Little Battles in a Big War
The War
I recently became very frustrated in reading the back and forth between two friends in the Mormon History community. One is a believer; one isn’t. They were discussing a certain historical incident, the 1832 attack on Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, and Sidney Rigdon, his assistant, at the Johnson family farm near Kirtland, Ohio.
There is no reason to go into the specifics, but I noticed a certain dynamic at work and realized that it is a dynamic that is played out over and over again in the Mormon Studies arena.
Why is it so difficult for the historians, whether they are amateur or professional, to carry out a civil and respectful conversation and arrive together at a consensus or, at least, a near consensus?
Let me start by giving the answer, and then I’ll work my way through my reasoning.
The answer is: The stakes are too big.
Instead of approaching the subject dispassionately with a true interest in finding out what really happened, many in this community already have their final answers. They are looking to history to support their conclusions. They don’t want history to tell them a new story. They want history to tell them that they’re right.
They are trying to create history rather than allow history to lead them to the facts or an approximation of the facts.
The true-believing historian is out to support his belief that Mormonism is True (yes, the capital “T” is intentional). For this historian, who has made major life decisions based on this thesis and who perhaps belongs to a family that has been LDS for several generations, he’s looking for historical validation. He already knows the final answers: Joseph Smith was a Prophet, angels really did appear, the LDS Church is the only true and living church on the face of the earth, the Book of Mormon is a historical record, Thomas Monson is a Prophet, etc.
Any evidence, or even any theory that would appear to contradict this, is faulty or incomplete. Accepting the contradiction could throw his world view, his professional standing, his entire life into chaos and uncertainty.
The non-believing historian is out to support his position that Mormonism is not True. That it is not of divine origin. That Joseph Smith was not exactly what he said he was. Any theory that contradicts this position must be flawed. Because if it isn’t, then he’ll have to stop drinking coffee and start doing his home teaching.
In the spirit of full disclosure: I’m no longer a believer. In my mind, the long and great fight of Mormonism vs. Reality has come to a dramatic end. And Mormonism is lying face down on the mat. In my mind, angels didn’t appear, the Book of Mormon is of human origin, Thomas S. Monson is a nice man, but has no more privileged access to God than any of the rest of us.
I came to these personal conclusions through my own reasoning, study, and introspection.
After more than 180 years there really is no physical evidence that any of Joseph Smith’s many stories actually occurred. Nephites, Lamanites, angels, Zelph, etc. True, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. But still…I mean, c’mon. Nothing?
There are, however, natural and common sense explanations for any of these things. And, in my mind, the natural and common sense explanations not only make a lot more sense, but they seem to come from the same universe that I inhabit on a daily basis.
So, in my mind and in the minds of many historians and students of Mormonism, the big question has been answered. I also believe that anyone with a clear mind, and nothing big at stake, would look at all the information and evidence and would come to the same conclusion.
But in order to avoid coming face to face with that final answer, we choose to fight little battles in a war that is long since over.
The Little Battles
Back to my friends: the non-believer believes that it is most likely that the attack on Joseph Smith was the result of his having some sort of inappropriate sexual contact with one of the Johnson daughters. Why does he think this? Because certain documents and statements from the time indicate that the Johnson brothers were a part of the mob, that a doctor was brought into the mob for the purpose of castrating Smith, and because Joseph’s later and well-established actions strongly suggest that this was a man who, shall we say, “wooed” many women whose names were not Emma Smith (his wife).
Now this is a problem for our believing historians. How could a Prophet be inspired by God while simultaneously making the beast with two backs with a luscious young beauty behind Emma’s back?
Well, obviously, this is problematic. Very problematic. So this information or, at least, this interpretation of this information must be false. The believing “apologist” must explain this away.
So maybe he can find some evidence that castration was a general punishment that had nothing to do with the victim’s stepping outside the accepted boundaries of sexual behavior.
Maybe the mob was after Rigdon. Maybe Rigdon was the one dipping his pen in Farmer Johnson’s ink.
I’m going off on a tangent here, and I realize this. The point being: these historians are also going to go off on all sorts of tangents (probably finding some really great information along the way) until the whole subject is just such a tangle of confusion and such a source of conflict that they will each take the high ground and “agree to disagree.”
And these little battles are played out over and over and over again, seemingly infinitely. Sub-subjects within Mountain Meadows, the First Vision, Polygamy, etc., occupy all of our attention so that we won’t look up and acknowledge that the war is over. The little battles rage on with no end in sight.
We’re like those recluses who lived in the mountains of Tennessee up until the turn of the 20th century who still didn’t know, or wouldn’t acknowledge, that the Civil War ended in 1864.
Before I wrap this up, let me be clear: I don’t think that a study of what happened on the Johnson Farm in 1832 is a waste of time. It isn’t. It’s a fascinating bit of history about an important religious figure whose life has impacted millions of people.
But I’m starting to think that Mormons and ex-Mormons are not well suited to the research and study of Mormon history. They have too much at stake.
Unfortunately, no one else is interested.
It would be healthy for us all to step back and look at the forest – at what it really is – instead of fighting our turf wars over each individual tree.
Note: I really should make another few passes at this before I post it, but I don’t have the time right now. Instead of an iron-clad, exhaustive treatment of a subject, I’ve just thrown out an idea. Maybe the rest of you can help me flesh it out.
The unspoken point (which I should have spoken) is that, because the stakes are so high, these subjects can’t be explored and examined dispassionately. Unwelcome information becomes threatening and the Bearer of Unwelcome Information becomes a threat. Emotion – and fear – enter into the study of Mormon history in a way that they seldom do with other historical subjects.
Micah,
Overall I agree with your assessment that emotion plays a large factor. As a believer, I can also live with the fact that you made your case be about “true believers” who operate in the realm of capital-T Truth. From what I can tell, you’re right in the sense that so much is invested that many will defend at all costs, even unto deeply flawed reasoning. I don’t think your assessment about believers applies quite so well to me, however, or to many believers who don’t read the evidence against Smith and Mormonism as quite the “this settles it” sort of way that many of you non-believers do. And I would then come back that we in my camp think those who have “settled” the question are ignoring other things that should make it not quite so easy to decide in a once and for all way. The group I’m in is the group that is trying to stay open to the questions and issues, to keep Smith and Mormonism as an ongoing puzzle worth a continued wrestle, and one that is not concerned at all with knowing capital-T Truth.
I’m also basically okay with your assessment that emotion is a big part of the non-believer’s motivations, but I would also want to give them much more credit than you do when you say that the incentive for them to stay non-believing is over their not having “to stop drinking coffee and start doing [their] home teaching.” For sure their reasoning, in most cases, is based on a far more complex mix of factors than that.
My other responses to your thread come in wanting to simply ask you how pivotal to your own confession is your statement that you prefer naturalistic ways of accounting for Smith and many things in Mormonism because the common-sense explanations make more sense to you and “come from the same universe that [you] inhabit on a daily basis”? If this “come from the same universe you are in” place is truly where you find your deepest reasoning, I’d love to engage you in the stuff I’ve tried to really get some of you to go with me before, which is to see if your universe of experience really can be defended philosophically and via the rules of valid reasoning based upon propositions. My sense is that if you really went with me into the arguments you would eventually conclude that you live in a much more enchanted universe than you realize—that you and what you think is “common sense” can’t be grounded in what you would put forth as propositions in an argument. I put forth some of this approach to such things in this blog in the thread on brain surgery and levels of spirituality and also over several months in our group’s private emails. Happy to try again with it if you want to.
Perhaps, though, you were just making a passing comment and you base your decisions about preferring naturalistic explanations over the possibility that the universe is spirit-filled (and we can totally not use the word “spirit” if it makes you uncomfortable) on something else. If so, I’d also love to hear where that deepest reasoning finds its foothold. What is the universe “really like” for you? Is some variant of enlightenment reasoning and naturalism truly and always king for you? Or is it just that Mormonism has no connection to the way things “really are” yet other religions or spiritual traditions still might be “on to something”? I would truly love to start a conversation on this stuff.
Hope we can keep chatting…
I can see how my writing would lead you to believe that I would consider the naturalistic approach to be superior. I do think that it is the predominate way that I test and try information. However, I am very open to just about any theory or idea in the religious/spiritual realm. But – and this is a capital “B” But – I don’t continue to consider these ideas if they fail certain tests. Does my own experience and perception ultimately contradict the idea? If so, it’s out. I’ll trust my own experience and perception.
If a man says that God gave him a book about an ancient people who lived in the Americas just a couple of thousand years ago and then, after 180 years, not only has no discovery of any kind (archaeological or otherwise) been found to give any support to this idea, but – in fact – quite the opposite has emerged…I’m going to lean toward the common sense conclusion that his story was, well. bullshit. Not only will I disbelieve the book, but I will clearly also disbelieve that God gave him the book, and I will take pretty much everything else the man said with a huge grain of salt.
So, to me, there’s a difference between being open to new ideas and concepts (even new perceptions of reality), and being gullible and continuing to buy junky cars from the same used car salesman. “Okay, so I may have lied to you about that last one, but THIS one…THIS one’s different.”
Of course it’s not just the many problems with the Book of Mormon that have brought me to this place. With Joseph Smith, there are so many problems. Eventually, for me, these problems reached a critical mass and the whole thing just imploded.
I find it interesting that you continue to consider him and Mormonism a big puzzle and that you are expecting to find something transcendent there. To me, after so many fictions, I’ll look for my facts and my truths elsewhere. Going back to the junky used car analogy, despite being sold a clunker, you’re still hoping to find a perfectly good carburator or transmission in there somewhere. Not me. I figure the thing is probably junk through and through. True, there may be something valuable in there, but it’s just not worth the time and trouble for me to sift through the junk.
So I guess what I’m saying is, yes, I’m open to new ideas. But I’m cautious, and I’ll be very skeptical about anything that seems to contradict my own experience and reason.
Oh, and I’m fine with the idea that we live in an enchanted and wonderfully mysterious universe, but I don’t believe that fairies really do live in the woods of New England, etc.
So I’m open, but not gullible.
Testing nested comments. Sorry, ignore.
test again
Understand your junker analogy and given what you focus on can see how you can add things up that way.
I guess I find him and it a puzzle because I DO find transcendent things within Mormonism and also ideas that Smith advanced. I’m still engaged with it and believe I’m growing as a person and also that in exploring Mormonism’s best ideas about progression, interconnection, and the powers of the universe I am finding fruitful ways to make sense of not only my experiences but also much in what many of the theoretical sciences are postulating.
I’m a believer in the spirit-writing (or some variant version of that) view for Book of Mormon production (same with the Koran and many other interesting spiritual works) so don’t sweat the historicity question or lack of archaeological evidence.
—–
On to the more fun issues of the nature of the universe. It’s enchanted and mysterious, I agree. So what’s the method, in your worldview, for ever coming to capital-T Truth. I get a hint that you’re still searching for something like that. How, with so many competing worldviews out there, can we expect one to emerge as THE truth–and how do you think we can recognize it when we come to it? I have theories but would rather hear yours first, if you’re willing…
And “fairies in the woods of New England…” was a cheap shot.
No cheap shot intended with the “fairies in the woods of New England” comment. I was just trying to say that I’m open to the fantastic, but not to fantasy.
I certainly didn’t mean to indicate that you do believe in fairies in the woods of New England. Because I know you don’t. (Right?)
I would counter that you are most probably finding things within YOU that are transcendent rather than finding things within Mormonism that are transcendent. The doctrines or hints of doctrines of Mormonism are like little dice or cards that some writers use to jump start their imaginations. “What If…this?” or “What if…that?”
And that’s not being dismissive (it’s just my guess anyway), but I do see how the doctrines of Mormonism and the perplexing contradictions in the life of Smith could be used in this way.
But again, it’s coming from Mr. Smith, such an untrustworthy source (in my opinion).
In answer to your other questions, I don’t reject anything (no matter how new or unusual) outright. I’m even surprisingly open to other points of view on Mormon doctrines and history.
However, because of my history with Mormonism, I am so much more careful and discerning. With the “spirit writing” concept, for instance, I’m willing to listen. It doesn’t seem completely outside the realm of possibility. So I would approach it thinking that there is a small chance – 10% maybe in my current frame of mind – that there is something there, but I would definitely acknowledge the 90% chance that it is most likely an interesting and imaginative fantasy.
Reincarnation: 30% chance that there’s something there. 70% that it’s interesting and even attractive to me personally, but not real.
Near Death Experiences: 40% chance there’s something there.
Et cetera. The percentages are a poor way of communicating, but I hope you get where I’m going: I’m open, but skeptical. Which I’m very happy with. I won’t start believing in golden books delivered by angels again.
And I recognize a certain inconsistency in my reaction to Mormonism versus other religions. I’m more skeptical with Mormonism, simply because my most direct and recent experiences have been with Mormonism. And because I’m more aware of all the problems within it than I am with Buddhism and Hinduism and even general Christianity, et cetera.
Because I’m less familiar with foreign religious thought, I’m more open and I have fewer prejudices.
For instance, I open-mindedly read The Koran and, after considering it, thought: “Nope. This doesn’t correspond to reality as I perceive it.” And I moved on.
I recognize that I’m judging everything based on my own experiences and my own reasoning and my own limited capacity and understanding, but what else do I have? There are many things I haven’t experienced and that I haven’t perceived, and I will remain open to anything that doesn’t directly fly in the face of the small piece of reality that I have perceived.
Yes, I do believe in Truth with a capital “T.” Maybe a better way to put it: I believe in Reality with a capital “R.” I believe Reality is far more broad and complex than we are currently capable of understanding and I believe that much that is Real will seem magical to our current understanding. And that some of what is Real will contradict our current 21st century assumptions. I’m good with that.
Ghosts? Demonic Possession? Spirit Writing? Reincarnation? Bring them on. But until these things are manifested or perceived by Me, in my Real life, I will not incorporate them into my view of Reality. I will not live my life as if they were Real until I am fairly certain that they are, in fact, Real.
It seems that my good friend Jonah has sidetracked me onto his favorite subject! Anybody have any response or further thought on the problems of emotion and fear hobbling the progress of Mormon Studies?
And, yes, Jonah, I agree with you that the ex-Mormon or non-Mormon historian has far less at stake than the True Believing Mormon historian. No doubt.
The True Believer responds with fear and emotion and assumes bad faith on the part of the non believer. And the Non Believer often then responds with exasperation, frustration and anger that he can’t have a simple goddamn discussion about a point of history without the burden of all the accompanying bullshit.
Wow, you wrote three additional things while I was writing up my reply! Anyway, this reply goes your comments at 9:48 and 9:54. (Hey webmaster, can we get these replies numbered?)
Yes, no fairies in my worldview. Thanks for clarifying what you meant there.
I actually agree with you that when it comes to the transcendent, such things are discovered within ourselves rather than the spiritual tradition that jump-started the search. Buddhism’s “finger pointing at the moon” analogy is definitely wise. We can’t mistake the vehicle that led to the experience as what is holy rather than the experience itself.
I can also understand how you can see the doctrines of Mormonism and life of Smith as so perplexing as to negate them from being helpful for this sort of quest for transcendent experiences, but, again, I’d just have to say that I think this is mostly a result of you selecting certain things in Smith and Mormonism and ignoring others. We all do it, of course, but unless you’re interested in comparing specific notes (“what about this; yeah, but what about this?”), we won’t be able to move the other much toward our thinking.
When all is said and done, that’s okay with me. I’m not worried about anyone’s salvation (including mine) because of any of these issues. All that kind of talk is 101-level stuff that has very little to do with the God and universe I feel I’m in. I DO however think we are eternal beings and the universe is (whether created to be this or simply having emerged as this) a place for soul-making, and that the greatest happiness comes from engaging and exploring complexities and being empowered through holding in ourselves as much truth as is possible.
As a result of these convictions, I continually challenge my friends and others when I feel they are closing themselves off to some of these complexities. Hence, whether or not you ever want to give Smith and Mormonism another look doesn’t really concern me as much as your (and others’) overly dismissive rhetoric about it—about something that has been such a big part of your life and who you are. To say that there is nothing at all there; well I have visceral reactions to that and pretty much every sort of “all or nothing” talk. I think it’s a bad habit and I hope it’s okay with you that I keep challenging you on it.
Just now read your additional comments and don’t think my “all or nothing” critique applies to you. Some of your rhetoric earlier in the thread, yes. To you, now that you’ve shared more about your openness level, no. So don’t worry about having to defend yourself there. (Your openness percentages stuff is actually a way I also try to assess myself on various topics.)
Let me compose something later about the capital-T Truth and capital-R Reality comments. Dig those kinds of conversations.
Until then, let me echo your invitation for others to jump in on the original post and its issues. Sorry for the threadjack, if it was one…
Jonah said: “I DO however think we are eternal beings and the universe is (whether created to be this or simply having emerged as this) a place for soul-making…”
I like that, the way you put those words together. That the Universe is a place for soul-making.
Cool thought, and an attractive way to view life and the universe. True?
That’s the big question.
Even if not “True” (even if we are all the creators of our own meaning), can you think of a better story? Agree that “true or not” is a “big” question; even if we leave Mormon-specific things behind, I hope you’ll be willing to keep chasing chasing such things down with me….
This is your other thought that I want to address: “I can also understand how you can see the doctrines of Mormonism and life of Smith as so perplexing as to negate them from being helpful for this sort of quest for transcendent experiences, but, again, I’d just have to say that I think this is mostly a result of you selecting certain things in Smith and Mormonism and ignoring others. We all do it, of course, but unless you’re interested in comparing specific notes (“what about this; yeah, but what about this?”), we won’t be able to move the other much toward our thinking.”
I don’t quite see the value in going into the specifics of “what about this or that” as you do. Not within the realm of Joseph Smith. I would repeat the junky used car salesman analogy, but I think you get it. Let me try another, more direct attempt:
“I saw God and Jesus in the woods”: nope. Didn’t happen. At least not as he said (not that he ever decided on a consistent version of the story).
“This angel named Moroni gave me a gold book”: nope. Sorry.
“John the Baptist came and gave me divine authority”: nope.
“Then Peter and James and John from the Bible came to give me more authority”: nope.
“This skull here belongs to a white Lamanite general named Zelph”: You gotta be kidding me, right?
“God told me if I don’t have multiple wives He will destroy me”: ???????
“I can translate this here papyrus, and those Kinderhook plates, too”: too bad that didn’t work out for him.
Etc. etc. etc. And then:
“Let me tell you about eternal progression. We are eternal and can all be like God!” Well, that’s very attractive and a very compelling idea that appeals not only to everyone’s desire for permanency, but also to our egos.
Now, I can either take this as a truth found amidst a series of lies, or I can say, “Well, that’s really attractive and interesting, BUT…considering the source…1% chance that there’s something to it, 99% chance that it is a very attractive fantasy imagined by a very creative man.”
And that’s where I land. Could there be truth in it? Yes. Is it likely? Sadly and unfortunately, no.
The Book of Mormon: Damn impressive with many incredible parts that shouldn’t be dismissed just because of some of the seeming nineteenth-century elements
Certain sections of the Doctrine and Covenants: mind-blowing and spirit-enriching
King Follett Discourse and other places you find Smith’s metaphysical musings: some of the most startling and ennobling ideas ever spoken, including quite radical and exciting ways for approaching many important theological conundrums. Mormonism escapes many of the traps other groups are in and can’t punch their way out of given their starting principles, and it falls into few, if any, new pickles because of its theological commitments. I find Smith’s stuff very, very consistent and defensible.
Depiction of a fully just universe with every entity in it having 100 percent agency and an opportunity for joy within its sphere: incredibly elevating ideas that if taken seriously should revolutionize positively all of our approaches to life and how we view everything and everyone else
I don’t always know what to make of many of the other things Smith said and did, but these things above (and I’m sure with more than ten-minutes thinking I’d come up with many others) are reason enough for me to always keep an open mind and heart toward this pivotal figure in my life and thinking. I know we also differ on expectations for what a “prophet” should be and act like, and also on how a church with important truths in its care should act and be like. I think those things also help explain other ways in which I’m prone to cut him/it more slack than you.
And I don’t want to picky on each individual thing. For me, after fighting the apologist’s battle on each individual tree (referring to my original post) I finally stepped back and looked at the forest. And I thought, no, I need to go pitch my tent somewhere else.
One could fight forever (and many do) over each individual tree and, each time, giving Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt. But, eventually, for me and others, all these Benefits of Doubt add up until the whole thing is completely implausible. It reaches a critical mass that just doesn’t hold.
I’m not communicating well and I know it. Frustrating.
Maybe what I’m saying is: If you focus on the trees individually there’s enough confusion and enough room for giving Smith the benefit of the doubt and for allowing the possibility of something supernatural, something transcendent and mysterious. But when you look at the trees collectively…you realize that the only answer that makes any sense at all and that answers EVERY difficulty on every “tree” is…He was lying (“imagining,” if you prefer). He made it all up. The guy was an imaginative genius, but he created a fantasy. And, whew, now that I understand that I don’t have to go fighting all the little wars over each individual tree. I see that the war is over, for me. Now I can stop fighting the battles and my mind, over these issues, is at peace.
I get why you have chosen the peace that such a view brings but I can’t buy “made it ALL up.” I don’t believe anything came through pure and untouched by Smith’s mind and personality and wants and desires and all the other things any of us filter experience with, but I think he intuited one hell of a lot that’s at least sniffing capital-R Reality. Certainly a better sniff than most skeptics do.
And there are so many lies or “intentional fantasies” from the same source…life’s too short. It’s not a game to me. I don’t want to play a game where I’m trying to discern the one true statement among the 99 lies/fantasies.
Another analogy, which isn’t necessary, I know. Although clumsily, I’ve certainly made my point. But this one is entertaining:
Joseph Smith is like a cruel mother spoon-feeding a baby.
He says, “Eat this. It’s carrots.” The baby eats it and guess what? It’s not carrots at all. It’s shit. The baby spits it out.
Then he says, “Eat this. It’s peas.” The baby eats it. Goddammit. It’s shit again.
Then he says, “I was just fucking with you. Eat this. It’s chocolate pudding. I’m not lying.” So the trusting baby, once again, eats it. Sure enough: more shit.
Then, finally, he says, “Okay, I’ve finally got the real thing. This is mashed bananas and it’s the most delicious thing you’ll ever eat. Eat it.”
And the baby, finally, is not going to open his mouth to even the POSSIBILITY of more shit. Yes, there’s a slight chance that it might really be bananas, but NO GODDAMN WAY is he going to let that man put anything else in his mouth.
Yeah, that’s pretty much the way I feel at this point.
And, not to pull a Christopher Nolan on you, the burning question is: did the spoon at the end really have mashed bananas on it or was it shit yet again?
SPOILER BELOW
It was more shit.
Fun analogy. I’m sure Lucy isn’t going to pull that football away from Charlie Brown again!
In your story, however, the baby always thinks it tastes like shit. Did you?
Something causes such shifts. One of my theories for many people is that they reject things because they previously believed TOO MUCH. Reality is SUPPOSED to look like this and it no longer does, hence my old theory must be crap. I try to always judge whether my experiences and new evidences I come across drive my theory making (inductive arguments; supposedly the scientific approach and what I strive for)and how much is my investment in my old theory driving what I am seeing?
Hey, in mentioning a believer’s/non-believer’s investment, I finally got back to the main topic of your original post! Yay!
Jonah: “In your story, however, the baby always thinks it tastes like shit. Did you?”
One can only take a metaphor so far. Did I always think it tasted like shit? No. But it was, in my opinion, one spoonful of bullshit after another. I just didn’t understand that until later.
One other thing I’ve noted about the True Believing historians versus the non or ex-Mormon historians. One of the reasons that the True Believers have such a hard time with the scholarship of the Nons is that the Nons focus primarily on the more provocative and sensitive subjects within the topic. Understandably. They’re the most interesting. So when the Non Believing historian says “I”m going to expand the scholarship on Mountain Meadows or Joseph Smith’s polygamy or post-Manifesto polygamy, etc., the True Believers are frustrated because they know they are going to have to put on their apologists eyeglasses and fight to explain, contextualize, or dismiss unwelcome information that they wish they didn’t have to deal with in the first place.
It seems that way to me. Few of the non believing historians want to explore the evolution of irrigation practices among the Mormons. Nowhere near as interesting as blood atonement.
Interesting comments about what nons v. believing historians focus on, and I think you’re right.
I think your comment about now re-remembering your earlier experiences of the food you were getting all along is an important thing for us all to reflect on. How do our current positions affect our memories of the past? How much can we trust in the accuracy of our autobiographies as we’d write them today? Is everything we do an act of meaning making rather than meaning discovering?
In the Mormon context, does this experience give ANY slack to Smith as he told and refined his First Vision experiences and wove a story of the background of his coming to occupy the position he did? If we’re ready to admit that we shift our memories according to our current views, does Smith deserve all the crap he gets from doing the same?
To push your analogy a bit further: You have decided that Mormonism was feeding you shit all along. Do you then also claim that Mormonism has been feeding me shit, too, and I just don’t realize it yet? Or is there something to the idea that each of our “Mormonism’s” are unique and our experiences idiosyncratic enough that we can’t make ANY or at least VERY FEW claims about the actual shittiness level of the tradition itself? And if this is the case with Mormonism, how would you escape these issues in any search for truth? (I’m actually not that worried about our being the creators of ALL truth and meaning, but I sense from knowing you that you care more for things like actually finding capital T kinds of truths.)