Thoughts on Deconstruction and Choice
A couple of weeks ago, a family member shared a Facebook post where they after several years of distancing themselves from the church, decided to share resources that had been helpful to them in the aftermath, and that had anchored their decision to stay away.
They worded themselves carefully, writing that they did not want to tell anybody what to do or not do, but that they felt a responsibilty to share what they had learned, and that maybe it could be helpful to somebody else.
The comment section was predictable. On the one hand, other disaffected former members thanked them for their openness and honesty. On the other hand, ‘stayers’ (as I will refer to them and you all know what I mean) shared their faith and testimonies, many just confirming what the original poster had claimed: that their faith was based on emotions, not rational facts.
I lay awake after reading through the post, and some of the comments. I recognized that my reaction was different than it might have been a couple of years ago. I was even surprised at my own immediate defensiveness.
I don’t think Facebook is a very constructive arena for working through deconstruction, but the original poster expressed being open to talk about it with anybody who wanted or needed to.
In my mind I have been working on a response for these last two weeks.
This is my attempt at writing it down. I might even share it with the original poster -but not in the comments section.
Critical thinking skills.
One of the main points of the original post was that the church does not teach or encourage critical thinking skills. They are right. To a degree. My immediate reaction to that claim is that teaching critical thinking is not the role or job of the church. We hopefully learn that in school or from our parents. I know I did. (I also acknowledge that ‘the church’ and parents have a tendency to overlap.) I was lucky. My parents encouraged extensive reading and studying, and all the books and information about the ‘sticky’ issues within our faith tradition were readily available to me, and never hidden under the proverbial rug. So being told that, as someone who has chosen to remain in the faith in spite of those sticky issues, does so because of a lack of critical thinking skills - well - that stings. It’s hard to not take it personally. And tbh I find it a little arrogant.
Betrayed by the church
Another point was that the church for years offered a highly sanitized and redacted version of it’s history, with the result that many, especially millenials, who are digital natives, upon discovering alternative versions on the internet, came away feeling betrayed, even lied to.
I need to check my resting b***h face when I hear or read yet another betrayal story. One can’t really argue with a person’s personal experience. It is true to them, and we have to accept that.
However - Do I believe that church leaders, past or present, have purposely lied to the general membership about church history and church leaders? No. Do I think they have unwisely and for the most part unwittingly put themselves in a very difficult position today by not being transparent and forthcoming, both in the past and the present? Yes. I honestly think they have acted much like parents universally do though. Benevolent Patriarchy, anybody? They have generally said and done and taught what they thought was best in the circumstances they were in. I love historian Melissa Inouyie’s thoughts in her book ‘Sacred Struggle’ on how we can offer grace to those former church leaders who said and did truly harmful things - whether it be racist, misogynistic, or both. If we believe in an afterlife, we have to believe that their journey isn’t over. They are still learning and repenting and growing. Just like I hope we will one day.
I have become less concerned about the truth claims over the years, and more concerned about the fruits. And believe me, there are plenty of fruits I don’t much care for. Still.
Both things can be true.
Joseph Smith Jr. probably suffered from delusions of grandeur, but he was also inspired enough to give us the Book of Mormon. Spencer W. Kimball was absolutely homophobic, but he also worked very hard for a long time to lift the Priesthood ban - and succeeded. Whether you believe the Book of Mormon to be scripture from God or a completely human production, you can’t deny the beauty and complexity of it’s message. And so it goes on for pretty much every single issue.
3. Sources and resources
The original poster shared a long list of articles from the LDS Discussions website, that they had found informative and helpful in their journey. I find it ironic that at the same time as calling out ‘stayers’ lack of critical thinking and source criticism, an anonymous website attributed to a certain ‘Mike’ and with links to John Dehlin’s Mormon Stories should be their main source of information.
LDS Discussions, even from a fairly cursory peek, seems no more substantial or less full of personal opinions than the apologetics sites it criticizes, no matter how extensive the catalogue.
On my own journey, I too first gravitated to official church sources, and then to apologetics, and only later did I take on the more overtly critical sources.
For me, it was a case of the more I learn, the less I know, and the more I realise I don’t know.
As I spiralled outward and distanced myself more and more from my spiritual home base, so to speak, I found myself searching out more resources that spoke to religion in general - and not specifically the LDS faith tradition. I discovered writers like Richard Rohr and Brian McLaren, Rachel Held Evans and Anne Lamott. And podcasts like Hidden Brain, and Unbelievable. I discovered that the LDS faith wasn’t as unique or special as I had thought, as far as organized religion goes. Particularly one Hidden Brain episode became a turning point for me, allowing me to lower my shoulders and take back my autonomy. Also Brian McLaren’s Book ‘Do I stay Christian’? Provided me with an alternative path out of my exasperating pleas of whether to leave the church entirely or stay put.
4. What changed?
A combination of things, to be fair. I will try to summarize. This is getting too long already.
I believe all scripture is man-made. Some of it might be inspired, but the human fingerprints are everywhere. I don’t have to take them literally. They are not inerrant or internally consistent. But they can still provide inspiration and comfort and meaning, if I choose to let them.
I no longer believe in a transactional god. (More about that here.) I’m not even sure I believe in a god at all, at least not in the form he has been presented to me all my life. I believe there must be something out there, or inside us, or somewhere. Creation is too beautiful and too complex for it all to be some cosmic accident. I like the idea of Heavenly Parents, but I’m not convinced. As a consequence, I am not obligated to shape my life to appease him or they or whatever. I can choose to be obedient to religious laws, or not. And to be fair, a lot of the rules are just common sense that are in fact helpful. Consequences though, are natural consequences, not good or bad will being doled out from some heavenly being.
I believe all religion is man-made, even mormonism. It’s literally made up. It is mere mortals way of making sense of life on this speck of dirt in the universe. Most of the time, it’s not been a great development. Religion is used as an excuse for all kinds of terrible behaviour. But again. Both things are true. Religion and devotion have also inspired amazing art, beautiful music, lovely scripture and sometimes (thank goodness!) caring for our fellow humans. So not all bad. I can choose to let religion and religious community be a part of my life, if I want to.
Funnily enough, I do actually believe in Jesus Christ. I believe he existed. I believe he was a radical humanist and feminist, and that he taught some really hard to hear and hard to do stuff. Like loving your enemy, and selling everything you have to give to the poor. Savior and redeemer? I’m agnostic about that . I’m not ruling it out completely, but why would a loving and omniscient heavenly parent and creator make a system that entailed sacrificing their own child on behalf of all the others? I’m familiar with the various atonement theories, but I am not convinced. Yet. I choose to leave the door open, and try to be Christlike anyway - because it can’t really do much harm, can it?
So in summary, what changed was that I realised I had a choice in the matter. Cafeteria Mormon is not a slur. I can pick and choose the parts I want, and discard what I don’t. It’s ok. I probably won’t be struck by lightning.
As a final thought, one of the LDS articles of faith states:
“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege—let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
That privilege extends to us cafeteria mormons too.
P.S. After an insightful discussion with my dear brother and mentor ElRay, I have made a few edits. Less eye-rolling. And I want to quote him:
”There is something to deconstructing faith that I find unhelpful as a term now. It leaves you also without community. And deconstruction is meant to empower the voices of those who go unheard, identify power and privilege and help challenge that power and privilege. People seem to deconstruct and leave. Not hold power to account!
Or change their faith to no-faith instead of changing their faith to more action. And keeping people busy and paddling water faster to stay above water instead of more contemplative (of holding a bit of breath and breathing in and out to float) is another one of those fallacies in religion that people are happy to deconstruct, but again leave religion and community altogether behind.
Don’t get me wrong, faith deconstruction is good. It’s faith community abandonment that I find does not resonate with me. The LDS church is unfortunately not made as an arena for healthy dissensions.”
So, what to call it instead? Faith crisis? Faith transition? Faith expansion? Faith journey? Still working on that.
Similar thoughts. Similar feelings. Similar shopping. I watched a piece of a podcast of a member talking with a pastor. The member asked, after visiting a ward, can you see now we members have a mind of our own? It struck me funny. You have to ask? Is it to justify staying? Is it fear of retribution? Is it self talk for peace? When you have to prove to someone that you think for yourself, do you? We continue to evaluate, recognizing that no one is infallible. Everyone, EVERYONE, has grown up in different environments, with different parents, with different religious constructs, with their own perspective of history, with their own shame and fears. I don’t have to accept any of it. I can see, read, think, evaluate, and choose. It is the purpose of this experience. Use it. It does take some courage; we’ve been shaped. We call it, “Culturally Conditioned.” There is a fear to thinking differently in a closed conditioned society, but it feels new, refreshing, and liberating. I think, honestly, that is the expectation. I honestly believe there is no such thing as blind faith. Thank you for your insights. It’s encouraging to see and read like thoughts.
Ooooo thank you for this!!! I relate with much of what you shared here. And you brought up some new ideas for me as well. I’ve landed in similar beliefs that you shared at the end and I am still wondering how to engage with the church as a whole/my ward members/stake members etc…I’m figuring it out. I love your recommendations of podcast episodes and books too! Thank you.