Skip to main content

There Is No Curse, Part 4: We're Just Here

I felt closer to God when I finally stopped believing in Him. Let me explain.

When I was a kid, I’d sit in church and listen to people talk about God as if he was real. I say “he” because God was also defined as a male, and that definition supposedly came from thousands of years of tradition. God was like me: he had feelings or grief and joy; he wanted me to be happy; he had ambition and plans for me, just like I did for myself. What a wonderful thought that a Supreme Being had me in mind!

But God was also “He.” I say that because the title implied a king, nobility, and sovereignty. God was not like me: He was omnipotent; He knew better than me; He was always in control; He wasn’t flawed like me; He didn’t make mistakes; He knew the end from the beginning. I couldn’t ultimately know God, but He wanted me to draw close to Him.

It's called "the House of the Lord" for a reason, right? 

According to the traditions I grew up in, the way we approached God was through “righteousness,” aka, doing good things and avoiding bad things. The better we got at doing both, the more of God’s love we could feel in our lives. Righteousness was the key that unlocked the door to happiness - it was what gave us permission to love ourselves. Everyone fell short, but that invitation was always there.

A Christian might notice a distinct lack of Jesus in this equation, or at least a distinct lack of "grace" in this divine equation, and that’s because, according to the traditions I grew up in, Jesus was the bridge that made it at all possible for us to make these changes - but it wasn’t a free gift, either. The metaphor usually shared was that Jesus was the one to take on all the debts we couldn’t pay, thus redeeming us from the impossible chasm between us and God, but still requiring us to work at being better people.

The mythical Jesus lived a perfect life to convince us that we were imperfect.

As I ventured into adulthood, this became a contradiction I couldn't look past. If it was impossible for me to deny my sin-nature, why was God punishing me for it? If Jesus was the Mediator sent by God, couldn’t God just forgive our debts directly? If the answer was faith and not works, then why was it that my works were precisely what was going to condemn me? Who set up this system that seemed rigged to make me fail?

As I wrestled with these thoughts, I sought solace in listening more intently to how people talked about God, and I noticed something I didn't expect. Although we all talked about God as if a real being, it wasn't as if any of them had seen or spoken with God. Sure, there were stories from hundreds of years ago about people seeing God, but even the leaders of my church were cautious not to say that they had seen God (something I find ironic as they called themselves "apostles"). In fact, the more potent the story about God’s intervention for mankind, the older the story was. We all know how the proverbial “big fish story” embellishes itself all the time - was that what was happening here?

I noticed another pattern, too. When people talked about God, it was always a reflection of themselves. God was conveniently for and against the same things these people were. If God in scripture did something a person considered bad, they'd either pretend not to see it or insist there was a "reason" to make God do it. If there was a good thing God wasn't doing, those same people would insist it was someone else's fault. There was rarely anything about how people described “God” that differed from their personal views; and conversely, there was rarely anything about people’s personal views that differed from their view of “God.” Despite supposedly being incomprehensible, God seemed to think just like people do, in spite of all the insistence that his thoughts were "higher" and "purer" than our own.

Does a historical Jesus need to feel "relatable" to you? 

Now, in my tradition - and, I imagine, in many Christian traditions - all of these concerns (and more!) could be resolved through a personal “witness” of God's perfect character through prayer, or even deeper study, or even more faith; but despite doing just that for decades, I was no closer to reconciling the deep divides I saw in the very foundation of theology. How exactly was "believing harder" supposed to correct a plain contradiction? I felt that more understanding was required, not merely more trust in the lack of it. I was increasingly convinced the answer didn't exist within my traditions - which directly contradicted its own claims to having encountered exactly those answers sometime in the distant past.

And what if that was the real truth? Maybe all my perceptions about God were really a reflection of who I already wanted to be. I was going around insisting that my thoughts and feelings had divine origins, but that was only so they could be protected from scrutiny, rather than be my authentic and fallible expressions of myself. All the traditions I had grown up were a game of telephone, constantly embellished with each passing generation until they were unrecognizable from the simple realities of living on a tiny speck of dust in a vast, silent universe.

How could we know if we're even praying to the same person?

It's not even that I stopped believing in a higher power, I just stopped believing in the "God" of my traditions. What I mean is that I rejected the need for a metaphysical Being who externally validated who I am. If there is a higher power out there, I see no reason for that being to impose arbitrary conditions on us to realize our fullest potential. If that being is perfect in its love for its creations, I see no need to justify the circumstances I inherited but rather how I learned to take the best of those traditions and to leave the rest behind in order to become who I want to be, and to see others have the same opportunity. I didn't see it as throwing away my heritage, I saw it as improving that heritage for the future.

My feelings? They’re mine. My thoughts? They’re all mine. My actions? They’re all mine. “God” was no longer incomprehensible, nor was he some metaphysical mystery - "God" is how I view the world, what inspires me, my deepest desires, my hopes and dreams. I don’t need “permission” or “worthiness” to feel that connection.

I only need to be authentically me, and those feelings will always follow.


Links to Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of this miniseries.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are You Temple Worthy?

Temple worthiness isn’t just about "good behavior" in Mormon teaching. It’s a gate that determines who qualifies for the highest blessings the religion offers. The church teaches that only people judged worthy can enter the temple, make covenants, and receive the ordinances that lead to exaltation, which is the belief that humans can become like God and live forever with their families in the celestial kingdom.  This makes worthiness interviews a spiritual checkpoint that can shape someone’s identity, their standing in the community, and even their hope for eternity.    Are You Worthy to Enter a Mormon Temple? Are You Worthy of the Mormon Temple? Yes No Restart Enter the Temple
5 comments
Read

The Smithsonian “Early Horses” Article Does Not Prove the Book of Mormon True

     A Smithsonian Magazine article titled “ Native Americans Spread Horses Through the West Earlier Than Thought ” (2023) has been circulating in Mormon spaces as supposed proof that horses existed in the Americas during Book of Mormon times.      The article summarizes a legitimate scientific study published in Science titled “ Early Dispersal of Domestic Horses Into the Great Plains and Northern Rockies .” (2023) But when you read what the researchers actually found, it’s clear this does not support the Book of Mormon’s claims at all.      What the Study Actually Found      The research team, led by William Timothy T. Taylor, analyzed horse remains found across the Great Plains and northern Rockies. Using radiocarbon dating, DNA sequencing, and isotopic analysis, they discovered that the animals were of Spanish origin. In other words, these were not remnants of ancient, native North American horses that somehow...
Post a Comment
Read

Early Mormon Criticisms - 1: Caution Against the Golden Bible

This series looks back at how early critics of the church reacted to the rise of Mormonism. Some mocked it, others warned against it, and a few tried to make sense of it. Each post features a real historical excerpt and some quick context to show how critics viewed the new faith as it was unfolding. For this first article, we are going to look at one of the first known in-depth public criticisms of the Book of Mormon, which appeared before the book itself was publicly available.  On February 20, 1830, Cornelius Camden Blatchley, a New York physician and writer known for his skeptical views on organized religion, published an article titled “Caution Against the Golden Bible” in the New-York Telescope . Written only weeks before the Book of Mormon’s official release in March of that year. Most of his arguments are still being used to this day. The Complaints Presented by Blatchley He specifies reading the Title page as well as   pages 353–368 of the original Book of Morm...
Post a Comment
Read

Is Mormonism a Cult?

     The word “cult” usually brings to mind the most destructive examples of control, where people lose their freedom, identity, or even their lives. That harm is real and should never be minimized. But the psychology behind those groups does not appear only in the extremes.       The same methods of influence exist in more common institutions too, but often differ in intensity. Religion, politics, and corporate systems all use similar tools to shape belief and loyalty. Mormonism belongs on that spectrum, not because it is as harmful as the worst examples, but because it relies on many of the same patterns of authority and conformity.      One way to see this clearly is through the BITE Model of Authoritarian Control. The model, created by Steven Hassan, outlines how groups shape members through four areas of influence: B ehavior I nformation T hought E motion.       Each form of control helps a system maintain stabil...
Post a Comment
Read

Are Mormons Christian?

People keep asking whether Mormons are Christian, as if that’s the issue that matters. It’s not. Mormons love this question since its probably one of the tamest aspects of the faith to question. The other day I was reading some comments on an online post that was debating the issue of whether or not Mormons were Christian, and this interaction caught my eye. One individual declared that the FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) “never were and never will be Mormon.”  Now, I can't imagine that many Mormons will share this same sentiment, considering that the FLDS church literally emerged from the exact same roots as the Utah church. But this interaction ironically demonstrates the exact same mindset that other Christians have about Mormons. Some Christians don’t consider Mormons Christian because Latter-day Saint teachings reject key doctrines established by early Christian creeds, like the Trinity, original sin, and the belief that Go...
Post a Comment
Read