Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Really interesting question, and good answers from all 3.

My tenure at BYU was roughly coterminous with that of the question-asker's, and I have the benefit of having returned in '13. I think that students were indeed more conservative, religiously and politically in the mid '00s. I think that the Internet has both increased lay Mormons' access to multiple points of view and increased social networking around the issue.

However, for perspective, this Google Ngram might be revelatory. It looks like there could be a mass defection about every generation, if the publication trends reflect reality. In our lifetimes, I think the controversy around the "September Six" was much more divisive than anything we see today. If anyone can get a hold of numbers of BYU students leaving for religious reasons, I would be very interested. (Not holding my breath.)

I laughed at the idea that it's "trendy" or "hip." Is this because President Uchtdorf is the "cool" apostle and he's sympathetic to the concerns of those who have issues? Does this make me a hipster, religion-wise? (Oh, please, no.) Food for thought.

I certainly did not feel trendy or hip when doubting at BYU, just confused and alone. May comment more when I get home.

mic0 wrote:I certainly did not feel trendy or hip when doubting at BYU, just confused and alone. May comment more when I get home. :)

:) Looking forward to it!

The hippest kids I knew were the ones who skipped seminary, went to arts school in Boston, messed around with guys, then came home and settled down into BYU and temple weddings. I was fairly surprised, as they no doubt would be by the "square" who followed the opposite trajectory.

Portia wrote:I think that the Internet has both increased lay Mormons' access to multiple points of view and increased social networking around the issue.

...

Is this because President Uchtdorf is the "cool" apostle and he's sympathetic to the concerns of those who have issues? Does this make me a hipster, religion-wise? (Oh, please, no.) Food for thought.

I think your first point is spot on, and maybe there is a more accepting atmosphere as well (I don't know, I was at BYU from 2008-2012). Also, Uchtdorf IS pretty cool, admittedly. But to people who have had doubts and left, Uchtdorf still has a lot of issues, so I wouldn't think his influence is so great as to encourage otherwise totally faithful people to start doubting just to be like... "Uchtdorf and I are on the same page, man!" Or something.

I've really liked Haleakalā's answers in general, but take issue with his example from his mission. For ease of discussion, here it is, plus the quote from Holland:

I can't deny there are people in the world who struggle with doubts as a public gesture. Most of us encountered some of these people on our mission. They fervently claim they want to know the truth, but for some reason it never comes to them. Often these people either don't keep commitments or never seem to get anything out of them. They loved to meet members and introduce themselves as a seeker of truth. I remember the first time I encountered someone like this on my mission. I couldn't for the life of me figure out what was wrong. I remember the moment when it finally came to me: this person wasn't interested in learning the truth. He lived for the respect he got from the phenomenon described by Elder Holland:

When problems come and questions arise, do not start your quest for faith by saying how much you do not have, leading as it were with your “unbelief.” That is like trying to stuff a turkey through the beak! Let me be clear on this point: I am not asking you to pretend to faith you do not have. I am asking you to be true to the faith you do have. Sometimes we act as if an honest declaration of doubt is a higher manifestation of moral courage than is an honest declaration of faith. It is not! ("Lord I Believe," April 2013)

The way he says "but for some reason [the truth] never comes to them" just sounded really dismissive. From my perspective, that kind of person described* is a seeker of truth, likes the community, likes the people (s)he is around, but does not want to be dishonest about their feelings on some doctrine. How can you know they weren't really interested in learning the truth? That sounds like a thinly veiled way of saying "they just didn't want to accept that X is true" where X is whatever the speaker believes and is surprised the other person hasn't come to the same conclusion.

And, maybe this is just my contrariness coming out, but what is Holland saying? That declarations of doubt and faith are equal in moral courage? Or that declarations of faith are somehow higher in moral courage?** And what does "trying to stuff a turkey through the beak" mean in this context? Okay, I admit, I don't get that metaphor at all.

In another train of thought sparked from the wording of the question and answers, it seems that whenever "people who doubt" are brought up they are referred to as a small percentage, or rare, or anything else that suggests it is abnormal to doubt. I wonder if that affects how many people actually admit to doubting.

*Obviously I don't know the person in question. Duh. I only know myself, and even then, not always.
**As a super aside, I had a therapist tell me that I was really "brave" for being honest about my doubt even though I was no longer at BYU. He just thought that being honest about my feelings was a brave thing to do, regardless of those feelings. It was an interesting realization for me and one I still wonder about, because that is not the rhetoric of the church.

P.S. I liked Haleakalā's conclusion a lot, actually. Just saying. We aren't on totally opposite ends or anything.

Portia wrote:The hippest kids I knew were the ones who skipped seminary, went to arts school in Boston, messed around with guys, then came home and settled down into BYU and temple weddings. I was fairly surprised, as they no doubt would be by the "square" who followed the opposite trajectory.

Man, the kids in my ward in TX who skipped seminary were NOT hip among the church-goers! Very interesting. I think this brings up a good point, though, that there are many more intellectually honest ways to be hip/edgy/different than to call into question the belief system of the church you are a part of.

mic0 wrote:And, maybe this is just my contrariness coming out, but what is Holland saying? That declarations of doubt and faith are equal in moral courage? Or that declarations of faith are somehow higher in moral courage?** And what does "trying to stuff a turkey through the beak" mean in this context? Okay, I admit, I don't get that metaphor at all. ;)

In another train of thought sparked from the wording of the question and answers, it seems that whenever "people who doubt" are brought up they are referred to as a small percentage, or rare, or anything else that suggests it is abnormal to doubt. I wonder if that affects how many people actually admit to doubting.

*Obviously I don't know the person in question. Duh. I only know myself, and even then, not always. :P
**As a super aside, I had a therapist tell me that I was really "brave" for being honest about my doubt even though I was no longer at BYU. He just thought that being honest about my feelings was a brave thing to do, regardless of those feelings. It was an interesting realization for me and one I still wonder about, because that is not the rhetoric of the church.

P.S. I liked Haleakalā's conclusion a lot, actually. Just saying. We aren't on totally opposite ends or anything.

I have found Elder Holland's tone to often be overwrought and too sentimental for my tastes. He's a very black and white thinker: the Book of Mormon is all true or all lies, sex is a holy, holistic experience or dirty and evil, and so forth.

I think he is arguing that suppressing doubt shows more moral courage. As to the turkey stuffing analogy, a Google search was rather unappetizing (especially a week before Thanksgiving).

Portia wrote:
The hippest kids I knew were the ones who skipped seminary, went to arts school in Boston, messed around with guys, then came home and settled down into BYU and temple weddings. I was fairly surprised, as they no doubt would be by the "square" who followed the opposite trajectory.

mic0 wrote:Man, the kids in my ward in TX who skipped seminary were NOT hip among the church-goers! Very interesting. I think this brings up a good point, though, that there are many more intellectually honest ways to be hip/edgy/different than to call into question the belief system of the church you are a part of.

Oh, we had our own Seminary Council clique, but coming from Utah, I identified more with my nerd, type A clique, which included Mormons and others. These girls were hip just in the general sense: well-dressed, artistic, more lackadaisical about achievement. It was just surprising to me that they decided they didn't like the drug scene of their Boston arts schools, and came to the preternaturally unhip Provo. I suppose maybe we true blue Mormons thought we were better, but I don't actually think so. I think we prided ourselves on our intellectualism and fairness, and as I've said many times, since Mormons are not a persecuted minority in Utah, it becomes just a fact of life, like being short or tall.

The guy who was closest to me in the overlap of the "prig" and "neurotic" Venn diagrams was the object of my undiluted affections for about half a decade. I believe he is still a believer, but he's not married, and has rarely dated anyone seriously. (He was the main reason I went to BYU.) So even he is following the "life script" less than you might have predicted ten years ago.

From Mormon Dialogue, someone says that the meaning is that approaching faith from the doubt side is simply more difficult than approaching it from the faith side (I'm paraphrasing), just like how stuffing a turkey through the beak is extrordinarily difficult. I don't agree that one is inherently "easier", but okay, at least the metaphor kind of makes sense now. Mr. Mico and I went to General Conference one year while dating, the Saturday morning session with some friends, and he said the only talk that really stood out to him was Holland's. If nothing else, he is extremely passionate!

Haha, Seminary Council clique... sounds great. We also had a cross-section of nerds and Mormons at my school, which is definitely where I fell. That's really interesting about those girls, though.

So, I always found a lot of comfort in the scriptural canon, especially the New Testament. The words, "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" kept running through my head. I looked up the chapter, John 8, and the tears started flowing when I got to here:

Dispute over Jesus' Testimony

13 The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”

14 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going.

<3

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/75345/

In Memoriam 96 wrote:And I'm DEFINITELY doing it to be hip and trendy as referenced in Board Question #75266, especially the part where I leave church crying every week and can't read the scriptures without a crippling wave of shame.

You tell them, sister (or brother).

In the It Gets Better vein, I thought this post by Kevin Barney was awesome.

I often see situations where parents perceive their children or other family members slipping away from the Church, and they panic and push–really hard–to keep their kids in the fold. And so without realizing it, they often push so hard that they turn their kids into little anti-Mormons, because they are putting them in a position where they feel they have to justify their decisions about their relationship with the Church, and so they spend time trolling the internet and building their case. This is a fairly common dynamic that shows the unintended consequences of an overly strong parental desire to keep the kids within the religious fold. (My kids may be out of the church, but they respect both the church and my involvement in it. They’ve simply come to the conclusion that it’s not for them, a conclusion which I in turn respect.)

Oh, wow, the BCC website is quite different from last time I read it! That's what happens when you don't read stuff in the bloggernacle for an extended time...