I'm afraid I'm guilty of a pattern of thinking with which I am familiar and have despised as I have observed it. Realizing this, I thought I'd document my thoughts on paper regarding what I've learned.

When people leave the church, they usually do so because of refusal to deal with an issue. They either don't know something completely and therefore criticize it, or their actions are in conflict with what they do know, but are unwilling to change their behavior. It's easier to remain ignorant than to research truth at it's source, it's easier to adopt and alternate code of morality than change a pattern of behavior.

I went to institute for the first time and in the class they negatively mentioned muslims, evolution, and socialism. The point is, I recognized that such contriversial comments were the commentary of the teacher and not that of the church itself or its doctrine. As a consequence of hearing such things discussed in class, I became quite angry. I even fitfully did light research 'proving' him wrong and started to write the base of an essay on one of the topics.

The point is, those who deal with their issues seek understanding and accept what they find. They know its true because it brings a sense of completion and peace of mind. This kind of conclusion isn't to do away with criticism or questioning; by all means, criticize and question. What I'm getting at is the attitude behind the questioning. Do you really want an explaination, or are you just looking for ways to justify the confusion and anger inside of you? I'm afraid that's what I was doing. As a result of screaming and shouting within my own mind and soul, leaving no room for listening for even a hint of an answer logically or spiritually, my questions turned to anger rather than conclusion, and my anger turned to judgement of the system itself with me as the supreme judge.

Moral relativism, or self justification, is the kind of thinking that can be summed up as "the world revolves around me" thinking. In a sense, you play god when you do that, determining everything you can define by how you choose to define things. You rate the value and validity of everything else by how it relates to you. It's a grossly limited perspective, fragmentary and conflationary. In such realm of thought, one cannot possibly see the world in terms of improvement. The lense of moral relitivistic criticism paints a future that can only be lesser or darker and at best, can only remain as broken and flawed as you currently see it. It's no wonder that thinking leads to anger; it essentially blots out hope, which is essential to faith and improvement.

I was doing that with the institute system. I wasn't dealing with my personal issue, and thus I was becoming heatedly angry and blaming the system. However, the fact that I was so upheaved by a simple class disturbed me--almost as much as the fact that this anger lingered and didn't dissipate. It was insatiable. Is such a feeling a result of an educational institution or a deeper problem within the individual? It is certainly the latter.

As soon as I realized this, I saw I had been following a train of thought and pattern of behavior I have seen hundreds succom to. Recognizing that I was not exempt to such spiritual kankering, I realized that my issue lay not within the authority or doctrine, but within the flaws of people.

Namely, teachers preaching their opinion and overgeneralizing sensative and complicated scientific, societal, and political issues. Does the church endorse these opinoins? No. Do the teachers mean to do it? Perhaps, perhaps not. But every one of us sees reality from a completely unique perspective and communication is a way to bridge ideas between people. Every individual's perception is flawed to some degree in reletion to absolute truth. We can come close to knowing complete truth, but we asymptotically will never in this life fully understand everything (and that doesn't just apply to religion). We simply aren't mentally capable of the task, nor is it necessary for us at this point.

In any case, the flaws and limitations of human perception are ultimately unavoidable. If what we see is not completely true, then what we say cannot be completely true either; truth will be interwoven with perceptual flaws the speaker is not aware of. So, to blame this man for his intellectual conflict of opinion with my own is a war that will have no positive conclusion since I am undoubtedly guilty of the same thing. It's inevitable that this will happen and there is nothing that I can do that will change the fact that we do not agree.

By not accepting this fact and dealing with this issue, I could justify myself into a course of action that would limit my own personal growth and potential. Isn't that the point of mortality becoming a better person and within our personal influence making the world a better place too? And isn't it the adversary's mission to distract me from truth? Through such diversion, I could become lost, aiming for any mark but the right one, and left to myself my whole being would follow the destructive pattern of thought previously described. I would retrograde and conflate, and thus my grandest hope becomes to remain as I am, but with time and mistakes, inevitably become less. Like they say, as a man thinketh so is he. Our thought patterns become our identity. Well, i choose a better identity than that.

What a clever trick to induce doubt. I'm sure--no, i know--it happens all the time and leads to every form personal and societal decay imagineable. I can only thank god for the awareness I have, which comes by reason and spiritual assurance. If only this could be the last time I have to learn this lesson. Hopefully, though, I'll remember long enough to avoid this mistake for as long as I can.