Wish me luck today :)

[jfro18]

Otherwise they would be excited to be exonerated by the facts.

And there's the buh-zillion dollar statement. Which lead back to: Why don't believers want to be exonerated? I know that I personally was unable to flat out ask my non-believing sibling "what happened" or "why". I don't remember the church blatantly teaching me to "not ask why someone doesn't believe" yet I was afraid to ask. So does that lead back to: I knew deep down inside that it wasn't true?

I'm so confused...

This is 100% where I feel the answer rests. If members truly believed the church is true, they would have no problem sitting down and going over all of it. Afterwards they could pray about what they don't know and receive those answers.

The reality is that they *know* that the moment they open themselves up to the possibility that the church isn't true, that they will see how completely man made the whole thing is.

We talked about the Book of Abraham a bit the other day - it was really the only "detail" on anything we went into. She asked if I really believed we had "everything" from the papyri because there's a lot missing. I went through the process of how they got the papyri, how we know Joseph flattened pieces and glued them to use them, etc. From there I discussed how Emma sold them, how they were recovered and how unlikely it would be that some burned while others were perfectly fine, and then discussed how the manuscripts make it quite clear that we have the source material and that I could show her the pictures that are from church sources to make that clear.

I then discussed how the "long scroll" or "missing" scroll theories don't work because we know with math formulas exactly how much is missing, and how the quote Hugh Nibley popularized was a 3rd person account of a very young kid (Joseph F Smith I think?) which contradicts the contemporary accounts.

As I went through the detail, I could see her just completely shut down. She's read a few things on the "lost scroll" stuff... but of course those articles don't mention the manuscripts. It was pretty revealing just because I think she felt like the lost scroll was an issue where it would put me on the defensive, because she had no idea the manuscripts or other accounts exist.

I think on some level she *knows* the church's history is a mess. I don't know if she'll ever get to a point where she admits it, but I have that glimmer of hope that one day she will.

One other thing she said at the meeting this week was how she knows some people who leave the church are happier, but that she knows she wouldn't be one of them. And I think that's what sums up how 'fear' in the church is leveraged against people -- once you leave you realize it was all a house of cards, but until you do, the fear of walking away is just such a high cost that it takes something to really break you free.

I don't expect any miracles here, but I really hope that I can at least save my kid from the church if nothing else. I know she knows there are real, serious problems, but the question is what will cause her to actually "open up" to discussing them beyond going to the aggressive apologetics she's currently reading.

[Reuben]

If members truly believed the church is true, they would have no problem sitting down and going over all of it. Afterwards they could pray about what they don't know and receive those answers.

The reality is that they *know* that the moment they open themselves up to the possibility that the church isn't true, that they will see how completely man made the whole thing is.

In psychology, there's an aspect of attitudes (beliefs or behaviors) called stability that can help explain what's going on.

The stability of an attitude describes how liable it is to change. Usually, the strength of an attitude corresponds well with its stability. For example, the more convinced I am that I'm a great cyclist, the less likely I am to suddenly believe that I'm not.

Other things contribute to stability or instability, though. Internal inconsistency among attitudes can make them less stable. This often leads us to change one - to update our beliefs or behaviors. Otherwise, we get punished by cognitive dissonance. Being surrounded by peers who have different attitudes can make them less stable. Being surrounded by counterevidence can make them less stable, even if we ignore it.

Strong but unstable attitudes are hard to live with. If I, a great cyclist in my own mind, were to start coming last in every race, I could only maintain the belief that I'm a great cyclist with significant effort. If I had made my self-worth depend on being a great cyclist, I would also regard counterevidence as a threat to my well-being. I would live in fear of it, and I might become aggressive or depressed when reminded of it. I would try to make that attitude as strong as possible for as long as possible, even though I would ultimately fail.

I think "I know I belong to the greatest organization the world has ever known but I secretly fear that's not true" sums up how this tends to work in Mormon thought.

FWIW, it's not just fundamentalist churches who teach people to have a strong, unstable beliefs. (I think a lot of the animosity in politics comes down to this.) It happens to be the one stressing your marriage right now, though.

[græy]

If members truly believed the church is true, they would have no problem sitting down and going over all of it. Afterwards they could pray about what they don't know and receive those answers.

The reality is that they *know* that the moment they open themselves up to the possibility that the church isn't true, that they will see how completely man made the whole thing is.

In psychology, there's an aspect of attitudes (beliefs or behaviors) called stability that can help explain what's going on.

...

Strong but unstable attitudes are hard to live with. If I, a great cyclist in my own mind, were to start coming last in every race, I could only maintain the belief that I'm a great cyclist with significant effort. If I had made my self-worth depend on being a great cyclist, I would also regard counterevidence as a threat to my well-being. I would live in fear of it, and I might become aggressive or depressed when reminded of it.

Reuben,

I have heard of this before but couldn't remember the terminology that went with it. I like your cyclist analogy too. Thank you

jfro18,

I hope things are continuing to go well for you two. It sounds like one way or another you are making progress and keeping some form of dialog going with your wife.