BELIEF STRUCTURES

In another post that appears earlier in this blog, I wrote an entry based on a quote by Gerry Spence:  "I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief." 

Or as depicted in this picture,
BELIEF SET IN STONE.


Since writing that previous post, I have thought even more about belief structures and how detrimental they can be to a person's perceptions.  For instance, in Mormonism, people often become so wrapped up in the belief structure that they seem to feel personally attacked if anyone questions their beliefs.  And when that occurs, it often leads to the person launching a direct personal attack against the other person, who they tend to look at as the opponent.  This recently happened between me and a very good friend with whom I grew up.  Of course, since when someone actually begins to think differently, and decides to leave Mormonism, it is seen as not just an attack against the religion itself but also against its members, it wasn't a big surprise to me.  But even so, the fact that so much animosity seems to develop between members and what they term as "apostates," even to the point of family members turning against the "apostate," is almost a given, I still find it not only very sad but also extremely unChristian-like.

Personal attacks like this are called "ad hominem attacks."  These types of attacks usually involve insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his argument, but can also involve pointing out supposed character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.  Of course, this tactic is not based in reality because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.

Examples:

• "You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."
• "Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."

Of course, these types of attacks are very common in regard to Ex-Mormons.  Like being told that we cannot know anything since we no longer have the "spirit" because we have obviously lost the "Holy Ghost."  Or the connotation that there must be something wrong with us because we can't understand the importance or significance of certain doctrines.  Or the insinuation that the fact that we even began to question is evidence of how lack of faith and inability to process things that are truly spiritual.  And on and on and on, ad nauseum.

In the movie Dogma, there's a great quote about belief structures:

Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.

Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?

Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should be malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.

So in essence, people become blinded by belief, so much so that they can't accept or even listen to any opposing views.  Their minds are closed by belief.  Being open to new ideas and the possiblity that a person's view is skewed is important to living an intellectually curious life.  One of my biggest regrets in life is that I went along with Mormonism for so long and didn't even question so many things that are clearly preposterous to me now.  I was not intellectually curious, but rather buried my head in the sand like so many Mormons tend to do.  Blindly going along.  Not really questioning, but rather allowing others to do the thinking for them.  It is no wonder to me that most Mormons actually believe that "When the prophet speaks, the debate is over," although most don't even get to the debating stage.  They accept what they are told, that "there are things we can't understand in this life."

When I discovered the truth about Mormonism and the fact that it is based on a stack of lies, I was dumbfounded.  For a long time, I tried to blame my upbringing for my lack of interest in finding out the truth earlier.  Brainwashing.  Programming.  But although all that is true to a certain extent, I really only had myself to blame.  I should have examined it more closely when I was growing up.  I should have looked at the history of the Church sooner and in more depth.  The fact that I didn't but rather waited until I was 50 years old to really research and study about it all upsets me to this day.

Obviously, blind belief is not confined to Mormonism.  I'm sure it exists in every religion.  My experience has been with Mormonism, and so I tend to focus on its idiosyncrasies.  But in the end, what it all boils down to is that people in general are told to believe in a certain religion simply because.  Because someone said they should believe a certain way.  Or because they were brought up to believe these things.  Or because (as the below Non Sequitur cartoon points out), "Because, ummmm.... God said so, that's why."

These days, I look at myself as an Agnostic.  In my years since leaving Mormonism, I have come to realize that it is impossible to know one way or the other whether God really exists.  I do know one thing, though, and that is that the Mormon Church is not "the one and only true church on the face of the earth" (as they like to claim - another sign of a cult). 
 
In my contact with other ExMormons, I have noted that while some people who leave the Mormon Church join other Christian churches after their departure (including Unitarian type churches to a great extent), a great many become Agnostics.  And while some stay in the Agnostic mindset (like me), others tend to work their way toward being Atheists.   It seems to me that this progression is a result of being "burnt out" on organized religion and its "all or nothing" stance.

One of the things that puzzles me now is that there are a lot of very intelligent people ensconced in the Mormon Church, perfectly happy to live what I consider to be "the lie."  Their beliefs do not make sense, and although many of those beliefs have been proven to be false, that doesn't seem to matter to them.  Some of these "true believers" include lawyers, who are taught to be critical thinkers in law school, but for some reason, they do not apply that critical thinking to their religion.  That is very puzzling to me.

But whether or not the belief is based on truth or lies seems to be immaterial to the "true believer."  For instance, there is a huge example of this in the Book of Abraham, which was purportedly "translated" by Joseph Smith from Egyptian Papyri.  But even though modern Egyptologists have declared the "translation" by Joseph Smith to be completely inaccurate and not based in any measure in reality, members of the Mormon Church continue to cling to their belief that the Book of Abraham is the Word of God translated by a modern-day prophet.  To me, however, when something is proven to be false, then it is false.  If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck (as pointed out by Steven Kazan, an expert on cults, when referring to Mormonism - which in his opinion, as in mine, is very definitely a cult).

For me, one of the biggest lessons I have learned in my journey away from Mormonism is developing a true belief in Freedom of Religion (not what I consider to be the pretend one behind the 11th Article of Faith ala Mormonism).  People should be able to believe what they truly want to believe in actuality, and no one should tell them they should believe one way or another.  The phrase "Live and let live" has taken on new meaning for me, as has the scripture "Judge not that ye be not judged."

In other words...

Whatever floats your boat.

Whatever rocks your socks.

Whatever melts your  butter.

WHATEVER WORKS FOR YOU.

HEAVEN... or HELL???

This is an interesting sign.

HEAVEN up - and HELL down.

Contemplating this picture, I have to say that if given the choice between these two "final destinations," I would have to pick HELL... particularly if Heaven is the Mormon version...

Mormon heaven = Celestial Kingdom.

As Billy Joel said in his song, "Only the Good Die Young"...

They say there's a heaven for those who will wait,

Some say it's better but I say it ain't,

I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints,

The sinners are much more fun...

I totally agree.  Heaven (or the Celestial Kingdom as coined by Joseph Smith) sounds extremely boring with a bunch of Mormons sitting around, reading scriptures.

And the procreating that would be going on.

All that polygamy and no birth control.

Way too many kids, and no Ritalin to be found.  Seriously.

Naturally, we all have preconceived notions about what Heaven is like as opposed to Hell.

HEAVEN is usually depicted as being in the clouds, serene and peaceful.  Everyone dressed in white with angels flying around. 

HELL, on the other hand, is normally pictured as a burning fire of brimstone where everyone will suffer endless torture - the Devil ever present with his pitchfork to help keep control of the masses.

It's interesting to consider different images of HELL and the way it is depicted in various forms.  One of the funniest images of HELL is from Far Side cartoons.  Here's just a few...

Some people can be happy anywhere.  This guy is apparently completely oblivious to the fact that he is in HELL.  The eternal optimist, making the best of a bad situation.  Missing the point entirely.

And the one below has always made me laugh.  Of course, part of the humor for me comes from feeling this way too many times in my life - particularly in one very long-term job I had in Los Angeles working for an abusive boss... and in one of my marriages.  Enough said. 

Of course, no one living knows what HEAVEN and HELL are really like.  One day, we will all find out if either one really exists or if they are both a figment of someone's imagination (into which a lot of people have bought).  I mean, really... when you look at life from a non-religious point of view, things really start to appear differently in many respects, and especially in regard to the purpose of life and the nature of death.  Things don't seem so ominous to me now.  And everything doesn't seem quite so serious as I was lead to believe when I was an active Mormon.

Since leaving Mormonism and organized religion behind, I now consider myself to be Agnostic and really don't know what to believe anymore.  Part of me wants to believe in God and Heaven (just not the Mormon version), and another part of me thinks that perhaps after this life is over, we all cease to exist.  Interestingly, that thought doesn't scare me at all.  For some reason, I was much more frightened and tenuous about afterlife types of questions when I was Mormon.  Probably because I always dreaded the Mormon version of Heaven - the Celestial Kingdom (one of Joseph Smith's inventions).

Here's another very funny Far side cartoon.  Gary Larsen has such an interesting view on things, doesn't he?  I've always loved his cartoons and was very disappointed when he retired in 1995.  But during his career, he produced some very funny cartoons (albeit off-beat), which were also very thought-provoking.  Depicting harps as the musical instrument of choice in Heaven, and accordions as the assigned instrument in Hell.  Very funny. 

But regardless of what our opinions are about life and death, in the end, we will all "shuffle off this mortal coil."  Of course, that term is from William Shakespeare's Hamlet, which contains the "To be or not to be" soliloquy.

William Shakespeare - To be, or not to be (from Hamlet)

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?  To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action.

Shakespeare offers interesting thoughts on life and the nature of death.  The last part of that soliloquy is especially thought-provoking:  "...the dread of something after death, the undiscover'd country from whose bourn no traveller returns, puzzles the will and makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of?"  Similar to tolerating the devil we know as opposed to the devil we don't know. 

And what more can be said after Shakespeare has weighed in?
With a few Far Side cartoons thrown in for good measure...