In November, 2005 Mormon Stories interviewed Jason Nelson-Seawright (known online as “Roasted Tomatoes”) and Taryn Nelson-Seawright (“Serenity Valley”). In this touching, 2-part series Taryn discussed how she resigned from the church as a teenager, but ultimately felt called by God to become re-baptized into the LDS church — ultimately becoming sealed to Jason in the temple. You can listen to this original episode here and here.
In this episode, nine years later, Jason and Taryn discuss their decision to leave the church completely. They also discuss how their experiences with Autism Spectrum Disorder affected this decision.
Episode Transcript
Host: John Dehlin · Guests: Jason Nelson-Seawright, Taryn Nelson-Seawright
This transcript is machine-generated and lightly edited for readability. The audio is authoritative. Please excuse occasional errors in names and spelling.
Introduction and Welcome
Part 1 of 2 · Ep. 467
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:00:00] 1, 2, 3.
John Dehlin [00:00:07] Mormon Stories Podcast is a production of the Open Stories Foundation. All donations to Mormon Stories are fully tax deductible and go directly towards keeping the podcast alive and towards building a community of support for Mormons like you. To support the podcast or to join the community, please become a monthly subscriber today@mormonstories.org hello and welcome to another edition of Mormon Stories Podcast. I'm your host, John Dehlin, and I'm super duper excited as usual for this episode. For those of you who kind of listened to Us Weekly last week we released an interview with Brad Kramer, sort of what I like to call kind of a. A new generation of Mormon apologists, sort of who's striving for fully informed, non defensive and highly empathetic sort of faith and approach to non Mormonism and disaffected Mormonism. He also offers a framework for belief that's very pragmatic, that sets a very low bar for expectations of the church, you know, but also retains some grains of faith and most of all gives a higher call to kind of charity and maturity in the dialogue between believing Mormons and former Mormons or ex Mormons, etc. So I really recommend you go back and listen to that episode with Brad Kramer. And in that episode we talked about kind of an overarching strategy where we were going to interview Brad. Then we're going to interview our guests today that I'll introduce in a second. Then we're going to interview Jeremy Runnels, if that's how you pronounce his last name, about his letter to a CES director that sort of outlines many primary historically based and scientifically based concerns about the church. And then we're going to have a dialogue between at least one of our current guests and Brad to try and parse out in sort of an epic fashion some of the main intellectual issues that, that are confronting Mormons in the 21st century. So that's the, that's the big plan. Now I'm super eager to introduce my guests. I alluded to this in my last episode, but I'll. I'm going to do another introduction. So in the first year of Mormon Stories podcast and the actual release date of this first episode is November 17, 2005. As I calculated, it's the sixth interview I conducted in Mormon Stories, and that's actually episodes 10 and 11, I interviewed a couple. During the interview, the couple went by their aliases for whatever reasons, just privacy or concerns or respect for others or career concerns or others they can describe that if they want to, but basically they went by aliases. The husband in the marriage went by roasted tomatoes, and the wife in the marriage went by Serenity Valley. And in that interview, they talked about how he sort of grew up in Salt Lake and wrestled with a belief in God and with a belief in the church in his kind of high school years, eventually received a spiritual manifestation that led him to feel like he should serve a mission. He also acknowledged that it would have been severely disappointing to his family if he didn't go. He served a mission for the church, also talked about a witness regarding, you know, Christ's love and how central that was, and had some bumpy times on his mission, but returned from his mission sort of with his commitment to the church intact and went to graduate school. And parallel to this, she, Serenity Valley, grew up in a home where dad wasn't really an active member, at least for a lot of her upbringing, and mom had some pretty significant illnesses, if I recall, and that led to her. Was it. Was it sort of being not adopted? I don't want to say, but kind of. Was it adopted?
Taryn and Jason's Background and Origins
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:05:04] Yeah, I was adopted. My brother and I both.
John Dehlin [00:05:06] Okay. And for her, she was raised in the church, but because of gender equality issues, because of teachings around fear and, you know, apocalyptic kind of teachings and other types of experiences, she took a very different path and asked to have her name removed from the church. Moved to California, met. Did you meet Jason there in California?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:05:36] He met in high school.
John Dehlin [00:05:37] Okay. Met in high school, somehow ended up in California, ended up marrying Jason. Not in the temple. At first. She attended Episcopalian church, if that's right. And, you know, the feeling was that she wouldn't ever return to the church. But after a couple years and after retiring from leading a youth program there slightly, she received for what she would describe as a very strong spiritual prompting that she should return to the LDS faith. And after experiencing some difficulty with the missionaries, she did get Reba, Remember that? She did. Yep. She did get rebaptized by Jason. And a year or two later, they were sealed in the temple. And at the time the completion of the podcast, it was called Finding Our Way Back Home. It was a discussion about how they both had found peace in the church, and they talked about some concerns that they still had about the church at the time. Gender equality was an issue for both of them. LGBT treatment of LGBT individuals was an issue for both of them. You know, candid discussion of certain historical topics was an issue. And also there's a discussion about internationalization, globalization, or maybe I should say multiculturalism in the church and how, you know, maybe tithing dollars could be better directed towards those impoverished countries versus sent to the local headquarters. And how really their testimonies were centered around Christ and the love of Christ, but that they felt called to worship Christ through the church. Very beautiful episode. It has inspired many probably to stay active in the church or at least for certain time periods. And it's just one of my favorite episodes of all time. And so now we've brought them back. It's been nine years, and now they're actually willing and able. Willing and. Or able to use their real names. And so with that. And please go back and listen to that episode before you listen to this one. I swear it's worth it. Again, it's episodes 10 and 11, finding our way back home, parts one and two. Go listen to it. The links are up. It's on the podcast Feedback. Stop now if you haven't now. Now that you've returned and listened, I am introducing to you, Taryn. Do you go by Nelson Seawright?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:08:23] You know, I do. I was just, I was going to keep my maiden name when we got married, but I was, I had a job in California where I worked with a bunch of people who were, you know, two decades older than I was. And they thought it was so cute that I was getting married at 22 that they insisted on calling me Seawright, Mrs. Seawright and things like that. And they weren't trying to be unkind, but I finally just gave up and
John Dehlin [00:08:48] combined our names and so Nelson is your maiden name?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:08:53] Yes, it is.
John Dehlin [00:08:54] Okay. And you went by Serenity Valley at the time, but now you are going by Taryn Nelson Seawright.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:09:00] Oh, yes. I think we actually, back in the days when we were both blogging in the Mormon in the bloggernackle, I think it was called back then, we joined a blogger. We actually had to use our real names in order to blog. And so we eventually gave in and gave out our real names.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:09:22] I think our aliases lasted a whole three or four months after that interview,
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:09:26] which was too bad. I really liked my alias.
John Dehlin [00:09:30] Wasn't it after, like Firefly. Yeah.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:09:33] Serenity Valley with the battle where the war against the bad guys was lost.
John Dehlin [00:09:38] Right. Okay. So, Taryn, welcome back to Mormon Stories. It's a pleasure to have you.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:09:43] Thank you. It's nice to be back.
John Dehlin [00:09:45] And we're also welcoming back, formerly known as roasted tomatoes, now known as J. Nelson Seawright or Jason. So I guess you adopted her maiden name as your name, is that right?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:09:58] As the first part of my name. Yeah, that's right. Well, you know, we're a couple, right. So I want to have the same last name as Taryn.
John Dehlin [00:10:04] That's awesome. Very feminist of you.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:10:06] Okay.
John Dehlin [00:10:09] And Jay, at the time. Not at the time of the interview, but recently maybe at the time of the interview, you were at UC Berkeley, right? Yes, I was studying political science.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:10:20] Yeah. I was finishing up my. My graduate school then. Yeah.
John Dehlin [00:10:23] And. And now you're at Northwestern University, right?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:10:26] Yep, that's right. Yeah.
John Dehlin [00:10:28] And tenured. Is that true?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:10:30] Yeah, I'm an associate professor of political science. It's very great.
John Dehlin [00:10:33] That's outstanding. And that's.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:10:35] You can't fire me. Right. So I can totally talk to you anytime you want, John.
John Dehlin [00:10:39] That's awesome. And not a shabby university. And I don't know if you guys are in the same apartment, but I actually visited your apartment back in the day.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:10:48] We're in a much bigger apartment now.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:10:50] We have two kids now, so we needed a little more room.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:10:53] We tried turning the dining room in our tiny one bedroom into a nursery, and that meant we couldn't ever watch television. It woke the baby up, so.
John Dehlin [00:11:03] And that's a problem. Yeah. All right, well, welcome back to Mormon Stories. I'm thrilled we've done a couple of other of these, sort of. Where are they now? I interviewed Dan Witherspoon and Tom Kimball about their Stages of Faith podcast, and I'm just. I'm thrilled to have you back. So I guess we're going to do a couple things in this interview. We are going to talk, and I guess I'm going to not even give a spoiler alert. I'm just going to tell everybody that as I understand it, you both are no longer active members of the church. Is that right?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:11:37] Right.
John Dehlin [00:11:38] So the purpose of this interview partly is to explain how. How that can possibly happen, because I swear to you, and this is going to sound bizarre, but as I was listening to your interview yesterday, it was almost persuading me to want to keep trying, you know, when. When. For me right now, things have gotten sort of rough. And it's bizarre to know that you're not in that place now. And yet as I'm listening to you speak nine years ago, it's actually quite persuasive. So. So anyway, we're going to talk about, you know, your, you know, your experience since then. We're also going to talk a little bit about some. A topic that I know is near and dear to both your hearts and which is Autism Spectrum Disorder. Just so happens that I'm working in my clinical responsibilities at the center for Persons with Disabilities here at Utah State University, and autism is the thing that I deal with most. And so I have a little bit of experience with it, but I'm sure you guys know more than me about it, so we're going to talk about that.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:12:40] Believe it or not, we have a different kind of experience, let's say.
John Dehlin [00:12:43] Sure. And so we're going to talk about that as it relates to your faith journeys. Uh, and then. And then I'm gonna ask some questions because I. I left your interview with tons of questions. And then. And then we'll. We'll proceed as we discussed with. With some future interviews with one or both of you. So. So let's start. Let's have. You guys can decide how you want to piece out the story and. And who can tell which part, but let's dive in and take us from that interview to kind of where you are now and how it happened. And I'll say, Taryn, you start. Just to avoid the awkwardness of you guys having to decide.
Raising a Mormon Family in Chicago
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:13:25] Right.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:13:27] What am I starting talking about?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:13:31] About where we went from that interview.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:13:33] Yeah. Well, let me see. I think that for all that I don't like to admit it, I'm sure that the largest factor in the changes in our lives is that we went from Berkeley to Chicago.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:13:46] Okay.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:13:47] And, you know, I think that the congregation in Berkeley, California, it provided. It provided a cushion for us, you know, to be Mormon, as you know, and to. Well, for me not to think about a lot of things that later on, you know, when I was in a less congenial ward environment, I couldn't help thinking about. So it was easy in a congregation where everybody agreed with you, either that women say should have the priesthood or that endowed women did have the priesthood. It was easy not to think past the conflict between people who thought that and people who didn't and think about, you know, what is the priesthood? And it was easy in a place where people were comfortable with my conversion story, for instance, because it was. While it may have been particularly clear, it wasn't all that atypical. It was easy not to think about what spiritual experiences and religious witnesses actually are and how they. And how they really work with your body and your brain and what they mean. And then finally, it was such a congenial, accepting place that it was easy for me not to worry about the fact that for a variety of neurological reasons, I just really didn't fit into the Mormon community. I never was A good fit. And when we moved out here to Chicago, I guess what happened more than anything else was we found ourselves in what I suspect is a more typical ward culture, but certainly was a less congenial one, which was less accepting. The congregation, full of lovely people, was much more divided in itself. Against itself, I guess I should say. And it made it a lot harder to ignore the things that I was ignoring, if that makes sense. So. And then. And then.
John Dehlin [00:16:11] So just Berkeley is super accepting and progressive. And as I understand it, and I'm gonna. I'll put these words, and you can deny or accept or say no comment. But as I understand these sort of words, like Northwestern, there are a lot of, you know, MBAs. There are a lot of maybe med school kind of people, and maybe there's. What's that?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:16:34] Mostly MBAs.
John Dehlin [00:16:35] Yeah. And. And a lot of these people are just kind of mini Mitt Romney's. Let's just say that.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:16:41] Well, a lot of them are really sweet people, but, you know, they. They weren't comfortable with us, let's put it that way.
John Dehlin [00:16:48] Yeah. And. And. And so you. And this is something I can relate with because I. I've been having challenges with my own wardrobe, pretty severe ones, and it can be that simple. And we actually talked about this with Brad. There's this notion of ecclesiastical roulette. There's this notion of ward roulette. And so you're saying that you started to have a less than satisfactory experience because at least up until moving to Chicago, things were great. Is that true?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:17:16] Oh, yeah, it was. You know, it was wonderful. We. We were very happy in our California wards. We were in one that was actually much more typical and much less toward our side of the social and political spectrum than the Berkeley ward. And that was a wonderful experience as well. But. Somehow with the cultural dislocation that we both experienced, I think that it just didn't work. And we ignored that for what, Jay? Six years.
John Dehlin [00:17:48] I mean, so you kept attending for six years?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:17:51] Oh, yeah. We both just. When did we stop going about, I guess, Artemis.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:17:56] It was a little bit after Athena was born. Maybe six months after Athena was born. So it's about three and a half years ago.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:18:01] Yeah. Was it three? Oh, my gosh.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:18:03] Okay.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:18:04] So our kids are older than I thought they were, but yeah, yeah, it was. It got to the point where we were looking around at the way people were beginning to respond to our elder daughter.
John Dehlin [00:18:19] And she was how old by this time?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:18:23] She was what, three? About.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:18:26] She was in nursery and our ward.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:18:29] Senior nursery.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:18:29] Yeah. Our ward had two nurseries. There was junior nursery and senior nursery. A junior nursery worked the way that nursery usually does, right? They had a lesson for about 35 seconds and then it was play with toys, right? But in senior nursery they were trying to prepare the kids for the transition to primary. So they were trying to have them do like half an hour of circle time and activities and stuff. And some of the kids, that was fine. Our daughter actually was not okay at all. I mean, it was crazy. And we didn't know what was going on really with the point.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:19:01] They didn't tell us. And then one day we went to get her. I went to check on her one day and I found them restraining her. These sweet, sweet, you know, gentle souls who we knew and we trusted, very nice people running this class. They didn't realize that it was inappropriate to physically restrain, like really, really, like hold her still for long periods of time. A two and a half year old who couldn't sit for half an hour without even talking to her parents. I mean, they just, they didn't understand. It never occurred to them that that was not okay. And I think for me that was what made me really look around and say, you know, I know my beliefs have. My evaluation of my religious experience has changed, my understanding of what happened to me has changed, my beliefs have changed. I was coming here because I thought it was a loving environment and a good place for my children to grow up. But I mean, a culture, even a congregational rather than a church wide culture that can teach people who are basically good and loving that it's okay to try to do that kind of thing to young children, especially when they, you know, when it's been made clear to you that these are children who have, you know, developmental differences. I looked at that and it made me really start thinking about all of the things I wasn't thinking about, you know, all of the things that I had decided not to think about because I didn't want to, because I loved the church and I loved the identity and I didn't want to walk away from people I had, I felt that I had made a serious commitment to, even though they didn't seem very interested in me. But then I began looking around and I thought, so here I am right now staring at these people, wondering how they can think it's okay to be hardcore Authoritarians holding a 2 and a half year old kid down because she won't sit for half an hour. I mean, here I am looking at this. What is it going to be like when you Know, when our girls are 12 years old and their male friends are ordained and I mean, what do I tell them? Do I tell them, you know, this is sexism, you ought to have the priesthood? Do I tell them, don't worry about it. If you actually, you know, pay attention, you'll decide that you have it later on after you're endowed. Do I tell them, you know, I kind of have begun to think that the whole thing is made up, which I had at that point. I mean, I had begun to seriously question the logic of the priesthood idea. I mean, it didn't make sense when I really sat down and thought about it. And I thought, am I going to subject my children to this? Because I'm convinced and all kinds of other bits of sexism and encouragement to do things that I kind of think are immoral and encouragement to think in ways that I think will hurt them. Am I going to accept all of this because somehow I am convinced that this culture is good for them? I don't think it's good for me. I don't think it's good for my husband. How is it good for my children? And I just, you know, I looked around and I said, this isn't working.
Challenging Stereotypes About Why People Leave
John Dehlin [00:22:17] You know, so let me, let me jump in. One of the, as you both know as well or better than I, one of the main stereotypes or assumptions that believing Mormons like to make about former Mormons is that they left because they were offended. And so those who are looking for a reason to dismiss, you guys are gonna say, oh, that's it. Yep, they were offended. Somebody mistreated their daughter.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:22:46] That was frustrating, but not unexpected. You know, we knew our daughter and she was, you know, great in a million ways. But, you know, she's autistic. She has high functioning autistic spectrum disorder. She's not easy to deal with. It would be hard for me to resent someone for having a hard time with her. You know, I mean, that's the thing. It's not about, you know, we felt like they mistreated her and so we left. It was like, what it really was was these are people who I have spent the last six years going to Relief Society with. I've heard them talk about the things that are in their hearts. I know that they're well intentioned. I know that they love children and that's why they, you know, they are happy that they got this calling even. And they have managed because of the, you know, the kind of, the inherent authoritarianism of the entire system, you know, of this Entire culture, they've managed to convince themselves that they should force two and three year old children to, to spend half an hour when they're waiting for their snack and they're waiting to play and several of them are crying because they don't want to be there. I mean, to force them to sit there for half an hour for, you know, because they want the kids to what, magnify their calling? I don't know, it didn't make any sense. I looked at that and I thought, they think this is reasonable what happened to these people that they think that this is, you know, the right thing to do. You know, it's not, how dare they do this to my child. It was, you know, what's happened to them that they think they should do this to children.
John Dehlin [00:24:30] Right.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:24:31] You know, and it's not like they were beating the kids or anything. I mean, they meant well and they were, they tried to be kind to them. But, you know, I mean, it was to the point where when that happened, I was already aware that about half of the kids in the senior nursery class, there were a lot of little kids in the ward, which was one great thing about it. But about half of the kids in the senior nursery class were refusing to go to nursery or begging to be allowed to go to the younger nursery. I mean, they were running around in the halls. They wouldn't, you know, and I looked at it, at what was going on. I just said, you know, I have to think about this. I have to think about what this, what this belief system is teaching people and whether I want my children taught it and whether I want people to think I believe it. You know, I mean, for a long time I felt like it's okay that I have somewhat different beliefs or, you know, eventually it was okay that I was more or less a non believer participating in this culture because I loved the culture and I loved the people and I, you know, even with everything not working in that ward and I loved the church as an entity, you know, and then I. But there comes a point where you have to look around and say, this is selfish to stay here for these reasons. When you actually think that there is something wrong and that you can't change, you can't fix, you can't help, you know, especially when you have children who are going to learn to think in these ways that you think are, you know, damaging to a moral, depending on what you're talking about.
John Dehlin [00:26:14] Right. You know, and I'll just, I'll just say that Brad, in my interview with him, that I recorded today, actually said that one of his biggest concerns about maintaining membership is the impact it might have on his daughters. So. Yeah, so. So, Taryn, I'll just ask one quick question. And this was gonna. This is gonna touch on some of the things I wanted to conclude with, but I was really struck. Okay, so I'm gonna give a disclaimer. All right, so what? And I try to never make interviews about me, but I'm doing this because I want to make sure you understand where I'm coming from. One of the biggest criticisms I receive is how much I have switched back and forth, how I believed and then struggled and then believed and then struggled and believed and then struggled. And, you know, I'm struggling right now. And so. And I remember calling Jason just a couple weeks ago when we were talking about this interview, and he's like, well, do you think you're. You know, where are you? And I said, well, I'm kind of struggling right now, and I'm not sure I'm ever going to be able to come back again. And I don't know exactly what you said, Jason, but the comment was, you know, we'll see. And basically the point was, is we. We never really know where we're going to end up. And so I want to say that I'm sensitive to being branded as wishy washy back and forth. And so I ask you this next question with that sensitivity in mind.
Jason's Return to and Departure from the Church
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:27:48] No worries. I get where this is going.
John Dehlin [00:27:49] And that's just that as I listen to your interview, you know, yesterday from nine years ago, it was. I was struck with how much the interview was relying on very. You know, you spoke about God as if God was speaking to you. Not necessarily audibly, but it was like God occasionally has sent me some very specific messages, and I've received the very specific message that I need to rejoin the church and that I need to be a part of it. And it came from a very sincere but a very profound place.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:28:32] Yeah, it was very real to me. It was, you know, all of that.
John Dehlin [00:28:38] And so I guess my question is, have you received new guidance?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:28:46] No.
John Dehlin [00:28:49] Or have you? Or are you looking at those things a different way?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:28:52] Very different way.
John Dehlin [00:28:53] So are you comfortable? Well, actually, maybe I'm going to pause there. I'm going to have Jason share his perspective, and then maybe we'll come back to that question is a little bit of a cliffhanger. Is that okay?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:29:06] That's fine.
John Dehlin [00:29:07] Okay. It'll give you time to think about it. All right, Jason?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:29:10] Yeah. So again, my story, obviously Goes in parallel with Terence, but I think it's a little bit different. I mean, when we talked last, Taryn and I were, I don't know, I guess you could almost say activist Mormons within the Internet and a little bit in real life. We were pushing hard for an inclusive and progressive and Christ, an atonement centered version of Mormonism and one that was open and egalitarian towards people from all over the world who wanted to join. And so this was something that we were putting a lot of time and effort to online and in projects there, but also in life, all over the place. And that continued for years after we moved here to Illinois. So it's not. I hope you don't get the impression that we sort of switched and then suddenly like, you know, I don't know, the cold weather frosted us over and we were done. But we kept doing this for years. And while we were here, you know, we cultivated a bunch of great relationships in our first ward among many, many other wonderful people. Linda Kimball and her husband Chris were amazing. And they were connected with the original generation of the exponent too.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:30:25] Wonderful people.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:30:26] So some of the early people in contemporary Mormon feminism and just a bunch of other great people. And so there was a lot of continuity in what we were doing. And as tends to happen with people who are stable seeming and active and involved, I started getting more and more responsible church callings. So about the time that Taryn.
John Dehlin [00:30:56] Yeah, and I'm just gonna quickly jump in. When Tara, in the last interview you told the story of how when Taryn told you she wanted to get rebaptized, your immediate response was
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:31:10] that I was losing my immunity from being in a bishopric.
John Dehlin [00:31:13] Okay. I just had to.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:31:15] I did, I did lose. I mean, I wasn't in a bishopric, but I was in a branch presidency. For the singles branch here. I wasn't the branch president, I was a counselor. But I was called into that, you know, one of these gigantic all encompassing kind of callings, right, where we are putting in tons of time. And Taryn was pregnant with our daughter while I was starting to serve in that calling. And then we had our daughter. And she was blessed at the singles branch, I think.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:31:41] No, no, no.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:31:42] She was my parents house.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:31:44] But whenever your grandpa wouldn't let me stand up.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:31:46] But she was born while we were there. And so she was the one and only infant in the singles branch for a while.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:31:54] Oh, that was fun for her.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:31:56] And the kids just ate her up, you know, the young single adults. But that calling started causing me some real Problems in terms of not so much belief questions. Because I mean, my approach to belief with Mormonism has always been really flexible. I mean, I stopped believing in the Book of Mormon as any kind of history a long time ago. And that wasn't an issue for me. I was totally happy to be a Mormon who thought that that was a revelation that expressed a value of what we should be as people rather than a story about things that happened in the past. And I was willing to do that with all kinds of other things. I mean, for me the question wasn't so much are these true facts? As is this describing a good way to live? And that's where I started running into some trouble. Because as a member of a branch presidency, I was in a position where I was asked to participate in disciplinary councils. And these were well intentioned guys I was doing this with. I mean, everyone was doing their best and wanting to help the people we were talking with, but it was so, so unequal and so unfair. And you know, I'm not obviously going to tell any specific stories here because that would, you know, completely violate all kinds of confidentiality. But the patterns across these different councils and some of the things that happened in them just were completely troubling to me. I mean, putting a 20something woman in a room with four or five men and asking her to talk about her sex life is such a strange power dynamic that I just felt sick to myself as we were doing this and the one or two times that we had counsels related to homosexuality, I just could not even bring myself to speak. I mean, these were people who were being judged and criticized as if they were doing something wrong simply because of who they were. We met up with John Hamer, another one of our good friends who has long been an advocate for gay and lesbian people in the Mormon tradition. And I asked his advice about what I should do in those contexts. And what he told me was you should just encourage the branch president to excommunicate them because it'll save them heartbreak in the long run. And I didn't actually do that, but that advice really shook me. You know, the idea that it might be better to be thrown out of our loving community than to try to stick in it. And there was something to it. Being part of that from the power side was really troubling to me. It's one thing to know that the church is against homosexuality for what in my view is no good reason. It's another thing to be asked to stand on the front line and actually execute that and to vote in favor of penalties. And that was troubling and hard.
John Dehlin [00:35:19] Really quick. This is beautiful. I don't want to interrupt. I just want to say that I. I just defended my dissertation on the LGBT Mormon experience, and ironically, I actually did an analysis of variance on quality of life, depression, self esteem, based on the category that people define themselves in terms of their relationship to the church. And presciently, what we discovered was that active versus inactive versus resigned versus disfellowshipped versus excommunicated, those LGBT Mormons who had been excommunicated from the church, indeed had the highest quality of life, the highest self esteem, the lowest sexual identity distress, the lowest internalized homophobia, and the lowest sexual identity distress of all the groups. The statistical finding was highly significant, less than p.001, and the effect size was large.
Faith, Spirituality, and Mixed-Orientation Marriage
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:36:20] Oh, yeah.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:36:22] So on the one hand, I guess congratulations on the great results, but then on the other hand, yeah, I mean, that's exactly the sort of anecdotal experience I was having. Right. How do you do that? How do you stand up and represent a community to people where you think that there's a reasonable chance they might be better off being kicked out shamefully than trying to stick it out? I mean, that's a terrible position to be in, and it's a terrible thing to. It puts such a sharp point on all of the doubts I had about the morality of this community. Right. I mean, it's one thing to say I disagree with the church about such and such and such and such. It's another thing to be the representative of the church on the issues you disagree on. And ultimately, that was kind of breaking point for me. It wasn't the final breaking point. The final breaking point was the 2008 election when the church so heavily backed the effort to reverse marriage equality in California. Some of our friends had been married during that window when it was legal in California, and the church was doing its own utmost to divorce our friends in the name of family. In conjunction with the experiences I'm just talking about, that was appalling for me. Now, amazingly enough, I kept going to church almost every week for some two or three years after that, about two years after that. Because even though I had been deeply shaken and lost my. Lost my sense that this was clearly a good. Clearly a force for good, I still felt that there was value for me, that doing the rituals, that being Mormon changed the way I acted in life. And that was a kind of a thing I held on to. It was the thing I was holding on to last. But then ultimately I started wondering about that as well. I mean, thinking about it, like, take the example of prayer, because this was the big one for me. I've always. I always loved praying. And I thought, you know, when I pray, it does put me in a different state of mind than when I don't. It does put me in this state of openness and of dependence and a feeling that. That my life is in the hands of God. And if you stop and think about that, if you don't have good reason to think there is a God, and if you're worried about the behavior of people who depend on God for moral guidance, and if you're pretty sure that praying makes you more like them, it might not be a good thing to pray. And so I was thinking about this and I actually did. This is my slightly hokey story. I did a prayer. I got down on my knees alone in a bedroom and prayed to God and said, you know, God, I'm having these problems. I'm not sure youe're real. I've been not sure youe're real for a long time. But I'm also not sure that believing in youn makes people better. I think it might make people worse. And I've been struggling with this for a long time. And I don't know if I have the strength to keep struggling. I think I'm just gonna let it go. Is that okay with you? And in that prayer, at that moment, I felt the feeling, the Holy Ghost feeling, the burning in the bosom, the peace and quiet inside. And that was my last prayer for the last several years. That was my breaking point.
John Dehlin [00:40:20] And do you see that as a divine communication or no?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:40:25] No, no. I see it as what it all.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:40:28] Activation of the vagus nerve.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:40:29] I see it as activation of the vagus nerve. I see it as the feeling that Dasher Keltner at Berkeley has described as elevation, which I always knew it was. I mean, there were all kinds of ex Mormons back in the day when he was first writing about elevation who talked about this. Elevation is the emotion. That emotion psychologists describe the burning in the bosom, feeling that warm, spreading activation in the chest, and the peacefulness and the happiness thing that's described as elevation. Now, the fact that it has a scientific name doesn't mean it's not spiritual, right? But what it does, we know some things from laboratory experiments on this is an emotion that's activated by seeing people in your in group reaffirm the in group morality. So it's mostly an emotion about performance. And so in that moment when I was saying the prayer, I was kind of fitting perfectly into the kind of preconditions for this emotion, right? I was performing the in group morality of Mormonism. I was coming to God with my deepest questions and asking for guidance after I'd made a decision. Right. I'm doing exactly what I'm supposed to do as a good member of the in group. And so I got the in group reaffirming feeling. And one of the things that happens with elevation is it deepens your commitment to the in group and it deepens your distance from the out group. This is, this is sort of in experimental work, this is the strongest effect of the emotion that's been shown. Keltner originally thought that elevation would turn out to have, you know, the kinds of effects Mormons think it'll have where it'll make people behave better, right? It'll make them more generous and kind and altruistic. And it makes people think they are those things. But it actually doesn't change their behavior in experiments. It just changes the degree to which they think people like them are those ways. And so it increases your sort of in group, out group boundary. And that isn't necessarily such a great thing. It's the kind of thing that leads to. To demonizing out groups like gay people.
Reframing Spiritual Experiences Naturalistically
John Dehlin [00:42:41] So you, so you're understanding what a believing LDS person would describe as a spiritual experience. You're understanding that as an activation of a certain part of the brain that usually is used to confirm one's participation or engagement in a specific in group. I'm imagining that you and the professors done this research would probably say that this experience is not unique to Mormons.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:43:15] It's definitely not unique to Mormons. I mean, there's, you know, the kind of work that's been done, you know, this isn't one of the big central emotions, right? So we know an awful lot more about anger and happiness and fear than about elevation. But the work that we do have shows that people have the exact feelings Mormons describe as, you know, this isn't the only way Mormons talk about the spirit, but this is kind of the big one, right? That exact feeling for all kinds of different groups. One of the best ways of inducing this back in, back in the 2006 through 2010 period, if you could get liberal people, you could induce elevation in the laboratory by showing them Obama's 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention. That speech was just an off the charts elevation activator for liberals. But we Know stuff about which nerves are activated with this. There's been a little tiny bit of CT scan type work with that. So we know that it's part of the brain. But also there's a weird sort of network of nerves in the chest that for a long time just seem to have no purpose at all. But they activate when you have this emotion. So that seems to be what they're kind of for. And, you know, people describe these experiences across not just religious traditions, but also, you know, ethnic groups, all sorts of different things. I mean, you know, how many Americans feel the spirit when they hear the national anthem? Right, right. And that is the same thing. You know, Mormons will tell you it's the same thing. And it is. People can feel the spirit. This is. I remember back on my mission, I was having a conversation with this guy. It was someone who had been a member for about three years and then left the church. The rest of his family was still in, but he was out. He was about 20. And he left the church because one day he was watching an anime cartoon with his brother. And the main character on the anime cartoon did some sort of totally altruistic sacrificing thing and I guess died to save his friends. And in that moment, he totally felt this emotion, the spirit emotion, the elevation emotion. And he said, but I know that this story is totally fake. So if the spirit was confirming to me the truth of this cartoon, you know, what am I saying when I say that I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet because of the spirit, Right? I know that this cartoon samurai was a prophet. He said, and I don't know, what do you say to that? I mean, he's kind of right. You know, if this emotion can happen all the time for all kinds of worldly reasons, then even if it sometimes happens for religious reasons, you're going to get confused.
John Dehlin [00:46:07] What if a believer says that the Holy Ghost bears truth of all things, you know, and there's truth in other words, religions and even in secularism.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:46:17] Is there truth, though, in hard line Serbian nationalism?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:46:23] Right. Is there truth? Is there truth in the racist teachings of the Mormon past that my Mormon ancestors had testimonies of? You know, my mom had the same testimony of interracial marriage being a bad idea that I had of Jesus's love.
John Dehlin [00:46:48] Right.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:46:49] I mean, when you have an emotion that supports whatever the in group norm is, if God sometimes uses that to communicate truth, it's going to have a huge error rate, it's going to have a huge false positive rate because God's Truth is going to be mixed in with a ton of, you know, erroneous messages, a ton of prejudice towards the status quo, a ton of unintentional moral error. And that doesn't seem to me to be a whole lot better than other ways we have of making moral decisions. In fact, it seems to me to be worse.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:47:26] You know, and here's the thing. So what this basically means is that the evidence of the spirit, you know, as I think, as a lot of Mormons conceive it and certainly as I did, well, it's not valid as evidence. You can't make a judgment on it. That doesn't mean the fact that this spiritual experience does not confirm that God exists. I mean, it doesn't disconfirm it, but it certainly doesn't confirm it. Because there's such a high error rate does not mean that God doesn't exist. It does mean that you have to start looking around for other evidence. You have to stop depending on. I had to stop depending on this emotional experience and start saying what is the rational basis of my faith? And I should note, by the way, that until the day we had a conversation in which we both realized the other person desperately wanted to leave, Jay and I never discussed this. I had read some of this literature as part of my graduate studies and before, actually, just because I was interested. But I actually came to this whole. To the very same conclusions that Jay did by a very different path. And
John Dehlin [00:48:47] how many years did you both want to leave but were scared to talk about it with the other?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:48:52] At least two or three.
John Dehlin [00:48:53] Oh, my gosh.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:48:55] When we finally talked about it, I think we both felt really dumb.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:49:00] Wow.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:49:00] You know, I was sure that it would crush him years.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:49:06] That's right. That's right. Listen. And so. But I want to. There's another piece to this. So I'm talking about this kind of growing awareness that there's a naturalistic explanation for this spiritual experience. Right. And there's. There's a second line of experience that we had as a family that really reinforced this. And, you know, I can't. I can't sort of say what caused what and, you know how the sequence goes. But this happened in conjunction with what we're talking about, which is, you know. Right. A couple years after we moved out here, Taryn was diagnosed as being on the autistic spectrum.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:49:42] Not a movie. Better Twisting.
John Dehlin [00:49:43] What Would you say that again, Taryn?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:49:45] Fairly autistic? Not a little bit autistic. Pretty autistic.
John Dehlin [00:49:48] Okay, moderately.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:49:49] You're saying moderately? Yeah. Okay, moderately.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:49:52] Obviously high functioning. Right. But she has a lot of non neurotypical traits.
Autism, Neurodiversity, and Religious Experience
John Dehlin [00:50:00] And let's quickly describe some of the primary characteristics of autism.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:50:06] Well, it depends on whether you're talking about high or low functioning. There's still an ongoing debate about whether they are the same disorder or not. I really don't think that we have strong evidence that high and low functioning autism are different disorders, but certainly it seems most likely that they have different comorbidities. So, you know, low functioning autism is autism where people also have other kinds of developmental disabilities, for instance, or perhaps physical disabilities that are affecting either their cognition or behavior or both. Right. So, but basically what autism is is that is something that occurs prenatally at the very least, and it's a disorder, which basically it means that you have limited empathy or no empathy, not in the way that a sociopath lacks empathy, but rather we lack theory of mind. We have a hard time understanding what other people are thinking or that people are not thinking the same thing we are, basically, which is why an autistic person who can talk will just assume that you want to hear whatever they're thinking about for three hours. It's because we don't always understand that that's not the case. We have great difficulty generally reading facial expressions and picking up on social cues. We have a strong, strong need of routine, which may or may not be tied into that. It might be that we really need routine because it provides us comfort because we feel so much discomfort in social situations. Or it might be that there's some other neurological thing going on. There's some evidence that where most people see human faces and when they recognize the pattern, feel happy to see human faces, we actually have. What is the fear center of the brain, John? Is it the amygdala?
John Dehlin [00:52:13] Yeah. Fight or flight?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:52:14] Yeah, yeah. We actually have activation of the amygdala and the fear response when we recognize human faces, which is one of the reasons possibly that we don't make eye contact very well, is that it causes us much increased anxiety. So we tend to have all kinds of social impairments, regardless of whether we are intellectually capable or not. Many of us have serious sensory integration problems. So that, for instance, I have to wear shaded glasses whenever I go outside, or I can't go outside because the sun is too bright. It just is basically the part of your brain that is the part of your nervous system that shuts down your awareness of continuing stimuli so that they don't become irritating or make it hard for you to distinguish new stimuli. It doesn't work very well, so.
John Dehlin [00:53:10] So it's always intense, right?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:53:12] Yeah.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:53:12] Yeah. If there's a clock ticking in a room, you know, you might walk into a room and an average person might or might not notice the clock ticking. But even if they do, they only notice it for a little while. Right. I never stop hearing the top the clock. Ever. Ever. When I was a little kid, my mom and I used to have fights because she made me this cute little wall clock. And it was. It was just adorable. It was pink and lacy, and I loved it. But every night, I would get up in the middle of the night and take the batteries out of it because the ticking was so loud. And when she'd come in in the morning and see that I'd taken my clock off the wall again, which when I was working little, involved climbing up on some furniture in the middle of the night, which she was a little nervous about, she'd come in and she'd see that I'd taken the clock down, and I'd say, well, but mom, the ticking was so loud. And that just sounded like crazy talk. Right, right. So, you know, that kind of thing. And then on top of that. So there are physical behaviors that many of us engage in called self stimulation in order to regulate, probably to regulate our, you know, our perceptions of outside stimuli or, you know, there are a number of theories about why we self stim. But so this is where you see a lot of stereotypical behaviors. You know, where people will repeatedly do something a little bit odd physically. You know, they'll flap their hand in a specific way all the time, or there's a lot of sensory seeking activity where to try to control our sensory world, we'll try to touch something that feels a certain way. I know that there are special ed specialists who have found that if they put a little bit of self adhesive velcro on a kid's desk, a kid who has a lot of sensory seeking behavior, then the child can learn to curb disruptive behaviors in the classroom because they can rub the velcro and they like how it feels. And so they can do that rather than jumping up and down and screaming or, let me see, I used to spin around a lot. Yeah. It's a complex of social cognition deficits, A lack of the ability to understand other people's points of view, lack of awareness that they have a different point of view very often, and all kinds of sensory problems and lovely, disruptive, repetitive behaviors.
John Dehlin [00:55:50] Okay, and I'm gonna ask two sort of, you know, at the surface, potentially offensive Questions, but they're trying to represent, you know, a listener that might not understand or have questions.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:56:04] So no worries.
John Dehlin [00:56:06] So if I were to say, well, does it follow then that this is a two part question, does it follow then that one, autistic people don't feel, and two, does it follow that they just don't kind of care about other people?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:56:22] See, this is the problem. We aren't sociopaths today. I addressed the second question first. We do care about other people. Generally we care a lot when we notice them. But other people are confusing, unpredictable, and just generally incomprehensible unless you have a lot of training in trying to figure out what they're thinking. A lot of the, you know, a lot of the lack of empathy, it's really lack of, you know, awareness. We tend to focus on physical things and forget about people a little bit, frankly. And I think that's really where a lot of the lack of empathy comes in. But also there's the simple fact that we can't read faces, you know, but none of those things precludes compassion or inappropriately targeted empathy. I have a great deal of trouble watching cartoons where animals are sad in a way that I don't have difficulty watching television shows where people are sad because it's much easier for me to feel what they're feeling. These cartoon characters, which, it's just, you know, I have a developmental, a developmental deficit. That's the way things are. But as far as feelings go, we have the full normal range of human emotions. This is another significant way that we are not like people who don't care. We are not like sociopaths, which is that they don't have a full range of human motion, or at least they don't have an awareness of it. We do. It's just that we tend not to be aware of body signals, like our own bodily signals that tell us how we're feeling. Emotion is a really complex thing that involves our entire nervous system and basically every part of our body that can feel. And we tend not to notice it until, you know, we tend not to notice our feelings until they overwhelm us. And then, you know, that's why we have, that's why people with autism have emotional breakdowns, meltdowns, whatever you want to call them, is because we tend to be taken very unaware by strong emotion.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:58:43] Let me say, as someone who lives with a couple of autistic people, you don't even necessarily notice them. When they're very strong. You can be overwhelmed by them without actually recognizing them.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:58:56] This is one of the reasons it was so very hard for me to control my depressive episodes when I was younger. Depression isn't necessarily comorbid with autism, but I do have some depressive tendencies. And I often didn't realize that I was having a severe, you know, like a major depressive episode until I was really, really into it, you know, so where most people would have noticed that they were feeling sad. Yeah.
John Dehlin [00:59:24] Okay, that's.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:59:25] I want to. Can I sort of piggy tail on this a little bit?
John Dehlin [00:59:28] Yeah, please.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:59:29] So, I mean, the thing Taryn was talking about, about this sort of integration of emotion. So I read when we were first finding out that Taryn was autistic, I read a couple of books by Simon Baron Cohen, who's one of the big researchers on autism. Yeah. And his central theory is that the main thing that goes on in autism is poor integration of the bodily emotional experience with the kind of neocortex, the kind of rational mind that those two don't connect very well. There's kind of a short circuit and the signal doesn't get through. And this was really helpful for me in terms of understanding a little bit how Terran and Artemis experience things. But it also was striking because I came to notice that, you know, in conjunction with this stuff we're talking about, you know, that so much of the evidence for Mormonism is emotion, and Taryn's ability to access that evidence varied depending on the medicine she was on.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:00:28] Yes, I have to take SSRIs. Not actually probably directly for depression or autism. It's because for some reason, I don't sleep normally without them, like, very much. I don't sleep more than three or four hours a night unless I'm on SSRIs all the time. But the thing is, over the years, I've changed. You know, my doctors have changed the SSRIs I'm taking. As we've learned more about what's going on with my brain or as I decided to have children, for instance, that was when I switched from a first generation to a second generation antidepressant drug because it was much safer for pregnancy. And every time I do, everything shifts. I mean, my perception of everything shifts.
John Dehlin [01:01:12] Right.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:01:13] So then, in conjunction with this, there's a widespread and really interesting fact that most people on the autistic spectrum don't believe in God. There's been a bunch of research on this. It turns out that most people on the autistic spectrum don't believe in God, maybe because they don't have access to These emotions. And when our daughter was growing up, I remember a conversation I had with when she was misbehaving with church. And I got to sit with her for three hours 1 Sunday and she says to me, daddy, why are all these people talking to Heavenly Father? I don't see Him. And I said, well, you're not supposed to see Him.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:01:47] And then she says very loudly in sacrament meeting during a prayer, by the way.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:01:51] And then she says to me, but this is his house, isn't it? And I say, yes, this is his house. And then she says, I live in my house. Why doesn't God live in his house? I think God is pretend. This is a three year old. She just had no access to the idea.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:02:09] Well, I mean, she'd only recently learned about pretend.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:02:13] Yeah, this was her first application to the. I mean, she still thought unicorns and fairies were real, but God was completely implausible because all these people talk to him all the time in his own house and he never answers.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:02:27] And we were at that point in time, we were training her to engage in imaginary play. It's not something she was doing on her own, but we were hoping that it might actually be therapeutic. And it has been, I think, although, who knows, right? But that's what she thought they were doing.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:02:48] And now I'm going to make what I, in my tongue in cheek way, call my autistic from my argument from autistic people, which goes like this. If there is a God who loves us all and wants to have relationships with all of us, why would there be a pill that blocks him out in Terry's case? And why would he make a person like our daughter who simply can't conceive of his existence because of the way her brain is built?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:03:15] You know, here's the thing. I mean, okay, you know, Jay, by the way, I never got to that, you know that I never thought about that. I never thought about how it would be me of God to make us this way if God existed. I just kind of thought, God doesn't exist. But basically we never talked about any of this. I was aware of some of the nervous system stuff from a long time before, but one day, years ago, I realized on my own that every time I changed my meds, I mean, my perception of social media stuff always changes. If I have to change my meds, my ability to read people's facial expressions and my every, my entire emotional and social cognition experience changes. Right. But one day I noticed that that wasn't all that was changing before I was on My meds. I never had been able to believe. You know, I think I talked about this probably in my. In that first interview years ago. I wanted to. Everyone around me told me that I should want to, and I did want to, but I never did believe. Right. But after I started taking my medication, that was when I had my first really. When I began having really intense religious experience.
John Dehlin [01:04:33] So that was while you were in Berkeley?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:04:35] Yeah, it was while I was. While we were in Berkeley.
John Dehlin [01:04:37] And that was after you started the
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:04:39] ssrs, like the tamlorptyline?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:04:43] I think it was nortriptyline. When she had her strong, strong spiritual experiences.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:04:49] Yeah, a lot of things were muffled when I took that drug.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:04:52] But not spiritual experience.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:04:53] Not at all. And I'm not saying that the drugs made me delusional. This is a problem that I've had trying to explain this. I haven't talked to many people about this, because I don't want people who believe to think that I think they're crazy, because I don't. But it's not that the drugs were causing it. It's probably, as Jay says, that they were allowing me to access a normal human experience that I hadn't had before. And one thing I've learned over, you know, several years and several different kinds of medications is that whenever I have an emotional experience that I've never had before, which has happened three or four times, it is overwhelming and mind blowing. And, I mean, it's like descriptions I've heard of using acid are what it's like to feel an emotion you've never felt before. The day I realized. When I started my current medication several years ago, the day I realized that I felt two emotions concurrently, it was so profound that I sat down and started crying. And then I went and talked to Jada about it, and he's like, yeah, people do feel more than one emotion at one time. Just that I was never able to deal with more than one at a time, basically, you know, so here's the thing. And then when I changed my meds the first time, I still had religious experience, but it was a lot quieter, a lot more, you know, the still small voice than it had been. And then when I changed my medication again, it was all just gone.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:06:32] And most seriously, it was like it was one week to another. She changed the medication so she could get pregnant, and that week, it was gone.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:06:42] And the thing is, it's really interesting that at the same time, for the most part, my emotional life and what I can access and what I can understand is much Much richer with the medication that I take. Now, who knows how this is affecting my brain? We don't know. Nobody knows. SSRIs in autistic people are something that's kind of being studied. But, you know, I mean, John, you know how medical research on psychiatric drugs is. Yeah, yeah. And nobody has any idea what's. What's going on. If I describe it to a doctor, they're like, whoa, that's weird. It's like, yeah, I know it's weird. But here's the thing. I mean, it really does tie to what I'm taking. If I. If I forget to take my drugs for three days, not only do I stop sleeping, I also start to have more religious experience. And here's the thing. I don't think this is a delusion. I think it's a normal thing. And that I was interpreting, you know, because of the culture that I've been raised in. I was interpreting normal human experiences, especially because they were new to me and therefore very powerful in the way that I'd been taught to interpret them. Everybody in Mormon culture is taught to interpret them. And I don't think that they're necessarily invalid. I don't think the fact that I can manipulate my experience of this stuff with medication means that it's not necessarily real. How could I possibly know that? But what I do think and what I realized on my own before ever talking to Jay about any of this, thinking that he was like a hardcore believer, what I realized on my own was that it's too easy to manipulate. I can't use it as evidence that this God that I believed in was real. I had to find other evidence. And when I went and I really looked at it, I couldn't find any. And I didn't want to admit that because I had tied so much of my life up in this. In this experience and these beliefs and so much of my self worth up in the idea that God loved me, that it felt. That thinking about this stuff felt like I was about to throw myself off a cliff, frankly, you know, it felt indescribably frightening, despite the fact that I didn't actually, you know, because of what I was experiencing, the way my emotions were working when I was going through this, I didn't actually believe at the time. Accepting that was very, very frightening. And then, you know, I looked around and I just, you know, I took a deep breath and I said, okay, I don't know if any of this. I don't have any evidence for any of this. And in fact, it doesn't make a lot of logical sense. I mean, the solution that I had been given as a Mormon and even just as a Christian generally for, what is it called, theodicyou know, the problem of evil, it either meant that God was a real bastard or God was not omnipotent. And I could have accepted God as not being omnipotent if I'd really had to. But that did mean that Christianity, as I had been practicing, it wasn't, you know, wasn't right. Because you can't have Mormonism or Christianity more broadly without at least a very nearly, you know, omnipotent God. Right. And so there was that. Yeah, yeah. And there were a lot of, you know, the main source of evidence I found was Scripture. But the problem is that if you don't have that confirmatory vagus nerve, you know, activation, the thing that's telling you that scripture is the word of God is, you know, Scripture which, you know,
Circular Reasoning and Scripture as Evidence
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:10:57] which is a little bit logically circular. And if you just read the scriptures just as books, they read a lot like all the other scriptures we don't believe, so that. That becomes hard to use as a ground like it.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:11:10] So this is. Yeah, and I was going through all of this over several years, really, and at the same time, just not having those religious experiences and finding that I didn't actually miss them the way that I would have expected having a lot more. Having a lot more energy for the relationships in my life, you know, with people who were in front of me than I had ever had before.
John Dehlin [01:11:39] And,
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:11:43] you know. Yeah, but I didn't talk to Jay about it because, Jay, I think, you know, I was so worried that it had meant so much to you when I reconverted. And I was sincere when I did it, you know, but it had meant so much to you that. Until we started to see that there were. Until I started to see that there were inescapable problems that I was pushing on my children, you know, inside Mormon culture. I didn't mind being Mormon, you know, there were many perks to it, you know, many, many nice things about it. And I didn't want to make you sad, you know, so I thought, okay, this is fine. Until, well, until you started to get really unhappy, until you began getting those callings, you know, when you were in the Dutch presidency. Oh, gosh, you had come back from nights at the, you know, at presidency meetings just looking devastated, and you couldn't tell me anything explicitly, of course, you never did. But you began to give me. As things became more and more stressful, the general gist of what was upsetting you. And, you know, I. I began to think, I wish there were a way to share this with him. You know, there's this very different understanding that I've come to, you know, because maybe it would be better for him if he left. But I didn't think you would or that you would want to. And I didn't want to, like, crush you and make you think that we weren't going to be eternally married, you know. Yeah. And so. And you have more insight into what you were feeling than I do, obviously, why you didn't feel.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:13:29] I mean, you know, for me, I've read, you know, the kinds of arguments you've been talking about, and I like talking about these with you, and that's interesting. But that, that was never really the core of the issue for me. I mean, if you want to come down to just bare bones, rock bottom. What? Yeah, right. What my biggest problem were, problems were with the church. I'll give you this. The church thought polygamy was right until it was wrong. The church thought resisting the US Federal government's authority was right until it was wrong. The church thought resisting the civil rights movement was right until it was wrong. The church thought fighting feminism was right until it was wrong. Well, it's working on it. The church thinks that fighting marriage equality is right and it's going to turn out to be wrong. And how do I trust my relationship to an in group that has failed that consistently on the big moral questions of the day? I mean, I looked at other things, other groups like the Quakers or the Unitarians who have on those issues over and over again been right. These churches that took the right side on slavery unambiguously. Can you believe it? Mormonism didn't. I mean, that just is the easiest question. Is it right to own people? And the church says, maybe.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:14:55] Maybe.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:14:56] I mean, this is God's voice on earth. God's moral guide to the world says, yes, maybe in fact, they legalized slavery in the Utah territory because, you know, why not? That's not a moral guide I can live by and I can't. For me, it's not. It's not. It's never been. It's never been true and false. I think it's the wrong metric. We don't live our lives by true and false. We tell ourselves lies, good lies all the time. And Mormonism could have been one. It's not about true and false. It's about good and bad. Is being Mormon a good Way to make good moral judgments. Does it help you lead a better life? And when I came to a point where I couldn't say yes to that question, I couldn't do it anymore.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:15:47] See, those are things that I had been aware of and I had accepted as things that were wrong with the church. You know, I mean, when I went back, I didn't go back because I thought the church was truer than other churches. I thought that it was a place where I could be a Christian. And I believed, as, you know, as you were saying earlier, John, I believed very, very sincerely and very deeply that God, who was very real, wanted me to be a Mormon. And I figured, you know, God knows what God's doing, so it's, you know, it's okay to go and join this church that I have moral problems with because, you know, whatever God's purpose is in this, whether it's for the church or for somebody in the church or just for me, it's, you know, God knows what God's doing. And that was the problem was when I stopped believing. You know, when I suddenly realized that I just didn't have any basis to accept my own experiences as evidence, which was not a fun thing to realize. Yeah. But I think it's actually universal. I think it's the same. I think it's true for everyone that technically you shouldn't be accepting that as your sole evidence for this stuff. If you have other evidence, that's fine. But, you know, but if you're going. If you're part of a church because. Or if you embrace a belief system because of completely internal evidence, gotta know, you know, if that's the only reason you're there, that's a problem.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:17:26] I'm not going to agree completely with that.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:17:29] I don't think anyone else said, here's the thing. I should say, by the way, that those experiences are so very real to people. And I understand that. And, you know, this is my conclusion based on my reasoning, but I am technically mentally ill. And I don't think that there's anything. I don't think that these things are directly connected. But I'm going to say that I'm not gonna call anyone else crazy for believing their own internal experience, because I certainly did. And I think it took me the wrong way. But, you know, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this is entirely a function of my medication. And maybe someday the doctor will put me on a new drug and I'll realize that, you know, I'll see a flaw in my logic or the experiences will Come back and be so strong that since they're not really harmful, I'll have to accept them, you know. But I don't expect that.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:18:24] Yeah, no, I just have to be pedantic a tiny bit, because I'm committed in print to the proposition that emotions are an essential part of rationality. And so this is something I care a lot about. I think it is impossible to be a person without emotions. If you don't have emotion, you can't be a full person. It's never irrational to decide based on your emotions because it's impossible not to. You know, when people don't have emotions, when emotions are suppressed by brain damage or drugs or other things, people simply stop deciding.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:19:00] That's the lobotomy. Right.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:19:02] You can't. Yeah. You can't be. You know, it's not just a human. I mean, Charles Darwin did a whole book on the evolution of emotion. People don't know that, but that was one of his big books. And the emotions we have go way back in history, before humans. And this is part of what it is to be alive on earth is to have these emotions. It's built into our experience. And to trust and live with that is not a choice. That is what we have to do. But we have choices about how we think about it. And the idea that we're going to take some emotions and decide those are infallible other emotions and decide those are just selfish, that. That is something that we need to be careful about because those are. Those are just our constructions.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:19:47] Yeah. And. Yeah, I was just trying to say that I don't. That I don't expect anybody else to accept my conclusions because I know they have a different experience. And it's, you know, it's like rational. It's like. It's like rational choice economics. Right. The effectiveness of the predictions it makes and its validity depends completely on whether you understand the criteria that people are using to decide what they value and. Or rather depends entirely not on how people on what people decide they value, but what they value, what is intrinsically valuable to them. And I don't expect my, you know, my convoluted experience to be intrinsically valuable as, you know, as a reason to do anything for anybody else. I don't want people to think that about, you know, I don't want people to try to do that to me.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:20:48] So. Come, come, ye saints, no toil nor labor fear. But with Jo.
Part Two Begins: Christlike Behavior and Church Culture
Part 2 of 2 · Ep. 468
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:00:00] 1, 2, 3.
John Dehlin [00:00:07] Mormon Stories Podcast is a production of the Open Stories Foundation. All donations to Mormon Stories are fully tax deductible and go directly towards keeping the podcast alive and towards building a community of support for Mormons like you. To support the podcast or to join the community, please become a monthly subscriber today@mormonstories.org all right, Jason and Taran. Well, I've really enjoyed hearing your story, and I can tell you guys, I put a lot of thought and a lot of heart into your decisions, and now I'm gonna, you know, kind of do what I often do, and just kinda. I've been storing up a bunch of questions, and I'm gonna just kind of offer them in. In cereal nature. Is that all right?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:00:51] Yeah, absolutely.
John Dehlin [00:00:52] And that's cereal with an S, not cereal with a C. I would really
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:00:56] love some frosted plates at this point, actually. It's been kind of a long talk.
John Dehlin [00:01:01] That might not go well with the microphone, actually.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:01:04] Well, okay, I'll eat them after.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:01:05] All right. I can find some Rice Krispies treats. I mean, some Rice Krispies. Right?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:01:09] Great.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:01:09] Put them right next to the mic.
John Dehlin [00:01:13] Okay, so. All right. So, Jason, one of the. One of the things that you said at the end of the interview that was just really striking to me was. And I'm paraphrasing, but you're basically saying. You basically said, I think it's time to move beyond true and false. I think it's time. And basically what you're saying is you're kind of. You were disinterested in whether or not the Book of Mormon was a historical document. You were disinterested in even whether there really was a God or not. You know, you were basically saying, I think that it's all about living a Christlike life, and the church kind of helped you to do that. And, you know, Taryn, I think you were on a pretty similar page. And then something you just said, Jason, was really interesting. You kind of said at one point you thought that the church on, you know, overall net, you know, net, led people to live Christlike lives, but that at some point you decided that that, you know, wasn't the case any longer. And so my first question, Jason, I'll ask you first, then Taryn, you can add. You know, you could say that there's lots of problems with the church, but has the church become less good at promoting Christlike behavior? Like, has that changed? Or has your calculus on the good that the church does do changed? Does that make sense?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:02:56] It does completely. I don't think if you listen to my sort of historical litany from a little back, I don't think ultimately there's been much change. I think the church has a long history of dubious moral choices on big issues. I think the church produces a lot of people who are really good in the small details of their lives, but who commit themselves to a cause that, in the big picture, doesn't always make the right choices. And one of the things that's been really important to me is realizing that that small picture goodness comes from a lot of places. There are a lot of ways to learn to be kind and loving and attentive and sacrificing and to do that in your life and towards other people that don't also lead you to end up on the wrong side of the civil rights movements over and over again to make these mistakes that impose costs on all kinds of people. I think when we talked before, these costs were just as real. And one of the things that was different was that I wasn't as sensitized. I wasn't as aware. I mean, I'm going to use this word of privilege. I was privileged, able to not recognize what the church was doing to our gay and lesbian and queer brothers and sisters. I wasn't seeing it. I had friends who'd gone through it. I had friends who'd been marginalized and devastated in adolescence because of these issues. And I'd been always very sympathetic on that. But I had been able to close my eyes to the direct hand of the church in it until the church tried to divorce my friends. And that was a lesson to me. That was a lesson that this was personal and real. This was not abstract. This was not something that can be traded off against other goods. This is something that is wrong. That is wrong. That's my moral conviction that it's wrong to hurt others because of your views. It's wrong to have those views, I think. But it's more wrong to be so sure of your views that you're going to hurt others who aren't hurting you first. And I think that that's something the Church has been doing for so long. But I was willing to overlook it because of the kind and loving and wonderful people I've known in the church and now coming to realize that people like that are all over the place, that people find those values by reading Plato and Aristotle or by meditating in the Buddhist tradition or doing UU meetings, or just because it's in their nature that the world outside of Mormonism is as full of those Virtues as the world inside, but not always the vices. I don't think this is a change in the church. I think this is a change in me. I've been taught. I've been more educated and more aware.
John Dehlin [00:06:05] And I'll just push you a tiny bit, because I think if I had gone back nine years, you listed the LGBT issue as your number one is the first issue you listed.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:06:13] Absolutely, absolutely.
John Dehlin [00:06:14] So I think back, if I'd gone back time warped nine years ago and said, is the church harming LGBT people? I think you would have said yes.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:06:23] Yes.
John Dehlin [00:06:23] And I think if I would have even said, are there good people outside of Mormonism? You would have said, absolutely, yes.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:06:31] But I felt. But I felt at the time that Mormonism had a better vision for how to live your life. I did. I felt that it had a better vision. And there's a little bit to unpack here. I think I felt, first of all, the LGBT stuff was so important, and it's still so. It's just devastatingly important. But I was willing to trade it off against other things, and that was a mistake. I needed to grow up. I didn't know yet that there are things you can't trade off, and this is one of them. But also, I saw the other side of the balance as being weightier than it is. I saw the Mormon Church as, first of all, teaching people in the normal structure of their lives to be better people than outside. And I'm not sure that's true. Also, I saw the egalitarian and hopeful and wonderful and inclusive passages in the Book of Mormon, the stories of the society without class divisions and creeds and ethnicities and hierarchy. And I thought that was Mormonism. I thought that was an essential part of the Mormon ethic. And the fact is, I think that's a dead part of the Mormon ethic. And that's another problem. Is that one of the things I saw as. As a seed of hope, I think it's not a seed in this tradition anymore. I think that's been rejected. And that puts me in a position of trading off something that can't be traded off. There's incommensurability. How many dead people, how many suicides of LGBT people can I trade off against the vision of someday having Zion? But then the reality that most Mormons don't believe in the Zion. I read in those scriptures, they believe in a Zion that's a free market, where the rich people are rich because they work hard, and that isn't the Zion that fourth Nephi describes, but it's the Zion that Mormons seem to think. And there's a loss in terms of the positive vision I saw there too.
John Dehlin [00:08:29] Yeah. And we talked a bit about that in my interview with Rock Waterman, that if you really read the Book of Mormon and take it seriously, some people say it really condemns the current church.
Egalitarianism, Activism, and Disillusionment
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:08:40] And I think there's something to that. And, you know, we spent a lot of time writing about this when we were Internet activists. Our whole Latter Day Saint Liberation Front blog was centrally about this theme, about the sort of the egalitarian vision in Mormonism. Not just the Book of Mormon, also the Doctrine and Covenants. It really is a strong theme. But here's the thing. The scriptures in Mormonism have all kinds of themes that aren't active in the church anymore. And you know, some of them, you know, we're happy that they're not. Right. We're happy that is not active.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:09:17] Yeah. Or, you know, you know, complete, completely subjective. No matter, you know, whatever you're feeling is the. Is the moral thing to do. Cut that guy's head off.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:09:26] Yeah, exactly. We're not asked to do what Nephi did, and we're happy that that's not part of our life. But if we recognize that those things are not really part of lived Mormonism, we also need to accept that the loss of the egalitarian, communitarian ethos is also real.
John Dehlin [00:09:46] Right. Taryn, did you have anything to add to that specific question?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:09:50] The question. What was the original question?
John Dehlin [00:09:54] You know, is anything to add about is the church sort of, you know, less encouraging of Christlike living than you thought before? Or has the church, you know, become less encouraging of Christ, like living since our last interview?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:10:13] Honestly, you know, I don't think it's changed. I don't think my perception of it has changed either. I mean, I always thought it was a very human church, full of very human flaws, not just on the individual level, but the institutional one. And, you know, I was. I suffered from some of the same privilege that Jay suffered from, but not nearly as much because, you know, I was.
John Dehlin [00:10:42] You're a woman.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:10:43] And I'd grown up in a very different social position in Mormon culture and. And I was always weird. So, you know, people dealt with me in a different way. And so I think I actually had a relatively clear eyed picture of what the church was. I don't think my understanding of that has changed. I never thought that it was the great tool for Christian maturation that I think maybe it seemed like to Jay, but that was because I had been on the, you know, frankly, the receiving end of so much nastiness during my Mormon, my, you know, my Jack Mormon childhood. And you know, and the thing is, it wasn't like I thought Mormons were worse than other people. And I don't think that now. But I do think that the institutional culture is inflexible to the point that it's really, really hard for people within the church to somehow address all of the problems in church culture, in Mormon culture, by being more Christlike, you know what I mean? And then there's the question of
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:12:11] how
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:12:11] Christlike is it good to be? You know, and I still love that, you know, I find myself when I'm walking alone, I always find myself singing A Poor Wayfaring man of Grief. And I love that just as much as I ever did for all the same reasons, but. And I even get that vagus nerve activation at the end. But it's. I no longer am so sure that the Christ like, you know, the Christ like thing, the Christian morality that I believed was, you know, that I still think is the thing to do and that I believed was infallibly the thing to do is necessarily, I don't feel so sure of myself anymore. So, you know, about the whole did Jesus have it exactly right thing, I mean, I think generally, yeah, you know, love your neighbor as yourself. That's a great piece of advice and I think we should all do it. But. I've come to realize that the problem with being Christlike, with a whole bunch of people being Christlike is that while at the individual level maybe it's a moral thing to, you know, to turn the other cheek and to give and give and give, you know, and do what the little stream said. I do think that's the thing to do in the aggregate. What it leads to are a bunch of people who. Let themselves be cogs in a machine that is maybe vanity, vanity, you know, like Ecclesiastes and maybe actually bad.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:14:09] You know, that's the thing. I mean, one way to look at Mormonism over the last 20 years is that this is an organization that's taken millions of devoted, loving, pro family people and turn them into a big collective home wrecker, right? None of those people, none of them wants to go out and break up families. We had a set of friends who were married and committed to their marriage. And about six months after the proposition that seemed like it was going to break their marriage legally, they ended up having so much stress that they split. Do I know that the proposition caused Them to split? No. Do I think it did? Yes. Does that mean that Mormonism as a collective broke their home? Maybe it does. Would they be the only ones? No. Mormonism is out there destroying families now.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:15:02] It saves families, not what it's trying to do.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:15:06] No Mormon wants to break up homes. None of them. No individual out there. But collectively, this process is doing that. The morality we have to look at isn't the individuals. It's what we as a group do when we are a group. Because that's, that's the morality of being in the group.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:15:25] Yeah, it was like paying tithing. I mean, you, you wanted to pay tithing to, to help pay for the expenses of the church and with any, with any luck, to help people who were in much more need than you. But at the same time, there was always the nagging question. They keep saying, oh, we're not using tithing funds for these political actions, but that's ignoring the basic fungibility of money. You know, if I give the church my money, they have more money to do this with. And how do I explain that to the. To the kid I taught in Sunday school who I'm pretty sure is gay and is angry at the church and clearly ready to come out and is going to just, you know, burn all these relationships because he feels hated, you know, justifiably feels hated. How do I explain to him that the. During the time I was doing everything I could to signal that I thought that he was okay and he didn't need to believe this nasty stuff about himself, I was giving money to the organization that was trying to make sure he'd never be able to have a long term, you know, committed relationship. You know, I mean, how do I explain that to that boy? If I, you know, this is a real thing. It actually happened? I mean.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:16:40] Yeah, you know, yeah, we're not doing hypotheticals tonight. We're not naming names, but these are real. That's the thing. I mean, I think a big part of the shift for me is moving from, first of all, this dream for a better, egalitarian future that I don't think many Mormons support to a realization of what Mormons actually want. And second of all, a recognition that the morality of the group as a group is what I need to pay attention to. Right. That if I want to stay to be a better person myself, but in doing that, I make the group a little bit worse. That's a kind of selfish choice.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:17:23] Yeah. It's a hard thing to realize.
John Dehlin [00:17:26] What do you mean by making the group worse?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:17:28] If I, if I enable the group to carry out these bad actions a little bit more by being there, right. If I give money that frees up an extra $10,000 for political action to hurt people. If I, by being there, persuade someone else who's liberal and doubting along these lines that, hey, there is a solution because look at that guy.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:17:53] And this is something that's actually happened to me. I had someone get mad at me at the public library because when she found out that I had decided I didn't believe because she had been looking at J and I specifically, apparently, and saying, well, well, if these guys are in it, it can't be that crazy.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:18:09] And see, that's the thing. If people are doing that, then I have to carry the weight of what the church can do as a collective because of us and the people we've influenced. And what the church doesn't do is listen to me. It doesn't listen to me. What the church does is take the resources that I make available and do what it wants as a group, as an organization. And what it does as an organization, I don't support.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:18:37] Yeah, it's a hard thing to accept.
John Dehlin [00:18:42] I talked to Brad about this and his response was every organization does harm.
Exploring New Faith Communities and Theodicy
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:18:48] No, no, no, they don't.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:18:50] We thought that too.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:18:52] Look at the Quakers. What have the Quakers done? The Quakers opposed slavery. The Quakers died for the civil rights movement. Find one tenth of the harm that Mormonism has done that Quakers as a group have done. You can't.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:19:07] If you bring this up in, you know, if you use this example, someone always brings up Richard Nixon.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:19:12] Yeah, but Richard Nixon wasn't the Quakers.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:19:14] He was a Quaker, kind of.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:19:16] And he was a kind of. Yeah, fallen Quaker. But the point is the Quaker church as a church took political stance and got him right. That's possible. Unitarians have done a good job too. I mean, there are organizations out there that just do a better job. No, nobody's perfect. But that's not the standard.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:19:35] You know, we're going to a UU congregation now, and it's the one that spearheaded the desegregation of the city. We live not of Chicago, but of the suburbs of Evanston. In the late 70s, when it was still legal in Evanston for people to sell their houses with clauses in the contracts saying that the next owner could not sell to black people and trying to make that, you know, and this clause has to be in any sale contract that you make, too. Da, da da da.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:20:04] So we left a church whose official hospital used to segregate blood on racial lines. And now we're now attending a church that stuck its neck out to end segregation.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:20:16] Like seriously caused the members in the congregation some real problems. Really risked a lot. People were very, very angry at them, and they did it anyway. You know, I mean, they were the ones who lobbied to make this illegal.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:20:32] And that's my Mormonism. I'm in favor of people who take risks for what's right, even if the risks are local and small and didn't show up in the newspaper. You know, that's what I want. That's what I want to be. I want to be that. I want to be the group with that.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:20:51] You don't assume. It's always going to work.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:20:52] I trust the neighbors not to be perfect, but to be good. Right. Not the neighbors, but everyone. The collective.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:21:02] You know, I want to go to. I want to be part of a community where if I get called. Well, I don't get called to do anything. Right. I say, this is something I can help with. Right. You know, which actually means that I end up doing things that I'm useful with. Right. But if I decide to go work in the kids program, I don't have to argue with the people running the program about whether or not they need to take required legal precautions to prevent child abuse, you know, because no one's going to say. No one's going to say.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:21:41] That's what our church does. We had this experience in California. In California, the law is in children's classes in church, you have to have two adults. And the church didn't do it.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:21:53] Like. Like, they actually tried to. You know, they tried to convince the local wards not to do it, despite the fact that it was breaking the law.
John Dehlin [00:22:00] I think. I think they do that now, though, right?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:22:02] I don't know.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:22:03] I hope so. I mean, it was.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:22:04] It'd be great if they do, but, I mean, you know, it's. Yeah, yeah, I think.
John Dehlin [00:22:09] I think now, unless it's a female teacher, if a male's involved, it's gonna.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:22:14] It doesn't matter. I mean, in California, if it's a woman, it still has to be to adults. I mean, do you think women don't abuse children?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:22:20] Yeah, but I mean, the thing about it is, is that I want to be part of the community. That doesn't say, well, but nobody. None of us would do that. Not because they suspect each other, but because they realize that being a part of the community doesn't make them automatically righteous or perfect or anything else.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:22:37] Yeah, that's something that you exactly that they understand that good organizations are the organizations that make people better because of how the organization works. Organizations that aggregate good impulses up into good actions. That's what we're looking for. And those things exist. Not perfect.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:22:55] No, never perfect.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:22:55] Have to let go of. But good. Can you get that? You can find that?
John Dehlin [00:22:59] Right? Right.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:23:01] What is that. What is that saying? Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:23:04] Yeah.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:23:05] Yeah.
John Dehlin [00:23:07] Okay. Very good. Next question. Taryn, and we don't have to dig too much into this, but, you know, you talked about how part of your logic stream, and this is just a small thing, you talked about how part of your logic stream was that it didn't seem fair or right that. That God would make your brain such that you had a hard time, you know, knowing that he existed or receiving his communications. And the immediate thought that jumped to mind is. And we talked about theodicy later. Well, you know, I could see an insensitive, believing Mormon just saying, hey, get in line. There's theodicy all over the place that just happens to be yours. But it doesn't. It doesn't. You know, it's not, you know, pain and suffering is not unique to Taryn.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:23:56] I mean, it makes you think, so what's going on here?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:24:03] Yep.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:24:04] You know, I mean, it's not that I value my own suffering above the suffering of others. I certainly don't. And I know why you're asking this. I know this is a question people come up with. The problem is that, I mean, part of this is that one of the things I've learned to do is to stop valuing my own experience less than that of other people. Which, you know, is something that I think. I hate to generalize, but I think a lot of Mormons do that. They say, well, you know, I am suffering, or I have suffered. But what about everyone else? You know, I shouldn't think about the logical implications or the moral implications for what I'm experiencing in terms larger than myself, because everybody suffers. It's true that everybody suffers. But here's the thing that doesn't mean that my suffering is not an example. That illustrates a serious flaw in the logic of belief. You know what I mean? It's just that other people who are suffering more, those examples are more pointed. So it's like you have to actually start, you know, applying. And it's not like I think logic and rationality are perfect or even that I'm. That I'm very good at them, frankly. But, you know, you have to. I was Always taught that the point of coming to earth, right? And you know, that being born and living this life was essentially to learn moral judgment. You know, and then one day I realized that the people who were teaching me that didn't actually want me to exercise it. And that's the thing. You have to. At some point you have to look around and you have to say, what does what I'm experiencing say about the universe? Does it say anything? If it does, what is it? And what does that mean for what? What does that mean for how I should act to be a moral person? You know?
John Dehlin [00:26:04] So for you, the theodicy thing wasn't like the nail in the coffin. It was more the beginning of an exploration.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:26:11] Well, no, I mean, here's the thing. No, the theodicy thing had always bothered me, of course. I mean, it bothers everyone, right? It's just that some people resolve it and some people don't. But the thing is, it wasn't my own suffering that I was thinking about. When I started to think about this, it was, you know, like serious, you know, starvation of children and all the people who've died horribly. And you know, those girls who were kidnapped by Boko Haram this morning, you know, that's the kind of thing that I was thinking about. And before, I had always taken comfort in the existence of God. You know, these horrible things exist, but so does this loving perfection. But then one day I thought, you know, wait, wait, you know, after my, you know, after the intensity of my ecstatic experience was gone, you know, after it wasn't crowding everything else out, I looked around and I said, but wait, no, no, this just doesn't make any sense. Because this loving perfect, all everything God, even the loving perfect, less than everything God that I was taught to believe in as a Mormon, That just doesn't make sense with the horrible things in the world. It really, truly doesn't. Not my horrible things. I mean, I can justify those because just like everyone else, I am good at self punishment, but you know, not everyone else's. It just didn't make sense.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:27:54] Yeah, you know, I think also people sometimes let the problem of evil off a little too easy. You know, Mormons love to do the Alma and Amulek story, right? The village where they're going to burn all of the people to death for believing. And Alma, you know, Amulek, wants to stop it miraculously, and Alma says, no,
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:28:12] no, no, let it happen.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:28:14] People need to do it so that they can be righteously punished. And let's set aside the Question of why it would be good for those people to be able to be punished and instead assume that that makes sense. What we now need to justify is why God had to let them die in order to do that. Couldn't there have been a point of no return? You know, maybe when they light the fire, it's over and there's nothing they can do, and you can miraculously intervene now. Or maybe. Maybe you have to get to the point where the people are almost dead and then you can miraculously intervene. Or why not? They're dead, and you bring them back to life like Lazarus, right? Jesus brings Lazarus back to life just because he loves his sister, Right? Why not a bunch of innocent people who were martyred if God's only point in letting them suffer was to punish these people? And a powerful God has a lot of options other than letting them go all the way through the horrible experience of being burned to death just to make a point. I mean, you actually have to consider that a powerful God has way more options than we usually give him. And when you do that, the problem of evil gets really hard, you know,
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:29:19] and people always talk about. The common response I heard to this when I was in the church was, well, some variation of the eternal perspective. Yes, that was horrible suffering, but in the eternal scheme of things, it was the blink of an eye. And the problem is that maybe that's true, maybe it's not. First, we don't actually have any evidence that in the eternal scheme of things, it's a tiny proportion of these people's existence. But second, even if it is, we're here and this is now. And, I mean, it's so easy when you're thinking about heaven and the glorious eternity that awaits in the resurrection to write off the suffering of other people in the moment.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:30:14] I mean, a way of thinking about this is if God sent us here to be tested, part of the test was to live in a place where it looks like we die, and that's the end. And if our morality doesn't work here, then there's something wrong because that's where we are, and that's where he sent us.
John Dehlin [00:30:31] Mm. Right?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:30:33] Yeah.
John Dehlin [00:30:35] Okay. Excellent. Excellent response. So, Jason, what would you say. What would you say to the criticism that you guys are just picking it all apart, that you had these wonderful experiences and now you're just dissecting it and reinterpreting it? And, you know, it's kind of like, you know, I met with my stake president for weekly for over a year, and one of the metaphors he used with me is you've got this beautiful rose. You look at it and it's gorgeous. And what you're doing is you're picking up, taking off the petals, you're plucking off the petals, you're inspecting them, and by the time you're done, you've got no rose left.
Honest Doubts and the Nature of Evidence
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:31:23] It's a real rose. You have a beautiful smell. Have evidence of the rose.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:31:27] That's true.
John Dehlin [00:31:28] Well, I'm just saying. And I'll ask it in a different way because I don't mean to throw you.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:31:32] Sorry about. Sorry about that overstretched analogy.
John Dehlin [00:31:35] No, it's okay. Is there ever a part of you psychologically kind of the. The traditional Mormon self that sort of launches that fear or idea in your mind that maybe that was all real and you've just. You've denied it, you know?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:31:51] No, look, no, honestly, no. I mean, first of all, the traditional Mormon part of me says, you know, what do Mormons do? They ask questions and they don't stop until they get the answer. Our Mormon birthright is to know the truth. And I am not going to let that go. I'm standing with Joseph in that grove. Maybe we see a different vision. Maybe mine is just the dirt. But I am not going to stop asking. Not because the Pope or the President of the church or Jesus himself tells me, truth is what we've been promised and truth is what I'm going to have and nothing less. Truth in the moral sense, truth in the factual sense. Much more the moral sense than the factual sense. I want to know what's right, and I don't want to stop until I know the answer. If picking it apart is what takes to get the answer, then fine. Are we really not supposed to ask questions anymore? Mormons are supposed to ask. That's what our scriptures say. Ask with a sincere heart. That's our story.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:33:00] There's. Okay, so I'm sorry. I had a thought and I can't remember it now. Yeah, it's.
John Dehlin [00:33:11] No, it's okay. And if it comes back to you, just jump in. So. So for you, it's. It's very Mormon to ask questions and to seek for truth and to hold truth as an ultimate value.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:33:25] I mean, of course, it's also Mormon to say, I'm the boss and you're my underling and you should stop questioning me. And then that is also Mormon. I can't deny that at all. That's just the part of Mormonism I don't like. And I'm not going to hold on to that.
Navigating Public Faith Transitions and Family Reactions
John Dehlin [00:33:39] All right. Okay, Taran, next question's for you. But, Jason, I feel happy to jump in after. And this is. You know, this is a sensitive thing, and I'm going to preface it in the following way. Whenever I ask a hard question, I have to start by. By directing it myself. The other day, and I. Jason, I told you this when we talked the other day. I was looking up@exmormon.org and there was a thread about me. And the thread said, basically, does anyone know if John Dehlin has a Temple recommend? And the answer was, I'm sure that one of his multiple personalities does.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:34:14] Oh, that's not nice.
John Dehlin [00:34:18] And, you know, it's a fair. You know, in some ways, it's a fair criticism in that I've had this very public journey where I've said, you know, you can believe, and then I'm not so sure I believe. And then, no, no, I changed my mind. You can believe. And then I was like, no, I don't believe at all. And then I'm like, nope, I'm going for belief one more time. And now I'm saying, I'm not so sure. And, Taryn, what if someone were just to say to you, you're just unstable.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:34:49] Well, of course I am. I mean, and this isn't a developmental disorder thing, an autism thing, a depression thing. One thing that I learned when I was, you know, when I was in grad school, I didn't finish my PhD, but, you know, I did a whole bunch of coursework and a bunch of research and things like that. And some of the coursework involved a lot of reading about human consciousness and about the uses of narrative. You know, the way that we use narrative to make our consciousness seem like one unified thing. Right. And the gist of, you know, what the real takeaway from all this research is, is that we aren't really the same person from one moment to the next. We convince ourselves we are. There's no reason not to, I guess. But everybody is different, you know, one moment to the next moment to the next moment, and certainly over a long period of time to expect yourself to stay exactly the same. Well, it's. You're going to be disappointed. You know, everyone is unstable in this way. The difference is perhaps that, you know, I've been a little more public about it, although not that. I mean, frankly, you know, I was doing some. I did raise, you know, I did grow up in Utah in kind of the heart of. Not polygamist, fundamentalist, not like in that kind of Sense fundamentalist, but, you know, more the academic sense of fundamentalism. Fundamentalist, Mormon. Mormonism. Right. Literalism, authoritarianism, all that stuff. And I'm not really surprised when I look back that, you know, that my big revelation was that I should go back to a place where I had. To a community where I had a lot of unresolved stuff, you know, with kind of the general difficulty and trauma of having grown up in that situation. I don't think everybody experiences growing up Mormon in Utah is traumatic once again. I think that's because I was kind of necessarily an oddball. You know, I mean, I didn't fit and I was not capable of some of the same kinds of experiences other people had, you know. But I don't think it's surprising that my big revelation back when I was having revelations was that I needed to go back to a community that I had a lot of baggage about. You know, I mean, I realized. I realized one day when Jay was in that branch presidency and I was very pregnant with Artemis, I was sitting in the back of sacrament meeting with my feet up on a chair and two or three college students like, you know, fawning on my tummy and, you know, and everything else, and people, you know, people looking up at the stand at my husband, that despite everything I thought about myself, I had held onto and somehow internalized this image of competence and adulthood as being Mormon and married in the temple and having babies, things like that, which I love. Babies I can't have anymore, but I love them. So it's all good stuff. All stuff that I love being married to Jay and I love being married. But at some level, I realized that was that moment. I realized that I felt like an adult in a way that when I had been out of the church, I never thought I was going to feel because there was always this nagging feeling of failure. Not spiritual failure, but failure to grow up, failure to be the woman in the pews with a husband in some, you know, middle, you know, semi important word, calling. Trying to pull it all off, you know. So I look back and I think also, I don't know if you remember or if I talked about it in that original interview, but the thing that sparked my, you know, my deep and really moving experience, you know, of my deep and moving belief that I needed to go back to the church was actually a Richard Dutcher movie. It was Brigham City.
John Dehlin [00:39:45] Yeah.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:39:46] That scene at the very end.
John Dehlin [00:39:47] Yeah.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:39:48] Where he tries. Where the bishop tries to refused the sacrament because he feels like in not figuring out who the Serial killer was. He hurt the community, right. And they stand there and force him to take the sacrament. You know, they won't leave until he takes the sacrament because they don't think he's. You know, I still get weepy when I think about it. Here's the thing. Remember that vagus nerve, nerve activation thing that, the in group membership stuff?
John Dehlin [00:40:17] Yeah.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:40:18] That all ties right back into that. I watched that movie. I had this int. I had that intense experience. Exactly the kind that we were talking about, the elevation experience, you know, because it had been my in group, you know, for most of my life. And that was what moved me to feel like I was supposed to be back in the church. Right. So given that I had a lot of stuff that I needed to resolve and I clearly didn't feel like I was a grown up because I wasn't in the church, it's not surprising to me that that was where I had to go or where I felt like I had to go. But one of the things that the past few years have taught me, especially my diagnosis and the several years of therapy that I went through to deal with that afterward, I did. I went to therapy every week for two years because I was so good at being a semi functional, non autistic person that learning how to be a functional autistic person, there was some. It was difficult, you know, unlearning all of the. All of the coping mechanisms that I had learned that just made things harder. It was really hard. I went to therapy for a couple of years and one of the things I learned, one of the things I figured out is that, gosh, where was I going with this? Oh, gosh, where was I? Jay, do you know where I was going with this anyway?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:42:06] Any idea? I don't.
John Dehlin [00:42:08] Sorry.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:42:09] It's light. It's light. I guess what I'm trying to say is just that the diagnosis and the complete re. Restructuring of my identity that came along with it and of my social relationships and everything else, it made me look around and realize that I really, really didn't fit in the life that I was trying to live, you know, I mean, so I had to change. I don't expect that I'll be changing it that drastically again in the future, but maybe I will.
John Dehlin [00:42:44] Right?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:42:45] But who doesn't? People can convince themselves that they're perfectly consistent, but the only way to be perfectly consistent over, you know, 70, 80 years is to very carefully not pay attention to a single thought in your head, you know, and not make any decisions based on your own motivations. Or impulses. I don't think it's possible, you know, Right. People can fool themselves.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:43:15] But I said John and Taran, I just want to quickly say you're both totally flip floppers. And that's fine. You just need to accept that. I mean, come on, really, are you going to find the best life in one go? I mean, is that really likely? That the thing you were born into just happens to be the best life you can have? Or do you need to explore a bit? Why should we feel bad about that?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:43:40] Because we grew up in a culture that trained us to feel like ever changing our minds about any of this particular stuff was moral failure. That's why. And I think it's hard for any insular culture not to develop that way. It's not like it's Mormonism's fault.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:44:03] But I want, John, I want you to tell me why you feel bad about it.
John Dehlin [00:44:07] Oh, you're not allowed to ask me questions.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:44:10] You set it up. You told the story.
John Dehlin [00:44:13] Well. Did you have a response?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:44:15] No, I'm good. I think Darren's covered that. I mean, everybody changes. Everybody changes. We're all flip floppers. And if we're not, that means that we're, you know, trusting the really unreliable proposition that we were accidentally born into our best possible life. Right?
John Dehlin [00:44:32] Yeah.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:44:33] Yeah. Also that we're basically perfect.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:44:35] Yeah, exactly.
John Dehlin [00:44:36] All right, all right. Okay, next question for you, Jason.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:44:41] So
John Dehlin [00:44:45] there's three parts to this. It's about influence, right?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:44:50] Okay.
John Dehlin [00:44:51] I know I'm famous for multi part questions, but how do you feel about the first of all? Did you guys ever get feedback from people who knew that you had done that interview?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:45:02] Yes.
John Dehlin [00:45:02] Did you ever receive feedback from people saying, wow, that interview helped me stay in the church, and if so, how did it feel at the time? That's part one of the question. So, Jason, you go then. Then Taryn.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:45:13] Sorry, I didn't mean to.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:45:14] Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I mean, I always felt a little. There was a period of a couple years, a few years where we had a kind of celebrity among a certain subset of Mormons, which was weird. That interview was part of it. Our blogging was part of it. I always felt a little weird about that. I was not seeking the spotlight or whatever and that aspect of it was a little strange, but that people had a really positive experience and related to things we said. I felt good about that. I feel good about that.
John Dehlin [00:45:49] Okay, so it was strange. But, you know, there's part of you that felt good about that.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:45:54] Well, I mean, you know, if we Said things that help people make sense of what they're going through in their lives. And if there were ideas we had or ways of thinking that helped them make their life better, then I love that.
John Dehlin [00:46:05] Okay. All right, Taryn, how did you feel at the time?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:46:10] It was a little overwhelming and weird. Not least because my first experience with that was actually a woman who wasn't even Mormon. She saw Jay working on LDSLF one day when he thought he was alone in the computer lab at Cal, and she got curious and looked in his browser and found our website. And she was kind of a spiritual seeker kind of person. And she loved our website. She ate it up. And she listened to the interview. And the first time I ever met her, she ran up to me and said, serenity Valley, it is so nice to me. I loved your interview with John Flynn, which happened again after that with Mormons. And, you know, I don't feel bad about it exactly. I mean, I don't feel like, oh, I have done a horrible disservice to people. I was being honest, you know, I mean, I really believed the things I was saying. And, you know, I mean, it's not amazing that other people would find that kind of a sympathetical experience because other people are human too, right? So not too worried about it. I feel a little bit bad because I think I mentioned earlier the experience I had at the public library here in Evanston. It's like, you know, I didn't realize back in the day that there might be somebody whose sole reason for believing that it was not completely off the wall to be Mormon was because I was Mormon, you know, and it wasn't like I was so great. It was just, you know, the basic thing you do, you look around and you say, are there other reasonable people in here? Right. You do that wherever you are. But that I felt kind of bad about because I never lied at church about my beliefs. But I didn't constantly, every moment of every Sunday, try to correct everybody who interpreted the things that I said pretty much in the same way that I said them in that interview. I didn't try to convince them that their interpretations were biased by their own. By their own beliefs, you know, And I felt a little bit bad about that for a while. And then I thought, you know, no, I believed what I was saying. I thought I was, you know, doing the right thing. And that's not an excuse for doing a horrible thing. But I don't think I did a horrible thing, you know, and, and other people are grown ups, they need to learn how to evaluate evidence themselves, you
John Dehlin [00:48:53] know, so that was my second part of the question. You don't feel bad now if somebody became committed to the church because of your influence?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:49:03] Like, if they were to become. No, I mean, because that means that my experience makes sense to them, that experience made sense to them, which means that, you know, they may have had some similar experience. And anyway, if they listen to this interview and realize that I have changed my mind, if they're unhappy, maybe that will help them give themselves permission to think about these things. If they still think that they are exactly on the right track, you know, I'm not hurting them, they're not going to listen to me.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:49:36] And, you know, the thing is, I mean, yeah, what we said, the experiences we had, all of that was real. The experiences of people who resonate with what we've said, those are real. Whether they're supernatural or not is irrelevant. I mean, this is real. And if people found happiness in their life because of ideas that came partly from us, or felt more secure in the ideas they were committed to or whatever, I think that's great. If people are using our words as a basis for doing something they think is wrong, then they need to think about what they're doing. For me today to be an active Mormon, an active participant in the LDS Church, with the views that I have, I would be doing something that I worry would be wrong. It would be hard for me to ethically justify being active. It doesn't follow that everyone else is in the same position. Obviously they're not. There are people who just have different points of view. Right. They have different information sets than me.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:50:45] That's one thing. That phrase you just used, different information sets. This is important. I don't think either of us espouses moral relativism, which, especially since I think it's probably clear at this point in the interview that neither of us actually believes in God anymore, people tend to think that means that you have. There's a boogeyman called moral relativism. Right. Neither of us is a moral relativist. It's just that we recognize that we can't force our experience on other people.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:51:12] Yeah. I mean, you know, the other thing is. This is one of the things I've learned, is that I'm fallible. Right. This is a really big thing I've learned over the last several years. As a Mormon, I wanted to find infallibility, but I've come to accept that it just isn't there for me. And so I could just be wrong. And that's Fine. I mean, I'm doing the best I can, but I could be wrong. I could be morally mistaken. And so it could be the case that people with different information set and different views reach a better conclusion than I do. And that's fine, too. I mean, I think that people need to make their own decisions at the time. I think in the first interview, I said, you shouldn't let people make you stop being Mormon, and you shouldn't let people make you be a Mormon. And I still believe that when we try to compel other people to follow our identity choices, that is categorically wrong.
John Dehlin [00:52:08] Okay. Okay. So. So I'm facing this now because I've. I've done at least a couple interviews where I've talked about my story, and people have gotten a sense from my Facebook posts and other places that my story's kind of changed since a year or two ago. And there's a lot of people calling, calling me out to say, hey, John, we want an update on your story. And then, like, my wife is like, over my dead body. You know, she's basically saying, every time you tell your story, you know, it causes. Causes big problems. Plus, it's not about you. Plus, you know, there's an argument, and this isn't necessarily Margi's, but the argument is just that, you know, let people have their own story. You don't need to be telling your story. And. And, you know, you could influence people, and instead of just always being in the mix, just get out of the mix and let people have their lives because you could influence people, and why even put yourself in that position? So that's my. My final part of the question. And maybe you've already answered it, so feel free to just answer it very briefly if you want.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:53:06] Yeah, yeah, yeah.
John Dehlin [00:53:07] It's just, what if people now leave the church because of you? And is there any part of you that just feels that burden and says, man, maybe I shouldn't tell my story. Or another way to say, that is what would make you comfortable telling your story now when you might just kind of leave well enough alone? Because in reality, people should make their own decisions, and they don't need your data interfering with their decision.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:53:32] My data doesn't interfere with their decision. This is not a true story. My data. What. What I am is me. And I want to find a way of being me with integrity. One of the things that I have had a hard time with, you know, as a doubting Mormon, as a basically disbelieving Mormon, and then as a very quiet Inactive Mormon is finding ways to say who I am and just be open and frank and loving about that. And I want to do that and I want to talk about who I am because I can't be who I am without talking about it. I am a loudmouth. But telling people who I am and what I think, if that influences them, it's because they buy what I'm saying. I can't make people change their mind. Neither can you. We can't do that. What we can do is we can offer people ideas and points of view and stories. And those stories may be entertaining or not, and that's something. And they may have some kind of value. And if they do, that's because people chose to let them.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:54:43] Yeah, that's the thing. I mean, here's. I remember having a conversation with you about this, Jay, and I was worried about what to tell people who were believers, who were happy being believers. If they asked me, you know, if I ran into them on the street and they were like, so what happened? Don't you believe anymore? Why don't you believe? And this has happened once or twice. And people who seem to be really happy, it's like this might make them unhappy. So maybe I don't want to talk with them about this. Maybe I don't want to be honest. And what you said in effect was, you know, they're grown ups. Is it respectful of you to feel like they need to have fewer points of view available to them and fewer, you know, fewer. Fewer. Less information that you may. Than you may have. I mean, to. Their happiness is something that you can determine. Their happiness is something that you have a right to assign to them. You know, I mean, that's the thing. I don't think anybody who isn't motivated to listen to this interview, you know, isn't motivated to take what we're saying seriously. Is going to.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:56:00] There are going to be people who listen to this just because it's so outrageous or something.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:56:04] Yeah. But they won't be motivated to think hard about what we're saying because, you know, I mean.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:56:11] Or to feel empathy.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:56:13] Or to feel empathy. Yeah. And here's the thing about that. That means that if somebody does feel empathy or is affected by it, maybe they're, you know, maybe they're looking for a way out, frankly.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:56:31] Or if they're not, you know, if, if encountering us and engaging with us can help make people, help people find a broader and warmer Mormonism towards people who don't fit, that's a good thing because that's the problem.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:56:50] Maybe they're taking us seriously because they feel like they need to try to understand somebody in their family who's left
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:56:56] when they don't take us seriously? They're doing the thing that Mormons do to outsiders. They're doing the thing that Mormons have done to feminists and gay and lesbian and queer people. They're saying, you're not in the group. You're bad. We don't want to hear your story. We're now the experts in your life.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:57:15] Yeah. That's the thing.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:57:17] And if you want to not do that, a good way to start is by listening not just to us, but to all the people who you think are wrong.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:57:26] I guess that's a point of view. I just don't want to be like, I get to decide what other people are grown up enough to hear.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:57:32] Yeah.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:57:33] You know.
John Dehlin [00:57:33] So why are you telling your story, Jason? Why are you and Taryn? Why are you?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [00:57:39] Because I really want to be. I want to reintegrate my identity. I want to be the person that I am, and I want to be clear, and I want to be open, and I want to be frank, and I want to let all my Mormon friends know I love them and I miss you guys. And I want to find a way of being in this community and with these people who are so much a part of who I've been and who I am without having to not be open. And so I have to do this to get there.
John Dehlin [00:58:16] Taryn, how about you?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:58:18] Well, two reasons. First, because you asked me to. I mean, seriously, that's. Actually, that's my major motivation, is that you thought it would be interesting. And I like you, and I think you're doing worthwhile stuff. So, you know, and there's a secondary purpose, which is that it's really easy for if I. I haven't tried to explain this to many people, but if I do, it's really easy for them to hear. Well, I was crazy, and then I took medication, and now I'm not. So I'm not Mormon anymore, which is not the story, really not the story. You know, it's all about evidence and what I think is good evidence to make decisions on. On the basis of and what other people think is good evidence to make decisions on the basis of and how our individual perspectives can affect that. And. And the thing about it is that I need to. I'm trying really hard to figure out how to answer questions that people ask me to their satisfaction, like, you know, giving them the information they're trying to get without making them think that I'm saying, well, I think y' all are crazy and you need medication, because I really don't think that. But, you know, I mean, you can imagine how easy it is for someone to hear that if they only listen to the first two sentences of my experiment.
John Dehlin [00:59:45] Right? Yeah.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [00:59:46] You know, and I'm trying to figure that out. And I'm not very good at understanding how other people hear things. So, you know, maybe if people can. If people listen to this interview and throw feedback, nasty or not nasty, all over the Internet, then I can look at that and start to understand where I go wrong in explaining this.
John Dehlin [01:00:09] So excellent.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:00:10] Y' all are my. Y' all are my cognitive therapy.
Family Relationships After Leaving the Church
John Dehlin [01:00:16] All right. Okay. How's it been? And we'll just a couple quick ones and then we'll wrap up. How's it been with family? And, Taryn, I know that at the end of the last interview, you were actually saying that your family was a little bit worried about your, you know, activity in the church. So I'm guessing they're not destroyed that you've taken this turn.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:00:41] Overall, if they care at all, they're happy that much. They figured out that I wasn't going to be. I mean, I spent, what, eight, seven, six, seven years in the church as an active, you know, by some definition, believing member. And I didn't turn. You know, I didn't start trying to knock the glass of wine out of their hand at family parties or giving the missionary pamphlets or whatever they thought I was gonna do. So I don't think they care one way or another. Yeah.
John Dehlin [01:01:13] Okay. And, Jason, your family. I got the sense that there was some intense pressure, and they're very serious
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:01:22] and committed Latter Day Saints. And I think it's been difficult for them that we're not doing that. And, you know, we had a talk this last summer with my dad, and he was very kind and loving about it all. And then since then, nobody's talked about it at all.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:01:42] We've seen them, we went on vacation with them, and they were just really, you know, I mean, they were great about it.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:01:48] Yep. You know, and I completely empathize with how they're feeling about this. My dad said that he wants to think of this as we're just spending some time outside the church. And I think that's okay because maybe he's right. I mean, I would never say this will never happen. I am open to being proven wrong. I've been proven wrong before, and that's fine. And I love my parents for Being supportive like that, that hasn't been easy for them. It wasn't easy for me. But we're in a pretty good place.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:02:26] We were afraid to tell them. And then Jay and his dad were driving a moving truck or something, and apparently your dad just said, you know, we should talk about this. And it was like, wow, this is. I mean, this is everything we could have dreamed of as far as that goes. So, yeah, that was really nice.
John Dehlin [01:02:43] So better. Better than you feared?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:02:45] Absolutely. Are really wonderful.
John Dehlin [01:02:50] That's great. So the million dollar question is, are you happier and healthier than before? And actually, there's some interesting psychology research that I'm not an expert in, but it basically says that sometimes having a perspective that's more grounded in reality doesn't always necessarily lead to happiness. And there's sort of this.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:03:19] Yeah, yeah.
John Dehlin [01:03:20] Like depressive realism versus a little bit of ignorant, you know, happiness or joy.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:03:27] Yeah.
John Dehlin [01:03:27] And so how's it been for you guys?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:03:32] Can I go first?
John Dehlin [01:03:33] Yeah. Taryn.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:03:34] Well, okay. I think I said earlier that it felt when I was thinking about all of this, like I was about to just wantonly throw myself off a very tall cliff. Right. I was terrified. I mean, we built. Without realizing it, we had begun to build a lot of our relationship on, you know, on the church, frankly. And even as, you know, as a semi unbeliever, I built a lot of my self image and my identity around it, and I was terrified. And then when I, you know, when I finally threw myself off the cliff, I said, okay, this is just, you know, this is the way things are. This is. You know, what I really think I figured out? It wasn't a cliff. It was barely even a little tiny step. It's like, you expect. It's like that thing. Okay, this is kind of convoluted since the Indiana Jones thing in the Temple of the Grail, or whatever it is, is a thing about faith. But you know how he jumps out onto the. Into empty space and finds that he's standing on a bridge?
John Dehlin [01:04:48] Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:04:49] It was a lot like that. It was like, oh, oh, wow. This is not as hard as I thought it was gonna be. I'm not unhappy. I think I'm happier. I mean, I'm staying home with our kids now. You know, I actually dropped out of grad school to take care of our kids for a little while and figure, you know, myself out. And, you know, maybe it's because I was in, like, heavy therapy and working through a lot of emotional stuff. You know, when I when I walked away from the church. But it was a really smooth transition and if anything, I think I'm a lot happier than I was. I mean, I have more time, I know this is a cliche, but I have more time for my family. Not being a member, you know, not being active. I'm still a member. I didn't, I don't think I'll ever do the dramatic gesture thing again because, you know, You know, I, I have more time for my family, I have more energy for them. We're not, you know, every Sunday morning is not a five hour long torture session for the entire family because I've never been able to sit still through three hours of church. You know, my cognitively, you know, my neurocognitively similar child certainly couldn't at two and a half, three years old. And you never knew when she was going to start loudly demanding during a prayer to see God right now, this instant, you know, but also, I mean, it was just, it was stressful. I'm not typical though, because being in a big room full of people was really stressful for me. It was a source of intense anxiety and stress every weekend. And I found that all of the energy that I used to spend thinking about religion and about, you know, I spent a lot of intellectual energy on it long after I stopped, you know, having any emotional experience of it. All that energy and all of that thought, suddenly it's like freed up. It's like there's less, I have more internal resources for other things and that's been really good. And I don't think I'd have been able to stay home just as an identity thing. I could be a Mormon mother or I could be a stay at home mother, but I could not reconcile myself to being a stay at home Mormon mother. I don't know why. There's nothing wrong with being a stay at home Mormon mother. But for some reason, until I left the church, I couldn't seriously re evaluate my, you know, my grad school experience and the experience my kids were having, you know, because of our own peculiar circumstances. Because the only way I could prove to myself that I was, that I was the sort of person that I wanted to be was by having a really active, salient identity outside of both my family and Mormonism. But when I walked away from Mormonism, suddenly I found that I didn't need that as much. I mean, I didn't need that identity and I didn't need that occupation in the way that I had before. So it made things a lot easier for me, leaving the church, I feel kind of bad about that. Like, you know, like, interpersonally bad. Like, sorry. I really did do love y'. All. I do, right?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:08:37] But, yeah.
John Dehlin [01:08:38] Jason, how about you?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:08:42] I think being outside has removed an awful lot of weight from me. I mean, there were these moral conflicts that I've spent the last long time talking about with you that just aren't as big a deal now. Right. I just don't have to worry about what can I do to counterbalance my participation in an organization that's hurting these people and those people and the other people. And so there's a whole bunch of strain that's gone from me now. That doesn't mean things are easy. Being the parent of an autistic kid is not easy. I don't think I would say that was easy.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:09:27] This has given me so much sympathy for my own parents, I can't even tell you.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:09:34] But I'm happy. I mean, it's really hard for me to make comparisons because in this conversation and the way we're setting things up, we've been focusing on the things that were hardest for me about being Mormon. And it's easier to draw a really positive comparison between life right now and the hardest things about life then. And it's a lot harder for me to sit back and count the pluses and minuses. But I feel good.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:10:00] Can I just say, my experience of Jay's emotional state has been that he's been a lot happier. You know, I. You know, especially the last few years seemed so hard for you, Jay.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:10:13] Yeah.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:10:14] And you're just like a new. A new man, you know?
Reflections on the Future of Faith and Mormonism
John Dehlin [01:10:21] All right, well, I guess. I guess, you know, I'll end with kind of your thoughts on the future. You can talk about where you think you're going, if you want to take a gander at where the church is going. And if you want to just end with now, you know, if you still have beliefs or values, you know, what are the.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:10:51] I thought I would just give that.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:10:56] John Larsen always says that, you know, people say if they weren't Mormon, they'd be out doing all these rapes and murders. I think that's what you just said.
John Dehlin [01:11:03] Of course. And of course you do have values, but if you want to share any of those. So, Taryn, I'll have you go first, and then, Jay, you can end.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:11:14] So which of those things do you want me to address first?
John Dehlin [01:11:16] Whichever ones you feel comfortable. And all. Or none. All or none.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:11:20] There was. Let's re. Enumerate. There was the. What Are my beliefs and, or moral standards now?
John Dehlin [01:11:28] Well, yeah. Yep.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:11:30] Where's the church going and where do
John Dehlin [01:11:33] you see you guys going and, and, and with your kind of your, let's just call it a secular testimony. So if you want to tackle your, your future and, or the church's future, do that first. Are you guys thinking of, you know, like Unitarian Universalistic? No church.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:11:53] I'm really. I was surprised by this. We thought it would be kind of the reason we started going to UU was because our younger daughter, you know, we named both of our daughters after Greek goddesses, right. And our older daughter at some point when our younger one was about two and a half, explained that they were both named after goddesses. And that entailed an explanation of what a goddess was. But you know, this was a four year old explaining it to a two year old and there was some miscommunication. And a few days later I noticed that Athena, our younger one, was walking around the apartment holding her hands out like, you know, like power hands and glaring at things and then getting mad. And when I managed to figure out what was going on, it's hard to really do a lot of questioning of a child that age about what they're doing in that sense. Turned out she had misunderstood and she thought she was a goddess. And she was getting really angry and this is actually a true story. She was really angry that her magic wasn't working. So I corrected the whole, you know, the whole misunderstanding, said no, no, honey, we named you after goddesses from these really old stories from a long time ago. Nobody believes in these goddesses anymore. But you know, it's not like your grandparents religion. And that was a strategic mistake because you know, that related the religion of the people around her who are religious to make believe and to ancient mythology and to so on and so forth. And she started to feel very, without our realizing it, that's what she took away from the conversation. And she began to make very derogatory comments about religion, you know, it was. And about religious people, which we don't do. We don't sit, we don't talk about this at all in front of them. I mean, and we never talk about it like that. We don't think less of people for believing, you know, in religious stuff. And so one day she asked a question about somebody we knew who was religious and we, you know, in terms of religion and we answered it and she started making fun of them. I mean they weren't there luckily, but it was like. So we suddenly realized we had to Give her some interpersonal experience with people who had what she would think of as religious beliefs. So we tried uu, which turns out not so much on the hardcore religious believers at uu, which we knew. But the point was they had a kids program and they teach tolerance of other people's belief systems. And we thought she really needed something like that. And so we were like, well, you know, it's probably going to be really boring, but you know, we really need to do something. Let's go put them in the Sunday school and we'll just grit our teeth and we can sit in the lobby because, you know, we just assumed it would be boring and dull and woo woo and you know, and all this stuff. And it turns out that it was this incredible experience. I mean, this, these people, it's this congregation full of people who are not unified by any sort of religious belief or creed. If they follow the national demographics, like a third of them are Christians or, you know, some other Abrahamic or, you know, deity believing God, you know, monotheistic God kind of worshiping people. About a third of them are neo pagans and about a third of them are agnostic or atheists. Right. With no religious like stuff going on. So they have diverse beliefs. But the thing is this community, you know, on a small scale and not economically because. Yeah, come on. But it is in so many little ways the thing that we both wanted the church to be because of the Book of Mormon. I mean, they're really that whole. They don't just talk explicitly, and they do talk explicitly about mourning with those who mourn. I mean, I even heard somebody use that phrase. They not only talk about that, but they actually do it. And they work so hard to be in community with each other and that's what their worship services are about. And it was beautiful and amazing and I don't know if we'll still be there in a few years, but I could see myself doing this for the rest of my life very happily and feeling like I was around people who were actually helping me to be better and who I could help. So that's, I think, where I see myself, frankly. I mean, I've tried other, as, you know, I've tried a variety of other religions and you know, and you know, I just don't. I'm not a believer, so that wouldn't work anymore. But the same underlying problems, like, you know, logical problems that I think had with Mormonism were always there. But I can go to this place and I can say, yeah, no, I just don't Believe any of that and they'll be like, okay, let's be seriously in community anyway and really be there for each other. And it's like so I could see myself doing this for the rest of my life. Happily. As far as where the church is going, that was my, that was my testimony of you. You. I'm sorry about that. Unitarians, I know you don't like it when people do that. They're not supposed to proselytize. But anyway, and then where the church is going, I don't know. I mean, it's a hardcore serious belief system, you know, that's kind of comprehensive. And so a lot of people who are Mormon will always be Mormon and probably always be happy in it. I don't see the church even now, it's not growing with the population. I mean, the church's growth rate is less than the population's overall growth rate pretty much everywhere. So I see it becoming a smaller and smaller proportion of the population even as the church keeps growing. But I think it's going to become more and more marginalized, frankly, because.
John Dehlin [01:18:10] Well,
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:18:13] one thing I have realized, I realized after I left the church is all those problems I saw with it. People outside see with it. So, you know, everybody seems to like Mormons in particular. But you know, I don't see there being any kind of widespread conversion to mormonism in the U.S. for instance, or pretty much anywhere else in the world. The few places where there aren't, where the church hasn't really established itself as a missionary group have already been pretty much comprehensively colonized by evangelical churches. And those churches are, you know, unlike the pre existing religions in those regions to the extent that I don't really see people who are looking for a new social identity going for Mormonism. So I don't really see the church growing a whole lot. I think it's going to become politically more marginal. I mean, for a lot of reasons. There's a growing, even in like evangelical, you know, literalist Christianity, there's a growing progressivist movement that is dividing that community politically. So there's going to be, even as people who are, who have for a while been allies of the Mormon Church politically need the church more, they're going to have less power, so the church will have less power as well. I'm talking about evangelical churches that the church has allied with. I don't know, I don't think it's going to like fail or anything. You know, it's a nice home for a lot of people. Even with all the problems And a lot of people never have to confront the problems, you know. So as far as my own beliefs, Well, I mean, I wouldn't say that there's no chance that there's a God. I mean, because how would I know? I mean, how would I know? But I wouldn't call myself an agnostic either. I guess I think of myself as an atheist. But I know that people think a lot of strange things about people who identify that way, not least because, you know, you could just call yourself an agnostic and then, you know, and then people wouldn't give you such a hard time, so why are you identifying that way? But as far as my, you know, my beliefs go, I guess I, you know, the really definitive source for my. Not source, but inspiration for my beliefs about morality and for what we're doing, which I guess is kind of, you know, I'm a humanist. I don't like to call myself a secular humanist because I don't see much difference between secular humanists and religious humanists other than the belief in God thing, which isn't necessarily as significant as they think. But the major inspiration for what I think is right is actually Terry Pratchett books, which sounds awful, but there's this book that I read first, read before I went back to the church, actually, called. Is it Small Gods? It's Small Gods, and it's about the reformation of this fictional religious community in this fantasy world that, you know, that the Terry Pratchett books are about. And the person who ends up being the reforming prophet of this group is, I guess he's really a humanist. And what he comes to think after having been raised as a. As a believer, a believer in literalist scripture interpretations and, you know, burning people at the stake and everything else, what he comes to believe is that all you can actually do is try to make things better for the people that you are with, you know, in the moment. It's always, always, you know, now the present is always with us, right? It's always where we are. And all we can do is try to make things better here and now for the people around us. And I guess that's what I think I need to be doing, you know, I mean, I may not think that Christ was God, but I still think he had some great ideas, you know, I mean, and I still cry every time I hear a poor wayfaring man of grief. Not because, you know, of some abstract deity. Because turns out the reason I was, the reason I cried whenever I heard that song all along, was because of the Beauty of. You know, the. The thing that I think neurotypical people don't understand is that the real beauty of being human is in being able to be in community with other humans and to take care of them and to feel what they feel and to know that they feel what you feel. And that's. So what I think is important is taking care of the people around you, you know, trying to make the world better, because no one else is going to do it except the other people who are.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:23:49] But, you know, we all need each other's help in that. Yeah.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:23:54] Mm.
John Dehlin [01:23:55] Well. Beautiful.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:23:57] Long winded.
John Dehlin [01:23:58] No, not at all. Thank you, Taryn. That's good stuff. That's my favorite part of Mormon's story, so thank you.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:24:05] So I want to be a little bit bold and take your question of where the church is going. Here's what I'm going to say. By the time we're 80, the church is going to have ordained women to the priesthood. It's going to be sealing gay and lesbian couples in the temple.
John Dehlin [01:24:17] Whoa.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:24:18] And whatever the civil rights movement of the time, it's going to be fighting on the wrong side of that, because that's Mormon history over and over. We're always 20 years behind, and that's where we're going to be in another 40 years. We'll be 20 years behind. So that's my prediction. And if I'm wrong, then you'll know that I wasn't a true prophet. All right, but what do I believe? I believe. I believe the things Taryn just said. I believe that the sun's going to come up tomorrow, and when it does, my kids are going to wake up and they're going to need hugs, and I'm going to give them hugs, and it's going to be wonderful. I believe that I'm going to come into work and there are going to be a bunch of people who need me, and I'm going to need them, and that's going to be wonderful, too. And I believe that that is what we have and that is who we are. And if you lose sight of the wonder of every minute in your life, then there's nothing that can replace that, because that is what there is. Right? You know, whatever your metaphysics, life is the texture of its moments. If life lasts forever or for 80 years, it still is. Just right now and right now and right now. And it's the people and the places and the animals and the plants and the life around us and in us. And that's what I believe in. I believe in making life better. And that's my goal.
John Dehlin [01:25:52] Make life better.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:25:54] Make life better, you know, because it
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:25:56] kind of sucks in a lot of ways.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:25:58] Possible. Yeah. And we can't fix everything. I can't stop whatever's happening in Ukraine. I can't. But I can help my students think more critically about it. And some of my students are going to go on to be important people, and maybe something I do helps.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:26:13] And you're probably going to have one student wander in because they're Ukrainian and you're the only political scientist they know and they need to cry about what's happening. Right?
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:26:21] That happens. I've had that with the Syria thing. That's happened a lot. And I can't change. I can't help the people. I can't help my students, families who've died in Syria.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:26:30] But you can help.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:26:31] You can be there, and I can make that loss less bad. And that's the beauty of life.
John Dehlin [01:26:43] Well, beautiful. Well, thank you, Jason, and thank you, Taryn. You guys stayed up till 12:30 your time.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:26:52] Oh, my heavens. We did?
John Dehlin [01:26:53] Oh, yeah.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:26:54] That thing I said about the sun's going to come up. It is going to come up.
Closing Thoughts and Farewell
John Dehlin [01:26:59] All right, well, to both of you, thank you so much for returning to Mormon Stories. In nine years, I expect another interview about how you've returned. Is that okay?
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:27:08] Yeah, certainly. Yeah.
John Dehlin [01:27:10] All right, so that puts us around 20, 23. Just remember that.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:27:15] Well, you know, John, if we come and go every nine years, how many times will you have come and gone in between?
John Dehlin [01:27:23] Ouch. Ouch. You'll have to ask one of my multiple personalities that question.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:27:29] I think. I think it's just we're sine waves and you just have a higher periodicity than we do.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:27:35] Understand that there's virtue and never ever changing your mind about anything ever. That's a good thing.
John Dehlin [01:27:44] All right. And, well, anyway, thank you so much for coming on. And Jason and Taryn, if you feel so inclined, I definitely look forward to kind of the dialogue with Brad. I think that'll be epic.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:28:01] Yeah, I'm greatly looking forward to that as well. Thanks, John.
John Dehlin [01:28:04] All right, you guys listen to that one. All right, well, bless you both and wish you well, and thanks for coming back on. Take care.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:28:12] All right.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:28:13] It's fun.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:28:13] Bye.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:28:14] Bye.
John Dehlin [01:28:14] And listeners, please, please go up to MormonStories.org give Taryn her feedback that she so desperately needs.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:28:21] Probably being less autistic.
John Dehlin [01:28:24] And I'm sure Jay and Taryn will. Will do their best to try and respond to respectful comments there.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:28:30] Oh, come on. Even irrespectful ones. I don't care.
John Dehlin [01:28:33] Be as cruel as you want.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:28:34] Sexual. A word.
John Dehlin [01:28:35] I'm.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:28:35] No, I'm 12:30.
John Dehlin [01:28:40] All right. All right, you guys. Thanks so much.
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:28:42] Thank you.
Taryn Nelson-Seawright [01:29:05] Come, come, ye saints. No toil nor labor fear,
Jason Nelson-Seawright [01:29:12] but with joy.
Transcript © 2026 John P. Dehlin. All rights reserved. Brief quotations are welcome with attribution and a link to mormonstories.org; all other use requires written permission.
139 Responses
Jason and Taryn are two very beautiful, loving and smart people. Further, they have come to the only valid conclusion smart people
like them, based on reason and evidence, can come to. In fact, for the researching and reasoning person. there is no question that the basic foundation of Mormonism is not valid. In this respect the Mormon system is no different than other dream-based, faith-based religion.
But aside from the non-validity of the Mormon foundation, Mormonism has something very valuable, which I would hope, could be separated from that which is not valid and which can be preserved. But it is NOT the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith or the bogus claim to having a direct connection to God. It is the MORMON COMMUNITY–a love-creating, love-driven community born and perfected on the Mormon
frontier. The reason why this community is valid, and why it has survival advantages, is because this is the way we evolved to live
and survive– in small, loving, caring communities. And in fact, this is the way we humans lived for millions of years, before the human pattern was destroyed by the explosive rise of the hierarchy and weaponry of our brief Civilization, which externally redefined us according to their purposes. The love and the spirit of Mormon community should be kept alive. But though Mormons still have remnants of this small loving community we evolved to live, it is difficult for the honest, smart and loving person to live in it. The Mormon system puts up too many barriers to living in it–the non-valid theological framework, too many Mormon hoops to jump through, too many personal litmus test questions that block people out and which screen out a large percentage of smart, beautiful, loving people–the kind of people the church should be seeking. There are so many smart, beautiful and loving people in these pod casts that would be so valuable in such a community, if it were not for the fact that the Mormon church, itself, the Mormon barriers, kick them out and stop them from coming in. I would hope that those in the upper hierarchy could see this and develop a system that would make it possible for thinking, loving people to feel at home in the Mormon community, and could live in the Mormon community without church-dictated barriers and conflict.
Unbelievably arrogant to write that rejecting the church is the conclusion that “smart” people come to. I suppose you consider yourself a member of this “loving” and “caring” class of people that trip over themselves to disparage people of faith.
I tend to take Pres. Hinckley at face value when he said “Well, it’s either true or false. If it’s false, we’re engaged in a great fraud. If it’s true, it’s the most important thing in the world. Now, that’s the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true.” I am a lifelong member and have spent many years researching our doctrine and structure as a believer, becoming disaffected when evidence came to show that our church fell solidly on the premise of its claims. I don’t see much wiggle room in terms of a faithful, loose interpretation, but more an orthodoxy of black and white, true or false, revelation or fraud, regardless of how the apologists and liberal believers want to hope for loose interpretation, or obfuscation and watered down bulwark theology.
Probably the most poignant and obvious test of all the orthodox truth claims made by our Mormon church is the Book of Mormon. With this book we are beyond faith, beyond spiritual claims, as this book tells an account that makes truth claims about the natural world, claims that are now under the purview of the scientific method. It shouldn’t be surprising that religious claims about the natural world are almost always shown, by a method that actually gets consistent results (as opposed to the burning bosom method), to be errant. The Book of Mormon is spectacularly disassembled and falsified as not only an incorrect narrative of the history of the Americas, but goes further and perpetuates harmful, immoral ideology of racial purity and cultural imperialism (robbing the Mayan and their ancestors of their heritage, claiming it had to be fair skinned Israelites that built the great civilizations).
The Book of Mormon is the keystone of the religion. If it fails, so does the truth claims of its author. I think it fails. Many members and apologists admit to the lack of evidence, holding on with hope that it may be found in the future. That is another thing, we call ourselves a people of faith? Mormonism is nothing of faith. The opposite of faith is not doubt, doubt has been called the handmaiden of faith. The opposite of faith is knowing with surety. Knowing with surety is the hallmark of my Mormon upbringing, and the “knowing” praise is sung every Sunday I attend church. In fact to say “I believe”, or “I hope the church is true” actually will raise eyebrows. It seems that “faith” is not readily found in our worship.
The whole issue of this podcast and the one before it with Brad Kramer is that those who examine these issues and the evidence critically cannot come to any other conclusions other than what tropical animal articulated. Most have moved on and are asking the questions asked here, and that is “what now”, “what can we do with the positives that are left?
I now you’re holding out hope. But there comes a time to admit that the earth actually does revolve around the sun and move on.
Thank you for your comment. I agree with you totally. After all the discussion and justification; the base question is true or false. Either it is or is not what it claims to be. And like so many after a lifetime of belief, I now stumble back and have to try and find truth on my own.
Your right TJM, it’s hard to be humble when I’m so perfect.
But seriously, as much as I criticize the church, I know the Mormons are THE LOVING PEOPLE and that the Mormon church is made up of SMALL, LOVE-CREATING, LOVE-DRIVEN communities around the World. Indeed, you won’t find a more loving and caring people, anywhere. The SMALL Mormon community activates love. But the Mormon community realizes only a small fraction of it potential,
because I believe they don’t know what they have.
Further I believe the Mormon community model is precious. But this is why it is so frustrating. Because of it’s built-in barriers, it is unworkable for many intellectuals and personality types. It needs to be researched, improved, and the barriers eliminated. Especially, it needs to be opened up to a growing population of increasingly educated, knowledgeable and internet-wise people. This is a trend in all churches. Intellectuals are leaving.
How do you open up the church and remove its barriers?
The Mormon community should become a MULTI-TRACK community. There should be one track for TRADITIONAL BELIEVERS and another track for creative, critical thinkers with a scientific orientation. In these classrooms, free thought, creative thinking and open uncensored dialogue would be encouraged, and in fact, a requirement.
This track should (and I strongly believe this) bring Dehlin’s pod casts into the church. John has developed a very valuable tool that not only provides critical analysis which could help guide the church, but even greater, also helps people deal with serious overwhelming emotional conflict. John’s pod cast style would would be of great benefit to the church in any classroom. These interactive pod casts would make the church intellectually acceptable and emotionally therapeutic.
The main mission, and missionary effort, of the church should not be the controversial Joseph Smith, but should be LOVE. Missionaries hit people over the head with Joseph Smith and get a reaction. “How can I get rid of these nice, but misguided young people.”
But who can argue with love? The litmus test questions? “Do you believe in love?” “Would you enjoy interacting with loving people in a loving community.”
The Mormons have their legendary leaders, their colorful history and the core of a fantastic church. But we are not in the 1800s any more.
THE CHURCH NEEDS TO CHANGE.
If it did, it would have explosive growth, and go viral, not to mention the awesome benefits to members of its loving communities around the world. To list the benefits of the SMALL, LOVING, CARING COMMUNITY would require a large book.
Agnosticism is the only defensible theological position, with what evidence is available.
I have thought a lot about this. Are people who leave the church or see the discrepancies in the church just smarter than the True Believing Mormon? I don’t think so. There are smart people in the church and there are smart people out of the church. There are just as many smart people who are of other faiths and their are other smart people who are Atheist. I think it comes down to peoples experiences and perspective. It is a very hard thing to step out side ones own perspective and view the world from a different angle. Its almost impossible for me who was raised in the church to divorce my self from being a Mormon completely. So my conclusion is there are smart people every where. Its not a matter of IQ or smarts. We are all ignorant to some degree.
J, well stated. I agree.
Even many, if not most, ‘smart’ people don’t want to follow Christ’s teachings. It’s not a matter of IQ, but one of humility or pride. Only truly humble people, smart or not, are willing to follow Christ’s difficult and near impossible commandments.
I don’t know anyone who really follows Christ’s commandments, in or out of the Church, though most think they do.
I don’t believe any of the leaders of the Church, past or present, follow or even believe in Christ either, except maybe Joseph Smith to some degree.
The Church preaches and practices opposite to Christ, in many vital ways. So I believe true followers of Christ would be repulsed with the Church and have nothing to do, despite whatever good it may do or teach. Nor do I believe God or Christ would have any thing to do with an apostate Church that is anti Christ.
Every Church, no matter how apostate, preaches some truth and does some good, that doesn’t make it worth staying a part of. Joseph Smith warned that if we support or follow a false church or prophet then we will lose our salvation. But few seem to compare what their or the Church preaches and practices to what Christ said.
If the Church that Joseph set up was true, which is a big ‘if’, since it appears Joseph had too many weaknesses, bad discernment and false doctrine or false practices, to trust that he was a true prophet, then it went apostate and lost all authority after he died, and Brigham led the members who liked ‘polygamy and blind obedience’ out west, while those apostles & members who remembered & heeded Joseph’s constant warnings against polygamy and followed Christ saw through Brigham and thus weren’t deceived to follow him.
Whether Joseph was a true prophet or not, he and Brigham taught completely different doctrines. Their churches were complete opposites.
LDS who do their homework and study church history and the scriptures, must decide if they are going to follow Christ and his teachings or Brigham and his teachings. For LDS leaders today still teach BY’s teachings, instead of Christ’s or even Joseph’s.
Well, TJM, I think the more unbelievably arrogant part is to claim something “true” without any good evidence to back it up and still stubbornly stick to it. That is dishonesty. So far, you cannot prove Mormonism’s theology true but you can surely prove it is false. Rejecting something that is false “IS” what smart people do. Besides, read before you respond — tropical animal praised the LDS community highly about their beautiful and loving “culture” — there is nothing disparaging about that.
Whatever faith is represented by people that call others “unbelievably arrogant” for expressing their opinion is one I’m not interested in joining.
You don’t see the arrogance of the church and how its stance on many issues takes advantage of its own people? For those of us who have figured that out, we do indeed wonder how plain facts don’t speak for themselves and help “smart” people make it out of the church.
Leaving the church has to do with being able to over come cognitive dissonance. For myself, I had all the facts to get me out of the church. However, the one thing I couldn’t explain for years was the FEELING it was true. Once I realized the church had me manipulated there, too, I was all too willing to leave. Nothing wrong with my IQ, but we are all vulnerable to manipulation. But there are facts out there on how organizations manipulate. Its out there if you look, the facts are there.
A great conversation here, folks. Thank you for sharing your stories again, Jason and Taryn. Far from feeling threatened by your choice to part ways with the Church™ I felt a kinship with articulate fellow travelers blessed by loving hearts. Like all of the Mormon Stories podcast, your stories reaffirm my kinship with our human family. I wish the two of you and John much light.
Your moment of speechless cognitive dissonance, Jason, when you found yourself sitting with the branch president in judgement against LGBT members reminds me of a moment in high priests quorum several years ago. Our ward high council representative got up and cheerfully announced our group was going to volunteer to man the phones in support of Prop 8 in California. I remember thinking Jesus Christ wouldn’t lead his followers into something so hateful and just plain on the wrong side of history. I knew then that I loved Jesus Christ more than I love the cultural baggage being carried by the church that bears his name.
I too have taken medications that has changed my perceptions of what I used to think was the Holy Ghost. I too have wondered why God would create a system of communication that can be broken so easily. Especially when that line of communication is said to be so important.
I used to have wonderfully manifestations of the spirit in my life. I would have promptings by the spirit. The Holy Ghost would tell me things and I would act on them. The medication I take has taken away those “spiritual” experiences. The medication changed my thought process and feelings. I now have to use other means to find evidence for the existence of God. I now use logic in conjunction with my feelings because I have learned that even feelings/Holy Ghost can be manipulated. This is what lead to my rational questioning of what is preached in the church.
I asked my self, Why would God create a fallible way of communicating truth? I emailed my experience and question to a couple of professors in the psychology department at Brigham Young University. One said he is not surprised that drugs/medication can change the feelings we have but did not have an answer for why God would do this. I am glad to hear some one is researching the feelings of “elevation”. I had had the experience but had not been able to find any research on the subject. I have shared my experience with some members of the church and they look at me blank faced and unable to understand. I am great full for this pod cast. I am great full for rational thinking people.
I look at members who believe because of a feeling/Holy Ghost and I feel for them. I used to be in their position. My experience has really opened up my eyes.
It’s almost as if God, if he is real, would want us to use our mind and our heart to know what is true (hmm, that sounds familiar). But so many church members throw the mind out completely when they decide what’s true.
Taryn and others mention a correlation between their spiritual experiences and brain chemistry changed by anti-depressants.
Great observation. You are brilliant.
Research shows a strong linear relationship between low serotonin level and spiritual experiences. This brings up ideas and questions: Missionaries would have greater success, if they would ask their target subject the simple question: Do you tend to be depressed?
Also, if you don’t want to lose the Holy Ghost and your testimony, don’t take anti-depressants. Curiously, women tend to have lower serotonin levels, and also participate in church groups more than men do.
Something more to think about. Utah is the anti-depressant capitol of the World and also ranks highest in teen suicides, all indicative of a low serotonin level. Further research needed.
The Mormon concept of perfection, sends members on a guilt trip and to a lower serotonin level. Great method of control by guilt and brainwashing. And unfortunately, Mormon teenagers take it seriously. They are put on a super anguishing guilt trip when they are told that if they think about sex, look at an image of a naked body, or explore their bodies, they are impure and unworthy, when these are normal and natural things that teens do. Recently, the church keeps coming out with speeches in which they preach that the natural man cannot know, love or relate to God.
What a stupid God. God creates a natural man that can’t relate to him!
I listen and I hear a choice made of two seemingly beautiful people who have thought through all the paths I have also wandered down. I still wander, searching for truth. I am Mormon, that’s what I do. I search. I ask. And I choose belief in God. But I don’t believe this is the one true church, blah, blah, blah. I don’t believe in the literal temple-need for the entire human race, blah, blah, blah. Or that god hates the lgbt community, etc.
But I believe I can live a good life in Mormonism. These are my people. So I stay.
I stay, but I certainly appreciate the thoughts of this articulate, thoughtful couple and the reasons they give for leaving. I guess I am just amazed at how I can stay myself… Just can’t let it go.
It’s like parents who have children and each child experiences similar upbringing, while some thrive and some spend the rest of their lives frustrated at their experience. It just really makes me wonder… For now I stay, searching for truth wherever I can find it, knowing that Mormons certainly don’t have a monopoly on truth. Basically, doubt and I are cozy. And I’m good with that.
Interesting podcast, John. I enjoy hearing people’s journeys–including your own. Many, many thanks.
Jason and Taryn have come to the wrong conclusion. The “Mormon system” is different from all other religions. It is more than dream-based. It is more than faith-based. It is the most logical, sensible, reasonable, scientific, and scriptural religion in the world. The basic foundation of Mormonism is valid along with its doctrine, organization, and ordinances because the basic foundation of Mormonism is the same as the basic foundation of the original church that Christ himself established while he lived upon the Earth. In addition to the valid Mormon foundation and its sense of community, Mormonism embraces the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the blessings of direct communication with God.
It is just as easy for an honest, smart and loving person to live in the Mormon community as it was for an honest, smart, and loving person to live in the community of the church Christ established in the Meridian of Time which has now been restored in our day through a living prophet of God. The Mormon Church does not put barriers to living in it any more than the Church of Christ did at the time he set it up. The Church of Jesus Christ today has the same valid theological framework, the same types of hoops to jump through, the same types of personal litmus tests that Christ originally laid down for entrance into the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom of Heaven.
There is also a place in the Mormon Community for those who like the social, cultural, and sense of community aspects of the Church but don’t like hoops to jump through or so-called barriers to cross. These are they who want the Church to focus on the no-hoops-required Terrestrial Kingdom of Heaven rather than on the Celestial Kingdom of Heaven. It’s their choice, and we should love and accept them no matter what they decide. But we should hope that those in the upper hierarchy will continue to understand the difference between a Terrestrial church and a Celestial church and not surrender to the pressures of political correctness and the “philosophies of men.” In the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom of Heaven we can receive a fullness of all that our Heavenly Parents have in store for us and our loved ones on condition we strive to keep the commandments, endure to the end, pass the tests, and jump through the hoops that some good, smart, loving people consider too onerous.
There is not enough information in the New Testament to figure out what the ancient Church looked like. There simply isn’t enough information. What we think we know about the ancient Church we know through what we call modern-day revelation. However, we can’t be sure if our “modern revelation” is correct because the New Testament is so short on content about the makeup of the Church.
Another conundrum: Joseph Smith organized a group of men called the Council of Fifty. It was rather significant, because at one time, he turned the power of running the Church over to them if he passed away. Of course, we all know what came of that, but…
Anyway. This Council of Fifty, where is it today? We don’t have one. If the Restored Church looks just like Ancient Church, do we or do we not need a Council of Fifty? It’s absence now draws suspicions about whether it was essential then. And it presence back then makes us wonder where it is today.
There are just too many problems with this notion that the Restored Church is patterned after the Ancient Church.
Where do we read in the New Testament about the “same valid theological framework, the same types of hoops to jump through, the same types of personal litmus tests that Christ originally laid down for entrance into the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom of Heaven.” Where do we find this information? Where do we read Christ saying that one must pay 10% of their gross income to enter a temple to receive ordinances essential for salvation in the Kingdom of God? Even the Book of Mormon is strangely silent about post-Law of Moses temple ceremonies. In fact, in the Book of Mormon Christ says in 3 Nephi 11 that the kingdom of God in inherited by believing, repenting, and being baptized, and anything MORE OR LESS than this is not of Him. And in 2 Nephi, he says salvation is given free. It is free! If we believe on his name.
And as far as this idea about Celestial Churches and Terrestrial Churches – we gave up the Celestial Church when we proved incapable of practicing the Law of Consecration, or the United Order. That is the Celestial Law, and we aren’t even trying anymore.
There is enough information in the New Testament to know basically what the doctrines, organization, and ordinances of the ancient Church looked like. Take for example church organization: Apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, high priests, seventies, elders, bishops, priests, teachers, and deacons. The New Testament mentions them all, but we know more about them from modern revelation.
The restored Church today may not “look just like” the ancient Church but it is far, far closer than any other church on the face of the earth. We shouldn’t expect perfectly exact correspondence in every detail because times are different and the Lord commands and revokes “as it seemeth him good.” “Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good” (D&C 56:4).
It is true that the Church today has same valid theological framework as the ancient Church. The doctrines taught by the restored church are the same or similar to the doctrines taught at the time of Christ on Earth. (See Volume 1: “The Everlasting Gospel” of “1000 EVIDENCES for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” Allen H. Richardson, et, al., Artisan Enterprises, allenartisan.richardson@gmail.com)
Note the word “types” in the sentence: “…the same TYPES of hoops to jump through, the same TYPES of personal litmus tests that Christ originally laid down for entrance into the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom of Heaven.” (Emphasis added) Each question of the temple recommend interview can be tied in with a TYPE of counsel or instruction given by Christ in both ancient and modern scriptures. You mentioned tithing.
There is no requirement to pay 10% of our gross income to enter a temple. The requirement is to pay 10% of INTEREST annually. “And after that, those who have been thus tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord” (D&C 119:4). (Interest is different from gross income.) See also https://www.i4m.com/think/intro/mormon-tithing.htm. Payment of tithes is a TYPE of requirement similar to Jesus’ reference to the widow’s mite and Jesus telling the rich young man to sell all that he possessed and follow him in order to be saved. Other New Testament statements and parables including the parable of the talents could also be tied in as a “type.” Finally, Jesus did not revoke the command to pay tithing as recorded in Malachi 3:10.
It should not be surprising that the Book of Mormon does not go into detail about the “post-Law of Moses temple ceremonies.” The Book of Mormon is an ABRIDGMENT of other records. The other records probably did contain that detail. The Lord doubtless had his reasons (we can postulate some) for not instructing Mormon to include that detail in the Book of Mormon.
In 3 Nephi 11, Christ says “that the kingdom of God in inherited by believing, repenting, and being baptized, and anything more or less than this is not of Him.” If we truly believe in Christ, we will keep his commandments and strive to do his will which includes implementing his recommendations. He recommends the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. Salvation in general is free to all in the sense that all will be resurrected. Also salvation in the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms of Heaven is in a sense free (no hoops required) to all who believe but perform little or no good works (e.g. tithing, temple work, service to fellow men and women). However, exaltation in the highest kingdom of Heaven requires some good works of the type that some are reluctant to do: “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:20). That scripture indicates that unless works are involved somehow, a person doesn’t truly believe or have faith and therefore is not a candidate for exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom of Heaven.
In the temple, we covenant to accept the Law of Consecration and that we will practice it if commanded. Again, the Lord commands and revokes certain practices as it seemeth him good. So far, the actual, literal practice of the Law of Consecration is not commanded. Tithing is its substitute, and covers our promise to obey the Law of Consecration—another reason why tithing is required for exaltation. Tithing funds are used “that there may be meat in mine house” (Malachi 3:10) to help the poor and the needy, to build up the Kingdom of God on Earth.
@whynot I am glad you know the Mormon doctrine. What has been spoon fed to us. But what do you know and how do you know it? Do you distinguish a difference between knowing and believing? I can see you believe what you say but I am afraid to inform you that you don’t know it. So, You think because the church to day kind of looks like the church Jesus set up then that makes it true. Do you have any better evidence to prove your statement of authenticity for the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints?
also, I gave you a why not reason in my post about the Holy Ghost but you did not respond.
People who laugh at the testimonies, doctrines, practices, and positive interpretations of scripture and Church history should keep in mind the scripture: “Fools mock but they shall morn.”
I understand why you don’t feel that “there isn’t direct communication with God when using the Holy Ghost.” That is one opinion which you and Taryn have clearly explained. However, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of others living and dead hold a different view. They testify that the prophets of God of the past, present, and future not only have had, have now, and will have direct communication with God through inspiration of the Holy Ghost but also through personal appearances, visions, dreams, and voices from God, Christ, and his heavenly messengers.
We have not been spoon fed. We have feasted at the table of the Lord. You asked how we can know it is true. One way to know is by striving to do God’s will. “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17).
You said, “Do you have any better evidence to prove your statement of authenticity for the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints?” In addition to the best evidence which is personal revelation, here is further evidence:
“1000 EVIDENCES for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” Allen H. Richardson, M.Ed, David E. Richardson, Ph.D., Artisan Enterprises, 10787 S. Coral Dune Dr. (3970West), South Jordan, Utah, 84095, 801-446-2392, allenartisan.richardson@gmail.com
Volume 1: “The Everlasting Gospel”
(500 Evidences are presented in the following chapters:)
The Greatest Evidence
Evidences from the Prophecies of Church Leaders
Evidences Concerning the prophet Joseph Smith
Evidences Concerning the Pearl of Great Price (including Book of Abraham)
“By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them”
Doctrines and Ordinances of the Church
Organization of the Church
Miracles in the Church
Evidences Concerning the Temples of the Church
Volume 2: “Voice from the Dust:”
(500 Evidences are presented in the following chapters:)
Witnesses of the Book of Mormon
Another Testament of Jesus Christ
Book of Mormon Prophecy
Book of Mormon Geography
Book of Mormon Culture
Names used in the Book of Mormon
Book of Mormon Literacy
Ancient American Science
Warfare in the Book of Mormon
@whynot I was not mocking you. I was laughing because I thought there cant be a person out there who is this gullible posting on this site. I thought your post was a person joking at first. It was funny. But then I realized there really is some one like you posting on this site. Then my laughter turned to sorrow.
I do live Gods will according to the way the Mormon church says to. I pay a full tithe with fast offerings. I do my home teaching. I served a mission. I accept and hold a church calling. I attend more than three hours of church services a week. I have a temple recommend. I pray daily. I hold family home evening with my family each week. I don’t smoke, I don’t drink and I don’t look at pornography. And yet I do even more. But still because of my experiences the Church of Jesus Christ still fails to prove its validity. What more are you saying I have to do?
Just because millions of people believe one way does not make it true. There are more Muslims than Mormons by a long shot. Are you saying their religion is true because of the millions of them who profess it to be true?
You say personal revelation is the best evidence. But I have just shared with you how your personal method of receiving revelation is flawed. You don’t know it because you have never had the experience of seeing it from a different perspective. I used to believe just as you do. I used to believe the Holy Ghost was personal revelation. The Holy Ghost told me it was true. I know now that our feelings and the Holy Ghost are not infallible.
Why Not,
I believe that you have not studied or understand the teachings of Christ if you believe the Church teaches his same doctrines.
The LDS Church is one of the most ‘un’christlike churches I know of. Almost any other Christian church is a closer relica of Christ’s original church then the LDS Church is.
Just because the ‘structure’ may be similar doesn’t mean the doctrine and practices are, or that the leaders are even ‘true prophets and apostles.
Anyone can start a church or continue a break off branch (like Brigham did w/o authority) and call themselves prophets & apostles, etc.
But Christ warned us how to tell true prophets & apostles from false ones and clearly the ones in the Church, past & present, are completely false and don’t even believe in Christ, let alone follow him or have Charity, which is the hallmark of a true prophet or follower of Christ.
I thought this post was parody for a moment….and then “why not” hit the gas pedal. Brainwashing at it’s best.
You are absolutely right, the LDS church is a universe away from what Christ did (that is if you would even consider that Jesus intended an institutional church! Some would consider that such things didn’t even exist back then). Mormonism in 2014 is totally different from the church in 1835 or 1840 or 1900. I was baptised in 1975 when I was 8. I would suggest that the church was different back then. Whatever else you might call it, the church today is not a ‘restoration’ of anything that went before. If I was lucky enough to get a hold of the carcass of a Classic Silver Ghost Rolls Royce and some components, I might wish to embark on a restoration project. But if I then rip away those aspects that make it a Rolls Royce and add other things like monster truck wheels, super duper, chrome exhausts, a huge flame icon along the side, then whatever else I have, it isn’t a restoration,
@WhyNot I have to apologize because I laughed at your comment. I thought you where making a joke. I stopped laughing after reading the entire thing and realized you are serous.
You made the comment “Mormonism embraces the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the blessings of direct communication with God.” Both I in my post and Taryn in the pod cast have shared with you how there isn’t direct communication with God when using the Holy Ghost. Are you saying the prophet today receives communication in some other way?
I thought you must have been at least a hairbreadth away from mocking because you didn’t seem to be aware that most devout members of the Church feel the same way I do—that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the most logical, sensible, reasonable, scientific, and scriptural religion in the world and that the basic foundation of Mormonism is the same as the basic foundation of the original church that Christ himself established while he lived upon the Earth. A further shock was to read that you feel sorry for people who have the same conviction I described. Surely you ought to rejoice for them and wish that you will feel the same way someday.
I admire you for staying faithful to the Church in all the ways you mentioned despite the suffering which your family has been called upon to endure. You asked, “What more are you saying I have to do?” That is a hard question to answer. But could an analogy be made with the following Bible incident: “And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? …if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions” (Matt. 19:16-22). What if the possessions which the Lord asks us to give up are our criticisms and objections of the true church of Jesus Christ including the way the Holy Ghost operates and the way the Lord sometimes asks us or allows us to suffer:
“… we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things” (13th Article of Faith). “…willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father” (Mosiah 3:19). “For after much tribulation come the blessings. Wherefore the day cometh that ye shall be crowned with much glory…” (D&C 58:4).
@whynot I have felt the joy the church brings. Ignorance is bliss. I was blissful in my ignorance. The church and its doctrine gave me warm fuzzys all over. I don’t doubt it does that for you. Some one once said religion is the opiate for the masses. The church is an opiate. Part of me has wanted to go back to that blissful state. I can not lie. But like a child I have had to grow and mature.
You say my family has had to endure suffering? You don’t know any thing about my family. Unless I know you from some where. Do I? Because of my experiences I am a better father, better husband and better son. I love my family and they love me. There is no suffering because of my views of the church.
Your story of the rich young ruler does not apply in this situation. I have done all that the church has asked of me and still I stick around. The young ruler went away sorrowful. I am not sorrowful. I have great joy in life. I see things so much clearer than I did when I was TBM. I have a greater appreciation for this life. I no longer live my life expecting the reward in the life after. I value friend ships and relation ships more deeply because I have a realistic view of death. I value this world knowing its the only one we have and its not going to be turned into some celestial sphere some day. We need to take care of the earth. I love nature. I love science. I love discovery. I value others religions and traditions. I still value much about the Mormon faith. Its a beautiful faith to me. I also value Muslims, Buddhists, Jews and Atheists. Now is the time to live. But yet the story is about the Savior and not the church. I love the Savior. I value the teachings of Jesus Christ. Your analogy doesn’t work.
I endure much. I endure going to church and listening to the kind of stuff you believe preached as truth. I feel for members. That’s why your post became very serious to me once I realized you where not joking. That is why I apologized.I hope for many things. I hope for my TBM friends to stop living in the box they live in and see the church for what it is and what it is not. I hope for there to be understanding and compassion for those who do not all believe the same way. My heart goes out to you now that I know where your coming from.
Big J…extremely well put. When my wife and I realized the “untruthfulness” of the LDS faith, we couldn’t run away fast enough. We were very active for 40 years. We sacrificed so much for “the only true church”.
We grew up ignorantly bliss with a gratefulness that we were so worthy in the pre-existence that we got to be born into loving LDS families, ringing in the second coming of Christ.
In some ways, I admire members who realize what the church is really about and continue to stay in spite of it. I hope that you can be a force for change within the organization. It’s the attitudes of people like WhyNot that are so stifling.
When we realized the church is falsifying doctrine, outright lying, and omitting dirty truths, we could not stand to listen to the falsehoods and ignorance being preach every Sunday. It’s hard for me to understand why anyone who knows the truth remains associated with the organization.
Why continue to put up with judgmentalism, bigotry, misogyny, totalitarianism, etc? For those of you who stay because you can’t let go for your specific reason, PLEASE be a means for change. I have too many family members who could be posting as WhyNot. :(
Great experiences and thoughts —— Thanks for Sharing! Really enjoyed hearing about the “elevation experience” (why we have strong feelings about certain things). I totally agree you should not rely on feelings when it comes to truth —– no where in the bible it says to trust your feelings. Totally agree many organizations teach what appears to be “loving/good” things but the orgs never quite live up to what they teach and actually do much harm (your example of the church is a great example). Enjoyed your experiences and insights but feel bad you have thrown out God because of your experience with a church that thrives on lies. I don’t think you discussed why you threw out God. I certainly did not find him in organized religion even though many of their teachings are good and worth considering in establishing a personal relationship with God. That is one good thing LDS inc. did for me —– I think, got me concerned with my relationship/communication with God. I just can’t imagine you never had ‘spiritual experiences'(not necessarily feelings — answers to prayers, peace, insights, knowledge, protection, voices, documented support, etc.) working in the church/raising your family, even though lds inc. or any church should not be given total credit for your attempt to get a personal relationship with God. I left the church based on an answer to a prayer and only confirm that answer as I study and learn more —– obviously I cannot prove there is a God but my numerous experiences are either coincidental or from God or somehow from a marvelous brain I am able to tap into by using prayer. If you would respond to the question — Didn’t you have any ‘spiritual experiences’ if so where did they come from? I would really appreciate it as maybe my numerous experiences are unique —– I only heard a few people in my 40+ years in the church with what appeared to be numerous ‘spiritual experiences’ except people in Bishoprics in getting answers to who to call to certain positions.
I heard her share in the first half of podcast that she did have a spiritual experience where god told her to go back to the mormon church. She says she later reolized it was this elevation feeling she had and not god. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Stormin, thanks for your comment. I think, however, that I addressed my loss of faith in God pretty thoroughly in the podcast. My belief in God was never dependent on my beliefs about or relationship with the Church – in fact, I only rejoined the Church because I believed firmly that God wished me to do so.
I ceased to believe in God because I had no evidence for such a being, or at least no evidence I could consider reliable. I spent my childhood and adolescence attempting to believe in God, but never had any sort of spiritual witness except during severe depressive episodes. When I was in my mid-20s I was born again during such a serious depressive episode. Then I began to take a first-generation SSRI to treat insomnia. After I began the medicine, I was for the first time awash in exactly the sort of spiritual witness I had always heard about from others; not delusional, but powerful. When my meds changed, though, my experience of the holy spirit always changed drastically. One change led to revelation by the still small voice, for instance, and the change to my current medication led to complete silence. If I stop my meds, I have the occasional and powerful experiences I had before my meds. Notably, I always have them in circumstances which correspond to laboratory conditions which induce elevation. While this does not disconfirm God or the holy spirit, it does indicate that the experiences I took to be witnesses of the divine are easily manipulated by both social stimuli and material alterations to my brain. At the very least, such witnesses are therefore unreliable as evidence for anything supernatural. The truth claims of scripture are tautological without supernatural evidence such as that which I have come to condsider invalid. I cannot justify a belief in God based entirely in a desire to believe, which is what I would have had left had I not realized that I am in fact happier as an athiest. Frankly, I’ve found that loss of belief isn’t really such a loss at all. I have to admit this came as a shock to me; I do understand how horrible it must seem to you, and so I understand your worries.
I should note, by the way, that I’m taking antidepressants, and I am not now and never have been psychotic. No hallucinations, no delusions, nothing. I strongly suspect that depressive episodes and different medications allow me different access to a small but normal range of human neurological experiences which I generally don’t get otherwise. I don’t think that people who experience the holy spirit or revelation are mentally ill; just mistaken about the value of such experiences as evidence.
Thanks for your answer —- I think I got it. Maybe I am just different and had significantly more spiritual experiences (not related to the elevation feeling) than others, I guess I realized this to some extent previously when teaching in lds inc. asking for ‘spiritual experiences’ in certain areas and just blank stares or someone would usually bring up “some experiences are so personal/sacred” (in other words we haven’t had any in any area) it would be inappropriate to tell everyone. Even though now I realize my experiences had everything to do with faith and nothing to do with lds inc., My spiritual experiences are the main thing that kept me in the church —– then when I found something I finally HAD to question concerning the truthfulness of the church/policies — brought me out of the church. I know my TBM wife has had them as well as TBM past friends that didn’t involve “just a feeling” but pretty miraculous —- at the time I just assumed active people had them just didn’t feel like sharing them often because I didn’t share all my experiences in teaching/testimonies.
Stormin, I feel as though you’re minimizing my experiences, though I understand the impulse. I didn’t just have a feeling, I had a rock-hard conviction burned on my soul like fire. And then I didn’t. You’re right, though, that you may have very different experiences than my own. It’s one of my great frustrations that we can never truly understand exactly what other people are feeling :).
Sorry if I appear to minimize anyone’s experiences I really don’t want to do that. However, because you and others bring up the insignificance of having a “feeling” experience alone (which could be caused by drugs or normal hormonal functions which I totally agree with by the way) I need to ask additional clarifying questions. Therefore, “conviction burned on my soul like fire” sounds to me like a feeling or was that a metaphysical change in your mind? Finally, just to make it clear, you or your husband have never had —– voices to your mind warning you of danger or instructing you, revelations/dream-like communications, an answer coming into your mind after praying that you never considered, a born again type experience where your whole outlook on life and the way you look at Gods creations change immediately (normally accompanied by strong feelings so maybe not a good example) and without specifically looking for found a specific website or book/documentation that answered a question you recently prayed about? That is the type of ‘non feeling’ experiences I wonder if you/husband or someone like the TBM “Whynot” ever had that to me somewhat validates a relationship with God or with some higher power (maybe subconscious brain that we are not consciously aware of).
@stormin These non feeling experiences you say you have. I have had them too. I have heard a small voice in my head from time to time. I have also prayed and given blessings and had thoughts come to my mind that I other wise would not have. Some of these experiences have changed my outlook on life. Those are still internal experiences and does not prove to me they are from God. Those thoughts and ideas can come from any number of neurological chemicals with in the brain.
Stormn, as I said above, I was born again. I was a new person in Christ. Think Evangelical christianity kind of born again, with all that implies. I didn’t expect it. I asked for it, yes, bit I didn’t expect it. Years later I read C.S. Lewis’ conversion account; my own was very similar in consequence if not in precursor. “Metaphysical change of mind,” while painfully vague, does capture it. (How else can we describe it except vaguely?) I was different, the world was different, and God and Christ were real.
Jay and I have both experienced exactly the kinds of revelation you discuss, yes. Voices, answers, unexpected revelations in dreams. If you listened to our old interview, you’ll have heard about some of that. Unfortuately, I have since learned that some of these things can be induced experimentally, and the interpretation of others as divine communication seems to be culturally dependent. I no longer trust my own early interpretations of these things.
When you say not-a-feeling, I think you may be defining feelings more narrowly than I do? We live in a culture which tends to view feeling and thought as two separate things. However, a good deal of our cognition actually is emotion – just not an easily named emotion like happy, or sad, or angry, or afraid.
Taryn, I am sure you are very sincere in your beliefs and truly believe you have been born again, but you realize don’t you that there are people in every religion that have the same conviction and feelings and spiritual experiences that you claim, thus they believe their religion/church is right, despite how contrary it may be to the Gospel.
I have found the Holy Ghost conveys ‘truth & knowledge’ much more or maybe even instead of ‘feelings or burnings, etc.’ We can thus prove whether that truth is correct by comparing what the Spirit teaches us to what Christ taught, while there is no way to ‘prove’ or be sure that our feelings or burnings have really come from the right source, thus why everyone is at times easily deceived by ‘feelings, etc.’ even prophets are too, for they feel so right and strong and good, yet that is something Satan or even our own mind can cause us to feel or experience also, so we never know for sure.
Thus I believe we should only base our actions and beliefs and support of a church or person or principle on pure knowledge, not any type of feeling, burning or even vision, dream or visitation by an angel or so called Christ. For they can all easily be from the wrong source and deceive us.
Only pure knowledge can be tested and proven, that is why we are commanded to ‘prove all things’ before believing or putting faith in someone or something.
I also don’t understand how a person can be truly ‘born again’ and then support the LDS Church, which is anti Christ and preaches and practices so completely contrary to his teachings? Yes the Church teaches & does some good things, but the bad far out weighs the good, and destroys families/marriages in the process, while leading people totally astray to believe in and support falsehoods and false prophets and their evils.
Joseph Smith said we will lose our salvation if we follow men who teach contrary to Christ and the scriptures, like the LDS Church & leaders do.
I believe we must only follow Christ and his words if we want to be considered true followers of Christ and truly born again.
Lilli, thanks for your questions. I believe that if you listen to my original interview before listening to the second one, you’ll find I pretty much covered these things already. If you’re wanting a doctrinal debate, you’ll find I’m not a good opponent, as I’m no longer a Christian of any variety. In any case, I’d never have been able to defend the parts of Mormonism to which you refer, as I never held those positions. Sorry.
Thanks Taryn,
I love Sam Harris’ contribution about the biology of the brain, and how our basic personalities are influenced so much by the basics of its physiology. There is very precise mapping of the brain with distinct sections that light up with our experiences, including the experiences of religion/spiritual/faith. There are many psychotropic drugs that tend to light these same areas as well. I researched people who have had a “DMT” (dimethyltryptamine) drug trip. It has profound similarities to many near death experiences, including the latest and famous one by the “Proof of heaven” guy, Eben Alexander.
I say this because as I listened to your experience, some of the reasons I understood maybe why you may have left the church were because of personal, human experiences, like how those in the Sunday school may have mistreated or mishandled your child, or how there may not have been empathy towards yours or your child’s condition.
I think there are many valid reasons (obviously) to leave the church. I think leaving the church because of messiness of working with groups of people is probably one of the lesser valid reasons to leave. What would you say was your balance between the personal and the empirical reasons for eventually leaving (this time) the church?
Rude Dog, I had ceased to believe. Otherwise, I’d have gone to the teachers and if necessary the bishop with my concerns about the nursery, or we’d have just skipped out after Sacrament. I didn’t leave because of mistreatment, but because of my reassessment of the community.
It was so refreshing to hear a thoughtful couple express why they feel they can’t stay in the church. I’ve been struggling with staying or going, so I’ve been listening to some of your past podcasts about why people who know the history choose to stay. While the podcasts have been fascinating, I don’t understand that path. It doesn’t feel honest to me. Before I knew more about church history I could put up with the social issues in the church, I could even be comfortable with the role of being the good example of the liberal, believing mormon. But, now that I know more about how the founding stories aren’t real, I no longer see the point of putting up with the cultural crud anymore.
Choosing to leave is the hardest thing I’ve ever even thought about doing. I hope my experience will be like taryn’s in that the cliff really does turn into a hill upon actually living through the experience. I was truly inspired to hear from a couple that is showing their integrity with their words and actions. I look forward to hearing your conversation with brad Kramer!
Sorry, I meant to say your conversation with Jason, Taryn, and Brad Kramer. :)
Let’s see now. Where’s that temple list? Only 6,999,999,000 people to go. Oh and yes, how about the Neanderthals, do we need to baptize them,too? We need to dust off that hat and seer stone, go to a few more Free Masonry meetings and come up with a better system. Though you could’t come up with a better system for making money. The temple is a terrific business, in fact, the best moneymaker the church has. Even better than the Roman Catholic business in the “sale of indulgences” during Martin Luther’s time. If you can make people
believe it. “Your money or your life.” “Your money or your children.” Wow. Could brain-washing get any stronger than this. Could anything be more cruel!
And how do you prove this stuff. Oh yes, “the burning in the breast.” But your saying why didn’t I get this feeling? Perhaps, you have never heard of “self-suggestion.”
After Joseph is convicted of taking people’s money for using his hat and seer stone to find hidden treasures. (Joseph never finds any hidden treasure) but no problem, he goes from finding hidden treasures to finding hidden “golden plates,” which are conveniently buried within walking distance from the family farm. Joseph never finds any hidden treasures from putting his head in a hat, but he “translates” the Book of Mormon this way. Interestingly enough, Joseph “translates” “golden plates” without ever looking at the so-called “golden plates,” whatever they are, which at one time are even hidden out in the woods, while Joseph is inside his step-father’s house with his head in the hat translating them. Curiously too, Joseph stages the “witnesses” (mainly the Smith and Whitmer family)
to “golden plates” which are never used in the production of the Book of Mormon. Moreover, Joseph himself, writes up what the witnesses, witness, some of the stuff, they couldn’t possibly have witnessed, in the same stylized language that Joseph uses in his production of the Book of Mormon. But anyway, witnessing “plates” that have nothing to do with the production of the Book of Mormon, does nothing for proving the Book of Mormon.
The words of “tropical animal” sound like the words of a typical character assassin. That same perverse approach has been used on other great persons of history including Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Mother Teresa, and Jesus Christ himself, the most perfect person who ever lived on Earth. Hopefully “tropical animal” is quoting someone else, not reflecting his own views. Here’s a specific response to tropical animal’s (TA) quotations:
TA: Let’s see now. Where’s that temple list? Only 6,999,999,000 people to go. WHYNOT (WhyNot): Not to worry. There will plenty of time during the Millennium, especially considering that the baptisms would be performed only for those who accept the gospel of Jesus Christ and chose the Celestial Kingdom rather than the Terrestrial which is much closer to the Catholic/Protestant view of Heaven. TA: Oh and yes, how about the Neanderthals, do we need to baptize them,too? WHYNOT: Only those who accept the gospel of Jesus Christ and choose the Celestial Kingdom. TA: We need to dust off that hat and seer stone, WHYNOT: Not necessary. Again there’s the Millennium to take care of this crucial ordinance for exaltation. Also if “tropical animal” overcomes his rebellion and is given a white stone, he should make sure he never puts it in a hat or he will be subject to ridicule. “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it” (Rev. 2:17).
TA: go to a few more Free Masonry meetings WHYNOT: Freemasonry and Mormonism are co-witnesses to certain truths they both possess—one by tradition and the other by revelation. TA: and come up with a better system. WHYNOT: There has never been and never will be a better system than the true Church of Jesus Christ. TA: Though you couldn’t come up with a better system for making money. WHYNOT: You couldn’t come up with a better system for helping the poor and helping to build up the Kingdom of God on Earth. TA: The temple is a terrific business, WHYNOT: The temple is a terrific sacred institution for helping people reach exaltation in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom of Heaven. TA: in fact, the best moneymaker the church has. WHYNOT: In fact, he temple is the most sacred institution the Lord has for and helps encourage people to pay their tithes and offerings to assist the poor and the needy and build up the Kingdom of God on Earth and for blessing the tithe payers themselves: “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the LORD of hosts” (Malachi 3:10-11).
TA: Even better than the Roman Catholic business in the “sale of indulgences” during Martin Luther’s time. WHYNOT: The sale of indulgences was for an entirely different purpose than doing temple work for the living and the dead. It is bearing false witness to accuse God and Christian churches of using tithes and offerings for any purpose other than to bless the lives of all people on Earth and in he Spirit World. TA: If you can make people believe it. “Your money or your life.” “Your money or your children.” WHYNOT: There you go again, bearing false witness if you relate those threats to Jesus Christ and his sacred temple work. TA: Wow. Could brain-washing get any stronger than this. WHYNOT: Wow, could bearing false witnes get any worse than what you just said? Teaching the importance of tithes and offerings to help the poor and the needy and to make all people happier is not brainwashing. It is helping God to bring to pass the glory and eternal life of men and women. TA: Could anything be more cruel! WHYNOT: Could anything be more cruel than pulling people away from the health and happiness they could have by following the teachings of Christ and keeping his commandments? Teaching the importance of tithes and offerings to help the poor and the needy and to make all people happier is the opposite of cruel—it is love, compassion, kindness, charity.
TA: And how do you prove this stuff. Oh yes, “the burning in the breast.” WHYNOT: The correct terminology is “burning in the bosom.” That is one of several ways that the Lord uses to reveal information. Some people like to mock each way the Lord uses. “Fools mock but they shall mourn.” TA: But your saying why didn’t I get this feeling? Perhaps, you have never heard of “self-suggestion.” WHYNOT: The fact that self-suggestion exists doesn’t preclude or prevent the Lord from using any one of several methods of revealing information.
TA: After Joseph is convicted of taking people’s money for using his hat and seer stone to find hidden treasures. WHYNOT: “There is disagreement regarding certain details of the 1826 court case involving Joseph’s use of the seer stone to find treasure. It is unclear who brought the charges, whether or not Joseph was actually convicted.” TA: (Joseph never finds any hidden treasure) but no problem, he goes from finding hidden treasures to finding hidden “golden plates,” WHYNOT: The Lord would have directed Joseph Smith to find and translate the golden plates no matter what his background might have been. TA: which are conveniently buried within walking distance from the family farm. WHYNOT: Mt. Sinai was within walking distance from the tent of Moses.
TA: Joseph never finds any hidden treasures from putting his head in a hat, but he “translates” the Book of Mormon this way. WHYNOT: He translated the Book of Mormon using three methods: (1) Urim and Thummim (two seer stones in a breastplate). (2) A single seer stone. (3) Pure revelation. TA: Interestingly enough, Joseph “translates” “golden plates” without ever looking at the so-called “golden plates,” WHYNOT: How do you know he didn’t? He would have looked at them sometimes, especially when receiving translation by direct revelation. Having the golden plates at his side or in the room or in the house would have helped him tune in and be more receptive to translation revelations. TA: whatever they are, WHYNOT: They are at least an alloy containing gold, giving the plates a golden appearance. TA: which at one time are even hidden out in the woods, WHYNOT: That fact makes the existence of golden plates even more credible, along with the fact that robbers tried to get them. TA: while Joseph is inside his step-father’s house with his head in the hat translating them. WHYNOT: You are relying on a suspicious source, Joseph’s antagonistic father-in-law, Isaac Hale. He’s the only one who made that spurious claim.
TA: Curiously too, Joseph stages the “witnesses” (mainly the Smith and Whitmer family) to “golden plates” WHYNOT: Those witnesses were not more staged than the witnesses of Christ’s resurrection recorded in the Bible. TA: “golden plates which are never used in the production of the Book of Mormon. WHYNOT: How do you know? On many occasions, he could have been looking at the plates while the translation was being revealed to him. Of course having the plates present is not an absolute requirement. God can still reveal translations without external devices such as seer stones or Urim or Thummim. TA: Moreover, Joseph himself, writes up what the witnesses, witness, some of the stuff, they couldn’t possibly have witnessed, in the same stylized language that Joseph uses in his production of the Book of Mormon. WHYNOT: It is possible that Joseph Smith recorded what the witnesses claimed, but it is far more likely that the witnesses wrote their testimonies themselves and agreed on the final wording. Claiming Joseph Smith wrote the witness testimonies is like claiming that someone else wrote the witness testimonies of Christ’s resurrection.
TA: But anyway, witnessing “plates” that have nothing to do with the production of the Book of Mormon, does nothing for proving the Book of Mormon. WHYNOT: Witnessing the plates has everything to do with establishing the authenticity; of the Book of Mormon and helps prove that the Book of Mormon is true.
@whynot Your preaching to what once was the choir. Speaking for my self. I am aware of all the arguments you give. I used to spew the same rhetoric your preaching now. I am able to see it from your side. I was once there. You fail to be able to see it from another persons perspective. You don’t have the life experiences that allow you to see the story from a different view.
Thanks Why Not, for reading my post. You outlined it quite well. Love you, my friend, but can’t find real provable evidence for all the assertions you made.
All witnesses, with no exceptions, who observed Joseph “translate” including his wife, Emma, say he NEVER looked at the “plates,” whatever they were, while “translating.”
Putting his face in a hat seems like a strange method of translating. Have you ever heard of anyone translating this way? Neither have I.
And why?
Because putting his face in a hat is NOT a method of translating.
So what is Joseph doing then when he puts his face in a hat and dictates?
He is NOT “translating.”
Joseph’s face-in-the-hat technique is, without the slightest doubt, a method for inducing a trance state, or a state of self-hypnosis.
An expert in trance states and self-induced trance states, having studied it, researched it and conducted experiments similar to this, for over thirty years, there is not the slightest doubt that Joseph’s face-in-the-hat technique is a self-induced trance state. Could write a book on this.
In fact, have a book in the first draft. Anybody out there want to help me finish it?
Producing written material during a trance state experience is not unusual. Ellen White, prophetess and co-founder of the Adventist religion, almost contemporary with Joseph Smith, dictated trance-produced written material, in fact, more pages than Joseph Smith. Her material is basic to the Seventh Day Adventist church, a church that has grown as large and as fast as Mormonism. There are many other examples.
Trance produced material is sometimes deceptive to the subject who produces it. Because the brain, during the trance state, is responding just like it would if it were an external real-world experience. (When I coach someone who wants to have these kinds of experiences, I tell them about this possible self-deception.) Thus, I think that Joseph, responding like the usual trance-state subject, actually believed he was “translating” by the power of God, which would also make him believe that he was a “prophet.”
Though, he would have to know that some of his behavior was deceptive, like putting a layer of coins on top of buckets of rocks to make inventors believe the failed Kirtland Safety Society was back by hard currency.
Curiously, Joseph has witnesses, witnessing “plates” which have nothing to do with the actual process of producing the Book of Mormon. The so-called plates, were only used as a prop or gimmick and were essential to his original story, but had nothing to do with the production of the Book of Mormon.
Why Not, most of us have been where you are now. And eventually, I think if you research further, you will free yourself. And I say this with an attitude of caring.
TA; Thanks Why Not, for reading my post. You outlined it quite well. Love you, my friend, WHYNOT: Thanks for the nice introduction. Credibility is always suspect when a critic resorts to harsh, ridiculing language. TA: but can’t find real provable evidence for all the assertions you made. WHYNOT: For real provable evidence see Volume 1 (“The Everlasting Gospel”) and Volume 2 (“Voice from the Dust”) of “1000 EVIDENCES for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” Allen H. Richardson, M.Ed, David E. Richardson, Ph.D., Artisan Enterprises, 10787 S. Coral Dune Dr. (3970West), South Jordan, Utah, 84095, 801-446-2392, allenartisan.richardson@gmail.com.
TA: All witnesses, with no exceptions, who observed Joseph “translate” including his wife, Emma, say he NEVER looked at the “plates,” whatever they were, while “translating.” WHYNOT: The witnesses, including Emma, didn’t use the word “never” in this context. Emma only said the plates were covered while she was present during translation. What difference would it make anyway if the plates were covered or uncovered especially during the times Joseph was translating using the Urim and Thummim or the seer stone? The plates would probably have been uncovered sometimes when Joseph was translating by pure revelation. Even then the plates did not have to be uncovered or even in the same room.
WHYNOT: Also it is possible that Joseph received the translation while studying the plates with no scribe present, then dictated that translation to a scribe when the plates were covered or perhaps when they were not even in the same room. This reasonable possibility is supported by D&C Section 9 in which the Lord tells Oliver Cowdery about the means of translation, i.e. why Oliver failed in his attempt to translate part of the Book of Mormon: “Behold I say unto you, my son, that because you did not translate according to that which you desired of me, and did commence again to write for my servant, Joseph Smith, Jun., even so I would that ye should continue until you have finished this record, which I have entrusted unto him… And, behold, it is because that you did not continue as you commenced, when you began to translate, that I have taken away this privilege from you… Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. 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 is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. 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; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me. Now, if you had known this you could have translated…” (D&C 9: 1-10).
TA: Putting his face in a hat seems like a strange method of translating. Have you ever heard of anyone translating this way? Neither have I. And why? Because putting his face in a hat is NOT a method of translating. WHYNOT: What seems strange to us is not strange to the Lord. For example, healing a blind man by covering his eyes with a mixture of clay and spittle seems to us like a strange method of healing. “When (Jesus) had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay…” (John 9:6).
WHYNOT: If a person is someday blessed with a seer stone, what would be so strange as putting that stone in a hat or a boot or a bucket or something else to block out the interference of external light to make it easier to read what is written on that stone? If you choose to “overcome” (including overcoming rejection of the scriptures), even you may be given a seer stone some day: “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it” (Rev. 2:17).
TA: So what is Joseph doing then when he puts his face in a hat and dictates? He is NOT “translating.” WHYNOT: Wrong. He is translating through the gift and power of God. TA: Joseph’s face-in-the-hat technique is, without the slightest doubt, a method for inducing a trance state, or a state of self-hypnosis. WHYNOT: Wrong again. Just because trances and self-hypnoses can be induced, that fact does not paralyze or preclude or prevent God from giving true revelations, even by God having writing appear on a seer stone or on anything else including a wall:
King Belshazzar’s wall: “In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written. And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians” (Daniel 5: 5, 24-28).
TA: An expert in trance states and self-induced trance states, having studied it, researched it and conducted experiments similar to this, for over thirty years, there is not the slightest doubt that Joseph’s face-in-the-hat technique is a self-induced trance state. WHYNOT: On the contrary there is huge, overpowering doubt about the trance explanation of the translation of the Book of Mormon. On the other hand, there are huge, convincing, overpowering reasons to believe that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God as stated in the introduction to the Book of Mormon and that the translation is just as true as the translations or interpretations we read about in the Bible such as the writing on the wall of Belshazzar and the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar Joseph, Pharaoh, Peter, etc.
TA: Could write a book on this. In fact, have a book in the first draft. Anybody out there want to help me finish it? WHYNOT: Yes, I want to help finish it. My help is to recommend that you include counterarguments to your thesis such as those mentioned above. Fairness and objectivity demand it.
TA: Producing written material during a trance state experience is not unusual. Ellen White, prophetess and co-founder of the Adventist religion, almost contemporary with Joseph Smith, dictated trance-produced written material, in fact, more pages than Joseph Smith. Her material is basic to the Seventh Day Adventist church, a church that has grown as large and as fast as Mormonism. There are many other examples. WHYNOT: All of that does not paralyze, preclude, or prevent God from revealing information, interpretations, and translations to true prophets. TA: Trance produced material is sometimes deceptive to the subject who produces it. Because the brain, during the trance state, is responding just like it would if it were an external real-world experience. (When I coach someone who wants to have these kinds of experiences, I tell them about this possible self-deception.) WHYNOT: All of that does not paralyze, preclude, or prevent God from revealing information, interpretations, and translations to true prophets. TA: Thus, I think that Joseph, responding like the usual trance-state subject, actually believed he was “translating” by the power of God, which would also make him believe that he was a “prophet.” WHYNOT: Joseph literally was translating by the gift and power of God the same as prophets of the Bible who received true revelation from God. You ought to be able to believe that it is possible that Joseph Smith received revelations from God just as you ought to believe prophets of the Bible and Jesus Christ himself received revelations from God the Father.
TA: Though, he would have to know that some of his behavior was deceptive, like putting a layer of coins on top of buckets of rocks to make inventors believe the failed Kirtland Safety Society was back by hard currency. WHYNOT: Bearing false witness again? Joseph was no more behind anything like that than accusations that Christ faked his resurrection and that all the miracles recorded in the Bible were faked or nothing but fables. TA: Curiously, Joseph has witnesses, witnessing “plates” which have nothing to do with the actual process of producing the Book of Mormon. The so-called plates, were only used as a prop or gimmick and were essential to his original story, but had nothing to do with the production of the Book of Mormon. WHYNOT: Not true. See above. Your accusation is like accusing Moses of faking the tablets on which the Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God. TA: Why Not, most of us have been where you are now. WHYNOT: It is extremely unlikely that I’ll be found among the number who ceased following after Christ and his true Church: “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (John 6:66).
TA: And eventually, I think if you research further, you will free yourself. And I say this with an attitude of caring. WHYNOT: Thanks for your concern, but I’ve already read or viewed practically everything critics and anti-Mormons have written or made films about. I’ve also had countless hours of face to face conversations with priests, ministers, pastors, missionaries, Jehovah’s Witnesses, dissidents, apostates, agnostics, atheists, anti-Mormons including the Tanners. The result? There is a logical and reasonable explanation for each and every one of their objections based on positive interpretations of the same words and actions of prophets of the Bible and modern prophets which opponents negatively interpret in order to discredit Christ, the Bible, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, the Book of Mormon, and in some cases, almost everything, it seems, that is “virtuous, lovely, and of good report and praiseworthy” about the gospel of Jesus Christ.
@whynot I want you to personally know that I believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, I may say that I follow the admonition of Paul-I believe all things, I hope all things, I have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, I seek after these things
I think stating the fact like there is no evidence of elephants on the American continent during Book of Mormon times is not being negative. There is no negative interpretation here. Its just a fact. The evidence shows that the closest relative to an elephant (mastodon) died out over 9,000 years before Nephi. Joseph Smith putting his head in a hat and calling it weird by standards custom to the average person in the 1800 or today is also not a negative interpretation. Saying that people who translate something generally look at and transcribes from what they are translating is also not a negative statement.
Please don’t turn a blind eye to the obvious when trying to hold fast to your beliefs. Think out side the box. Look out side your own understanding. Embrace that you might be wrong. I think it is beautiful when people can admit this about them selves. I think it shows a level of maturity and confidence in ones self, the universe and God. Because you like sharing scriptures I’ll share one with you. You might want to brush up on it. Jacob 6:12 O be wise; what can I say more?
“Think out side the box. Look out side your own understanding. Embrace that you might be wrong.”
@whynot, WHY DO YOU THINK WE ARE HERE?? You should consider taking your own advice seriously rather than just giving lip service to it. While you’re at it, please explain to us all how all the anachronisms in the BoM make any sense. Please provide peer-reviewed scientific studies only.
I wonder if one of the reasons why some of Christ’s disciples stopped following him while he lived on Earth was because they went through trials similar to yours. “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (John 6:66).
Why Not, we have heard these assertions all of our lives. Unfortunately, repetition establishes belief or “truth” more strongly than real evidence.
You just heard Taryn and others say they discovered their
reinforcing and guiding spiritual experiences came
and went depending on changes in their brain chemistry.
Material from trance experiences comes from the person’s own cultural background. And this was one of Joseph’s fatal flaws, he included items from his own background that should not have been in the Book of Mormon, for example, elephants, steel, steel swords, horses and a list of other things. And certainly, Joseph’s translation of the Egyptian funeral document, including his by-the-numbers translation of its facsimiles, which Joseph erroneously translates as coming from the hand of Abraham, wipes out Joseph’s credibility.
And further, people reading from walls or from a seer stone does not surprise me and does not surpass what I have experimentally done–subjects telling a fascinating story from a television set with a blank screen that is off and unplugged.
Or the subject who writes fifty pages of revelation in one evening, and is quite insistent that the revelation be delivered, at all costs, to the intended person.
I can make a “prophet” out of someone if they are highly susceptible to trance experiences.
You might ask why believers don’t want to see the elephant in the Book of Mormon. The short answer is
the avoidance of anxiety.
One of the best parts of the original interview was hearing JD crow about 350 downloads! Great job since then!
I certainly agree with what they say about the UU. That is where my family has landed and it is a great home. The thing that always hits me is that all of these people are here because they want to be here, not because they think their eternal souls depend on it. I have often said that if there was a “cash only” box in the back of every LDS chapel where nobody would know how much you paid, tithing receipts would plummet. The main goal of the UU is to give you opportunities to help make the world a better place. The strange (sad?) thing is that I feel more compelled to share my excitement about the UU than I ever did in 50 years as a Mormon.
Bill, yeah, exactly. Your last point is something I have experienced, which would probably frustrate our minister. He talks a lot in church about how UUers don’t proselytize, but I really want to.
I loved the conversation/interviews.
In addition to the great insights into Mormon culture provided, I really appreciated your descriptions of autism. Silly me but I didn’t know that there are different levels and that you could be moderately to severely autistic but still functional.
I demonstrate a lot of the tendencies the two of you described so I took a few tests from reputable sources online. I’d say I’m at the threshold but I always appreciate awareness given to mental health issues.
Sker, yes, many people are surprised when they learn that autism is a spectrum disorder. Notably, we tend to be born in families full of people who have some of our more useful traits but who have typical social cognition; early genetic research suggests that we are essentially suffering from pathological development of those traits due to some difference in prenatal circumstance.
Thank you for sharing your story. I am a TBM. I like the fact that you have found a certain calmness in your lives; a new equilibrium.
In my mind, the worst case scenario, assuming there is a God and that Joseph Smith is His prophet, is that you will pass from mortality and be welcomed into the presence of all good and charitable people regardless of their belief or affiliation.
I truly believe the teaching of the Bible and B of M: How you treat your fellow man is how you treat God.
On another matter, the issue of homosexuality. I am a middle aged man, married to a wonderful wife with 3 great Kids and I have ssa. I do not sit around beating myself with stripes over it. I know Jesus loves me just the way I am. I mention this only to preface the question I am going to ask. I don’t understand how homosexuality or SSA could be considered as an eternal trait. Doesn’t it seem to contradict the principle of eternal increase? It seems to also contradict the theory of evolution ( which I believe is true).
It just seems like there’s such a foundational difference in core belief of the two sides. To ask me to change my belief system to allow for homosexual eternal marriage would be like kicking one of the legs out from a 3 legged stool. It’s not that I have anything against people who like 2 legged stools.
I believe I’m empathetic to the LGBT cause but I don’t believe it’s fair for them to come at me and my 3 legged stool wielding a chainsaw.
I am very genuine in my feelings about this issue. I have SO much compassion for people on both sides of this dilema.
Thank you for sharing your story here and to John for all he does ( even if he does flip a few more times over the next decade :-) )
All the best to you and yours.
The principle of eternal increase? Sorry, not quite sure what you’re referring to. Probably one of those things with slightly different names in different regions. In any case, though, I don’t actually think we’ll experience an afterlife, so I’m fine contradicting principles of eternity.
There are some really interesting ideas about homosexuality and evolution, actually. I think it’s essential to remember that homosexuality doesn’t preclude reproduction, as you yourself demonstrate. There’s also the question of whether kin selection is involved: birth order seems to be a factor in the likelihood that an individual will be homosexual, with younger brothers in large families particularly likely to be gay. If the research which suggests this holds up over time, then it may well be that women who eventually have homosexual male offspring have some sort of advantage – for example, the sons who are less likely (though still able) to reproduce may instead act as alloparents for their nieces and nephews.
There are a lot of other ideas about homosexuality and evolution. It’s fun to run the terms through Google Scholar together, and to see the literature on the subject. The important point for lay persons such as ourselves is probably that traits which don’t greatly diminish a species’ long-term survival prospects don’t need to be selected /for/; they simply need to be /not selected against/.
I can totally see why the idea of changing norms for marriage would suck for someone such as yourself who has dedicated his life to living the current norms in the face of considerable difficulty, by the way.
Thank you for this podcast! Taryn, you spoke to my heart, truly. I have one question for you, it’s something I have always felt and struggled with and have not known why. You talked about how you couldn’t be a mormon and a stay at home mom. While you were mormon you felt like you needed something outside of both church and family, but without church you don’t(sorry for my rough paraphrasing). Why is that?
Jill, I think I worried that as a Mormon SAHM, I’d end up with mostly Mormon SAHM friends – and I’d lose myself in their expectations for me. As a Mormon grad student mom, I had both Mormon SAHM friends and academic friends, so I kind of had countervailing sets of social expectations pulling on me. It made it easier to disregard things I disliked about both sets of norms and just be myself.
I am assuming the ward you attended in Chicago was the north shore 1st ward. I attended this ward for a few years while in grad school and had a great time. Especially looking back now that we live in another mid west ward that seems much more orthodox. There were some fairly progressive families in that ward. An editor of Dialogue comes to mind (though I didn’t know that until moving away). I miss the NS1 ward. It’s all perspective I guess.
We liked the people a lot, actually, both those who were orthodox and those who weren’t. I think we mentioned Linda Kimball in the podcast; she’s one of my Mormon feminist heroes, for instance. On the other hand, there were people who treated progressive mormons in the ward like crap. It just wasn’t Berkeley, where we really fit in, and were everyone was too laid bsck to take ideological disagreements seriously. In Chicago, the emotional costs of attendance were therefore higher for us, which I think made us more aware of the other tradeoffs involved. Especially the moral ones.
We attended one ward in California which was so generally right-wing that Relief Society occasionally devolved into arguments about whether the 700 Club was good because of its moral conservatism, or bad because it was run by people who disapproved of Mormonism. Seriously, this happened. But at the same time, everyone seemed really fine with the fact that I was a socialist and that Jay’s talk about patriotism one July 4th focused on his view that nationalism was a bad thing which damaged the church. They were like, “I was kind of offended until I talked to Brother Pierre [a French guy in the ward], who says this is a real issue for Mormons outside the U.S. Huh, never thought about it before.”
I think the difference with NS1 was that it was full of really wealthy folks (not the grad students, obviously) whose culture we had a hard time relating to /and/ for whom ideological differences were a bigger deal. The California ward I mention above was composed of working-class people who could generally barely make ends meet. I think that made ideology and even doctrine less salient as an indicator of social identity, That led to less internal division in the ward, which reduced the costs of involvement.
What I thought was funny about the wealthy in NS1 was that many made no effort to interact with the grad students because of their transient nature. It’s like they knew the students would be gone in a few years so it wasn’t worth the effort to make friends.
Yeah, and that was a real loss to the congregation. Some university-area wards embrace student families and keep track of them forever, and I think it really enriches the community. I remember that when we first moved into NS1, every non-student family and individual except the RS pres and the bishop flat-out ignored us for months. When the MBA students found out Jay was on faculty, they suddenly started to ignore us. I mean that literally. They refused to make eye contact and tried not to speak with us, as they seemed to do with all the lifers. The few grad students seemed uncomfortable with us as well. As the long-term residents figured out that we were going to be around for awhile, they began to talk to us. Often they talked to us to badmouth the MBA students, actually. (Gee, I wonder why the MBA families were uncomfortable?)
A long-term resident made absolutely heroic efforts to heal the breach after she began having kids, as that gave her access to both groups. She instituted giant weekly playdates at which all were welcome, and pressured women from both sides to attend. Previous to that, the MBA families had a private play group for their kids, and they generally werent’t invited to other play dates. I really admired her effort and sheer productive stubbornness in the face of what had seemed sisyphean odds. Last time I went to RS, things seemed to be improving.
Thank you both for a lovely interview. My path has been very similar and I have come to the same conclusions that you have come to: I want to participate in a group that is a moral leader, not a moral laggard. I agree that there are so many wonderful people in Mormonism, but from my perspective, the group has done much harm. Thank you for sharing your truth!
John first off I want to say that mormon stories has been a wonderful resource of support for me as I’ve suffered through my crisis of faith and my current faith transition. Your openness to all sides and your honesty in my opinion is what makes you such a great and credible host. As a self described moderate myself, I would simply hope to remind you however that not all your listeners are liberal democrats even though we do share many of the concerns regarding LGBT and woman issues in the church. It just seems lately there has been this implicit message within the podcasts that this community of support is primarily for those of a liberal ideology. I just hope there is room for everybody along the political spectrum in the mormon stories family. I understand the importance of progressive thought as we grapple with all these difficult issues but I would hope that we could do that without unnecessary barbs against people or movements of a more center right philosophy. Connecting a political ideology to the battle of faith discovery and exploration in my opinion is simply not helpful and may even taint an otherwise unbiased medium for thought and discovery.
Adam – This is welcome feedback. Thank you.
Adam, I’d point out that John didn’t connect religion and politics in this interview. Taryn and I did, because the political value that all people are of equal worth and dignity is central to our moral world view. I agree that it’s possible to disagree deeply with us about such moral questions and still have a Mormon story. But it would be a different story than ours. If you don’t agree with me about morality, let’s talk about that. But let’s not start from the claim that my moral views are illegitimate as a component of my own religious story.
Actually Jason your story has many similarities to mine. As a fellow northern Californian I too was extremely annoyed with stake leaders coming to my ward asking us to campaign for prop 8 against the threat that eventually the church could be forced to preform gay marriages in the temple. I also was a branch president and participated in an excommunication that to this day troubles me. I think your story is beautiful and genuine and I admire your courage and honesty to follow your conscience and do what is best for your family. My only point is that sometimes the interjection of political favoritism(which understandably in this forum is most often left leaning) only muddles the discussion. This is not a critique of you two at all nor your story it is just a general comment from a more politically moderate listener of this podcast that loves John and the community and who is extremely appreciative of amazing guests like yourselves that choose to share with us their stories. Sorry if I came off critical. That was not my intention.
Adam, I totally agree. Thank you for speaking up. I often feel that I do not belong in the Mormon Stories community because it does often seem to be liberal leaning.
I believe the Church will eventually, in the not too distant future, accept Gay marriage, even in the temple, once ‘same sex marriage’ becomes legal nationally and once most LDS want it accepted in the Church and temple, and we are almost there it seems.
I see the Church and most of it’s members have softened alot already on same sex issues, just like it and members did with polygamy, divorce & remarriage & racism, etc. (1st totally against certain things, then they changed and were totally for them.)
I believe the Church changes it’s stance and doctrine in order to keep it’s members and stay afloat in a changing world, despite what they used to say or do in the past about the issue.
I see polygamy coming back too in the Church, on the heels of same sex marriage, once that is legal in the nation too, for most people and members seem to be fine with or want or would support polygamy too.
But I believe it will take much more time, if ever, for the Church to give up it’s control and disrespect for women. They will probably concede a few more small things for women, but I don’t see church leaders respecting women’s full God given Priesthood and complete equality in authority and position anytime soon. They are too deep in abusive tradition, which I believe is totally contrary to what Christ stood for or did.
I think we can only hope that the church will change over time, unfortunately I am less optimistic than you are. The way I see it, a lot of the issues people want addressed are public relation nightmares for the church. In fact, I would say that many of these issues are lose-lose battles in the church’s eyes.
Take the ordain women movement for example (which I am a firm believer in). If the church never changes priesthood policy for women then they will look sexist, old fashioned, and non-progressive. If they DO change the policy then they will appear to be fickle to TBM’s and people will believe the church only changes under social pressure. There’s really no way to please everyone. Hopefully though, the church will just do what is right and let the consequences follow…
Tunflog,
There won’t be much ‘public relation nightmares’ to worry about once most everyone inside and outside the Church clamors for ‘same sex marriage’, the Church can, and I believe will, just cave and change and allow such, with the support of most everyone.
And yes, someday the Church will have to accept and respect female prophets, apostles and every other leadership position and full Priesthood to women, but it will probably be one of the last things they are willing to do.
And the Church has appeared very fickle and willing to change because of social pressure many many times before, and most everyone hardly notices or cares. I don’t think most members will leave the Church if they allow SSM or Polygamy, etc. for the Church already allows far worse things then those and far worse things were done through it’s history and few members seem to mind or care.
And the Church doesn’t seem to care if what they do is ‘right, but only what is ‘needful’ to stay afloat, no matter what the consequences are now or in eternity.
Lilli, I can’t help but wonder what you are basing your opinions on. I personally know very few members of the church who are in favor of gay marriage or polygamy.
I agree with the church that gay people should be treated with love and respect just the same as anybody else, but that does not make homosexuality right or normal. I believe that it is some kind of disorder and normalizing it does not change that.
As for polygamy, I think that was a mistake from the start.
@John You mentioned an analogy to the church being like a rose. Your stake president said that by examining the church with scrutiny it is akin to plucking the pedals from the rose. I think the analogy would be more like comparing the church to a sophisticated machine. Lets call it an airplane. The church asks us to climb into their airplane and then they tell us they are going to run it off a cliff and its going to fly. Before I get in that plane I want to inspect it from top to bottom. I want to check the durability of its parts. I want to check its aerodynamics and be ensured that the plane will fly. We are asked to place a lot of our life into the church. Even our eternal salvation. Why would we not inspect it? Take apart the plane and put it back together, bolt by bolt if need be. Regarding the rose, is the church truly so fragile that it cant be put back together? Why is it so easy to pluck apart in the first place? If I kick the tires on the plane I don’t expect it to fall apart.
Church leaders who don’t want us to examine them and the Church and the history, doctrine and practices with a microscope are knowingly hiding something. They don’t want us to look under the bed because they know what we will find.
Christ and his apostles, including Joseph Smith commanded us to do just the opposite, to ‘prove all things’ before following something or someone, and prove whether a person or leader was a true follower of Christ by whether they had charity or not and by whether they preached and practiced the exact words of Christ or not (which the Christ does not, in fact just the opposite. Thus of course church leaders don’t want you questioning, studying or thinking for yourself.
Joseph and Christ constantly warned how easy it was for everyone, even in the Church, to fall for false prophets, while thinking they are true prophets. They warned that we will lose our salvation if we are deceived by false prophets, false doctrine or false churches.
Only false prophets and false teachers would tell someone to not question, not study too deeply, not scrutinize the Church and it’s leaders, doctrine and practices. That should be a huge red flag for those who are watching for deception.
The church seems to want only ‘yes men & women’, those who are willing to blindly obey whatever they say. And this does appeal to most people it seems, for it is far easier to play ‘follow the leader’ then accept personal responsibility for our own salvation, revelation and discernment of truth and follow Christ on our own.
It seems that one of the fastest ways to get exed is to follow Christ and openly teach his Gospel, which of course quickly shows how the Church is not following him.
Thank you so very much for doing this podcast. Just listened to the entire program. My husband and I left the church in February along with our 6 children. I felt a kinship with many things you both said and you opened my mind to many new concepts and ideas I had not yet considered.
We have a son with high functioning autism, and your comments in regards to the disorder and spirituality hit home for me, as he has been telling his Dad and I that he doesn’t believe in God for many years despite our faithful church activity. He is 14 1/2 years old. Having been diagnosed with a disorder that has kept me on psychiatric meds myself, I was amazed when you began discussing your spiritual experiences being directly correlated to various medications, as I too have experienced this phenomenon.
Again, thanks for taking the time to do this program. These types of programs are proving to be extremely helpful during this time of transition out of Mormonism. Mormonism is all we’ve ever known, and this can feel like a lonely side of the fence at times.
Just finished the podcast and I couldn’t resist leaving a bit of feedback. What a fascinating, beautiful, honest and heartfelt interview. I really appreciate you two sharing your experiences. It would be easy to deny an interview after leaving the church and I’m glad that you didn’t. Cheers to not living in fear!
I learned much about Autism Spectrum Disorder and was pushed to think about people in a different/more understanding way.
The wrap up was beautiful and I loved both of your final comments. The present is truly all that we have and I’m grateful for the reminder!
Can anyone send me to some info/research/explanation of “elevation” effect of the Vagus nerve? That has been my assumption of spiritual experiences for years, but I’ve never heard of that term.
Jason and Taryn, I second Carson’s interest in the “elevation” and vagus nerve studies. This rings true to me and I am very interested to learn more about it- particularly too about confirming the “in- group” status. My very TBM spouse is very interested in neurology and this might help him understand at least one concern of mine…even if he cannot entertain any of the other problematic aspects of Mormon history, etc.
Much gratitude as well to John, Jason and Taryn for this episode of MoStories. One of my favorites!
Carson, here’s an informative piece which isn’t stuck behind a paywall:
https://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2008/12/obama_in_your_heart.html
Taryn, your story resonated deeply with me. Thanks so much for sharing. Best of luck on your journey forward with Jason.
Thanks, Katie.
To J (Jason), but “tropical animal” should also pay attention to this: J, you said you do “seek after ANYTHING virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy.” Seeking after “praiseworthy” information “of good report” includes the following. It would be negative not to accept it (or at least its reasonable possibility) now that you have sought after it, and you said you were not negative.
Although some of the evidences of ancient man with the elephant in America predates Book of Mormon times, much evidence is dated concurrently with the time of the Book of Mormon (2200 BC to 400 AD). For example, Scientific Monthly reports that a pictograph near Moab, Utah “appears to be an authentic link between aboriginal man and the elephant or mastodon, for it is highly improbable that any primitive artist could have achieved so good a likeness without having seen such a creature or having at least seen a picture of one done by some fellow artist.” (See Scientific Monthly, [1935], vol. 41, pp. 378-379.) See also J. Eric Thompson, Mexico Before Cortez, (Charles Scribner’s Sons: 1933), p. 5; Douglas Leechman, American Antiquity, (1950) vol. 16, p. 157; J. L. B. Taylor, “Did the Indians Know the Mastodon?” Natural History, (1921) vol. 21, p. 591; Loren C. Eiseley, “Men, Mastodons and Myth,” Scientific Monthly, (1946) vol. 62, p. 517; W. Balfour Gourley, Man, (June 1940); and W. D. Strong, American Anthropologist, (1934), vol. 36, p. 81.
M. F. Ashley Montagu in American Anthropologist, (1944), vol. 46, p. 568, says: “There is even a possibility that in certain parts of the country the mammoth may have lingered on up to as recently as five hundred years ago. In several conversations with the writer, Professor William Berryman Scott, the dean of American paleontologists, has given it as his opinion that, had the first of the Spanish discoverers of America penetrated into the interior, it is quite possible that they might have met with the living mammoth.” (See also Science, [1942], vol. 95, p. 380; M. F. Ashley Montagu and C. Bernard Peterson, “The Earliest Account of the Association of Human Artifacts With Fossil Mammals in North America,” American Philosophical Society Proceedings, [1943], vol. 86, p. 236; L. H. Johnson III, “Men and Elephants in America,” Scientific Monthly, [1952], vol. 75, pp. 216, 220; M. F. Ashley Montagu, Introduction to Physical Anthropology, 2nd Edition [1951], p. 221; Helmut de Terra, American Antiquity, [1947] vol. 13, p. 40; de Terra, Man and Mammoth in Mexico, [1957] p. 102.)
The following quotes are from Ludwell H. Johnson III, “Men and Elephants in America,” Scientific Monthly vol. 75, October 1952, pp. 215-21: Strong, in his valuable article, reproduced a Naskapi account concerning a creature called Katcheetohuskw. The story is too long to be set down in full here, especially as the body of it is not particularly significant; the really important point is the Indians’ description of the monster. “When asked to describe Katcheetohuskw, the informants said he was very large, had a big head, large ears and teeth, and a long nose with which he hit people” (italics supplied). “His tracks in the snow were described in their stories as large and round.” (See W. D. Strong, American Anthropology, [1934], vol. 36, pp. 81‑86.)
In another narrative the beast is described as having teeth “long enough to pierce seven hunters, a lip as long as seven paces, and an unconquerable strength….” Only one animal could fit this description. (See F. G. Speck, American Anthropology, [1935], vol. 37, pp. 159, 163, 161.)
Strong gives a number of other, less graphic, legends that may be briefly itemized. (1) Ojibwa and Iroquois: a vague belief concerning a large animal which could crush trees in its path; (2) Algonkian: the “Great Moose,” which used a fifth leg rooted between its shoulders to prepare its bed; (3) Alabama and Koasati: insist on translating “man-eater” (Atipa teoba) as “elephant;” (4) Chitimacha: “A long time ago a being with a long nose came out of the ocean…. It would root up trees with its nose to get at persons who sought refuge in the branches, and people lived on scaffolds to get away from it…. When the elephant was seen it was thought to be the same creature….” (5) Atakapa of Louisiana: one of the earliest records of this tribe “tells of their tradition that a beast of enormous size perished in one of several nearby watercourses. Duralde, the chronicler, adds that the subsequent discovery of an elephant skeleton in Carancro bayou seemed to realize this tradition.”
In short, although it is not difficult to disbelieve one tradition, or two, or even three, the cumulative effect of all the available stories is irresistibly persuasive. That there have been misinterpretations, distortions, leading questions, and outright inventions cannot be denied. But when all due allowance has been made for these, there remains a solid foundation of genuine folk memories of the elephant that refuses to be explained away.
A. L. Kroeber said “In an earlier stage, while man’s numbers were few and his arts and weapons undeveloped, these species may have continued to live alongside him without serious molestation. Once better equipped and organized, Indian tribes may well have put an end to piedmont bison, horses, camels, mastodons, and mammoths; possibly in a few centuries in a given terrain.” (See A. L. Kroeber, The Maya and Their Neighbors [Appleton-Century Crofts, Inc.: 1940], p. 475. See also, Ivan T. Sanderson, Living Treasure [1941], pp. 39, 53, 126, 127. (Above data compiled by AHR)
There is much good in the church and I seek after those things that are good and praiseworthy.
I carefully considered the references you gave. I would love for those stories to be true. I would love it if Indians lived side by side Elephants or Mastodons (not the same thing). I think it would be great if they could find a mastodon living today in the woods some where. I was hoping you where going to share some evidence but instead you shared stories and opinions of people. The stories are compelling and fun to think about. Who is to say the native Americans didn’t pass down stories about mastodons? But circumstantial stories are not evidence. There are circumstantial stories told by people who where abducted by aliens. Do you believe aliens visit the earth whynot?
What we do have now days since the late 50’s is radiocarbon dating that can tell us how old a mastodon skeleton is. They are older than 2,600 years old. That is evidence.
I am starting to doubt that you are hear other than to argue and be contentious. Remember, contention is of the devil. Are you here to learn and explore your understanding of your beliefs or just to beat others over the head with argument? You do seem to fish up an argument for every little point some one makes. Poor argument that is not backed up by evidence.
J, that is good that you say you seek after those things that are good and praiseworthy. But doing that that should include seeking after POSITIVE POSSIBILITIES that are good and praiseworthy. You are missing at least one good and praiseworthy POSSIBILITY, i.e. that elephants, or mastodons that resembled elephants, lived during Book of Mormon times. It is good and praiseworthy to seek after such evidence, not only because it is highly interesting but because some people lose their testimony because no panel of peer reviewing atheistic scientists has as yet dared publicly admit the evidence gathered by some of their scientific colleagues such as those listed in the references proved in my previous post. It is doubtful that credible scientists of the reputation and caliber of those in the references can be found for aliens. However, even then, we should admit that there is a scientific possibility that advance civilizations have existed or do exist on other planets, especially in view of science supported theories of habitable planets in this universe and in parallel universes.
If you had really carefully considered the references I quoted, you would have noticed that they are scientific references. They are not just stories or opinions of ordinary people. For example, again M. F. Ashley Montagu in American Anthropologist, (1944), vol. 46, p. 568, said: “There is even a POSSIBILITY that in certain parts of the country the mammoth may have lingered on up to as recently as FIVE HUNDRED YEARS AGO. …Professor William Berryman Scott, the dean of American paleontologists: “…had the first of the Spanish discoverers of America penetrated into the interior, it is quite possible that they might have met with the LIVING MAMMOTH.” (See also Science, [1942], vol. 95, p. 380; M. F. Ashley Montagu and C. Bernard Peterson, “The Earliest Account of the Association of Human Artifacts With Fossil Mammals in North America,” American Philosophical Society Proceedings, [1943], vol. 86, p. 236; L. H. Johnson III, “Men and Elephants in America,” Scientific Monthly, [1952], vol. 75, pp. 216, 220; M. F. Ashley Montagu, Introduction to Physical Anthropology, 2nd Edition [1951], p. 221; Helmut de Terra, American Antiquity, [1947] vol. 13, p. 40; de Terra, Man and Mammoth in Mexico, [1957] p. 102.) Note that these references are not books about stories and legends.
The fact that some Book of Mormon people might have used the word “elephant” to describe a “mastodon,” would be expected because the Jaredites, Mulekites, and Nephites came from the Middle East where elephants were probably fairly common. So they logically would have called elephants a type of mastodon or vice versa.
We should not be so foolhardy as to say that no elephant bones dated to Book of Mormon times will ever be found. It took only until relatively recently to find bones of lions dated to Biblical times in Israel and for scientists to admit that there is such a thing as a giant, rogue wave. “Over the decades, skeptical oceanographers have doubted their existence and tended to lump them together with sightings of mermaids and sea monsters. But scientists are now finding that these giants of the sea are far more common and destructive than once imagined, prompting a rush of new studies and research projects.” (Reference: “ROGUE GIANTS AT SEA,” by William J. Broad, New York Times, July 11, 2006)
Paraphrasing your words, I am starting to doubt that you do seek after that which is of good report and praiseworthy, at least with respect to the Book of Mormon. You seem to want to hear only arguments you want to hear and reject all others even if they are scientifically possible. Surely rejection of reasonable possibilities (e.g., possibilities which support the Book of Mormon) is of the devil. Are you here only to learn and explore your understanding of your disbeliefs or just to justify bailing out? It is not being open minded and objective to reject the hints, clues, and tantalizing evidence which support the Book of Mormon and dredge up the same tired old excuses for rejecting that sacred record. It is a poor approach to reject all evidence (including that which is scientifically possible) in support of the Book of Mormon unless it is proven to the (highly skeptical) satisfaction of a panel of atheistic scientists and printed by them in peer reviewed journals where they define who and what the peers and journals should be.
@Whynot Believing something hook line and sinker is not a sign of weather some one seeks after the good. I sincerely looked at the information you provided. There was not substantial evidence given. It is possible that Mastodons walked with Indians. It is also possible that they walk today some where on the American continent and we have not found them yet. Though the probability is very unlikely. It is also a slim probability that aliens visit earth today. I never said any thing about the possibility that alien life might live on another planet some where. In that case I think the probability goes up just by the shear number of planets there are.
I did notice they where scientists in the references you provided. The majority of Scientists you quoted are all speculating with the information they had at the time. A time before radiocarbon dating.
I am open to learning more about my beliefs. I welcome new ideas. That is what has brought me to my conclusions. I think it is perfectly ok to reserve belief until evidence is provided. I do not believe in ghosts, leprechauns, unicorns, aliens or mastodons walking with Indians after 600bc. I reserve the right to not believe in them until I have evidence. I used to be as TBM as you. I used to be as a child. I walked by blind faith just as you do. I’m still very active in the church and look for the good in all things, even the Book of Mormon. If you met me at church you would think I am one of the most TBM members you know. I go to church to listen and learn. I do not discus these things there because it is not an open and friendly environment for those who view things differently than the robotic conformity of those who attend. I wish you luck in your journey threw life and hope you broaden your views if that is what you are in search of. I can see you are here just to argue.
This is still J. Just in case your confused.
This post is addressed to “kinglamoni” or J. I say “J” because of this post: “This is still J. Just in case you’re confused.” So in the following dialog I will use KLJ to make sure I’m discussing with (not arguing with) the right person.
KLJ: @Whynot Believing something hook line and sinker is not a sign of whether someone seeks after the good. WhyNot: No one said to believe “something hook line and sinker.” What we are saying is to fulfil the Lord’s injunction: “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18). It is being judgmental to accuse someone of just wanting to argue when they just want to reason together and to seek for “ANYTHING virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy.” Doing that includes seeking for hints, clues, positive possibilities, and tidbits of scientific evidence that support the Book of Mormon. Some people apparently prefer seeking for or swallowing anything that is unvirtuous, unlovely, or of bad report or unpraiseworthy about the Book of Mormon.
KLJ: I sincerely looked at the information you provided. There was not substantial evidence given. WhyNot: “Substantial evidence” is in the eye of the beholder. Many find the information provided to be substantial evidence. But since you disagree, you should keep in mind that Paul of the Bible and the Articles of Faith do not say, “If there is anything of substantial evidence or articles that have been peer reviewed by scholars and scientists, we seek after these things.” Seeking after hints or clues or scientific tidbits supporting the Book of Mormon is seeking after that which is virtuous, lovely, and of good report and praiseworthy because it builds or confirms people’s testimonies and keeps them faithful and true rather than being “tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine” or keeps them from being deceived by faith-destroying skepticism and criticisms.
KLJ: It is possible that mastodons walked with Indians. It is also possible that they walk today somewhere on the American continent and we have not found them yet. Though the probability is very unlikely. WhyNot: As long as there is a reasonably likelihood that elephants and/or mastodons (which the Nephites probably called elephants) existed during Book of Mormon times in the Americas, that is all we need to hold fast to the iron rod rather than falling for the cunning craftiness of men or the sincere disbeliefs of skeptics and critics.
KLJ: It is also a slim probability that aliens visit earth today. I never said anything about the possibility that alien life might live on another planet somewhere. In that case I think the probability goes up just by the sheer number of planets there are. WhyNot: Slim probabilities are included in seeking after tht which is praiseworthy and of good report. Slim probabilities can dissuade some people from throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
KLJ: I did notice there were scientists in the references you provided. The majority of scientists you quoted are all speculating with the information they had at the time. WhyNot: They are more than speculations—they are scientific conclusions by credible scientists reporting in credible scientific journals. KLJ: A time before radiocarbon dating. WhyNot: It covers times before, during, and after carbon dating. KLJ: I am open to learning more about my beliefs. I welcome new ideas. That is what has brought me to my conclusions. I think it is perfectly ok to reserve belief until evidence is provided. WhyNot: A better approach is to retain belief in the Book of Mormon based on reasoning (Isaiah 1:18) and on seeking after that which is good and praiseworthy about the Book of Mormon based on testimony, witnesses, hints, clues, positive possibilities, and tidbits of scientific data, observations, and conclusions.
KLJ: I do not believe in ghosts, leprechauns, unicorns, aliens or mastodons walking with Indians after 600bc. I reserve the right to not believe in them until I have evidence. WhyNot: Of course you have that right. We all have our free agency to believe or not believe. But we should respect those who have chosen to believe in testimony from the Holy Spirit supported by hints, clues, positive possibilities, and tidbits of scientific data, observations, and conclusions and emulate their example. KLJ: I used to be as TBM as you. I used to be as a child. I walked by blind faith just as you do. I’m still very active in the church and look for the good in all things, even the Book of Mormon. WhyNot: Even better is to add testimony from the Holy Spirit supported by hints, clues, positive possibilities, and tidbits of scientific data, observations, and conclusions. No blind faith required. Brigham Young railed against blind faith.
KLJ: If you met me at church you would think I am one of the most TBM members you know. I go to church to listen and learn. I do not discuss these things there because it is not an open and friendly environment for those who view things differently than the robotic conformity of those who attend. WhyNot: “Robotic conformity” sounds like an unfair judgmental accusation. It is more charitable, objective, and open minded to say that most of the people who attend are there to be spiritually uplifted as they feast at the table of the Lord. You can always discuss controversy after class or in private conversation in homes, on the telephone, and visits to homes like I like to do.
KLJ: I wish you luck in your journey through life and hope you broaden your views if that is what you are in search of. I can see you are here just to argue. WhyNot: I hope you are not saying that in order to “broaden my views” I have to CHANGE my views. I cannot do that and still preserve my integrity. How can I be honest with myself and change my views when they are based on testimony, reasoning, and looking for that which is good and praiseworthy. How can I change my views when I’ve empathized with others and tired mightily to walk in their shoes, but those just don’t fit. I’ve read or viewed practically everything critics and anti-Mormons have written or made films about. I’ve also had countless hours of face to face conversations with priests, ministers, pastors, missionaries, Jehovah’s Witnesses, dissidents, apostates, agnostics, atheists, anti-Mormons including the Tanners. I’ve attended symposiums and conferences sponsored or favored by critics. I keep up to date on anything and everything critics say. The result? There is a logical and reasonable explanation for each and every one of their objections based on positive interpretations of the same words and actions of prophets of the Bible and modern prophets which opponents negatively interpret in order to discredit Christ, the Bible, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the Book of Mormon.
@Whynot
Your delusional. See dictionary.com
2. psychiatry illusion See also hallucination a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason.
WhyNot said, “The fact that some Book of Mormon people might have used the word “elephant” to describe a “mastodon,” would be expected because the Jaredites, Mulekites, and Nephites came from the Middle East where elephants were probably fairly common. So they logically would have called elephants a type of mastodon or vice versa.”
This is why I get so frustrated with unapologetic apologists. You can’t say the word “elephants” would have been the “tight” translation because that’s what the Book of Mormon peoples would have used, but then say words like “Adieu”, “Satyr” and “Cimiters” were simply based on Joseph Smith’s “loose” translation of words he would’ve known.
Any rational thought shows the immediate fault with this logic.
WhyNot said, “…no panel of peer reviewing atheistic scientists has as yet dared publicly admit the evidence gathered by some of their scientific colleagues such as those listed in the references proved in my previous post.”
That’s a funny statement. I don’t think any scientist outside BYU gives a rat’s behind about what the Book of Mormon contains. Please keep in mind, Mormonism encompasses only .2% of the world population (and much less than that if you only take the active LDS).
Lance: It’s the attitudes of people like WhyNot that are so stifling. WhyNot: You mean it’s the attitudes of opeople like WhyNot that are so troubling to those who have decided to bail out of the church. Lance: When we realized the church is falsifying doctrine, outright lying, and omitting dirty truths, WhyNot: The Church does not falsify doctrine, lie, or omit “dirty truths” any more than the Jesus Christ and his Church did when he lived on the Earth. Lance: we could not stand to listen to the falsehoods and ignorance being preach every Sunday. WhyNot: “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him (Christ)” (John 6:66). Lance: It’s hard for me to understand why anyone who knows the truth remains associated with the organization. WhyNot: Most of those who leave the Church do not know the truth. They have been deceived by negative interpretations of words and incidents in the Bible and Church history. Had they given fair minded, open minded, objective, consideration to a wide, logical, reasonable, scriptural, positive interpretations (some of which they evidently missed) of the same words and incidents, they would not have left the Church.
Lance: Why continue to put up with judgmentalism, bigotry, misogyny, totalitarianism, etc? WhyNot: Because those words bear false witness against the true Church of Jesus Christ. Lance: For those of you who stay because you can’t let go for your specific reason, PLEASE be a means for change. I have too many family members who could be posting as WhyNot. WhyNot: For those of you who stay because you have testimonies of the gospel and have accepted the positive interpretations of the same words and incidents which took some out of the Church, PLEASE be a means for changing the critics, dissidents, apostates, atheists, skeptics, and agnostics who fight against Jesus Christ and his true church. Thank goodness for those who could be posting as WhyNot.
Concerning Lance’s other post: The words “elephant” in the Book of Mormon would be similar to the words “adieu,” “satyr,” and “cimeter,” i.e. words as readers of the translation would be better able to relate to when they read the Book of Mormon. Another possibility is that, during Book of Mormon times, there literally were elephants of the type the Jaredites, Mulekites, and Nephites would have known in the MidEast, but that type of elephants became extinct as the mastodon later became extinct.
Revised sentence: If atheistic scientists ever decided to look at the evidence for the existence of elephants in the Americas before Columbus, no panel composed of peer reviewing atheistic scientists would dare publicly admit the evidence gathered by some of their scientific colleagues such as those listed in the references proved in my previous post.
Whynot, science has moved on. Most of your references date back to the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s. We have much better information from recent archeologists, geologist and DNA scientists from the 1990’s to today. You are dating and embarrassing yourself here. Let’s keep up.
Thank you all for your time in making this very informative and helpful pod-cast. I especially enjoyed the discussion about incidents that happen in Nursery and Primary (restraining your child in the circle). I saw this sort of thing all the time while my wife and I were helping out in Nursery together. I always tried to be aware that the kids in our class were not OUR kids, and that we were only there to guide them along for two hours while their parents were away.
But I’ve also noticed a lack of general structure in Primary as a whole. For instance, your child’s experience at church can be wildly different depending on what type of teacher they have, or who the primary president is. I’ve seen Primary leaders organize lessons and teachings based on their own personal standards and beliefs, which in my opinion is a little unfair and inappropriate. I realize it’s hard sometimes to stick to the manual all the time, but the kids shouldn’t have to be subjected to one person’s individual ideas every week.
My wife and I are currently primary teachers for the CTR 7 class, and even we deviate from the planned lessons every now and then. For example we totally skipped the modesty lesson (I’m not teaching “modesty” to 7 year-olds that aren’t mine). Anyway, thank you again for sharing your experiences, this really has opened my eyes to some of the problems we deal with every Sunday.
I don’t know if anyone else has had a similar experience, but in an attempt to corroborate my “spiritual confirmation” of the validity of LDS gospel it occurred to me to ask God with a sincere heart (in other words whipping myself up into a state of earnest belief and extreme emotion) if the Catholic Church was where God’s truth was to be found, and if the Pope was Jesus’/Peter’s rightful successor here on earth as head of the church. I don’t know if I’m somehow more predisposed to psychological elevation (as so eloquently explained by Taryn)but lo and behold those petitions were generating the exact same response as those rendered when inquiring about the BOM and Joseph Smith divinity claims.
So therein lied the death knell of my testimony. I can generate false positives asking for just about anything if I try hard enough. I don’t think God would just toy with me or expect me, with such limited understanding, to be able to ferret out which of all the spiritual witnesses I’m supposed to accept and subsequently devote my entire existence to. This of course all took place on the heels of learning about all the historical anachronisms/inaccuracies and outlandish, whitewashed doctrines/positions of the BOM and church respectively, while still grasping at straws, desperately hoping that the church could still be true despite every logical fiber of my being telling me otherwise.
Really enjoyed your story guys.
I know these people are sincere to their convictions, however, I’m often just struck by the pettiness of people who are disaffected by the church. I mean, there are Christians being routinely killed by the rebels in Syria right now… Various Islam sects prohibit women from driving, by threat of death. Some of you make the Mormon church seam like the pit of all evil on earth. It’s pretty petty.
I’ve seen first hand, the tremendous service that the church gives in the world to members and non-members alike.
If everyone on this forum has a surefire platform to go outside themselves and really serve humanity…. Then go out and use that platform. Help someone. Belittling those who want to believe in the gospel by saying how intelligent and insightful you are is a great way to make people resent you… You wont win people over with a condescending or mocking approach. There’s plenty of extremely brilliant people in the church.
Another thought I have is how politically motivated this podcast seems to have become. It generally has a very politically correct tone and bias toward secular progressive themes. I think John started out pretty balanced, but has given way to his own motives and biases over time. This secular progressive push really comes out in the overall victimization complex that that movement really exudes. Everybody comes off as a victim… Again, very petty and irksome.
Maybe get some more libertarian or conservative input… This podcast wreaks of an NPR vibe much of the time. Listening, I envision a bunch of people wearing turtlenecks and tweed jackets with the leather patches on the elbows. Smoking their pipes and patting themselves on the back about how much smarter they are than everyone else, and proclaiming how bad the Mormon church is, while diverting attention away from real problems of gravity that are prevalent around the world.
I think it was shared in posts above that several people on this thread feel that there are smart people both in and out of the church.
Issues with in the church may seem petty to you but to some people they are real issues. No one is minimizing the problems in Syria.
You sir sound like the one with the chip on their shoulder. Thank you for your conservative input.
If there are issues that are broached that you feel should be corrected, I think we would all be better served if you brought them up for discussion. They ought to be isolated case by case in order to be scrutinized in a dialectical fashion. Just as you’re pet peeve may be beard stroking liberals in tweed jackets speaking critically of the church, mine is blanket statements made by extremely defensive Mormons that arguments averred by “non-believing/unorthodox” Mormons are inherently tainted, QED they shouldn’t be countenanced or trusted.
When you make an accusation that anyone dissenting is just a chip off the old stereotypical liberal block, you out yourself as being cut from the Fox News/Tea Party cloth. The irony at least for me is pretty straight forward.
I never said opponents of the church were tainted. I was making the case that they often come off very crass and snooty. That’s my perception… and I’m often right in this assessment. I can’t possibly make a blanket generalization. I’m just going to assert the fact that many anti/ex Mormons carry a very crass, holier than thou attitude.
On the political end, this podcast consistently asserts the liberal position as the correct one. The same position that upheld our current president who has been a key factor in bailing out big banks and corporations, while drone bombing people. On this program, it usually revolves around the gay rights issues. Liberals often want the legal right of gay marriage. I would suggest that we take the traditionally religious institution of marriage, and get the government out of it. Fortunately DOMA has been rightfully found unconstitutional. Now the government needs to honor contracts between consenting individuals, instead of blowing millions on trying to define what marriage is. The church has taken an empathetic stance on those who have homosexual tendencies, but families within need to raise their level of tolerance and empathy. The church has a right to disallow gay marriages, although the government should completely honor contractual arrangement between consenting individuals.
Anyway The example above is just one example where I find holes in the liberal stance. Not all, but many liberals find themselves embracing very authoritarian positions, with the mask of protecting civil liberties.
Those are my thoughts for the moment
“anti/ex Mormons carry a very crass, holier than thou attitude.” and active Mormons do not? LOL
Some do, of course. They’re all human beings. I just made a correct observation. I didn’t have to make reference to what you pointed out, because it’s obvious.
NC,
I have found that the ‘pride’ you speak of is a universal sin, but I have found it especially rampant in the Church, especially among active members and leaders who are so sure they are right that they won’t consider any other views or even look into their own history or scriptures. They have been so conditioned to have blind unquestioning obedience and that they are in the only true Church and that the Church has the only true authority and is led by true prophets who can’t fall or lead them astray or even be wrong.
But when you search church history you can quickly see that those things just aren’t true, but few members are willing to search their own history to find that out. And yet they talk about the Catholics who won’t search their church history either, yet have the same blind obedience in assumed ‘infallible leaders’ just like LDS do.
Most members don’t seem to want to admit they may be wrong or deceived, yet they are quick to call ex-mormons apostate, not even understanding why they left or whether they had very valid reasons.
Most active members that I know refuse to even talk about, let alone study, the vital issues that are causing so many valiant righteous members to leave the Church. Most don’t even seem to want to follow Christ’s teachings to loving try to talk to and understand their issues and try to reclaim what they believe are ‘lost sheep’. The LDS seem just like the FLDS to me, in how they act towards those who don’t believe the same as they do. Most all members and leaders seem to pridefully shun and label those who leave the Church, usually without any proof of wrongdoing, but just because they disagreed with the history or doctrines or practices or leaders of the Church and thus left.
While I have found non-members and ex-mormons far more willing to talk about religion and share beliefs and reason together respectfully. These non-members and ex-mormons usually concede how easy it is to be deceived by even so called ‘prophets’ and have been in the past and so they understand how vital it is to question and test every leader and doctrine in the LDS Church (as Christ commanded us to) or in any Church, before believing in it or putting faith and trust in any leader.
I believe if members would follow Christ’s command to ‘prove all things and persons and prophets’ before believing in them, then members would not be so easily deceived by false doctrines and false prophets in the Church, as Joseph warned most all members would be.
There are plenty of active members like myslef, who are fully aware of the history of the church. I listened to a huge portion of this podcast. I just don’t know where you’re going to find your monopoly of truth??? Live and let live.
There’s millions of people who believe in man made climate change, yet the science shows an 800 year lag of temperature to carbon content in the atmosphere, according to polar ice core sampling. Yet, this is considered completely settled. At least in the political realm.
Human fallibility all over the place. I suggest you exercise faith in something, and give back to society
Invariably any topic discussed on MS will almost always assert very liberal positions (at least as far as a TBM is concerned). If you want an echo chamber-to have your own opinions reinforced-crack open an Ensign.
I read your brief ‘in defense of traditional marriage’ and I’m not quite sure you appreciate the implications of your words. Maybe I misunderstood, but you feel that it is not the government’s prerogative to get involved in marriage. I agree, the fact that our gay brothers and sisters haven’t been able to marry is expressly BECAUSE of government intervention. For the longest time, if a gay couple showed up to a courthouse in CA for example, petitioning a marriage license, their request would have been denied out of hand. It is my opinion and earnest hope that the government would get out of the business of dictating what rights people of differing races and religions, and sexual orientation can have.
Why do I feel this way? Am I an angry anti-Mormon with an ax to grind, bent on tearing apart the very fabric of Mormon religion and culture? No, I feel I am very compassionate and understanding towards all people irrespective and race and creed. I don’t know if there is a God, part of me really hopes there is. Operating under the assumption that He/She/It does exist then I don’t believe we, as His creations have any right to impose our own prejudices or strictures based on contemporary culture.
Religions since the beginning of time have gotten in hot water trying arrogate to themselves the right to dictate their own unique interpretations of proper social conduct. And any cursory look into our own history will show that even our own Prophets, Seers, and Revelators screwed the pooch on occasions (a huge understatement for many). Polygamy, Blacks and the priesthood are the most glaring examples that even for the most ardent TBM cannot be dismissed without first jumping through many hoops.
So my hope is that you may see that people don’t disagree with the Church because their inherently angry or liberals, but logically come to these conclusions because of historical evidence and scientific inquiry. Instead of attacking character, attack arguments-much as you did in asserting your opinion on traditional marriage.
Thank you so much for this. Every word. So thought-provoking and inspiring.
I think 40 years of anti/ex-Mo’s blogging about the “holier than thou” attitude of the Church would still pale in comparison to the “holier than thou” attitude the Church has inculcated in its members over the past 184 years. Just pick any gospel topic and you’ll find pride. The “only true church” mantra is the obvious one that comes to mind.
Great podcast. John, are you planning to have any other follow up podcasts with some of the early participants on Mormon Stories? I’d be particularly interested in hearing an update from Dan and Laurie Gallagher, Jacque in episodes 123-125, Brian Johnston, and Janelle from episodes 207-208.
This post is in response to the post of tropical animal (TA) of April 27: TA: Why Not, we have heard these assertions all of our lives. Unfortunately, repetition establishes belief or “truth” more strongly than real evidence. WHYNOT: Repetition can also verify and authenticate belief, if it is based on truth. TA: You just heard Taryn and others say they discovered their reinforcing and guiding spiritual experiences came and went depending on changes in their brain chemistry. WHYNOT: Changes in some people’s brain chemistry do not preclude or prevent God from revealing truth to other people through the Holy Ghost. By the way, Jason revealed his true colors and lost all credibility when he resorted to insult and ridicule. For example, he called someone delusional who politely disagreed with him in another of these posts.
TA: Material from trance experiences comes from the person’s own cultural background. WHYNOT: Trance experiences based on a person’s own cultural background do not preclude or prevent God from revealing truth to people. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that, in certain cases,God might use trances to reveal truth if he chose to do so. In any case, the Lord has said that He reveals information in the native language of the recipient. Furthermore, he often couches those revelations in the context of the recipient’s culture. Case in point: John not only received the Book of Revelation in his own language, he received it in the form of a common Greek drama. Both the drama and John’s book are structured in seven acts, each including 7 episodes, and with a chorus of 24. Many parts of the Bible parallel non-Jewish and non-Christian literature. Some are direct quotations. The Bible acknowledges the use of non-scriptural support in teaching certain concepts in such verses as Acts 17:28. In the same chapter, Paul’s reference to the “unknown God” served as a visual aid in making his point. He claimed it represented the true God.
TA: And this was one of Joseph’s fatal flaws, he included items from his own background that should not have been in the Book of Mormon, WHYNOT: Joseph did not include anything from his own background that should not have been in the Book of Mormon. The angel told the Book of Mormon witnesses that the Book of Mormon had been translated correctly. A certain type of skeptic might argue that Joseph simply translated cultural words used by the original prophets of the Book of Mormon so that Joseph Smith would not have been at fault if he translated exaggerated cultural terms and definitions used by the original Book of Mormon prophets, e.g. elephant, horse, steel, etc.
TA: for example, elephants, steel, steel swords, horses and a list of other things. WHYNOT: We already covered elephants in another couple of posts in this discussion. Here are abbreviated comments on the other issues TA mentioned:
HORSES: The following references contain evidence that horses existed in the Americas before Columbus: Chester Stock, Rancho Labrea, A Record of Pleistocene Life in California, pp. 42-43; Alvin M. Josephy, The Indian Heritage of America (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1968), p. 44; National Geographic, October 1969, p. 437; Graham E. Clark, World Pre-History, 2nd Edition (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 272; Alma M. Reed, The Ancient Past of Mexico (New York: Crown Pub., 1966), p. 3; Matthew and Chubb, Evolution of the Horse, p. 13; University of Nebraska News Museum Notes, January 1963; and Leo Deuel, Conquistadors Without Swords (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1967), p. 538. The above nine sources also cited in Cheesman, The World of the Book of Mormon (1978), pp. 91-92. See also Professor W. D. Matthews, American Museum Journal, supplemental edition 2 (1905); Touring Topics, November 1932, p. 22; W. H. Proctor, Life, October 24, 1938, p. 9; George C. Marshall, “Giant Effigies of the Southwest,” National Geographic, September 1952, p. 389; Setzler, Frank M. and Richard H. Stewart, “Seeking the Secret of the Giant,” National Geographic, September 1952, p. 390-404. M. F. Ashley Montagu says the following concerning the existence of the horse in America: “Another distin¬guish¬ed American paleontologist, whose special interest is the horse, is, I understand, of the opinion that the horse never became extinct in America.” (See M. F. Ashley Montagu in American Anthropologist, [1944], vol. 46, p. 568-69.) *** The following sources document both the horse and elephant living coincidentally with ancient American man. Hannah Marie Worm¬ing¬ton, Ancient Man in North America, 2nd Edition (Denver: Colorado Museum of Natural History, 1944), pp. 5, 13, 15, 35, 38, 57, 58; Early Man as Depict¬ed by Leading Authorities at the Academy of Natural Sciences, edited by G. G. Mac-Curdy, (Philadelphia: March 1937), p. 192, contains papers of 36 experts; E. N. Fallaise, Science Progress, vol. 32, p. 132 (1937-1938); *** Frank Roberts said: “The first migrants were unquestionably hunters, and many of the animals that served them as game were essentially the same as those existing today. In addition, there were a number that now are extinct. Among those represented by the bones associated with the remains of camps and tools left by these hunters are … mam¬moth … and the horse.” (Frank H. H. Roberts, Essays in Historical Anthropology of North America Published in Honor of John R. Swanton, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, [1940], vol. 100, p. 104. ***Twelve petroglyphs of men on horseback are depicted on a section of rock in Indian Creek Canyon near Monticello, Utah. Bows and arrows are depicted, but no guns. (See Christensen, Progress in Archaeology, [1963], pp. 97 98. Horses may have become extinct at the same time (after the Book of Mormon period) as the mastodon and perhaps for the same reasons (weather, disease, hunted down and eaten for food, etc.
IRON/STEEL: Tools, decorations, and weapons made of meteoric iron have been found in ancient Amerioa. Therefore some of the iron tools, decorations, and weapons of Book of Mormon people would have been made from that material. Absolute scientific proof of the existence of the use of smelted iron and steel in the Americas during Book of Mormon times is hard to find because so many centuries have passed. Mines containing iron ore (especially after being played out) would have been covered with vegetation which became soil for more vegetation/soil cover as buildings and entire cities were slowly buried. Iron and steel corrode faster in high humidity, in water (e.g. the Titanic), or moist soil as so common in MesoAmerica. Evidence of the use of steel in ancient America includes: A. Hyatt Verrill, “The Pompeii of Ancient America,” in World’s Work, vol. LIII, #3, p. 286, January 1927. Also Radomir Pleiner “Rediscovering the Techniques of Early Blacksmiths,” Archaeology, (1963), vol. 16, p. 242. *** A book by Arlington H. Mallery claims the discovery of prehistoric iron smelting furnaces in the Ohio valley, which show resemblances to European smelting sites of the Middle Ages. (See Mallery, Lost America; the Story of the Pre-Columbian Iron Age in America, [Washington, 1951]; cited in Christensen, Progress in Archaeology, [1963], pp. 113-114). *** “When Cortez had completed the conquest of Mexico, the Spaniards… were particularly struck and puzzled by one fact. They noticed that the Aztecs possessed certain implements, such as knives, daggers, etc., made of iron, (H. Hensoldt, The American Geologist, [1889], vol. 4, pp. 37-38.) *** Other evidences of ancient American iron-working can be found in Foster, Prehistoric Races, p. 333; Kansas City Post, October 19, 1915; Bradford, American Antiquities, p. 431, 1841; W. H. Holmes, Smithsonian Institution Annual Report, 1903 (1904), “Traces of Aboriginal Operations in an Iron Mine Near Leslie, Missouri”, p. 723; Samuel F. Haven, “Archaeology of the United States,” Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, vol. 8 (1956), p. 34
TA: And certainly, Joseph’s translation of the Egyptian funeral document, including his by-the-numbers translation of its facsimiles, which Joseph erroneously translates as coming from the hand of Abraham, wipes out Joseph’s credibility. WHYNOT: BOOK OF ABRAHAM: Joseph correctly translated the Book of Abraham originally written by the hand of Abraham on papyri. After translation, these sacred papyri were delivered into the hands of a heavenly messenger, possibly Abraham himself as the plates of the Book of Mormon were delivered to Moroni. Joseph retained possession of the Sen Sen “Book of the Dead: funeral papyri. Joseph and/or his scribe cut, pasted, and sketched the Book of the Dead facsimiles to represent the original facsimiles in the Book of Mormon papyri. These modified Book of the Dead facsimiles became visual aids for people to learn approximately what the original Book of Abraham facsimiles looked like.
TA: And further, people reading from walls or from a seer stone does not surprise me and does not surpass what I have experimentally done–subjects telling a fascinating story from a television set with a blank screen that is off and unplugged. Or the subject who writes fifty pages of revelation in one evening, and is quite insistent that the revelation be delivered, at all costs, to the intended person. WHYNOT: Those facts do not preclude or prevent God from revealing truth to a true prophet or a sincere seeker of the truth who asks with a sincere heart and real intent in accordance with scripture: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with A SINCERE HEART, AND REAL INTENT, HAVING FAITH IN CHRIST, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:5). When a person receives some other answer, one of the first questions is whether they really and truly fulfilled all three requirements: (1) a sincere heart, (2) real intent, and (3) faith in Christ. And we might add a fourth: “Waiting on the Lord” for an answer and being willing to accept the type of answer the Lord decodes to give.
TA: I can make a “prophet” out of someone if they are highly susceptible to trance experiences. WHYNOT: False prophets can be made in many ways including trances. However, the Lord can and does make prophets out of people whom he chooses, especially those who were preordained to that calling in the preexistence TA: You might ask why believers don’t want to see the elephant in the Book of Mormon. The short answer is the avoidance of anxiety. WHYNOT: Another short answer is that they do not want to see elephants, horses, steel, etc. in the Book of Mormon because that would mean they should consider living the principles of the gospel rather than retiring from Church activity and doing their own thing. This has got to be one of the main reasons why some of the disciples of Jesus ceased following him: “ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (John 6:66).
WHYNOT: Before rejecting references such as those above on horses, iron, and steel, people should keep in mind that Paul of the Bible and the Articles of Faith do not say, “If there is anything of substantial evidence or articles that have been peer reviewed by scholars and scientists, we seek after these things.” Seeking after hints or clues or scientific tidbits supporting the Book of Mormon is seeking after that which is virtuous, lovely, and OF GOOD REPORT and praiseworthy because it builds faith and confirms people’s testimonies and helps them remain true to the faith rather than being “tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine” and helps protect them from the faith destroying criticisms and “cunning craftiness of men.”
@Whynot
Allow me to address the topic of delusions. I did not intend for it to be an insult. I am sorry if you took it that way. Many bright, intelligent people have been delusional in their thinking. John Nash, a brilliant mathematician was delusional threw out his life and did remarkable work regarding game theory. Joseph Smith was delusional. I do not believe he was lying about his experiences. I believe he was a man of integrity. I think he whole heartedly believed what he reported. I admittedly have been delusional in my thinking during my life time. Your in good company whynot. I actually believe you to be an intelligent person. A person who probably has an education. What concerns me is that you say you can not “CHANGE”. Your in fear that you can not change and still maintain your integrity. I know people who change their opinions and still hold on to their integrity. I know many people who have actually left the church and they still maintain their integrity. They say they did it because they do have integrity. What is worrisome is when a person says they can not change. I seek for knowledge and change threw out my life. I admit that I make mistakes and scientific discovery is on going. I am open to change. People can have harmless or harmful delusions, what is troubling is when those delusions are resistant to change.
It is pointless for me to argue tit for tat with some one who manifests symptoms associated with a mental illness. Before you jump to conclusions I am not saying you have a mental illness. Besides, there is nothing wrong with a person who has a diagnosed disability. Its like a person with cancer. It does not make the person a bad person.
Something ells I’ll address with you. You are on a kick about how the church would be seen to be true if only people would keep a positive interpretation of things. Many people would not find believing in angels visiting in the night and a glorified man sitting on a thrown near Kolob as a positive interpretation. Just as believing in little green men is not a positive interpretation. Some would believe it to be negative interpretation and possibly harmful. Our emotional ties to a belief can strongly influence us from making an evaluation from a neutral position. It colors our judgment.
I care for you. I do not wish to argue with a person who admittedly says he can not change.
Those are my true colors. Thank you.
Although WhyNot will not listen, your post was very eloquently stated kinglamoni!
It’s amazing to me why anyone wants to keep bla, bla, blaing with anyone like whynot who is more than likely working for lds inc. and paid to try to divert these type of forums to get maximum lds propaganda out there —– which you all are allowing him to do on this forum by continuing to argue with him. I praise God everyday that he led me to the truth —- that doesn’t mean I have to argue truth with every person that chooses to live under a rock or in a cave to avoid the light of the sun!
I don’t think Whynot works for the church. He asserts things that not even the church makes statements regarding. His arguments are typical FAIR apologetics. To see how the church addresses issues see the essays they have recently put out. i.e. http://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood
“Stormin” is stormin way out in left field. WhyNot has no relation whatever to lds.inc and is certainly not paid for his “Defender of the Faith” efforts. Some Church authorities or faithful members probably wish WhyNot would not present counter-arguments to the critics because we are asked to avoid contention and because it only angers or inflames critics, especially the most vocal ones. ”Behold, I am laboring with them continually; and when I speak the word of God with sharpness they tremble and anger against me; and when I use no sharpness they harden their hearts against it; wherefore, I fear lest the Spirit of the Lord hath ceased striving with them” (Moroni 9:4).
WhyNot’s posts are purely a private, voluntary, unpaid missionary effort in the spirit of “Come now let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18) and “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). (OK, admittedly, WhyNot is lacking in the meekness area.)
It is amazing to WhyNot why some critics like to keep attacking Christ, his Church, and his true prophets when there are always positive possibilities and reasonable interpretations of the same words and incidents which critics are so fond of negatively interpreting.
Again, there is a positive interpretation to each and every negative interpretation of the recorded historical data. It makes one wonder whether some critics are being paid money or at least trying to claim fame and build up their egos, or whether they are at least trying to justify their skepticism and disbelief by savoring and spreading anti-LDS propaganda. Such a thing is an unfortunate consequence of posting their bitter accusations or sour-grape objections on websites without encouraging polite counter-arguments. If Stormin had his way, any disagreements with his opinions should be censored, e.g. no one should counter-argue with WhyNot because it only opens up a platform for people like WhyNot to defend the faith.
Stormin said he praises God every day that he led him to the truth. People who claim to be directed by God but who fight against Christ and his true Church founded on apostles and prophets, should be especially careful: “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8).
Dissidents and critics show their true colors when they abandon reason and resort to scorn and ridicule such as “that doesn’t mean I have to argue truth with every person that chooses to live under a rock or in a cave to avoid the light of the sun!”
To call anyone delusional or mentally ill whether they are Jesus, Joseph Smith, John Nash, Taryn or Jason Nelson-Seawright, or WhyNot is insulting and politically incorrect. I did not say I cannot change. I only said that it is highly unlikely that I will change my belief in Christ, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the true church of Jesus Christ. It is highly unlikely because, in addition to testimony, there is too much logic, reason, and scientific evidence to support them. A highly unlikely event that would cause me to change is if God himself appeared to me and/or to a panel of atheistic scientists and declared that God does not exist (a bit of paradoxal humor there) or that they are all wrong—Jesus, Joseph Smith, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the church that Christ established while he lived upon the Earth. Until either of those events happen, my integrity demands I remain true to the faith no matter what other people choose to do with their integrity or free agency. In the meantime, I shall continue to study, investigate, empathize with, and try mightily to see if I can, in all good consciences throw away positive interpretations of the same words and events that critics give negative interpretations to which in turn lead them carefully down to you know where (skepticism, disbelief, dissidentism, agnosticism, and even atheism).
You say it is pointless for you “to argue tit for tat with someone who manifests symptoms associated with a mental illness.” By your definition, it sounds like you want to throw out anything Jesus or his original apostles or his modern apostles have said that you disagree with. It sound like you are averse to objectivity and open mindedness and that you are uncomfortable with the scripture: “Come let us reason together, saith the Lord.” (Isaiah 1:18) because you would fear it might somehow involve trances.
The possibility of angels visiting in the night and a glorified man sitting on a throne near Kolob is a positive interpretation. To judgmentally assume that a person is delusional (or like people who believe in green men) because they claim to have received visitations of angels and revelations about the throne of God is a negative interpretation of the original account. We have our choice. We can assume a positive or a negative interpretation of the same data whether it is found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or Church history. “Choose ye this day which interpretation you will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the positive” (apologies to Joshua) where the positive is defined as leading to that which is “virtuous, lovely, and of good report and praiseworthy” and that which is logical, sensible, scriptural, scientific, and reasonable.
It is true that emotional ties to a belief can strongly influence making an evaluation from a neutral position and colors our judgment. That is why we don’t have to take a neutral position even though by the above criteria that would work too. Rather than focusing on a neutral position, we are counseled to study the scriptures, pray, and keep the commandment to attend Sacrament meeting. If we truly want a testimony, we should have faith in Christ and ask with a sincere heart and real intent per Moroni 10:5. God can penetrate the storm clouds of doubt arising from negative interpretations, critics bearing false witness, trances, fits, hypnoses, hallucinations, auto-suggestion, and winds of doctrine from skeptics, critics, frauds, apostates, atheists, agnostics anti-Mormons, those who “lie in wait to deceive,“ and those who “draw near to the Lord with their lips but their hearts are far from him.” God is all-powerful.
By the way, Lance should remember that there is a big difference between “listening” and “obeying,” e.g. obeying the siren call to throw the baby out with the bathwater, cease walking after Christ, and link up with the dissidents.
To call anyone delusional or mentally ill whether they are Jesus, Joseph Smith, John Nash, Taryn or Jason Nelson-Seawright, or WhyNot is insulting and politically incorrect. I did not say I cannot change. I only said that it is highly unlikely that I will change my belief in Christ, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the true church of Jesus Christ. It is highly unlikely because, in addition to testimony, there is too much logic, reason, and scientific evidence to support them. A highly unlikely event that would cause me to change is if God himself appeared to me and/or to a panel of atheistic scientists and declared that God does not exist (a bit of paradoxal humor there) or that they are all wrong—Jesus, Joseph Smith, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the church that Christ established while he lived upon the Earth. Until either of those events happen, my integrity demands I remain true to the faith no matter what other people choose to do with their integrity or free agency. In the meantime, I shall continue to study, investigate, empathize with, and try mightily to see if I can, in all good consciences throw away positive interpretations of the same words and events that critics give negative interpretations to which in turn lead them carefully down to you know where (skepticism, disbelief, dissidentism, agnosticism, and even atheism).
You say it is pointless for you “to argue tit for tat with someone who manifests symptoms associated with a mental illness.” By your definition, it sounds like you want to throw out anything Jesus or his original apostles or his modern apostles have said that you disagree with. It sound like you are averse to objectivity and open mindedness and that you are uncomfortable with the scripture: “Come let us reason together, saith the Lord.” (Isaiah 1:18) because you would fear it might somehow involve trances.
The possibility of angels visiting in the night and a glorified man sitting on a throne near Kolob is a positive interpretation. To judgmentally assume that a person is delusional (or like people who believe in green men) because they claim to have received visitations of angels and revelations about the throne of God is a negative interpretation of the original account. We have our choice. We can assume a positive or a negative interpretation of the same data whether it is found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or Church history. “Choose ye this day which interpretation you will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the positive” (apologies to Joshua) where the positive is defined as leading to that which is “virtuous, lovely, and of good report and praiseworthy” and that which is logical, sensible, scriptural, scientific, and reasonable.
It is true that emotional ties to a belief can strongly influence making an evaluation from a neutral position and colors our judgment. That is why we don’t have to take a neutral position even though by the above criteria that would work too. Rather than focusing on a neutral position, we are counseled to study the scriptures, pray, and keep the commandment to attend Sacrament meeting. If we truly want a testimony, we should have faith in Christ and ask with a sincere heart and real intent per Moroni 10:5. God can penetrate the storm clouds of doubt arising from negative interpretations, critics bearing false witness, trances, fits, hypnoses, hallucinations, auto-suggestion, and winds of doctrine from skeptics, critics, frauds, apostates, atheists, agnostics anti-Mormons, those who “lie in wait to deceive,“ and those who “draw near to the Lord with their lips but their hearts are far from him.” God is all-powerful.
By the way, Lance should remember that there is a big difference between “listening” and “obeying,” e.g. obeying the siren call to throw the baby out with the bathwater, cease walking after Christ, and link up with the dissidents.
To call anyone delusional or mentally ill whether they are Jesus, Joseph Smith, John Nash, Taryn or Jason Nelson-Seawright, or WhyNot is insulting and politically incorrect. I did not say I cannot change. I only said that it is highly unlikely that I will change my belief in Christ, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and the true church of Jesus Christ. It is highly unlikely because, in addition to testimony, there is too much logic, reason, and scientific evidence to support them. A highly unlikely event that would cause me to change is if God himself appeared to me and/or to a panel of atheistic scientists and declared that God does not exist (a bit of paradoxal humor there) or that they are all wrong—Jesus, Joseph Smith, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the church that Christ established while he lived upon the Earth. Until either of those events happen, my integrity demands I remain true to the faith no matter what other people choose to do with their integrity or free agency. In the meantime, I shall continue to study, investigate, empathize with, and try mightily to see if I can, in all good consciences throw away positive interpretations of the same words and events that critics give negative interpretations to which in turn lead them carefully down to you know where (skepticism, disbelief, dissidentism, agnosticism, and even atheism).
You say it is pointless for you “to argue tit for tat with someone who manifests symptoms associated with a mental illness.” By your definition, it sounds like you want to throw out anything Jesus or his original apostles or his modern apostles have said that you disagree with. It sound like you are averse to objectivity and open mindedness and that you are uncomfortable with the scripture: “Come let us reason together, saith the Lord.” (Isaiah 1:18) because you would fear it might somehow involve trances.
The possibility of angels visiting in the night and a glorified man sitting on a throne near Kolob is a positive interpretation. To judgmentally assume that a person is delusional (or like people who believe in green men) because they claim to have received visitations of angels and revelations about the throne of God is a negative interpretation of the original account. We have our choice. We can assume a positive or a negative interpretation of the same data whether it is found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or Church history. “Choose ye this day which interpretation you will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the positive” (apologies to Joshua) where the positive is defined as leading to that which is “virtuous, lovely, and of good report and praiseworthy” and that which is logical, sensible, scriptural, scientific, and reasonable.
It is true that emotional ties to a belief can strongly influence making an evaluation from a neutral position and colors our judgment. That is why we don’t have to take a neutral position even though by the above criteria that would work too. Rather than focusing on a neutral position, we are counseled to study the scriptures, pray, and keep the commandment to attend Sacrament meeting. If we truly want a testimony, we should have faith in Christ and ask with a sincere heart and real intent per Moroni 10:5. God can penetrate the storm clouds of doubt arising from negative interpretations, critics bearing false witness, trances, fits, hypnoses, hallucinations, auto-suggestion, and winds of doctrine from skeptics, critics, frauds, apostates, atheists, agnostics anti-Mormons, those who “lie in wait to deceive,“ and those who “draw near to the Lord with their lips but their hearts are far from him.” God is all-powerful.
By the way, Lance should remember that there is a big difference between “listening” and “obeying,” e.g. obeying the siren call to throw the baby out with the bathwater, cease walking after Christ, and link up with the dissidents.
No one should infer or conclude Whynot is delusional or mentally ill —- he can obviously parrot out propaganda a lot better than any general authority I know of in the corporation —— He has been brainwashed Mormon (some would argue mind controlled but I think brainwashed is more descriptive) like I was for 40 years until I learned the truth and understood I had been brainwashed! PS —- brainwashed is not a negative thing in all cases. Almost all people in this life are brainwashed to believe a lot of things that are not true so it is not something to claim I am insulting you on unless you agree that to be brainwashed Mormon is a bad thing.
No one should infer or conclude that people like Stormin are delusional or mentally ill. They can obviously parrot out anti-Mormon propaganda a lot better than most agnostics, atheists, apostates, or anti-Mormons in the world. People who think and talk like Stormin have been brainwashed (some would argue mind controlled but perhaps brainwashed is more descriptive) like some who remained faithful to Christ for a time and then ceased to walk after him (“From that time MANY of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (John 6:66).) Doubtless many of those disciples Had run across accusations, distortions, misrepresentations, and misinterpretations promulgated by certain critics. Likewise, some disciples who walk no more with Christ fail to realize that they have been brainwashed or indoctrinated until their minds have become darkened and their hearts hardened.
P.S. The term “brainwashed” is an insulting, negative, judgmental, politically incorrect tool of the Adversary which he and his disciples use when criticizing and rejecting the truths of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Almost all people in this life are brainwashed to believe a lot of things that are not true about the scriptures, Jesus, Joseph Smith and Church history. So it is sad to observe ex-disciples of Christ abandon reason and resort to ridicule and insult when confronted with reasonable possibilities, alternate explanations, and positive interpretations of words, events, and actions of the Bible, Christ, the Book of Mormon, and Joseph Smith so that they can justify their new lifestyle.
Whynot, I am amazed you do not totally appreciate your Mormon brainwashing (mind control) as it keeps you valiant without regards to historical truths in LDS incorporated —– which you apparently love. Brainwashing is not always as you claim ‘insulting, negative, judgmental and politically incorrect’ or the brethren would not use it on Mormon children —- if anyone really cared about any of those words for the poor persecuted Mormons. Brainwashing does not always involve totally false information. Myself (not necessarily a great athlete) and many athletes apply brainwashing to improve our performance or at least attitudes (that appear to lead to better performance) in both life and sports. We make affirmations (similar to your testimony of the T glove). We keep saying/or listening to things like —– I watch the ball closely and get great shots (for tennis), or I am always 100% positive in my self talk (sports and life).
Don’t be too critical of the brethren on brainwashing Mormons with Mormon affirmations , requiring what they wear , maintaining their own unique guidance from God , and requiring strict obedience to living prophets versus God, or you could find yourself apostatizing from God’s one true church!
Thank you so much for doing this podcast. John, while the comment about you activity/inactivity was “cute,” it was hardly fair. Everyone of us went back and forth. I was excommunicated when I was 19. When I was 38 a very sincere SP meet with me every week for months. I was re-baptized. I must get restless every 19 years. As I approach 57, I am debating with myself whether it is worth having my name removed. I must admit, I was disappointed when you started studying with the SP–not because you (both) were not sincere, but because my story was similar and I knew it wouldn’t be your “final answer.” And, that comes with some emotional pain. Thanks for doing what you do. Much good has come from your personal and public struggle.
To Whynot. You lived up to every expectation I had of you. Thank you, you certainly made my day. Praise God he made people like Whynot to defend Mormonism and he led me to the truth. Hope everyone in this forum (including the less than meek whynot) enjoys this Sunday in whatever way they chose to spend their day!
Thank you Jason and Taryn for sharing your story. Best of luck to you both in this wonderful journey of self actualization and self discovery. I agree with your assessment that the now is life, and learning to best that here and now is lifes quest. As someone who has also left the LDS church, I share similar sentiments and appreciated your thought provoking message today. You both have depth that allude many. Cheers to you!
I really don´t agree with the main issues this couple present. Sure there are insensitive members or members who make mistakes in their treatment of others, but we all are imperfect. But that isn´t a reason to leave the lord or to stop praying to god our father. I wish they would turn back to him to find a new peace and move forward.
The here and now is lifes quest, sure, but we don´t need to do this alone nor without Gods company.
By the way, on a peripheral issue, Elder Ballard addressed clearly the question of same sex marriage yesterday in the CES fireside. I´d recommend people here listen in to what he said to understand why the church opposes it and why this issue is completely different to the blacks and priesthood issue of the past. (https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/watch/ces-devotionals/2014/05?lang=eng)
Great episode, thanks to all involved in it.
Taryn and Jason mentioned some research about the vagus nerve and spirituality, I was hoping some links could be provided so I can have a clearer direction on where to go to better understand the research.
Thanks again!
After the first couple of comments I feel disinclined to wade through the rest, but just wanted to stand up as at least one person who was TBM, was out for about five years, and is now active (but no TR) as saying that I learned a lot from this podcast. This is not the choice I would have made, but if I’m going to contribute to the institution in a substantial way it’s important to walk in the shoes of those who are more deeply disturbed about the issues than I am. I especially benefited from J’s comments about having to be in a position of authority over LGBT folks being disciplined and not being able to support that. I often say I can live with the church’s positions on things I disagree with, but it’s vital to put a human face on those things at times.
You “can live with church positions on things you don’t agree with”?! REALLY?! Well, most people call that “compromising your principles”… something that I personally decided to stop doing. That helped me a lot, and upon leaving the church, have felt significantly more at peace knowing that I can oppose that which is unacceptable (e.g. racial, gender, religious, or sexual discrimination… all pervasive in early and current LDS culture) and do so whole-heartedly, without the fear of losing my TR, not being “worthy” to take the sacrament, being sent to the “telestial kingdom” or becoming a “son of perdition”. All of those are punishments that would fit better those who compromise their integrity, cower their heads, silence their mouths, and mindlessly follow “the Bretheren”.
Whynot
You said:
“the actual, literal practice of the Law of Consecration is not commanded. Tithing is its substitute”
It is true that consecration is not commanded right now, according to scripture:
“Therefore, in consequence of the transgressions of my people, it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait for a little season for the redemption of Zion…. And this cannot be brought to pass until mine elders are endowed with power from on high…For behold, I have prepared a great endowment and blessing to be poured out upon them, inasmuch as they are faithful…Therefore it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait for a little season, for the redemption of Zion….And let those commandments which I have given concerning Zion and her law be executed and fulfilled, after her redemption.”
It is true that the elders have not yet recieve the true endowment and power from on high and therefore we are still not required to live the laws of Zion including the law of consecration.
HOWEVER- There is no passage of canonized scripture that replaces the law of consecration with a lesser law called the law of tithing. That is a modern day Mormon myth.
You quoted verse four of Section 119 as if it authoritatively applies to Latter day Saints who have not entered into the law of consecration, yet verse four applies specifically and exclusively to those who have consecrated, per the terms of verse one, by initially putting all of the surplus property into the hands of the bishop.
In other words, this is how the law of tithing works:
First you consecrate (or tithe) by giving all surplus property to the bishop. (as stated in 119:1) That is the first act of consecration. It represents the Biblical definition of what tithing is, just as the term is used in verse four: “..And after that, those who have thus been **TITHED** SHALL PAY ONE TENTH OF ALL THEIR INTEREST ANNUALLY”
The passage is defining the initial consecration of all surplus property as “tithing” and differentiating it from the second step, which is to pay one tenth of all interest annually.
You are using the term tithing to refer to the paying of all interest annually when in fact the scriptures use the term tithing to refer to the initial consecration of all surplus properties.
Nothing in section 119 applies to you or any other church member living today, because you have not consecrated. You have not been tithed according to the commandment given in the scriptures.
The modern church has created their own heretical definition of what tithing means which is unscriptural.
It is fine for church leaders to create their own system of a “lesser law” if they want to, and it is fine for members of the church to pay anything they want, but PLEASE don’t wrest the scriptures to them conform to a corrupted system. Don’t make it sound as if the Lord created or endorsed the current corrupt system of LDS tithing.
Wonderful podcast! John, a few years ago, I volunteered to come on a podcast to explain the church experience for someone with Asperger’s, but Taryn made just about every point I wanted to make. The only thing I would add is that I know several folks on the spectrum who are diehard TBMs. I believe for these folks, the black-and-white, all-or-nothing nature of the church meshes very well with their black-and-white tendencies. However, church is also a very intense social experience, and as a result, many folks struggle even though they do well otherwise.
I enjoyed the podcast. One comment, which is something I felt was lacking in the into is the fact that Taryn is autistic herself. From the moment she started talking it was obvious to me that something was up with her. Socially she was strange, she seemed hyper-sensitive, and her attitude towards others felt very abrasive and completely lacking empathy. Very self-centered perspective.
She insisted she wasn’t offended by the nursery workers holding her child still, but that’s exactly what she was. I mean come on. This explanation that the church culture somehow causes people to think that autistic children should be tortured is ridiculous. This is like an educated way of saying she was offended.
When she started talking about autism and referring to everything as “we this, we that” and it became clear that she is autistic herself, suddenly it all made sense. And then the money quote, “ummm, let me see, I used to spin around a lot, ahhhh haaaa, it’s a complex of social cognition deficits, a lack of the ability to understand other people’s points of view, lack of awareness that they have a different point of view very often, umm… and… all kinds of sensory problems and lovely disruptive repetitive behaviors.”
That’s her!!! It sounds exactly like her perception towards church members, the nursery leaders, and even just the church and gospel in general. Not to be rude, but this seems so obvious to me. Everything about her perspective was just “me me me”
I enjoyed Jason’s perspective a lot more. He’s obviously a very tender man, Taryn found a match made in heaven, seriously. Few men could handle living in a house with two autistic people and handle it as well as he obviously does. Having served on disciplinary councils I can also empathize with what he experienced, it’s a tragic thing and often just seems to absurdly arbitrary.
Finally got around to listening to this garbage. These are exactly the type of people we don’t want in our church. Good riddance and enjoy your new life without God.
Stormin, I am amazed you do not understand that Mormons are no more brainwashed to stay faithful to Mormonism (Christ’s original truth church restored in our day) any more than critics and dissidents (such as Stormin) are brainwashed to stay faithful to their religious devotion to anti-Mormonism. You also fail to understand that LDS people do accept all truth from whatever source. LDS accept the same truths that you profess but LDS interpret those truths differently. For example we both accept the truth that Jesus Christ drove moneychangers out of the temple twice with a whip. Some critics (you included?) assume that the truth is that Christ was a militant messiah figure who tore through the temple, smashing tables and physically whipping people trying to make a living to support their families.
The truth is that Christ was and is and always will be the “Prince of Peace” who held the whip as a symbol of authority and tipped over some money changing tables to dramatize the seriousness of stealing other people’s money and defiling the temple. “And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves” (Matt. 21:13). Contrary to what a militant messiah would do, Christ suffered under the whip, in the garden, and on the cross in order to save all who are willing to be saved. Rather than being a militant messiah figure, he was the Son of God, a divine teacher and leader who taught the Beatitudes, the Golden Rule, turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile, love your enemies, and do good to them who hurt you.
Most, if not all, of what critics consider “historical truths” are not truths at all. They are supposition, assumption, misinterpretation, and misrepresentation of historical truth (facts). Each and every “historical” truth critics are fond of cherishing and harping on, after having been thoroughly brainwashed by their fellow critics and deceived by the “cunning craftiness of men,” can be explained and harmonized with the true gospel of Jesus Christ by positive interpretations of the same “historical truths” as in the above example of moneychangers at the temple.
I am also amazed, Stormin, that you go to such lengths to whitewash the term “brainwash.” No matter how you try to justify using it, it is demeaning. Continually trying to whitewash the term “brainwash” reminds one of the scripture: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20). This scripture also can be considered an indictment of many critics of the true Church of Jesus Christ and their tactics.
The brethren do not brainwash Mormons. They teach correct principles to the Church members and let them govern themselves, as Joseph Smith said. Our brothers and sisters in Church leadership positions teach ideals and encourage modesty in dress but leave it up to each Church member to wear what they choose to wear except in the temple. They teach obedience to God’s commandments for those who want to attain the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, but teach that free agency is a gift for everyone. If someone does not want the highest degree of heaven, that is their choice. They can do what they want. They can choose any degree of Heaven they want even if it isn’t the highest. But they are still welcome to meet and mingle with us.
taryn and jay! i was in the singles branch while you were there. would you mind contacting me? nikki.ricks@gmail.com
Taryn,
You are an inspiration. My experience in the Church with my daughter sounds so much like what you and your daughter have gone through – including walking into Nursery to find that she’s being forcibly restrained….
My daughter (now age 11) was diagnosed with sensory integration disorder at age 4 and finally Asperger’s syndrome at age 7. She does fine academically, but socially it’s been a real challenge.
We’ve been able to help her focus on art as an outlet for her emotions and as a way to connect to others. But she tends to set the bar for herself very low and her life goals and aspirations are far below what she’s capable of, I think in large part due to her frustrations in dealing with other people and her negative experiences with classmates at school (i.e., making her not want to go to school beyond the mandatory 12th grade).
We are constantly searching for powerful female role models that we can point to as examples of how her Asperger’s doesn’t limit her, even though it might provide different obstacles along the way. And now I can point to you among that group! It’s especially nice, as the previous examples we have found have been in the area of arts and entertainment (e.g., Heather Kuzmich, from America’s Next Top Model, and Ladyhawke, the musician). Now we can point to someone who’s academically and intellectually gifted as well. Thank you so much!
Nice interview. I always find it fascinating that so many people can find and identify the things that are wrong with religion and articulate it well but then turn around and don’t see the same problems with government which exhibits the same or very similar problems as religion has.
The conundrum of leaving faith and turning around and worshiping government.
Did anyone catch what study they were talking about on how the brain causes warm feelings? Where can I find this material?
It was difficult to hear what they said, but it was Dacher Keltner at Berkeley.
I was able to find this:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/forget-survival-of-the-fittest/
and this:
https://eiriu-eolas.org/2013/06/15/activating-the-vagus-nerve/
There were more hits to my search if you want to check it out. I did a google search using the words, “University of California Berkeley activation of vegus nerve elevation.”
Thanks, Morning Glory, I added the book to my good reads list! Looks like it should be interesting.