Nahum, I agree with most of your comments but would want to take the discussion out of the focus you have on questioning and curiosity as solely acts of the intellect. If we are going to have a discussion in the Mormon realm about “intelligence” and study and pondering, we must broaden it beyond just the mind and go into the spiritual realms and disciplines, too. Clearly that’s the intent and realm of the bulk of the scripture on it. If you’re interested in having that discussion, let’s do it! Otherwise I will simply say I agree with you only so far as what you are saying relates to the mind and its disciplines, but I can’t say that the kind of intelligence Mormonism talks about (or that I’m interested in) is purely about intellectual curiosity or mental self-disciplining, etc.

However one wishes to interpret the notion of divine intelligence as a thing to be sought, such scriptures in no way encourage critical thinking, which sees the value of doubt. I think Habakkuk’s last line goes straight to that problem. “Seek, but don’t doubt.”

How does one seek without questioning? How does one question without doubt? The underlying assumptions of every truth statement should be examined and this takes diligence. Most people I know (and not just Mormons) haven’t the intellectual curiosity or the self-discipline.

You didn’t mention “doing the work.” This phrase was intended to further define the “diligence” I expect from someone who want to argue with me (over anything, really, but in this case) over my choice to abandon institutional Mormonism. “Diligence” is one of the four character traits needed by both opponents seeking to engage in a productive argument.

You asserted that the friends and family of whom I have complained are not stupid. I agreed with you, but pointed out that I must still disengage with them not because they are not intelligent enough, but because they are not dedicated enough to the conversation to “do the homework required.” This is intellectual laziness, not stupidity.

I am puzzled by your question about “doing the work” as a Mormon idea. I don’t see it that way, and I don’t know where I may have said something like it. As I wrote earlier in this thread, the list of four character traits is not original to me, but taken from a mutual friend of ours. I see them as applying to any critical argument, not just to matters of religion generally, nor to Mormonism particularly.

So what do you have against “doing the work”? What were you reacting to with that line?

Great point! And doing the work is just so Mormon isn’t it? I feel like I did what they wanted, I read, “out of the best books,” “the glory of God is intelligence,” wondered, ask questions, pondered, and in the end, they didn’t like where I ended up.

I agree that my friends and relatives you have in mind are not stupid, but they do (it seems to me) lack one of the traits on the list. They are not diligent. They won’t do the homework. They won’t read the books or articles I would recommend, so that we could begin a critical conversation. Most don’t even read the faith-promoting literature our there or even the LDS canon. They NEED for the Church to be true; thus, they have no desire to engage with me in a critical conversation that will in all likelihood lead to some discomfort.

I hope it doesn’t sound like I making excuses, trying to wheedle may way out of doing something difficult that I don’t want to do. I have honestly tried to explain, but it has never produced anything resembling a positive result, not even a respectful agreement that two intelligent, diligent, sincere, and benign people have reached an impasse.

Man, can I mix metaphors! (Battles, Doors, Brick Walls.) Impressive, huh?

What about a direct letter to each of them individually outlining things, using the post here as a template that you can personalize to each individual? Something along the lines of (but, of course, far more personal and elegant)?

“Dear _______, I have experienced a growing frustration with our relationship over the past _________ years, and this is leading me to want to interact less with you. Here is my reasoning…. I would love this letter to promote some real, heartfelt conversation between us, but if you feel that’s impossible at this time for you to try to get out of the assumptions that are coloring your attitudes toward me and my choices regarding Mormonism, then know that I will be happy to engage you going forward on surface topics but I must refuse to address the ultimate questions of life with you.”

“The past four years have taught me that you can’t cure stupid.”

A couple of things strike me in your post. I hope some of this makes sense. From age 18 – 30, I lived in four states, three countries, and moved through eight jobs. Each time I transitioned from one job/place/store/community to another one, I would go through a phase in which I felt as if everyone around me did things in a really stupid way. About half way through this period of my life, one of the companies I worked for required that we take a short course on culture shock. One of the symptoms of culture shock is that you begin to feel that everyone around you is sort of stupid. I found that even moving from one store within a company to another store within the same company, I experienced culture shock. I thought my new employees were stupid, when in fact they were quite bright. They just did things differently. The culture shock I experienced as I moved to the new store was my problem, not theirs.

Point two: As I considered leaving my spouse, I joined a support group. What I didn’t know was that the support group I was in was only a small part of a much larger web of support groups. The support group I initially joined was for those who were really upset and lost. Not referring to you directly, but they used interesting and similar terms to what you used in different ways above. They wanted their money back, they were offended, they used really harsh words, They lashed out, they felt betrayed, and so forth. At some point as I participated in my group, someone invited me to join another support group. This new one had people who had gone through many of the same things as the first group, but for most of them, a lot of water had run under the bridge. These folks no longer used snide epitaphs for the people who injured or betrayed them. In fact, there was a much larger range of folks who had been either hurt by their spouses and those who themselves had been the ones who had injured their spouses, all trying to listen and learn from each other as they all attempted to reclaim and repair their lives.

This new group still had all the marital problems, but they were just at another level. And I’m telling you. The first support group was very very important for me to be in. I came to feel very safe there despite the venom and anger I saw there. Those people did a great deal to heal my soul. The second, more diverse group helped me move a great deal farther. From there, even more groups branched out to address very specific issues. Most of which had little to do with my situation. And at some point, I found that my need for these support groups dissipated. I just needed to work things out with my spouse.

—-

To attempt to pull this into something meaningful here, I think that the question for you may not actually be “Does the church have something for me?” The question may now be: “Now that I know that the church may not have something for me, what now?” At least that is what it looks like from my present vantage point. If you insist that the church must have something for you, you do have some choices to make. My take is that the church is what it is, it won’t let you change it. You just have to decide if it’s worth continuing to build a relationship with or if it is time to start looking for something else. And there is no rush. It happens or doesn’t happen on your timeline.

A mutual friend of ours listed four things that a person’s character must contain in order for there to be any value in the interaction you prize: 1) the individual must be intelligent; 2) the person must be sincere (i.e., having no hidden agenda); 3) the person must be diligent (i.e., willing to do the work [reading, study, introspection, etc.] required to examine his or her underlying assumptions); and, 4) the person must be benign (i.e. intending me no harm).

I find this list to be a remarkable distillation of what is essential to a good-faith, relationship, even if it be a conflictive one. Thus, I have no obligation to engage with the stupid except to meet my obligations to basic civility and kindness. This includes even family members and friends who refuse (or are unable) to be rational. I can love them, give them what service I can as it is needed, but I can no longer join them in conversations about the ultimate questions of life.