Was I clear as mud as to how to find peace?

[_DonBradley]

Hi MG,

Thanks for your moderate, kindly response. I have time only for a brief response at the moment, so I'll address your repeated arguments taking issue with my term "decisive." "Decisive" evidence does not refer to evidence that convinces everyone; but to evidence that rationally settles the question. There is no evidence that on any question that satisfies everyone. People are capable of doubting and disbelieving anything, no matter how well established.

Allow me to use an example to illustrate: The evidence for the errancy of the Bible is decisive: the book repeatedly contradicts itself, and, by definition, nothing self-contradictory can be free of error. Yet hundreds of millions of evangelical Christians believe the book to be inerrant, either because they are unfamiliar with the relevant evidence, or because they have bought into the creative but unsound arguments of Christian apologists who claim to "reconcile" these bald-faced contradictions.

I'm not saying that foundational LDS faith claims are as clearly false as is the doctrine of biblical inerrancy--they are not. But the evidence against them is nonetheless overwhelming, and, I would say, yes, decisive. That this is not recognized by Latter-day Saints has nothing to do with whether it's accurate or not. In my own personal experience, the reality of the situation is not evident to believers largely because of "cognitive illusions"--mental "blindspots" that are part of our species birthright, and that can be guarded against only when they are recognized and when systematic research and analysis are applied. An excellent work on cognitive illusions (which has nothing to say directly about Mormonism, and vanishingly little on religion at all) is How We Know What Isn't So by cognitive psychologist Thomas Gilovich. I commend it to anyone interested in sharpening their thinking, weighing evidence, and finding truth.

by the way, I apologize for coming on rather strong in my initial response to you. Our last encounter on ZLMB (or at least the last one I remember) left a rather bad taste in my mouth, and I gave you a preemptive blasting for things I (wrongly) thought were to come in your response.

My point is not to convince you that Mormonism is wrong, and that's nothing something I'll pursue on this thread. But--for whatever it's worth--I'd suggest that if you're more committed to holding correct beliefs than to holding desired beliefs, a look at the ways human thinking tends to go wrong (e.g., as documented by Gilovich and others) might be a great boon to your search.

I'll try to get to your other points soon.

Don

[_mentalgymnast]

Hi MG,
An excellent work on cognitive illusions (which has nothing to say directly about Mormonism, and vanishingly little on religion at all) is How We Know What Isn't So by cognitive psychologist Thomas Gilovich. I commend it to anyone interested in sharpening their thinking, weighing evidence, and finding truth.

MG: Hi Don, I look forward to some of your future comments. I value your outlook in juxtaposition to the apologetic slant on things.

For those that are interested in a synopsis of the salient points in the book Don is referring to, let me post one of the reviews from Amazon.com that seems to do a good job of it:

Mr. Gilovich says ". . . there are inherent biases in the data upon which we base our beliefs, biases that must be recognized and overcome if we are to arrive at sound judgments and valid beliefs." The cost of these biases is real and severe. This book explains why people are prone to wrong thinking, and ways they can counteract this.

Here are points that Mr. Gilovich made:

1. Seeing Order in Randomness - We all have a natural tendency to see order in data, even when the data is totally random and irregular. We do this even when we have no personal reason to see order. This happens especially when we remember facts from the past. Our memory plays tricks on us by emphasizing any possible patterns, and forgetting irregularities that might refute the patterns. For instance, basketball players often think that if they make one successful basket, then they are more likely to make the next basket - because they remember times when this has happened to them. "When you're hot, you're hot." However, objective statistical studies done on when successful baskets are made show that, if anything, the opposite is true.

This natural tendency to misconstrue random events is called the "clustering illusion." Chance events often seem to us to have some order to them, but when the law of averages is applied objectively, this order disappears. This error is compounded when our active imagination tries to create theories for why there should be order. Because of this, we need to be careful when we draw conclusions based on a sequence we think we see in some data.

2. Looking for Confirmation - We all have a natural tendency to look for "yes" instead of "no." If we have an idea, we tend to look for evidence that will confirm our idea, not evidence that will disprove it. This is true even when we have no personal attachment to the idea.

Some researchers believe this tendency results from our need to take an extra neurological step when we try to understand negative or disconfirming evidence, in contrast to positive or confirming evidence. To understand a negative proposition, we may need to translate it into a positive one. Therefore, we subconsciously look for easy positives instead of more difficult negatives. This does not promote objectivity and good science. If we want to do good science, then we need to force ourselves to look for negative evidence that contradict our ideas.

3. Hidden Data - When we search for evidence, often there is data that we unintentionally overlook. For instance, if we receive a bad impression about a person from the beginning, we may avoid them, and by avoiding them, they may never have a chance to show us the better side of their personality. But if we receive a good impression, we may get to know that person better, and thereby gather more positive data, and falsely confirm in our mind that first impressions are reliable. The way we collect data may filter out important categories of data, and this may cause us to confirm our wrong ideas. We need to avoid search strategies that show us only a distorted side of an issue.

4. Mental Corner-Cutting - We all cut corners with our mind. We often use mental strategies - inductive generalizations, etc. - to understand the world around us more quickly and easily. These strategies are very useful. But they come at a cost. These corner-cutting strategies can cause systematic errors or blind spots in our thinking. We need to be aware when we have not been thorough; therefore, we need to look out for signals that we are drawing a wrong conclusion.

5. Objectivity is Not Always Useful - We shouldn't expect everyone to reevaluate their beliefs every time a new piece of evidence comes along. "Well- supported beliefs and theories have earned a bit of inertia. . ." However, we should draw a distinction between a belief that is well supported by evidence over time, and a belief that only has traditional or popular support. Some scientists believe the complex mental processes that give us biases and preconceived notions are some of the same processes that make us intelligent beings - superior to computers or animals. Our biases are useful, but also dangerous. We need to be consciously aware of our biases.

6. Reinterpreting Evidence - When people are presented with ambiguous information, they often interpret it to support their established beliefs. When people are presented with unambiguous information that contradicts their beliefs, they tend to pay close attention to it, scrutinize it, and either invent a way of discounting it as unreliable, or redefine it to be less damaging than it really is.

For instance, gamblers tend to remember their losses very well - remember them better than their winnings - but they remember their losses as "near" wins that provide clues about how to win next time. But gamblers aren't the only ones who do this. We all do this from time to time in our own way.

7. Remembering Selective Evidence - Charles Darwin once said that he ". . . followed a golden rule, namely that whenever a new observation or thought came across me, which was opposed to my general results, to make a memorandum of it without fail and at once; for I had found by experience that such facts and thoughts were far more apt to escape from the memory than favorable ones."

Darwin's golden rule is not a normal tendency among people. People do not necessarily only remember evidence that supports their beliefs. Rather, they tend to remember events that cause them pain or difficulty, events that they predicted would happen, or events that otherwise drew their attention. They tend to forget events that follow the normal course of things.

For example, some people think that they always end up needing things that they threw away. But this is only because they remember all the things that they threw away, but later needed; while they forget about the many more times when they threw something away and never needed it again.

Another example is how people often say they wake up and their digital clock reads something like 1:23 or 12:12. This seems to be more than a coincidence - how come they wake up at these special times? However, they are simply forgetting the many more times when they woke up and the clock read 3:54 or 10:17. Certain types of events stick in our memory. We need to be careful that our selective memories do not bias our thinking.

8. The Wish to Believe and the Lake Wobegon Effect - The vast majority of people think of themselves as above average in qualities that they think are important. This is called the "Lake Wobegon Effect" after the fictitious community where "all the women are strong, the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average."

For instance, a survey of high- school seniors found that 70% of them thought that they were above average in leadership ability, and 60% thought they were in the top 10% of amiable people. 94% of college professors think they were better than their colleagues are.

One way that people try to confirm their beliefs is to search for evidence until they find something that supports them. They may do a very detailed, in-depth study of something, but they do not stop and evaluate what they have when they uncover evidence against their beliefs. Instead, they continue on and stop only when they've found enough evidence to support their side to relieve their conscience.

Often when we look evidence that supports what we believe, we only ask that it leave the door open for our beliefs. But when we find evidence that contradicts what we believe, we hold it to a higher standard. We ask that it prove its findings beyond a reasonable doubt. We hold others to a higher standard than we hold ourselves. This may be the most important point in this book.

For example, people who believe in a particular stringent health diet may look around for evidence that their diet is working, while people who eat more permissively find solace in studies that say that it doesn't matter what we eat. Conservatives tend to read conservative periodicals and not liberal ones, and therefore they are only exposed to evidence that encourages their convictions. Liberals do the same. What we need here is to search in an even-handed way for supporting evidence and contradicting evidence, and weigh each side objectively.

9. Telling Stories - Much of what we know about our world we heard from others. But second-hand information is often simplified and "cleaned up" as it is told. As we relate stories, we often exaggerate them, or make them happen to a friend instead of to an unknown person, or try to make the story more understandable. We do this subconsciously because we want our audience to be entertained or impressed.

Instead, we need to temper what we hear by: (1) considering the source of the message, (2) putting more credence in actual statements of fact and not predictions, (3) scale estimates down by accepting the less drastic if two numbers offered to us, (4) not allow our personal feelings towards someone deceive us into thinking that they are an example of a widespread phenomenon.

10. Correction from Others - Our friends and acquaintances can bring an objective perspective to our habits and beliefs. For instance, young children are good at correcting silly behaviors in each other, such as a funny way of walking, or eating with your mouth open. But, as we get older, we tend to associate with people who agree with us or share our habits, and therefore we have fewer opportunities to meet corrections. If we have adopted a defective belief, then we may never encounter the correction we need.

11. Strategies - If we all have innate tendencies to reason wrongly, what can we co to combat this? We can train our minds to compensate for our shortcomings: (1) We should be aware of how our minds try to see order even when there is no order. (2) We should be aware of how our minds remember things in a very biased way. (3) We should actively search for data that we may have missed, and especially search for data that contradicts our theories or beliefs. (4) We should ask ourselves how someone who disagrees with us would look at this data? (5) We should remember that stories that we hear may come from an unreliable source, or they may be exaggerated by the storyteller to make a point.

The more we understand and compensate for these errors, the more confidence we can put out beliefs that we have more carefully validated.

Conclusion

I believe these observations apply to the conservative Christian community as much as the rest of the world. Christians have a duty to look at their own beliefs with the same critical eye that they turn on the "liberal media." I wish I could find books like this one by Mr. Gilovich written in the Christian community. We need Christian leaders who will take a stand for self-criticism.

Let's not use bad reasoning or bad science to promote good ideas. An example would be if creationists like me were more open about the evidence that seems to contradict creationism. We like to think that all evidence is in our favor, but I believe that if we were more public about the problems with creationist theories, more people would be impressed with our objectivity and reliability.

The challenge I have for myself is to become more aware of how I am reasoning, and be honest enough to acknowledge the errors I may discover there.

MG: food for thought.

My point is not to convince you that Mormonism is wrong...
Don

MG: hey, you might as well give it a shot!

Regards,
MG

[_Seven]

"Leaving the church" had nothing to do with black and white thinking. As a chapel Mormon I was a black and white thinker. If the church wasn't true, then nothing was in my mind. As an inactive internet Mormon I am no longer a black and white thinker. It was opening my mind to the gray areas that led me out of the church.

MG: hi Seven. Do you mind if I come back to this for just a moment?

What were some of the "gray areas" that led you out of the church and how did learning about these "areas" act as a catalyst to your eventual or sudden development into a "thinking outside of the box" kind of gal? Why did you then decide as a thinking outside of the box kind of gal that this wasn't an option (not continuing as a black and white thinker) within the church?

Polygamy was the deal breaker for me. I can't make evil good and good (monogamy) evil. The inequality, inhumanity/cruelty of polygny does not make me feel valued and loved as a daughter of God. Either the doctrine is false, or I don't want to be anywhere near the CK. Same goes for the racist teachings of my fellow brothers and sisters who have darker skin than me. It doesn't feel Godly. I also have issues with Old Testament practices, like murdering and raping innocents in God's name. The "gray" area for me was allowing the possiblity that this doctrine was false and used as a way for Joseph to have God sanctioned adultery. What better way to convince a group of devout Christians to engage in immoral behavior than use Old Testament abominations with a restoration revelation? If apologists and internet TBMs can throw out the hundreds of other teachings/doctrines by LDS Prophets as "opinion", wicked Old Testament practices, and be fine with changes made to the Book of Commandments, edited history, contradictions in the scriptures, racism, etc. then why not throw this one out too?

I didn't have the knowledge as a Chapel Mormon to even begin thinking outside the box. I had been indoctrinated/conditioned to believe that anti Mormon claims were all lies about polygamy, temple changes, and racism so I had ignored and shelved my concerns most of my life. When I was forced to examine church history, I was awakened to the world of apologetics which was very disturbing. I had no idea the anti Mormon claims could be true but here were active faithful LDS confirming the truth and defending immorality as Godly. It was a shock to my Chapel Mormon world I had come from. I had never desired to leave the church or ever imagined I would ever go inactive. I had always loved the Mormon gospel as I knew it.

[Anonymous]

[quote="mentalgymnast
Also, let me ask a hypothetical question: if you still believed the church to be true would you be open to the idea that truth is also to be found in other places? Were you so set in your ways, in your black and white days, that you looked at the rest of humanity of being somehow disconnected from your personal reality or perception of the world? Humanity was the...other? Your previous statement, "If the church wasn't true, then nothing was in my mind" leads me to ask this set of questions.

As a former Chapel Mormon I did believe there was truth to be found in other places and faiths but that we had the fullness of the gospel and the only church with true Priesthood authority from God to act and speak in his name, give revelations, etc.
Currently I do not believe the LDS leaders speak for God or receive any continuing revelations for the church. Preaching repentance and teaching Christian values are still important though, and I respect this part of the work they do.

I believe most members share the belief that if the church isn't true then nothing else is, which easily leads one to atheism. I have heard other members share this black and white belief for years, and is a result of indoctrination, conditioning, etc. on the LDS claims that we are the only true church. My testimony of God and Jesus were inseperable from my testimony of the church being true. (I was BIC) I have had to start over to form a relationship with God after becoming disillusioned with Mormonism. I wasn't aware how intertwined my faith in Joseph Smith was to my faith in Jesus/God until I learned his history and found my world come crashing down. There are many statements from Prophets on how the truth or fraud of Mormonism rests on whether Joseph told the truth. It's easy to see how this could cause a crisis with our realtionship to God/Christ when we find out the church leaders lied & deceived.

The "black and white" thinking I had as a Chapel Mormon is that when Prophets/apostles spoke in Conference, I was taught and believed that was scripture for our day. I was not aware that the only true doctrine of the church was "canon" from the Standard works. Scripture is often very vague and can be interpreted so many various ways that the whole excitement of Modern Day Prophets was to explain, clarify, and correct what these scriptures mean through continuing revelations. The Heavens had been opened! In other words doctrine should come from the teachings/sermons that Prophets give on these scriptures in the Standard Works. I was not aware that Prophets could give teachings/doctrines on the scriptures from the pulpit in God's name, declare it his word only to be told it was "just his opinion" and still be considered Prophets.

Reading the Journal of Discourses and finding the full statements behind the ellipses in church lessons/teachings, was one of the most damaging things to my testimony. I had been fed deceptive church history, doctrines, teachings, etc. Apologists would call that "milk" but it was intentionally given that way to avoid shaking up testimonies or contraversy. I felt betrayed by the church and the trust I once had was shattered.

[_Seven]

MG:

I'm trying to understand why people that have left the church say that when they were members they were "black and white" thinkers, and when they left they suddenly or gradually transformed/morphed into something different...more advanced in some ways? If this is so, was it some brand/degree of special awareness that led to a belief that they were more advanced or enlightened in their mode/way of thinking? I ask this because at times I perceive what seems to be an "ahead of the curve" sort of mindfulness and/or attitude, and in some cases what appears to be arrogance, in those that have apparently "seen the light".

Actually the arrogance for me is gone now. I was arrogant as a Chapel Mormon when I believed to have the truth, real authority, and all the answers to life's greatest questions. Believing that other faiths were in apostacy & didn't have the full light and knowledge I did was arrogance. I don't believe I am more advanced now in my thinking at all. The difference is in taking the risks & allowing myself see the shades of gray. To ask the questions "if the church were false, how would I know? Would I even want to know?" I fought this many times and tried to "brain wash" myself into ignoring the evidence so I could avoid the consequences. Allowing the possiblity that the church wasn't what it claimed was very scary and I had no desire to head down that road but I had to be honest with myself. I had to crawl down off that mountain instead of jumping off as some can do. It has been baby steps for me which is why I haven't come to the conclusion that it's all a fraud yet.

Is there some kind of actual "ahead of the curve" mindfulness or thought processing sort of change that occurs when a person picks up their brain and walks out the doors of Mormonism for the last time?

Not for me. My brain was always working fine as a Chapel Mormon as most LDS brains are, but I was fed half truths and so called "milk." Most members will never see church teachings or history outisde of the Chapel and are afraid of coming across "anti Mormon" material. Even if they hear truth, they will brush it off as anti Mormon lies, as I had done most of my life. Had I been given the truth from the start, I doubt I would have embraced Mormonism as a convert. I was BIC, so it's a little different for me. Had I known about the doctrine of plural marriage in connection with the temple sealing, and changes to the temple ordinances, I would have never gone to the temple and taken out covenants with God. I was deceived on promises I was making to Him.

[_Runtu]

Actually the arrogance for me is gone now. I was arrogant as a Chapel Mormon when I believed to have the truth, real authority, and all the answers to life's greatest questions. Believing that other faiths were in apostacy & didn't have the full light and knowledge I did was arrogance. I don't believe I am more advanced now in my thinking at all. The difference is in taking the risks & allowing myself see the shades of gray. To ask the questions "if the church were false, how would I know? Would I even want to know?" I fought this many times and tried to "brain wash" myself into ignoring the evidence so I could avoid the consequences. Allowing the possiblity that the church wasn't what it claimed was very scary and I had no desire to head down that road but I had to be honest with myself. I had to crawl down off that mountain instead of jumping off as some can do. It has been baby steps for me which is why I haven't come to the conclusion that it's all a fraud yet.

Coming to grips with the reality of Mormonism was the most humbling experience of my life. I went from thinking I knew everything important to realizing that I knew next to nothing. I thought I had all of life's most important answers, and it's almost terrifying when you realize you have none of them. I certainly don't feel superior or enlightened compared to my believing friends and family. I do, however, feel pretty comfortable with uncertainty and lack of answers, but that has come, as Seven said, in baby steps. At first it was terrifying.

Is there some kind of actual "ahead of the curve" mindfulness or thought processing sort of change that occurs when a person picks up their brain and walks out the doors of Mormonism for the last time?

Not for me. It was devastating, and I pleaded with God to help me reconcile the wide chasm between what I had been taught and what I was now perceiving as reality. I don't think my thought processes have changed that much, but they certainly don't have some of the same context.

[_mentalgymnast]

If apologists and internet TBMs can throw out the hundreds of other teachings/doctrines by LDS Prophets as "opinion", wicked Old Testament practices, and be fine with changes made to the Book of Commandments, edited history, contradictions in the scriptures, racism, etc. then why not throw this one out too?

As I said earlier, I don't think you can throw this one out and still accept Joseph Smith as a prophet. We have evidence that the revelation was dictated to William Clayton. Oh, and there's section 132 on/in the books. <g>

I didn't have the knowledge as a Chapel Mormon to even begin thinking outside the box. I had been indoctrinated/conditioned to believe that anti Mormon claims were all lies about polygamy, temple changes, and racism so I had ignored and shelved my concerns most of my life.

I grew up in a home where my father was a Phd. researcher/prof. at UCLA in neuroscience. We had issues of Dialogue and Sunstone around the house. We grew up in Southern Calif. during the sixties and seventies. I was exposed to a somewhat more open upbringing even though our family was orthodox as far a church attendance, FHE, and so on. I wasn't really phased out too much until I went on a mission, came home, went to the university, graduated, got married...and the internet came into being.

My eyes's were re-opened and I had to really get serious about things. Nip and tuck there for a while. I came close to jumping ship. Polygamy, temple changes, and racism are bothersome. But there is also a flip side way of looking at each one of these issues, and I've been able to somewhat come to grips with them without giving up my sense of right/wrong and internal integrity. Looking at the bigger picture made a big difference. I've found that there is a light at the end of a long, dark tunnel.

I had always loved the Mormon gospel as I knew it.

The simple gospel is at the core of the church, even today. Things haven't changed. When I go to church each week it's the simple gospel of Jesus Christ that's taught. I don't know that it's changed significantly from when I was a child. Sacrament prayer hasn't changed!

Best wishes as you attempt to come to grips with the non-traditional picture of the church. As my Stake President told me a few years ago when I asked to be released form a high profile stake calling because of personal issues regarding testimony/faith...he said...good luck brother, it's a personal path you have to follow. Keep balanced and keep obeying the commandments.

That advice has turned out to be critical along the way as I've tried to sort things out. Life has gradually gotten better.

Regards,
MG

[_marg]

I certainly don't feel superior or enlightened compared to my believing friends and family. I do, however, feel pretty comfortable with uncertainty and lack of answers, but that has come, as Seven said, in baby steps. At first it was terrifying.

in my opinion that's a key significant difference between a good critical thinker versus a poor one, being "comfortable with uncertainty". A good critical thinker doesn't assume any belief is so sacred that it can not be criticized. They don't become so wedded to a belief that they dismiss all disconfirming evidence which is presented or available. A good critical thinker holds all beliefs from the operating perspective that they are temporary and should be changed if warranted but for operational purposes are used as if true with the appreciation at all times that they might not be.

When I look at MG's posts in this thread, he never looks at "what if" God doesn't exist, what if the God he believes in doesn't exist, what if the Church is entirely man created. And yet he believes he thinks in terms of possibilities and probabilites. When he made the statement that "reality demonstrates there are many ways to know God” I pointed out that reality doesn’t demonstrate this because the evidence is his God has only been known and worshipped a short time - 4,000 years relative to the evidence that modern man has been around for at least 100,000 years and hominids from which man evolved have been around 6 million years. Therefore what reality demonstrates is that his God is not easily knowable, if where has he been, certainly not in man's mind in all these 100,000’s of years. MG didn’t address this.

When he commented that giving money to the church was a good thing even if the church wasn't true and I pointed out that the church owns approx. 35 billion dollars in assets and didn’t need money from families who are strapped for it he again didn’t address this and suggested I start a new thread for my problem. When I pointed out that historically churches haven't used money for good, no comment. When I pointed out that it was laws which kept church from being terrible and one can look at polygamy as an example ..no comment.

So this is how MG operates, he deludes himself into thinking he is an “out of the box” thinker who looks at possibilities to determine probabilities. And he pats himself on the back. He doesn’t appreciate how intellectually dishonest he is. The evidence in the discussion indicates he participates in order to seek arguments or develop his own which will support his current position and beliefs and any evidence against and/or reasoning against he dismisses.

MG:

Is there some kind of actual "ahead of the curve" mindfulness or thought processing sort of change that occurs when a person picks up their brain and walks out the doors of Mormonism for the last time?

Runtu:

Not for me. It was devastating, and I pleaded with God to help me reconcile the wide chasm between what I had been taught and what I was now perceiving as reality. I don't think my thought processes have changed that much, but they certainly don't have some of the same context.

I think it requires intellectual honesty. And it requires a high level of personal integrity to value truth over what one wishes to believe is true. Pascal's wager, which MG mentioned was a reason he believes indicated to me he lacked personal integrity.

MG, you are a waste of time in my opinion to converse with.

[_Seven]

Hi MG, :)
Fist I want to thank you for the very respectful dialogue and openess in your experiences in this thread. This is something new I haven't experienced from the apologetic side. Maybe there is hope for internet TBMs and former Mormons/doubters to get along. :)


quote]

If apologists and internet TBMs can throw out the hundreds of other teachings/doctrines by LDS Prophets as "opinion", wicked Old Testament practices, and be fine with changes made to the Book of Commandments, edited history, contradictions in the scriptures, racism, etc. then why not throw this one out too?

As I said earlier, I don't think you can throw this one out and still accept Joseph Smith as a prophet. We have evidence that the revelation was dictated to William Clayton. Oh, and there's section 132 on/in the books. <g>

Why not? Have you thrown out any of his prophecies that turned out to be false or revelations Joseph admitted he had errored in?
Which teachings or doctrines have you found to be false from LDS leaders and how did you come to that conclusion?
When was 132 put in the books and why wasn't it there when Joseph was alive if this revelation was of God? Did the church vote this into canon in an environment similar to Jonestown? Were the Saints in isolation and fearful to oppose it when they were asked to enter or support adultery and make it canon? How do you know this revelation was not invented by man? You are relying on the honesty of William Clayton and the dictator Brigham Young. Like Inconveivable mentioned, how do you know Joseph wasn't deceived? Do you accept every word/action of the Bibble as God's command or word because a man wrote it down as revelation or do you follow your conscience/Holy Ghost on revelations that are in opposition to Christian values?

My eyes's were re-opened and I had to really get serious about things. Nip and tuck there for a while. I came close to jumping ship. Polygamy, temple changes, and racism are bothersome. But there is also a flip side way of looking at each one of these issues, and I've been able to somewhat come to grips with them without giving up my sense of right/wrong and internal integrity. Looking at the bigger picture made a big difference. I've found that there is a light at the end of a long, dark tunnel.

I am interested in hearing more on how you came to grips with issues that collide with our conscience/morals without giving up your sense of right and wrong? I have not only had to open my eyes to the false teachings of Mormonism but of the Bible in general now. In looking at the "big picture" of Mormon doctrine for eternal marriage, heaven is more like hell for a woman. (I just realized you're a man so you can't relate to this viewpoint)

I would also like to ask you the same question I asked Wade. What are the gray areas you have opened your eyes to and how have they strengthened your faith in the claims/truth of Mormonism?

Thank you,
Seven

[_Some Schmo]

The main problem with what you've been saying all along here, MG, is that your assumptions (the ones you specified) are never challenged, and therefore, you never step outside that box to do any thinking. All your thought is within the confines of your assumptions.

That's the difference between the believers and those who have left the church. That's why exmos are ahead of the curve and can be considered to be thinking "outside the box." They're willing to challenge their base assumptions, and have.