotted out for a while and most of the few faithful Mormons who look at the issue decide it is just too hard from them to figure out what is going on, the BofM will gradually fade out of use with Mormonism. Kind of like the Book of Abraham already has. Eventually, some obscure papers will be published by people at BYU about how the BofM is not reliable from an historical point of view, and nothing will be said about that by the Mormon leaders who in a round about way told them to write the articles. And a generation later, when the issue comes up again for some reason (maybe one of Mitt Romney’s kids runs for the US presidency), the BofM will be remembered and a prophet will mention on Larry King Live (with Larry still barely alive and running the show) that the Mormons “don’t really teach that any scripture is literally true. There are many kinds of truth, and each is as important in some ways as the others.”

And that will be the end of that.
topic image
Uncertainty, Depression And Creativity
Friday, Jan 23, 2009, at 08:53 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
The recent psychological literature has noted a striking increase in depression rates at more or less the same time as the psychological community has turned its eye, and pen, toward what makes people happy.[1] It seems, to an extent, that the more aware we become of our potential for happiness, the more depressed we are. This makes sense, since one of the key findings with regard to happiness is that it is a byproduct of other meaningful activities. In essence, happiness cannot be our main objective. Therefore, the more consciously aware we are of our desire to be happy and our pursuit of it, the less likely we are to find it. This is one of life's many paradoxes. There is, however, another way to look at this issue.

One of our greatest needs is for the perception of security, and therefore certainty. The literature with regard to cognitive biases and denial makes this crystal clear.[2] During the course of the last couple of decades, but in particular during the course of the last five or so years, the Internet and other information technologies have become widely used, and have exposed humanity more than ever to vast amounts of information. At the same time, information continues to multiply exponentially. The more access we have different perspectives, the more aware we become of how little we know, and how often our beliefs are incorrect. Thus, our awareness of our fallibility, and insecurity, increases. This increases psychological stress. It makes sense that depression would increase as a result of this, if nothing else.

Scholars working with regard to intellectual and social history have noted that this kind of phenomena and regularly occurs. We almost always say that we want more freedom. However, the evidence strongly suggests that we do not. The more choice we have, the less satisfied we are in some ways. For example, we would rather choose between three or four high quality types of olive oil than a dozen. Choice beyond a certain degree creates stress. The happiest societies tend to be highly structured, and therefore secure. Countless other examples could be put forward.

Nonetheless, after our environment changes and provides us with greater choice, we adjust to this to an extent, and find ways to limit the choices that practically speaking we need to make, and hence become comfortable in our new environment. Thus, increasing choice tends to create the possibility that we may become better off, while causing stress. Over the course of time, we generally find ways to be better off, while limiting the choices that we need to make for practical purposes, and therefore reducing our stress. There is no reason to believe that this process will continue with regard to our current environment.

This brings me to the real purpose for writing this note. The fact that we are in an information rich environment with greater than ever access to information, while still having roughly the same intellectual capacity as our ancestors thousands of years ago, means that we tend to rely upon each other in new ways.

We no longer, for the most part, need each other for physical security. Most of us in the West, despite media reports to the contrary, enjoy more safety than ever. Violence within human groups has been on a downward trend since the beginning of recorded history.[3] However, when it comes to knowing how to create new things, to entertain ourselves, to get along together, to love more effectively, to become better off in any way, we are awash in such a tide of information that each time we encounter another human being we have greater reason to believe than ever that we may learn something profoundly important, or simply fun. This reality should empower each of us with regard to our own personal sifting through the information available to us in experimentation with life, as well as in the interest we take in the perspective of each person with whom we come in contact either in person or through the Internet's vast asynchronous hallways.

There is something immensely exciting about this new reality. Participating in group activities has played an important part of humanity's development, and survival. We are small herd animals. Until recently, our prospects for survival and reproduction were largely determined by the success of our small group. Therefore, we find participation and coordinated group activities particularly satisfying. This is the root of ritual appeal, within religion or elsewhere. This also explains our attraction to spin classes, yoga classes, marching, the miracle of intricately coordinated teamwork in certain sports, choral singing, being part of a crowd as it roars at an athletic event, and a host of other activities.

Now, we are offered the opportunity to participate in new kinds of coordinated human activity. Look at Wikipedia for example. Had it been suggested 20 years ago that the common riffraff could produce an intellectual monument of this kind, the idea would've been laughed off. The various manifestations of the post-Mormon diaspora over the Internet are another small example in this regard. We now have the means to coordinate our activities with people in remote places, at different times, in order to achieve intellectual and social feats that until recently were unimaginable. This is a profoundly exciting, an important development, at the scale of human history. What a pleasure to participate in a small way.

[1] A number of fine books have been published during the past few years in this regard. These include Jon Haidt “The Happiness Hypothesis”, and Daniel Gilbert “Stumbling on Happiness”.

[2] See http://www.mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.... for a primer in this regard.

[3] See Steven Pinker at http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinke... in this regard.
topic image
Trevor Southey's "Dark Light"
Monday, Jan 26, 2009, at 08:02 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Trevor Southey is one of the greatest living Mormon or post-Mormon artists. You can see his work at http://www.trevorsouthey.com/ . His "Dark Light" has come to have significant meaning for me. You can find a picture of this work at http://picasaweb.google.ca/bob.mccue4... it is an approximately 3' x 5' mixed-media piece. A bronze figure, about 3 feet in height, hangs from a wooden cross, embedded within the painting. Clear resin wedges appear to extend the trunk and arms of the cross from the top and sides of the work. Nails and thorns are embedded within the clear wedges.

Trevor is a South African origin, and converted during his youth to Mormonism. He eventually taught fine art at BYU, married, became the father of six children, and acknowledged his identity as a gay person. He was one of the individuals featured in the recent PBS broadcast with regard to Mormonism.

I had the opportunity to meet Trevor in person at last fall's Affirmation conference in Los Angeles. He is a remarkable individual -one of those from whom most people feel at a distance the emanation of human warmth. As an aside, I had the opportunity to spend quite a while chatting with Mike Quinn at the same conference. This is the second time I've had the opportunity to chat intimately with him. He and Trevor have a similar ability to project immense human warmth.

The following is a summary of some thoughts I had with regard to "Dark Light", and shared with Trevor. He was kind enough to respond, and so his ideas and feelings are found below as well.

First, here is what I had to say:

‘Some people may perceive this piece to be a barely modern take on crucifixion. I enjoy the fact that my many still religious family and friends would read it that way, and feel moved by it within their own belief system. But of course, death and resurrection are a near universal theme. Your piece represents beautifully the way in which most of us experience, at some point in life, the death of one aspect of ourselves, and the birth or a resurgence of another. Many of us pass through several iterations of this regenerative process.

Here are a few of the details that stood out to me. Why is the male in agony and the female so peaceful? The process of letting go is, terrifically, painful. The sense of new growth within is similarly enlivening and peaceful. The juxtaposition of these two images captures that aspect of the process to near perfection.

Why is the dove prostrate on the ground instead of flying, and why is it surrounded by what looks like blood? One type of "spirit" or overarching architecture, philosophical foundation, worldview, or what have you must die in order for another to take its place. This is what Schumpeter referred to as "creative destruction". It is part of biology, sociology, economics, as well as many of the physical sciences. A disordering precedes new ordering. Again, the dead or dying dove, presumably representing the Holy Ghost, captures that wonderfully.

Where is the darkness and where is the light? Notice the panel of light near the dying male figure. Notice the way in which geometric lines are found only on the male side of the image, and how that implies the passage of time. The male figure is time bound. The female, representing growth, is suspended in the eternal realm. She can come back for us as many times as necessary, to renew us as we passed through time. I like the imagery of the female being involved in her own world, and focused on that world, instead of looking wistfully or in any other way toward the male figure.”

And here is part of Trevor's response:

“One of the greatest values in any work of art that is significant is the variety of interpretation that it allows.

As I worked on the piece I focused on the paradoxical and excruciating joy that exists in the confinement of the beloved and familiar, one’s culture or religion. The context of any particular faith adds many levels of pain when one realizes the confinement is on the one hand nurturing and consuming in its embrace but it is on the other suffocating and perilous to the souls of those who become aware of the fact that they live within a lie. Of course that is a gross oversimplification since there are so many subtle shades of grey in that awareness. After all, it is not all “a lie” which is a sad position many adopt in the moment of feeling betrayed. And all this occurs within the strange aspect of the human creature to the things of the spirit...at least for most humans.

For me the female figure in the work lives within the world I lay out above. She is awakening. She becomes aware of her confinement. She is born again as she still remains an unwinding embryo within the geometric womb. She rises from her kneeling faithful familiarity, and touches the edges of her known spiritual world, inherited as was your case, assumed as in mine. She is on the cusp of loss, the safety of the womb and a broad frightening new reality of a world that exposes her confinement as such, but at the same time a world rich in potential growth. It is both exhilarating and terrifying, combining explosive new vision and great risk.

I was intrigued by your talk [at the Affirmation conference] when you spoke of the need of chaos. That is the last thing on earth the church would have its members experience. They choose the cocoon of safety and warn of the dangers of chaos with too much intellectual probing. This woman I see is on the brink of chaos. I liked your thought of her reaching down to the dove...the Holy Ghost perhaps, wounded? Dead? I see that possibility. This spirit is the victim of abuse of extremism and lies, used to create a false haven for the faithful. The moving of our souls by the Holy Spirit I read as an emotional response to stimuli. That could be a church meeting, a symphony, a painting, an emotional connection to another. But it must always be seen as a multiple experience including perhaps all of the above and always mysterious, certainty being precluded. The woman down in grief perhaps not yet knowing that spirit will yet be found again.

Also, abuse of the spirit now reaches to the crucified figure which could be Jesus floating away from the cross, and the abominations perpetrated in his name. At last free from distortion and unspeakable acts of the faithful, the pain floats away also in the spikes and thorns embedded in the resin at the ends of the cross. It could also suggest our suffering which I believe is the huge attachment that we have to the image, one so deliberately shunned by the Protestant tradition including Mormons.

The abstract nature of inner suffering which I believe to be the greatest, is implied by the double symbol of a three dimensional and colourless form of a bronze imposed over a painting. And above the red cross the light, always suggesting hope and transition, beams as an abstract form. But within this work I have the feeling absolute light or dark hardly exist.

The title comes from the notion of light that is shrouded in confusion or delusion or dogma. It is named light but generates dark. How? By making claims that have broken the souls of humans from time immemorial, by cruel domination and frequent horror, physical springs first to mind but the prison of false faith is universal. Yet the work is positive: in the rebirth of the woman, the releasing of the lie of Jesus or us from the cross, by the light form and gold leaf, the floating forms of torture and pain...the work is essentially optimistic and for me implies enlightenment.”

There is something about seeing a great piece of visual art, or a great performance, in person. That is the only way to capture what we can of its emotional resonance.

I am grateful we have people like Trevor Southey who pour their hearts and souls into work like “Dark Light”. They are our prophets. Oh that it were possible to get them a bit more “tithing" so that they would have greater liberty to do what they feel most inclined toward.
topic image
Stocks Are Down; Religion Is Up
Monday, Jan 26, 2009, at 08:03 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Today's Globe and Mail has an interesting article with regard to the recent upsurge in church attendance. See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servle... No news here really. Religious belief and behavior are to large extent a response to perceived danger. That is not to say that this is all religion is. It is a complex social phenomenon that performs many different roles in different lives, and does a lot of good as well as a lot of bad. Importantly, some religious organisms perform a far healthier role in the lives of their adherents than others. However, a common denominator and distinguishing feature of virtually all significant religious movements is the way in which they exploit basic human existential and other fears, and create a wide range of additional fears in order to enhance their palliative appeal.

The worst part of religion is a bit like a golf coach who makes his client so insecure that he can only play well with the coach’s help. Better yet, think of a massive weight loss clinic that prescribes inefficient exercise programs while surreptitiously slipping its patients sugar and fat, and keeping them impossibly busy and otherwise doing all it can to prevent them from comparing their weight-loss program to others that are easily available. The ultimate in this regard are the human batteries in a vat, as portrayed by “The Matrix”.

In this regard, fear and desire are opposite sides of the same coin. If you don't attend church and do the things your religious leaders say you must do (including giving your time and money to them), you face both the prospect of losing out on incredibly wonderful blessings in this life, and after death, as well as running the risk of terrible punishment, again, both during this life and after death. Religious groups are social organisms. They need food, which mostly consists of human energy. Money is a form of stored human energy.

I again note, to fend off the inevitable criticism I will receive from some of my religious but liberal friends, I am not critical of all religion in the terms just mentioned, just most of it. I am happy to debate the point if necessary. With few exceptions, the problem with religion in this regard is one of degree, not of kind.

Interestingly, the nexus between perceived risk and human behaviour can be generalized even further. There is a strong correlation between the perception of risk and superstitious behaviour in general. Michael Shermer nicely describes this at pages 294 and 295 of his excellent book, "Why People Believe Weird Things", which despite the casual nature of the title is an elegant summary of academic research.

Shermer first notes that religious believers tend to have, in general, a high "external locus of control". That is, they believe that they have less personal control over what happens to them, and instead are subject to external forces that are beyond their control. This leads to greater anxiety across-the-board. People with a high external locus of control tend to believe in things like ESP, witchcraft, spiritualism, reincarnation, precognition, and are in general more superstitious than those whose locus of control is more internal. Internal locus of control people are generally, "... more confident in their own judgment, skeptical of authority, and less compliant and conforming to external influences." As already noted, they are less superstitious in general, and this means less inclined toward religious belief.

If you want to find out whether your locus of control is external or internal, don’t ask yourself or look in the mirror. Go to someone who can assess you in this regard or at least try a survey like the one you can find at http://www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy... We are virtually incapable of self diagnosis (or treatment) when it comes to things like this. But I digress.

Shermer then went on to generalize this point even further. He summarized research conducted by the great anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, who discovered that there was a correlation between how far certain South Seas Islanders had to go offshore to fish, and the degree to which they used superstitious rituals prior to embarking.

"In the calm seas of the lagoons, there were very few rituals. By the time they reach the dangerous waters of deep-sea fishing, the Trobianders were also deep into magic. Malinkowski concluded that magical thinking derived from environmental conditions, not inherent stupidities: ‘We find magic wherever the elements of chance and accident, and the emotional play between hope and fear have a wide and extensive range. We did not find magic wherever the pursuit is certain, reliable, and well under the control of rational methods and technological processes. Further, we find magic where the element of danger is conspicuous.’"

I pause here to again emphasize that it is the perception of risk, not real risk, that causes superstitious behaviour. Accordingly, institutions that depend upon religious behaviour to get what they need to survive will inculcate the perception of risk in order to keep the donations of time and money rolling in. This weakens their adherents in some ways. Other predators in the social environment take advantage. Here we find the explanation for Utah's world leading record in terms of financial fraud and multilevel marketing organizations. It is not that Utahans (and accordingly Mormons) are stupid. Rather, they have been systematically weakened by the religious belief system within or around which they were raised. Their locus of control tends to be more external than normal. They are accordingly more susceptible than usual to being tricked by apparently authoritative people. If they can be induced to feel "good" about a "business opportunity", they will tend to suspend disbelief much more quickly than most similarly educated people, often on the basis that “things happen for a reason” – a clear belief marker of high external locus of control people.

Shermer then extends the fishing analogy to baseball. He says,

"Think of the superstitions of baseball players. Hitting a baseball is exceedingly difficult, with the best succeeding barely more than three out of every 10 times at bat. And hitters are known for their extensive reliance on rituals and superstitions that they believe will bring them good luck. The same superstitious players, however, dropped the superstitions when they take the field, since most of them succeed in fielding the ball more than 90% of the time. Thus, as other variables go into shaping belief that are themselves orthogonal [RDM note - unrelated] to intelligence, the context of the person and the belief system are important."

So, back to religion and the economy. An uptick in religious belief and behaviour of the type described above is as predictable in our current circumstances as it is in cases where someone has become seriously ill or is going to war, both of which have been clearly demonstrated by scientific study. There is some truth in the adage that there are no atheists in foxholes, though this is an indication of a tendency, not an absolute rule.

In light of all of this, here is an investment tip. In these difficult economic times, relatively inexpensive products that play on fear and feel like a form of insurance will do well. Religion is just one of these. Another is, I suspect, lottery tickets. But the big winner, for those who have the stomach for it, is the self-help industry. It uses many of the same tools as religion, and we should expect to see an upsurge in that regard for the same reasons that cause people to go back to church as their stomach’s churn. And of course, as is the case with religion, there are better and worse self help gurus. The best provide sound advice and do not exercise the influence they could to take advantage of their adherents. The bad act just like the worst of religious leaders.

If you want to determine whether your self help guru or religious institution is “bad”, don’t trust your own judgement or ask your fellow believers. We can’t self assess here any more than we can with regard to our own personality type. Go find someone who has studied lots of religious groups and ask her to help you see the big picture and locate yourself in it.

This reminds me of a seminar I attended a little while ago. A bankruptcy and insolvency lawyer was presenting a case study, designed to help the rest of us understand the basics of insolvency law, and some of the practical difficulties we should expect to encounter as some of our clients face potentially business ending financial turmoil. He described a company that in June of 2008 had a market capitalization well into the billions of dollars, and filed for bankruptcy last December. A small group of senior managers saw their personal net worth decline by hundreds of millions of dollars in the course of several months. The insolvency lawyer noted that this company’s circumstances were significantly worsened by management’s inability to face the reality of their situation. He said this is a common problem. People generally speaking are slow, or unable, to recognize painful realities, he told us. He indicated that one of the professional advisor’s important roles is to bring objectivity, and sometimes painful reality, to bear on internal management. In addition to professional skill, one of the huge advantages a professional advisor has in this regard is a lack of the kind of financial and other ego related investments in the company. These tend to limit the manager's ability to perceive, whereas the professional advisor is not similarly handicapped.

The same principles apply when it comes to religious belief. The longer a person has lived within a particular religious community, the more social capital they have built up as a result of providing service to other people within the community, the more often they have expressed publicly their belief and commitment to a particular religious point of view, etc., the less likely they are to perceive shortcomings in the institution to which they belong and beliefs that form a good part of their life's foundation. Accordingly, anyone interested in reality in this regard needs to find objective help. The best source of objective helps is the academic community, which has studied a wide range of different kinds of religious and other belief systems, and is in a position to provide the most accurate comparative information available. Of course, the information available here is far from perfect. The first step along the road to recognizing religious reality is acceptance of the fact that imperfect information is the best we have. There is no perfectly reliable source of "truth". All we can hope to do is identify the people with the best track record when it comes to accurately describing how things work, and predicting behaviour in that regard. Again, the academic community is the clear winner in this regard.

http://mccue.cc/bob/spirituality.htm
topic image
Brothers And Sisters, I Want To Bear You My Testimony This Morning
Tuesday, Feb 10, 2009, at 11:34 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Brothers and Sisters, I want to bear you my testimony this morning...

I know the world is true. I know this beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have had so many experiences that have made this belief unshakable, and I want to tell you about one of them this morning.

My 14-year-old son and I went skiing a few days ago. It has been unusually warm in the Canadian Rockies for the past few weeks, and so very little snow has fallen in an already bad snow year. The previous weekend we had also skied, and the conditions were terrible. So, this this last time out our expectations were low.

We wonderfully surprised. It was sunny. There had been some fresh snow, and so the skiing conditions were pretty good and the environment was spectacular. There is something about getting up near the tops of the mountains, even on a chair lift surrounded by many other people, that makes us feel wonderful. What immense forces caused those mountains rise up? They inspires awe. Those mountains are true.

And my son is becoming a snowboarder. He can almost beat me down the hill, and is so proud of the skills he is developing. We had fun together. True fun, not just ordinary fun. A debt doesn't get that kind of opportunity very often with a teenage boy. Our moments together, enjoying a beautiful day, some jokes and some challenges, were true.

However, that was not the greatest part of the trip. We were with two young couples -- part post Mormon and part never Mormon. After a great day skiing, we stayed overnight at a cabin not far from the ski hill. We cooked dinner together, tried three new kinds of beer, and talked late into the night. I don't usually say grace over meals anymore, but occasionally it seems appropriate. This was one of those times. We held hands around the dinner table and I looked each person there in the eye as I told them how grateful I was for their friendship, and in particular, for their companionship that day. I expressed gratitude for the many wonderful aspects of life that we enjoy. The spirit was strong. We all felt it. That was another true moment.

And the beer. Talk about true beer. One was from Germany, and I can't remember what it was called. It was pretty good. But those Québecois (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Fin_d...) -- they make true beer. 9% alcohol. And they give their beer true names. The two we had were, ironically, “Don De Dieu” (Gift of God) and “La Fin du Monde” (The End of the World). I won't say that I felt the spirit after drinking it. That would be sacrilege. But it's pretty good stuff. We had a pretty good debate about whether it was appropriate to drink the Gift of God right before The End of the World, and whether it was metaphysically possible to do the reverse.

The spiritual highlight of the evening came later, as we were talking about the economy, the way education works, and a little bit about religion. Religion didn't dominate the conversation by any means, but it came up once in a while. This little group seem able to talk about anything. There were no taboo subjects. It was all about learning. Reality is what it is, and with few exceptions, the more we can find out about it the better off we will be.

This reminded me of so many other social situations in which I have found myself where certain subjects make people seize up. Those often have to do with their religious beliefs, but belief with regard to politics, sexual practices and anything else that acts as the foundation of a social group will do it. When I now occasionally find myself in situations like that, it reminds me of what life used to be like, and I feel sad for all those years I spent in fear. I also mourn for many people whom I love and respect who continue to live that way. These people, sadly, are bound by a delusion -- what has been rightly called a mind virus -- that makes them believe that they have the truth with regard to many things that are impossible to know. Whenever they run into information that threatens these beliefs, it has a paralyzing effect on them. This blinds them to the importance of more simple truths – like the truth of live moment or Québecois beer – and so makes it impossible for them truly live.

I am more grateful than anything else that I now know that most of what affects my life cannot be known with certainty. Oh, it is easy to identify a true mountain, a truly awe-inspiring day or moment, or a truly fine beer. Most other kinds of truth are much harder to discern, and once we admit that we allow certainty to bring us to life. As a result, true mountains, true moments and true beer become much more meaningful.

This made me remember a couple of things I came across years ago. The first is an interview with the great scientist John Maynard Smith (see http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?spe.... He talked about his youthful conversion from dogmatic religion to agnosticism (he doesn’t like to call himself an atheist because this indicates too much certainty on his part) and acceptance of the scientific point of view. He indicated that he felt a powerful kind of freedom once he did not have to believe that reality was anything other than what it gradually disclosed itself to be. I highly recommend listening to him. This is a true talk. Not that everything he says is true, of course. Its just that listening to him speak is a true experience.

The other person I found most helpful in this regard is Robert Ingersoll (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G... and http://www.infidels.org/library/histo.... He was a contemporary of Brigham Young. Reading what he had to say on a variety of topics makes one wonder what it means to be a "true prophet". But in any event, I didn't want to talk about that. I simply wanted to share with you what Ingersoll said about the feelings he had when he stopped believing that reality had to be anything other than what it is. He said:

“When I became convinced that the universe is natural; that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell, the dungeon was flooded with light, and all the bolts, and bars, and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world; not even in infinite space. I was free; free to think, to express my thoughts; free to live to my own ideal; free to use all my faculties, all my senses; free to spread imagination's wings; free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope; free to judge and determine for myself; free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the "inspired" books that savages have produced, and all the barbarous legends of the past; free from popes and priests; free from all the "called" and "set apart"; free from sanctified mistakes and holy lies; free from the fear of eternal pain; free from the winged monsters of the night; free from devils, ghosts, and gods. For the first time I was free. There were no prohibited places in all the realms of thought; no air, no space, where fancy could not spread her painted wings; no chains for my limbs; no lashes for my back; no fires for my flesh; no master's frown or threat; no following another's steps; no need to bow, or cringe, or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds.

And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain; for the freedom of labour and thought; to those who proudly mounted scaffold's stairs; to those whose flesh was scarred and torn; to those by fire consumed; to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land, whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held, and hold it high, that light might conquer darkness still.” (Robert. G. Ingersoll, "Why I Am Agnostic", 1896)

That is, pretty much, what I experienced as well. I don't think I should say anymore than that, but rather should leave you with Robert Ingersoll. I've already taken too much of your time on this beautiful Sabbath morning. We should be of experiencing truth instead of sitting here talking to each other.

So, I say these things in Reality's name, Amen.
topic image
What Will Happen When You Tell Your Intimate Partner That You Are No Longer Going To Be Mormon?
Friday, Feb 13, 2009, at 08:01 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
This question was put to me the other day over lunch by a close friend who I had not seen for a number of years. I hasten to add that he is not about to tell his wife this. They are both still Mormon. However, we had a great conversation about all kinds of things, and this question came up. I could tell he was moved by what we talked about in that regard, and so decided to record the essence of our conversation.

Here are the guts of the essay for those who like short as opposed to long reads.

I suggested to my friend that if he ever decided to leave Mormonism, that he try something like this. He could look his wife in the eye, tell her how much he loves her, and tell her that he chooses to be with her. He wants the kind of life they have together. He knows that he could have a short term hormonal rush if he had an affair or left her to start a relationship with another woman, and that he chooses not to do this because he wants the long-term intimacy that he has with his wife to continue to grow, and he does not want to be with any other woman. He has decided what he wants, and that is his wife. No one else will do because of who she is and their history together. He is not doing this because he is afraid of punishments that might come to him after death. He is not afraid of losing any rewards after death or during this life. He has studied the nature of relationships in general and his marriage in particular as carefully as he can, and he is absolutely committed to her and her alone.

Then, I suggested that he promise his wife that he would dedicate a significant amount of the additional time, energy and money that they will have outside of Mormonism to her. He can tell her that he wants to learn how to love her and enjoy her company more than ever before. This is not just making love. This is the whole deal – regular weekends together in interesting places; taking classes together (dancing classes if she insists); exploring a wonderful world together. He wants to both of them to choose to focus more energy on the things that will build their relationship, and he is more excited about this than anything else in his new world.

He can remind her that they are still young and energetic, but not infinitely so. Time is slipping by more quickly as each year passes. While they have their youth and energy, he wants to direct that toward her, and learn how to love her more completely. And he is doing that because that is what he has decided he values. Our behavior, including our choices, are driven by what we value.

I told my friend that he should expect his wife to be skeptical. He will need to endure a period of time where he proves the value of what he has promised by the way he treats her. Over time, however, by acting in a manner consistent with what he has told her, he can mount a very persuasive argument. I told him not to attempt to fight emotional battleships with an intellectual rowboat. She will probably not be convinced by the books he asks her to read. But there is a reasonable chance that she will be swayed by the experience of being part of a more positive, energetic and loving marriage than she has ever experienced.

For those who prefer a more meandering path, read on.

The concern re. marriage breakdown post-Mormonism is related to what I call the "chaos issue". That is, most people believe that if they leave Mormonism (or any other close-knit, conservative religious group), everything will fall apart. The marriage will fail; they might become alcoholics and lose their jobs; the kids will probably start having indiscriminate sex, and maybe eventually decide to go to law school; etc.

The origin of this perception is in our small herd biology. We evolved with an intimate connection to a small social group. Throughout most of human history, if we were pushed out of that group or marginalized within it, the probability of death would go way up. We therefore have an existential fear with regard to anything that will put us sideways with our most important social group. This is the case even though our social environment is now so safe that we can, with impunity, change social groups. Our biology evolves much more slowly than the social environment, and so we still have these existential fears, as well as many other dysfunctional instincts (google “cognitive bias” or see http://www.mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.... for more information in this regard). The best known of those is our instinct to eat as much sugar and fat as we can, because throughout most of human existence these were scarce substances and whenever we came across them we were well advised to consume as much as we could. In our current environment of abundance, this instinct causes many problems.

Of course, if you happen to have been raised within a close-knit, conservative social group such as Mormonism, the nagging instinct that leaving your herd is a bad thing will be supercharged. Groups of this kind go out of their way to make us feel fearful of anything outside the group. That is part of how they maintain their institutional strength. Large defection rates are obviously bad for groups. No one plans this defense mechanism. It just happens as a result of the “hive mind” that operates within human as well as many other living groups. It is safe to assume that virtually all of the people involved are well intentioned.

In any event, back to problems caused within an intimate relationship with one person decides to leave the tribe, and the other person is not ready to go. Since this was my case, and it was the case my friend and I talked about over lunch, I will speak in terms of the husband leaving and the wife staying.

The wife's fear is that without the structure of Mormonism and the belief in an eternal marriage, the marriage will fall apart, the husband may start to cheat, etc. And, she will often say that the husband is breaking promises. He promised to be faithful to Mormonism. He promised to take her to the celestial kingdom. He may have made other promises as well. The answer to this first issue requires a bit of background.

Marriage has been traditionally a three party contract. That is, the public nature of marriage and the way in which marriage covenant is typically made at least genuflects in the direction of society, and often involves an implicit contract with society to keep the family together, raise the kids, and contribute to society instead of becoming a burden on it. The more traditional the society, the stronger this tendency and the less important romantic inclinations are with regard to marriage. Think of Hindu marriage in that regard.

In the West, we have moved more toward an individualistic conception of the marriage contract, and have increased the importance of romantic love and personal attraction relative to marriage. This applies to choosing a mate, making the marriage covenant, and the terms on which the marriage covenant will be maintained, or broken, as times passes.

Mormonism is clearly in the traditional camp in this regard. The Mormon church is an explicit party to the marriage contract. Both parties promise obedience to the Mormon institution as part of the marriage covenant. Everyone understands this.

However, most Mormons do not appreciate the fact that the Mormon church makes important implicit representations in exchange for the obedience covenant. One of those is that the basic truth claims made by the Mormon institution are true, or at least justifiable. As a matter of contract law, once fundamental representations of this nature have been found to be false, the contract has no further force. And I should note that contract law, and other aspects of law, are generally speaking far below moral standards. If someone has breached the law, it is probable that they have breached moral standards long before they reached the relatively loose moralities (a kind of lowest moral common denominator) embodied by the law. Therefore, the Mormon church's fundamental breaches of its part of the marriage contract constitute a terrible moral violation (see http://www.mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs... for my thoughts in this regard). Both the husband and the wife have been violated in this regard. They are both justified in breaching the part of their marriage covenant that relates to the Mormon church. If one of them chooses not to do so, that does not affect the legal and moral rights of the other.

Think of, for example, a case where two friends, Bill and Joe, agreed to purchase a vacation property together. It is a wonderful piece of vacant, but developable, land in Arizona that they developer assures them is near a nice resort. Their families have vacationed together in the past, and they decided to make this a regular event. After lots of discussion and excitement about this, they found what looks like the ideal spot for them in Arizona.

Bill goes down to have a look at the land just before closing the purchase. He finds that it is located in the middle of the desert, with no access to water and no likelihood of access ever being provided. It is close to worthless. The nearest resort is miles away. Many fundamental representations regarding the property are demonstrably false.

Bill calls Joe in a panic, explains the problem, and tells Joe that he has spoken with a lawyer who advises that given the nature of the broken promises made regarding the property that they are not obliged to complete the sale. Bill says that he is going to back out, and try to get their deposit from the developer by suing, if it comes to that.

Joe is horrified. He has literally seen a vision and had various other spiritual experiences with regard to this property. He is sure that it is going to play a huge role in raising his kids the way he wants them to grow up. He will not believe that the developer lied to them, and says that even if they were lied to, he is absolutely certain that everything is going to work out fine. God sometimes works in mysterious ways.

The idea of suing the developer, who Joe has met and found to be an amazing, insightful, spiritual individual, makes Joe feel sick. After an increasingly difficult discussion in which Bill insists that he will back out of the purchase and Joe continues to try to explain how important this particular piece of property is to him, Joe finally accuses Bill of breaching the agreement between them. Joe says the Bill promised that he would buy THIS property, and that they would enjoy together. If Bill won't go ahead with that, their friendship is over.

Bill is stunned. How can Joe not see what is going on here? "God works in mysterious ways"!? The Joe he knows does not talk like this.

Trying to calm things down, Bill assures Joe that he still wants to buy a vacation property with him, and suggests that they go out looking again, and this time that they make sure that they investigate the properties that sound interesting to them more thoroughly before committing to purchase. He reminds Joe that when they made their agreement to purchase A (not THIS) vacation property, the main point was to get something that they and their families could enjoy together, not about any particular piece of dirt. This is about a relationship, he insisted, not land. Bill pleads with Joe to think carefully about this, and makes it clear that he is still fully committed to their friendship, and wants to go ahead with their agreement to purchase a place together.

Joe will have nothing of this. He must have the property he has fallen in love with. The ideas and feelings he has had about it have become more important than anything else.

The discussion takes a turn for the worse. Bill accuses Joe of breaking promises far more important than refusing to buy one property instead of another. Joe is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, says Bill. What about their friendship? That is where this vacation property thing started. How did a silly piece of Arizona desert come between them?

Joe can’t see this angle. Bill promised to purchase a piece of property that Joe has come to love, and now Bill is walking out on him; leaving him high and dry. And to make matters worse, Bill is now trying to blame him.

Their friendship is over.

How do you feel about Joe’s position?

So, the real problem is that we sometimes can't see things the same way (see http://www.mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs....). The example above with regard to land is perhaps strained, but serves to illustrate that point. We often are unable to see things the same way when it comes to religious beliefs as a result of the odd way in which our brains are wired. This goes mostly back to our small herd biology, as noted above. For example, I am sure that many marriages have been broken up over a difference of opinion with regard to whether the Earth is a few thousand years old, as some religious people still believe, or billions of years old. For most of us, that would seem to be a simple question. For most people outside of Mormonism, it is likewise fairly easy to determine whether Joseph Smith spoke face-to-face with God or not. The nature of our tribe and its beliefs make some things that are obvious to everyone else difficult for us to see.

So how does the husband get out from between the rock and a hard place where he finds himself? If he continues to hunker down and keeps the peace, it feels like his soul will rot. And he worries about his kids. They are being effectively conditioning by a powerful conditioning mechanism. He some ways he thinks he should act to “save” them from this. But, if he stands up and does what he feels he should, he may end up divorced with all of the nasty emotional, family and financial consequences that go with that. There is no easy answer in that regard, regrettably. However, the approach I outlined below may be of help to some people.

I apologize for another digression, but a bit more background is required.

Religion uses the stick and carrot related to life after death to ingrain certain kinds of behavior. If you believe in the afterlife posited by your religion, and all of the punishments and rewards that go with it, that gives your religious leaders great power over you. Again, we can recognize the silliness of this belief in other religions, but not with regard to our own. Become a martyr for the Muslim Faith, and you get 70 virgins. (Personally, having been married and had a large family for many years, I would want to find out exactly what my relationship to the 70 women was going to be like before I venture down that path.) Or, how about the way in which Catholics can pay money to their church and simply buy a loved one’s place in that condo in the sky?

Mormons think these ideas are ridiculous, and yet will donate large amounts of money and most of their spare time to the Mormon church in order for the benefits promised to those who make it into the Celestial Kingdom after death.

So, what can we know about life after death? Not much. Are we justified in making significant investments now with regard to promises anyone makes to us with regard to what will happen to us after death? Simply, no.

Once this idea sinks in, a lot of our decision-making changes. We become more focused on the present. That is not to say that we ignore the future entirely. Much of our success and enjoyment in life is related to our ability to defer gratification – to educate ourselves; to save; to work hard; etc. I have not changed much in that regard. However, I think as clearly as I can in terms of whether the effort or sacrifice I'm making in the present is worth the potential future reward. If not, I enjoy the present, and if the future reward toward which I am working finally appears, I enjoy that.

In general, I spend much more time and energy in the present than ever before. With things like a nice cappuccino, a glass of wine with dinner, etc. the decision is simple. These are healthy for my body, enjoyable in the moment, enhance social experience, and the only reason I ever avoided them is because of their potential to produce problems for me after death. No longer believing in the after death problems opens up a huge realm of additional experience during this life.

With regard to personal relationships in particular, the fear of chaos outside of Mormonism leads some people to believe that if they (or their spouse) leave Mormonism and abandon their belief with regard to eternal marriage, this will mean that their marriage will end. They think that the eternal carrot is a big part of what keeps their marriage on track. Once you get a little perspective in this regard, that is either indicative of the weak marriage or more probably, a simple misunderstanding of what makes your marriage worth having in any event.

So, I suggested to my friend that if he ever decided to leave Mormonism, that he try something like this. He could look his wife in the eye, tell her how much he loves her, and tell her that he chooses to be with her. He wants the kind of life they have together. He knows that he could have a short term hormonal rush if he had an affair or left her to start a relationship with another woman, and that he chooses not to do this because he wants the long-term intimacy that he has with his wife to continue to grow, and he does not want to be with any other woman. He has decided what he wants, and that is his wife. No one else will do because of who she is and their history together. He is not doing this because he is afraid of punishments that might come to him after death. He is not afraid of losing any rewards after death or during this life. He has studied the nature of relationships in general and his marriage in particular as carefully as he can, and he is absolutely committed to her and her alone.

Then, I suggested that he promise his wife that he would dedicate a significant amount of the additional time, energy and money that they will have outside of Mormonism to her. He can tell her that he wants to learn how to love her and enjoy her company more than ever before. This is not just making love. This is the whole deal – regular weekends together in interesting places; taking classes together (dancing classes if she insists); exploring a wonderful world together. He wants to both of them to choose to focus more energy on the things that will build their relationship, and he is more excited about this than anything else in his new world.

He can remind her that they are still young and energetic, but not infinitely so. Time is slipping by more quickly as each year passes. While they have their youth and energy, he wants to direct that toward her, and learn how to love her more completely. And he is doing that because that is what he has decided he values. Our behavior, including our choices, are driven by what we value.

I told my friend that he should expect his wife to be skeptical. He will need to endure a period of time where he proves the value of what he has promised by the way he treats her. Over time, however, by acting in a manner consistent with what he has told her, he can mount a very persuasive argument. I told him not to attempt to fight emotional battleships with an intellectual rowboat. She will probably not be convinced by the books he asks her to read. But there is a reasonable chance that she will be swayed by the experience of being part of a more positive, energetic and loving marriage than she has ever experienced.

This is not empty salesmanship. Once we have studied how the world and relationships work, and we have chosen to commit ourselves to one man or one woman because we value that kind of relationship more than any other kind of intimate experience, this commitment is probably more reliable than any commitment made with regard to Mormonism. It’s uncertainties are recognized and planned for. It is not prone to fall apart because its foundation suddenly disappears. It's benefits are far more demonstrable and tangible. And there are many contradictions within the Mormon culture, and some of those concerned marriage. The "Family First" is, for example, a ridiculous proposition for those who understand how Mormonism works. This only makes sense, for people in Mormon leadership positions in particular, if you count what Mormons think comes after death.

On the other hand, when we decide to invest our precious personal time and energy from moment to moment in only what makes sense given the possibilities now and that are reasonably foreseeable, everything changes. On that basis, we can establish values that are consistent with what we experience on a day-to-day basis, and what the most knowledgeable people on the planet with regard to how intimate relationships work tell us their studies of many other people indicate.

For example, there is nothing the matter with a man or a woman feeling attracted to other people. These attractions are a natural part of life. They can be transitory in the form of walking by an attractive person in a store or having an enjoyable chat with someone in an airport or at a party that you know you'll never see again. Or they can be more enduring, such as the associations we sometimes develop with people with whom we work. We would not be normal if we did not feel these things. They are a natural part of life, and to be enjoyed. And as long as we understand this, and choose to limit the kind of influence this sort of relationship has in our lives while being completely committed to our primary intimate relationship, truthful with our intimate companion, and keep the promises that we have made to him or her, every other kind of human energy we are privileged to share is a blessing.

The more we understand about the way intimate relationships work, the nature of the forces that we feel pulling us in one direction or another, and the need to keep our primary intimate relationship growing, the more likely we are to be happy and successful in our pursuit of intimacy, while dealing with the inevitable pain and disappointments that come along with that part of life.

Life is good.

In Reality’s name, Amen.
topic image
How Should We Respect Other People’s Religious Beliefs?
Wednesday, Mar 11, 2009, at 08:01 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Introduction

The statement "All religious beliefs should be respected!" or the question "To what extent, and how, should I respect religious beliefs other people have?" come up often enough in my correspondence that I have finally decided to record a relatively succinct response that I can send instead of dictating more or less the same thing over and over again.

Should All Religious Beliefs Be Respected?

I will start with the so-called new atheists or unholy triumvirate (Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion"; Sam Harris, "The End of Faith", and "Letter to a Christian Nation"; and Daniel Dennett "Breaking the Spell"), which became the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse with the addition of the bombastic and entertaining Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Great"). These gentlemen stridently lay out the case against extreme, dogmatic religious belief. While they make many valid points, their books are full of strawmen argument, false dichotomies and many of the other tropes that characterize the arguments made by the dogmatically religious. This has regrettably exposed their position to justified criticism. I prefer Daniel Dennett's approach considerably over the rest, but even his fails in many respects to take account of religion belief’s varied, nuanced reality.

That being said, I agree with one point each of these fellows makes – that religious belief has been granted an unjustified immunity from criticism. This is particularly the case within North America. We don't hesitate to disagree with people who express political, economic, social, scientific or other views that from our perspective seem flawed. We accept that, in general, ideas and the social attitudes are improved by scrutiny, criticism, and debate. Religious beliefs are not treated in this way to the same extent as others. The idea that being faithful to almost any religious tradition is a good thing has taken root in our society. This, the new atheists indicate, has much more downside than upside. I wholeheartedly agree.

At its root, the insistence that religious beliefs should be per se respected amounts to little more than a kid in grade school saying "Leave me alone!" to anyone (teachers included) who tries to get him to do something he does not want to do. That is, the insistence that all religious beliefs should be respected means that, practically speaking, MY religious beliefs will be respected. There are many problems with this position. The two that occur to me first are "They Don't Really Mean It", and "Social Pressure is Responsible for Constructive Evolution in Religious Groups”.

They Don’t Really Mean It

In virtually all cases, it is easy to demonstrate that people who take the position that all religious beliefs should be respected don't really mean it. What about religious beliefs that encourage people to strap bombs on themselves and kill themselves while committing mass murder? What about religious beliefs that require the sexual molestation of children, genital mutilation? Or religions that teach belief in demonstrably false versions of history (there was no Holocaust), reality (the Earth is about 6,000 years old) or social ordering principles (males or white skinned people should always be in charge)? What about religions that require adherents to cut themselves off from all non-believers, including family members, and follow without question the dictates of a religious leader?

When examples such as these are pointed out, the defender of all religious beliefs quickly begins to draw distinctions drawn between "good" or "legitimate" religious belief and others that should be discouraged if not disrespected. And after some discussion around issues of this kind, it becomes clear this area is far too complicated for blanket rules to be seriously proposed.

For example, if religions that require the complete submission to religious leaders are bad, at what point along the spectrum of required submission to religious authority do we draw the good versus bad line? Oddly enough, the defenders of religion invariably draw this line so that their particular brand of submission to authority is on the "good" side.

Social Pressure and Criticism is Responsible for Constructive Evolution in Religious Groups

Evolutionary principles apply to social groups. The expression of disapproval with regard to beliefs and social practices is one of the main drivers of this process. Since my inherited religious tradition was Mormonism, let's use that as a case study.

Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, secretly instituted polygamy. He had occasional, clandestine sexual intercourse with many women, including underage girls and women who were already married to, and continued to live with, other men. When confronted with regard to this practice, he insisted that it was a form of “spiritual wifery” required by God, and then expanded his activities in that regard and extended the right to participate to others within Mormonism's elite. Smith's successor, Brigham Young, institutionalized what became the Mormon practice of polygamy on the basis of what Joseph Smith did.

Mormon polygamy eventually became a political flashpoint, and under extreme political, economic and even military pressure from the United States Government, mainstream Mormonism eventually abandoned it. As a result, Mormonism quickly morphed from the American into an uber-American international force.

But for social opprobrium, and tremendous pressure of various kinds exerted by American society on Mormonism, this change would not have occurred and today's mainstream Mormonism would probably resemble the Old Order Amish or fundamentalist Mormonism. In fact, there would be only fundamentalist Mormonism, which tries to be what Mormonism was before it abandoned polygamy.

Something similar occurred with regard to Mormonism's position, up until 1978, that men of African ancestry could not hold the Mormon priesthood. Without the pressure brought to bear on Mormonism in various ways throughout the 1960s and 70s, it is difficult to imagine that Mormonism would have granted blacks the right to hold its priesthood.

Many other aspects of Mormonism's evolution can be explained in this fashion. Faithful Mormons tend to insist that each and every step along this path was inspired (if not mandated) by God. There is no way, of course, to disprove God's existence or his involvement with Mormonism in this way. However, if the God in which Mormons believe exists, the historical record of the way in which Mormonism's leaders fought tooth and nail to preserve polygamy, including the way in which they consistently misrepresented what they were doing and told outright lies under oath in U.S. Senate hearings with regard to Mormon polygamy, provides arguably the best example ever of how God works in mysterious ways.

Similar examples can be provided with regard to many other religious traditions. The difference between Muslim practices in North America v. the Middle East is a great example. Western social attitudes regarding tolerance and plurality of belief have penetrated Muslim belief here to such an extent that the concerns regarding Muslim violence that are justified in other parts of the world are unjustified with regard to the vast majority of North American Muslims.

Overall, the pattern is more or less as follows. In any given period of time, many small religious groups are created. The initial members tend to be high energy, exploration oriented individuals. Most of these groups disappear after a short time. The few that survive to become large, bureaucratic organizations, go through a predictable lifecycle. As they become larger, their members become less exploration oriented and more conformist and dogma bound. Early in their life cycle, religious organizations tend to be aggressive, missionary oriented institutions (“We are God’s only true followers! You must join us and obey our principles in order to please Him and earn the right to live in Heaven after death!”). They also tend to have high standards, and to exclude anyone who refuses to toe the line. The larger they become, the more difficult their standards are to maintain. And, the more contact they have with other religious belief systems and social perspectives, the more quickly they evolve toward the dominantsocial forces within their host society. This explains the difference between North American and North African Muslims.

Over long periods of time, religious beliefs and practices may change radically under the same name. Again, Mormonism is a great example of this because its history is so short and well documented. Mormonism today has little in common with Mormonism during its first couple of decades, or Mormonism during its Utah period until it abandoned polygamy. You can perform the same sort of analysis with the Jewish faith, Catholicism, the older Protestant denominations, and different strands of Buddhism, Hinduism or the Muslim faith.

In summary, overt and implicit forms of criticism with regard to religious beliefs and practices perform a crucial, positive role with regard to the evolution of religious groups. That being the case, we should not truncate that practice. Rather, we should try to understand more about how it works and how it can be better used to create the kind of society in which we wish to live.

Is It Necessarily Disrespectful to Question Someone Else's Religious Beliefs?

In short, no. What I have tried to do, with varying degrees of success, is to make a distinction between individual human beings or groups of human beings, and their beliefs and practices. I can respect, like and even love individuals while criticizing the beliefs and practises of the group to which they belong.

However, both social theory and my personal experience indicates that it is extremely difficult to maintain intimate or even friendly relationships over an extended period of time where a significant percentage of the communication involved is critical or negative. John Gottman’s research elegantly establishes the fact that unless we maintain at least a five positive to one negative communications ratio in our intimate relationships, they are almost certain to end. A similar principle appears to apply in all significant human relationships.

Accordingly, the rule of thumb in marriages and families tends to be to avoid all discussion with regard to contentious issues. This applies to religion, politics and other similar concepts which are fundamental to the operation of social groups, and hence important. Similar dynamics are responsible for the "no religion or politics" conversation rule that applies at most parties and family gatherings.

If one feels impelled to raise a potentially contentious issue, it is wise to remember the 5 to 1 rule. As long as at least five positive communications have been given, this may provide the opportunity to raise one potentially critical point without endangering the relationship. However, even on this basis, it is risky within our important relationships to venture into the potentially explosive domain of religious belief. One negative in that regard may be so painful for our loved ones to deal with that much more than five positives as will be required to create the relationship strength necessary to deal with it.

Outside of our most important relationships, however, a completely different set of rules applies. It is my experience that as long as one is polite and respectful, it is possible to discuss the empirical foundations of religious belief (Are the Book of Mormon and the Bible accurate historical records?; Was Joseph Smith a trustworthy person?; What is the approximate age of the Earth?; Is a homosexual orientation a matter of choice, or biology?) and the practical implications of living by certain principles (How do social groups that exclude women from positions of real authority tend to function and how do they affect young men and women raised within them?; How are gay people affected by being raised within religions groups that regard homosexuality as deviant behaviour?; What are the practical implications of encouraging large families, or discouraging the use of birth control?).

We all tend to be inconsistent in the way in which we apply principles. For example, religious conservatives consistently defend their own positions using rules that would justify positions taken by countless other groups with whom they vehemently disagree. The most significant of these is the idea that certain beliefs do not need to be supported empirically, and cannot realistically be questioned by empirical data.

The empirical justification of belief is the only way to separate reliable from unreliable beliefs. We tend to apply this rule automatically to other groups. We do not accept the miracles that are at the foundation of their belief systems because there is no evidence to support the assertion that these events probably occurred. Consider, for example, the Muslim belief in miracles related to the Prophet Mohamed and the way in which the Koran came into being. And, if one of their beliefs is inconsistent with well-established empirical data (such as the Young Earth Creationist belief with regard to the age of the Earth or the Alien Abductionist belief in extraterrestrial lifeforms), the unjustified nature of the belief in question tends to be obvious to us and we refuse to take it seriously. At the same time, we are not troubled by the absence of evidence in support of our foundational miracles (such as the Immaculate Conception, Virgin Birth, Resurrection, and if you were Mormon, the apparition of various divinities and angelic personages to Joseph Smith), or the mountains of data that disconfirms certain of our basic beliefs (such as, if you were Mormon, the historical nature of the Book of Mormon or the biological nature of sexual orientation).

The most important rule with regard to belief formation is that the strength of our beliefs should correspond to their empirically justifiable probability. Are human beings a product of biological evolution? There is a massive amount of evidence indicating that we are. Did any particular form of God cause this? There is no reliable evidence to support this proposition, and also no way to definitively disprove it. Therefore, people who wish to hold this belief on a justified basis must acknowledge its extreme improbability on the basis of all evidence available to us. The evidence in favour of God, as understood within the Christian tradition, being responsible for all biological evolution is precisely as strong or as weak as the evidence in favour of Zeus, Brahman, or the Pink Unicorn Hiding Behind the Moon in that regard. And, there is much evidence to suggest that no one and nothing need to be responsible for this. Nature is to an extent self-organizing.

If a religious believer abandons the “belief strength must correspond to empirically justified probabilities” principle herself, she cannot justify applying it to other people’s beliefs. This means that each is as good, or bad, as the rest. I don’t know anyone who is comfortable with this position.

On the other hand, many adherents of the atheist or agnostic position do not understand the scientific or empirical basis for beliefs well enough to be fair when it comes to describing probabilities related to various religious positions. For example, the proposition that it is impossible that a god of any description exists is empirically untenable. Many thoughtful, religious people will (at least after being pressed a bit) describe God as the mysterious, creative force that operates at the base of all reality, about which we can say little more than that with any degree of certainty. This position, and many others similar to it, are defensible from an empirical or scientific perspective.

The process by which many religious believers have moved from more dogmatic positions regarding the nature of God to what I just described is a great example of how science has gradually winnowed demonstrably false belief out of religion, starting with Galileo and how the solar system functions. The Internet is accelerating this process, and producing a lot of stress within religious groups as a result of the rate at which belief and behaviour change is occurring.

Many of the stridently atheist or agnostic seem blissfully unaware of the metaphoric possibilities within religious traditions, and the extent to which many people who may appear to be (and even present themselves as) dogmatic believers in fact base most of their faith on metaphor. Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have, in particular, being criticized for the way in which their books come across in this regard. Dawkins, at least, has moderated his position in interviews given following the publication of his book. This has been lost on many of the less well informed who read his book, had their prejudices about religious believers confirmed as a result, and have not kept up with the ensuing discussion.

Christopher Hitchens, regrettably, for all his intellectual firepower comes across as more of an entertainer, debater and gadfly than a serious student of social or any other reality. This makes him hard to take seriously. Dan Dennett, as I indicated above, is my favourite of this bunch. In particular, he argues for broad changes to our educational system designed to create understanding in coming generations of how different religious groups work. This, he suggests, may be an important long-term antidote for the tension currently experienced along the borders of many dogmatically religious groups. I agree completely.

Why Discuss Sensitive Issues With the Other Side?

Not only is it possible to have discussions of religious differences across tribal boundaries, but this kind of discussion is crucially important. First, as already indicated above, this is a powerful driver of constructive social evolution. And at the individual level, it is clear that we don't tend to learn as much when we exchange information with people whose views we share, as when we exchange information with people who are well-informed, polite, and committed to positions that differ significantly from our own.

The Internet has opened up a vast world of opportunity with regard to discussions of this kind. It is not, however, this point easy to find polite, well-informed discussants. One of the regrettable consequences of remote (let alone anonymous) communication is its tendency to reduce civility. However, as the information and communication opportunities made accessible by the Internet continue to expand exponentially, the fraction that qualifies as well-informed and civil is also expanding. I have found, for example, through the auspices of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (see www.iras.org) one of many groups within which civil and highly informed conversation with regard to potentially explosive issues has occurred over a long period of time. I expect more of this to become available as time passes.

One of the most important points regarding the possibility of communicating with people whose basic views differ from our own is that although we tend to perceive ourselves as teachers, we in fact have much more to learn than teach. This is one of those basic human ironies. Our need for security inclines us – almost always, everywhere, and everyone – to believe that our understanding of reality is much more accurate than it is. Since our biological constitution makes it difficult to grasp this and live by it, we should at least commit ourselves to pretend to be students more trying to learn than teachers intent to teach. Again, ironically, the better we become at this deceptive practice the more likely it is that we will learn, while occasionally having the chance to teach.

As Jon Haidt has pointed out (see http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html), our tendency to exchange information exclusively within our tribes dramatically limits the rate at which constructive social evolution can occur, as well as the rate at which we personally learn. He also points out that the tendency of religious and political conservatives toward community and stability is a probably an important counterbalance, at the species level, to the tendency of the religious and political liberals toward individualism, energy and creativity.

The human species can be thought of as one organism within our ecosystem. At different times and places (such as scarce resource environments of the kind that produced both the Old and New Testaments), stability and communal effort will be important to human survival. In other more abundant times, individualism and creativity will be far more important. These largely opposing forces probably evolved within our species to allow it to adapt over the long term to different social and ecological niches. We should not expect (or hope) that either of these tendencies will be eradicated. Rather, we should seek to better understand the most basic underpinnings of the communal and individualistic forces within humanity, and encourage them to dance in a more peaceful, productive fashion as they do the job they evolved to do.

Conclusion

To return to the opening question, it is crucially important that we do not simply hold our tongues each time we run into what appears to us to be an unjustified religious belief. As we engage in polite, constructive dialogue with regard to these socially and personally important issues, we should expect to see our own positions change as well as to occasionally exert a positive influence on those with whom we communicate. And finally, the more regularly we venture into what seems like dangerous territory in this regard, and keep our emotions under control as we attempt to understand other points of view, the faster we will individually learn and the greater will be our contribution to social progress as a whole.

http://www.mccue.cc/bob/spiritualit...
topic image
Helen Fisher ("Why Him? Why Her?") And Problems With Mormon Mate Choice
Wednesday, Mar 18, 2009, at 08:09 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Introduction

Helen Fisher’s latest book, "Why Him? Why Her?" is yet another excellent, informative read. I bought it for my late adolescent – twenty-something children, but have thoroughly enjoyed reading it myself.

This note's purpose is to briefly describe one issue related to Mormon mate choice that jumped out at me as I read this book. That is, certain personality types tend to mate best with other particular personality types, and strong social influences such as Mormonism tend to cause individuals to falsely identify their own personality type, and therefore to make ill fitting mate choices. This has helped me to understand a number of things about Mormon coupling that have puzzled me.

Who Is Helen Fisher?

Before getting into that, let me indicate that I highly recommend Helen Fisher's work in general (see http://psychjourney_blogs.typepad.com... and http://www.chemistry.com/relationship... for a smattering of her recent ideas). She is one of the world's leading anthropologists of human mating behaviour. This book in particular, is a powerful tool not only for people who are trying to understand mating behaviour, but as an exercise in general self understanding. Fisher breaks down personality type in a way that is for me new and highly informative. I will come back to that briefly after describing the issue that brought me to the computer this morning.

As an aside, I understand that Fisher's work in this area was inspired by consulting she was asked to do for the match.com people, which led to the creation of the chemistry.com dating service. She designed the personality profile test for that website on the basis of the research summarized in this book.

Fisher’s Personality Types

I need to provide a little background with regard to Fisher's theory before returning to the human engineering issue I described above.

Fisher's research indicates that the personality types identified by the Myers-Briggs and other commonly used personality profile tests are probably a function of our dominant neurotransmitters. For example, the Explorer type is dominated by dopamine, the pleasure hormone. Explorers tend to be highly open new experience, adventuresome and creative. They need lots of stimulation to avoid boredom, toward which they have a powerful aversion. They are the personality types most likely to leave their inherited religious group or cultural tradition. They also tend to mate with each other, because other types of mates do not provide enough excitement. They tend to be more sexually adventuresome, and have more mates than the other personality types. They look for a playmate -- someone to adventure with through life.

Builders, on the other hand, are dominated by serotonin, our hormonal anchor. They are tradition upholding, rule keeping, community and family oriented. They have the lowest sex drive of all the personality types, have fewer mates and the highest prospects of long-term, stable monogamous relationships. They are the pillars of most social groups, and of all the personality types, are the most likely to be actively participating members of organized religious groups. They seek stable, predictable companionship. As a result, they tend to mate with each other.

Directors are characterized by a high testosterone levels. They tend to be hard-driving, intellectual, focused individuals who are sometimes so good with detail that they have a hard time seeing the big picture. Intellectual stimulation and achievement are important to them. They look for a mind mate, and often find their best match in the Negotiator personality type.

This brings us to the Negotiators. Their dominant neurotransmitter is estrogen, with a significant dose of oxytocin as well. These hormones perform important bonding and comforting functions. Negotiators tend to be big picture thinkers, peacemakers, highly flexible and intuitive and therefore capable of navigating more social and interpersonal complexity than usual. They tend toward high degrees of introspection and emotional intimacy. They are stimulated by Directors intellectual firepower and purpose, and have the skills required to calm or ride out the storms Directors tend to tow around with them. Negotiators look for soulmates, and often find them in other Negotiators, and Directors.

Fisher does not mention John Gottman's research (see http://www.gottman.com/marriage/self_...), but what's she suggests is consistent with it. For example, Gottman points out the importance of at least a five positive to one negative communications ratio in order to make a long-term intimate relationship prosper. Amazingly, on the basis of primarily this measurement and half an hour of video, Gottman has a 95% batting average when it comes to predicting which couples will remain married, and which will divorce.

When Fisher's personality type analysis and her observations with regard to how they work for mating purposes are considered in this regard, they make additional sense. Explorers will find much in each other to admire, as will Builders. However, put a Builder and an Explorer together, and you should expect a strong tendency to criticism that will make the five positive to one negative communications ratio difficult to maintain. On the other hand, there is much about your typical Negotiator that Directors tend to admire, and vice versa. And, just about all the personality types will find the easy-going, flexible, graceful Negotiators to be pleasant companions. These matches maximize the probability of the strong tendency toward positive communication that Gottman has conclusively demonstrated is almost always required for successful intimate relationship.

Fisher points out that none of us are a single personality type. Rather, her personality profile test is designed to indicate the degree to which a person is influenced by each of the personality types, and their neurotransmitters, described above. Some people are equally balanced along the entire continuum. Most, however, have a dominant and a strong secondary personality type. Fisher nicely describes the way in which these various first and second combinations relate to each other. She then reviews a wide variety of additional factors that influence mating choice. She makes it clear, of course, that all she can point out are tendencies or general rules. Life is full of exceptions, and human creativity often finds ways to turn weaknesses into strengths. However, if given the opportunity it makes sense to take high probability instead of low probability opportunities. Her research is helpful in this regard.

All in all, this is a great book.

Socially Engineered Mating Mismatches

I will now return to the issue described above, which I should note is not a Mormon issue, but rather an issue related to strong social influences.

Other researchers have noted the way in which strong social groups can influence personality type. See, for example, http://www.somis.org/TDD-02.html, which describes a study conducted with regard to the Church of Christ and its discipling movement in that regard. As people became more embedded in that social group, their scores on the Myers-Briggs test moved toward characteristics that were important to the group.

In any event, I doubt that we need empirical support for the proposition that within social groups such as Mormonism that emphasize conservatism, the sanctity of authority, and rule keeping that the Builder personality type would be encouraged. Each of us has at least a small Builder component. We should accordingly expect that within a social group such as Mormonism, any tendencies that we have in this regard will be amplified. In some cases, those tendencies could be called out of thin air by way of our mimetic nature. That is, we tend to imitate the behaviour we see around us, and for that reason sometimes squeeze ourselves into boxes that pinch.

Fisher indicated that one way to identify a misfit between environment and personality type is how tiring certain activities or environments feel to us. For example, a Builder will often be more than capable of keeping up with an Explorer, but will feel exhausted by the effort, whereas if the Builder were permitted to gravitate toward his preferred activities, he would spend much more time feeling content or energized instead of exhausted. Exactly the same would be true of the Explorer who forced herself to live in a Builder world.

This explains an important part of my experience upon leaving Mormonism. I had the sense of a massive burden being lifted. The Builder environment was stifling me to the point of nearly killing an important aspect of my self. Out from under its influence, I was able to explore a much broader segment of the world and was amazed at how good some parts of it felt. I was able, for the first time as an adult, to get to know my own personality type. The research with regard to the Church of Christ referenced above, and other similar research, indicates that we should expect it to take a significant period of time for our natural personality type to emerge after we distance ourselves from the strong social influence that has moulded our character. In fact, some of its influence will be permanent as a result of the way in which we have neurologically grown around it. The older we are when our social environment changes, the more true this last statement will be. This is not surprising, and is consistent with how I perceive my own experience.

In highly traditional societies, such as the Hindu, the primary purpose of marriage is the formation of stable families, which form the basis of stable communities. Doing what is required to make a marriage function is a social and moral duty, not part of a self-fulfillment process. As a result, personal happiness is not an important part of the marital relationship. Conservative communities such as Mormonism tend toward that end of the scale.

However, try as they might to be "in but not of the world", Mormons are strongly influenced by Western social trends, including particularly the trend toward seeking individual fulfillment. Even their theology is schizophrenic in this regard. For example, one of Mormonism’s central tenets is "men are that they might have joy". It is therefore not surprising that Mormons have high expectations with regard to personal fulfillment in general, and with regard to this aspect of marriage and family life. The fact that they choose their "eternal companions" in the manner described above sets them up for disappointment. And divorce is strongly discouraged within the Mormon community.

On the basis of what I just indicated, I hypothesize that within Mormonism, we should find many more mismatched, uncomfortable pairings that stick together than would generally be the case in Western society. When you combine that fact with Mormons generally high expectations with regard to personal fulfillment you have a recipe for depression - wonderful, well-intentioned, committed people who are married, and consistently either chew each other up or deaden each other, decade after decade. Not a pretty picture.

This reminds me that Utah was recently anointed the happiest state in the United States (see http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/a...). This was the result of what a scientist friend of mine told me was a superficial survey in which people were basically asked to indicate how happy they believed they were. Accordingly, all this study indicates is that people in Utah are more likely than most to say that they are really happy. Remember, "Men are that they might have joy", and if you don't have joy, something must be the matter with you. However, on the basis of another much more comprehensive survey conducted by the Mental Health Association (see state by state data, table A3, page 37 at http://www.nmha.org/files/Ranking_Ame...), it appears that living in Utah has a much higher than average (and perhaps US leading) correlation with depression. It is also well known that Utah leads (or nearly) the United States in a number of other unflattering categories, such as antidepressant consumption, white-collar fraud (that is, Utahns are taken advantage of far more than most other Americans - the inference is that they are rendered naďve, and manipulable by their religious beliefs so as to be more obedient to their religious leaders, and then this is taken advantage of by other wolves), tax evasion, multilevel marketing participation (more being taken advantage of), and various forms of domestic and sexual violence. The picture that comes into focus is that of a social group many members of which are having trouble coping. The root causes are probably a tendency toward magical thinking that causes wide variety of poor decisions, and in particular form a choice.

So there you have it. Yet another problem with which Mormonism saddles its well intended, hard-working, community-oriented, and generally speaking fine people. I don't have a solution that seems workable enough to be worth discussing. Nonetheless, understanding is better than not understanding. This is at least a step in the right direction.

More Understanding Causes More Compassion and Better Choices

Let me try to conclude on an upbeat note. One of the most encouraging aspects of research such as that provided by Helen Fisher is the compassion with which it encourages us to look at ourselves as well as others. Builders, for example, are for the most part wonderful people. They are crucial to the long-term prospects of our species. They also have certain predictable traits that are often negative, one of which is an affinity for organized religion and other highly structured social environments, and the regrettably dogmatic attitudes that characterize many of these groups. Lamenting this while trying to force changes is the equivalent of banging one's head against the wall. In any event, we could conduct the same sort of analysis with regard to each of the personality types Fisher describes. Each of the dominant personality traits comes with upside and downside.

The upshot of this research is that much of who we are is not determined by our choice, but rather our biology, and that the prospect for material change in that regard will in many cases be remote. Once we accept this point of view, we tend to be humbler with regard to our strengths, and less inclined to beat ourselves up with regard to our weaknesses. And, we tend (to a lesser extent) to extend the same charitable hand toward others.

Perhaps most importantly, we also come to understand the importance of a few of the choices we are able to make. One of those is who will be our long-term intimate companions, and the type of environment in which we will stand most of our time, whether at work, with family or socializing.

A large part of the trick to living the good life is learning how to spend as much time as possible in environments that allow us to use our strengths, while finding ways to protect ourselves and others against our weaknesses.

Choices with regard to where, with whom and how we live make the most significant difference with regard to the resonance, or dissonance, that will characterize our life experience. In the end, this will largely determine who we are and what we pass on to those we love the most.

http://www.mccue.cc/bob/spirituality....
topic image
Mormon Apologetics Redux
Friday, Mar 20, 2009, at 08:53 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Some time ago, I wrote my usual long, verbose, redundant, meandering, biased, ad hominem, misleading analysis of how Mormon and other apologetic groups work. It was, of course, described this way by a Mormon apologist. You can find it at http://www.mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.....

For reasons unclear to me, I woke up this morning with a few things to add to this analysis. In particular, I felt the need to atone for the sin of describing Fanny Deterson (I am changing names for the hell of it) and his ilk as "fog machines" who kick up dust and otherwise create intellectual and information barriers around Mormonism that make it harder for people to find their way out of the maze. By using only one metaphor, I probably gave the false impression that these folks have only one function. I should have also referred to them as puss. Let me explain.

We humans are a strange mix of the conscious and the unconscious. Our behaviors are motivated by unconscious factors to a far greater extent than we generally appreciate. In particular, our social groups function in ways highly analogous to biological organisms. This can perhaps best be seen in the behavior of highly social insects, such as ants and bees. Their hives display a collective intelligence that emerges from the interaction of very simple parts, and that cannot be explained by the properties of any of those parts. It is the way in which they are organized, and interact, that creates the intelligence. See http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/deborah_gordon_digs_ants.html for example.

Similar phenomena are found within human groups. Perhaps the best-known example is Adam Smith's "invisible hand", that on the basis of selfish individual action allocates resources with amazing efficiency in most cases (present financial crisis excepted) within human society.

The so-called invisible hand is a great example for my purposes because it indicates the way in which conscious objectives (to get the best deal for me) at the individual level have nothing to do with the very clear function of the collective behavior (to move resources around more or less efficiently within society).

We see something similar with regard to Mormon and other apologetics. Think of the Mormon institution and its members as an organism. It needs energy, in the form of human resources such as time, money, intellectual talent, etc. It gets this in a variety of ways. And, importantly, it needs to defend what it has because there are other organisms out there that would love to take its resources, just as over its relatively short history it has prospered by taking resources from other religious organisms.

The allocation of human resources between various religious and other organisms is determined by how individual human beings choose to spend their time, and contribute their talent, money and other resources to one institution instead of another. A lot of this is determined by instinct, and so religious organisms are set up to take advantage of our cognitive biases (see http://www.mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.denial.pdf starting at page 51). For this reason, they make heavy use of prominent authority figures, get people to publicly commit to the institution, get people to publicly express their beliefs, obtain small commitments first and gradually increase the severity of commitment, expend enormous resources to create strong teenage peer groups, monopolize time so as to limit interaction with competing groups, encourage the flow of faith promoting information, and discourage the flow of faith disconfirming information, etc.

When an organism is attacked, it defends itself. We all understand what that looks like in terms of an individual animal fighting another. However, that image does not convey the difference between the conscious and the unconscious. So, let's use a biological metaphor instead.

When irritants of certain kinds penetrate the human body, white blood cells are marshalled, surround the irritant and attempt to kill and/or expel it from the body. In severe cases, this leads to the formation of puss, which can burst through the skin taking the irritant with it.

In the essay linked above, I indicate that the apologetic function is largely to kick up so much dust around the perimeter of religious organisms that it will be difficult for those on the inside to find their way out. There is no question that this is an accurate description of what a Mormon apologist does. However, the white blood cell analogy is informative in a different way. As irritating information penetrates the Mormon body, apologists swarm around in a pussy (be careful with pronunciation) sort of way, and attempt to force it out of the body, or least dilute and otherwise weaken the information so that it has a smaller impact inside the body. This includes, of course, swarming the source of the information to the extent it also enters the body. Have a look, for example, at what happens when people like Tal Bachman show up on one of the Mormon apologist bulletin boards. It is the equivalent of tossing a piece of raw meat into a piranha tank.

The swarming, pussy behavior I just described is a classic example of individual behaviors that are performed for conscious objectives that have nothing to do with those behaviors macro effect. Of course, apologists tend to see themselves as defenders of the faith. However, this is always characterized as the defence of abstract properties, such as truth. The fact of the matter is that when you move from religious organism to religious organism, you see precisely the same behavior. Truth has nothing to do with it. If the foundational principles of the organization are that the Holocaust did not exist or that the Earth is 6000 years old, that makes no difference whatsoever to the nature of the apologetic behavior. Just as white blood cells to the same thing from human body the human body, apologists do the same thing from religious organism to religious organism. They defend.

The analogy between Mormon apologists and puss is entertaining, but more importantly it draws attention to the unconscious driver of this behavior. From my perspective at least, this makes understanding and empathizing with these individuals easier. This might be best illustrated by reference to non-Mormon apologist, such as those who defend a 6000 year age for the Earth. The tendency is to dismiss these people as ignorant, mentally unbalanced, or simply evil. That does not do justice to the power of the human subconscious. In fact, when we recognize that good hearted, intelligent, well-educated, highly moral people can easily be found defending the young Earth hypothesis, this should help us to recognize our own propensity to be driven by subconscious factors relative to our own psychological weak spots to maintain certifiably crazy beliefs. We each need to be much more skeptical of our own ability to separate truth from falsehood, and be prepared to rely more upon the most well-informed, reliable people wecan find with regard to the important aspects of life. The most reliable group, by far, in this regard is the scientific mainstream.

So, I again apologize for referring to Fanny and his buddies as fog machines. I should have called them pussy fog machines.
topic image
Initiation Rites -- The Skull And Bones Society V. The Mormon Endowment
Monday, Mar 23, 2009, at 08:52 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
I don't know why, but I'm on a bit of a posting jag these past few days.

I was driving in the car this morning with my two teenage sons, aged 18 and 14, and for some reason the Skull and Bones Society came up in our conversation. One of the boys described how part of the initiation rite in that society is the disclosure of the kind of deep, dark secret that could be used by other Society members to hurt you if you ever broke their code or did other members dirt in some way. People who study initiation rites have shown that if you endure pain in order to get into an organization, the membership means more to you and you will be more dedicated to the organization. Hence, most long-lived organizations require a significant entrance price to be paid.

I explained to the boys that having to disclose some of your worst moments in public fits into that category, as do the crazy things otherwise sober, respectable Mormons do during their temple ceremonies. The boys were, respectively, 12 and eight years old when I left Mormonism, and so they were never really socialized as Mormons. They consistently have trouble imagining how the wonderful Mormons they know and love believe and do the things they sometimes hear about with regard to Mormonism. Our discussion of the temple ceremony this morning was one of those experiences from their point of view.

I went through the temple ceremony in some detail with them. We talked about the clothing, secret handshakes, the secret names, "the wave" during the prayer circle while saying "Paye lay ale", the promises that I would allow myself to be killed if I ever divulged any of the sacred secrets involved in the ceremony, etc. I described the way in which as a trusting 19-year-old, I was taken into that ceremony by parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts each of whom behaved during the temple ceremony in a way that at the time I regarded as bizarre, but since they were all doing it with confidence, I went along. I mouthed the promises in a state of shock, wondering what they really meant. I described my initial stunned reaction at the nature of those promises, and how I assumed that that everything must be alright because people who I knew loved and cared for me were leading me through this. I also described the peace, and feelings of sacredness, that I eventually came to associate with the temple ceremony after having gone through it many times, and how this type of feeling is caused by many types of ritual behavior in virtually all cultures. By the way, I attended the temple more than a dozen times prior to my mission, and well over a hundred times in total. I was in also authorized to officiate at the veil (that is, play the role of God in ushering people into the celestial room) before going into the mission field, and continued to do that after my mission until I stopped attending the temple about seven years ago.

The boys appeared to have trouble believing what I was telling them. I promised that sometime soon I would get out my temple robes, and show them in greater detail exactly how the process works, and why it was at least as bizarre as the way in which I described it.

The main point I was trying to make is that the Mormon initiation process involves a kind of psychological pain that is similar to what we had been talking about with regard to the Skull and Bones Society. This pain is the result of being required to engage in a humiliating, unsettling if not frightening (the first time or two at least), ridiculous public ritual, dressed in a funny clothes, prostrating oneself in a variety of ways before a religious institution in what outsiders would regard as a foolish fashion. This constituted committing myself to an organization in a very unusual way, and cause psychological discomfort.

As indicated above, many studies have shown that enduring this kind of pain causes people to value the experience or status they earn as a result much more than otherwise would be the case. Women, for example, who were recruited into weight loss and fitness programs tended to lose more weight and keep the weight off longer if they were required to take a series of strenuous tests and believed that they had been chosen from among many applicants before being allowed to enter the program. Other people who went to precisely the same program after having simply applied and were immediately accepted did not treat the program with the same seriousness, and did not benefit in the same way from their membership in it. Countless other studies have demonstrated similar things. You can find those by googling "cognitive dissonance". If you add my name to the Google search, you will find some of the things I have written in this regard.

In any event, at the end of a probably 15 or 20 minute conversation in the car, the boys asked me if I could remember any of the secret handshakes, signs, etc. from the temple. I gave them the main secret handshake, which creeped them out immensely. That is, the "sure sign of the nail". I told them my "new name", and then surprised myself by being able to repeat verbatim the last, long passage necessary to get into the celestial room. They were, again, amazed at the idea that their father would've been doing this kind of thing on a regular basis as recently as seven years ago. Their reaction to this helped me to appreciate at a deeper level how bizarre these behaviors are.

For the record, here's the last bit. This occurs after a relatively long sequence during which the rest of the signs, tokens etc. are repeated by the person attending the temple to another person who is pretending to be God, and standing on the inside of the curtain that separates the celestial room from the rest of the temple.

First, the person attending the temple has to receive the most sacred handshake, and identify it. It is the "second token of the Melchizedek priesthood, the patriarchal grip, or sure sign of the nail". The boys were really rolling their eyes at this point, and were amazed at the nature of the handshake. The last thing the person attending the temple has to learn, and memorize so as to be able to repeat, is the name of this handshake.

One would have thought that the name was “the second token …” as just indicated, because when the handshake is given and the temple attender is asked “What is that?” he is required to answer “The second token of the Melchizedek priesthood, the patriarchal grip, or sure sign of the nail”. But that would be far too logical and straightforward.

In any event, when the temple attender is asked, after having properly identified this handshake, “Has it a name?”, he is required to answer:

“It has.”

God then asks, “Will you give it to me?”

The temple attender has to say "I cannot. I have not yet received it. For this purpose, I have come to converse with the Lord through the veil."

God then says, "You shall receive it upon the five points of fellowship through the veil." (The five points of fellowship are a form of embrace that is given through the veil)

The temple attender then leans forward, clasping God in the required embrace through the veil, and God whispers the token’s name into his ear.

Then, God says, "What is that?"

The temple attender says, "The second token of the Melchizedek priesthood, the patriarchal grip, or sure sign of the nail."

God says, "Has it's a name?"

Temple attender: "It has."

God: "Will you give it to me?"

Temple attender: "I will, upon the five points of fellowship through the veil."

They again embrace, and the temple attender repeats verbatim what God whispered a few moments prior to him, which is:

“Health in the navel, marrow in the bones, strength in the loins and in the sinews, power in the priesthood be upon me, and upon my posterity, through all generations of time, and throughout all eternity.”

This is all, of course, certifiably crazy mumbo-jumbo, and my boys recognized it as such. They could barely believe what they were hearing. From their point of view, this was straight out of South Park or The Family Guy. And ironically, it is the ceremony's bizarre nature that in large part makes it effective, for the reasons noted above.

For my part, the fact that I can still remember this stuff verbatim produced an involuntary tremor as I was walking the boys through the last part.

I thank whatever odd features of reality are responsible for the fact that the social tentacles that for a long time had me playing this ridiculous game lost their strength.

topic image
Gratitude In A Sunday Snowstorm
Monday, Mar 23, 2009, at 08:55 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
It is Sunday, March 22, 2009. I'm sitting in my living room at eight o'clock in the morning, staring through picture windows across the prairies and foothills toward the Rocky Mountains about 30 miles away.

I can’t see the mountains. We're in the middle of a spectacular spring snowstorm that started late last night. Snow is piled 10 inches deep on the ground, and up to 6 inches on many tree branches and bushes. And, it is still falling heavily. This is the kind of day to not go out unless you have to, or have a good four-wheel-drive vehicle and feel like adventure.

For some reason, today is also one of those welcome days on which I feel overwhelming gratitude. They usually come on Sundays, and I haven't had one for a while. During the first year or so after I left Mormonism, this was regular event. Probably every two or three weeks I would have a strong dose of the feelings that are with me right now. But, no matter how good or bad things are, we quickly habituate. So, I am enjoying a rare pleasure.

Why today? That's why I'm writing this. These feelings surprised me a few minutes ago, and so while enjoying them I will pick at them a little bit. Perhaps I'm odd in this way, but introspection heightens positive experience for me, and seems to make it last longer.

This is a spectacularly beautiful morning. That seems to have a lot to do with why I feel as I do. These feelings are often associated with being moved by great art, nature's power and beauty, and other aesthetic experiences.

It is Sunday. As I indicated above, I feel like this more often than not on a Sunday morning when I am going somewhere or doing something that would not have been possible while I continue to be a fully participating Mormon. I am now accustomed to this freedom, but it still sometimes feels surprisingly exhilarating.

My wife and I had a great dinner last night with good friends (one Mormon couple and one non-Mormon), and then enjoyed a thought-provoking, mildly funny play with them (Oscar Wilde's "An Ideal Husband"). I'm still probably glowing a little bit because of that.

We got to bed fairly late last night, but I still woke up early this morning feeling rested, and as I walked out of a dark bedroom into the vaulted roof and picture windows of our living room, I was welcomed by the spectacular scene of heavily frocked trees and fences, and snow coming down so hard that I could only see half way across the pasture behind our house. I'm glad that this kind of thing so easily moves me.

I have a number of hours of work this morning to which I'm looking forward. I'm working on an interesting project right now, and this is the kind of thing I intensely enjoyed.

I know that this afternoon I will either go skiing with my 14-year-old son, or have a good long workout in some other way. I am 100% confident that either of those will make me feel great.

I will be with my wife and a few of my children off and on all day today. That is enjoyable.

And then this evening I will attend a book club meeting for the first time with some people who sound interesting. That is the kind of thing I almost always enjoy, and so I'm looking forward to it.

My life is far from perfect. I often feel incomplete, inadequate, etc. Those feelings are part of life’s normal run, as far as I can tell. Because of how they contrast with moments like this, they are also a big part what makes right now so important and enjoyable for me.

I occasionally communicate with people who have changed their religious beliefs more or less as I have, and are not able to feel positive with regard to their new circumstances. This often has to do with conflict within their families regarding faith related issues. I still deal with a significant amount of that myself, and that is in part responsible for some of the feelings of difficulty and inadequacy I regularly have. But these problems do not overshadow the kind of wonderful moment I'm enjoying right now.

I have no idea why some people are able to anchor themselves in the occasional moments of clarity and lightness of being we experience while others appear dominated by life’s dross. I'm trying to learn how to spend more of my life in positive space, and use my knowledge that I will have regular experiences like what I'm enjoying right now to help me through the inevitable dark moments. I also remind myself that if I felt as I do right now all the time, but I would soon lose the ability to savour this experience.

In a few minutes I'm going to grind some fresh coffee and make a cup of my favorite high tensile espresso. I only drink that roughly once every two or three days. I find that I enjoy more that way. If I drank this stuff every day, it would not give me the lift I experience shortly.

Life is good. Today is going to be a great day. I wish you each the same, or better.
topic image
The Story Of The Mormon Apostate And The Muslim Ward Mission Leader
Wednesday, Apr 22, 2009, at 07:51 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
So, here I am sitting in my bathrobe, ready for bed and checking my Internet messages before hitting the sack. I've had a wonderful, relaxing evening. My wife made a great salmon salad, garnished with all kinds of things I can't even identify. That was washed down with a large glass of wine while watching American Idol (I had told my kids that the are watching the birth of a star in this Adam kid). And then, what watching a comedy program, I enjoyed one of my first homemade martinis. My horizons are expanding. As a result, I am way mellow at this point.

And for some strange reason, I'm reminded of a story that feels like it needs to be told before I go to bed. So here goes.

I was on a business trip recently that involves stops in Houston, Dallas and Phoenix. The most hectic part of the trip was Houston. I had to make four meetings, scattered across different parts of town, during the course of one day. I picked up a taxi at the airport in the usual way. A somewhat hard to understand Indian gentleman who drove the taxi gave me his business card, and implored me to call him the next day if I needed a cab back to the airport. I ordinarily don't do that, but because I was so pressed for time between meetings, I decided to give him a call and see if he would be prepared to meet me at my last meeting downtown, take me to a meeting out on the fringe of the city, and then wait for me so that I could make my plane at the end of the day. He agreed to take me out of town for my last meeting, and said that he would arrange for another cab to take me to the airport. He had something else that he needed to do that evening.

So, my Indian friend picked me up at my last meeting downtown. We headed out to the outskirts of Houston for the next meeting, and during the course of an approximately 45 minute drive, he began to ask me questions about my religious beliefs. I can’t remember how we got on this subject, but it seems that I am a lightning want for this kind of thing. I need to analyze my behavior to figure out what it is that I do or say that invites this kind of conversation.

In any event, my taxi driving friend ended up explaining to me that his wife and children live in India, he is a devout Muslim, and he does not want them to live in the United States because of the potentially corrupting nature of the environment there. So, he gets to see them once every two or three months.

He then started to ask me questions about my beliefs. I told him a little bit about my upbringing, the issues that caused me to change my point of view, and how I currently believe (agnostic/atheist). This led him to ask me questions about the nature of agnosticism and atheism, how those terms are defined, how people who used to believe, as I did, could come not to believe anymore, etc. He told me a story about someone who he had helped to convert -- a computer scientist -- and who sometime later had renounced his belief in the Muslim faith. This puzzled, and deeply troubled him. I did my best to explain how perspective can change, and how the emotional experience related to being part of a close-knit religious group can sometimes make people temporarily feel that they have beliefs that are certain, and will never change. We had what seemed to me like a pleasant discussion in that regard. So pleasant, in fact, that he missed our turnoff from the freeway, and I ended up being 15 minutes late for my meeting.

As we pulled up to the building at which I had my meeting scheduled, he apologized for the fifth or sixth time for making me late, and said that he had decided that in order to make things right, he should wait for me until I finished my meeting, and then take me to the airport. I thanked them for that, and without hesitating left all of my luggage, including a number of valuables, in his cab. I didn't realize what I had done until I was on my way into the building. And then, I had no inclination to reverse my intuitive decision. I trusted this man. Our beliefs radically differed, but during the course of a 45 minute cab ride, and intense conversation, I had come to both trust and like him. It was obvious that he had the same feelings with regard to me. He told me two or three times during the course of the trip that for some reason, he felt inclined to talk to me about things that he ordinarily did not talk to anyone about. He said that I felt like a kind of spiritual companion, or fellow traveler, to him. This puzzled him, because I was an atheist.

In any event, I finished my meeting and came out to find my luggage, and cabdriver friend, waiting in the parking lot. He drove me to the airport. That took another 20 minutes. On the way, he attempted to convert me to the Muslim faith. He bore his testimony, in essence. He wanted to give me a copy of the Koran. I told them that I already had a copy, and had read most of it years ago. I told him that I understood that the Koran, when sung in Arabic, is one of the most beautiful pieces of poetry on the planet. I've heard that described by people who understand Arabic, and the Muslim culture, and who are not Muslim.

In any event, when he finally dropped me off at the airport I had to politely cut short ourconversation. I was almost late for my flight, and my friend wanted to continue passionately explaining to me the virtues of Muslim belief; the beauty he had found as a result of living in accordance with the Muslim faith; and most importantly, the importance of faith itself. He was concerned about my lack of faith. He felt that I was missing much of what life’s wonder. And what of my family? How could I raise children without faith? I had already explained the nature of my faith filled life up until about age 45, and so politely smiled as he continued his impassioned plea. Finally, I told him for the second time that I really had to go, we shook hands, and I hustled into the airport.

The fact that I am dictating this story, late at night after a long day at work, indicates the impact this brief encounter had on me. There is something about people who believe passionately, and live passionately, that impresses us. This man was full of energy. He was full of purpose. His point of view is sure to be attractive to those who are somewhat unsure with regard to their own path. And though I could not disagree more with his beliefs, and much of how he lives, I liked him. I enjoyed his company and he enjoyed mine. This, clearly, puzzled both of us.

Life is strange -- strangely wonderful and surprising in strange ways.
topic image
The Pros And Cons Of Raising Children Within Mormonism
Wednesday, Apr 22, 2009, at 07:59 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
Twice during the last week I've been asked the same question by successful, highly educated people who are at this moment peering with trepidation through the fog around the edges Mormonism toward the unknown (for them) beyond. That question is whether I could provide them with a list of the pros and cons with respect to removing children of various ages from Mormonism, and attempting to raise them in an on Mormon environment. I have been asked something similar more times than I can count, and until now have not felt motivated to attempt to systematically compile a response. I invite anyone who wishes to do so to help me with that. If you don’t want to read further, just note your ideas with regard to the pros and cons below.

As some of you know, I am a big believer in the wisdom of the crowd. See James Surowiecki’s “The Wisdom of Crowds” for more in that regard. One of the best ways to access the wisdom of the crowd with regard to the topic I described above is to, simply, find a knowledgeable crowd and ask for help. That is what I'm doing here. I am also going to post this message in a few other places, including one where I know many faithful Mormons will see it. It is important that we consider the broadest perspective possible, and it would be foolish to attempt to address this question without inviting the more thoughtful of those who have the strongest possible incentive to disagree with us to have their say.

I believe that there are two basic categories into which this question should be broken - pre-teenagers, and teenagers or older. In a nutshell, it is my view that Mormonism and other similar organizations don't do much harm with regard to young children. In fact, I think that kind of secure, loving environment Mormonism tries to create is close to what small children need. However, as children begin to question, and therefore attempt to develop their critical thinking skills, social attitudes that discourage questioning or suppress information begin to cause damage. Santa Claus is the example most of us use. When children are old enough to seriously question whether Santa is real, it is counterproductive in a variety of ways to do anything other than assist the child to figure out reality. The same thing applies with regard to the Easter Bunny, God, and the myth our heroes (including people like Barry Bonds, Bill Clinton or Albert Einstein) never do anything wrong. So, while Mormonism is far less than ideal for small children, it is not toxic.

The damage caused by the Mormon and other similar institutions becomes severe when children reach their teens. This is because many of our most important neural networks, and therefore long-term behavioural patterns, are formed as our brains are bombarded by hormones, and therefore loosened up for extraordinary growth during the age between puberty and 17 or 18 years. Research indicates (I am going from memory here, so don't hang me if I get the percentages a little wrong) that the way children develop into adults is influenced first of all by genetics (roughly 50%); second by teenage peer group (something like 25%); third by sibling influences, including birth order (something like 10%); and fourth by parental and other influences. There are not many percentage points left by the time we get down to direct parental influence.

This means that, generally speaking, the most significant influence parents can have (after contributing their genes) on their children will be to help to determine their teenage peer group. That means that the choice as to where we live, the schools our children attend, where (or if) they go to church, the extracurricular activities in which our children engage, etc., are the big choices we make. What we believe, how we communicate our beliefs to our children, and even how we behave, have relatively minor influences in the big scheme of things. I am not, of course, talking about extreme abusive or that kind of thing. I'm talking about the ordinary family in which parents make the usual effort to do the right thing for their children.

I should also say, as I said to each of the two individuals who recently contacted me, that I don't believe it is justifiable for any person to tell anyone else what they should do with their life. Our natures and circumstances are too complex for that. It is helpful, however, to share the most accurate information we can about how social influences tend to work, and on that basis construct general rules. We each are then in a position to judge, as best we can, how those general rules apply in our situations. This is how I wish I was treated while coming to maturity, and so this is how I tried to treat other people.

My basic position with regard to younger children is that attending church and otherwise being involved with Mormonism is not a bad thing. There are no doubt better environments that could be found, but if all of my children were eight years of age or younger, I would not feel pressure from that point of view to immediately exit Mormonism. Once the oldest child is past eight, I would begin to feel pressure. And once that child is approaching the Mormon youth system, I would feel a lot of pressure.

Having said that, I know a number of families who for various reasons have chosen to remain connected to Mormonism in the long-term while one or both of the parents no longer believed Mormonism's truth claims. In some of those cases, some of the children turned out spectacularly well. In others, the results from my perspective were disastrous. I likewise know many families who have completely left Mormonism. In many cases, their children have turned out fabulously. In some others, the results have been disappointing.

On balance, based on my observations and not on empirical research (I don't believe there has been any done in this regard), the probability of our children turning out to be the kind of strong, independent, self-actualizing people we would like them to be is better if they are raised by confident parents living outside the confines of Mormonism, than within it.

With that overlong intro behind me, the remainder of my comments are addressed toward the pros and cons of remaining within Mormonism from the perspective of parents trying to raise teenage children. Again, I invite comments both with regard to the content of each of my bullet points below, and by way of adding additional bullet points.

Pros (put as a Mormon would, with room for a critique to come later in square brackets): 1. Mormonism creates a safe environment for our children, and so protects them against dangers related to things like sexually transmitted diseases, the psychological trauma of premature sexual activity, drug and alcohol abuse, etc. [ ]

2. Mormonism emphasizes simple, strong moral values. This is more likely to produce well adjusted, happy children and adults than the chaotic environment outside of Mormonism. [ ]

3. Mormonism emphasizes commitment to family and community, and provides a good foundation for a stable, traditional family life. [ ]

4. Mormonism emphasizes education and achievement. [ ]

5. Mormonism encourages the traditional role of father and mother, and as a result creates greater opportunity for mothers in particular to spend time with their children, and for fathers to provide the kind of guidance that produces well-adjusted children. [ ]

6. Mormonism encourages an international point of view as a result of how many missionaries serve outside of North America, and return to become integrated within the Mormon community. [ ]

7. It is difficult to find any community that offers as many high-quality programs for families and young people as Mormonism does. It is a great one-stop shop. [ ]

Cons:

1. Mormons are taught to think magically. This results from the Mormon belief system, and it's literal understanding of the Biblical miracles, that angels etc. appeared to Joseph Smith and other prominent figures in Mormon history, and that worst of all, that God actually communicates in understandable terms to each human being so as to help them make important decisions. One of the most important, and dysfunctional, Mormon ideas in this regard is that we can "know" by way of what we feel. This form of knowing overrides knowledge based on empirical evidence and rational thought. A host of bad decision-making habits arise from what I just described. Many of these slop over into business and non-religious life issues. However, Mormons are at their worst when making decisions with regard to their religion, and aspects of their family life related to their religion. It is emotional knowing that, for example, leads people to dedicate unreasonably large amounts of time and money to Mormonism. It causes young peopleto marry in many cases when they should not. It causes young married couples to have more children than they are able to financially and emotionally support. The morality from an environmental perspective of having large families does not even hit the radar screen.

2. As noted above, peer group influence is second only genetics in terms of how our children turn out. This will trump, in many if not most cases, parental teaching. The Mormon Church invests heavily in its youth programs for this reason. Mormonism is, in this sense, a huge extended family that has as one of its objectives to reduce the influence of parents who are not fully faithful to the Mormon way.

3. Mormons are raised in a simplistic environment where too many decisions are made for them. This causes them to not develop the instincts required to successfully operate in the complex social and other environments of the "real world". This is one of the explanations for the way in which fraud artists take advantage of more people per capita in Utah than any other State. In this way, and in many others, mainstream Mormonism is a watered-down version of the FLDS. Being raised Mormon systematically weakens individuals so that they will be less inclined to attempt to leave the Mormon community. This effect is stronger with regard to girls than boys, since boys must be prepared to earn a living.

4. Young Mormons are encouraged to marry far too early, and to make that decision on the basis of the "spirit". This is usually done after a boy has been away for two years on his mission during precisely that period of time when most males are more sexually active than at any other time. They are then told that they cannot have sex until they get married. The girls, on the other hand, are told to save themselves for those wonderful returned missionaries. It is no surprise that the returned missionary almost immediately feels "inspired" to marry one of the first girls to whom he becomes emotionally attached. The source of this inspiration is clear, and it has nothing to do with God. Many poor matches are made as a result.

5. Young Mormons are made to feel guilty about their bodies, their sexuality, and many other healthy and natural aspects of being human. "The natural man is an enemy of God". The guilt and shame this produces creates self-esteem issues, increases the probability of depression, and in a variety of other ways is dysfunctional.

6. Pity the young Mormon who is genetically oriented toward same-sex attraction. The Mormon shoe pinches particularly hard for this kind of person. They will be taught to hate themselves, in a particularly perverse, passive aggressive kind of way. That is, while being told how much they are loved and should love themselves, they are in fact taught that some of their deepest instincts are evil. This breeds self hate. I'm not aware of statistics having been gathered with regard to this point, but I would be astonished if the suicide rate in the Mormon gay community was not orders of magnitude above that of the general community. This has been shown to be the case with Orthodox Jews, and I believe evangelical Christians of certain kinds. It is surely also the case with regard to Mormons.

7. Our personality types determine to a large extent the environments in which we will feel most comfortable, and are most likely to thrive. Some people need a lot of structure in their lives. They will probably gravitate toward a system similar to Mormonism. However, many such systems will not encourage magical thinking and the kind of dogmatism that marks Mormonism and other similar literalist religions. So, the people who need structure can do better than Mormonism. Mormonism is particularly unhealthy for other personality types who do better in environments that encourage exploration and individuality. Consider, for example, the case of a girl who is highly exploration oriented and not inclined toward the domestic life offered by the wife and mother role. How is that kind of person likely to get along within Mormonism?

8. While this is somewhat repetitive of the point immediately above, I note that young Mormons are presented with a range of career and lifestyle options that is unrealistically narrow. For example, the percentage of intelligent young Mormon males who aspire toward earning a lot of income as a result of careers in business or the professions is extraordinarily high. This is the result in large measure of the expectations within the Mormon community. To be successful by Mormon standards, you will have a large family and a wife who stays home and raises your children. This requires a single breadwinner to earn a lot of money. Making fundamental career and lifestyle choices on this basis is nonsensical in our circumstances of abundance. As indicated above, different personality types need different kinds of environments. I think it is far better to give our children the opportunity to experience as many different environments as possible, and to encourage them to gravitate toward the people and environments withwhich they naturally resonate. Mormonism's narrowness is in part responsible for the high rates of depression in Utah.

9. Mormons tend to have an undue deference to authority. This is largely the result of the way in which they are taught to subject themselves to personal interviews, and the authority of various family and religious community figures. This probably accounts in large measure for the sky-high rates of financial fraud in Utah, and the way in which Mormons routinely taken advantage of by multilevel marketing organizations. That is, Mormons are made manipulable by their religious beliefs so that they will be better Mormon worker bees, and once that is discovered by other people, they will take advantage as well. This also is part of the being-raised-in-a-too-simple-environment problem.

10. Mormons tend to have poorly formed personal boundaries. This is, again, largely the result of the way in which they are taught to subject themselves to personal interviews, and the authority of various parties. Being obedient is close to equated with being good within Mormonism. This means that Mormons are inclined to be too involved in others people lives (too nosey) and accept other people nosing into their business too easily. This is a form of emasculation that is common in close-knit community groups, like the traditional Hindus. It causes a variety of problems, including the extensive use of passive aggressive behavior to control other people. This happens because overt control tools don’t work. So, rather than (or after) screaming at you to repent, loved ones usually express their sadness, distress etc. at your unfaithful behaviour, and in other ways indicate that real intimacy with them is conditional on Mormon belief and behavior. It is particularly ironic that are Mormons pride themselves on having intimate family relationships. The requirement that everyone obey the same rules and behave in the same way seems to create intimacy of a sort. However, just like strong fences make good neighbours, strong personal boundaries facilitate intimacy. For example, the fact that Mormon parents think that it is their duty to keep track of how faithful their children are to Mormon standards, and gently (or not) call their children and grandchildren to repentance as required, means that as soon as children or grandchildren begin to colour outside the Mormon lines, they will feel the need to keep this behavior secret from their parents and grandparents. This destroys intimacy, and at its worst, encourages deceit. See my comments below with regard to weaken the moral fibre in this regard.

11. Mormons, ironically, tend to have weaker than average moral fibre. Mormons fare poorly in various kinds of honesty tests. Utah, for example, has more tax evaders than any other State. This is in part due to the fact that Mormons are put so frequently in positions where they are under a lot of pressure to promise things that they know they have virtually no chance of doing. (“Do you masturbate?”; “Will you get your Home Teaching done this month?”) This has a corrosive effect on morality. Having to teach kids to in effect pretend to believe so as to avoid conflict at church would make this problem worse. And if you don't teach them this, some will do it anyway because no one likes to be out of step with their peer group.
topic image
Life - Tightrope Or Creative Web?
Wednesday, Apr 22, 2009, at 08:07 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
One of Mormonism's, and organized religion's, fundamental premises is that the basic elements of our lives must be as they are. God created the cosmos, the Earth, and us. God mandated certain types of relationships. God mandated certain forms of social institutions. Etc.

As reality comes into better focus, one of the first things we realize is the miraculous nature of most of what we thought had to be just as it is. For example, why is there something of any kind, instead of nothing at all? The wisest among us cannot answer that question. Far from being travelers at a routine way station, each and every one of us is a flat-out miracle.

The same applies with regard to many of what we regard as life's mundane aspects. What about the feelings created when two people fall in love? What about the radically different, but no less amazing, feelings that slowly form over the course of a long life shared with others in various ways - with an intimate partner while raising children and contributing to a community; with the arts or other causes? What about the feelings we have as we watch the lives of those for whom we care the most unfold in their unique ways?

After considering the miniscule probability that any of these particular, and utterly wonderful, feelings would come into being, we should regard them as miracles.

Compared to this, many aspects of my Mormon existence felt at the time, and feel even more with the benefit of hindsight, like tight rope walking. The endless series of rules that had to be complied with, theoretically to perfection, in order to get to the Celestial Kingdom. The Herculean task of raising children so that they would defy the odds, and each and every one of them would walk that same tight rope.

There was nothing wonderful about that tight rope, despite how hard I tried to convince myself that it was a great deal. In fact, it was only a great deal when compared to something far worse – the loss of our ability to choose. And ironically, I now realize that the entire story of the pre-existence, life is a test, our role as soldiers in the continual battle between good and evil, the Celestial Kingdom, etc. was a big part of the mechanism that cut off my choices, and forced me into a that long rope over the black chasm - an exercise profoundly ill-suited to my exploration oriented nature.

Now, I see life as an astonishingly beautiful and complex web of opportunity. Each part of it that resonates to my core is a miracle.

If given half a chance, almost all of us have the ability explore this fecund environment while feeling for whatever will make us more. This search is more about discovering who we are than anything else. I am still occasionally astonished at what I find out in myself in this regard.

Few things make my happier than watching my children engage in this process. I have no idea where they are headed. How could I? How could my parents have foreseen what I am today?

I have no desire to constrain what my children do. I feel privileged to occasionally be consulted as they make their decisions, and am pleased that at most, what I have to say plays a minor role in their thinking.

Watching them evolve - each becoming the miracle only she can be - is one of my greatest pleasures.
topic image
Paradox In Religious Belief And Practice
Tuesday, Jul 14, 2009, at 07:43 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
This meditation is inspired by an article from the NY Times a friend recently sent me that was written by an intellectual, “born again Catholic”, who eloquently described the paradoxical nature of her re-acceptance of her childhood faith. I have cut and pasted the article at the end of this piece. It is worth reading. I can’t say the same for the paragraphs that immediately follow.

I have not been a fan of those who revel in the “living on the cusp of paradox” paradigm that attracts many religious people who are intellectually oriented. That has always seemed a cop-out to me. It did while I was Mormon, and until recently still did. Things either make sense, or they don’t. Or perhaps better put, there is a continuum on which an item or belief’s sensibility, workability, functionality, etc. can be placed. If something is nonsensical or doesn’t work well enough, find something that does. That may be a pain in ass, but we can get over a lot more than we think we can once we get at it. So as I have told many of these folks, stop bitching about how paradoxical your life is, and find something that works for you. What I had missed is that for some people, whether they can admit this or not, the paradox works.

That is, in our world there is a basic conflict between the felt reality of the small group religious experience and the real reality disclosed by science. As a result, living with paradox is for some people is as good as it gets. The alternatives are to either ignore science, which the more conscious among us cannot, or to reject some of life’s deepest perceptions, which certain people cannot.

As William James put it (and I paraphrase), certain religious experiences bring with them a peculiar sense of having experienced the “more real than real”. Brain science has recently explained why this is. It has to do with how certain kinds of experience, including some religious experience, suppress the part of the brain that keeps track of our body’s separateness from all that is not us. When this happens, we feel like we have merged with some greater whole. The same thing happens during lovemaking, for the same neural reasons. This is a pretty compelling experience. Whatever we associate with it takes on a special significance – kind of like what happens when a baby goose automatically attaches to the first animate object it sees upon hatching, whether that is its mother or not. This experience can be induced by bombarding the brain with certain kinds of radio waves; by taking some drugs in certain kinds of safe, nurturing environments; by engaging in certain kinds of closely coordinated group activities(military style marching, for eg.); etc.

For folks like me, once the science is understood it is a relatively straightforward (if painful) matter to change how we believe and the way we live. For other personality types, this is not so straightforward. In fact, it may be practically speaking impossible. For them, embracing paradox may be the best way to go. No one has to tell them this. They don’t have to think it. In almost all cases, their subconscious will see to it that they perceive and believe what they need to in order to stay sane. And I am thinking particularly of highly group oriented people.

Recent personality type research has indicated that some people are highly exploration oriented while others are highly oriented toward stability, structure, and connection to kinds of conservative groups that tend to be stable in the long term. We will adopt Helen Fisher’s terminology and hence call these two types “Explorers” and “Builders”. Both personality types are crucially important to the continued functioning of human society. In some environments (scarce resource or military environments in particular), the Builders will be particularly important. The careful coordination of group effort is more important here than usual. Without this, survival is in jeopardy. In safer, more abundant settings (like what we now enjoy), more Explorer behaviour is not only tolerated, but will tend to produce innovation and hence abundance more quickly than could otherwise be possible. Yet, the Builders are still important. The most exploration oriented groups still need some Builders to contain and focus the creative force exerted by the Explorers who dominate the group.

Explorers and Builders react quite differently to the collision between the world of emotional experience that binds groups together and the science that often deconstructs that experience, as neurology has the perception than one has encountered Truth in the manner noted above. The Explorer trapped in what is for her an uncomfortably constraining social group says “Of course! These feelings don’t indicate that I must do a whole bunch of stuff that does not feel right to me. I can choose my own path!” She is hence set free, at least intellectually, and if she can navigate the treacherous hurdles her social group has set up to prevent defection (maybe she has to leave lifelong friends, family or a spouse behind), she will in fact be far more free than she has ever been.

For the Builder, the scientific explanation for the experiences that may hold his community together is a completely different proposition. This threatens to dissolve a good part of the glue that holds the community together. It threatens his ability to continue to believe, and if he loses belief he will spin out of control into the chaos that he (usually) perceives to lie beyond the border of his little group. In short, he needs the connection to his group (not any group will do – remember the gooses imprinting) or at least a similar group. This need is deep and strong enough that for most Builders that it will bulldoze any evidence or reasoning that gets in its way. However, if a Builder has a strong intellectual orientation, the emotional bullbozer may hit the mental equivalent of another bulldozer. Here, paradox and ambiguity become the Builder’s allies. This allows the emotion and reason bulldozers to eye each other with suspicion, but for the most part to employ their prodigious energies in productive ways that have little to do with each other instead of engaging in a fight to the death, with clinical depression or other form of insanity being a likely outcome.

This is the kind of thing I think about while reading about religious paradox in the lives of people like Michele Somerville (see below). Something else I think about is how far Mormonism has to be before it will allow a place for people like her. Had she been raised Mormon and really needed a connection to group of the kind she described, she would probably have remained Mormon and suffered with depression and other dysfunctions as so many Mormons do. Had she been able to get out of the Mormon social trap, her path would likely have been to become Evangelical Christian since many aspects of that system resonate with the Mormon. It is not likely that she would have become Catholic since the Mormon imprinting leaves one with distaste for pageantry, crosses and many other Catholic acoutrements. Builders are far more constrained by where they come from than Explorers.

I finally note that the division between Explorers and Builders may also explain the conflict on post-Mormon and other similar internet bulletin boards between those who have left all belief in deity behind and those who have maintained it in some form.

In any event, the understanding science is slowly giving me of how our brains and social groups work causes me to accepting paradox as a legitimate tool in other lives. I hope you enjoy Michele’s description of her paradoxical relationship to the religious cards she was dealt.

best, bob

Born Again in Brooklyn

By MICHELE MADIGAN SOMERVILLE

I.

About a decade ago, moved by a convergence of my longstanding fascination with religion and a time of great personal loss, I embarked on a search for a church and wound up a born-again Catholic. It was not a straight or untroubled path, guided as it was by both my attraction to and enmity for the Roman Catholic Church into which I was born and baptized.

Growing up Irish Catholic in New York City put me in a good position to experience the best and worst of the Church. Most of the Sisters of Charity who taught at my grade school were tyrants. In 1971 I knocked on the door of my parish rectory to inquire about becoming an altar server; I was advised that only boys could serve. Brides, said the priest, were the only females allowed on the altar. When my mother became critically ill at age 30, a Catholic priest administering last rites, refused to offer absolution when she, who had given birth to four children by age 25, refused to express contrition for taking birth control pills. People for whom I care deeply have been molested by priests.

In 1985, while working as a high school English teacher in a parochial school, I watched a 19-year student of mine weep in homeroom in response to that morning’s “pro-life” announcement, which included references to “mothers who killed their own babies.” I learned later that this young man’s mother had terminated a pregnancy two days earlier. My gay brother, at the time of his death at 45, felt despised by the Church he had always loved.

But a radical nun was the first person to teach me anything sophisticated about poetry. The Catholic Church in New York has fed, educated and clothed more poor people than any other agency in the city. On most days a logic-defying confidence in the potential of the sacraments to deliver grace persists in me. The beauty of even ordinary churches has never failed to astonish me. While I consider the brutality of the papacy, now and throughout history, a source of shame, Roman Catholic art, often commissioned by those very same bad popes is a source of pride, and comprises a tradition in which I, as a poet, often work.

Roman Catholic, as it turned out, was the language my spirit already knew. Burning hyssop and frankincense, the stark and heart-charging splendor of Gregorian chant, Marian devotion; the iconography, the Latin Agnus Dei and Litany of the Saints, the Angelus bells, the rapture at the crux of Catholic worship have always held fierce sway with me.

As I started to experiment with religious observance, I quickly developed a sense of what I did and did not want. My aims were practical and ethereal, metaphysical and physical. I wanted to transcend, but as the mother of three toddlers, I wanted convenience, too. I craved beauty, musica sacra, social justice work, and maybe a whisper of ancient tongues in my ear, but I also needed a church that would embrace the realities of motherhood. If the celebrant of the mass glowered or gawked when I jammed the baby up my shirt to nurse at mass, he failed the audition and I never went back.

I liked parishes that were racially and socio-economically diverse, houses of worship that were beautiful, the presence of women priests when I was lucky enough to encounter it. I had zero tolerance for folk masses, anti-abortion diatribes, ecclesiastical greed, rote reciters of scripture and congregants who refused to sing. (After all, as St. Augustine said, “singing is twice praying.”) When people in the pews were unkind to my generally well-mannered children, I crossed their church off my list. I preferred my homilists witty, lyrical and learned. A brilliant theologian and Dante maven who used to celebrate mass a few mornings a week in my neighborhood helped hook and reel me in. Most of all it was another – a lyrical priest I successfully hectored and charmed into serving as my de facto guru – who presided over my rebirth a s Catholic. And so I began to regularly attend Roman Catholic mass.

II.

You might wonder how someone like me – a feminist-progressive living in 21st-century Brooklyn – can abide the Vatican’s positions. Well, I don’t. I am Catholic under protest and I’m in good company. The long tradition of radical thinking is alive and well in my Church.

I recently attended an interfaith Gay Pride Celebration in held in a Roman Catholic Church. One of the speakers was a former Catholic nun who left her order many years ago and is currently an Interfaith minister. She spoke of her work as a person of the cloth, her life as a lesbian, her 25 years with her beloved. The honorific “Reverend” precedes her name. She wears a Roman collar. That night, her address was filled with surprises, but only one aspect of her speech shocked me: her fervent recommendation that progressive Catholics remain in the Church – so as to be in a position to create change. She still worships in a Roman Catholic Church.

I love the radical Catholic Church. I love that there are Roman Catholic bishops sticking their necks out to ordain women. That Catholic doctrine places mighty emphasis on the role of conscience in worship and creates fertile ground for conscientious dissent. I support dramatic change as energetically as I can. I withhold my cash from the bishops and hand my diocesan appeal tender to the Woman’s Ordination Conference and to SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests). I devote much time and talent to working in the Gay Ministry at my church. I recognize it is my obligation as a conscious, conscientious Catholic to discern – to know that the church no more belongs to the Vatican than it does to me. The power of the Church may rest with the College of Cardinals, but its glory rests with people like me.

Once I accepted that being Roman Catholic did not require that I be a papist – once I understood that it was possible to be simultaneously outraged by and in love with the Church – I saw the obstacles to being a practicing Catholic in a new way.

III.

I certainly do not see religion as essential to an ethical, spiritually rich life. I am married to an agnostic Jew and I educate our three children in two faiths, teaching them to pray, modeling what practicing a religion authentically looks like. “Getting religion” has rendered me neither righteous, nor saved. In April, as I read a Times report about the efforts of Atheist Humanists to organize in South Carolina, I uttered sotto voce, “God bless them,”so inspired was I by the nobility of their cause.

Religion has expanded not only how I relate to “the Divine” – by which I mean the infinite creative force beyond space and time which moves and is moved by love – but also it has expanded the way I think and feel about other faiths. The deeper in I go into my own faith, the greater my appreciation for that of others. The more confidence I gain in my own path, the more certain I am that there are many true paths.

My practice of Catholicism inspired me to step up my efforts to educate my children about Jewish Sabbath observance and Torah, for example. When I light the candles on Friday nights, I do not do so as Jew, but I don’t exactly do so as a Christian either. I do it as the mother of children of the tribe, and when I do so, I enter this ritual fully, as a soul rising to the occasion of something more infinite that the sum of all our ritualistic parts – I stretch – a soul reaching to touch the hem of the garment of the Divine.

It is through practice that I have come to believe that if there is indeed a God presiding over the End of Days, the particulars, the language and myth, various sects employ as means for understanding and revering God will wash away moot in the flood of some unified, unifying light. Practicing provides pockets of peace, soothes me when I am terrified, enhances my appreciation of the created world, helps me to shape who I am into the woman I wish to become. When I’m lucky, practice ushers me toward glints of transcendence.

God is not verifiable, worship can never be wholly rational and men and women can never properly parse the mind of an infinite God. Devotion is built like love; it opens, and it opens up – this, in its own time. For many, religion is a fairy tale. For others, it’s the most real and true thing imaginable. For me, it’s usually both.

Michele Madigan Somerville is the author of “Wisegal” (Ten Pell Books) and “Black Irish,” forthcoming from Plain View Press. Her verse has appeared in Mudfish, Puerto del Sol, Hanging Loose and other publications. Her Web site is Fresh Poetry Daily.
topic image
Skydiving as Post-Mormon Therapy
Tuesday, Aug 11, 2009, at 01:44 PM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
For the last two Sundays, I attended Sky Church. The meetings involve confronting primal fear, and staring it down. This is done on the basis of a desire to fly, an intellectual understanding of the tiny risks you are in fact facing if you choose to do so. Then, while either staring down your demons, or more likely having pushed them from your consciousness, you step out of an airplane and become a bird.

I celebrated this mass for the first time on Sunday, August 2, and three times again yesterday on Sunday, August 9. My two oldest sons were initiated with me. I don't expect to have a better bonding experience with either of them.

Okay, I exaggerated a bit. It's not quite as simple as just stepping out of the plane and flying. First, you are hit by an 85 mile an hour wind and completely disoriented. Then, you have to do something that seems profoundly stupid, and dangerous. You have to put yourself into the most vulnerable possible position -- head looking up away from the ground that you so desperately want to find; pelvis thrust out as far as you can thrust it; legs and arms spread eagled and trailing behind. Nothing in you wants to do this. Your flight or fight system is screaming -- "Curl up and get ready for the worst, or a least look down and try to figure out where the hell the ground is!". But if you do that, you spiral out of control, and if you do what your instructor has told you to do ("Arch! Arch! Arch!"), and everything that you know about aerodynamics says that you should do when falling out of an airplane, you will fly.

Here's the kicker for post-Mormons, or perhaps people leaving bad relationships, facing major career changes, dealing with bullies, etc. In so many ways, our evolutionary and cultural history has equipped us with dysfunctional instincts. We feel, for example, inclined to eat sugar and fat as often as we can. This made sense while humanity evolved on the African plains. It makes no sense now. Many of our other instincts are similarly dysfunctional in our current environment. One the most of us here are familiar with is the instinct to remain with your social group. For most of human history, leaving the social group -- or being kicked out for disruptive behavior -- meant death. So, we have an existential fear (similar to that of jumping out of airplanes) of even information that could infect us to the point where we might be expelled from our social group. This is, in our current environment, yet another dysfunctional instincts.

Just as many people have done with the food thing I mentioned above, we can deal with other dysfunctional instincts by understanding from a rational, logical perspective the nature of the risks we face if we allow ourselves to remain where we are (in a bad culture, or a bad relationship, for example) and what is likely to happen if we take the steps necessary to change our lives. However, many people who reach the intellectual understanding that they should change, simply cannot get themselves to change. Our instincts are just too strong in many cases to allow that to happen.

So, what if we primed the pump little bit by getting to understand the nature of the relationship between our conscious, seemingly rational choices and these primal fears? There are probably lots of places where that could be done. Skydiving might be one of the best. This, of course, will not work for some personality types. But those who are even moderately inclined toward openness to new experience perspective may find this to be just the thing.

It occurred to me this morning as I woke up that one of the reasons the skydiving experience has been so fascinating for me is that it condenses the "face your demons" process into something small enough that it can be more easily understood. For example, when getting out of the plane, as indicated above, our instinct is to look for the ground and figure out where we are and what to do. Nothing in our evolutionary history prepares us to step out of a plane. Our instinct is designed for living on the ground. To do what we need to do to fly requires overcoming a powerful instinct. We do that by learning about aerodynamics, listening to people who have jumped out of thousands of airplanes talk about their experience, and then practicing on the ground what has been conclusively demonstrated to work. Still, nothing prepares us for what happens when we step out of the airplane's door, reach up the wing strut and then allow ourselves to hang in that position while doing our best to arch, spread eagled. Again, that is the furthest from possible from what instinct tells us to do. In fact, this instinct is so powerful that our conscious mind may actually trick us into thinking that we are arching as we have decided to do, and have practiced doing many times, leaving it for the instructor on the ground to let us know what we were in fact doing anything but that.

So, while getting out of the plane, we engage in hand-to-hand combat with our primal instincts. We pit but we have decided to do on the basis of rational considerations, against those instinct. In this case, the objective is to experience unaided human flight before what amounts to a great hang gliding exercise for the rest of the trip down. However, the skills we pick up here are transferable to other much more important aspects of life -- where we need to face down that same set of primal instincts in order to make life liveable, or to move from surviving to thriving.

Staring down our instincts time after time during the process of learning to skydive, and gradually feeling a sense of mastery over them, is surprisingly empowering. The process of leaving Mormonism generally plays out over months or years. It involves all of the same forces I have described with regard to skydiving, but tends to be scattered across a complex emotional landscape, and a long time. This made the process hard to bring into focus. Skydiving, on the other hand, condenses more or less the same process into two-hour segments, which is roughly what is required to prepare for a dive, execute the dive, and then digest what happened afterwards. By going through this process over and over again, the mechanisms required to face down primal fear come into focus, and I believe that the skills developed in that regard are transferable to many other things: fundamentally changing (or leaving) dysfunctional intimate relationships; leaving dysfunctional belief systems and the communities that relate to them, orchanging those relationships in a basic way; changing careers whether required by circumstance, or because that is something you want to do for ongoing personal development; taking the risk necessary to meet someone new, or engage in a new hobby or sport; etc.

I think this has potentially important implications for a least some personality types (those at least moderately open to new experience). This might be a useful adjunct to the art therapy processes I've also found be helpful (See, for example, http://mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.art%20therapy%20for%20recovering%20mormons.pdf). This has to do with the way in which "right brain" or artistic activities help to loosen up the kind of deep neural networks that need to be restructured in order for us to change the kind of habits of thought and action that have developed during the course of being raised within a tradition like Mormonism.

And, I don't think one can jump (tandem or otherwise) would be enough. That certainly would be a nice start -- facing down some fear, once. I found the individual jumps much more challenging in that regard. As indicated above, what I am so for finding to be most useful is feeling of deep, instinctive fear gradually under control. That happened with regard to Mormonism over a long time. I think that if early on in that process I had done, for example, 20 skydives and gotten to the point where I was thrilled but comfortable when climbing out of the plane, and in control as I fell for some distance before pulling the cord, that I would have been able to transfer that skill more effectively to some of the grindingly difficult transitions that I made on the way out of Mormonism.

Perhaps some enterprising soul should organize a group skydiving experience relative to the annual Exmormon Conference, or some other less formal gathering of post-Mormons.

One of the last things I saw last night before going to bed was a text message from my son Brayden which said that our skydiving experience had been "life-changing" for him. I agreed, but late last night had not intuited why. This note is an effort to try to articulate the nature of those doors that I felt open.

What do people here think, or feel about this idea in general -- that exercises in confronting our primal fears may be transferable to the "leaving the fold" process? Has anyone had experiences similar to what I had while skydiving that either supports, or does confirms this idea?
topic image
Some Thoughts About Bridge Building Between Religious And Other Conflicting Cultural Groups
Tuesday, Aug 11, 2009, at 08:03 AM
Original Author(s): Bob Mccue
Topic: BOB MCCUE   -Link To MC Article-
The following is a lightly edited version of the note I sent to a physicist/neuroscientist with whom I participate on a science and religion e-mail list. I have immense respect for this fellow. However, we have been politely disagreeing with regard to the strategies that are most likely to be helpful to people who want to try to take the sharp edges off religious behavior. My friend has taken the position that some of the insights into fundamental reality offered by quantum theory, quantum mechanics, etc. may be helpful in that regard. I had earlier indicated to him that I did not believe quantum theory to be relevant to the realm of human perception and behavior (he agreed), and therefore did not believe strategies based on the mystery, beauty, etc. of the quantum world were likely to be helpful to changing the way in which the religious aspect of the human world works. He asked me to set out my alternative suggestions for change. I responded as follows:

Thanks Stan. I have several quantum mechanics (QM) for laypeople books at home, but am always interested in hearing recommendations from people whose opinions I respect. You and Helmut both certainly fall into that camp.

A clarification with regard to my view of QM. As far as I can tell, there is nothing speculative about the basic data and theory. It appropriately describes both what is known, and what is speculated about the atomic world. What is clearly speculative (and at this point likely unjustifiable) is any posited relationship between QM and how the brain functions or any other aspect of human behavior. I was referring to no more than that. So, again, in my view it is not helpful to try to use something that is probably irrelevant to the world of human behavior and perception to help people to better understand that world, or build bridges from one part of that world to another.

As to how we might best go about our bridge building, I don't think there is a silver bullet and so favor a variety of approaches. Human social evolution is so complex that many different strategies are likely to have positive effects. As Helmut indicated earlier this morning, thankfully our species is so diverse that many different kinds of people will be inclined toward different approaches in this regard. Some will be more productive than others. It is accordingly worthwhile to evaluate each proposed approach in terms of its potential efficacy, and encourage those that are likely to be effective. As already indicated, I have not been able to find an approach based on QM that will in my view likely be effective.

Here are a few of the approaches that I think are interesting.

- Emphasis on praxis (behavior) as the important attribute of religious (and social) behavior, and de-emphasis of the importance of belief. Karen Armstrong and others have been recommending this for a long time. As religious systems mature, this appears to be a natural part of their evolutionary arc. By focusing on this, we can perhaps accelerate the process. Raising the consciousness within each religious group of respected historical figures with those groups that used this approach is one of the best ways to soften current literalist attitudes. Most members of most religious groups overestimate the stability of belief and behavior patterns within the group over time.

- Emphasis on privileging the scientific view to the extent that it is relevant to any topic. This will entail a movement away from literal religious belief and toward metaphor. Again, demonstrating how this is a part of the history of the religious group in question will likely be helpful. Most religious groups have a history of gradually letting go of literalist beliefs as they are challenged by science. Galileo is usually helpful in this regard. On the other hand, the strident approach taken by the New Atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, et al) on this point is generally unhelpful, even though they are for the most part correct in principle.

- Emphasis on the importance of moral belief and behavior that embrace the largest possible group and longest possible time frame. This amounts to breaking down small tribe boundaries, and encouraging a large tribe (global, multi-generational) morality and worldview. Again, it is usually possible to show how this has happened already to a degree with the group in question.

- Emphasis the issues that unite humanity, such as what we face regarding the population and ecological crises. Nothing creates alliances among enemies better than a common threat. This will probably be an important strategy relative to the establishment of a large tribe, long-term, ethos. This is also related to the praxis versus belief approach in that praxis will be the large tribe concept, while encouraging metaphysical belief, ritual, small tribe history, etc. as important distinguishing features that enhance the texture of our global social fabric. I like the approach advocated by EO Wilson and others like him in this regard (see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...).

- Misperceptions (new false beliefs, for example) are sometimes helpful in getting us off older, and worse, beliefs. Some aspects of QM may work to an extent in this regard. For example, the belief in some sort of fuzzy, QM version of deity may help some people let go of their much more toxic, literalist beliefs. However, this still replaces one false literal belief with another. While this is progress of a sort, I do not believe it is wise to consciously go down this road. Many people will go down it in any event.

- There is a variety of recent evidence, based in social psychology and neurology, that we can change conscious processing and behavior by bringing subconscious processes into conscious view. For example, the more aware we are of the way in which our instincts are affected by historical and cultural factors (like our instinct to eat too much, exercise too little, favour our own race and accept the opinions of authority figures within our group), the less effect these forces have on us. I think this research may be helpful in terms of developing strategies to change individual perception and behavior, and therefore social dynamics, with respect to each of the issues noted above.

- Perhaps most importantly, we should emphasize the way in which group rules and conditions influence individual belief and behavior. For example, there is a strong correlation between the strength of the social safety net, and the declining strength of the dogmatic, small tribe oriented, religious groups. If universal healthcare and better unemployment insurance/job retraining/welfare systems were put into place in the United States, for example, over the course of a generation or two, this would probably weaken to a significant extent the tendency toward which relist religious belief, and allegiance to many now powerful dogmatic religious groups. The more I learn about complex systems theory and what they probably demonstrate with regard to human social behavior, the more inclined I am to focus on attempting to change the foundational rules of our social groups as a means to changing what are perceived to be our deepest and most individual beliefs and choices.

Finally, to sound a few realist notes, there is strong evidence that bridge building works for the most part on a generational basis. Effort directed toward adults will be far less productive than effort directed toward children. In particular, we should try to change the structure of society and the educational system in particular, that will influence the formation of belief and behavior during childhood.

I also think that this is how the emphasis on praxis versus belief, and the privileging of the scientific worldview over dogmatic worldviews, are likely to make their effects felt. In each case, these changes are likely to occur on the basis of a phase transition. That is, we should expect a lot of energy to go into the system without the perception of much change, and then for a large amount of change to occur over a relatively short period of time. And the efforts made now are unlikely to show much effect until, at earliest, the generation of children who are influenced by our efforts come of age.

This is one of the most important points Daniel Dennett has been pushing -- basic change to the way in which our educational system works. I posted here a while ago something with regard to Québec. It is the first jurisdiction in North America to adopt mandatory religious studies courses for high school students. As I understand it, this is common in Europe. This is the kind of change that has the potential to change religious perspectives and behaviors.

My final realist thought is to note the evidence that a multiplicity of social forms are necessary in order to create the material from which social evolution will construct the forms best suited to deal with changing environmental circumstances. This is an application of evolutionary theory at the human group level that is derived from the necessity of creating an abundance of forms, many of which will not survive, so as to provide a sufficient array from which functional forms can be selected by the environment as it changes. This applies, so far as we can tell, to all phenomena that are subject to evolutionary theory. This means that many social groups, and the individuals within them, have a high probability of dysfunction and failure. The forces of evolution care as little about this as they do about the impact of the vast majority of genetic mutations. In each case, the fate of the individual (whether a virus, bacterium, or human being) affected by the mutation does not matter from an evolutionary system point of view, whereas the diversity of form created by the mutations in totality is crucial.

This principle helps to explain the power and ubiquity of our faulty perception (including the cognitive biases and what we call denial) and how this tends to bind human individuals into often obviously (to outsiders) dysfunctional groups. That is, dysfunction at the individual level ironically creates important function at the level of the human species on a long term basis. There are many examples of this. One of the best known is the irrational belief of individual investors (including the best professionals) that they can beat the publicly traded stock markets. Yet if every investor accepted the market's wisdom and stopped investigating and betting on individual companies, the wisdom of the market (the aggregate of all that investigation and betting) would cease to exist. Hence, the irrationality of investors (a lower order dysfunction) creates the market's wisdom (a higher order function). There seems to be a deep, hive kind of intelligence directing our actions in this regard.

Similarly, diversity of human social group form (conformist v. individualistic; communist v. democratic; etc.) and the beliefs that maintain those forms are required in order for a wide range of possibilities to exist as our species attempts to cope with an evironment that changes radically from time to time. A force similar to (if not the same as) what is responsible for the irrational market behavior described above appears to be responsible for the way in which individuals tend to resist information that is rationally sufficient to disclose the dysfunction and/or irrationality of their group's foundational claims and basic behaviors.

Hence, if history is insufficient to make us modest in our aspirations to get people to agree with each other as to the best way to believe and live, the deep forces just described should do the trick.

In short, we face certain basic limitations in our bridge building efficacy.
 
mcimg
HOME
FAQ
CONTACT ME
332 TOPICS
THE EX-MORMON FORUMS
MORMON RESIGNATION
Google
Search The
Mormon Curtain





MormonCurtain

How to navigate:
  • Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
  • Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
  • Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
How To Deal With A TBM Spouse
African Wisdom
I See The Past, Present And Future, Existing All At Once Before Me
Do Young Mormon Women Want More Income Earning Potential In A Potential Mate Than Non-Mormon Women?
“The Spirit” and When to Get Married
The Use Of Mythology In The Recovery Process
Why Can't Insiders Accurately Perceive Their Own Culture?
Miscellanea re Adjustments to leaving Mormonism
The "Meaning Of Life" As Per Ursula Goodenough In Her Book "The Sacred Depths Of Nature"
Sydney Ridgon And The Book Of Mormon
The Joy Of Determinism - The Old Freewill V. Determinism Debate
Comparative Apologetics
Michael Quinn's Mormon Testimony
Mormon Polygamy And Apologetics - An Overview
Review Of Michael Ruse's Mysteries Of Mysteries - Is Evolution A Social Construction?
The Mormon Shipwreck
A Request For Collaborators In A Post-Mormon Writing Project
Does Prayer Work? Does Mormonism Work?
Encouraging Myths For Post Mormons
A Summary Of How Denial Works
Mormonism's Response To Secularization
Personal Mythologies And The DSM - IV
When are we justified in thinking that we "know: something?: A Case Study regarding Martha Beck and "Leaving the Saints"
A Few Therapy Ideas For Recovering Mormons
Draft Submission To Newsweek's "My Turn" Re: Joseph Smith's Birthday And Mormonism
Continuation Of Draft Joseph Smith Essay For Newsweek Thread
The Problem With Mormon Authority
A Few Thoughts About Mormon Marriage
Questions From The Mormon Fringe - How Mormon Leaders Receive Revelation And Agnosticism
"The Gospel Is Perfect But The People Are Not" - A Critique: Part II - The Gospel Is Perfect?
Mormon Apologetics V. Mormon Criticism - Is There A Better Way?
The Creation And Erosion Of False Faith: A Timeline
Mormon Relationships - Its About Time
Religion And "Attachment Theory"
Are Mormonism's Highest Leaders Aware Of Those Who Leave Mormonism For Principled Reasons?
Of Emotional Battleships, Intellectual Row Boats, Pokemon, Southpark, And Misdirection
What Is The Meaning Of Life For Atheists (Or Non-Theists, Or Agnostics)?
But Good Things Often Come From Bad, And So People Are Justified To Choose To Remain Mormon Even After They Understand Its Real History
Mormon Marriage and Disrespect
The Power Of Religious (And Other) Convictions
Two Justifications For Mormon Belief
Notes For A Podcast Interview: Religious Belief Impairs Our Ability To Perceive And Reason In Some Ways
Brokeback Mountain - On Art and Social Change
How Much "Color" Do We Need? - A Meditation On "Brokeback Mountain"
Analogies For "Leaving The Fold"
Why Do I No Longer Rage At Mormon Idiocy?
Are Heretics Good For Mormonism?; Are Liberal Mormons Bad?; The Dysfunctional Nature Of Mormon Decision-Making
What Does It Mean When We Feel The "Veil Getting Thin"?
Art Therapy For Recovering Mormons
How Hard Is It To Be A "HalfMo"?
Ecological V. Deliberative Rationality - A Key To Understanding Human Behaviour
Reflections On Secular Anti-Mormonism
Daniel Peterson's "Reflections On Secular Anti-Mormonism" A Quick Reaction
Topic: Mormon Belief Interferes With Rational Decision Making? And Where Will This Take Mormonism?
Eternal Companions
Magical Thinking Interferes With Rational Decision Making - A Meditation On The Thoughtful Mormon’s Choice Between Passing On Inherited Irrationality And “leaving The Fold”
How Far Can We See?
On Apologetics - Short Enough I Hope - Even For Mormon Apologists To Read Right To The End
The Future Of Mormon Apologetics And Mormonism
How Solid Are Mormon Financial Foundations?; And How Much Does The Defection, Resignation Or Quiet Withdrawal Of One Tithepaying Member Matter?
Where Is Mormonism Headed And The "Who Benefits" Principle
A Message For All Apologists
Why Bother With Debates A La Mccue / Peterson Proposal?
The Fog Around Some Mormon Intellectuals
Chasin Skunks Down On The Fog FARMS
Phase Transitions And Candlelight
The Evolution Of God And Morality: The Role Of Cheaters And Suckers In Social Groups
A Broad Perspective On Recovery From Mormonism
Newspaper Series In Canada Re. Spirituality And How Mormonism Fits In
Faith Chemistry Research Suggests Link Between Brain Function And Spiritual Experiences
"A Complicated Kindness" By Miriam Toews - A Post Mormon Maker?
What Is The Single Strongest Argument Against The Book Of Mormon's Historicity?
What Does The Gospel Of Judas Mean?
Guilt Eats From The Inside Until We Falsify Mormonism, And Heal
The Delayed Reaction Factor In Mormon Testimony Deconstruction
Paul Dunn, Joseph Smith, And "The Spirit"
The Fear We Feel When We Contemplate A Change In Belief
Fast Pitch Softball And The Pareto Principle; Or “the Good Life” Comes From Between
Cognitive Dissonance At www.fairwiki.org
The Risks Of Leaving Mormonism, Or Living On Its Fringes
The Anti-Gravity Machine
Does Attachment Theory Help To Predict Mormon Behavior And How We Will Respond To Exiting Mormonism?
We Thank Thee Oh God For Depression
Wonderful Graphic Representation Of Mormon Faith Collapsing
The Covenant With Mystery
Fast Shorts
Psst, I've Got A Dirty Little Secret To Tell You
Corridor V. Non-Corridor Mormons
The Expansion Of Human Compassion And Complexity Theory
The Thoughtful Mormon's Evolution From Dogmatism To Relativism To Realism
A Random Exmojo 2006 Conference Report - Walking In The Salt Lake City Rain
Does Any Kind Of Christianity Work?
Personal Boundaries, Mormonism And Marriage
Forest Fires, Revolutions, Dogma And Anti-Depressants
The Anatomy Of Crumbling 20-Something Mormon Belief
You Might Be On Your Way Out Of Mormonism If
My Teenage Sons Persuaded Me To Watch The Matrix With Them Last Night
Mormon Scientist Says DNA Evidence Does Not Disprove The Book Of Mormon, And Big Foot Is Real
The "Joy Book"
More Parallels Between The FLDS And Mainstream Mormonism
Piaget, "Formal Operations" And The Mormon Ability To Comprehend Reality
Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" – A Meditation On Healing Religious Wounds And The Breadth Of Religious Symbolism
I Am A Recovering Mormon
Mormon Decision-Making – Feelings Of Peace V. Feelings Of Darkness
Public Relations - "Spin" - Mitt Romney – How Will Mormonism Evolve? - Cognitive Dissonance
A Proposed Talk For Sacrament Meeting (or Wherever) - Quote Not To Use "Mormons Are Like Redwood Seedlings Being Pruned Into One Foot Tall Bonsai"
Let Us Celebrate Our Heroes
When Was The Book Of Mormon Written?
Bill Bryson’s "A Short History of Nearly Everything" – On Perspective
Stephen Colbert - New Ideas Produce "Confusion" That Make "The Mind Scab Over"
Mother Teresa And Karen Armstrong - Two Different "Dark Nights Of The Soul"
Are Post-Mormons Happier Than Mormons?
Re-Read The Book Of Mormon, Etc. - A Response To A Mormon Leader
Stronger, Better Educated Females -- A Silver Bullet For Humanity's Current Demons?
Lyndon Lamborn - Dancing With Evangelicals At The Red Mountain Community Church
Birth Control Causes Divorce; Therefore The Pope Was Right; Therefore The Catholic Church Is True?
"The Namesake" - On Cultural Immigrants And Flourishing In A Post-Mormon World
The Bird In The Garage
Jon Haidt And "The Happiness Hypothesis" - A Long Book Review
"I Am Not As Happy As I Used To Be While Mormon"
"You Are The One Who Broke Our Marriage Covenants By Disobeying The Church, So If We Get Divorced Its Your Fault!"
"I Am Hutterite" By Mary-Ann Kirkby
How Long Does One Continue To Engage Mormon Apologists In Debate?
Big Picture Religion And Atheism
Why Do Older People Have More Trouble Seeing Through Mormonism Than Younger People?
The Power Of One
Do Liberals Need Conservatives And Vice Versa?
Prediction Of Apologetic Responses To The Criddle Wordprint Study
Uncertainty, Depression And Creativity
Trevor Southey's "Dark Light"
Stocks Are Down; Religion Is Up
Brothers And Sisters, I Want To Bear You My Testimony This Morning
What Will Happen When You Tell Your Intimate Partner That You Are No Longer Going To Be Mormon?
How Should We Respect Other People’s Religious Beliefs?
Helen Fisher ("Why Him? Why Her?") And Problems With Mormon Mate Choice
Mormon Apologetics Redux
Initiation Rites -- The Skull And Bones Society V. The Mormon Endowment
Gratitude In A Sunday Snowstorm
The Story Of The Mormon Apostate And The Muslim Ward Mission Leader
The Pros And Cons Of Raising Children Within Mormonism
Life - Tightrope Or Creative Web?
Paradox In Religious Belief And Practice
Skydiving as Post-Mormon Therapy
Some Thoughts About Bridge Building Between Religious And Other Conflicting Cultural Groups
5,717 Articles In 332 Topics
TopicImage TOPIC INDEX (332 Topics)
TopicImage AUTHOR INDEX

  · ADAM GOD DOCTRINE (4)
  · APOLOGISTS (53)
  · ARTICLES OF FAITH (1)
  · BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD (31)
  · BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD - PEOPLE (16)
  · BLACKS AND MORMONISM (12)
  · BLACKS AND THE PRIESTHOOD (11)
  · BLOOD ATONEMENT (4)
  · BOB BENNETT (1)
  · BOB MCCUE (144)
  · BONNEVILLE COMMUNICATIONS (2)
  · BOOK OF ABRAHAM (50)
  · BOOK OF MORMON (66)
  · BOOK OF MORMON EVIDENCES (18)
  · BOOK OF MORMON GEOGRAPHY (24)
  · BOOK OF MORMON WITNESSES (5)
  · BOOK REVIEW - ROUGH STONE ROLLING (28)
  · BOOKS - AUTHORS AND DESCRIPTIONS (12)
  · BOOKS - COMMENTS AND REVIEWS (44)
  · BOY SCOUTS (22)
  · BOYD K. PACKER (33)
  · BRIAN C. HALES (1)
  · BRIGHAM YOUNG (24)
  · BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY (54)
  · BRUCE C. HAFEN (4)
  · BRUCE D. PORTER (1)
  · BRUCE R. MCCONKIE (10)
  · CALLINGS (11)
  · CATHOLIC CHURCH (5)
  · CHANGING DOCTRINE (12)
  · CHILDREN AND MORMONISM (48)
  · CHRIS BUTTARS (1)
  · CHURCH LEADERSHIP (3)
  · CHURCH PUBLISHED MAGAZINES (51)
  · CHURCH TEACHING MANUALS (10)
  · CHURCH VAULTS (4)
  · CITY CREEK CENTER (23)
  · CIVIL UNIONS (14)
  · CLEON SKOUSEN (3)
  · COGNITIVE DISSONANCE (2)
  · COMEDY (128)
  · CONCISE DICTIONARY OF MORMONISM (14)
  · D. MICHAEL QUINN (1)
  · D. TODD CHRISTOFFERSON (6)
  · DALLIN H. OAKS (101)
  · DANIEL C. PETERSON (88)
  · DANITES (4)
  · DAVID A. BEDNAR (23)
  · DAVID O. MCKAY (8)
  · DAVID R. STONE (1)
  · DAVID WHITMER (1)
  · DELBERT L. STAPLEY (1)
  · DESERET NEWS (3)
  · DIETER F. UCHTDORF (13)
  · DNA (23)
  · DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS (8)
  · DON JESSE (2)
  · ELAINE S. DALTON (5)
  · EMMA SMITH (5)
  · ENSIGN PEAK (1)
  · ERICH W. KOPISCHKE (1)
  · EX-MORMON FOUNDATION (33)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 1 (35)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 10 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 11 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 12 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 13 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 14 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 15 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 16 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 17 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 18 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 19 (26)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 2 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 20 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 21 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 22 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 23 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 24 (28)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 3 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 4 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 5 (23)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 6 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 7 (25)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 8 (24)
  · EX-MORMON OPINION - SECTION 9 (26)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 1 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 10 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 11 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 12 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 13 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 14 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 15 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 16 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 17 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 18 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 19 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 2 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 20 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 21 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 22 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 23 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 24 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 25 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 26 (61)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 3 (21)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 4 (22)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 5 (24)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 6 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 7 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 8 (25)
  · EX-MORMONISM SECTION 9 (26)
  · EXCOMMUNICATION AND COURTS OF LOVE (19)
  · EZRA TAFT BENSON (30)
  · FACIAL HAIR (6)
  · FAIR / MADD - APOLOGETICS (70)
  · FAITH PROMOTING RUMORS (11)
  · FARMS (30)
  · FIRST VISION (23)
  · FOOD STORAGE (3)
  · FUNDAMENTALIST LDS (17)
  · GENERAL AUTHORITIES (29)
  · GENERAL CONFERENCE (14)
  · GENERAL NEWS (5)
  · GEORGE P. LEE (1)
  · GORDON B. HINCKLEY (68)
  · GRANT PALMER (8)
  · GREGORY L. SMITH (9)
  · GUNNISON MASSACRE (1)
  · H. DAVID BURTON (2)
  · HAROLD B. LEE (1)
  · HATE MAIL I RECEIVE (23)
  · HAUNS MILL (2)
  · HBO BIG LOVE (12)
  · HEBER C. KIMBALL (4)
  · HELEN RADKEY (17)
  · HELLEN MAR KIMBALL (4)
  · HENRY B. EYRING (5)
  · HOLIDAYS (13)
  · HOME AND VISITING TEACHING (9)
  · HOWARD W. HUNTER (1)
  · HUGH NIBLEY (13)
  · HYMNS (7)
  · INTERVIEWS IN MORMONISM (18)
  · J REUBEN CLARK (1)
  · JAMES E. FAUST (7)
  · JEFF LINDSAY (6)
  · JEFFREY MELDRUM (1)
  · JEFFREY R. HOLLAND (32)
  · JEFFREY S. NIELSEN (11)
  · JOHN GEE (3)
  · JOHN L. LUND (3)
  · JOHN L. SORENSON (4)
  · JOHN TAYLOR (1)
  · JOSEPH B. WIRTHLIN (1)
  · JOSEPH F. SMITH (1)
  · JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH (8)
  · JOSEPH SITATI (1)
  · JOSEPH SMITH (101)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - POLYGAMY (43)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - PROPHECY (8)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - SEER STONES (7)
  · JOSEPH SMITH - WORSHIP (13)
  · JUDAISM (3)
  · JULIE B. BECK (6)
  · KEITH B. MCMULLIN (1)
  · KERRY MUHLESTEIN (9)
  · KERRY SHIRTS (6)
  · KINDERHOOK PLATES (6)
  · KIRTLAND BANK (6)
  · KIRTLAND EGYPTIAN PAPERS (17)
  · L. TOM PERRY (5)
  · LAMANITE PLACEMENT PROGRAM (3)
  · LAMANITES (36)
  · LANCE B. WICKMAN (1)
  · LARRY ECHO HAWK (1)
  · LDS CHURCH (19)
  · LDS CHURCH OFFICE BUILDING (9)
  · LDS OFFICIAL ESSAYS (22)
  · LDS SOCIAL SERVICES (3)
  · LGBT - AND MORMONISM (44)
  · LORENZO SNOW (1)
  · LOUIS C. MIDGLEY (6)
  · LYNN A. MICKELSEN (2)
  · LYNN G. ROBBINS (1)
  · M. RUSSELL BALLARD (13)
  · MARK E. PETERSON (7)
  · MARK HOFFMAN (12)
  · MARLIN K. JENSEN (3)
  · MARRIOTT (2)
  · MARTIN HARRIS (5)
  · MASONS (16)
  · MELCHIZEDEK/AARONIC PRIESTHOOD (9)
  · MERRILL J. BATEMAN (3)
  · MICHAEL D. WILLIAMS (1)
  · MICHAEL OTTERSON (1)
  · MICHAEL R. ASH (26)
  · MITT ROMNEY (71)
  · MORE GOOD FOUNDATION (4)
  · MORMON CELEBRITIES (14)
  · MORMON CHURCH HISTORY (8)
  · MORMON CHURCH PR (13)
  · MORMON CHURCH PROPAGANDA (5)
  · MORMON CLASSES (1)
  · MORMON DOCTRINE (35)
  · MORMON FUNERALS (12)
  · MORMON GARMENTS (20)
  · MORMON HANDCARTS (12)
  · MORMON INTERPRETER (4)
  · MORMON MARRIAGE EXCLUSIONS (1)
  · MORMON MEMBERSHIP (38)
  · MORMON MISSIONARIES (142)
  · MORMON MONEY (73)
  · MORMON NEWSROOM (5)
  · MORMON POLITICAL ISSUES (5)
  · MORMON RACISM (18)
  · MORMON TEMPLE CEREMONIES (38)
  · MORMON TEMPLE CHANGES (15)
  · MORMON TEMPLES (116)
  · MORMON VISITOR CENTERS (10)
  · MORMON WARDS AND STAKE CENTERS (1)
  · MORMONTHINK (13)
  · MOUNTAIN MEADOWS MASSACRE (21)
  · MURPHY TRANSCRIPT (1)
  · NATALIE R. COLLINS (11)
  · NAUVOO (3)
  · NAUVOO EXPOSITOR (2)
  · NEAL A. MAXWELL (1)
  · NEAL A. MAXWELL INSTITUTE (1)
  · NEIL L. ANDERSEN - SECTION 1 (3)
  · NEW ORDER MORMON (8)
  · OBEDIENCE - PAY, PRAY, OBEY (15)
  · OBJECT LESSONS (15)
  · OLIVER COWDREY (6)
  · ORRIN HATCH (10)
  · PARLEY P. PRATT (11)
  · PATRIARCHAL BLESSING (5)
  · PAUL H. DUNN (5)
  · PBS DOCUMENTARY THE MORMONS (20)
  · PERSECUTION (9)
  · PIONEER DAY (3)
  · PLAN OF SALVATION (5)
  · POLYGAMY (60)
  · PRIESTHOOD BLESSINGS (1)
  · PRIESTHOOD EXECUTIVE MEETING (0)
  · PRIMARY (1)
  · PROCLAMATIONS (1)
  · PROPOSITION 8 (21)
  · PROPOSITION 8 COMMENTS (11)
  · QUENTIN L. COOK (11)
  · RELIEF SOCIETY (14)
  · RESIGNATION PROCESS (31)
  · RICHARD E. TURLEY, JR. (6)
  · RICHARD G. HINCKLEY (2)
  · RICHARD G. SCOTT (7)
  · RICHARD LYMAN BUSHMAN (11)
  · ROBERT D. HALES (5)
  · ROBERT L. MILLET (7)
  · RODNEY L. MELDRUM (15)
  · ROYAL SKOUSEN (2)
  · RUNTU'S RINCON (78)
  · RUSSELL M. NELSON (14)
  · SACRAMENT MEETING (11)
  · SALT LAKE TRIBUNE (1)
  · SCOTT D. WHITING (1)
  · SCOTT GORDON (5)
  · SEMINARY (5)
  · SERVICE AND CHARITY (24)
  · SHERI L. DEW (3)
  · SHIELDS RESEARCH - MORMON APOLOGETICS (4)
  · SIDNEY RIGDON (7)
  · SIMON SOUTHERTON (34)
  · SPAULDING MANUSCRIPT (8)
  · SPENCER W. KIMBALL (12)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 1 (18)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 (17)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 11 (15)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 12 (19)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 13 (21)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 14 (17)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 15 (12)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 (21)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 3 (18)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 4 (25)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 5 (22)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 6 (19)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 7 (15)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 8 (13)
  · STEVE BENSON - SECTION 9 (19)
  · STORIES (1)
  · SUNSTONE FOUNDATION (2)
  · SURVEILLANCE (SCMC) (12)
  · TAD R. CALLISTER (3)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 1 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 2 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 3 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 4 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 5 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 6 (25)
  · TAL BACHMAN - SECTION 7 (9)
  · TALKS - SECTION 1 (1)
  · TEMPLE WEDDINGS (6)
  · TEMPLES - NAMES (1)
  · TERRYL GIVENS (1)
  · THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE (1)
  · THE SINGLE WARDS (5)
  · THE WORLD TABLE (3)
  · THOMAS PHILLIPS (18)
  · THOMAS S. MONSON (33)
  · TIME (4)
  · TITHING (63)
  · UGO PEREGO (5)
  · UK COURTS (7)
  · UNNANOUNCED, UNINVITED AND UNWELCOME (36)
  · UTAH LIGHTHOUSE MINISTRY (3)
  · VALERIE HUDSON (3)
  · VAN HALE (16)
  · VAUGHN J. FEATHERSTONE (1)
  · VIDEOS (30)
  · WARD CLEANING (4)
  · WARREN SNOW (1)
  · WELFARE (0)
  · WENDY L. WATSON (7)
  · WHITE AND DELIGHTSOME (11)
  · WILFORD WOODRUFF (6)
  · WILLIAM HAMBLIN (11)
  · WILLIAM LAW (1)
  · WILLIAM SCHRYVER (5)
  · WILLIAM WINES PHELPS (3)
  · WOMEN AND MORMONISM (86)
  · WORD OF WISDOM (7)
  · WORLD CONGRESS OF FAMILIES (1)
Donate to help keep the MormonCurtain and Mormon Resignation websites up and running!

Note: Dontations are done via my AvoBase, LLC. PayPal Business Account.
Copyright And Info
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.

Website © 2005-2016

Compiled With: Caligra 1.119

HOSTED BY