To Believe is to Believe

No amount of belief will make something a fact.

--James Randi

Human brains are hard-wired to make connections and form conclusions that become beliefs. The weird thing is that we don't really get to choose what we believe; well, not so much as a conscious decision as choosing what to wear each day. Indirectly, it does seem that we can open our minds to new information, causing internal conflict which may or may not get resolved as a change in belief.

Take, for instance the 2013 case of Republican Senator Rob Portman's views on gay marriage. As a Republican, he was obligated to tow the line on defence of 'traditional' marriage. His personal views on the matter were likely in line with the party views as well. His world gets shaken up when his son reveals he is gay. Two years of cognitive dissonance and then the Senator announces that he supports gay marriage. This could have played out in a number of ways. Some people disown children that lead lives that are different than their own. Others attempt to ignore the elephant in the room and pretend that their own reality is the one true reality. But Senator Portman's stance on gay marriage changed. He said, "Ultimately, for me, it came down to the Bible's overarching themes of love and compassion and my belief that we are all children of God." The fact of the matter is that we are all humans, whether or not you believe that we are children of any god. We should treat our fellow humans with respect and allow them every right that we would like to enjoy ourselves. You know, the Golden Rule (and the Silver Rule too.)

But sometimes it is hard to see the end game because of our own blindness. What blinds us? Belief. Belief is an irrational mess of neural connections in the brain that causes a person to link some concept with the notion of truth. It is the neural equivalent of a logical identity. It does not require any proof; it just IS. We fill our brains with these beliefs with one informing and changing the next, the whole of which becomes the basis for our world view. The world view filters and influences every new concept and event that enters the brain. These new filtered thoughts then affect our world view; sometimes reinforcing it, sometimes tearing it down for realignment. But it all boils down to the fact that our brains are squishy and fuzzy when it comes to logic and rationality; these two concepts rarely have much sway when we are encountering new ideas. Mostly we believe what we believe because we believe what we believe. People with degrees in this field call this confirmation bias.

So you see, to believe is to believe; it has nothing to do with facts, logic, rational conclusions, or reality. But just because you believe something does not make it a fact.

Once I understood the concept of confirmation bias, I was able to start to see instances where my own beliefs were influencing me, causing me to reject logical or otherwise rational thought because it did not mesh with my current belief system. And then as you know it all fell apart (i.e. my religious foundations crumbled) and I had to start questioning all my beliefs to see if they were founded in reality or if they were floating, supporting themselves by the power of confirmation bias. But I am in a better place now, mentally. I don't have to juggle so many things and my shelf, the things I have questions about, is much less about god and religion and more about life, the universe, and everything. This is not to say that I have conquered confirmation bias; that is not possible. My brain is still every bit as irrational and squishy as it ever was, but now I am much more open to the idea that my belief system might be systemically wrong. Maybe now, you might say that I have to take the periodic effort to prune my belief garden, looking for un-rooted beliefs and moving them over to the unfounded idea museum where live the invisible pink unicorn, Santa Claus, fairies, and yes, all the gods.

Thinking outside of the box

I recently attempted to engage in civil discussion about the Ordain Women (OW) movement in a forum. How did that go, you ask? Not so well. I mean I am pretty it was a waste of time and effort because everything I said fell on deaf ears. It turns out that there are some topics in Mormonism that are taboo to the point of anathema. Literally. There is a woman professor at this very moment under 'investigation' at BYU-Idaho for expressing her personal opinion on her Facebook page. A former student read her remarks and anonymously turned her in to the honor code office. Now has to talk with her bishop, department head, maybe the dean, and who knows what after that to see if she is aligned with the school honor code and church views. Yikes. If she is found to not align with the honor code and church views, her job could be terminated. Anathema.

This is how Mormonism forces people to tow the party line. You agree with us or you get kicked out (and by inference go to Hell.) Some topics are worse than others, but any outspoken idea that does not fit within the correlated doctrine of the church can put you on the outside. OW is one of those ideas. And really it is not so far fetched. Other Christian churches have allowed women (or gasp! homosexuals) become ministers or pastors holding the priesthood. But not Mormonism. It is still waiting for God to reveal to its privileged, white, male, prejudiced leadership that this is the right thing to do. But this won't happen any time soon because the patriarchy must protect its position of power. Don't even mention that SO many women could be wonderful bishops or other leaders. So many are willing and able. The church is overlooking half of its adult population for positions of service just because they are female.

[ It turns out that your experience will widely vary from ward to ward, stake to stake. The ward I am currently in, though not exactly active, has a very understanding bishop, who really is Christ-like and loving. He knows who I am and what I believe (or don't, as the case may be) and all he asks is, "Is there anything I can do for you or your family?" Awesome. Now if all wards and stakes in the church could be so inclusive. ]

Another form of sanction besides excommunication is revocation of a temple recommend. One of the questions is: "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" So agreeing with OW at this point in time is technically in violation of the questions asked to get a temple recommend. Apparently I am not worthy.

There is so much vitriol on Facebook and other social media sites against any pro-OW discussion. Only in private circles does any reasonable discussion take place. The funniest thing about this is that the people who are so anti-OW would likely about face if the prophet came out tomorrow and announced that women are now eligible for the priesthood. But until that happens, the topic is not up for discussion. Shut it down.

But who am I to talk? I opened my mind to discussion and new ideas and completely lost my faith. So maybe it is better to shut it down and push out the riffraff.

Church and Community

Every one of them needs three things: a friend, a responsibility, and nurturing with the good word of God.

--Gordon B. Hinckley

Gordon B. Hinckley was speaking about how to turn 'converts' into 'members' of the LDS church when he said this line. But I think he probably meant it applied to all members of the church, new or old. Community is a very important part of a person's conversion into Mormonism. Or really, any organization. People like to feel loved, safe, and similar to those around them. It forms a virtual security blanket that they can hold on to.

When I say people need community, some need it more than others. I feel much less need for community than many people I know. In fact, I would be completely content with one or two close friends. Beyond that, I just don't have the capacity for community. So I never fit into that part of church.

I had many responsibilities in the church when I was active, but honestly, I don't think this really helped or hurt my relationship with the church and gospel. I think this is the reciprocation of community; serving others. Okay, I admit it, I was always terrible at home teaching. :) But I did enjoy the opportunity to actually serve the families I was assigned to. Or others. Service is really one of the parts of church that I have no qualms with. I even told my bishop that I am willing to serve.

I really don't know where the nurturing part comes in. I mean after going to church for 30+ years I was to the point that the lessons I was hearing were so boring and old that I was not getting any new nourishment. It is like eating oatmeal three meals a day for a year; it may be good at the start, but it gets old. And ultimately, you need something else besides oatmeal. I went and found something else to nourish me. The only problem was that it turned out to be very incompatible with the church's teachings. Not only was it incompatible, but it felt better; it made more sense and required my brain to jump through fewer hoops to feel at peace. A whole new world was opened up to me when this box opened. I drank deeply from the firehose of 'the best books' but I admit that by this time I was really no longer learning by faith.

These three things probably would keep many of the new converts active. Was I was doomed from the start to fall away from the church because the three things that everyone needs just were not what I needed? Ho hum.

Caffè Lento

es·pres·so

/eˈspresō/

Noun

Strong black coffee made by forcing steam through ground coffee beans.

len·to

/ˈlentō/

Noun

Strong black coffee made by steeping ground coffee beans in cold water overnight.


I like a good espresso. I think I would LOVE a good sweet espresso from northern Italy. But I can't make espresso without a fancy machine. I don't drink enough espresso to make a fancy machine worthwhile financially (unless you count the plane tickets to Italy.) So I have had to take another path to extract that elusive coffee flavor from those tricky beans.

Words of Wisdom

Drinking coffee is contrary to the Word of Wisdom, which says 'hot drinks are not for the body or belly.' Modern prophets of the LDS church have said that Joseph really meant coffee and tea when he said 'hot drinks.' I disagree with that, having done my research into the life and times of Joseph. I would argue that he really meant hot drinks (water, coffee, tea, hot cocoa, soup, etc.) when he said hot drinks. This is because he believed that introducing hot liquids into your body was bad for your humors and lead to sickness. So according to Joseph's philosophy, an iced tea or an iced lento would be perfectly fine. Not that I need Joseph's approval of what I drink.

My solution: caffè lento. The opposite of caffè espresso, with regards to method, but the same in purpose. Espresso uses the perfect balance of heat, pressure, grind, roast, and bean to produce the pure essence of the coffee bean. Lento, on the other hand uses a cold-water extraction technique to pursue that same essence.

I start with freshly roasted beans. I think this makes the biggest difference. Beans roasted more than a week ago are too stale. Then I grind them with an espresso grind (pretty fine, but not quite turkish grind.) I am using a hand grinder that produces a bit of a range from fines to coarse. My guess is that even a turkish grind would do well in this. It does not seem to be as large a factor as the freshness of the roast. I grind daily in a single batch. Then add two parts water (by volume) to the ground coffee to my half-pint jar. The jar is nearly full by now; the coffee grounds don't really fit unless you pack them in a little bit. Put the lid on, shake several times over the next few hours and wait until the next day. In the morning, I take the brew, shake it, and pour it into my Aeropress filter and press the lento into my mug. I top off the mug with ice-cold milk and enjoy. This makes an iced lento. You can also use steamed milk if you want a hot lento.

The result is so smooth and flavorful without the bitter and burnt flavors that bad espresso has. I am still saving my pennies for that trip to Italy to try out a real, sweet espresso. But in the meantime, I have my sweet lento.

I used to say: I don't drink coffee, I drink espresso. Now my tune is: I don't drink coffee, I drink lento.

Religion Is a Funny Thing

Religion is a funny thing. So is English, but that is an entirely different story. I find it really strange that at the same time I am leaving the Mormon church and religion in general, my gay dad is trying to find his way back into the Mormon community (while completely open about his husband and his prior excommunication). It's not that he believes the correlated doctrine of the Mormon church is true, but that he craves the unity and community that was forcibly taken away so many years ago when he was excommunicated.

It just struck me as a strange pair of unrelated events.

Makings of a Cult

Religion, cult, there's no real definition of which is which. It's more like, "if the shoe fits". I personally define a "cult" as any religion with fewer followers than Snooki has on Twitter.

--Bill Maher

The difference between a cult and an established religion is sometimes about one generation.

--Scott McLemee, "Rethinking Jonestown", salon.com

Many people have made claims that Mormonism is a cult. Having been on the inside, I can certainly see some of the reasons that people might say this. What I find funny, after hearing about the Russia's Young Guard recently protesting against Mormonism in Russian as a US cult/CIA conspiracy/totalitarian organization, is that all of this is just the pot calling the kettle black. Cult has a very strong negative connotation, to the point that some people argue that we shouldn't even use it.

As a kid, I can remember hearing from other kids in school that Mormonism was not a Christian religion, but a cult. It hurt a little, but I didn't really see any harm in my family's beliefs at that time. But what I am starting to see now, as I start to step further away from religion altogether is that ALL religion is a bit cult-ish. Before I get out the skewers and start roasting on this front, let us pull up some examples of what religion is doing for us today.

Religion has many faces. Some are pretty, others are downright ugly. Take, for example, the idea that all mankind is born in such an awful state that God himself (or his Son) had to come down and be killed in a most brutal manner to save us from original sin. If that is not ugly enough, how about the idea that if you don't accept Jesus as your personal savior, after you die, you will spend the rest of eternity roasting in hell. The Christians are safe, but what about the Muslims, who only believe that Jesus was a prophet? Historically, both religions are willing to die (or kill) to enforce and prove their beliefs, yet both cannot be right. The same goes as we move on to other world religions. Some nice beliefs might be love thy neighbor as thyself. Or the giant relief organizations sponsored by churches around the world. A sinister face that all religions (as well as political views and other cultural memes) have is that children are indoctrinated from an early age to believe that they belong to the only true religion.

Sure, you can call Mormonism a cult, but you have to accept that every other religion in the world has many of the same terrible cult behaviors. The only difference is that for other well-established world religions, the internal biases that people carry from their infancy convince them that their religion is not a cult. I think it is pretty clear that most sane adults would steer clear of a cult if they were approached by it in adulthood. Very few Christians convert to Hindi, and very few Muslims convert to Christianity (and some don't live to tell the tale or live in fear for their lives.) The reason is that those childhood indoctrinations have such a strong hold on the mind as to make all other beliefs seem preposterous.

This is not to say that all religion is bad. Religion has given us many wonderful things: art, music, community, etc. I just wish that we could somehow strain out the ugly parts and keep the good. I think the part of religion that makes it so cult-ish is that when you have a set of [religious] beliefs, you can see and believe nothing that does not fit within that paradigm. This makes it very difficult to see that there even exists grass on the other side of the fence, let alone that it might be greener. And if it is not greener, there is no point in leaving the comfort of your own pasture to seek the unknown. This is why every religion is somewhat cult-ish; very few can escape the fences in their own minds.

Telling Friends

I don't really have that many close friends. I will be honest. I am not much of a good friend. I never call, I never write. But mostly I am the same person that I was before I had this 'transition of faith.'

Visible changes:

• I don't attend church. I might stay at home with my kids. Or go visit the zoo.
• The occasional lattè or mocha is delicious. No coffee habits, thank you very much (I can't afford them).
• Tea is a very relaxing afternoon drink. Mmmmm. Earl Grey is the best.
• I don't wear the Garments of the Holy Priesthood anymore. It's debatable how visible this change is, and really it's none of your business what kind of underwear I am wearing.
• I don't pay tithing (but I do give money to local charities.)

 The same:

• I am a bit of a snarky person. (some things never change.)
• I love my family. (how could I not?)
• I don't kill people.
• I don't steal.
• I don't take the Lord's name in vain (any lord, you pick. It is only offensive to those who believe and offers nothing—not even cathartic relief—for me)
• I don't swear (except when there is a good reason.)
• I don't smoke (well, other than meat and cheese, but that's different.)
• I have not found sufficient interest in beer, wine or liquor to try any yet.
• I don't have any body piercings or tattoos (and am not planning on it either.)

One of these days, one of my college friends (who I work with, but don't see very often) will see me with a cuppa and start asking questions. Or I am going to say something on Facebook and friends will start asking questions. But I really don't have much to say. I don't have plans to ruin anyone else's faith.

So far, as people have asked about our (me and my family) absence from church, they don't seem to hold it against us. We have not been shunned by our faithful Mormon friends. Hooray!

Telling Family

Imagining it is bad. Doing it is worse. Done with it is a weight off my chest.

I have a pretty good imagination, but I don't really think much could have prepared me for telling my family. Especially my folks. Mostly my Mom.

The storm is brewing...

We went to visit my parents and other family in the area, hoping for the chance to talk to Mom and Dad face to face rather than over the phone for this big conversation. I had hoped for a nice conversation with them, but my Dad always seems to dominate the conversation whenever we talk (unless he falls asleep). As per usual, the Dad-dominated conversation turned to politics and why the liberal Left is wrong and why the conservative Right is going to save the country from certain, imminent peril. As I have grown older, there is less and less that I agree with him in these areas, so occasionally, when I could get a word in, I would try to rebut his arguments. On one such occasion, I asked the question, "Do you have to be Mormon to be a good person?" Mom jumped on that immediately and asked "Why?" I think she may have started to suspect something by this point in the conversation.  I had tried to move the conversation over to the whole lack of faith thing several times by this point only to fail. Given her tone and a glance at the clock on the wall, I figured maybe our conversation would have to wait until tomorrow. A quick brush off by my sweet wife and the conversation moved on to other topics, like why we don't need to worry about global climate change because God will step in and fix it before it is too late. Yikes.

The next morning after exercise and a shower, Mom confronts me and says she is worried about me and my family. I tell her that we are fine. She moves on to ask how my testimony is doing. I tell her that it is non-existent. I realize that this may have been somewhat blunt, but I couldn't lie to her and I didn't want her to get the impression that I was merely having questions. Remember that by this time, my questions had moved up the food chain from "was Joseph a true prophet of God?" to "does God exist?" So basically any testimony of anything I had before withered in the presence of the larger question. The only question that had no dependencies in the tenets graph.

The conversation with Mom was mostly how could this happen, where did she go wrong, why didn't I speak up sooner, how can I not believe, etc. I tried to reassure her that she did nothing wrong raising me. I grew up strong in the faith. But when I realized that the things my faith was based on were unfounded, I could no longer depend on that testimony. She did not seem to catch this logical conclusion, making it very hard to talk with her. I didn't want to tell her sooner because until the very last straw, I always assumed that I would figure out how to make this all work and would stay a faithful member of the church. Why bring up worries if I was only going to return? I tried to explain the need for evidence and that a feeling does not count as evidence because I can recreate that on demand, thus invalidating all prior foundations based on feelings. As expected she is really worried about my eternal fate, and I told her that *if* God really does exist and really loves us then he will have to find some way to sort out this little misunderstanding. Then, as expected, she pulled out Pascal's wager, saying what do I have to lose by believing? Really my only answer to that is my sanity and integrity. I could not go on as an orthopraxic member of the church with my personal beliefs so widely different than what the church teaches. At one point she said that she could tell even as far as a year back that something was up, but given that I didn't even know it then (because nothing was) I can chalk that up to over-active 20-20 vision. We covered so many topics, but I don't really think she was actually listening to any of my words, because nothing I said seemed to help her. I think the worst part about this is that I can see both sides of the story, having lived on both sides of the fence.  But from her perspective, the world outside is too dangerous to even think about, let alone step into even for a second. By this time, we were late for our next engagement and the kids were getting impatient, so we called a truce until later.

That night, we all discussed this some more. Mostly it was bearing testimony by parents, but that really doesn't do anything for me, given that their testimonies are not founded in evidence that I can believe. At times the conversation got heated and I nearly walked out more than once, but came back at pleadings to not leave angry. In the end, it was more a "agree to disagree" sort of thing, but it was over.

Over the next few days, I called all my siblings. The sisters, who I don't have quite as much in common anymore, took it pretty hard. Some had friends or in-laws that had recently left the church and were very worried for me and my family. I know just like my Mom, that they are only showing their love and concern, but really at this stage in my life, I am absolutely sure that I can make these decisions for myself. My brother, on the other hand, said, "Yeah, I could kind of see that coming." Unlike my Mom, he is a 'book friend' and he noticed that I had posted a review for "No Man Knows My History." So we talked for five minutes about my disaffection and then continued on for another forty about the things we usually talk about. Nothing had changed. It was wonderful. This was the only good experience that I had talking with my family about my new beliefs.

Eight Months of Hell

At first I thought I could be a cafeteria Mormon. While the actual cannon of Mormon belief is fairly small, the surrounding beliefs and cultural portions are varied and many. I started with a big list of things I needed to research more before making any decisions about cutting off 'parts of the body' as Paul might suggest.

The whirlwind of questions pelted me mercilessly. It was like the shelf falling off the wall set off an avalanche. Nothing to grab on to. Not much to keep me from going under.

I read Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman, No Man Knows My History by Fawn Brodie, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, more of the scriptures, almost the entire MormonThink website, various talks from The Journal of Discourses, hundreds of wikipedia pages, and various other websites; I listened to a bunch of the Mormon Stories podcasts, the Mormon Expression podcasts, and a few others; I prayed; I talked with my wife and another friend. This was an all-consuming quest for answers.

I would ask a question, see that it and three others would all depend on a larger question. Then move on to the larger question, only to see that it required another idea. I moved on until the only question out there looming in my mind was, "Is there a God?" If there is, he/she/it has a lot of 'splainin' to do. If not, my world makes a lot more sense because all those other questions are either not important ("Is Joseph a true prophet of God?") or no longer a question ("How does evolution fit in with the creation story?")

I ended up as an atheist. Maybe an agnostic. Whatever.

The Proverbial Straw

I was not looking for a way out of the church.  If anything I was trying to get questions answered. But mostly I was just trying to keep on keepin' on.

Then, out of the blue, a friend of a friend of a friend posted Why I Left the Mormon Church. Given my current state of testimony and shelf mass, I have to say that this was really the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. The blame does not go to Brandon, it is more that anything probably could have dropped the shelf at this point. But after reading his essay, I found that I agreed with a lot of it.

That's the last straw!

Several of my friends also read this essay. We planned to get together to discuss it. You know, book club style. I wanted to make sure that I could hold up my end of the conversation, so I read the thesis several times, reading references and doing other research to see how it fit in my way of thinking. Now I not only had his statements to prove or disprove, I also had all the junk that fell off my shelf. I was in deep trouble now.

Some issues that were plaguing me at this point:

1. If I can cause the 'burning in my bosom' myself, which from my perspective is indistinguishable in every way from what I have felt as 'confirmations by the spirit' throughout my life, how can I be sure of anything? Is all revelation bunk?  Suddenly my 'testimony' is a burning pile of hooie.
2. Why is it that my prayers are always answered with the feeling that 'you already know' or 'it is up to you'? Never a truly affirmative or negative answer.
3. Why has the temple ceremony changed so much since Joseph received it? Why is it so similar to the Freemasonry rites?
4. Blood atonement. WTF? Who EVER thought that was a good idea? It is appalling.
5. Why did I never learn about Joseph's polygamy and polyandry before now?
6. Translation of The Book of Mormon using a peepstone in a hat? And the Book of Abraham is really a bunch of funeral rites? Church history seems to be unraveling before my eyes.
7. What is God's true nature? It doesn't seem to be what I was taught all my life; there are too many inconsistencies with what I believe if I open my eyes and look outside my immediate sphere.
8. Why was the early church (even post civil-right movement) so racist?
9. Why is the church still so misogynistic?
10. What is really wrong with gay marriage?
11. How does evolution mix with the creation story?
12. The flood was a myth, what about the rest of the Bible stories?

As the camel's back broke, the load of straw started to fall, and fall, and fall. Where would this pile of crap questions land?

Why Evolution Is True

During my couple of years of good scripture study habits, I also made it a habit to read from 'good books' to learn 'Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass.'  One of these books was Why Evolution Is True, by Jerry Coyne.  Coyne built a very strong argument (based on Darwin's argument, of course) showing why evolution must be true.  As I read it, his argument seemed to be mostly fine without God's involvement, but what I had the most trouble with was the incredibly small, nay, preposterously small probability that evolution could have created human kind.  I said in my head, "Yes, but God must have nudged us in that direction."  I had been taught all my life that there was a God and I still believed despite what any book or any person said.

Looking back I see that adding another preposterously small probability to the first seemed to calm my troubled mind.  Now I just see a very strong case of the primacy effect telling me that despite all of this evidence that God had no hand in human evolution, he still did it.

Charles Darwin

The book did seem to raise some more questions though.  I thought I understood evolution before.  I think I did, mostly.  What I didn't understand is how natural selection causes evolution.  Human kind was not created overnight.  It took a million tiny steps to get here.  Not a million random steps, but a million naturally selected steps (the best of steps possible.)  I think at this point I kind of started believing that the story of Adam and Eve could not be taken literally; they were a myth or legend.

The funny thing about the book, though, was that as 'troubling' as it was to my religious beliefs, it really felt right in my brain.  For the most part, it made sense.  Several years later, I can see even more clearly how much sense it made.

I should probably go back and read the book again to see if my viewpoint has changed any.  Or maybe I should just read the original tome, On the Origin of Species.  Or for an overview of the book, you can see a great review with notes on Why Evolution Is True.

Problems With The Good Book

I freely admit that before I went on my mission at age 19, I had never read the Bible all the way through.  I had read The Book of Mormon several times, most of The Doctrine and Covenants, parts of The Pearl of Great Price, and parts of the Bible (I think I had read most of The New Testament, but only small portions of The Old Testament.)  Add to 'the quad' the missionary training manual, Jesus the Christ, Our Heritage, Our Search for Happiness, and True to the Faith, and you have ALL the reading material that missionaries are allowed.  Some mission presidents would also suggest reading The Miracle of Forgiveness, but I think that is just cruel and unusual punishment for a missionary and is a good way to get him or her to want to give up and go home.  But I digress.  Even with that limited set of reading materials, I still didn't make it through the Bible on my mission.  It's not that I wasn't dedicated to my spiritual nourishment, but maybe we can assume I was also trying to learn a new language.

Some time after my mission I got married.  Kids and work and life used a lot of my time and some of my spiritual nourishment habits, weak as they may have been, atrophied a bit.  Periodically, I would try my hand at a newly instituted daily routine of scripture study or personal prayer.  Sometimes they would last, mostly they didn't.  But I did continue to go to church and was a very happy, well-adjusted true believing member of the LDS faith.  I did not have much on my questions 'shelf' yet.  Nothing noteworthy that I can remember anyway.

It was not until I finally got time and then a good strong habit of daily scripture study that I made it through all of the standard works, one after the other.  I had lots of questions.  I asked people I could trust for their opinions.  I discussed some of the weird things I found with my wife.  Some questions got answered, some didn't.  In the end, my shelf was much heavier than it was the year before.

Some of my questions were along these lines:

1. Why do the accounts of the creation in Genesis, Moses, and Abraham differ?  And why does the account in the Endowment differ even more?  I can see Genesis and Abraham both having flaws, because they were translated.  But Moses and the Endowment were both revealed directly to Joseph, so they should both be 'perfect.'
2. I believe that science has shown that evolution is true, but how does that work with Creation then?  This is a real conundrum.
3. What death before the fall of Adam?  How could evolution have worked if there was no death?
4. Speaking of Adam, how do we get the diversity of the human race from two people?  Don't tell me that God cursed Cain to be a black man....
5. Again, how do we account for human remains that are older than 7000 years?  Are you really going to say that radio-carbon dating is a fraud?
6. How could the great flood have happened at all?  So many questions here...

1. Do you know how fast the flood waters would have to accumulate in order to cover the entire earth in 40 days?  Remember that volume increases with the cube of the radius.  Assuming the earth was shaped differently (fewer mountains) water would have to accumulate at a rate of more than 3 inches per *minute* for 40 days straight.  And that is if the highest mountain was only 15000 feet.  To flood today's earth it would take closer to 6 inches of rain per minute.  And that is over the WHOLE earth, not just some localized flash flood.
2. And where did all this water come from?
3. Where did the water go?  (Can we say water cycle here?)
4. How is it possible that two of every kind of animal (and seven of every clean beast) could fit on an ark.
5. Maybe he left some animals off the boat.  But then where do we get the sheer diversity of animals on the earth in the last 5000 years?  Even evolution cannot provide for so many creatures in such a short time.
6. What about the animal food?
7. What about the animal poo?
8. What about the diversity of the human race?  All from eight people now.
7. Why did the patriarchs live for so long? 400-800 years was a 'normal' lifespan.  Two hundred years ago, 60 years was a long life.  Now with medical and scientific advances, we might push that out to 90 for me.  I know a lot of good Mormons who have never touched tea, coffee, alcohol, etc., and are not headed toward that 200-400 year life-span that Brigham Young was talking about.  How did they live so long?
8. The God of The Old Testament was a very vengeful, jealous, racist God.  He said so himself.  He showed it with his actions:  merciless genocide, striking people down, sending plagues, floods, requiring human and animal sacrifice.  Is this really the same God as the 'Love they neighbor as thyself' God of The New Testament?
9. Either the title High Priest means something different in the Old and New Testaments than it does in the restored church because otherwise the children of Israel never did really have to live without the Melchizedek priesthood (as was taught to me in my youth.)  And the sealing/binding powers that were restored via Elijah?  He must have had the higher priesthood because that is not Aaronic stuff.  Along these lines, they had the Melchizedek priesthood in the Book of Mormon so they must have just gotten it from Lehi while they were still in Jerusalem then, right?

I probably had other questions too, but I can't remember them all right now.  But that was a good start.  The problem with many of those questions was that as I tried to answer them, the answers I found only brought up more questions.  I was starting to feel the shelf getting heavier.  But I stayed strong.