A Response to Bacon’s “Of Atheism”

          God! The great cosmic actor behind all that is and happens! There are a few of us who don’t believe He exists. Put simply, the extraordinary claims that surround His existence do not even begin to have enough evidence or rational coherence to warrant a wish much less a belief in Him. I understand that my statement is a bold one, but it is rooted in a reliable approach to knowledge: any claim about the universe must be supported with evidence and good reason by the one who makes the claim. This maxim of critical thinking enjoys broad acceptance in most areas of American society (especially in our court system) but seems to be readily abandoned when the subject of God comes up. More common to God discussions are various rhetorical maneuvers such as a shift of the burden of proof to the one rejecting the claim, circular reasoning, misrepresentation, and a host of other logical fallacies. One of the most common and most disturbing of these tactics is an all out attack on atheism itself. Believers discuss the dangers of atheism and the speculated ills atheism produces in society rather than address their burden of proof. This tendency does not advance the conversation or help us arrive at an accurate understanding of the universe but, by design, obscures it. Unfortunately, this ad hominem on the part of believers is not new. Ironically, Francis Bacon, a pioneer in developing critical thinking methods, launches just such an attack in his essay “Of Atheism” (a complete copy of the text can be found here: http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-17.html).

            Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was a prominent figure in the royal courts of Queen Elizabeth and King James, yet he is remembered more today for his immense contribution to the development of the scientific method and essay writing. Bacon advocated strongly for controlled and repeated experiments. He also challenged the importance placed on classical sources with respect to scientific inquiry. Real world tests and experiments meant much more to Bacon than Galen’s reflections. Bacon recommended that scientists coordinate with one another and repeat experiments in order to verify findings. He also worked diligently to demolish the errors within scientific understanding in his day. When it came to writing, he rejected the traditional flourish of the pen for a straightforward, simple style that is the hallmark of good writing today. Bacon writes to communicate his ideas and intents clearly. Yet, he too perpetuates unfounded beliefs and superstitions. His essays are a curious mix of clear critical thinking and brazen prejudice.  His essay “Of Atheism” exemplifies one of his substantial failures in reasoning.

            But, so what? One more dead white man wrote eloquently from a place of privilege and ignorance. I would hope that such backward thinking and prejudicial rancor would have died at some point during the intervening years. Sadly, each point that he expresses has its contemporary version with similar rationales. The popular assailant of atheism today, like Bacon, fails to address the arguments, evidence and thinking upon which professed atheists stand. Instead they speak of their own wishful thinking and then promptly launch attacks on poorly constructed caricatures of atheism and atheists. As such, Bacon’s essay demands a contemporary response. In some respects it may be unfair to assail a man so rooted in his times. For this I offer my sincerest apologies. However, given that Bacon was one of the foremost figures in history to help establish the scientific method, empiricism, and critical thinking, his essay “Of Atheism” stands as a blemish on his life work.

            Before I begin to address the content of Bacon’s essay, I want to establish what atheism is. Bacon uses the term atheism in his title and throughout the essay in a rather problematic way. For Bacon, atheism is some sort of creed or ideology around which sects are formed and movements arise. He mischaracterizes both the atheism of his day and our own. In truth, atheism is a very thin concept that describes all those who do not accept the theist’s claims: that their God or any gods exist. Beyond this fundamental position, atheists range across many wide and diverse opinions and values. I have met atheists who are materialists, dualists, spiritualists, and even a few that hope for an afterlife. The diversity of beliefs and values among atheists is rather striking. What do such atheists hold in common? That the reasons and evidence to justify a belief in God are insufficient. No more, no less.

            Bacon rushes beyond and around this basic position on God’s existence. Rather than address the question head on he recycles some worn out proofs while expressing his own wishful thinking on the matter. He then attacks the explanations for the universe that some notable, though antiquated, atheists have presented without offering a more compelling account. Then, without any evidence at all, he purports to know what atheists really believe (deep down they really believe in God). Subsequently, Bacon points out that nearly everyone believes in a god of some sort, so most of humanity is positioned against atheists. He also asserts that since the term atheist is a popular slur, there are even less atheists than might appear. One calls his enemy an atheist as an insult and thus the label sticks inflating the apparent numbers of atheists (even though the insulted person really is a believer). Bacon then presents atheism as a social ill and lays out all of the various causes of atheism. Lastly, he finishes his screed by declaring atheism as “in all respects hateful” because it robs men and nations the divine ideal for all humanity necessary to rise beyond their base natures. All this discussion and still Bacon misses the crux of atheism: the lack of reason or evidence for the existence of God. Talking around an issue is never as effective as addressing it straight on. In fact, his rhetorical maneuvering actually betrays the fundamental weakness of his theism. Now to the specifics of the essay.

            Bacon opens the essay with a preference, a wish: “I had rather believe…” He would rather believe in any old fairy tale than approach the universe without some kind of “mind” to explain it all. Bacon’s philosophy requires a first cause to justify the very existence of the universe and order of the world. Without providing any reasons, he asserts that only “Providence and Deity” can satisfy the philosophical need for a first cause to explain all the second causes around us.

            Bacon’s line of reasoning in this first part of his essay suffers from two insurmountable errors: preferences, like wishes, do not make something real and God cannot logically satisfy the need for a first cause. An honest inquiry into the reality of our world and universe requires us to set aside our preferences for what we will discover. Personal preferences for a world that has sunshine and rainbows day after day or tap water that tastes like lemonade does little to describe what actually exists. Likewise, preferring to believe in imaginary beings does nothing to establish God’s existence or critique the atheist position. Bacon’s sole purpose of stating his preference is to disparage atheism as lacking sense or feeling.

            Bacon’s preference for a Deity arises out of his inability to see beyond the putative problem of a first cause. The primary premise and presupposition of his argument from causation is that for every action there must be a cause. By accepting this worldview he posits that a search for a beginning cause leads us unavoidably to God, the beginning of everything. Setting aside the fact that it does not necessarily follow that God is that first cause, the logical problem is that as the first cause God still requires an accounting for what caused Him to act or come into being. As an entity that causes all in our universe to move and be, He too is answerable to the primary premise that describes a universe that needs Him. One cannot invoke a premise and then suspend the implications of that presupposition upon reaching a conclusion. To do so, renders the logical argument inconsistent and incoherent. Bacon claims “that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.” I would counter that is so until they learn to recognize the logical contradiction in his first cause argument. Moreover, observations by experimental physicists have demonstrated that everything does not need a cause (I would recommend A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss for a full treatment on current scientific understanding on this matter). While inherently flawed the argument from first cause still persists among believers even today.

            Bacon then launches an attack on the ancient idea of atomism. A feature of the philosophy of Epicureanism, atomism describes the entire universe as being made up of tiny bits of uniform matter called atoms. This ancient notion claims that divine intervention or supernatural forms or beings are not necessary for the universe to be and operate. Atoms collide and interact together randomly in such a way that the present order has come about. Ancient Epicureans relied solely on speculative imagination not scientific observation or experiment to develop this idea. Yet, Bacon does not point out this lack of evidence or observation. Rather, he holds it up as simplistic and ridiculous because it eliminates the need for a deity in the universe. He baldly asserts that a cosmos of a “fifth essence” motivating earth, water, air, and fire is a “thousand times more credible.” Bacon provides no basis or explanation for this claim other than his stated need for a “divine marshal” to direct and order it all. No reasoning. No observational evidence. Not even an anecdote. In truth, a belief in a fifth essence or a divine marshal directing the universe is no more credible than atomism because simply saying something is so does not make it so. The burden of proof rises beyond mere pronouncement.

             Bacon then insists that atheists do not truly believe in atheism because if they really did they would not have to continually talk about their atheism. He portrays them as in search of disciples to strengthen their unbelief much like sects of Christianity. Bacon’s assertion does not logically follow his observation. Whether speaking much on one’s convictions indicates a lack of sincerity or not is beyond what can be known. Even today, we do not have the means to assess a person’s sincerity in their expression. We can guess and make inferences of various sorts but this only works on an individual basis, not on an entire class of people. One thing I can surmise about Bacon based on his claim: whenever he is talking a lot about an opinion it is because he does not really believe it (according to his line of reasoning). Bacon’s assertion about the sincerity of professed atheists is laughable and epistemologically flawed.

            Bacon next criticizes atheism from an appeal to popularity. He points out that atheists often claim as atheists people who in fact were not atheists. He provides Epicurus as such a person who has been called an atheist by atheists but, in fact, was not an atheist. Epicurus claimed that the gods do exist but they are not relevant or concerned with the affairs of mankind. So, Bacon reasons, the number of atheists is inflated (assuming that cases like Epicurus’ happen over and over again with other people). Bacon then tells us of all the people who believe in a god of some sort: from “the very subtlest philosophers” to “even those barbarous people.” Bacon also points out that since being called an atheist is a slur, there will seem to be more atheists than there truly are. As religious belligerents fight, they will call their enemies atheists from time to time and thereby inaccurately inflate the number of people perceived to be atheists. (Ironically, I have observed that the social stigma attached to being an open atheist keeps many atheists closeted.) Bacon engages in all of these many rhetorical contortions in order to show that the vast majority of people believe in God and far fewer people do not than it might appear. Any appeal to popularity is fallacious from the start. If the majority of people believe the world is flat, it is still not flat. The number of people who hold something to be true has no bearing on its veracity. For this reason the appeal to popularity is one of the most basic logical fallacies. Bacon continues to talk around the issue instead of addressing the need for evidence and sound reasoning to support his theism.

            For Bacon, atheism is a pathogen, a blight on human society that, like other social ills, has numerous causes. Atheists arise from those who lack the right feelings to understand religion. According to Bacon, one must have sensitivity when “handling holy things.” Repeatedly treating religion without the right feelings desensitizes one to God’s existence and in that way creates atheists. The many divisions and debates among the various religious groups also bring about atheism. Scandals by priests also cause atheism. The practice of “profane scoffing” of holy things little by little erodes belief and brings about atheism. Lastly, the rise of learning during times of “peace and prosperity” takes men’s minds away from God because “troubles and adversities” do more to keep mankind in religion.

            Here Bacon’s attempt to pathologize atheism by trotting out a list of speculative causes fails amidst a flurry of logical fallacies and clichés. Of these charges Bacon’s observation on the atheist’s lack of sensitivity has some merit. For Bacon, emotion counts as evidence when approaching the question of God’s existence. If such is the case, one who lacks these feelings will put greater weight on empirical evidence and sound reasoning and thus be more likely to embrace atheism. The thing Bacon misses is that emotion cannot be used as evidence—ever. Emotion can guide and give reasoning impetus but no more. Otherwise, a guilty verdict in a criminal court could be made based on the feelings of the jury, without factual evidence. One plus one could equal three because that equation makes me feel happier compared to the equation one plus one equals two. In this way, it is plausible that a decline in religious sentiment could contribute to a growth in atheism.

            On the other hand, the ugly conflicts between different religious groups, priestly scandals, and mockery of holy things only make religious belief less appealing. Bacon implies that the number of atheists grow because they miss the truth of God’s existence among religion’s embarrassing indelicacies. Distracted by these meaningless failings of religious people, atheism grows. In this way Bacon maligns atheism as arriving at too hasty a conclusion. I can accept that the negative effects of religious institutions can incline one to question the validity of religious claims, however, as I have stated earlier, the question ultimately comes down to evidence and reasoning. Ultimately it is the increase in the number of those who employ critical thinking and demand good evidence that will bring about a rise in atheism.

            The last cause Bacon cites is the rise of learning in a time of peace. Here Bacon invokes the Biblical cliché that peace and prosperity promotes pride and a turning away from God. Clichés give the illusion of substance but contribute little to nothing to his argument. Historically, religions have survived and thrived through good times and bad. That troubles and adversities bring people to religion is a cliché promoted by believers without providing any evidence or support. The cliché does serve Bacon’s purpose though: to present atheism as a social ill by enumerating a speculative list of its causes. Fortunately, it takes more than logical fallacies and clichés to establish atheism as a social ill. In fact, atheism and secularity actually correlates to greater levels of social well-being according to recent studies (see the work by Phil Zuckerman, “Atheism, Secularity, and Well-Being: How the Findings of Social Science Counter Negative Stereotypes and Assumptions. Sociology Compass (2009) http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf).

            Bacon next attacks atheism for destroying mankind’s potential. Invoking a type of Cartesian dualism, Bacon asserts that man’s body is beastlike and base. If there is not a God then man’s spirit is left without a being or ideal with which to rise above his beastlike nature. Given humanity’s dualistic nature, without God all of mankind is debased like a dog without a master. God provides man a better nature, confidence, and a capacity to strive beyond himself. God opens the way for mankind to be more than he is. Without God, all of humanity is left to its animalistic nature. For this reason Bacon declares atheism is hateful.

            Bacon’s argument here rests entirely on two key assumptions: human beings are dualistic in nature and God is the only source available to humanity for higher values. Both assertions are tautological and fallacious. The evidence that human beings are dualistic is lacking and problematic. Mental processes and biological functions that used to be attributed to some unseen fifth essence or mind have been demonstrated to arise from the brain or physiology while dualists have failed to demonstrate where mind is located and at what location does it influence body.  Bacon also states that our higher nature is beyond our bodies and comes from God. In fact, we humans are a much more complex mix of desires, impulses towards altruistic acts, as well as selfishness. Our instincts towards cooperation and empathy have been shown to be as powerful as fight or flight instincts. Furthermore, atheism does not destroy humanity’s nobility because God is not the only source for value or good. Bacon is guilty of using an “either/or” fallacy when there are numerous values evidently available for humanity to pursue: freedom, justice, love, and kindness, just to name a few. It is not God that provides the “force and faith” for man to grow beyond himself but the idea of God that men in the past have given credit for the virtues already within their nature. It is not our inherent nature that reduces humanity to the status of a dog but the divestment of values from human beings in order to establish a God and a need for that God to give those ideals back to humanity. In other terms, we have given God credit for providing us values that we already possess. Bacon continues to talk around the issue and construct a need for a God that is as unsupported as the existence of his God.

            Bacon concludes his essay by declaring that “atheism is in all respects hateful” and robs both individual men and entire nations the greatness only God can give. He ends with a lengthy quote in Latin attributed to Cicero in which Cicero credits all of Rome’s greatness to the divine. To the very end Bacon engages in unsupported claims, wishful thinking, inaccuracies, and a multitude of logical fallacies. All without bringing evidence or reason to bear on the central question: does God exist? And so it is still today. We encounter numerous critics who heap attacks on atheism: people like Bacon who vilify and slander those who cannot accept theistic claims but do not provide reason or evidence to convince them otherwise. The great weakness of ad hominem attacks, like the one in this essay, is that as atheist numbers grow and real atheists become known as people who contribute to society and care for their neighbors, the slander will cease to stick. What will you say then, Sir Francis Bacon?

Happiness and Living Openly

            Are you happy? I have heard this common query throughout my life. I have been asked it and have asked it. At times happiness has eluded me but, for the most part, I have enjoyed a happy and fulfilled life. While happiness is a complex phenomenon, there are some principles that have proved very helpful over the years: striving to live to my full potential, maintaining my independence, continuing to grow, and being authentic in my relationships. Of these, living authentically and openly has been the most challenging and most valuable to me. Only through living openly have I come to feel the deep sense that I really matter.

            Many people have explored how to attain happiness. The idea of happiness being an end goal first emerged a couple thousand years ago among the Epicurean philosophers around the Mediterranean. Even still, happiness has only held a marginal place of consideration until recent centuries. The real breakthrough for happiness came about during the Enlightenment era when those American founding fathers enshrined the idea: the Declaration of Independence declares the pursuit of happiness one of those inalienable human rights. Today we find it difficult to imagine a person who does not want to be happy.

            In its simplest terms happiness can be described as a state of satisfaction: those moments or periods when we have satiated our desires and appetites. If we adopt this simple formula we need to either manage our desires or do whatever is necessary to satisfy them. In order to be happy, of course, we face practical limits on what we can do to pursue the things we want. For example, I may desire to go to the moon. In such a case it may be wiser to temper my wants or align all my energy and abilities in the pursuit of this goal. Yet even here, other desires would necessarily be sacrificed or managed in order to achieve this end. There are limits to what one can do with desires. Every four or five hours I have a strong urge to eat food (usually the fatty and sugary type). While I can moderate and cultivate better tastes, in the end, I need to eat and eliminating this desire would not make me happy. 

            As such, I see a lot of benefit in looking at this thing called desire. Where do desires come from? Obviously, many are physiological and rooted in our social biology, others emerge culturally. From our earliest years we are taught according to various ideals and social scripts what to want. We attend church meetings or watch movies that instruct us and direct us in what we ought to desire. These desirables come in the forms of things, activities, people, and even the type of people we should be. These pressures impose limits on us and leave us a few options. We can naively cave to whatever pressure or desire is foremost, or we can choose to engage them more consciously. We possess the capacity to choose among the various desires and select those that matter the most. We can cultivate and enlarge those appetites that, if satisfied, produce the most opportunities for a satisfied state over the long term. Every desire we experience cannot be satisfied and every desire is not equal.

            For me, the desire to make a difference in the world for good is such a multiplier of happiness. To make a difference by equipping a student with some of the skills necessary to choose what he or she will do with their life makes me feel a sense that I matter. I value the ability to choose and pursue my own direction in life. I expand that effectively by making that value possible in the lives of others. Through seeing my efforts change the world around me, even subtly, I establish that I matter. This quality of mattering has emerged as a significant part of my happy life.

            Mattering requires authenticity and open living. If I hide myself, withhold those parts of myself that are unique, withdraw from speaking or acting in accordance with what I know, value, or believe in, then, I am conforming with the norms or the day and betraying who I authentically am. I am following a faceless social script amalgamated from all the desires and appetites popularized among the mediocre. Or, I am appeasing the desires of those in power to play a game of politics in which my authenticity is sacrificed in order to achieve some political aim, maintain my own security or curry affection. Either way, those desires closest to the man I am cannot be abandoned without cost to my happy state. Going with the flow removes all those things that make me unique and make it so I cannot make a real difference in the world.

            I did not acquire this insight into the connection between open living and happiness easily. I grew up in devout Mormon household and was taught that happiness comes from being obedient to God’s plan of happiness. Through keeping His commandments and conforming to the program of the church I would be happy both here and in the afterlife. As I grew up, married, and pursued this program, I experienced a measure of happiness. Loved ones and acquaintances rewarded me for my conformity. Eventually though, my desire to know the truth concerning this plan, independent of the authority figures who taught it, propelled me into a world full of critical thinking and questioning. I came to a point that what I knew about the universe differed radically from the community of my youth. I could not square the plan of happiness I had received with what I had come to know. Fearing rejection, the loss of security and affection, I hid the values that mattered the most to me. Doing so I lost even the measure of happiness I had known prior to my questioning. Eventually, I reached a point I could no longer remain hidden and quiet. When I came out to those closest to me, I felt a surge of happiness that overwhelmed all the trepidation connected with that act. I have marveled at that because I did not anticipate or imagine that opening up in such a manner would be so satisfying and fulfilling. I realized that ceasing to hide opened up the possibility for what I knew to make a difference in the world. I found myself authentically present among those I loved. Since that time, I have striven for ways to live more openly and my happiness has correspondingly deepened.  

            Living one’s life in such a way that makes a difference in the world is not easy. Open living with authenticity and integrity comes with risk: the risk of engagement. When we engage with the world and society authentically we risk our sense of self. We do open ourselves to make change, but we also risk being changed or rendered irrelevant. We even confront the possibility of outright rejection. Most importantly we face the question: Can I make a difference? We expose our dearest values, hopes, and dreams to others. Perhaps we should be careful. We should employ strategies and wisdom in managing the time, place, and manner in which we live openly. In my experience, it is a risk worth taking because it is a process I have grown into and have derived much happiness from. We are enriched by open engagement. The values we hold are refined by honest interaction with the community and society in which we live. Our country and world is made a better place by our honest contribution. Being as forthcoming as possible, being fully present honestly and authentically we find happiness and extend that happiness to others.

Pearls of Great Price

         One of the fastest growing religious demographics in the United States at the moment is the unchurched: a mass of disaffected former believers who are leaving organized religion.  While this trend is often portrayed as simple disillusionment on the part of the unbeliever or a failure of institutional religions to maintain relevance, for me, it was a choice I had to make between competing values. It was a difficult and painful choice that took me out of the faith of my childhood but eventually brought me into a much fuller and happier world. The parable of the “Pearl of Great Price” illustrates the nature of this choice rather well. 

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: Who, when he found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.”

                                                                                                   --Matthew 13:45-46, King James Version

For centuries, Christians have understood this parable as an expression for the great value of the kingdom of heaven: worth sacrificing all you have in order to have it. This parable also implies that if you are not willing to stake all you have and your entire future on it, you are not worthy of it. The Mormon community, the faith of my upbringing, extends the parable’s interpretation a bit further. The “one pearl of great price” stands for the restoration of the gospel, the institutional church itself. Many a believing Mormon has invoked the narrative of sacrificing the goods of former churches, careers, hobbies, friendships and even family relationships in order to embrace membership in the restored, true church. They sold pearls they already possessed so that they could have the “one pearl of great price.” This parable illustrates my own experience well too, but in a different way: I discovered some pearls of such value that I sold the “one pearl of great price” in order to have these valuable pearls. The “one pearl of great price” claims to contain all other pearls. I discovered that the church actually hindered my pursuit of the ideals and values I hold to be of greatest worth: truth, justice, excellence, and possibility. Like the merchant in the parable, I too am willing to stake all I have and my entire future on these values.

                Truth—Growing up in the church I often heard the refrain: “I know this church is true.” I had even stated, as so many others, “I am grateful to have the truth” with the implication that others were not so fortunate. Of course this truth that I referred to was a special knowledge of the plan of salvation, the need for saving rituals, and an institution authorized by God himself to perform them. This truth also includes all of the teachings and guidance that church leaders provide through talks and scriptures like the Book of Mormon. This truth of my upbringing was very exclusive to this unique institution.

                As I grew, I discovered that truth is illuminating. As my understanding of truth grew, it improved my experience and journey in life. Like a good map, truth enables me to make effective choices, anticipate difficulties, and find long-term solutions to society’s greatest problems. Truth came to be something rather independent of the exclusive truth the church provided.

                In fact, I came to understand that the validity of the church’s truth depends heavily on careful omissions and perpetuated ignorance of historical facts. Volumes of historical documents that contradict institutional truth claims fail to make it into the historical stories told in church. This is not accidental. In a famous talk given to church education instructors, Boyd K. Packer stated that “Some things that are true are not very useful.” The context of this statement bears out the understanding that historical truths should be included in instruction only if they are “worthy or faith promoting.” In this talk he excoriates those who have an “exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told.”¹ Within the church an institutional truth-claim trumps truths rooted in the use of reason, evidence, and critical thinking conducted among individuals engaged in open inquiry. The contrast between the church’s exclusive truth and my discovery of the value of truth clashed heavily. Truth must be embraced because it is true, not because it serves the interests of an organization. Truth became a pearl of great price. One of such value to me, I sold the “one pearl of great price” in order to obtain it.

                Justice—Growing up in the church I embraced a strong faith in a Jesus Christ who will answer the claims of justice with his atoning sacrifice. He will right the injustices committed here in mortality at the final day. This particular hope in the ultimate judgment comforted me greatly. The church held an exclusive claim on this as Christ himself directs the church through revelation to his prophets, seers, and revelators. Christ guides them on how the church should proceed in this unjust world to make it a better place. My expectations were great as were the church’s claims.

                The ideal of justice demands that each individual receive the opportunities, rights, liberties, and responsibilities due to them as human beings. These aspects of human life should never be denied an individual based on who he or she is. Whether black or white, male or female, or even heterosexual or homosexual each member of our society deserves to have full participation in the community. These opportunities, rights, liberties, and responsibilities are the greatest fruit of a liberal democracy. It is the grossest injustice to deny them to anyone based on ignorance or prejudice, whether racist or homophobic.

                This pearl of great price clashes with the teachings and actions of a church that has actively excluded entire classes of its membership from full participation based on nothing more than race, gender, or sexual orientation. The church has a long history of denying the priesthood to those of African descent and women. Those with African heritage can now hold the priesthood but the historical wrong has never been officially acknowledged by the institution. The church has actively fought against homosexuals having full civil rights. It has expended much money and time opposing efforts to make gay marriage state recognized. The church also sustains its leadership within an authoritarian hierarchy that places them beyond criticism or institutional accountability to the rest of the membership. These injustices are not marginal aberrations of an otherwise well intentioned organization. They are central to the very structure of the organization. These stark clashes against the pearl of justice presented me with a choice: obtain this pearl of great price or continue to support an unjust institution. I sold the “one pearl of great price.”

                Excellence—Growing up in the church I was taught that I should strive to perfect myself. I was taught that I was a god in embryo and that Christ commanded me to be perfect even as He was perfect. The purpose of existence was to grow into this perfected being, free of flaws. Of course, I was not expected to achieve this state here in this world.  It was clearly communicated to me that this would not be realized until some point in the next life. Moreover, I was also taught that I would not be able to accomplish this on my own. The atonement of Christ would make up for my inadequate efforts.

                The pursuit of excellence demands that one become the best that they can be. Striving to achieve excellence requires a great deal of effort from an individual and organization but never expects one to go beyond one’s capacity. In fact, the ideal of excellence is rooted in the very essential nature of one’s being and no more. A fighter who strives after excellence never expects himself to be able to sprout wings and fly. This ideal flourishes in the seedbed of the real.

                By placing human potential beyond this world the realization of this kind of excellence is also placed in some after life. If humankind are gods in embryo then their ultimate potential is a state of being that is all powerful, perfectly good, and all knowing. I have discovered that to strive after excellence under such a presupposition fatigues the imagination and disheartens the most courageous because there is never the payoff of achieving it in any real way here. Moreover, the ultimate realization of this ideal relies on the intercession of one Jesus Christ. The pearl of excellence rests on the effort and hard work of the one who strives after it. The teaching that we are gods in embryo makes us infants in this world and undermines the pursuit of excellence as an ideal in and of itself.

                An inaccurate understanding of human sexuality also impedes the pursuit of excellence by inducing one to misapply valuable energy in futile efforts. The church taught me that I could control my sexuality by first controlling my thoughts. If I failed to control my thoughts I could succumbed to serious sin and failure. Church leaders told me that my mind was like a stage. I must control what appears on the stage. If I didn’t and allowed some sexual thought in my mind it could start my sexual drive like a factory that once it gets started is nearly impossible to shut down. So, much effort should be expended to keep these thoughts out and the sexual factory idle. What I discovered was that human sexuality is far too instinctual for either of these metaphors to work. Such drives emerge and are in play before we are consciously aware of them. To seek to prevent these sexual thoughts from coming into being is as absurd as trying to stop the incoming tide with a picket fence. I wasted much energy and effort trying to achieve an impossible state of mind.

                I run marathons competitively. I strive and work intensely to get faster. I put myself through rigorous and, at times, agonizing training sessions in order to improve and reach that potential top speed within me. Dreams and goals motivate me in this process. I set attainable and realistic goals because achieving them from time to time sustains my efforts in the long run. I also follow training programs designed on an accurate understanding of human physiology. These plans help me to apply my efforts at achieving excellence in running in effective ways. I do not waste my limited amount of effort on ineffectual activities. The church’s grand, supernatural ideals of godhood, perfection, and complete control of one’s thoughts make any kind of analogous pursuit of excellence impossible. Because these church teachings have to do with the fundamental nature and character of humanity itself, they actually interfere with the pursuit of excellence as an ideal. Here again, the value of this principle is of such great value that I sold the “one pearl of great price” to fully pursue excellence.

                Possibility—Growing up in the church I was taught that there was one plan for salvation, a plan of happiness for life and eternity. I was taught that this was a universal plan that was the same for everyone. To deviate from this prescribed program was a sin and would lead to unhappiness. The misery of disobeying would come in this life as well as continue into the next. The church presented this program as the great possibility of humanity. In fact, it is the only possibility for meaningful, lasting happiness and fulfillment.

                The value of possibility is that it radiates out in all directions. This pearl frees us to honor and acknowledge the unique potentiality within each of us. There are innumerable paths to goodness available to us. The happiness enjoyed by humanity comes out of many paths and pursuits. If one truly embraces this value they must acknowledge that a path different from their own is not only legitimate but even good. Possibility unleashes our most powerful and passionate selves. To abridge possibility with social norms and oppressive restrictions kills the best parts of us.

                The church claims to offer the ultimate of all possibilities but, in actuality, offers a strait gate and narrow way. Many members even express sorrow for those who do not have this plan and guidance from the church. I have heard members say that though others without the plan of salvation may seem happy, their true happiness is limited because they are missing the church’s program. Everyone must be baptized. All worthy young men should serve two year missions. Leaders exhort young adults to be busily engaged in getting married and having children. Other goals, dreams, and possibilities are often disparaged and presented as secondary considerations. Ideas, theories, and even personal revelation must align with the plan as interpreted by current leaders. This institutional tyranny is the very antithesis of possibility and, ironically, causes much unhappiness in individuals.

                As I grew, a desire to know and understand the world around me also emerged. Over time I acquired a wonderful set of skills and approaches to knowledge: the ability to think critically, weigh evidence, and analyze. Once I entered adulthood I discovered that the church’s explanations for life and the world did not correlate to what I knew. I saw others around me vocalize similar findings and face everything from outright church discipline to social ostracism from their friends and family. To remain within the church I would have to confine the possibilities of my life to its program or think what I may without ever sharing it openly. I saw before me a life of sitting quietly at the margins with a very limited set of possibilities. A life of possibility cannot thrive in such a setting. I chose this pearl and sold the oppressor.

                I am now at a point in life where I can see the fruit of my decision to go and sell all that I had to buy these pearls has enlarged my soul. I have tasted of the fruit and it is good. I did not resign my membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because it is false or devoid of any good, but because it undermines those values I hold most dear. The church obscures truth, perpetuates injustices, undermines the pursuit of excellence, and limits possibility in spite of any good it does. I cannot with integrity lend any kind of support to or involvement with an institution so diametrically opposed to my values. Selling this “one pearl of great price” was the greatest and most transforming decision I have ever made. I now live with a sense of fullness and completeness that I used to think would only be possible in some afterlife. This I believe.

1. Packer, Boyd K. (1981), "The Mantle Is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect," BYU Studies 21 (3): 259–277.