I once heard a story about a discussion between Pres. Hinckley (maybe) and a Catholic Cardinal (?) in which the Cardinal asked him if he could tell just by looking someone in the eye if that person was a believer or not. Hinckley replied that he couldn’t, and the Cardinal winked and said, “Me neither.” (I couldn’t find this story, so I apologize if it’s not quite right.) The point is, the Lord looketh on the heart (1 Samuel 16:7), but to the rest of us, it’s all guesswork.
PIMO (Physically In, Mentally Out) is a term used to describe someone who attends church, but who does not believe and is either just pretending or possibly just going through the motions. They might attend to keep peace with a spouse who is still “all in,” or they might attend to maintain community ties or because they, to quote Brokeback Mountain, “just can’t quit you,” Mormon Church. Thanks to the internet, it’s easier for these individuals to find other like-minded folks out there, and honestly, there are a lot of people in this category, more than you might think given the cultural requirements for attendees: teaching correlated lessons, asserting belief in various settings, being harangued / invited to sit for a “worthiness” interview in which they are asked to state a compliant set of beliefs, and so forth. PIMOs attend BYU. They attend your local ward. They give talks and teach lessons. They sometimes hold leadership callings. They might be you. When it comes to their unorthodox beliefs, PIMOs often want to be left alone, to continue not rocking the boat, to fade into the wallpaper.
Some PIMOs want to see the church make progressive changes, and some will try to use their influence to encourage these changes by providing thought-provoking comments or challenging retrograde views, but that’s not everyone in this category. Most will not endanger their status by going too far for their fellow congregants in challenging the status quo or the party line. A whole lot of them just simply don’t believe the Church is true, that the BOM is historical, that there are modern-day prophets who are actually inspired by the divine (vs. their own best ideas and biases). And yet, in general, someone who is PIMO is often orthoprax (following the behavior code “rules”), at least in visible ways. They usually still look and sound like everyone else. They aren’t out drinking or sleeping around or experimenting with drugs. They may wear garments and avoid profanity and shopping on Sundays.
It’s often been said that everyone is a cafeteria Mormon (or insert religion of choice) because nobody’s beliefs and values are identical, and realistically, neither are their practices. If there’s a list of correlated Mormon beliefs, there are going to be some things on that list that you just don’t believe. Consider the complicated life of Joseph Smith. You could believe a wide spectrum of things about him. On the most believing end, there are some who believe that he was a true prophet, second only to Jesus in personal goodness, who restored the church and was martyred senselessly through no fault of his own. Thanks to the internet and additional scholarship (including the Joseph Smith Papers Project), that’s probably a shrinking majority of church members. At the other end of the spectrum, you might see him as a pedophile[1], conman, who created a sex cult to get power and ruin the lives of innocents. Most people are probably somewhere in between these extremes. I remember growing up being told he lamented his sins and personal weaknesses, but I never suspected they were much worse than cheating at cards. Emma wishes that was the extent of it!
I was recently watching a short video of an ex-Mormon comedian (thanks TikTok algo) who was sharing her shock and judgmentalism about current church members who share a shaky-breathed testimony of the “restored gospel” but also engage in things like drinking and … wait for it … swinging. (What is this, Nauvoo cosplay?) She eventually concludes that they aren’t playing at being Mormons; they’re just being Catholics. When I lived in New Jersey, there were a lot of Catholics, and it has often occurred to me that the longer a religion sticks around, the more accepting it becomes of diverse viewpoints and religious practices. People often referred to themselves as “bad Catholics.” It’s very common to see Catholic characters in movies or TV shows who use birth control or get divorced (contrary to Catholic teachings), yet hold very strong Catholic beliefs (or at least superstitions played for laffs).
Someone online, in a group of PIMO and former Mormons, asked the group if there were Church members who no longer went to church, who drank coffee or alcohol, but who still believed the church was true. (MIPO: Mentally In, Physically Out, or perhaps POMI). They were doubting that this was a thing, but folks, this has always been a thing. I always heard these people referred to as Jack Mormons.[2] Although, maybe “Jack Mormon” sounds more like a backslider (someone who struggles to adhere to the rules, but deeply believes, like in a Brandon Flowers song), and less like someone who has deliberately rejected the behavior code while holding to belief and even attendance in the Church (as described by the comedian). We sometimes use the term “nagging doubts” to describe those who are struggling with cognitive dissonance when their values don’t line up with the Church’s prescribed values, but “nagging belief” is perhaps an apt description for some people who have left the Church. They struggle with the innate belief or fear that maybe the Church really is true, even though they have mostly concluded it is not. That’s how religion works, especially Catholicism in sitcoms.
Of course, you can be “cafeteria” in terms of practices (orthopraxy) as well as beliefs (orthodoxy). For example, I remember when a neighbor kid was at our house playing video games while I was doing something in the kitchen. I dropped something on the floor and shouted, “Crap!” This kid sucked in his breath as if I had just blasphemed and told me, “In OUR house, that’s a swear word,” and I said, “Well your parents must not have had a German mother. In THIS house, we say ‘crap’ when we drop things.” While one’s language choices in their own home aren’t generally up for scrutiny, it seems that some Mormon behaviors are suddenly becoming more orthoprax with the rising generation: coffee drinking, alcohol drinking, and not wearing garments to name a few common ones.
There’s a relationship between orthodoxy and orthopraxy in our lives. One can reinforce or lead to the other, or can erode the other if we reject it. For example, if you don’t agree that coffee is harmful and you drink it with no ill effects, you might also begin to question other teachings that you now see as man-made or traditional and conservative or against your interest. Or conversely, if you don’t believe the Church is teaching correct doctrine on how tithing should be paid or you disagree with their actions in the SEC violations, your changed belief might cause you to stop paying tithing. But, on the flip side, if you live the Church’s behavior code and associate with Mormons, you might eventually decide to become one. The mind justifies our actions by providing beliefs to explain them to ourselves and others. People you mistreat must deserve it. People who help you must be good.
The relationship between orthopraxy and orthodoxy can vary depending on the specific religious tradition. In some religions, such as Christianity and Islam, there is a strong emphasis on both correct belief (orthodoxy) and correct practice (orthopraxy). Adherents are expected to believe in certain doctrines while also adhering to specific rituals and moral principles. However, the relative importance of orthodoxy and orthopraxy can differ between traditions.
In certain religious contexts, one may find that orthopraxy takes precedence over orthodoxy or vice versa. For example, in some indigenous or folk religions, the focus may be more on proper rituals and practices rather than on doctrinal beliefs. Conversely, in certain philosophical or mystical traditions, such as some forms of Buddhism or Sufism, the emphasis may be more on inner transformation and spiritual insight rather than on adherence to specific beliefs or rituals. (ChatGPT)
The temple recommend questions give an indication of what the Church considers to be a good balance between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. There are questions about “beliefs” at the beginning, and “practices” at the end. On the whole, it seems like an attempt to require a balance of both, roughly 50/50.
- Do you think Mormonism cares more about orthopraxy or orthodoxy? Do you see different church leaders who are more concerned about one or the other?
- Do you think orthodoxy leads to orthopraxy or the other way around? Have you seen examples in your life or others?
- Have you been surprised to discover someone’s beliefs or practices were different than you expected?
- How tolerance do you think the Church is of unorthodox beliefs? Is it more or less tolerant of unorthopraxy? Do you think it’s becoming more or less tolerant over time?
- Where do you think the orthodox / orthoprax mix will be in 20 years?
Discuss.
[1] There is no evidence that he ever sexually targeted pre-pubescent children, so hebephilia is the correct term. Learned that one from Olivia Benson.
[2] That term has also been used to refer to non-Mormons who live among and act like Mormons, although I always heard them called “dry Mormons.” It seems like Jack Mormon is a term that applies to different types of people in different contexts.
Wheat & Tares 
I think orthopraxy is the bigger concern for church leaders. People don’t typically gossip about someone’s beliefs/orthodoxy because it isn’t visible and if the person says they believe A, B and C, how do people have any way of knowing otherwise?
Practices are very visible. Typing this as I drink a cup of coffee at the local coffee shop, of a ward member happens to drive by and see me walking out they will likely talk about it to someone. Especially if your practices have a platform that can have wide reach or influence (tiktok), the leader will quickly start to care if you’re not saying things that are in line with the church.
“PIMO vs. MIPO” it would have been nice if you would have just defined these terms. I had to go searching on the internet to understand what you were talking about.
“Physically In (Attending)” vs “Mentally in (Believing)” is really hard to define.
I have a family member who do not attend physical or virtual functions (spiritual or community-based) and who meets some of the “physical markers” of activity (No Coffee/Tea or Substance Abuse issues – wear their garments “day and night”). These are more of a habit/legacy that make sense in context (but do not require a lot of thought in their current lifestyle).
Their “mentally in (Believing)” behavior has turned individuals away from Christianity entirely because of how the “mentally in” individual chooses to model Christianity. My Non-Christian friend basically looked at the situation and said for themselves, “if this is Christianity – do not sign me up for it” and has been developing a moral code since then.
Yet the “Mentally in (Believing)” individual will “bear testimony” of specific foundational beliefs (including Christianity) regularly, considers themselves to model Christianity appropriately (while following the “guilt-shame-white knuckle into better choices” model on pointless, damaging repeat), and to be “all in – except for sickness baring actively showing up”. They dismiss their “hypocrisy” as “what matters most is what is in my heart” while being completely oblivious that “what is in what’s heart” is mostly visible by what is actually “said and done” (with the emphasis on “done” actually) in our culture.
Physically in, mentally out. Mentally in, physically out.
First off, it’s impossible to believe/follow everything in the church. I know because at a younger age I tried, and it will break you. Every healthy member is a cafeteria mormon and in fact that is the only way to be a healthy mormon . Really the other choice is to try to eat everything in the cafeteria and eating everything in a cafeteria regularly can only lead to illness and immobilization, be it real food or doctrine or practices.
In my human development course we have been discussing maturation of thought processes. Around college age (or missionary age) humans are dualistic thinkers. In other words we see the church as all true or all evil and false, we see people who support Israel as supporters of genocide and people who support Gaza as supporters of the holocaust. Dualistic all or nothing, black and white thinking leaves no room for the reality that every point of view has some truth and reality in it as well as some real conflict with what others see and experience. Dualistic thinking leaves no room for the greys, pinks and in betweens. But reality is full of those in betweens.
Some people remain dualistic thinkers all their lives. Their experience doesn’t confront them with those in betweens However, many people become relativistic thinkers. They have a full life experience. They talk to other people with different experiences and they listen and try to see their point of view. They come to understand that their own experience doesn’t mean others are lying when they experience something different. They come to see all reality and truth as subjective with one point of view of the same value as another.
The most mature stage of thinking is reflective thinking. People who come to this stage see that points of view are relative, and not all true or false. However these people learn to choose between these points of view, reflecting on the relative value between these points of view. They have doubt and humility, but they don’t reject any point of view outright. Still they have wisdom and can pick the best thing between the various choices.
The church is a safe place for dualistic thinkers. Those of us who have matured past that space can choose to go to church or not or to participate if we choose, and to believe or not to believe in any variety of ways.
Cachemagic: I cannot believe that your post failed to explain every granular detail it mentions…so I had to spend 13 seconds on the interwebs to define a term that is used on W&T at least 17 times a week! The horror!
Given the way that the Church is evolving, the external is and will always be more important than the internal. That is, practice and the way people portray themselves trumps whatever one’s internal beliefs might be. This is true at BYU, where a not insignificant number of students (and faculty, although that is a lower percentage) are PIMO…and where Honor Code enforcement totally focuses on the external (i.e. dress and grooming standards) over the internal (i.e. cheating). This is true in wards as well, where the person who dresses in a white shirt, suit, and tie and looks like a bishop is far more likely to get an “important” leadership calling than the person who has a three-day beard, wears a blue shirt with a tie halfway done up and cargo pants, and still calling themselves a “Mormon”…but is probably living the gospel (i.e. being Christ-like) than many members who are simply embracing obedience culture and leader worship.
I think that RMN and DHO (along with their mini-mes, Kevin Pearson, Clark Gilbert, et. al.) are far more concerned with the external. I think (and hope) that DFU and PK privilege the internal.
I realize that my PIMO friends often carry on the charade for a variety of very understandable reasons. Family pressure. Friend pressure. Professional pressure (shout out to Utah county dentists). But let me tell my PIMO friends something: I was PIMO for a while and PIPO is so much better for so many reasons. It’s also more principled in my opinion.
I meant to say MOPO
Darn. I read this and concluded I am actually a Buddhist Mormon who sorta likes some aspects of LDS orthopraxy/orthodoxy and dislikes others. I also possess “holy envy” for a few religious concepts and practices outside of Mormonism. But I don’t get a cool acronym.
josh h,
I don’t know… PIPO is actually pretty decisive and individualized! It is probably how most Mormons survive. Ward Barbecue with Sister Smith’s special sauce (which is best described as a gateway drug)? PI. Stake Conference with long-winded hardline speakers? PO.
I believe the story you’re looking for is from Elder Oaks. He was talking with an Eastern Orthodox bishop about their proselytizing in their area, and he pointed out that you can’t really tell who is a true believer by looking at them. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1998/04/have-you-been-saved?lang=eng
cachemagic: Yes, my apologies! I woke up this morning and thought “Oh shoot! I don’t think I ever defined those terms in the post!” It’s corrected now, but sorry for the delay.
Anon: I think part of the problem is how the individual defines being “physically in” (attending how often? is a temple recommend required? is accepting callings required?) and how one defines “mentally in” (believing which of the teachings?). Also, nobody believes all the teachings to the same degree. They might accept a teaching (e.g. they don’t like polygamy, but accept that it might be a celestial principle for other people who want to do it–not my position, but I’ve heard others have this perspective which Brigham Young would have considered completely apostate), or they might ignore it and just forget about it. It’s only when you reject a current teaching that you realize how much your beliefs are idiosyncratic.
That’s probably a good reason for leaders prior to Nelson to have so assiduously avoided contradicting their predecessors. Nelson did not seem to have those same qualms, instead leaping in with both feet to declaring things Pres. Hinckley and even Pres. Benson encouraged (embracing the nickname Mormon) a “victory for Satan.” Oaks, like Nelson is very willing to declare anything that contradicts his opinions “apostasy.” While I think local wards care more about orthopraxy than orthodoxy, for the first time in my life, I think top leaders are trying to enforce orthodoxy. This trend has been coming on for a while. Members didn’t always have to declare a belief that all the apostles were “prophets, seers, and revelators,” especially since they don’t really prophesy, see, or reveal unless you really change the definitions of those words, another time-honored Mormon past-time.
Morgan Deane: Thank you so much for finding that! No wonder I couldn’t find it. Wrong guy.
The post sounds like a good summary of probably a few thousand online conversations over the years. Apart from a few truly zealous members (maybe 10% of active Mormons? 20%?) I think most members move back and forth along the orthodox and orthoprax axes over the course of a lifetime.
Here’s a different way to understand the plight of the average Mormon who enters the bottom half of the belief curve (where doubters reside). They are fighting a lifetime of LDS programming. It takes a lot of self-reflection to separate the ideas and emotions laid down by the LDS programming process from whatever rational thinking and authentic feelings one develops in pulling away from that programming. Consider:
– Primary, youth Sunday School classes, and Seminary. From age 3 to age 18, I estimate the average fully active LDS youth gets about 2000 lessons before they graduate high school. That’s a lot of programming.
– The Mission Experience. As LDS, it’s easy to just take for granted two full years of being a young, religion-peddling missionary, isn’t it? Add ten thousand hours of self-programming, aided by missionary manuals, interviews with the MP, and periodic missionary conferences.
– General Conference twice a year, with each talk (on average) repeated over the pulpit or in class at least once in the following six months. That’s about 120 Conference talk exposures (as delivered or rehashed in a lesson) per year of programming for adults.
— Years of teaching or sitting through LDS meetings and classes.
So anyone who grew up LDS, then later achieves some degree of being mentally out, has overcome all of this programming and more. It’s amazing anyone manages to do it.
In response to Hawkgrrrl-
I agree that the definitions are the start of the problem:)
I also agree that “rejecting a current teaching” will trigger some introspection about one’s beliefs. In some cases, a different but related teaching also undergoes introspection. For example, no longer believing that God exists also tends to push the Atonement out the belief window.
I would postulate that “it doesn’t just take your internal trigger” though. I have seen a lot of division between individuals through the years when a person’s experience triggers introspection in the minds and hearts of others. I think that how the church leadership has reacted to different parts of the internet and the access to knowledge and opinions that the internet offers is probably one of the clearest examples of heading off potential division.
“Anon: I think part of the problem is how the individual defines being “physically in” (attending how often? is a temple recommend required? is accepting callings required?) and how one defines “mentally in” (believing which of the teachings?). Also, nobody believes all the teachings to the same degree. They might accept a teaching (e.g. they don’t like polygamy, but accept that it might be a celestial principle for other people who want to do it–not my position, but I’ve heard others have this perspective which Brigham Young would have considered completely apostate), or they might ignore it and just forget about it. It’s only when you reject a current teaching that you realize how much your beliefs are idiosyncratic.”
I agree with others that have said that there’s more focus on orthopraxy than orthodoxy, that a person’s behaviors are easier to both see and judge than their beliefs, but I also think there are a few cultural practices at church that attempt to coax a person’s beliefs out into the open so that beliefs can also be seen and judged.
Fast and testimony meetings. They feel like a cross between an open mic therapy session with a captive audience and a means for members to advertise to others how loyal their beliefs are to the dominant narrative.
Sunday School. There are right comments and wrong comments. Correlation efforts have standardized the Mormon experience but they also have the goal of establishing correct and incorrect belief.
If orthopraxy and orthodoxy were pitted against each other, I’m not sure which one would win. Let’s say there’s an opening for a new bishop. Would they take the guy that believes all the correct teachings but falls short on a few practices or would they take a guy that follows all the practices but doesn’t have the correct testimony? Do they take the tea drinker or the guy that doesn’t believe in the first vision?
My sister is MIPO. She went through a divorce and her new husband is no longer active. She lives in Minnesota where she would probably see a lot of old contacts from before her divorce, so she no longer attend. But she still believes in the church teachings as far as I can tell.
My wife’s sister’s husband is more of the MIPO side. He thinks that church culture is completely separate from the leaders and from Joseph Smith’s teachings and has gone astray. The culture is too Pharisee-like for him, so he doesn’t always attend for that reason. He also used to smoke pot and thinks that it is not that bad and wants to see pot legalized. He is not happy with the leaders’ current stance against pot. But he very much believes Joseph Smith was a prophet and that Mormonism was more pristine in the past and has been corrupted by rigid cultural norms that have set in. I agree with him that the church culture is rigid and sometimes suffocating, but I see the culture as shaped and informed by the leaders themselves, not separate from them. He also very much believes that the Book of Mormon is historical. He hates authority in general, is staunchly libertarian, and doesn’t like being told what to do. But his mantra is “teach people correct principles and let them govern themselves.”
Thanks, hawkgrrrl, I always appreciate your posts. You articulate things that are hard for me to reason through on my own.
For me, I’ve been walking the spectrum. I was all in for 40+ years, then personal things with my family made me start to get annoyed with the church. Then the other things you mentioned.
Soon I was PIMO. Then more stuff happened. More disillusionment.
Then I was all out. But I missed saying prayers and feeling close to a Heavenly Father. I didn’t like the idea that this life is all there is. I wanted to believe there is more. So I choose to believe in God and Jesus Christ. It makes me happy.
When I think of Them, to me the Mormon viewpoint makes the most sense (40+ years, remember). It’s what makes me happy and brings me peace.
So funnily, I’m now back on the spectrum, but definitely MIPO. Not fully mentally in, really, but definitely in the Mormon slice of the religious pie chart.
In some ways my faith is actually stronger, because I have made the conscious choice to believe and it takes a lot of work when it’s not simply your lifestyle.
I’d say I’m PIMD (Physically In, Mentally Different). To me “mentally out” has a connotation of not believing anymore. And I have very strong beliefs, they’re just different beliefs than correlated LDS doctrine.
I’d say local ward members mostly just care about… EXTROVERSION. I’ve found that as long as I’m outgoing and friendly, I can pretty much get away with believing anything and living my life any way that I want to, and ward members will accept me and be friendly towards me. But, even if I say all the right things and do all the right things, if I’m introverted, people will mostly leave me alone and not consider to me to be part of the “in group”. I’m not sure if this is specific to Mormons, of if this is true of all groups. But that’s been my experience.
And I think that church leaders mostly care about orthopraxy. You can believe what you want, JUST OBEY DANG IT!
aporetic1,
I love it! PIMD! I think that describes me too. And yes I totally get your comments on introvert vs extrovert since my husband and some of my kids are introverts. It’s so much harder to fit an introvert in.
My experience is there’s a certain type of person that fits neatly into an LDS ward. It’s easy for them to conform. They are early birds typically, athletic, extroverted, and tend to be more dualistic or black and white thinkers, and less intellectual.
Brad D,
Enjoyed your description of your wife’s sister’s husband. It made me recall a story about Hugh B. Brown when he was a Stake President up in Alberta. He called a older farmer as Bishop who was smoking a cigar as they chatted. This next part may be apocryphal but the story goes that the farmer was stunned and asked while holding out his cigar “Hell, with this?” Brown responded “Hell no, without it.”
I think in an earlier times, there was far less emphasis on orthopraxy and orthodoxy and more emphasis on charity, character and potential. This attitude was obvious in the small town I was raised. How I miss it!
lws329: “They are early birds typically, athletic, extroverted, and tend to be more dualistic or black and white thinkers, and less intellectual.” aka lazy learners
Re: early birds. From Hugh Nibley: “Mormons think it more commendable to get up at 5 am to write a bad book than to get up at nine o’clock to write a good one.”
Fantastic post. I really like the category of MIPO. Come to think of it, I know a lot of MIPOs. Extended family, in-laws, current and former co-workers. (I would have thought of several of them as “Jack Mormons” when that phrase was common, but not all of them). They all sit somewhere on the spectrum of belief and rarely have a bad thing to say about the Church, but all stopped attending for a variety of reasons. The common denominator is that they all have a crap-ton (excuse the language;)) of other stuff going on every Sunday (work, hunting, their kids are in a travel sports league ECT), and they’ve already heard all the stories and don’t need any more friends.
If I may, I would offer another category that I think describes a large swath of Mormons: PIMI (physically in, mentally indifferent. They go both buildings (the biege one and the big white one), pay their membership dues, and participate in the occasional service project me, but haven’t thought deeply about a gospel topic years – if ever. Everything’s simple and obvious. They don’t have to worry about cognitive dissonance, because they never ask any questions. Just you know, follow the prophet and do the stuff and whatever. Ya, ya, the Church is true. Leave me along. I’m trying to play candy crush. This feels like half my ward
Personally, I’m with aporetic1. I think I’m PIMD as well. Is it pronounced “PIMdee?” I’m going to say it’s pronounced PIMdee. For me it could also be V for variant (PIMV) or P for pluralistic, which would be P.I.M… wait, never mind.
Even though I live like a hermit in my little cave — because of mental illness — and rarely make it to church–I consider myself “all in.” But I wouldn’t use the initials “AI” for obvious reasons. 😀
As a BYU student I lived for a time with my grandparents in Pleasant Grove, which at the time was very different from Provo. This was long enough ago that there was no highway exit to PG, and there was space between it and other towns. It felt like it was still culturally a small town, which it probably hasn’t been for some time now. It seemed to me that virtually everyone identified as Mormon, including those who hadn’t been to church in decades and probably did things that weren’t allowed. I got the sense that among many, Mormonism was a cultural identity inherited from the pioneers. Rejection of the lifestyle didn’t necessarily constitute rejection of the identity. I think this group is probably larger than a lot of people appreciate, and I would classify them as MIPO. I think I have some relatives that probably fit in the category.
After experiencing religious abuse and trauma due to a horrible bishop my first year at BYU I lost my belief in God. Growing up I had been taught over and over that our bishops and leaders were always in tune with the Spirit and inspired to only act as God would have them do. Over the course of a semester I discovered just how false this belief was. This was at the end of Oaks’s reign of terror at BYU and I knew gay people who were tortured and harassed in the name of God. I also knew people who had been falsely brought before the Honor Code office for supposedly being LGBTQ+ because Oaks’s student spy network (which worked hand in glove with the Honor Code office) would turn in anyone who hugged a friend of the same sex or did anything that might be somehow misconstrued as inappropriate/downright sinful. Because I had a fabulous group of friends, I elected to stay at BYU, but I no longer believed anything taught or preached at church or in religion classes. Only my very closest friends knew of my situation, and most of them were also experiencing faith crises of their own.
To my ward and the university I looked like the perfect Mormon young woman. I attended church because it was expected and because the people in my ward were wonderful for the most part, and I enjoyed being with them. My bishop who was one of my professors in my college figured things out on his own and, surprisingly, told me not to worry about my lack of belief. You wouldn’t be able to find a bishop like that now!
Even after a profound spiritual experience my last year at BYU during the time after I was pronounced dead after going partway through a windshield and then having half of the tree that the car had hit split in half and pinning me down in a blizzard related car accident and then literally resurrecting in the ER of a tiny hospital during my last year in school in which I learned that our Heavenly Parents and Jesus do exist my belief in the church itself and its leaders never recovered. However, to this day I refuse to automatically believe in people who are in positions of power and authority. These individuals have to prove themselves to me that they are actually trustworthy and worth listening to. My dad supported this stance because he’d taught my sibs and me how to be critical thinkers from an early age. He believed that blind faith was dangerous outside but most especially inside of the church. On the other hand, my mom treated me like a dangerous heretic because I refused to rubber stamp whatever the church and its leaders said and taught. Even though I quoted her several scriptures about the need to study things out in my mind before deciding to embrace or reject a particular church doctrine or practice she was positive that I was dangerous person because I questioned (and continue to question) everything that I learned about regarding the church and everything else in my life.
From the time of my spiritual epiphany until 2005 I was able to make the church work for me even as my ward didn’t know what to make of me because of my unorthodox way of being a member. In that year our stake was realigned, and we were stuck with a bishop who was very much like the one my first year in college. He enjoyed thinking of the worst about the ward members. I just couldn’t sustain him because of his wacky millenarian beliefs, a total lack of love for ward members, a preference for the very wealthy ward members plus a love of unrighteous dominion and the way he ran the ward as his personal fiefdom. The Spirit had fled my ward completely. There were others who felt the same way as me, but I was shocked by how many members took everything this man said and did as gospel truth even as they contradicted everything that the Savior said, did and stood for. Fortunately for me, the health challenges I’d been dealing with my entire spine since that long ago accident got much worse and I quit attending church because it was too too painful to sit on the hard benches and because the bishop and SP instituted a hall patrol to ensure that nobody went out to sit in the foyer or walk the halls. I feel like I truly tried to make the church work for me for a long time, but it was only after I left that I realized that I was spiritually, emotionally and mentally in a much better place than I was when I was trying to make church work in spite of the severe cognitive dissonance I had experienced week in and week out.
I understand why a Seventy would give a General Conference talk about how bad Cafeteria Mormonism is, but what someone like that doesn’t understand is their own internal priority system, shedding off things they were once taught in church, but turned out not to be part of gospel. They don’t understand how much others struggle with that.
I could understand it more if Joseph Smith laid out a codified set of Creeds. But he didn’t. He did the opposite. Pretty much everything was up in the air with the potential of the next revelation. The closest thing we have to a Creed is the Articles of Faith; which Joseph Smith didn’t write for church members, he wrote it to a newspaper man who wasn’t a member.
So it’s hard to lay down exactly what to believe, when what we believe is a true and living church guided by revelation.
It feels like I will be asked to volunteer as a worker in of these many Utah temples, at which time I will have to finally tell somebody (besides my wife) that I have learned for myself that Mormonism is not true.
In the meantime, you can find me in my crocs listening to Bon Jovi at my local 7-11.
I’m a nevermo who follows the Word of Wisdom. I guess that makes me a Jack Gentile.
Why do Israelli Jews hold bold Xtianity and Islam in utter and complete contempt. Both come under the Av tumah avoda zarah abominations category!
Does Man live through the Spirit breath he breathes or the words spoken throughout life? Spirits Aint Words Just as Prophetic Mussar Aint history.
יום הדין על מה?
Simply not enough to run around like a chicken with its head cut off saying: “!יום הדין! יום הדין”.
What a total disgrace in the Yeshiva world! The fool rabbis fail to teach young students יום הדין על מה?. What an utter abysmal error. Answer: “יום הדין על הברית”.
To cut a Torah oath brit requires שם ומלכת. Another silly dumbass rabbinic incompetence. The rabbis take a literal טיפש פשט of these two absolutely critical undefined terms; they fail to connect the mitzva of blowing the shofar as the בנין אב precedent wisdom, of just how the Cohen Ha’Gadol pronounces the שם השם לשמה. These rabbinic morons equally fail to affix one of the 13 tohor middot, first revealed to Moshe, 40 Days after the Golden Calf,, as the required term, מלך of ברכות.
These rabbinic morons likewise fail to point out that ברכת כהנים, קראה שמע, ושמון עשרי כולם חוסר שם ומלכות…required to swear a Torah oath/brit and likewise swear a Torah blessing. Furthermore these rabbinic morons fail to teach the מאי נפקא מינא question which separates and makes the required הבדלה between תהלים כנגד שמון עשרי. The former a שבח whereas the latter a ברכה, which requires שם ומלכות – as do all sworn Torah oaths. All through the month of Elul uneducated Yidden cry out unto the 13 middot Oral Torah revelation, yet never once ask: what separates the k’vanna from אל to רחום to חנון to ערך הפנים etc.
The sin of the Golden Calf\avoda zarah translated יהוה to a word: specifically to the word אלהים. But any perversion of the רוח הקודש שם השם לשמה to word distortions, equals to –the sin of the Golden Calf. Hence the 13 middot breathe as Spirits and NOT SPOKEN WORDS.
The Thirteen Attributes of Mercy (Shelosh-‘Esreh Middot HaRakhamim) their revelation of the פרדס Oral Torah. The Breath of the Divine: they breath spirits rather than pronounce words from the lips of Man. Hence Oral Torah logic, worlds apart from the logic developed by Plato, Aristotle and later by Hagel. These attributes, not merely linguistic expressions; they most essentially serve as conduits of Divine-life energy to the Cohen Chosen People.
These tohor time-oriented commandments require k’vanna. It requires prophetic mussar to interpret the k’vanna of the 13 tohor middot. When the shofar: blown, it emits spirit middot, together with a physical sound. Words too emit sounds. But words do not compare to spirit middot. The interplay between the physical and the spiritual, the tangible and the ineffable.
When the shofar sounds, it’s as if the Divine breathes Life unto the Souls of His Chosen People. Just as the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy, Spirits more than words, so too the shofar more than just sounds. They intersect in that liminal space—the place where language meets spirit. Man lives through the spirits he breaths and not through words he speaks.
ברית means oath sworn alliance between allies. To swear a Torah oath requires שם ומלכות. No word captures the רוח הקודש שם השם לשמה. In fact word translations define the sin of the Golden Calf throughout the generations of Man Kind on this Earth.
The Hebrew term מלכות too does not translate as “king”. Swearing a Torah oath or swearing a תפילה while standing before a Sefer Torah, hence the שמון עשרי also called “Amidah”/standing prayer. Why? A person must stand before a Sefer Torah to swear a Torah oath brit. The false translation covenant does not transport this crucial idea. Hence covenant a bad translation of ברית.
The mitzva of תפילה a Man swears an oath of dedication by which he commits to behave in the future with family, friends, or people, with prophetic mussar defined middot. The prophetic vision of the NaCH prophets: they define through mussar the k’vanna of the 13 פרדסOral Torah middot revealed to Moshe Rabbeinu at Horev 40 days after the Sin of the Golden Calf translation perversion which corrupted יהוה unto the word אלהים.