tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-78325943388708885372024-02-02T02:00:55.146-08:00FacsimilogosIt Appears like Facts to me!<br>
My Adventures in seekingFacsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-25954684289414215802021-11-07T01:47:00.002-07:002021-11-07T01:04:37.219-08:00Letter to a man who literally changed my life<p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i>Hi Jim Wolfe,</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i>I love your material! Keep up the excellent work. I wanted to share with you how much your material means to me. I found <a href="https://attractandkeepher.com/join-the-revolution-now-m/" target="_blank">AAKH</a>, after searching desperately for some way to make sense out of what happened to me. It took some time for my emotional wounds to heal but, what you have shared helped me so much.</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i>You see, I spent 24 years in an unfulfilled marriage. I didn't realize it until recently but, I now believe it was because my wife never really had a very high interest in me. About 3 years ago, I was out of town on a business trip and met a women who showed some interest in me and I fell hard for her. This was before I knew anything about your advice. Long story short, we made out a few times and I got very attached to her. When I came back home from my business trip I was so disappointed that my wife didn't treat me the same as my affair interest that I decided to get a divorce. </i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i>I had visions of my future with this new woman and, even though she lived 6 hours away from me, I was sure I could make things work out with her in the future. </i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i>It wasn't long after that I initiated the divorce from my wife that things started to go south with my new love interest. I didn't really follow any of the principles you teach except for a few that were accidental. I was texting her every morning because I was sure that was helping me but I began to see her interest start to drop off over time. One day I was planning another trip to go see her when she called it off. Of course she couldn't tell me it was because she just wasn't interested in me anymore so she gave me some other excuses. </i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i>Eventually she broke up with me and I was shattered. This is when I went searching for information. At first I was searching for any advice on how to get her back. At least some of the advice I found was helpful because a lot of "experts" advised cutting off communication with her to give her some time away. What I came to realize though is that time off was helping me more than it was her. </i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i>By the time I found AAKH, I almost had relationship advice search fatigue, because I wasn't sure anyone had the answers I was looking for but, I found your YouTube videos extremely helpful. You were making sense where everybody else I found seemed to just make extraordinary claims but then never were quite able to explain things in a way that made sense to me. At least not in a way that I could apply in the real world. Many seemed to be content with sharing pickup lines but they couldn't seem to articulate the principles behind their advice. AAKH, on the other hand, WAS A BREATH OF FRESH AIR!</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i>After following, and endeavoring to implement, your advice, I eventually re-entered the dating scene. You taught me that I did need to give myself some time to heal, so I gave myself that time, not quite 24 months worth but, I think I had processed much of the emotional trauma from my marriage prior to our divorce so I was really only recovering from my relatively short affair and infatuation and that subsequent breakup. I now see that the woman I left my wife for probably wasn't a good candidate for me for several reasons, not the least of which being that it was long distance. </i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i>Anyway, I dated several women, got my confidence up, and eventually met a cutie pie that is crazy about me. I waited until she brought up dating exclusively and then committed to her. We continued dating until she hinted at marriage and then I asked her to marry me. We were engaged almost two years and were married a few months back. We couldn't be happier! I really think people envy what I have and for that I am extremely grateful to you. Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom. I only wish more people knew what you have to offer.</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i>My gratitude is not the only reason I wanted to write you, however. Because I am a selfish bastard, I wanted to also ask a question ;-) </i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i>I know the milestones you are looking to check off to guage a women's level of interest while dating are if she shows up for your dates, kisses you back, etc. I also know that the things that keep a woman interested for the long term are different than when starting to date and progress in the relationship. I know you have also mentioned that if your wife, or long term girlfriends', interest starts to fade that you can introduce a little preselection, or take a little time away, etc. </i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i>What I am wondering though is, what kind of indicators can I be on the lookout for to determine that her interest in me might be falling after being married for a while? I know you have said that if she volunteers time away that it might be too late so I want to make sure things don't ever get to that point. Of course, I think she knows pretty clear that I would leave if things ever did get unbearable but, I would rather avoid that hassle if I can. </i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i>Any specifics you can share, or point me in the direction of, would be most appreciated!</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i><br /></i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i>Thank you again my man!</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i><br /></i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i>Most Sincerely,</i></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10.6667px;"><i>Facsimilogos </i></span></p><div><br /></div><p style="font-size: 8pt;"><i><br /></i></p><p style="font-size: 8pt;"><i><br /></i></p><p style="font-size: 8pt;"><i>(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)</i></p>Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-63553224918810727582019-04-11T13:26:00.000-07:002019-04-11T13:26:45.540-07:00Mormon Thought Experiment<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
This post is in response to a YouTube video posted by the LDS church found <a href="https://youtu.be/nyV61Hh9KdA" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
If prophets are such a
key part of LDS theology, the current day prophet is set up as God's mouthpiece
on the earth today for the whole earth. The presumption is that this status (of
being the "one" prophet for the whole earth) is acceptable because
the LDS church has the means and technology to potentially reach all people
throughout the earth. Ok. Well, what about in past times?</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
<br />
The Book of Mormon is claimed to be a record of prophets, and their dealings,
following a people who came from ancient Jerusalem to the American continent.
The record starts out by following a man named Lehi who is claimed to be a
prophet, called of God, to preach to the ancient inhabitants of Jerusalem and
warn them of their pending invasion and enslavement by the Babylonians.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
Since the people in
Jerusalem would not listen to Lehi, he was commanded to take his family and
leave the area. They eventually made their way to the American continent where
the Book of Mormon proceeded to come forth as the record of that people and their
history.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
It is presumed that
Lehi and his successors represented God as his chosen prophets throughout the
history of that book.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
It also could be
presumed that, since the LDS church teaches that the Bible also contains words
of prophets which lived in the ancient Mediterranean region, that prophets
lived there until there was a falling away when the words of the Bible stopped
being added to.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
This would mean that
there were, simultaneously, two or more prophets speaking to groups of
inhabitants, in different locations of the world, based on the region that
people would have access to hear them?</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
Is it possible that
there could have been other prophets that lived in other remote regions at the
same time throughout history based on the assumption that God will continue to
speak to people who are isolated geographically from hearing the words imparted
by His chosen prophets in different regions of the world?</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
If so, this lends
credibility to the idea that there could be (or have been) other prophets to
other peoples of the world at different times historically.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
Could this explain
that Buddha or Mohammed were actually prophets in their times that spoke for
God to the people in the regions where they lived?</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
If that is possible,
what should be said of their writings?</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
Does that mean that
there could actually be other books of scripture on the planet besides the
Bible and Book of Mormon?</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
If that is so, why
is there not at least some recognition given by the LDS church of the potential
for truth to be found in these other books of scripture? I know the LDS church
says that there is much good in other religions and that people should bring
their good from their heritage and join the LDS church. However, should people
be expected to absolutely forsake their closely held religious teachings which
may have come from actual prophets of God?</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
The whole idea of
having a chosen prophet of God seems pretty ridiculous and does not stand up to
any kind of scrutiny when you begin to ask what should happen when two people
both claim to be true prophets of God at the same time.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
The LDS church would
say that God will reveal which prophet is the true prophet of God if He is
sincerely asked in prayer. It is interesting that the LDS church did have to
answer this very question in their own history. </div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
After the death of
Joseph Smith, several men came forward and declared that they should be
Joseph's rightful successor. Each had their own ideas based on what they felt
were good reasons for being such. The modern LDS church says that their leader
(Brigham Young) was the "real" successor to Joseph Smith. However,
each of those men that claimed a right to succession of Joseph Smith, and be
recognized as the current prophet, took many followers - and those followers
sustained those men as their chosen leaders (and prophets) for their churches. </div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
In this case, at
least two different people, within communication range of each other, claimed a
different man to be "their" prophet and recognized that leader to be
God's chosen mouthpiece for them and their mutually recognized adherents.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 8.0pt;">
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: 11.0pt; margin: 0in;">
To this day, many of
these offshoots from the original LDS church, founded by Joseph Smith, remain.
To this day, each member of each of these differing churches believes that
their sect's founder was the legitimate successor to Joseph Smith. Many of them
will also say that they prayed and asked God whether or not their church (as
informed by their chosen prophet) is the "one true church on the
earth" and they will each tell you that God answered their sincere prayer
to that end.</div>
<div style="font-size: 8.0pt;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="font-size: 8.0pt;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="font-size: 8.0pt;">
<i>(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)</i></div>
Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-9023142539976264252019-04-11T13:12:00.000-07:002019-04-11T13:12:35.065-07:00Mormons and Facebook for DummiesApparently there is some confusion out there surrounding posts or friends disappearing on Facebook recently. Here's the thing, it is not Facebook's fault. If you experience missing posts or conversations not making sense because people seem to be responding to comments that are simply not there or people who post regular family pictures and/or status updates seem to be disappearing from your news feed, you are not alone. Millions of Facebook users are experiencing this phenomenon known as "Facebook Censorship".<br />
<br />
Facebook Censorship could happen because of Facebook manipulations of the things that show up in your news feed because Facebook uses algorithms to define your interests and uses the history of the things you have clicked on in the past to define what to show you in your news feed. This is not really censorship, but it is annoying if people are posting things that you want to see, but that Facebook deems you would not be interested in. The way to change this over time is to seek out those friends you want to see their statuses and updates. However, even more common is the user directed Facebook Censorship that happens when people take steps to block you from seeing posts, unfriend you, delete your posts or comments (made on their wall or in response to their posts or comments). This happens more frequently than you may think. Sometimes there is no way to know that this is going on unless you are able to use a different Facebook account to see the response to your posts.<br />
<br />
If you do not want to become a victim of this behavior you should know a few things;<br />
<br />
1. Do not post anything related to religion or your religious views in public on Facebook.<br />
<br />
2. Do not mention any of the following (even if you are referencing them for educational purposes);<br />
- Cults<br />
- Mind control<br />
- Brainwashing<br />
- Racism<br />
- Polygamy<br />
- Polyandry<br />
- Fallibility of religious leaders<br />
- Cognitive Dissonance<br />
- Former abuses by religious leaders (especially past or present Mormon/LDS leaders)<br />
- "Lying for the Lord"<br />
- Blood atonement<br />
- Adam-God doctrine<br />
- Temple ceremonies<br />
- Masonic rights<br />
- Gay marriage or gay rights<br />
- City Creek Mall (unless you are praising how nice it is)<br />
- Mountain Meadows Massacre<br />
- Kirtland Banking Society<br />
- Misogyny<br />
<br />
3. Do not mention any links that provide information about LDS church history besides LDS.org, Mormon.org or JosephSmith.net<br />
<br />
By following these simple steps you can be assured that Facebook will continue to do what they do and only show you the stuff you want to see.<br />
<br />
Happy Never Ending Scrolling!Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-53628887980302727742017-11-20T12:10:00.001-08:002019-04-11T13:21:04.580-07:00Avoiding Doctrinal Deception(Note, I started this post back in September of 2013 when this article came out)<br />
<br />
So, in recent news, the prophet known as LDS Newsroom has published another revelation. The title of this publication is called, <a href="http://www.lds.org/church/news/five-ways-to-detect-and-avoid-doctrinal-deception?lang=eng" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">"5 ways to detect and avoid doctrinal deception"</a>. Actually, rather than seeming to have the weight and authority of some unnamed, but very powerful, leader of the church, this one is acknowledged as having been written by a staff writer. This was a surprising shift from the usual seemingly authoritative pronouncements that have come out of the LDS Newsroom.<br />
<br />
Aside from this avoidance of attributing authorship of official church pronouncements to specific leaders of the church, I found the article amusing. The first thing I realized is that it is written as a summary of a talk by a church educator. The article starts off by saying that the educator received a call from Neal A Maxwell asking about some popular book. The name of the book isn't mentioned, so we can't make any kind of judgment about it on our own, but apparently the educator said it contained, "a lot of doctrinal problems". While we don't get to learn what those are, Millet (the educator) goes on on to explain that Maxwell said that the members of the church can be so gullible. I find it interesting that Maxwell didn't read the book and make a determination on his own.<br />
<br />
Besides that, Maxwell also accuses the members of the church, of not only being gullible but, that they (we) lack doctrinal sophistication.<br />
<br />
Hmmm, I wonder whose fault that would be?<br />
<br />
If members of the church lack doctrinal sophistication - and LDS church members are highly active among church going people - where does the fault lie? Perhaps the leaders should provide a little more of that doctrinal sophistication. This highlights the perpetual behavior of church leaders towards the members. Everything is always the fault of the members! It just reminds me of dealing with a spoiled child. Nothing is ever their fault.<br />
<br />
Moving on. The article ends with a quote from Joseph Smith that basically says that anybody who questions the church (or its leaders) is on the road to apostasy and will apostatize if they don't repent.<br />
<br />
Yep, it is true. Apostasy is another word for figuring out the leaders of the church are full of it. I have gotten to the point where I don't really care any more. The church is full of it. The people are good people. They work hard and do try really hard to follow the teachings of the church. You can't condemn them for that. They just believe it to varying degrees and try to live accordingly. I can't find fault with the members of the church for the most part. I just have some that I would rather hang out with more than others. Life is short, so I do just that.Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-33158174063022114642016-09-20T13:28:00.000-07:002016-09-20T13:56:08.474-07:00Questions posed in the CES Letter - simple version<div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">If you haven't heard of the CES Letter, where have you been? I heard of the CES Letter a few years ago and endeavored to read it but quickly got bored so I tried to skim the rest of the content to get the meat out of it.</span><br />
<br />
I never really did get to a point where I was able to use it in any meaningful way. However, I recently encountered a great summary of the questions pointed out, and asked, in the CES Letter until a while back when I came across this blog post from a great blog called "Zelph on the Shelf":<br />
<br />
<a href="http://zelphontheshelf.com/the-millennials-brief-guide-to-the-ces-letter/" style="font-size: normal;">http://zelphontheshelf.com/the-millennials-brief-guide-to-the-ces-letter/</a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">I thought about posting something on my Facebook wall that would start out with the following quote from Russell M. Ballard:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">"We have heard stories where someone asking honest questions about our history, doctrine, or practice were treated as though they were faithless. This is not the Lord’s way. As Peter said, 'Be ready always to give an answer to every man [or woman] that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.' We need to do better in responding to honest questions. Although we may not be able to answer every question about the cosmos or about our history, practices, or doctrine, we can provide many answers to those who are sincere."</span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"> --Elder Russell M. Ballard.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">I never did get to the point where I felt inclined to post this on my Facebook wall, but I did go through the effort of re-wording the summary to pose each as a question to my believing relatives and friends. Here is what I came up with;</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">To my LDS friends and family, </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">I have a list of questions that I am hoping you can give me your thoughts on. But before I offer up my questions, I want to share a quote from Elder Russell M. Ballard which he shared at a regional conference recently,</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">"We have heard stories where someone asking honest questions about our history, doctrine, or practice were treated as though they were faithless. This is not the Lord’s way. As Peter said, 'Be ready always to give an answer to every man [or woman] that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.' We need to do better in responding to honest questions. Although we may not be able to answer every question about the cosmos or about our history, practices, or doctrine, we can provide many answers to those who are sincere." --Elder Russell M. Ballard.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">In that spirit, here are several of my sincere questions that I hope you can patiently address for me the best you can:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">1. Why is it that there are errors in the Book of Mormon that are also contained in the 1769 (circa Joseph’s family) edition of the Bible?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">2. How is it that DNA analysis has concluded that Native American Indians do not originate from the Middle East or from Israelites but from Asia?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">3. Why are there things in the Book of Mormon that didn’t exist during Book of Mormon times in that area? E.G. Horses, chariots, goats, elephants, wheat, and steel?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">4. How is there absolutely no archaeological evidence for the millions of Nephites and Lamanites (their steel swords etc), even though we have archaeological evidence from normaler groups of people who existed thousands of years before in the same areas? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">5. Why are Book of Mormon names and places strikingly similar (or identical) to many local names and places of the region Joseph Smith lived in?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">6. Why is the Book of Mormon suspiciously similar to View of the Hebrews, a book published in Joseph Smith’s area in his time? Why is It also very similar to The First Book of Napoleon (published 1809), and The Late War, a textbook written in King James style language for New York State School children in Joseph’s time?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">7. Why is it that the original 1830 text of The Book of Mormon had a trinitarian view of the Godhead, and was changed over time as Joseph’s ideas about the Godhead evolved? (Over 100,000 changes have been made to the book including many changes related to the nature of the Godhead.)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">8. How come there were over 4 different First Vision accounts given by Joseph at different times, at least one of which didn’t even include God or Christ?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">9. Why is it that Egyptian scholars who have translated the papyri Joseph claimed the Book of Abraham was translated from found that they have nothing to do with Abraham or anything contained in the book? Why is the church now claiming that “translate” meant “get inspiration from”?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">10. Why is it that Joseph penciled in some parts of the papyri and those things do not seem to be in harmony with what scholars say should be in those missing parts?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">11. Why did Joseph marry 34+ women, many without Emma’s consent (as forbidden in D&C 132) and 11 who were already married (some without their husbands knowing)?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">12. Why is it that 10 of Joseph’s wives were teenagers, some as young as 14, several of whom he married while in his late 30's? This was shocking even by 19th century standards. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">13. Why did President Hinckley publicly say polygamy isn’t doctrinal when numerous early church leaders, including Brigham Young, taught that it was essential for exaltation?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">14. If the only scriptural justification for polygamy is “to multiply and replenish the earth” when The Lord commands it, either Joseph was sleeping with his 14-year-old wives, or he wasn’t adhering to scriptural laws. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">15. Why did Joseph marry Fanny Alger years before he had the sealing power?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">16. Why did Joseph marry some of his foster daughters?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">17. Why did Brigham Young teach Adam-God theory, which is now disavowed by the church, at general conference and as part of the temple endowment ceremony?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">18. Why is it that Brigham Young taught blood atonement, if it is now also disavowed?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">19. Why is it that black people weren’t allowed to hold the priesthood until the 70s? Even though Joseph gave it to a few black people, but from Brigham to Spencer they were deemed unworthy to hold it? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">20. Why is it that In the 1980s, the church paid around $900,000 to suppress bizarre and embarrassing church history documents? These documents were later proven to be fake. Mark Hofmann, the conman, turned out to be a murderer. Why is it that before the documents were known to be forgeries, church leaders gave talks offering explanations for them?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">21. Why did Joseph Smith falsely translate fake plates called the Kinderhook Plates? Why did he claim they were historical?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">22. Why do all of the spin-offs of the LDS church also have members say that they “know” their church is the true church? Why do other religions, such as Islam, say they “know through the power of God”, including the Heaven’s Gate cult, that their churches/beliefs are true? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">23. Why did Joseph send Oliver and Hiram to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon in Canada, saying he received a revelation to do it if they failed? In addition, why did Joseph not know that treasure would not be available to them as they heard according to </span><a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/111?lang=eng" style="font-size: normal;">D&C 111</a><span style="font-size: normal;">?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">24. Why do church leaders teach that you should bear your testimony in order to gain one, when this is a classic psychological manipulation tactic?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">25. Why is that you can feel the spirit doing a multitude of things that have nothing to do with the gospel, like watching Saving Private Ryan?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">26. Why is it that Joseph and Oliver receiving “the priesthood” is very suspicious, since they didn’t tell people until years later and changed earlier revelations to match their new accounts?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">27. Why did Joseph use the seer stone he used to translate the Book of Mormon to find people “buried treasure”, for which he was taken to court on charges of fraud?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">28. Is it true that people at Joseph’s time had a “magical worldview”, which included seeing things “with spiritual eyes” (like the gold plates)?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">29. Is it true that Martin Harris was known as a gullible man? He was deeply financially invested in the Book of Mormon as he mortgaged his farm to finance it. Why is that after becoming Mormon, he was a witness to self-proclaimed prophet, James Strang, for whom he went on a mission? Strang also said he had gold plates and used a Urim and Thummin to translate them. His witnesses also never denied that Strang’s scripture was true.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">Martin Harris testified and witnessed for several other religions, and also said that he had as much evidence for a Shaker book as he had The Book of Mormon. (He also said he saw Christ in the form of a deer and talked with him…so there’s that.)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">30. Why did David Whitmer say he saw the angel with his spiritual eyes, and said his impressions were just like those of a Methodist having happy feelings?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">31. Is it not true that people in Joseph’s time believe in “second sight” (imagination) and that it was no different to seeing something with your physical eyes?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">32. Why did the witnesses to the gold plates not sign their own signatures or write their own accounts (except Oliver, who was the scribe)? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">33. Why were all of the Book of Mormon witnesses, except for Martin Harris, were related by blood or marriage to the Smiths or the Whitmers? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">34. Why did Joseph have many people sign an affidavit saying he wasn’t practicing polygamy when he was? Why is it that some of those who signed it were also practicing polygamy?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">35. Why is it that Joseph didn’t even use the would-have-weighed-around-200 pounds plates to translate the Book of Mormon? Why could he also not retranslate the missing 116 pages, “lost” by Martin Harris’ wife to test Joseph’s validity as a translator and know through his seer stone how the manuscript would have been altered? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">36. Why is that Joseph started the LDS temple endowment just 7 weeks after his Masonic initiation? Why is the endowment ceremony nearly identical to the Masonic ceremony in numerous ways?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">37. Why do we say that the Masonic temple ceremony has roots going back to the temple of Solomon when it doesn't?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">38. If the temple ceremony is supposed to be eternal (like God and presumably unchanging), why were blood oaths and other disturbing elements removed after a survey in the 80s revealed that church members were uncomfortable with them? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">39. If Adam and Eve are the first humans, how do we explain the 14 other Hominin species who lived and died 35,000 – 250,000 years before Adam? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">40. How is it that science can prove that there was no worldwide flood 4,500 years ago? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">41. In addition simple mathematics and the logic of animal food consumption shows that there was insufficient room on the ark to house all the animal species found on the planet, let alone the food required to feed all of them.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">42. Why is it that we claim to believe in things that science also discredits; such as the idea of the Tower of Babel, 600-year-old humans, Jonah and the Whale, people turning into salt, and carrying honey bees across the ocean? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">43. Why does God seem really mean and radically different in the Old Testament?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">44. Why has the church made efforts to whitewash its history and been dishonest on numerous occasions - only recently coming out with essays that address the issues that have been covered up or denied for so long?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">45. Why is it that Zina Diantha Huntington Young, who became the General Relief Society President, was already married and 6 months pregnant when Joseph married her because his life was allegedly in danger from the angel with a flaming sword? Why is it that after Joseph died, she married Brigham? Why does her biographical page on LDS.org not state that she was married to Joseph, though it shows up on FamilySearch.org?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">46. Why is the church not transparent about its finances anymore?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">47. Why is it that the church spent 1.5 billion dollars on City Creek Mall, which is more than it spent on humanitarian aid in almost 20 years? As the ribbon was cut at the opening ceremony, Thomas S. Monson said “Let’s go shopping!”. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">48. Why did the earlier church teach that tithing was 10% of your surplus; but the church now teaches that it is 10% of your income, even if you can’t afford to pay your bills because of it? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">49. Why has the church’s name changed a few times?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">50. Why have church leaders, such as Boyd K. Packer, warned historians about not telling too much of the truth if it isn’t faith-promoting?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">51. Why does the church teach that the prophet can’t lead you astray, though this is a.) pretty obviously not true, and b.) not in line with things Joseph and other early leaders said?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">52. Why did Dallin H. Oaks say you shouldn’t criticize church leaders, even if the criticism is true?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: normal;">53. Why in 1993, were 6 scholars excommunicated/disfellowshipped for publishing their scholarly research on Mormonism and its leaders? In addition, why are people being excommunicated recently for alleged apostasy when they are simply asking questions like the above (including the author of these questions written out in a letter to a CES Director, Jeremy Runnells) ?</span><br />
<span style="font-size: normal;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: normal;">You can read the original CES Letter here: http://cesletter.com/</span></div>
Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-7050887033089683122014-01-11T00:53:00.001-08:002014-01-11T01:44:57.388-08:00Tithing and the law of consecration<p>I know it has been a while since I have posted here. If you are just in angst over my lack of contribution lately, all I can say is that I would probably not do well living the law of consecration either. Sorry. I just had to share a few events that have transpired in recent months. I have been going to church most every Sunday with my family. I have a few reasons for this, which I am not ready to go into here on my blog just yet, but I look forward to sharing when the time is right. Needless to say, some Sunday's are tough and some are OK or not too bad. I am sure my anger has subsided a lot compared to where it was a year ago. In hindsight, I really needed time to work through my anger. Time that was likely better spent not in the pew literally trying to go fist-to-cuffs with my neighbors at church every Sunday. I am much more able to brush off those members of the church who I now see as the hopelessly over-zealous.</p>
<p>In fact, as I was pondering the things that were said by folks that were getting up to bare their testimonies at the last fast and testimony meeting, I realized that these people just need the church. If it weren't for the church, their lives would be pretty crappy. I mean church members might judge them or mistreat them every once in a while, but there are enough young missionaries around nowadays to continue to make them feel welcome at church every Sunday - and that really makes a difference to some people. Of course it is interesting to see people get caught up in the Mormon Mirage. The imagined ideal that the church represents in the world. These are folks for whom the kool-aid is very cold and refreshing. It tastes good to them. It is not the warm and extremely watered down crap it is to me now.</p>
<p>At any rate, I have been going to the gospel essentials class the last few months for some reason. I'm not sure why, but I think it must be because I can't stand gospel doctrine. There is this idea in my head for some reason that people in gospel doctrine are the more tenured church members, that they might be more receptive to seeing some of the holes in the correlated lessons. This leads me to a false hope that my seemingly obvious questions and comments, intended to challenge the positive bias, might be better received. Yeah, they aren't. People dig deep to revert to the psychological gospel comfort foods of testimony and denial. I just can't get through some lessons some days. I'm not sure why gospel essentials would be any better, though. I guess I figure if I can stir up some contention among the newlyweds (newly wedded to the church) I might have a better success rate. It is interesting to me, though, because it seems the church deliberately leaves a lot of the funky history and quirky doctrinal stuff completely out of the gospel essentials lessons. It is a little more challenging to create cognitive dissonance when there just isn't much there to work with. Maybe I like the challenge.</p>
<p>So, a couple weeks ago, the lesson was on tithing. I had some fun with this one. I especially enjoy this teacher because he usually shows a video for every lesson. This last week he actually showed two videos! On this particular Sunday the video featured a very old woman who lived in some very, presumably, impoverished part of the world. She was apparently taught the principal of tithing and wanted to be diligent in paying a full tithe, even though she really didn't have anything to give.She still lived in squalor though, unfortunately. While I don't remember all the details of the video, it seems like she was given some blankets or something because she didn't have any heat in her home. I felt so bad for this old woman, but I also felt contempt for the church for exploiting her circumstances to serve it's purposes. If you ask me, the church didn't do nearly enough to offer assistance to this poor old woman. At least if she was part of a reality series she would have gotten paid pretty well to have people's heartstrings pulled by Bonneville's Heartsell techniques.</p>
<p>
There is this vicious tendency among the leaders and members of the church to tie together their faithfulness in the payment of their tithing and the quality or quantity of blessings they will receive from God. Just doing a quick search on lds.org revealed the following passage:</p>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><a href="http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-110-121/section-119-the-law-of-tithing?lang=eng" rel="nofollow" style="background-color: black;" target="_blank">President Joseph Fielding Smith explained: “In more recent times the Church has not called upon the members to give all their surplus property to the Church, but it has been the requirement according to the covenant, that they pay the tenth. It is remarkable how many excuses can be made and interpretations given as to what constitutes the tenth, by many members of the Church. It is written, however, that as we measure it shall be measured to us again. If we are stingy with the Lord, he may be stingy with us, or in other words, withhold his blessings.</a></i></blockquote>
<p>
Isn't it just a total cop out to say that the Lord "may" be stingy with us? As opposed to something like, "If we are stingy with the Lord, he WILL be stingy with us." Nope, he can't say that can he? Because that could be easily dis-proven. The hurdle for thinking members of the church is when they realize that not everybody who pays a full tithing is handsomely rewarded or blessed. And conversely, not everyone who doesn't pay much or anything in tithing has blessings withheld.</p>
<p>What really got me thinking enough to motivate me in writing this blog post was a quote that the teacher read in support of the modern-day teaching of tithing. Apparently, 20 years ago this April, Dallin H. Oaks gave a talk in General Conference where he cited a letter issued by the First Presidency back in 1970 that "interest" as contained in <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/119.4?lang=eng#3" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">D&C 119:4</a> means "income". He said,</p>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><a href="http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1994/04/tithing?lang=eng" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="background-color: black; color: #cccccc; font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;">In the Lord’s commandment to the people of this day, tithing is “‘one-tenth of all their interest annually,’ which is understood to mean income.” The First Presidency has said, “No one is justified in making any other statement than this” (First Presidency letter, 19 Mar. 1970, quoted in the</span><span style="border: 0px; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">General Handbook of Instructions,</span><span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px;"> 1989, p. 9-1)</span></span></a></i></blockquote>
<p>It turns out I haven't been paying enough attention to what the church now seems to be saying about tithing. In my <a href="http://facsimilogos.blogspot.com/2013/08/tithing.html" target="_blank">last post</a> I mentioned that the church seemed to be silent on what is considered a full tithe. It seems I was mistaken on that point. The only real question to be answered by faithful members of the church is whether that means gross or net income. That is just so sad to me. I know I can't get through to those who believe the church is true beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I hope my sadness will resonate with some of you. In reading the lesson from the Doctrine and Covenants manual quoted above, it is interesting to see how the case for the payment of tithing has changed over the years. Just since 1970, Dallin Oaks decides to omit a key portion of the letter. The original quote in its entirety reads:</p>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><a href="http://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/04/i-have-a-question?lang=eng" rel="nofollow" style="background-color: black;" target="_blank">“For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that we have uniformly replied that the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself that the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their interest annually, which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.”</a></i></blockquote>
<p>Now compare that to the migration from attempting to salvage the failed law of consecration, and the idea of donating your surplus goods back to the community, and figuring out a new way to finance church ventures as explained by the quote I had above. Re-read the quote, but ask yourself, is the tithe intended to be on my income or on my surplus?</p>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><a href="http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-110-121/section-119-the-law-of-tithing?lang=eng" rel="nofollow" style="background-color: black;" target="_blank">President Joseph Fielding Smith explained: “In more recent times the Church has not called upon the members to give all their surplus property to the Church, but it has been the requirement according to the covenant, that they pay the tenth.</a></i></span></blockquote>
<p>This quote comes from a book called "Church History and Modern Revelation Volume 2:92". I have not found a free copy of it online, but I would be interested in getting some additional clarification of what exactly he means by "the tenth".</p>
<p>So, back to the Sunday school lesson. It seems that whenever tithing is brought up at church, it is supported by the idea that you are doing it to receive the blessings God has prepared for you. I couldn't resist then asking, "What is the poor woman, highlighted in the tithing video we were just shown, doing to deserve her situation? It appears she was paying her tithing?" Of course, this brings the comments down around me that there is a difference between "temporal" and "spiritual" blessings, that we can't know what treasures are being laid up for us in heaven (Exactly!). I just wanted to know, is the idea that one is blessed for paying tithing a reality or not? Of course, LDS general authorities have endless streams of stories about the blessings people have received for paying tithing. To those I simply think that people see what they are looking for. If you believe it, that becomes your reality. If you don't believe it, it sounds kind of silly. That reminds of a faux pas a member of the bishopric made while giving a testimony a while back. he said, "..I'll see it when I believe it." Belief is pretty much just a choice in many cases. Albeit a choice that is re-enforced through weekly group-think sessions where all the great mind control and thought stopping techniques are used.</p>
<p>This leads me to my epic conclusion. I somehow ended up in the bishop's office for tithing settlement with my family a few weeks back. The bishop did his faithful best to outline what tithing is and why it is important to my children. I just sat back and waited for the question to come to me. I hadn't really given my response much thought ahead of time, I just let it come. The bishop asked me how I declared my tithing for the year and I said I choose not to declare. I said, I think the modern definition of what a full tithing is is a much more onus one than was originally intended. I said, I think the idea of tithing being paid on income represents a falling away of the true principles of a people who desire to be Christ-like. The bishop took it well and was very charitable in his response. He said he could respect that and he didn't take any desire to be contentious on my part from what I said. My bishop is a good man. I like him, but I don't have to agree with him 100% of the time, and that's OK. At least that's what I keep telling myself anyway.</p>Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-65111451989937862202013-08-10T02:42:00.001-07:002013-08-10T02:59:07.375-07:00Tithing and multi-level marketingI really wish people would think about what they are saying to themselves and others when they pay tithing to the church. I don't care what church it is. I don't care what charity it is. Tithing is about giving to those organizations or groups who reflect your values and in whom you have confidence in to spend the donations they receive in a prudent and accountable manner that will mostly help those intended. I do not believe in paying any tithing to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for these reasons. OK, now that you know where I stand (and I have lost all credibility as one expressing my opinion to the faithful members of the church), please bear with me and consider what I am about to say;
<br />
<br />
Paying a tithing in a manner that is based on faith, and not on practical principles of prudent money management, is a completely unreasonable approach.
<br />
<br />
Let me explain what I mean by this with an analogy: I know there are lots of multi-level marketing organizations out there. Some have been around a long time, others are fairly new and many have come and gone. I am not trying to knock the potential for earning an income in these types of organizations, what I wish to point out is the magical thinking that tends to cause problems for people who do not exercise common sense when it comes to their amount of investment and hope for reward participating in them. Participants may anticipate earning certain amounts of income based more on the promises of others and not so much on a realistic approach to their likely investment to reward ratio.<br />
<br />
Let's say you get recruited into _____ (insert the name of your least favorite multi-level marketing organization here). Your friend has a meeting at their house where you are introduced to the product/service and you are impressed by what you see. You think this is something you could see yourself at least buying for your own personal use. Then you are introduced to the business aspect of the organization which, you are told, requires further investment in business management materials, larger or more frequent subscription levels of the products/services, and efforts in recruiting others to join the organization. You realize that you enjoy talking to people, and you think you know lots of people so you figure this could be a good business opportunity for you. <br />
<br />
Swayed by the expressions of confidence by this person you thought was your good friend (who you thought had your best interests at heart), you decide to sign up and determine to make the financial commitment you are assured will result in the success you are hoping for financially.
Unfortunately, you haven't taken the time to examine your real financial situation to be able to determine whether or not you will realistically be able to afford the anticipated investment. Once you take a more critical look at your finances you realize that you just do not have the ability to spend the kind of money (or time) that soon it becomes apparent is required to have the success you are hoping for. The question soon comes to your mind; How much should I continue to invest in time and money on something that is not turning out as I hoped it would? Sure, maybe you are not doing enough in terms of investment. Maybe you are not patient enough to see the fruits of your labors, after all, it takes at least a year to cultivate a crop to be able to finally enjoy the harvest. Maybe you didn't think through enough of the obstacles that would come your way. Not only that, but you also begin to see some problems with the service of the organization and perhaps even the desired results advertised are not really as great as promised. The soap kind of starts to smell annoying after using it for so long. Maybe a lifetime commitment to one brand of soap isn't what I want.<br />
<br />
The point is the doubts creep in. At some point, in this consideration of the difficulties encountered in keeping up with things the way you hoped you would be able to, you begin to seriously question whether or not you can really afford this investment to be able to see it pay off. You decide to start charging the cost of participation to credit cards. You soon find yourself unable to even keep up with the monthly payments on those cards. You are really in a crisis now. This investment is actually ruining your finances and you determine that you cannot continue this endeavor in good conscience.<br />
<br />
You decide to talk to the friend who introduced you to the business in the first place. You tell him your concerns, but he seems un-fazed. He says you are just experiencing a little buyers remorse and that in order to have the success he has enjoyed you just have to keep up on buying the products and inviting people to the meetings. He again assures you that if you will just run with the plan you will soon have success. The promises are never really quantified, however. There really isn't any way to gauge the success you are being promised will come. You are pretty much told that if you just continue to buy the products, at the level required, every week, the success will come.<br />
<br />
A few months later, you are really suffering. The collections calls are becoming more frequent, the bills are piling up and many are going unpaid. Regardless, you continue to be steadfast in the plan you believe in. If I can just get one more person to the meeting this month, it will start to turn around. If I can just reach the next level of achievement with my weekly product purchase (or even just increase the amount of my order a little bit), I will finally start to see the income I deserve. I will soon have the success I desire and the financial independence I so believe is possible. I get re-assured that I can succeed at the weekly meetings for the company. They all testify to me of their successes and I really believe that success will soon come for me too, if I just have faith in the business and the plan set out by the leaders of the company.<br />
<br />
So what is wrong with the thinking here? It must be simply that the person is lacking the faith necessary to succeed, right?<br />
<br />
Wait a minute! Who is screaming the obvious right now that the person in this situation needs to stop living beyond what they can realistically afford IMMEDIATELY! They need to be able to admit that they simply cannot continue the purchases each week and need to severely curtail them or even eliminate them altogether until they can have the funds to invest IN A BUSINESS- that they treat like a profitable BUSINESS venture. They should not be encouraged to spend money they do not have under any pretense of a get rich scheme.<br />
<br />
We all are susceptible to this magical thinking. The belief that we can just get what we want if we have enough faith in those people or institutions that promise us untold successes and blessings, is sometimes a trap we easily fall into. We fall into these traps because we are greedy and because we want to believe people when they promise us a way to obtain what we want most. It is not that we are not smart or that we don't really have the potential to understand and gain control of our financial situations, it is just that we get caught up in the hope presented to us. Our minds naturally fill in what is missing from the advertisements.<br />
<br />
There is a commercial on TV that advertises a guaranteed issue life insurance policy to seniors. They make it seem like such a good deal by saying that the cost of the coverage will never go up. They also say that it is guaranteed issue (meaning that you can't be turned down). These kinds of promises make it sound like a pretty good thing (and it may very well be for the right candidate), but there are also some things they don't tell you which could make a very big difference in your decision to purchase the coverage. They don't tell you that the policy will exclude certain health conditions and not pay out if you happen to die as a result of an excluded health condition. They also don't tell you that the policy is really for only a very small amount of money and likely would barely even be able to pay for your casket, let alone your funeral should you need it. They deliberately and intentionally leave these things out of the advertisement. Is that right or just or fair? I don't know. Obviously we should all proceed under the mantra of buyer beware and try to get answers to the questions the sales person is not asking for us. In my opinion, we need to be coming up with our own questions and not settling for unresponsive answers from sales people when we ask them the tough questions. Preparing yourself with challenging questions, to ask of those trying to sell you something, about the potential weaknesses of a product or service should be something to remember.<br />
<br />
This is all abandoned as unnecessary, for some reason, when it comes to religion. When promises are made (surrounding the ultimate success that is, or blessings that are, promised to come for living as taught by the church) and don't come, why do we abandon the obvious questions we should be asking? Why do we suddenly abandon our skepticism in favor of this faith that might actually be asking too much of us? Why is it that if someone decides to question the faith, they are encouraged to remain silent as to not discourage the faith of others in the group? Shouldn't these things all be warning signs?<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, for many, these signs are just not enough. Unfortunately, the lure of magical thinking and the belief that there is an afterlife where all of these things will be made known, and justice equitably meted out at the judgment bar, is just too enticing of a thought-if you feel your actions are in line with the judgment being delivered. It is the hook that keeps us thinking if we just can get through this trial, which-we are constantly reminded-is only 'but a small moment', everything will be right again and I will be so much better because of it. It may not be money we are necessarily focused on, but the things money can buy is sneaked in every once in a while to keep it interesting. Streets paved with gold and glorious mansions on high are mentioned just enough to keep the carrot clearly dangling in front of us to condition our behavior and thinking.<br />
<br />
Tithing is such a huge example of this. The church will not come out and clearly say how the members should define the payment of a full tithe. I believe they are deliberate in this. Tithing is talked about in terms of the faith required to pay it and not in terms of what exactly it should be paid on. I believe the design has had the intended effect. In the LDS Church, especially, the conversations among believers tend to center on whether or not members should pay 10% of their gross or net income. Nobody ever seems to mention the idea that income isn't increase or <a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/119.4?lang=eng#3" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">interest</a> at all! Income is the exchange of your labor for monetary units (by the hour or a fixed amount per year) that can be used to live and put away in investment. Increase, or interest as it is referred to in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants, is the amount your monetary units have increased due to investment in the marketplace (or bank or whomever you trust to earn you a return on your money).<br />
<br />
From this new understanding of WHAT tithing should be paid on, we can derive a few things;<br />
<br />
1. Tithing isn't really expected of the poor. However, the church likes to tell the story of the widow's mite and how even the poorest widow can give 10% of what she has to the church. Perhaps the widow is entitled to her faith, but the widow should also be told by a responsible church leader what exactly tithing is expected to be paid on. It should not be expected that we give 10% of our estate (i.e. the sum of our earnings and investments) every year. If the poor are doing this, then they deserve to be taken care of by giving back to them a 10-fold increase of what they put in. While she may be expected to pay, the lesson should be focused on the desire to help and serve others and not on the amount of money paid to the church. Unfortunately that is the focus of too many sermons on tithing.<br />
<br />
2. Tithing IS expected of the rich. People who have healthy investment portfolios that represent a sizable income should be paying 10% of THAT income (interest/increase). That income IS actually interest. It is the earnings on the principal. Do you think the wealthy should give 10% of their principal sums in tithing every year? If they did that, they'd be near broke in about 11 or 12 years (obviously depending on the size of the investment). Tithing is not meant to diminish our estate or principal holdings. It is meant to be taken from the fluff that comes once our estate is secure. When we pay tithing on our principal (the monetary units gained for the exchange of our labor), we are actually causing a significant diminishing of our estate. While this diminishing may not be immediately felt by some, it is very real (and, I would submit, dangerous).<br />
<br />
3. Tithing is not expected to support a large multinational corporate structure with massive real estate holdings and a diverse portfolio of large investment holdings. Tithing is meant to help the poor among us...period. It may include support of community projects, that are as transparent as possible and, that directly benefit the community the donations are coming from. Perhaps there are cases where groups may decide to reach out to more impoverished parts of the world, but those are decisions that should be made at the local level by those whose money has been contributed. A centralized collection system and distribution by a corporate board of directors in charge of the for-profit investment holdings of the corporation, on the other hand, does not sound like the way tithing should be handled to me.<br />
<br />
The real poison of these teachings, of paying tithing on income instead of interest or increase - in my opinion, is the actual increase of poverty due to the pervasiveness of these ideas. The church should do the responsible thing and come out and give clarity on this issue, but they choose not to.<br />
<br />
I humbly submit that the LDS Church is so caught up in the support of it's corporate structure and survival that it is really not concerned with the harm its teachings are doing to society. People are having to make due on less and less nowadays and the church is continuing to emphasize the number of gaudy, under-utilized structures (temples) it is building all around the world. Does anyone see what is really going on here? The church is more interested in increasing the size of it's real estate holdings than it is in helping people in ways that are community based and directed by the ones making the contributions. <br />
<br />
Sure, the defenders of the faith will point to the amount of aid the church has given to devastated areas around the world. While this is a good point, it would be even more poignant if the church would release more information about how much it is actually giving in comparison to what it takes in. My guess is that the amount spent by the church in these efforts is meager and paltry compared to what it takes in. I welcome being proved wrong on this point. However, I think my challenge will simply fall on deaf ears. Of course, it really could be that the church understands the principle of tithing even better than the members do and they only pay out to charitable causes 10% of the interest they earn on all of their holdings. This is an interesting possibility...<br />
<br />
It is simply unconscionable to me that these ideas (I would actually rather refer to them as heresies) are allowed to persist in the church. When I have asked faithful members why this is, or even how the amount of tithing paid should be calculated, I am told it is always up to the individual. However, when I press them or ask what they pay on, they will usually answer with 10% of either 'net' or 'gross' income. The idea that the amount to be paid is based solely on the thoughts of the individual, when coupled with the idea that we WILL be judged based on our works creates a very lucrative self perpetuating cycle of thoughts leading to behaviors that cannot be broken in the members of the church. Many, at least in my opinion anyway, will continue to follow this concept even though doing so represents a huge and unnecessary sacrifice to their families. Putting them deeper and deeper into poverty as they pay their estate away to others in the church and the government. Well, I don't really want to get started on that subject. Suffice to say, I feel it is very unfortunate that those who are best in the position to fix this problem (church leaders) are the one's least having the incentive to do so. This is a problem.<br />
<br />
The way I think most members of the church justify this, clearly irrational, way of thinking about their large overall contributions to the church is to think in terms of the blessings they will get if they pay as they think they should or the loss of blessings they will experience due to not paying enough in tithing.<br />
<br />
Let's think on that for a moment. If you ask the member to identify the specific blessings they can clearly associate with the payment of a full tithing (at least according to their faithful and overly generous interpretation), what will they say? Usually the member will be quick to point out that paying tithing is not a get rich quick scheme. In other words, you can't expect to be blessed financially for the payment of tithing. (To this, I just want to say, well duh...no self respecting financial planner would advocate giving away 10% of your farm, or land, every year to achieve financial independence. But that is exactly what members of the church believe, and actually feel bad about falling short of, when they do not diligently practice the payment of a full tithe.) So what, exactly, are the blessings that come from paying tithing? If financial abundance is off the table, what is left? And why is it that the church seems to choose only those that are financially well off to be called to positions of leadership? It seems awfully convenient to attempt to preach that the payment of a full tithe will not lead to financial abundance and then tend to call only the financially abundant members to enjoy the great blessings of serving in high capacities of responsibility in the church and kingdom of God on the earth! Perhaps I am just jealous I was never called to be a high ranking leader in the church. No, actually, there is no perhaps about it. I was told in my patriarchal blessing that I would be called to sit in the councils of the church when I got older, gosh darn it, I was expecting that to be the case and fully expecting to be called to be in the Quorum of the 12 apostles. Why did I think such a thing? More magical thinking on my part most likely.<br />
<br />
Whatever the faithful member comes up with in terms of blessings that they believe have come because of the payment of their overly generous tithes and offerings to the church, for each one of them, they are likely forgetting an instance (or more than several actually) where that blessing did not come.<br />
<br />
Why do we pick and choose to see as consequences, aka blessings for obedience to a principle of the gospel, only those times or instances which happen to support our views? Why do we block out all of the dis-confirming evidences for our beliefs? Sometimes, the dis-confirming evidence even shows up in the very scenario the believer is using to bolster their faith in the payment of a full tithe. These are actually somewhat humorous to think about when they are encountered. Of course, one has to then grapple with whether or not such thoughts should be spoken out loud. Usually they aren't, but they cause a chuckle or two anyway.<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure Jesus said something along the lines of, 'Let those who have ears to hear, hear and eyes to see, see.' I hope someone will hear and see what I am saying here.<br />
<br />
While I freely admit that I may have some things to learn in terms of my attitude of giving to those causes that will support my community, I think that I also need to feel that the financial security of my family simply must come first. When I feel comfortable that the security is there to some extent, I believe I will then be more likely, and able, to look to the ways I can best contribute generously to those causes I desire to support. I honestly do think giving is important, but I think I must feel it is OK to give to the support of my family's security first. I'm OK with that and you should be too.<br />
<br />
Just like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Maslow's hierarchy of human needs</a>, I need to be sure my needs of survival, social interaction and financial support of my family are met first, before I am capable of stepping up and into the need of giving back to others outside those in my immediate care and contributing generously to my community. <br />
<br />
Of course, I do feel the need to address the fact that many self development guru's do advise listeners and readers to practice the payment of a tithe in donations to charity. I believe this could be due to the incentive a generous tithe gives to be motivated to work harder. I guess it could be thought that the more painful the offering to charity, the more diligent one will work to be motivated to earn more. We likely all could benefit from being less selfish. I'm sure I need it more than most. <br />
<br />
However, I almost wonder if these kinds of positions are motivated more by political beliefs than religious ones. Conservatives, I believe, tend to be more about tenets that encourage a rugged individualism and support those ideas that motivate humans to behave in ways that encourage taking care of themselves. This view of paying generous, and substantial I suppose, offerings to charity could be a necessary component of getting radical conservatism to actually work over the long term. If people don't give generously and voluntarily, however, the government will necessarily come in and ask it of us. The liberal corollary, thus, would be that since we have shown that it is not really in our nature to voluntarily give substantially of our wealth to support the poor among us, in a way that is meaningful, someone has to take care of these things. If churches are falling down on the job, someone has to pick up the slack. And, unfortunately, as inefficient as we all like the claim the government is, it actually does the job of cutting out the middle man in terms of those who would seek to profit off the donations intended for the poor and otherwise afflicted whom we have an obligation to support.<br />
<br />
I feel like I can only begin to scratch the surface of some of these issues. I feel sometimes like I can come across as angry in what I am saying. Maybe I am a little angry. Maybe my anger isn't really anger. Maybe I am actually just very hurt that I see now that the church was not all I was told it was my whole life. Maybe I am now just a half-full kind of guy. Regardless of my personal issues, I think what I am saying here has some merit. Please stop to consider what motivates your actions before putting your family in jeopardy by paying tithing on your gross or net income. Think that it is OK with God if you actually use that money to take care of the needs of your family first. There are plenty of people who earn plenty on their dividends and investments to take up the slack. Tithing is not really a sacrifice that is expected of you without consideration of your family and their needs to be taken care of. It is not about sacrifice really. It is just a practical method of taking care of people that is meant to be painless and sort of ancillary. At least, this is my opinion anyway.<br />
<br />
To put it in simpler terms; if you are a person who feels very strongly that tithing should be paid to the church as 10% of your gross OR net income, think of it this way. Each month you write that tithing check out to the church, you are literally taking 10% of your house payment and giving it to the church (since you are taking it out of the money you earn to make your house payment or rent). You are taking 10% of your car payment and giving it to the church. You are also taking 10% of all of your other bills and household expenses for the month and giving that to the church. Do you really think the church wants this? Do you think God wants this? Do you really think that if you just keep up in this silly behavior that you will actually be better off for it? Sure, if you want to say, well, we eat out at fine restaurants a lot or we take really nice vacations or we put a bunch of money in savings every month and therefore taking 10% of that and giving it to the church would be OK...fine. Then reduce the amounts you spend on these luxury items by that same 10% and give that to the church. I personally still feel like this is a bit generous, but that's OK. Do what you want but, please, stop acting foolishly and then beating yourself up about not giving enough or it not being a 'full' and 'honest' tithe! Don't give what you can't realistically afford. If you have to borrow money from savings to get through the month, it is OK to not pay tithing that month. If you are even worse off and have no money in savings, but feel like you need to charge purchases on credit cards to get by, go ask the church for some assistance with food (since that is all they will really give you), but, by all means, do not pay tithing. The Lord doesn't expect it and you shouldn't either. If you feel bad for some reason about your new outlook on the law of tithing, think on the atonement. It was done so you could forgive yourself about your misunderstanding of the intent of the law of tithing. Forgive yourself. Stop hurting yourself and your family. Give to them first and then things will take care of themselves. Be kind. Love one another. Love yourself.<br />
<br />
I'm going to step down from my soap box now. Perhaps I'll come back and have more to say sometime soon. Thanks for reading.Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-64497751125078095652013-07-04T14:31:00.002-07:002013-07-04T14:51:52.869-07:00Happy 4th of July!Happy 4th of July!<br />
<br />
On this day of celebration I wish to add my contribution of gratitude for all of those who have served our country in the defense of our freedoms! I also wish to add my support and well wishes to all of those who are fighting that same fight today.<br />
<br />
In addition, I am especially grateful for the patriots who have come along at various points in history to remind us that we have allowed control of our lives to be given up to others who would wish to exercise control over us without our full understanding and consent. The founding fathers were initially seen as traitors to the established government in their day. They had to act because they simply could not stand by and watch any longer while tyrants took, what they saw as, those freedoms rightfully belonging to the people away and replaced them with permissions and privileges.<br />
<br />
I'm not sure why it has happened, but what I know for sure is that it has happened. What has happened is our inherent rights have gradually been usurped and replaced for benefits and privileges. We have surely become convinced that these are necessary for us to maintain our freedoms. HOGWASH! Our freedoms have existed prior to all of these and do continue to exist to this day. Unfortunately, however, we all pretty much feel that to stand up and speak out in defense of our inherent freedoms will land us in jail. It is this fear that keeps us all in line for the most part.<br />
<br />
What is so amazing is the complete and total lack of any organized effort to do something about the wrongs we all know exist, and talk about with such regularity, that make us so disgusted with our current government and elected representatives. For some reason we have it in our mind that to do something patriotic would just require too much effort, too much sacrifice and there is little chance that it would all make much difference. Of course, we are all probably right about this and we will all likely have to wait for things to get much worse before we actually decide to do anything severe about it. But my question would be; How much worse can things actually get?<br />
<br />
Here are my disconcerting observations, which I will follow with a few suggestions of little things we might be able to do to actually make a difference:<br />
<br />
<b>Disconcerting observation #1:</b><br />
Way too many people are in prison in this country! Not only that, but our prison populations are represented by a majority of those who are in poverty or are in racial minorities. The United States actually has the largest percentage of it's population in prison compared to any other country in the world! Of course, a common response I hear frequently to this is that we are the only country in the world that has the patience to put people in jail, while most other countries just execute their wrongdoers. While I suppose this may be true in those countries ruled by tyrannical dictators (or regime's that don't have much regard for the sanctity of human life), it is not the case in those countries that are more progressive than the United States. I have a sneaking suspicion that there are potentially some other reasons this is the case and I think it has something to do with money. I also believe that the ability of our systems of incarceration in this country to actually reform those who have committed crimes is woefully insufficient. Not only that, but the number of people in prison for victim-less crimes (such as traffic code violations, drug possession - not using mind you - just possession and weapons charges - again not actually using the weapon, just carrying or having in possession without the required permits or permissions) is unacceptably high.<br />
<br />
<b>So, what can we do about it:</b><br />
1. We can advocate, and lobby our elected representatives, to do away with any jail time for victim-less crimes. Violations without an actual victim should never result in time in jail. Instead, we should advocate a sort of 3 strikes and you have to pay a fine type of system. Too many families and otherwise potentially productive lives are destroyed because of jail time (not to mention court fees and fines) over a mere infraction which does not have any victim or harm actually committed. This would result in police having to document 3 warnings given out to code violators before they can actually issue a citation where the person could incur a fine.<br />
<br />
2. We can also advocate for additional resources (saved by not incarcerating code violators) to be devoted to actual mental health assistance or counseling for inmates to allow them to actually receive needed help in achieving reformation. We should also be advocating for more mental health resources devoted to the private sector to hopefully eradicate the problems that could result from those that suffer from various levels of mental health issues, who may be more likely to commit actual crimes.<br />
<br />
<b>Disconcerting observation #2:</b><br />
The rich are getting richer, the middle class and poor are getting poorer! I don't think I really need to say anything more about this, but I will anyway. Obviously, it is not the observed outcome we tend to have disagreement on, but it is the possible solutions that we can't agree on that stifle our action on this front. Unfortunately, I think this problem is the result of apathy on the part of all Americans. We have let ourselves get in a position of ignorance as it relates to what money is and how it works in this country. We have allowed ourselves to be told by others how things work and what we must do about it. This is the main reason the wealthy have so much wealth; most achieved it through knowing something that others didn't and the disparity of information was capitalized on to their gain. The government is doing the same thing to us. I suspect they have a few secrets they have kept over the years from us as it relates to our money. This information is keeping us all from enjoying the abundance we all know is possible if we could just gain a little perspective, information and responsibility in this area.<br />
<br />
<b>What we can do about it:</b><br />
I really like the universe of Star Trek as an inspiration for a potential solution to this problem. In the world of Star Trek there is no money. Everybody understands two things in the world of Star Trek; 1. There is no medium of exchange besides your contribution to the society at large and 2. That everyone's contributions to the society as a whole allow everyone to have more than they would ever need in terms of stuff they might want (as well as some advanced technology that make providing for basic needs of life a mere command to a computer system somewhere). Obviously, there are those who take more than they contribute in the world of Star Trek, but in that world I think they have figured out that this is OK, as long as the cultural conditioning remains intact that keeps most people convinced that these kinds of selfish behaviors only result in a drag on the system and are not ultimately worthwhile for the good of the whole society.<br />
<br />
To take a cliche from John F. Kennedy, we need to ask not what government can provide to us, but instead ask what we can contribute to society. I don't know if this small shift in thinking is actually possible or not, but I think if we all could begin to see the potential of this kind of attitude shift, it could result in magnificent changes occurring very rapidly to our economic situation here. I also think a big part of the problem is not knowing what we don't know. I am hopeful, however, that as technology becomes more advanced, and less expensive, education will only increase and we will hopefully begin to learn the things we didn't know before and decide to be more responsible and contribute more than what we take.<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Disconcerting Observation #3:</b><br />
God bless the USA! I don't know if anybody else in this country feels the same way I do, but this phrase just rubs me the wrong way. I know many of the reasons for the belief that the America's are some sort of promised land go way back and are rooted in religious teachings (obviously since most sentiments involving God are religious in nature), but I wonder why would God love us, or choose to bless us, more so than other countries in the world? My wife says that people are not supposed to compare their blessings to anybody else's, but if you only choose to see the good things that happen to you as blessings and ignore any of the bad things (those are apparently not blessings, after all) that happen, I don't see how this is productive. I tend to see it as all a matter of consequences. If we make good, informed choices, we will likely have good consequences and if we make poor, or mis-informed, choices we will likely have unfortunate consequences.<br />
<br />
<b>What to do about it:</b><br />
We need to let go of the belief that God chooses to bless our country any more than any other country in the world. If you must maintain a belief in God, just remember that God is God of the whole earth and not just your little section of it. God loves all of us no matter what color skin we have, what we prefer to eat or where we happened to be born or choose to live. Why can't we be more willing to say that God loves all of the children of the earth equally and not stand by when other countries treat their inhabitants as second class citizens or slaves. I guess there are those that see the USA as being blessed first and therefore owing a duty to the rest of the world, I guess that is OK as long as the perspective includes the added sentiment of "Now God needs to bless the rest of the world through me (or us)."<br />
<br />
Of course if we insist on that belief, we have to understand that other countries may not see things the same way we do. We can't be arrogant enough to think that we must be the world's police. We have to seek first to endow other countries with their sovereignty and then seek to defend ourselves from those who would actually represent a credible threat to our borders. I believe, however, that if we were less defensive in our posturing that other countries would not be so quick to respond in kind...but I acknowledge that I may just be naive in this thinking - but I can't let go of the thought that disarmament has to start somewhere, why not with us? I think we need to treat other countries more like our neighbors and less like strangers from a strange land with strange beliefs that we are quick to blame for our problems.<br />
<br />
Obviously, this tends to bring to mind the problem of our age known as terrorism. While I can't say with any level of certainty the reason the terrorists choose to do what they do, I think it might be because of our arrogance in times past in treating other countries as subjects to us rather than the sovereigns they should be treated as. While I can't claim to be any kind of expert on this, it is my suspicion that there is more to the story of what motivates terrorists than we are often told in the media. There really isn't any incentive in this country to tell the story of what led up to the terrorist decision to act. Of course, it could just be as simple as an un-diagnosed or untreated mental health condition as well.<br />
<br />
Overall, while I think some things continue to need improvement in this country (and the world as well, obviously), I am fairly optimistic. I am encouraged by the prospect of patriots who stand up for what is right when they see wrongs being committed whether domestically or internationally. I am also encouraged by advances in technology and what it is doing for our ability to access information and have answers to difficult questions or situations we encounter that we may need help with. To be better informed can only be good in terms of helping us get beyond the problems we face. These advances in technology will only continue to benefit countries with more serious problems than we face in terms of poverty, civil war or education. I really think that advances in understanding and communication can lead to monumental changes. Perhaps in that sense, the pioneers of modern technology can be seen as the patriots of our day.<br />
<br />
So as you go out and have your barbecue and light off your fireworks and have your time with family and friends, please remember to give a little salute to the patriots. To those who stood against those things that most others were unlikely to stand up for because it was unpopular or unconventional, even (and especially) when it meant the potential to lose their life in doing so. They are the hero's. The one's who go before and lead to accomplishing real, significant and monumental changes, that afterwards, we can't imagine what life would have been like without them.<br />
<br />
Happy INDEPENDENCE Day! Please enjoy any alcohol, fireworks and other pyrotechnics responsibly.<br />
<br />Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-47524239716228069182013-04-05T12:44:00.003-07:002013-04-05T12:56:23.250-07:00Jesus and Tommy Monson<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjejc24OMiwc1EpGtiXIWMa706ZrVaKpn672pB__5DmwCu24XnxEyQPRV72tEVs3h0wxreDA8Nx5pvixOAcwaXLHUwzsLUlkS3bBSblH_Z3M5PADXm0ADznRNK6s6-6K3tiQk6lm7_DmK4i/s1600/JesusComic.jpg" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjejc24OMiwc1EpGtiXIWMa706ZrVaKpn672pB__5DmwCu24XnxEyQPRV72tEVs3h0wxreDA8Nx5pvixOAcwaXLHUwzsLUlkS3bBSblH_Z3M5PADXm0ADznRNK6s6-6K3tiQk6lm7_DmK4i/s320/JesusComic.jpg" HEIGHT="550" WIDTH="400" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzT4qSHKAdFpkpKXhiL8ZBgDBJFVBfDnyqEd9ILJ0Yv2Y6SDHHd3wn585yZM7RXXBQOwwQqnFg389s2hWWwu_qreL5qjybjdLZcSDDlyfWOJ8qjraG2ec-XaZHE8L4_n11R6JrTuwqZcT-/s1600/JesusComicWiggleEars.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzT4qSHKAdFpkpKXhiL8ZBgDBJFVBfDnyqEd9ILJ0Yv2Y6SDHHd3wn585yZM7RXXBQOwwQqnFg389s2hWWwu_qreL5qjybjdLZcSDDlyfWOJ8qjraG2ec-XaZHE8L4_n11R6JrTuwqZcT-/s320/JesusComicWiggleEars.jpg" HEIGHT="550" WIDTH="400" /></a>
Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-80456968620417066212013-03-25T12:25:00.000-07:002013-03-25T12:25:50.024-07:00If women had the priesthoodI have seen some buzz lately surrounding the idea of women being able to hold the priesthood. My initial reaction is that they should be able to hold the priesthood, and be able to hold any calling men do in the church. However, after I think about it for a while I come to realize that it actually may not be such a good idea.<br />
<br />
The reasons I can think that it might not be such a good idea to give women the priesthood is because it would likely result in some pretty major changes in the church. For one thing, if girls got the priesthood at 12 years old, as the boys do, then boys and girls would be passing the sacrament together. This would encourage more interaction between boys and girls and would only result in more teen pregnancy. I also think it would lead to girls feeling equal to boys and, since girls are superior to boys intellectually and emotionally, boys would quickly feel inferior to their superior priesthood holding counterparts. This feeling of inferiority would only serve to denigrate those boys that may already have low self-esteem to begin with.<br />
<br />
Also, since holding the priesthood requires wearing dress slacks, white shirts and ties, and girls would look kind of silly in white shirts and ties (not to mention they are not allowed to wear pants), this would just not work.<br />
<br />
If women held the priesthood then that would mean they could give priesthood blessings. I don't know how women would be able to come up with the same kinds of things that men are able to receive from the spirit when it comes to giving blessings. Again, all of their blessings pronounced would probably be far superior to what men have been able to muster up so this would only lead to further feelings of inferiority by men.<br />
<br />
I'm trying to imagine if women were also able to hold the high and responsible callings in the church like bishop and stake president. I can't even begin to imagine what that might be like. Women conducting meetings?! I'm not sure they would be able to handle such a great responsibility. They would probably want to make drastic changes to the way the meetings are held and the current meetings would just end up wholly unrecognizable in comparison. This would obviously result in more women giving talks and prayers and such and, well, this would just make more men feel left out.<br />
<br />
There might also be very big changes to current programs such as home and visiting teaching. The good news is, men would be able to phone their families and have it count as a home teaching visit, the bad news is meals and/or treats would likely be mandatory as part of the message to the families when they were visited. There might also be more prayers uttered to Heavenly Mother and her sacred name and position would just become common and ordinary and not special and completely sacred as it is now.<br />
<br />
Then there are the changes that would likely occur if women were to eventually be called to the high and holy callings in the church as apostles or prophets. This would just simply not do. How could women be expected, or even able, to devote the time needed to such callings? With all their housework, cooking, cleaning and taking care of children and grandchildren, they simply would not have time to engage fully in such callings. This would ultimately lead to a downfall in the quality of the revelations received and the whole church would likely suffer as a result. The members might actually decide to leave the church in greater numbers than they already are and the church may not actually survive such a change.<br />
<br />
Of course, all of the reasons listed above do not take into account the effect such a change would have on the membership of the church almost immediately should such a change be instituted. When the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now Community of Christ) made the change to allow women to hold to the priesthood they lost nearly 60-70% of their membership almost overnight. The modern LDS church would likely not be able to survive such a loss to their membership numbers.<br />
<br />
For all of the reasons listed I don't think allowing women to hold the priesthood would really be such a good idea. Of course, I am writing all of this tongue in cheek. Women should hold the priesthood simply because it is right for such a thing to happen. Yes changes would occur, but all of them would only be good.<br />
<br />
What do you think? Should women be able to hold priesthood callings and, if they were, what sorts of changes do you think would be the result?Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-71533633021908831332013-02-27T10:08:00.002-08:002013-02-27T10:25:27.006-08:00A Letter to BelieversIn the course of losing my faith, there were, it seems, some who wanted to continue to correspond with me to try and convince me otherwise. I have pretty much lost interest in attempting to communicate with these people much anymore. However, I do understand the need to have information shared by others in a similar situation when one is going through this enormous paradigm shift. Sometimes it can seem like you are all alone, especially when surrounded mostly by those who seek to maintain their faith at all costs – even to the destroying of the individual who is questioning their faith.<br />
<br />
In this spirit, I present a response to a true believer that I came up with when I was more inclined to do so. I had gone over much with this person and this was the latest round of attempts to reason with this person that I sought to share;<br />
<br />
So, if the church is completely true as I understand it, then the church claims to have the answers to the question, "What is the purpose of life?" Correct?<br />
<br />
The Sunday school answers I was given to this question is that our purpose is two-fold. One purpose was to come to earth to receive a physical body. As far as why this is important, we are told it is because we need a physical body to be able to become like God who has a body of flesh and bone. The other purpose of our mortal existence, we are told, is to see if we will do all things whatsoever the Lord has commanded us. In other words, we are being tested on our faithfulness and diligence in keeping the commandments of God.<br />
<br />
So my question is, if a purpose of our existence is to be tried and tested, then we should be able to assume we will all receive a grade of some sort depending on our individual performance in these tests administered while in mortality? Is that a fair assumption? Otherwise, why say we are being “tried and tested”? Both of these have meaning to us here. To be tried implies that there may be some sort of trial to determine guilt or innocence. If guilty, then a punishment is affixed. If innocent, than freedom and advancement are presumed to be the consequence. Tests are also something we are very familiar with from school. Tests imply being asked questions, we give our answers to see if we have retained the knowledge previously given in lectures or readings. If that is true, then is it also safe to assume that some people will fare better in these tests/trials than others? <br />
<br />
If that is true, can we also assume that the significance of these tests is pretty heavy as far as it relates to our standing in the eternities and that our performance here on earth may have eternal (and possibly unchangeable) consequences as far as our reward (or punishment) in the eternities is concerned? Now, I admit, this may be a pretty big assumption, but the alternative is that this life is actually pretty unimportant in the grand scheme of things, which seems to go contrary to everything leaders of the church have to share when discussing such things. The message seems to be that this life is of paramount importance.<br />
<br />
This is my understanding and a reason that I used to believe that I had to do everything in my power to make sure I was passing the tests (keeping all the commandments possible, including all of my church duties and assignments and callings, etc.) so that I could assure a standing in the eternities that would allow me to have the greatest opportunities afforded me in the eternal hereafter. I really believed that if I wasn't doing everything in my power to try and achieve obedience (and thus pass the tests) that I could fail and end up in eternal misery and damnation (i.e. being cut off from eternal progression, stuck forever as an angel or ministering servant in heaven). I certainly did not want to end up in eternal misery. That would suck.<br />
<br />
So if all this is true (at least as far as I understand it), then there is a very real chance that people will end up separated from each other in the eternities due to their performance in this life. Is that a correct understanding? Is there anywhere that I am off so far?<br />
<br />
If it is true that people will end up in different "kingdoms" due to their performance in this life, is it not also possible that people from the same families will end up in different places? Including being in kingdoms where one family member will be prohibited from going and seeing other family members (in higher kingdoms) because they are stuck in a lower kingdom? If that is true, then how can the church preach the significance of being with your family for eternity when that will not be the case for everyone?<br />
<br />
When I asked one person this sort of question, the response was that we do not know how everyone will be judged. Their feeling was that we cannot say with any degree of certainty where someone will end up in the hereafter, because none of us is entitled to judge anyone else. However, if the church is true as I understand it, should I not be concerned about what I have been taught that I WILL be judged on? The fact remains that I WILL be judged at some point. Just because you can’t say how I will be judged, I HAVE TO make sure that I perform in the areas that I am surely going to be judged on (as does, according to what the church teaches, everyone else who has the same understanding). I think that is a fair assumption. So even though this person, nor anyone else, will condemn me (or, at least, they are told not to) and sentence me to eternal misery (except The Lord, of course, and possibly my Bishop), I WILL be held accountable for what I have been taught (and decided to ignore or deny or whatever) and the consequences for which WILL BE very real to me. <br />
<br />
I am of the feeling that as it pertains to me individually and my overall accountability for my behavior and ultimate judgment, I have come to the conclusion that any judgment of my behavior or belief (or lack thereof) would not be suitable based on the limited amount of knowledge I have been given thus far in my life (as far as the certainty of, or ability to know for certain in the secular sense of obtaining knowledge) as to whether or not what the church teaches contains all the answers I need to be be adequately judged in the hereafter. Therefore personally, I can rest soundly at night knowing that if I die, and if it is true that I will be judged based on my behavior, that I will be able to confidently say that since I was placed in a world where I was introduced to tangible matter and concrete logic and reasoning, with no memory of any former existence, that I did the best I could with the information that I was able to obtain within the realm of reality that I knew existed for certain. I will also be able to confidently say that if I chose not to follow the dictates of a religion, it was because evidence for its truthfulness was not able to be obtained according to a sufficient measure of truthfulness within the sphere of reality I was familiar with in the circumstances I knew to be real (and verifiable) in mortality.<br />
<br />
The problem with this, of course, is that even though I can rest at night (even if I choose to ignore what the church teaches and not go and not concern myself with all of it) members of my family and loved ones are not so fortunate. They continually are kept up at night worrying (even though it may not manifest itself in everyday communication, the reality of it is certainly extant) about me and whether or not I will be allowed to be with them in the eternities. According to the church, if I maintain my present course and beliefs (or lack of) than I will be sentenced to eternal misery in a lower kingdom and they will have to figure out how to go on without me around. How does this worry allow people to get on with life and enjoy all that life has to offer? I don’t think it is possible for family members to be sufficiently assuaged in their grief over my possible eternal circumstances.
That’s why mothers of wayward children say they feel like a failure. That’s why believing spouses and children look on apostates with sadness and sorrow when they don’t accompany them to church and I think this is the ultimate reason that many, many couples that marry in the church (or temple mostly) who experience a spouse that questions, and ultimately leaves the church, end in divorce. The value of endeavoring to maintain a lasting relationship with the person that is loved becomes irrelevant and meaningless when one’s eternal prospect for a lasting relationship is possibly in jeopardy. Some believing spouses cling to the hope that what Paul said in 1 Corinthians (7:10-16) is really true that the non-believing spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse and that they will somehow be able to give their spouse a hall pass (because of their faithfulness and performance in the mortal tests and church adherence) to be able to enter their kingdom of reward with their spouse. However, it seems to me that this as a source of hope can tend to wane in the face of all the other things being said by church leaders. The ramifications of non-belief are extremely hard to ignore. Those that can choose to ignore them ought to be highly regarded, but the non-believing spouse may have a hard time believing that the eternal consequences of their behavior actually can be ignored by the believer. <br />
<br />
Sometimes the non-believing spouse can’t help but wonder what will happen when the believing spouse decides to stop ignoring the possible ramifications? What about the children of such relationships? I know people that love me will never really give up on me, but the thought has to occur to people at some point, “What if Facsimilogos never changes his ways and never decides that the church is where it’s at?” People who face this sort of question find discomfort in it and tend to largely ignore it. But the question remains, nevertheless. What answer can the believing spouse come up with?<br />
<br />
I think most believers simply choose not to answer this question. Instead choosing to say “I don’t know” or “who can really say what will happen in the hereafter?”. But, if pressed, how should people really answer this question? I think it is just too painful to think that someone you care about will not be around in the hereafter. Which is funny to me because the church is supposed to provide so much comfort through answers to life’s difficult questions. Unfortunately, however, where it is supposed to provide the ultimate comfort, it falls flat on its face. I think that’s why you get general authorities saying over the pulpit that wayward children WILL come back into the fold at some point (if not in this life, then most assuredly in the hereafter). My question is, what is their scriptural basis for that teaching? <br />
<br />
I guess D&C 76: 110 could be used to justify that because it says that everyone who only achieved a telestial reward, after they have suffered eternal torment, will all bow their knee and confess that Jesus is for real. Isn’t that special? After your loved one has suffered for what seems like an eternity (or possibly for all eternity...not sure which one), they will eventually decide that the suffering just isn’t worth it anymore and then decide to come around. It seems to me that our eternal reward is just that, eternal. <br />
<br />
I gather from D&C 76 (verse 33 for sons of perdition and verse 105 for the not so valiant or ignorant) about the assignment of kingdoms that there WILL NOT be any upgrades. No matter what the situation, no matter how much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth occurs, you will not be eligible for eternal bliss if that is not what you are entitled to based on the grade you get for your performance on the tests administered during mortality. I wonder why those who believe sometimes don’t seem to take things more seriously? It really is that serious, isn’t it? If so, this is what continues to keep me from being able to believe in it.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I look forward to your thoughts. Thanks for your ongoing concern and consideration for me and my situation. You have been very kind where others have not and I do sincerely appreciate your kindness and efforts to keep lines of communication open. You certainly deserve to be commended for that.<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
Facsimilogos
Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-66935463749744615822012-10-03T12:27:00.001-07:002012-10-03T12:28:02.214-07:00Missionary workMissionary WORK! The work of bringing souls to the corporate entity known as the Intellectual Reserve. I was brought up to think that missionary work was the most noble and worthwhile pursuit. Now I think of it as a nuisance. The reason I now think of it this way is because I now realize what it really is! It is door to door salesmanship. But it is not just any ordinary product being pushed (nay heartily wedged) through my door, rather it is acceptance that your life must suck since you are not as happy as those two clean cut, 1960's era, IBM reps standing at your door. Since you don't enjoy their level of happiness, they are more than willing to share with you what will bring you up to their level. They have a message of joy, hope and peace that will change you forever! <br />
<br />
It will change you all right...it will make you a self righteous, ethnocentric prick who is willing to forsake friends and family in order to lay up a mansion for your self in heaven. A heaven where a man can have multiple wives and spend eternity making babies to populate his own world and start the cycle of life on a new planet all over again. Who needs close friends and relatives to be by your side, when you can just make more of those affiliates through procreation! Procreation is apparently the key to eternal happiness. As long as it isn't enjoyed too much, and only really used for making babies, then it is OK anyway.<br />
<br />
Here's what I don't understand; so members of the LDS church are quick to point out that if a person leaves the church, that they can't seem to leave the church alone. Gee, I wonder why that could be? So let me get this straight. Members of the church work themselves into a frenzy over the idea of spreading the gospel to all those ungodly heathens that apparently would accept the truth (that they perceive themselves to have) if they just knew about it, but then whine and complain when former members attempt to share a message with them about how screwed up their beliefs are?! Life's a bitch ain't it. The thing I want to say to members of the church when they say that I can't just leave their precious beliefs alone is that I'll stop when they stop. I'll leave you alone as soon as you stop knocking on my door with your smug and certain passive aggressive insults designed to make you feel better, but designed to make me feel bad until I agree with you. You can't have it both ways folks. I guess now I understand why it seems that churches attempt to inoculate their members by telling them how ridiculous and weird the LDS church is in their beliefs. They are fighting fire with fire.<br />
<br />
It never really occurred to me as I was out for two years going door to door attempting to convert others that, while the people who let me in their door were just being nice or genuinely wanting to hear the nice message that I was advertising, that what I was really doing was telling them that their beliefs were wrong and that I had what they needed. How pretentious and arrogant of me to think that! I had no idea what kinds of things these people had been through in their spiritual quest. Nor did I care. My only goal was to get them to associate any good feelings they may have had in their life up to that point, with what I was trying to sell them on. I manipulated those people for my own selfish purposes. I'll say, once the idea of you having the ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHURCH ON THE FACE OF THE WHOLE EARTH is abandoned, I have begun to see how selfish and arrogant this whole attitude I was sportin' really is.<br />
<br />
And, of course, I wasn't anti-anything. I was only anti-everybody outside of Mormonism. And, while I didn't usually resort to ad hominem attacks of all the other religions, I did essentially tell people that they were wrong for believing what they did. And, I had all the reasons laid out for why they were wrong. Here's the short list;<br />
<br />
- They didn't have a mouthpiece for God that they believed was on the earth today to receive God's precious counsel for them - aka profit (spelling intentional). (No they just believed that God would communicate with them directly if He had something to say...silly rabbit)<br />
<br />
- They didn't have a cool story about how Joseph Smith got an answer to his prayer, which included Godly and angelic visitations and the restoration of God's REAL church on the earth. (No, they don't buy Joseph's story when they learn that it all came from a known con-man, whose story changed over the years, and whose motives were power and lots of sex)<br />
<br />
- They didn't have a true understanding of who God is and who God wants us to be. (No, they had their understanding which, truth be told, is equally valid and perhaps even more valid than my naive concept interpreted through rigid orthodoxy)<br />
<br />
- They didn't have additional scripture. The Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price represent proof that God must love Mormons more than everybody else. (No, they don't accept additional scripture...especially when that scripture is mostly a plagiarism of the Bible and the rest a fantasy about the early 19th century version of explaining where the American Indians came from)<br />
<br />
- They didn't have legitimate priesthood authority to exercise God's power. (No, they don't need some permission slip to believe that they can see God working in their lives)<br />
<br />
- They didn't have temples where eternally required ordinances can be performed for everyone living and dead. (No, they just have their plain old houses of worship where no one is excluded from coming and partaking because they haven't paid enough to the church. Again, the perception and teachings of the church are what form the need for these edifices to be only for the privileged [aka "worthy"] and the work that goes on in them. In fact, many find what goes on in the temple to be offensive when they find out that their dead relatives are being posthumously converted to Mormonism and the living are being pressured to go along with something that they aren't even allowed to know until after they make the commitment to proceed)<br />
<br />
No, outsiders to the Mormon faith don't have any of these things, so their beliefs must be fallen and in the dark. Too bad all those poor souls that have hopes and fears just like all of us can't be respected enough to be listened to for what they have to offer. Instead they are continually put down and criticized as inferior to the further light and knowledge contained in the teachings of the LDS church.<br />
<br />
Mormons really love missionary work alright...as long as that work isn't being performed on them. If that is the case they feel it OK to ostracize, censor and label you as someone who is an "Anti". Hmmm, this kind of makes all the other religions that put up with the antics of the LDS in their missionary efforts look very charitable, kind and forgiving of those who leave their faith for the lies of the Mormon church. How Christian of them.Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-7495015671090810072012-08-10T22:34:00.000-07:002012-08-10T22:34:13.925-07:00Letter to my LDS family and friends<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
To my LDS family and friends,</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am writing this letter to get a few things off my chest.
First of all, yes, I am a doubter. I have encountered some things that do not
make sense to me that I grew up being taught as fact from a very young age. You
see, I believed that when I was taught that the LDS church represented the
“true” church of God on the earth, that it was ACTUALLY the “TRUE” church of
God on the earth. I believed that this statement had EVERYTHING backing it up. However,
I don't even want to talk about that here. I want to talk about something else.
I want to talk about you.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You see, I believed the people that I grew up around, and
looked up to very much, in the church were sincerely striving, albeit
imperfectly, to live their lives according to the way Jesus taught people to
live. I believed they would love and show empathy for those who had struggles
in their lives. I believed that they would be the first ones to extend a hand
of fellowship and show love and concern for the downtrodden, the poor and, yes,
even the wicked that cursed and fought against them. I believed this because
this is what Jesus taught. I read the bible and tried to better understand how
Jesus would want me to live. I read the part where he said to love those that
hate you and spitefully use you. I read those words and I believed them. I
believed that those kinds of teachings of love and patience and kindness were,
in fact, the most rewarding teachings that I could hope to cultivate in myself.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
However, I also had to reconcile this with the other things I
was taught in the church. Things like people who are not members of the church
are missing out on so much in life or that people who leave the church only do
so because they are in Satan's grasp and only want to sin. That or they were
just offended and they are the ones that need to just get over themselves. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I think these teachings taught me to look at others in their
differences of opinion as wrong. I had the truth, I thought, so the truth I had
could cure all of their troubles. I could show these people love and concern
and empathy and, as long as I didn’t listen to them in their wicked and Satan
influenced manipulations, I could show that love to them and my testimony and
belief structure would survive. However, fully trying to live with this
knowledge meant that I sometimes had to ignore the really outspoken among this
group of people that were critical of the church and sometimes even remove all
communication with them if they seemed to push the issue...but, I felt
justified in this. I believed this was what God would want me to do. God would
want me to remain pure and un-defiled so that I could remain a worthy vessel for
His works to be manifest. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I believed that God’s love would somehow show through my
attempts to limit communication with these people and my attempts to show love
and compassion would ultimately be borne out in what I was doing by cutting off
all communication with these people. I believed that eventually God would show
them the error of their ways and hopefully they would eventually come to see
God’s truth. And, if I could be just a small instrument in bringing that to
pass, then all the better. Then I could justify what I had done and even feel
good about it. I used this way of thinking to simply abandon a lot of good
people and their influence and I am here to tell you that I regret this.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Of course I have always had to temper this way of thinking with
the desire to spread the good news of the gospel with all those that would
listen. This desire caused me to feel bad about all the doors that were slammed
in my face while I served my mission but, what I have only recently come to
realize is, perhaps that response to me and my message of “love” for them was
deserved in their opinion. Maybe they felt I deserved to be treated that way (slam
the door in my face) because I felt OK about treating others that way (or
telling them that I had the truth and they did not – no matter how much they
thought differently than I did). Maybe all the supposed “hatred” that I
perceived to be coming from all those outside my faith was merely a reflection
of the hatred I was already showing to those that did not agree with me.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I am here to tell you that this is not just an imagined
thought that I have had, it is very real. I have now seen it firsthand. I have
now been on the receiving end of some very mean and spiteful communication (not
to mention effectual disowning, abandonment and disregard) from people that I
dearly love and respect very much (even very close family and friends) because
I dared to publicly express my doubt about my faith and seek answers to some
very troubling questions. Unfortunately, it seems that the church I was brought
up in, and trusted as an absolutely reliable source of divine information, is
unable to effectively promote anything other than a stance that does nothing
but continue to encourage this kind of thinking. Family members and close
friends are still being disenfranchised, disowned and abandoned because they
dared to question the beliefs they have always been taught are true and
unquestionable.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This needs to stop.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I think this was the message that Dieter F. Uchtdorf was
attempting to convey at the last LDS General Conference. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Unfortunately, there are many who will hear that message
(and many more messages like them) and still cling to old ways of thinking.
While I cannot do anything but express my sincere love for these people, I just
hope that you are not one of them. It is profoundly unfortunate in my mind that
there are many who will not even get a chance to read this letter because they
have already put me out of their minds and lives forever. This makes me so sad.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All I can say now is that I still want to be your friend. I
still want to be regarded in the same warm and loving manner that you regard
your most loved family members. I hope that eventually forgiveness for the
perceived wrongs I have done in your mind will come. I have already forgiven
you for shunning me and believe I can honestly say that I hold no ill will
towards any of you. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
All that I ask is that you accept me for who I am and not
who you believe I should be. I don’t know if this is too much to ask, but I
hope that my request will be considered. I am open to having conversation. I
want to know so much and I am sorry if my questions are perceived as “anti” or
not in accordance with church teachings or standards. I am a human being and I
am trying to think on my own and make sure I am not being led astray. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Just like you, I imagine that feeling loved and accepted are
of the utmost desire to you. I am no different. Granted, I like attempting to
explore difficult issues and express difficult questions, but I am human
nonetheless. I care about what you think and I care about what you think of me.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I hope we can be friends again. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
For you who have not abandoned me, or cut me off, because of
my doubting heart, Thank You! You have shown true Christ-like love and
compassion and I appreciate it. I think those that have continued dialogue with
me, in spite of my questions and doubts, have realized that my questions are
not really born out of a desire to just be critical, but of genuine concern and
desire to know how things all fit together in the world. I have learned that my
criticism can be very pointy and sharp at times, but it is not because I am
possessed by the devil, it is because I have so much concern and sometimes feel
disappointment over not being able to find better explanations to my questions.
I also have the personal issue of not liking the idea of agreeing to disagree,
but am coming to realize that sometimes that is the only way friendships can be
maintained. I also think that those who have put up with me and my questions
have learned to recognize the need for agreeing to disagree in spite of my
dislike for it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Unfortunately, I do not believe my words here will have much
effect on those who have already chosen to cut me off and effectively disown me
or un-friend me on FaceBook or block my posts. My message here is geared
primarily towards those who have seen some of my recent posts and may have the
idea that they should un-friend me. I only hope my words here can do something
to cause you to reconsider. I just hope you will consider that actions taken to
un-friend me are seen as shunning and are hurtful. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you are going to
un-friend me, at least have the wherewithal to let me know what you disagree
with me about or what I have posted that has been perceived as attacking you or
your faith. Then I can work on being more considerate of those feelings in the
future. Again, I have no idea what impact my words may have here, but I suspect
they will have very little, if any, impact at all. I can only hope that my
attempt to express how I feel here may cause you to reconsider how you treat
others. I hope I can make some difference in making the world a more tolerant,
loving and accepting place for all of us. I hope this letter can be seen as a
small step in that direction.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Thank you for your love, patience and kindness.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sincerely,</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Facsimilogos</div>
<br />Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-5062994871026573212012-07-24T12:36:00.000-07:002012-07-24T12:36:00.823-07:00I've found a new church!I found a new church! I am so excited to tell you about it! It turns out to be the original church God established even before Adam and Eve. Here are the core tenets of my new church;<br />
<br />
We believe that we have the one true path of happiness in this life and the life to come after death.<br />
<br />
We believe that all other churches have lost things along the way of history and that only we have all the truths necessary (as revealed directly by God herself) to be able to get back and be able to dwell in God's presence again.<br />
<br />
We believe that the name of God is extremely important, but it is a knowledge that not everyone can actually handle with the appropriate amount of respect and care, so the actual name is reserved only for a very few on the earth.<br />
<br />
We believe that this life is a bag of tricks that makes absolutely no sense until we leave this life and can see the label on the outside of the bag.<br />
<br />
We believe that everyone can know the true sacred name of God, and that God will tell Her very elect Name to those who truly desire to receive it, which is the way to know the truth of the sacred name of God. The teachings of Ma'at say that all those who receive the sacred name of God will know Her name and therefore know the truth of Her church and teachings.<br />
<br />
We believe that everyone can make it to get back to Aarula (the proper name of forever life with the sacred name of God - abbreviated to SNOG - in the afterlife), however, there are a few conditions. These conditions include;
1. You must be a certified member of the society of the sacred name of God (SNOG)
2. You must have entered into the sacred hall of Ma'at to receive all the secret rituals of Aarula (they are secret because they need to be...if they fall into the hands of Seth - the most evil of all the enemies of God) then all would be lost. All cannot be lost!
3. You will be rewarded according to your level of devotion and faithfulness to the principles of Ma'at. The more devoted you are, the more reward you will receive in Aarula.
4. All others who do not choose to follow the path to Aarula will not receive happiness in this life or in the world to come.
5. You must pay 9% of your income to the brotherhood of Ma'at.
6. You must submit to the will of the sacred name of God as interpreted, and given to us, by the sisterhood of Ma'at.
We believe that some* (*likely many, actually, since the SNOG church only has a few members worldwide, but it is growing very rapidly for being the only true church on the face of the whole earth) will be cast off forever and never enjoy the happiness to be found in Aarula, but it must be this way because that is the will of the sacred name of God.<br />
<br />
We believe that goodness and benevolence are the true characteristics of the sacred name of God and we should constantly strive to obtain them both.<br />
<br />
We believe that all will have the opportunity, at some point, to learn the sacred name of God, however if they reject it they will be forever caught in a large black hole, where not even light can escape their fate.
I do hope that my family members will eventually see the light of Aarula and choose to join me in the hall of Ma'at someday. Sometimes I get sad when I think that there will be many who I will not get to spend forever in Aarula with, but I know that the sacred name of God will make it all worthwhile. I will likely be given a replacement family in Aarula that I will come to love just as much as my family here on earth...in time anyway. I will be so much happier than I am now, having to associate with so many unbelievers now.
If you have been called up and had revealed to you the sacred name of God, I would invite you to join me at the church of SNOG. I invite all to come and partake of the goodness that is found there. We meet once a week in the SNOG building downtown at 10am. I hope to see you there!Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-51410239878372760382012-07-20T12:31:00.000-07:002012-07-20T12:31:40.323-07:00Letter to my parentsHere is a copy of a letter that I found that I wrote to my parents back in May 2009. I never sent it to them because I had a discussion with them shortly after that pretty much went over most of the things in the letter. For your reading enjoyment here is my letter:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Dear Mom & Dad,</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I wanted to let you know what has been going on with me over
the past year. 3-4 years ago my co-worker (who is LDS) and I got into some
lengthy conversations about the church. He basically told me that he didn’t
believe in the church anymore and I tried to give him every response I could
muster to respond to his concerns. I thought I did pretty well and I remained
satisfied with the answers I had come up with to his questions and we ultimately
decided to agree to disagree. Well, about a year ago things started to bubble
up a little bit for me. On my own, I began formulating questions to things that
had been nagging me for some time. Of course, I had become very good at
ignoring or putting on the shelf things that were uncomfortable or that did not
add up for me. Until one Sunday I was pondering the pictures that had been
taken from the Egyptian papyri discovered and printed in the Book of Abraham. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I really sat and pondered those pictures and began to have doubts
that they were really representative of the life of Abraham as Joseph Smith had
represented. I began to wonder if they might actually have a different meaning.
I wondered if there was any other interpretation of the facsimiles and the
hieroglyphs contained in them that might go against what Joseph Smith had
taught or if he was accurate in his translation. Well, looking through the
illustrated book of Egyptian archeology we got for Christmas a few years back
(I think from you, actually) the same elements of the pictures in the Book of
Abraham have been found in other places in artifacts and what not. I also
learned that scholars are now able to read Egyptian with ease thanks to all the
historical work done, artifacts unearthed and the discovery of the Rosetta
stone back in 1799. What I found was that there was very little accuracy to the
translation that Joseph Smith presented in the Book of Abraham of the facsimiles.
This discovery, of course, led to questioning the authenticity of the text of
the Book of Abraham and to Joseph’s ability to translate altogether. The shadow
cast in my mind was very dark and very deep. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Needless to say, this question led me on a quest to find out
everything I could to formulate a better understanding of who Joseph Smith
really was and whether or not all of the foundational events in church history
could be called into question. Well, about a year later, I have ultimately
arrived at my answer.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I want to point out that, as you know, I do suffer from an
acute case of foot in mouth disease and I certainly do have a tendency to be deliberate
and hurtful with my words (as Mrs. Facsimilogos well knows) so I want to
mention that even though I would love to convince you of everything I have
discovered and try to spell it all out here that I will refrain from doing so.
I will refrain because such a work would require volumes to relay my findings,
notes, etc. (Not to mention addressing any specific questions or perspectives
that would come up as I went along). Instead I want to share with you my
feelings and hope that you will begin to understand where I am coming from and
that you will not think of me any differently because of a change in my
beliefs. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As you can imagine, my new understanding and perspective
places me in a very big bind. I am not sure what the future holds, but I know
that I am 100% dedicated to my children and to doing whatever it takes to make
their lives productive, comfortable and peaceful. I certainly could not see
myself out of their lives, nor do I wish to be.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Mrs. Facsimilogos and I do not agree on much of what I
believe as she is still very much a strong believer in the church. In fact, it
was a conversation with her that has led me to write this letter. You see, she
got so fed up with me and my questions one night a few days ago that she called
her parents to tell them what I was going through and to ask them for advice. I
figured it wasn’t fair that her parents should know where I am at and you not
know. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Anyway, my new beliefs cause me to be confronted with tough
decisions and to be torn in many directions. With our son’s baptism, he wants
me to do it…and I probably will do it, but I now find praying to be an empty, rhetorical
experience. I think my mind has been very powerful at helping me to believe
what I wanted to believe in the past, but now that I really want some objective
experience to latch onto, there is nothing but dead air. I will probably have a
hard time hiding my true feelings and will probably not be able to do the
expected “special” confirmation blessing, although in thinking about it, I
could probably say some nice things that would hopefully be helpful to my son,
but they probably wouldn’t fit in with the church’s party line. I may go ahead
and ask Mrs. Facsimilogos’ father to be voice for his confirmation, we’ll see. (I ended up confirming my son, but was painfully told later that it was not the blessing my son was "entitled" to)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I now struggle with the thought of whether or not to
continue to enforce the belief structure as laid out by the church (even though
I don’t believe it is 100% healthy) because it is a good moral foundation for
the kids or do I begin to introduce ideas of independent thought that would
move them towards non-reliance on the church for their identity. This is a
tough call…Hey, where is my parenting manual anyway? Of course, this question is
only for me to speculate on in my mind, since Mrs. Facsimilogos continues to
insist on bringing the kids up active in the church and I must continue to
support that.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Getting to where I am at was not easy and will continue to
present challenges; HOWEVER, I can honestly say that I am at peace and feel
renewed and refreshed in my conscience. The feeling is so exhilarating, yet also
troubling when confronted with the reality of what family and friends think
because of where it is that I have come from and was brought up with. This is
probably the most difficult part; however, most people in the church take
solace in just figuring it is a phase I am going through and that I will come
back eventually. I don’t see this as being the case, but I guess anything could
happen. On the other hand, I think it is unfortunate that this idea of the lost
sheep eventually coming back into the fold has been taught over the pulpit. The
arrogance of the leaders of the church and their viewpoint surrounding the
choices of others does not cease to astound me. In my opinion, people should be
encouraged to do what they feel is right for them (even if it is something
outside of the church) and not have to be condemned at every turn for
deciding their own happiness.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
This is where I am at; I go to sacrament meeting to be with
the family, but that is about it. I didn’t go for a while, but it was too much
for me to handle. I skip out of Sunday school and priesthood because I can’t
stand it (that and it is so boring and nobody wants to hear what I now think).
I won’t accept a calling (because I can’t in good conscience) and I don’t pay
tithing. Of course, it goes without saying that I don’t have a temple
recommend. I have been in to talk with the bishop so he knows where I am at,
but as far as helping me, he tried for a little bit, but then sort of gave up
on me telling me how he had a good friend who left the church to go be a
polygamous fundamentalist. He said the church is still good because of what it
does to keep kids from doing bad stuff later in life and that is essentially
why he still supports it. However, from what I have seen from our family,
church activity is no guarantee that kids will never do anything bad. In my
opinion, kids are going to do what they want to do and all I can do as a parent
is teach them right from wrong as best I can and trust that they will do the
right thing…that and continue to love them unconditionally, right? As far as
requesting to have my name removed from the church, I don’t see any point. I
don’t care if people from church contact me and I think it would probably be
the final nail in the coffin for my marriage if I did make that request. I also
continue to wear garments because it helps give Mrs. Facsimilogos something to
hang onto. Of course they are pretty worn out, so I am going to need to do
something about that one of these days.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
You may think that my confession here means that I don’t
want to talk about the church any further; however, nothing could be further
from the truth. My mind is more open now than it ever has been in the past. I
am just drawing conclusions based on my life’s experience and what I think I
know. I am open for discourse and would welcome any and all rebuttals to my
points. Of course, you should remember that I can be quite belligerent and
always think I am right so there’s that to deal with. I hope we can talk about
things going forward and I welcome any thoughts or questions you may have.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I hope this isn’t going to rock you to your core(s). I hope
it does not make you want to give up all hope in me and my ability to do the
right things. I am still that person, I just have an expanded view of the world
and I am taking it all in. I am still forming my viewpoints and learning new
things all the time. Unfortunately, it is true that the more I reject the
teachings of the church the more I see error and fallibility in the things that
are taught. Don’t get me wrong, the church is filled with really good people
that I really admire, I just wish so much that more people could open their
eyes and see what I now see. I will openly condemn any organization that
teaches obedience to a hierarchy over independent thought and individual
accountability. Boyd K. Packer taught in an infamous address that there are
things from the church’s history that, while they may be true, are not very
useful. I reject the notion that my exposure to events from church history
necessitates being screened and edited until they become faith promoting and
useful. The result is lies that are intended to deceive and increase the power
and influence of the church. As Gordon B. Hinckley said, it is either all true
or all false, there is no middle ground. I accept that and have pretty much
concluded it is all based on the ideas of men…granted they may be considered by
many to be some pretty good ideas, but they are the ideas of men nevertheless.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I’ll close by telling you that I am sorry to be telling you
all of this, but I think it is better to get it out in the open instead of
continuing to allude to it all the time when we get together. Please forgive me
and don’t hesitate to talk to me. I am still very open to seeing the error of
my ways. Thanks in advance for your patience and any advice you can offer. I
would really value your feedback.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I hope things find you well. Thanks for your love. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Most Sincerely,</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Facsimilogos</div>Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-71670430136848302982012-07-03T16:18:00.000-07:002012-07-03T16:30:03.513-07:00Is religion a pernicious evil?Sometimes people marvel at my current view of religion. They think I am too hard on it. That it deserves to be protected and people deserve to have their right to worship how they choose be protected at all costs. They feel I don't have any right to express my general disdain for the whole idea of belief in God, let alone the absurdity of it. Unfortunately, religious folks can't get on me too hard because they quickly realize that the same protection afforded in the United States that allows them freedom of religion simultaneously allows me to express my criticism of that same religion. But what continually amazes me is that, rather than engage in a courteous discourse over the merits of their beliefs over mine, or vice-verse, they quickly become offended by what I am saying and they take their ball and go home. They just would rather not talk about it apparently.<br />
<br />
So what is it about religion that causes such angst among its followers, that they don't even want to talk about so much of it (or have it challenged in any way - especially ways that rely on evidence and science rather than faith) without taking offense? It is as if I slap them in the face when I say I don't think God exists. It is like this big deal that people take so personally...so much so that they would rather sever relationships (even family or close personal friendships) than talk about the issues in any kind of meaningful way. If you don't believe that this is true, try finding a well populated group of religious people (in person or on the internet - Facebook groups are a phenomenal place to witness this) and then announce that you think they are nuts, and then tell them why. (I tried this on a Facebook group that was all about reading the Book of Mormon again. I wasn't even too in your face rude, I just mentioned that the actual intent behind Joseph Smith's letter containing the quote about happiness being the object and design of our existence - that it was written to Nancy Rigdon to convince her to become another of Joseph's plural wives - was an attempt more to coerce and seduce and not so much to actually instruct on the topic of happiness and obedience. My comment was deleted from the page in very short order). Some few respondents may actually attempt to convert you into their way of thinking, or tolerate your comments for a bit, but what will generally happen is you will either be censored pretty quickly and shut out of the group or essentially told to go away (and some will not be very nice about it, either).<br />
<br />
Apparently many religious people are convinced that there is a real entity known as the devil who is attempting to persuade them at every turn and they must be vigilant to avoid his enticements at all costs. And, as I am presumed to be one of the devils' followers, they feel more than justified telling me to get behind them, or censor me, at every opportunity. However, some have a more softened view towards others not of their faith tradition and they allow them to have their differing beliefs - and even maintain close relationships - even if they maintain their disagreement over their faith preferences.<br />
<br />
This leads me to my question; is religion the source of such obstinate behavior in people and, if it is, does it deserve to be protected or, at the very least, derided and thrown down at every opportunity?<br />
<br />
This is a difficult question. The first part is not that difficult. I don't think it is too big a stretch to say that religious teachings are, in fact, the source of the behavior that inclines people to censor, ignore, belittle or attack those who express beliefs that differ from their own. Of course, they feel justified in this behavior because they feel they are being attacked themselves. Which is interesting, because what religious people can't seem to grasp is that an attack on the merits of an ideology or philosophy or way of viewing the world is not an attack on them personally. However, they tend to take it very personally. It is like if I go around believing that it is OK to drink bleach, as long as I do so in very limited quantities, and someone comes along and says they have evidence that says that everyone who does drink bleach, even in limited quantities, ended up dying as a result of that behavior. If I didn't have a very good reason for drinking bleach in the first place, I might be inclined to listen and consider what they were saying. If it were possible that what I was doing was life threatening, I would think that I would even stop doing it until I could do further research into the merits of drinking versus not drinking bleach.<br />
<br />
Of course, if my reason for drinking bleach were not that compelling (let's just say, I accidentally tasted some one time and later I felt better and I attributed feeling better to having tasted the bleach). The evidence for the effectiveness of drinking bleach on my overall health and well being is purely, and weakly, circumstantial. If I find much overwhelming evidence to indicate that drinking bleach is not a good idea at all, I would very likely cease the practice and abandon the idea.<br />
<br />
But, here is where the question becomes more difficult; what is my response if a religious leader (who claimed to be acting and speaking under God's unquestionable authority at the time) says that God says I need to drink bleach, in very small quantities, at least once a week? Then what is my response, when someone says they don't think it is such a good idea? I tell them they don't have enough faith, that they are the devil sent to tempt me and that the authority figure I believe told me that evil designing persons would come to me and try to get me to question, or even abandon, my faith. In short, I am much less inclined to consider what that person is saying if I feel they are actively questioning, or attempting to dissuade me from, my closely held religious beliefs. Why is this? Why is it that one who claims, or is presumed, to have some authority (which person may actually be nuts, by the way), and happens to have some followers, is trusted above all others that happen to disagree with said leader? Why are we so gullible that way? Even when there is a very good mountain of evidence to disprove said beliefs?<br />
<br />
So this leads to the next part of my question; should we actively fight against those who stand in support of religious institutions, even if maintaining that belief does not do bodily harm to those involved? If it can be shown that absolutely no harm is being done to individuals who maintain belief in some religion, then, sure, I think it is OK to leave them be and let them have their belief. However, I really don't think it is possible to have religion and NOT have some harm be done at some point. Now, it may not be bodily harm (not everybody gets slapped in the face like I was for expressing my contrarian views. I was slapped twice by women very close to me for daring to question the tenets of the LDS church), but it is most definitely psychological or emotional harm. Of course, since religious people have stopped reading my blog a long time ago I can outline here the emotional and psychological harm that I think was done to me as a result of believing and attempting to closely adhere to the LDS faith (the reason I preface this comment by saying that religious people have stopped reading my blog is because I worry that religious people will claim that I was damaged even before I believed, or that I am making it all up or some such nonsense).<br />
<br />
I think I was harmed because I was taught to continually judge my behavior as being in line or not in line with the teachings of the church. Of course, judging my own behavior is fine if it could just stay there, but it did not. I followed the natural course of looking at others and the behaviors they engaged in. If I saw that they were not engaging in the same behavior I was taught to judge in myself as in line or not in line with the teachings of the church, I looked down on them. I may have felt pity for them or some level of remorse or sadness, but I did feel something. It is hard for believers, that I talk to anyway, to acknowledge that this does in fact happen, but I know it does, it can't help but not happen because we are human and must interact with others in the course of living out our lives. And, if you are absolutely convinced that you have the answers to how to live your life in happiness, you cannot help but see others, who do not live according to your same standard, as being deficient in some way. This deficiency in others is borne out in different ways by different people. I know I avoided approaching or talking to people who I perceived to have different standards than me. And I quickly learned that even people in my same faith sometimes engaged in behavior that was not in line with what I was taught. I felt really sorry for these people because they had the "truth" and still chose to ignore it to some degree. I was inclined to believe that they would suffer a punishment in the hereafter (or even to some extent in the here and now) that was greater than those who never had the truth to begin with. So, basically, my emotional and psychological abilities to interact with others in a genuine, and non judgmental way, was essentially stunted because of my religious upbringing.<br />
<br />
If we consider all the affects of my judgmentalism towards others, the harm done to them increases. For example, what if I, as a believer, encounter that my child no longer believes as I do? While I will see them as less in my eyes (and may even decide to treat them differently because of this difference of beliefs) this will certainly have an affect on the child. They will be told repeatedly by me that they do not have the ability to make such a determination. However, if they get older and maintain their view, I may decide to attempt to make them feel guilty for their beliefs. If I see behavior that is not in line with my beliefs, I may decide to treat them differently than I would another child who believes...even though they may engage in the same behavior! I will tell the child that believes as I do that such behavior is not becoming a person who believes as we do, while I might tell the child that does not believe as I do that there is no hope for them.<br />
<br />
Now, just imagine how the circumstances and impact can dramatically change if differences such as sexual preference and gender become the issue for the child. In the LDS church sexual preference is considered to be absolutely heterosexual, and God-given, and if you deviate from that in any of your behavior, you are sinning and are not worthy of God's blessings. Even though science has made a study of the question of innate homosexuality and determined that it is not able to be changed, just potentially ignored if the will of the person is strong enough. But this does not lead to happiness for the individual...it leads to pain and difficulty.<br />
<br />
The other question is of gender. If I have a daughter who says that she doesn't think her goal should be to become a wife and mother (to as many children as she is financially or emotionally able to support), what should my response be? To most people, not of religious upbringing, the answer is pretty obvious, you should support her in her goals and dreams regardless of your disagreement with them. However, in the church, gender roles and identity are very inflexible. Men have the priesthood (and therefore the authority to preside and have the final say in making decisions) where the women in the church are taught, in no uncertain terms, to subjugate themselves to priesthood holders and recognize their authority. Women are taught that their worth is very closely tied to their chastity and obedience to priesthood leaders. So what kind of damage does this cause? I don't really know since I was always a male and got to be the one exercising authority over the females. But I have heard it is very difficult for some. Some women do not appreciate being placed in a box of expected behavior or sense of worth, from my understanding, and I believe them.<br />
<br />
These things, I believe, cause emotional and psychological harm to others that are under the care of religious people and so I think the answer to the last part of my question is, yes, since religious belief does in fact cause emotional and psychological harm it should be brought down in its influence. This is the answer that some of us contrarians have arrived at and this is why we continue to make efforts to challenge religious people in their beliefs or engage in discourse. It is not, as the persecution complex laden religious would have you believe, a matter of those that leave the church not being able to leave it alone. It is because we see harm being done and we don't think it's right.<br />
<br />
One thing I saw recently that I really like was a continuum for cults. It was a graphic as follows:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8nzELZExf12zxX-yRDz5Vtgs3ltEiZNoZVcW3uTbawMW4E9OUgeCo9kGCEuVXG98CfjxZNFf0z9hN4W89fJK57N2QR3Up4EggSgEJrM8cctXVIxC6kjY4tsvupd4I_WjKN6hFgEHGHDx1/s1600/cultContinuum.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="153" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8nzELZExf12zxX-yRDz5Vtgs3ltEiZNoZVcW3uTbawMW4E9OUgeCo9kGCEuVXG98CfjxZNFf0z9hN4W89fJK57N2QR3Up4EggSgEJrM8cctXVIxC6kjY4tsvupd4I_WjKN6hFgEHGHDx1/s320/cultContinuum.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
The LDS church falls about where the finger is pointing. This is why people want to challenge LDS in their beliefs...because they are not just weird and not at all harmful or dangerous, they are in the yellow zone where people are hurt and get damaged emotionally and psychologically. This is real harm that many find difficult to continue to support. Not only that, but they feel a real impact from the way they are treated by those within the church. We cannot ignore these feelings. We cannot just censor them. Their thoughts and feelings are real and someday those that promote such things will hopefully come to realize what affect their behavior truly has on others. I hope it comes soon.Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-88103508445928163542012-06-06T18:46:00.000-07:002012-06-06T18:46:00.075-07:00Why am I sad?Sometimes I feel very sad. I feel sad because it is so difficult for my family members to relate to how I feel about the church now. I don't feel listened to any more. I don't feel like the people that I care about the most are really interested in what I think about things any more. I feel like my loved ones want to just put me in a box and ship me off somewhere until I see things the way I used to. It saddens me that I feel this way. It makes me even more sad to think that, if people that I care about read what I am saying here, I think they might revel in my sadness and see it as punishment for me not believing as they do any more. I don't understand why people who claim to be followers of a man, whose primary teaching was to love everyone - especially the outcasts and dregs of society, choose to be so cruel in their application of those teachings. Of course, what I don't know is if they are even able to see the sadness they have conjured in me. If they don't even see it, shouldn't I be able to forgive them for it?<br />
<br />
I have really tried to help my family understand why I feel the way I do. However, when I try to make the attempts, I feel like barriers go up and a defensive posture is assumed. Why can't people try to understand me without assuming I am going to personally attack them? I have been told that I just need to get over feeling this way, and I have often asked myself why it is so difficult for me to do so. Could it be that the sadness and the defensive posturing is all originating from me? That people truly don't care what I think enough to burden themselves with putting me out to pasture? I suppose this is possible. I suppose I make some of these things out to be more serious and pronounced than they actually are. So then I have to ask myself, why this is? Why is it that I am so dead serious about wanting to explain my current stance on the existence of God or what I feel are deceptions put forth by the church? I guess part of it is because I want to be listened to. I want to be heard and understood. I want to feel the way I used to feel when I was the spiritual leader in my home and everyone hung on my every word as I pronounced the veracity of things that I now sincerely doubt were ever there in the first place. However, maybe there is something more.<br />
<br />
I think the reason these things are, and have been, so vitally important for me to understand and relate to others is because I have been taught that they ARE JUST SO VITALLY IMPORTANT! After all, if there IS life after death and, if our station in that life after death is PRIMARILY determined by what we believe, and do, during this life here on earth, then this life is pretty important indeed! That idea is what motivated me for so long. I figured that if my ETERNAL existence was going to be SO heavily weighted by what I do here and now, then, by golly, I had BETTER do my BEST! If I didn't do my best, my soul would be tormented for ETERNITY by all of my shortcomings. All the home teaching I didn't do, all the missed opportunities to attend the temple, all the priesthood sessions of general conference that I missed would all haunt me ETERNALLY! I would be so filled with regret...which would be further enhanced by the knowledge of what I could have had, if I had been more valiant, that my misery will know no end. Who wants to be miserable forever? I certainly did not.<br />
<br />
So, now I am at a place where I have given up on that thinking. I think I needed to give this thinking up for my sanity. To relieve myself of all the guilt I could easily pile up on myself for not doing EVERYTHING I was taught that was essential for obtaining everlasting life with God the Father in His celestial glory. However, even though I think I have given up on that thinking, I still have to wonder if I actually have? The question of the existence of God and whether or not God has ONE true church, that He fully endorses in place upon the earth today, is still a very important question to me. Is it possible that I have maintained my absolute thinking about the importance of this question and just moved my position from one of belief to one of non-belief? To be honest, now the question of the existence of God (and the origination of life and all of the attendant questions that seem to follow from it) is not important to me any more, but the need to be understood and be correct about it IS still immensely important to me!<br />
<br />
If I had to guess, I would say that this is likely the reason that I would classify myself as more atheist than agnostic, or that I don't identify with the sentiment of being spiritual but not religious, now. I am not concerned with spirituality because I cannot sufficiently identify with it in terms that can be easily understood by everyone. We all have had differing experiences with spirituality and, when we attempt to describe those experiences to others, to me, they come across sounding more like bragging than anything that can be mutually beneficial. I cannot escape this thought now. Whenever someone says to me that they had a spiritual or moving experience it grates on my nerves because I cannot help but think what the consequences of that experience being real (in the context of my religious upbringing) must be. I am not irritated because they had the experience, I am irritated because of the fact that this person is essentially reminding me of everything that I am not any more. If, in fact, their spiritual experience is valid, and is actually from God, then that means that my previous thoughts about the ramifications of such things must also be valid to them and I am left to wonder how screwed up that person thinks I will be in the afterlife. After all, I am not active in church, and I don't do any of the stuff the church teaches is essential for eternal life (i.e. all that enduring to the end stuff). How can they not see me as some sort of heretic? At the very least as someone who will be relegated to a lower kingdom of glory where they may, at some point, decide to grace me with their presence every once in a while. Why? So they can remind me how much more glorious and better their eternal residence is than mine? How can people feel good about teachings that have built in mechanisms for looking down on others who do not conform?<br />
<br />
How did I decide to devotedly follow such teachings for so long without paying any attention to what affect my beliefs might have on others that disagree with me? How could I have been so self centered? I feel really bad about that, but I wonder how it happened? I mean, when I was on my mission and talking to people who adamantly disagreed with what I believed, not because they simply didn't know what I believed, but even if they knew what I believed and yet still chose to deny it was true, how did I deal with that? I think I just concluded in my mind that, even though they claimed that they had some idea about what I believed, they must not actually know what I did. My knowledge was always superior to theirs...unless, of course, they agreed with me...then their knowledge would likely exceed my own, that is, if they seemed to know what they were talking about and it was in line with the teachings of the church as I understood them. Don't get me wrong, I met a bunch of people that I would consider totally wacky, even in the church, that now I ask myself what could have possibly compelled me to feel good about the fact that we would be spending eternity together?<br />
<br />
I think something that might help in answering my question is something I have learned about human behavior. We tend to agree with, sympathize with and look up to people that we either associate with or have things in common with. I know out in the mission field I could tell how relieved I felt to be in the company of members versus non-members of the church. With non-members I had to make sure my words and actions were at their most impressive to make a good impression and get them to agree with me and my beliefs and eventually join me at church. However, with members, I could relax, enjoy the food, the company and not be worried that my behavior might reflect poorly on the church. I felt secure with those that I had the church in common with. It is definitely true that we feel more at ease and comfortable around those that we share some bond with. In social settings where both members of the church and non-members are present, the members will tend to congregate together since they share a bond that seems to transcend the other purpose of the gathering. The church creates a bond in people that is immediate and larger in scope than anything else. Of course, this tendency has been used to great effect in Utah where pyramid schemes and multilevel marketing tends to dominate the landscape. But, what is it about the church that readily brings people together that other groups seem to lack? I'm sure a book could be written to answer that question (or I'm sure there already has been one written).<br />
<br />
My point in saying all of this is that I feel that I have now lost this bond with my family. Even though I haven't resigned from the church, I am a disaffected, inactive member of the church, who can actually be somewhat hostile towards members of the church (well, not really to most ward members, but I think I come across that way to my family quite a bit) when talking about things that are church related. So why am I so hostile? Because I know the perceived benefits that can be enjoyed when one is "in" the group and I am no longer really able to be considered "in" the group. I am now an outsider. Again, maybe this is all just going on in my head and I just need to not worry so much about it. But that response just feels wrong to me. I know how I felt towards non-members as a believer and I can't help but think that others must feel the same way I did...even if it isn't a conscious or deliberate sentiment towards me, I know it is there. As much as everyone wants to deny it or pretend it is not real, it is real because I have experienced it first hand.<br />
<br />
So how did I really see people who didn't believe as I did? I saw them as outsiders. I saw them as ignorant and missing out on what I got to enjoy. I had the truth and the truth was going to bring me eternal happiness that others could only dream of. How naive I was! When I rejected these notions of an afterlife of judgment, misery and glory, I began to see everyone as valuable. Everyone has, not only a contribution, but importance and worth, regardless of their conformity to the church. Not because they are divine in nature, but because they are human and have feelings just like me. They want to belong to something bigger than themselves, just like I do. They are all relevant and I now feel that they all should be listened to and trusted for their unique experience. When people say that they have been hurt by church policies, I will now choose to believe them. And instead of asking how they can better be marginalized to conform to the infallible policies of the church, I might actually decide to denounce those policies in favor of more tolerance and trust of people who may disagree with leaders of the church. And, right now, I don't see how it is possible for me to stay in the church and maintain this view.<br />
<br />
So, maybe I have been taught to be an absolutist from my youth, and maybe I still am in the way I see the world, but this is who I am and how I think. If I am going to change from it, I need some help. But, I'm pretty sure that the way I thought about things as a believing member of the church, or trying to get me to go back to that way of thinking, is not going to get me the help that I need. I am looking for a better way. I hope I get there, for my sake and for the sake of my loved ones.<br />
<br />
<br />Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-59297575645475873412012-05-07T15:20:00.001-07:002012-05-07T15:28:25.813-07:00When does life begin?I just had to point something out. While the official doctrine of the LDS church is pretty silent on the matter, the implied teaching is that the spirit enters the body at around the time of conception. For this reason, it is assumed that, the church highly discourages abortion at any point in a pregnancy. This reasoning would be in line with a belief that the aborted fetus represents a spirit child of God that is having their life on earth terminated prematurely - which is why we would assume having an abortion is considered a sin. Aside from the obvious defect with the idea that any person aborting a fetus, or not, could potentially be thwarting the will of God, the question in my mind is; does an unborn fetus represent a living soul, or child of God, or not? If it does, then it would make sense that pregnancy would be a very important event regardless of whether or not a baby is born.<br />
<br />
Additionally, when we consider the importance placed by the church on keeping records of God's children born into the church, we should find that the church would emphasize the importance of retaining a record of all children conceived but not ever living to be born as needed to be sealed to parents. However, this is not the case. The only time a record of a child is created in the records of the church (so that they can have their work of the sealing ordinance done in the temple - obviously, only sealings to parents are performed for children under 8, instead of all of the other saving ordinances, because we are taught that children under 8 are automatically saved in the Celestial kingdom) is when a baby is born and it takes at least one breath (or not stillborn).<br />
<br />
Why the disparity of treatment for these children who are miscarried or stillborn? Are they just not as important as those that take a breath outside the womb? Why doesn't the church keep a record of them, let alone attempt to seal these children to parents?<br />
<br />
The church cannot say it is because it is inconvenient to keep or find such records since it expects people to go to great lengths to extract family records which surely represents a very large inconvenience to those performing family history traces.<br />
<br />
I just feel sad for all those poor spirit children who will be orphaned in the eternities because no record was kept for them and no work was performed for them to be sealed to their parents. Poor little ones indeed. I hope the church fixes this policy soon.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.lds.org/manual/members-guide-to-temple-and-family-history-work/chapter-7-providing-temple-ordinances?lang=eng" target="_blank">Guidelines that exclude stillborn children from family history and temple work is found on LDS.org here (under heading:
"Determining What Ordinances to Perform").</a>Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-1996571579047889432012-04-30T11:14:00.000-07:002012-04-30T16:14:58.091-07:00Inherent worth and achievementI just finished reading a book that has had a profound impact on my thinking about human behavior. The book is called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909">"Mistakes were made, but not by me"</a> by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. Since I am thinking about it, I decided to contribute some of my thoughts in response to the last chapter of the book. This chapter proposes to introduce a possible idea about how we as a society can get to a place where we can see greater achievement and less cognitive dissonance (i.e. excuses and self-justification) surrounding the bad decisions we make. You see, I think this is a pretty big problem. That is, I believe there is a general state of apathy among people regarding individual achievement in our society, because of our self-justification in defense of our bad behavior, and our beliefs may only be contributing to the problems we are facing. First let me begin by attempting to outline some of the problems as I see them.<br />
<br />
We are a society (here in America, at least, and possibly in much of western society) that values achievement, but somehow believes that doing so must come with a minimum of mistakes. We tend to regard mistakes as bad. We oftentimes choose to see bad behavior (and the mistakes that invariably result) as a symptom of a problem with our soul. Many of us are taught, through our beliefs or maybe even intuition to some degree, that we are either inherently good or inherently bad. And while the teaching that we are inherently bad is not overt, it may be felt by those who do not receive the message as often or as loud that they are inherently favored. We attempt to condition our children in the belief that they have worth that is inherent due to their very nature. The evidence used to support this belief is the good behavior or favorable disposition of the child pointed out by parents and teachers.<br />
<br />
This paradigm is especially pronounced in Mormonism where children are taught from a very early age that they are of infinite worth not because of anything they did or did not do (at least in the here and now), but simply because of who they are. Children are not only a gift from God, but they are considered gifted by God with talents and worth that is innate in them. They are further taught that the evidence for this belief is the fact that they are here. Because in Mormonism, the belief is that the people here on Earth are the one's that chose wisely to follow Jesus and the plan presented by Him. The polarization between us and "the others" (those wicked spirits that chose to follow Satan or really anybody that appears to be choosing to follow Satan while here on Earth) begins when we were told that, while we chose wisely to come to Earth, there was an entire third of the hosts of heaven who did not choose wisely as we did. We are further told that we are children of God, even God's in embryo, and that God didn't make junk. We were then told that our life here on Earth is designed to allow God to test our worth to determine if we can live up to His expectations for us. This further re-enforces the idea that mistakes are bad and to be avoided at all costs. If we make mistakes, our entire eternal glory/reward/life with God and our family may be in jeopardy.<br />
<br />
I believe this conditioning may be damaging because if a child begins to believe that they have greatness inherent in their being (as many children honestly believe after being taught this as gospel so convincingly by their parents and teachers - I know I did) and that mistakes are something to be avoided at all costs (which seems to be the emphasis of the now correlated, authoritarian LDS church) this can result in a great amount of shame (as opposed to guilt, since guilt is focused on the mistake and shame is focused on the worth of the individual). This shame can result in a great downward spiral of shame that becomes more pronounced and damaging when further mistakes are invariably made. The reason for this is because once a child believes that they are not of inherent worth, their very nature and identity is questioned. I think children are better at questioning their worth than questioning the badness of their behavior.<br />
<br />
Thank goodness that at least a concept of a savior to redeem people from the shame they feel is taught. However, this teaching leads to further dependence on the organization that is purported to represent the dictates/demands of the "savior" in order to receive forgiveness. Redemption from the shame cannot ever come fully, however, because of teachings that pile on the damnation and judgment (potentially to the level of compounding the effect - which is the shame - of all of the past mistakes if repentance is not thorough or complete to the leaders' satisfaction) once the same mistake is repeated. This can also lead to a general state of apathy regarding achievement. The reason for this is due to the following line of thinking;<br />
<br />
I am of inherent worth (because my parents and teachers have told me so)<br />
<br />
I know I made a mistake (bad choice or I feel bad)<br />
<br />
Since I made a mistake, I must not really be of inherent worth but, rather, my inherent worth is now tainted and not really the case. I am inherently bad.<br />
<br />
Since I am inherently bad, what is the point of even trying to be good anymore. I may as well just give up since I can never live up to the expectations of who people say I am.<br />
<br />
<br />
The solution to the problem of focusing on inherent worth of individuals and the potential damage of the shame spiral that is likely to result, is either to focus on the savior as redeemer or to focus on the ability of everyone to overcome mistakes through learning and experience.<br />
<br />
The difficulty I have with focusing on the savior as redeemer is the lack of personal responsibility for dealing with the consequences of one's mistakes. It is not considered a valid teaching in our society that others should pay for the consequences of our individual mistakes, so why do we consider it a valid teaching in religion? There should be an alternative to the idea of a savior as redeemer for those who see the problem with a reliance on this idea and therefore reject it on the grounds that it does not fit with their experience in all other aspects of life.<br />
<br />
If the message we teach to children is one of, "Hey, everybody makes mistakes, it's how we learn and grow." and that mistakes are even a necessary part of learning and getting better, the line of thinking is instead;<br />
<br />
I am going to make mistakes, it is how I learn and become better<br />
<br />
I know I made a mistake, I just learned what not to do.<br />
<br />
We all make mistakes and I am not a bad person because I made a mistake. Hopefully I can learn from this experience and remember the bad result the next time a similar situation is encountered.<br />
<br />
I think this is a much healthier outlook and should lead to a lack of apathy surrounding growth in people and their potential. The support for this idea comes from the fact that the lowest math scores by students in Japan are higher than the highest math scores here in the United States. Psychologists wanted to try and find out why this is the case so they went to Japan to observe students there. What they found was that students there encourage each other because they believe that no matter who you are, if you work hard enough, you can achieve mastery of even the most difficult problems. They value mistakes and see them as an essential part of the learning process. Here in the U.S. I think we believe that success in math is a talent or something that is a gift from God and therefore that people either have it or they don't. When failure is encountered, we are much more likely to think that we are just not gifted in that area and we then have a built in excuse for giving up on it.<br />
<br />
Of course, I cannot say where this mindset, of valuing mistakes as part of the learning process, comes from. Whether it is due to cultural or religious influence in the society in Japan, I cannot say. What I can say is that I believe this simple shift in thinking about our worth and abilities could go a long way towards solving the problem of apathy in individuals concerning their abilities to succeed.<br />
<br />
I also realize that this shift in thinking may be more difficult in light of the theology of Christianity, especially as taught in the LDS church. I'm not sure how LDS can even desire to make a shift in thinking in this regard since there is such a built in arrogance towards those outside their circle of influence. They would likely receive such advice as coming from "outside" their revelatory chain of command or from "the world" and immediately dismiss such things as not valuable. However, even if the idea could be received somehow, there is an immense amount fear towards what might happen if children make serious mistakes in judgment. While these kinds of mistakes are possible, if the negative consequences of such actions could be highlighted in a constructive way and seen as a lesson learned rather than something that requires a severe confession and repentance process (which leads to further embarrassment and re-enforcement of the idea that inherent worth has been tainted) I think it could be more productive.<br />
<br />
There is some good news, though. The good news is that children are incredibly resilient and have been shown to be able to overcome teachings that lead to undue shame. Children who experience trauma at young ages do go on to mostly live happy and productive lives. The other good news is that the LDS church does seem to be distancing itself from teachings that emphasize that young people today are more valiant (or were more valiant in the pre-existence), and therefore of inherently more worth, than those of previous generations (or races of people).<br />
<br />
My fear, however, is that if belief in LDS teachings of inherent worth continues to be emphasized, it may lead to a place where ones outlook on life becomes somewhat twisted. I think this happened to me. I'm not sure exactly how to describe it, but I do feel that my life outlook became somewhat warped. Warped because I was somehow able to maintain a belief in my inherent worth even while I would engage in behaviors that I knew to be bad and then somehow believe that I could minimize the effect the behavior had on me. I did this by believing that if I could keep the bad behavior a secret it really would not catch up with me or have an effect on my worth. I was only fooling myself. I simply did whatever I had to to maintain the belief that I was special and not capable of being "really" bad. I think it is true that as adults we tend to believe that we never do anything wrong. We judge ourselves by our best intentions and others by their worst behavior. It is through admitting and acknowledging that we have made a mistake (and believing it is OK because we are learning) that we are able to eventually overcome the cognitive dissonance that leads to justifying bad or foolish behavior. It is not until we can do this that the damage cognitive dissonance causes can be fully overcome.<br />
<br />
Essentially, to get what I am saying here we need to further define cognitive dissonance as I am using it above. Cognitive dissonance describes a state that occurs in our mind when we hold two competing ideas that cannot both be true. In my post here this would be 1. the belief that a person is of inherent worth and 2. the knowledge that they have done something wrong. In order to maintain consonance (consistency or integrity) our mind will cling to the belief that is more painful to abandon. In this case, we are assuming that it is more painful to abandon the idea that I have done something wrong so the belief that one is of inherent worth is abandoned and the sinful nature of the individual is embraced. This leads to the shame that I described, which can turn into a self perpetuating shame spiral.<br />
<br />
What happened to me in this example is that I embraced the belief that I was of inherent worth and sought to minimize the fact that I had done something wrong. I justified my behavior by thinking that it just wasn't that bad. I believed that I could keep it a secret or that it was understandable considering my circumstances. While I continue to be very good at justifying my behavior as congruent with someone who is superior to others and of inherent worth, my loss of belief has caused me to have to reevaluate this idea. I no longer see myself as superior to anyone outside of the LDS church, however, I do now see myself as being superior to those who maintain belief in LDS theology. This is something I have only recently begun to realize and need to be continually mindful of. I suppose it would be accurate to say that I have an arrogance toward those who continue to believe in God and religion which is likely not healthy. I hope that this could be considered a positive first step in working to overcome this attitude. As I come to better understand how cognitive dissonance, and the effect of thinking about my behavior has on my outlook and beliefs, I hope that I can arrive at a place of enlightenment and transcendence. Apparently I still have a long way to go.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Tahoma","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt;"></span>Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-13688360691444905332012-04-23T10:12:00.000-07:002012-04-23T13:16:29.297-07:00Brain damageI think I have finally figured out why I seem to be so disadvantaged when it comes to being able to feel the spirit and retrieve my testimony of the existence of God, Jesus, Satan (Isn't it interesting that if you accept the reality of God and Jesus that you must also accept the reality of Satan? Satan is scary.) and the truthiness of the LDS church as the only "true" church on the face of the whole earth (meaning all the other churches on the face of the earth are lacking in some way in the truth department, apparently). I have come to one overwhelming and inescapable conclusion; I must be brain damaged. This is the only logical conclusion I can arrive at based on the facts I have in my possession. Here is my train of thought on this;<br />
<br />
Fact 1: I have no idea if I have felt the influence of the spirit in my life, let alone what this experience would actually be like were I to have it. The additional problem with this is that even if I were feeling the spirit as I have been told many times throughout my life that I would (or should be) no one seems to be able to tell me exactly at what moment I have actually felt the spirit so that I can identify the experience for future reference. Because it is certainly my experience that, while some people claim to have felt the influence of the "spirit" during some occasion, others haven't felt anything at all. I am now the one who doesn't feel anything at all when others claim to have felt the "spirit". Of course, this whole concept of "feeling" the "spirit" begs the question of which "spirit" they are feeling, since there are supposedly a whole host of "spirits" out there that are attempting to influence our thoughts at any given moment all the time.<br />
<br />
Fact 2: The brain is the center of emotional activity and "feelings" in people. Since all feelings I have are the result of firing synapses and chemical and electrical activity in my brain, my inability to "feel" the spirit must be the result of a lack of connection somewhere in my brain or due to a part of my brain that is malfunctioning in some way.<br />
<br />
Therefore: I must have brain damage.<br />
<br />
It's a miracle! I have finally figured this all out! Now I have a great response when people inquire about me not going to church, or ask why I don't believe, I have a simple and concise response, "Oh, I have brain damage that makes it so I can't feel the spirit or gain a testimony."<br />
<br />
This makes me wonder how extensive the damage really is for me and if I should have it checked out by a doctor who specializes in determining such things. I wonder if such a doctor exists and what they would tell me? Should I be worried? I mean, I seem to be able to function in life OK. I am able to operate an automobile to travel long distances. I can carry on somewhat coherent and logical conversations with other people. I can hold down a job and complete most of the duties I have there. I can walk and talk and chew gum at the same time. Of course there is this annoying habit I have of looking at things from the opposite perspective all the time, maybe that is the clear indicator of my brain damage. Hopefully people will understand and forgive my defect. I can only hope so.Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-26098431746703780022012-04-06T16:22:00.002-07:002012-04-06T16:37:18.736-07:00My testimonyChildren of the earth! I would like to make bare my testimony to you of a knowledge that is very plain and precious which I recently gained. You see, there is a phenomena that I have only recently become aware of, among the humankind, that deserves further reflection for sure. It is this interesting state that occurs among people of religious organizations, or affiliations, that causes them to feel that their beliefs are only found to be strengthened by information they encounter that may cause that very same organization to be discredited or, at a minimum, severely questioned in their integrity. I have often pondered this question as I have encountered this sentiment on at least a few occasions. Well, my friends, I think I have finally discovered a key reason for this reaction. The term for this phenomena is "cognitive dissonance".<br />
<br />
Since I was introduced to this fabulous phrase, I thought my understanding of it was somewhat complete. However, I have now come to realize that I do actually have a capacity for further learning. I was recently introduced to a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Mistakes-Were-Made-But-Not/dp/0156033909/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333745489&sr=8-1" target="_blank">book</a> that began to summarize exactly what this state of mind means but, more importantly, exactly how its impact is manifest in the behavior of people. You see, and here is the most precious truth of all, we tend to defend most vehemently that which we perceive to have sacrificed the most for. Let me try to say that even more plainly if I can; If we give up something (our money, time, talents, labor, self-respect, friends or family) to be part of a group (church, club, fraternity, social group, cult) then, the greater we perceive our sacrifice to have been, the greater extent to which we work to build up the merits of that organization - to ourselves and to others. This can be demonstrated repeatedly by looking through history or by experiment, if desired.<br />
<br />
First, a look at history. It seems hardly worth mentioning, but the most extreme cults are where this oddity of human nature is most heartily exploited. Countless thousands of lives have been lost because devout followers of charismatic leaders were more willing to give up their lives than admit that their faithful leader was a little bit nuts. Why is this so? Why is it that, when a group of cult members discover that their leaders' predictions did not come to fruition - or that their leader is really just a liar and a fornicator - do they find themselves adhering ever more closely to what that same leader tells them to do? It is literally mind boggling! It defies reason to a most ludicrous degree! Yet it continues to happen. The amazing thing is, these people are not <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNHM7I1WJIk" target="_blank">dodo's</a>, at least we wouldn't consider them such by reviewing their level of education or history of worldly credentials. They are reasonably intelligent people, but their intelligence seems to fall flat on its face when observing their behavior towards that which they have the most faith in.<br />
<br />
When <a href="http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/manson/prosecution_7.html" target="_blank">Susan Atkins</a>, a follower of Charles Manson, was interviewed by a grand jury, deciding whether or not to pursue charges against Manson and his devoted followers on seven counts of murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder, she gave a remarkable, bloodcurdling testimony of the events. What amazed the jurors most was her complete lack of any sense of remorse or shred of guilt for the actions she had participated in. So what could possibly have caused someone to act in such a way? Well, the peculiarity and confidence of Charles Manson as a charismatic leader is likely a big cause, but what is even more close to the root cause can be found in what his followers gave up to become one of his followers. They left their homes in San Francisco and rode on a bus around before settling north of Los Angeles. In leaving their homes, they were fully committed to that lifestyle. Even though that lifestyle meant living off of scraps of food pulled from dumpsters and living in a crowded and communal community lacking many conveniences of personal hygiene. This sacrifice led to what is known as "self justification". Since nobody wants to entertain the thought that they have given up so much for nothing, we deal with the cognitive dissonance that is created in our mind (by being told or reminded somehow that what we are doing, or the person or ideal we are following, is less ideal than we originally thought) by justifying our actions.<br />
<br />
We humans are great at <a href="http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/10/05/the-benjamin-franklin-effect/" target="_blank">rationalization</a> and self justification.<br />
<br />
The thought that we might be doing something that is harmful or painful, boring or worthless is overcome by the build-up of justification for our participation in the group. We build up the positives in our mind, while successfully ignoring, or blacking out, the downsides. People can come to us with factual information that, on the whole, completely discredits our faith, and what do we do? We adhere more closely to its tenets. We ignore the information. We label it as not credible. We label the person who gave us the information as not credible in some way. And, if the information turns out to be confirmed, we immediately work to minimize the impact the information has on our belief. We say things like, "My beliefs are only stronger now because of this." or "You haven't shaken my faith one bit." We use absolutes to minimize the damage that has been done. We may say things like, "I know this is true, absolutely." or we may be a little less certain, albeit not willing to concede we may be wrong by saying things like, "Well, its still the best thing out there." or "Have you found anything better?"<br />
<br />
This phenomena has also been conclusively shown to be the case by experiment. Elliot Aronson and Judson Mills performed just such an <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-pmhs.stjohns.k12.fl.us%2Fteachers%2Fhigginj%2F0DBE81F6-0118C716.9%2FThe%252520Effect%252520of%252520Severity%252520of%252520Initiation%252520on%252520Liking%252520for%252520a%252520Group%2C.pdf&ei=cm5_T_f8PLPXiALI3rSgAw&usg=AFQjCNE1hxBtUD9_duMbzxX7Yx-yZ-YtbA" target="_blank">experiment</a>. Their hypothesis was that the greater the level of sacrifice, or amount of personal discomfort, the initiation rite was to join a group, the greater the individual would work to find the good that the group provided or express positive things about the group. Even if the group turns out to be boring or worthless, rather than admit that, it seems it is easier to enhance the value of the group than admit that we might have made a mistake in joining the group. Since the mind doesn't like to hold simultaneously contradictory information (e.g. The church may be a farse, but I have paid in money and time to be a big part of it) we tend to move away from the least comfortable conclusion to justify our behavior. For many, it is easier to negate or discredit any information that might show the church to be a fraudulent organization, and admit they have given so much to something ultimately not true, than it is to admit they might be wrong and everything they have given wasn't worth what they believed it was. This is a painful decision many members of the church face and, therefore, it is not difficult to understand why so many make this choice in the face of discrediting information.<br />
<br />
When I think about what I gave to the church over my life, it is a wonder that I was able to see what I now see. I was willing to give up 2 years of my life specifically devoted to church service on a mission. I gave up 10% of my income (or at least tried to) for so many years. I gave up time with my loved ones so I could go out and visit members or attend boring meetings. For crying out loud, I stripped down naked in the temple so some old guy could touch me on my stomach, knees, chest and shoulder and pronounce me clean from the blood and sins of this generation! However, the way I have dealt with all that I gave up to be a member of the church in good standing (the severity of the initiation) is that I now tend to discount what I really gave up to join and, instead, I have chosen to enhance the seriousness of my finding the untruth of it. I am human after all.<br />
<br />
This is my testimony and I leave it with you, to do what you will with it, in the name of all that is good and true in reality. Amen.Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-42614545260447762492012-03-28T18:07:00.000-07:002012-04-06T16:28:47.082-07:00Are you brainwashed?Here I am going to outline a summary of the circumstances and techniques commonly used in brainwashing. Since brainwashing is a term that can sometimes have a negative connotation, we could also use the term sometimes utilized by those in the field of hypnosis; conversion. Conversion techniques are another name for brainwashing and involve some form of manipulation that is used to effect, or most often, control behavior. I believe many religious meetings (including those of the LDS church) utilize these techniques in varying degrees to extreme effectiveness which would, in my opinion, explain why many religious people have thought stopping mechanisms put into place to prevent them from being open to alternative explanations for "spiritual" experiences or being resistant to reading things that might cause them to question their faith.<br />
<br />
The first thing to recognize about brainwashing or conversion is that people usually do not know it when they have been affected by such techniques. These techniques are very powerful and are very effective at controlling behavior and the most devious method of their use is when people have no idea when they are being used. People in the business of using forms of hypnosis, if they are respectable, will always disclose what they are doing and how they are doing it. Even when disclosed, however, even the most resistant people can still succumb to its control and influence. Needless to say, people that utilize such techniques unknowingly can be the most dangerous. It is also true that the techniques are utilized in many instances without a conscious awareness of what they are doing. Many people have been conditioned by effective conversion techniques and will go on to duplicate or reinforce those techniques in future circumstances.<br />
<br />
<b>Conversion and your mind</b><br />
Conversion is accomplished through getting deeper into a process of progression of the state of suggestibility that your mind is in. The Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov (famous for the dog salivating experiments) identified the 3 general states of the human mind. The most aware and alert state is full beta consciousness. This is also known as the EQUIVALENT phase. This phase is marked by the brain responding equally to both strong and weak stimuli.<br />
<br />
The next phase is the PARADOXICAL phase. In this state the brain responds more actively to weak stimuli than to strong stimuli.<br />
<br />
The most suggestible state that the mind can be in is the ULTRA-PARADOXICAL state. This state is when our conditioned responses to stimuli, and patterns in behavior, can be flipped from positive to negative or from negative to positive.<br />
<br />
As stated by Dick Sutphen on his website entitled '<a href="http://www.whale.to/w/mind.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Battle for Your Mind: Brainwashing Techniques Being Used On The Public</a>' he says,<br />
<blockquote>
"With the progression through each phase, the degree of conversion becomes more effective and complete. The way[s] to achieve conversion are many and varied, but the usual first step in religious or political brainwashing is to work on the emotions of an individual or group until they reach an abnormal level of anger, fear, excitement, or nervous tension. <br />
<br />
The progressive result of this mental condition is to impair judgement and increase suggestibility. The more this condition can be maintained or intensified, the more it compounds. Once catharsis, or the first brain phase [ultra paradoxical], is reached, the complete mental takeover becomes easier. Existing mental programming can be replaced with new patterns of thinking and behavior.<br />
<br />
Other often-used physiological conditions that are used to modify normal brain functions are; fasting, radical or high sugar diets, physical discomforts, regulation of breathing, mantra chanting in meditation, the disclosure of awesome mysteries, special lighting and sound effects, programmed response to incense, or intoxicating drugs. <br />
<br />
The same results can be obtained in contemporary psychiatric treatment by electric shock treatments and even by purposely lowering a person's blood sugar level with insulin injections."</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<b>Environments of conversion</b><br />
Some characteristics of initial meetings that utilize conversion techniques include things that are designed to get the participant into a trance like state. This may include:<br />
<br />
- Music with a beat between 45-72 beats per minute (which most closely mimic a slow resting beat of the heart - Most LDS hymns are played at this rate)<br />
<br />
- Lighting and/or effects that are designed to encourage relaxation (think of the lighting in the temple endowment - when you enter the room the lights are turned down to represent a lower kingdom of glory)<br />
<br />
- Speaking (or a speaker) that speaks in a monotone, repeating fashion. This is also referred to as a "voice roll" and is a patterned, paced style of speaking that is designed to induce a trance in the listeners. Ideally this speaking style resembles a metronome ticking away at a beat of 45 - 60 words per minute. In addition to hypnotists, this is a technique utilized by many attorneys in the courtroom when addressing jurors as well as preachers at charismatic style or revivalist church meetings. You could also identify this as the kind of voice used by speakers in many LDS church meetings or the voice recording used in the LDS temple endowment session.<br />
<br />
Any or all of these things may be utilized to bring the participants to what is known as an alpha state. The alpha state is when the participant is ready to be reprogrammed with new information about themselves, their circumstances or how they perceive their surroundings or even what they think about to eventually affect behavior. When in the alpha state, participants are 25 times as suggestible as compared to a fully beta or "conscious" state.<br />
<br />
Other things that will aid in creating an alpha state in the participants includes cutting off the participants from their normal routine or contact with those they would normally communicate or associate with. This could be done in any number of places but, usually, it is done in a group setting where the participants are discouraged from leaving, using the restroom or attending to personal comforts.<br />
<br />
The telltale signs that conversion techniques are being used in meetings are:<br />
<br />
1. The initial meeting is held in a place that is cutoff from the participants normal surroundings and regular follow up meetings are suggested or encouraged to be attended. At these meetings the participants are asked (or reminded) to follow the rules of the group, encouraged to bring in new members and most participants have some form of trigger or activation button that will remind the participant of their promised loyalty to that group, leader or organization. At some point in the initial meeting participants are reminded of the importance of keeping their "agreements" and are asked to make a vow that they will keep their "agreements". This is what is done in the LDS temple endowment session. Members of the LDS church that have attended the temple are encouraged to return regularly to "renew" the agreements made there.<br />
<br />
2. A rigorous schedule is utilized, or encouraged to be followed, to maintain a state of physical and mental fatigue of the participants. Long hours are demanded in order to prevent participants from taking time to relax or reflect on the demands presented by the group. This totally reminds me of all the work that is asked of members of the church. Between regular church services (which are actually long - at 3 hours each Sunday - compared to worship service times of other churches) there is a demand of time and energy placed on members to serve in callings, prepare for that service, attend meetings outside of worship services related to those callings, going on regular visits to members homes for home and visiting teaching assignments, going out and doing work with or for the missionaries, preparing meals for others in the group, participating in seminary or other firesides or instructional meetings, going to the temple regularly and doing genealogy or family history. All this is in addition to all of your regular work around the house, vacation time and job.<br />
<br />
However, when you ask devoted members of the church about all this work they do for their religion, they say it is not that much, really, or that sacrifice is what God wants from them. Usually they don't realize how much time they actually spend in these activities which take away so much time from their families or relationships outside of church. I think this may be why many active members of the church don't have that many friends outside of their church circle of friends. This causes me to wonder how much of this is by the design of the LDS church.<br />
<br />
3. Techniques are used to increase the tension or anxiety of the participants. I think of the tension created when it is Fast and Testimony meeting Sunday and everyone in the room is wondering if they should get up and speak and bare their testimony to alleviate the awkward silence in the room. Sometimes things that are said are done so in meetings to directly cause a feeling of tension in the participants.<br />
<br />
4. Uncertainty. This is similar to number 3 above, but it would be more directly referring to the anxiety or uncertainty related to possibly having to speak in front of the group. A public opinion poll, conducted several years ago, indicated that the number one most-fearful situation an individual could encounter is to speak in front of an audience. It ranked above window washing outside the 85th floor of an office building. There is also the uncertainty that is created when one becomes aware that they may be asked about personal or private practices or behaviors (such as sex or masturbation, for example). Participants in groups where conversion techniques are utilized often feel tempted to reveal their innermost secrets because of the environment created, or are encouraged to be involved in activities that encourage them to "remove their masks". This is par for the course in regular worthiness interviews conducted by leaders in the LDS church.<br />
<br />
5. Another tip off that conversion techniques are being used is the use of jargon or terminology that has a special meaning to those in the group or a meaning that is different from traditional understanding. Sometimes this language is vicious in nature. In the LDS church there is most definitely a lingo that insiders are familiar with. This vocabulary includes such terms as atonement, dispensation, "latter-days", Jesus Christ (in the context as framed by LDS, inc.), Plan of salvation, endowment, agency, celestial marriage, etc., etc. Again, when asking members of the church about this jargon, they do not readily admit that these words or phrases (or others like them) mean something different to those inside the church as opposed to those outside, but when asking for definitions of these terms it becomes obvious that this is the case.<br />
<br />
6. The final tip off is that no humor is introduced until the participant has been fully indoctrinated. Once members are considered fully active, then expressions of humor and fun are encouraged to demonstrate the joy that the participants have now "found" as part of the group. This reminds me of my mission. Meetings with investigators or non-members were highly subdued until agreements were made to join the church. Then the interaction became much more jovial and upbeat. While I was unaware of this behavior I exhibited while on my mission, the more I think about it the more I realize this was true. Laughter and fun were reserved for when in the company of "believers".<br />
<br />
While any of the above techniques may be utilized by organizations that seek to control their members, it is readily apparent that not all of these organizations would automatically be considered bad. Many times members of such organizations accomplish much good under this influence, however, members should be able to understand when and how these techniques may be utilized so they can have a more adequate ability to choose their level of participation or to not participate. Continual involvement may result in behaviors that become detrimental to the participant when they have no idea what has happened to them.<br />
<br />
<b>Organizational control</b><br />
Once the initial conversion of the participant is accomplished, critical thinking or dissent among the ranks cannot be tolerated. In order to prevent cynicism from becoming an issue among the group safeguards are implemented. If these safeguards are not implemented, members become dangerous to the control of the organization. These safeguards are known as the decognition process. This three step system is designed to prevent questioning of the organization.<br />
<br />
The first step is ALERTNESS REDUCTION. This essentially means that the participant is kept in a high state of exhaustion, or state of sensory deprivation or confusion, to keep them from being grounded and questioning the intent of the group or looking further into the history of the organization. The other outcome of this state is to cause the participant to be confused between fantasy and reality causing the nervous system to malfunction. More overtly, cults will cause alertness reduction through controlling diet and encouraging the consumption of only fruit or vegetables (or cookies and koolaid) and limiting the consumption of a well balanced diet. Being bombarded with intense or unique experiences can have the same effect. This totally describes the MTC (Missionary Training Center - where missionaries go to prepare for going on their mission) and mission experience. Missionaries are introduced to an entirely new and intense schedule and environment that completely alters their state of alertness to receive the programming of the organization.<br />
<br />
The next step is PROGRAMMED CONFUSION. Alertness reduction prepares you for a mental assault on your common sense. Once in this weakened mental state, the participant is bombarded with questions which are designed to confuse the person into not being able to discern between reality and illusion. This is the point when perverted logic is likely to be accepted. This can either be introduced directly or subtly by encouraging the participant to arrive at illogical conclusions on their own. The LDS church, I think, will say that they don't make any fantastical claims directly, but their questions and statements don't leave much alternative when confronted by possible alternative explanations.<br />
<br />
The final and most essential step of the decognition process is THOUGHT STOPPING. This is essentially the step that causes the mind to go "flat". These are altered-state-of-consciousness techniques that initially induce calmness by giving the mind something simple to deal with and focusing awareness. The continued use brings on a feeling of elation and eventually hallucination. The result is the reduction of thought and eventually, if used long enough, the cessation of all thought and withdrawal from everyone and everything except that which the controllers direct. The best example of this from LDS teachings is the advice that the spirit will teach the member "all things" that they need. The very phrases repeated by faithful members of the church are designed to enhance this thinking and mindset. Actual knowledge and observations are considered secondary to knowledge supposedly gained from the spirit.<br />
<br />
Thought stopping is also programmed into members of the church in regards to reading material that goes against teachings of the leaders of the church or is endorsed by the church. At some point, I believe, members reach that alpha state that promotes suggestibility (probably during each general conference) because they are in a trance like, open eye, state (but essentially asleep on the inside) and it is then that members are "counseled" to not seek out anything that is contrary to church teaching. It is further programmed into members that any such information is likely deceptive, evil or controlling. The irony is that the church is the one that is really controlling its members.<br />
<br />
The interesting thing is to observe members when they are confronted with information about the church that comes from the church itself. When something brought to their attention obviously goes against what they have been taught (or created for a belief from what they have been taught), the first reaction is to deny that the information is valid. Once they have been shown the source of the information in the context of the church publication, they immediately move to minimize the impact such information has on them or their testimony. It is amazing to witness the degree to which members will work to defend the church in this effort. Only those that are able to wake up to the conditioning that has been taking place on them (in some cases for a lifetime) through regular church participation can they really see what is going on.<br />
<br />
Of course recognizing all of these traits of groups or organizations that utilize conversion techniques does not attempt to answer the philosophical question of whether or not people should be encouraged to participate in such groups. On the one hand, it can be argued that participation leads to doing good things for people, even if it is a result of brainwashing or subtle long term mental conditioning. I'm not sure I can answer that question sufficiently. I just know that for me, participation is unacceptable because of the reluctance of members of the church to acknowledge, or even listen to, my objections with what is being taught and the methods utilized to encourage activity and discourage dissent. I wish that productive discussions could be had about these observations, but unfortunately that just won't happen.<br />
<br />
I hope this has helped in recognizing traits of organizations that work diligently to brainwash their members. I also hope that more people wake up to the many ways in which conversion techniques are being utilized on them all the time by many different groups, media or politicians because these techniques are only becoming more common. Be careful out there!<br />
<br />
Additional reading:<br />
<a href="http://www.whale.to/w/mind.html">http://www.whale.to/w/mind.html</a><br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning</a><br />
<a href="http://www.cracked.com/article_16656_6-brainwashing-techniques-theyre-using-you-right-now.html">http://www.cracked.com/article_16656_6-brainwashing-techniques-theyre-using-you-right-now.html</a> <br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control</a><br />
<a href="http://people.howstuffworks.com/brainwashing1.htm">http://people.howstuffworks.com/brainwashing1.htm</a><br />
<a href="http://www.phinnweb.org/neuro/brainwash/">http://www.phinnweb.org/neuro/brainwash/</a><br />
<br />
For more websites like these, just use your favorite search engine and type in "brainwashing techniques". <br />
<br />Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-31249630513583788272012-03-25T14:24:00.000-07:002012-03-26T11:27:41.108-07:00Morality and pornographyI've been thinking lately about morality. I've been thinking about the harmful effects of not questioning the basis for your moral standards and judging behavior. Let me explain; I happened across a faithful blog post that was talking about <a href="http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/?p=144" target="_blank">the serious problem of pornography and how people can be healed from addiction to it</a>. It outlined what the author thought were the harmful effects that happening across pornographic images in the media would cause that supposedly should bring despair and shame and guilt on the offender. The author of this piece tells about a shocking encounter with internet pornography that left him with offensive images burned in his mind that popped back up at the most inopportune times. Like when he was trying to read his scriptures, go to the temple or conduct church meetings. This is a very common teaching in the LDS church. Pornography, it is taught, should be avoided because, it is commonly believed, viewing such things taints the soul and makes the offender unworthy to be considered pure and worthy of participating in God's work on earth. But this only causes me to wonder; what if that is not really the case?<br />
<br />
Are there regular consumers of pornography who go about their daily lives, contribute to society in meaningful and productive ways, that don't feel shameful, impure or unworthy for engaging in such behavior? Do these people give of themselves to help others or have what most would consider to be healthy and committed marriages or other personal relationships where engaging in this behavior does not create a problem? Could it be that these people were taught that feelings of arousal and wanting to view, or actually viewing, porn is just a normal part of being human and that, as long as no one is harmed or engaging in something against their will that there is really nothing wrong with it?<br />
<br />
<b>Subject of Controversy</b><br />
The real problem is this is an extremely controversial subject. The reason it is so controversial is because it is something that is considered extremely private for one, but it is generally lauded against by most religious people. And the laudibles are extremely charged and passionate in their delivery. Expressions of the consequences of porn viewing are so somber that they literally bring fear into someone for even daring to broach the subject in any outside forum. This behavior is something that is regarded as very serious and extremely consequential to your eternal salvation. I think that's also why we have such a hard time actually talking about it in ways that could actually be helpful or productive. Many people are so busy trying to figure out how to scare this behavior out of people that they don't stop to think what effect this may be having on the ability to be open about and discuss such things in ways that don't immediately cause fear and consternation in the mind of the human who wonders about such things.<br />
<br />
However, the entire anti-pornography movement is based on the assumption that porn, like cigarettes and alcohol it is believed, are gateways to progressively worse and more socially deviant and completely self destructive behaviors. These behaviors lead to a loss of self control and complete abandonment to the "chains" of addictive behaviors. I always liked the analogy of addiction being like a chain that would drag you down to some untold darkness and keep you there. This served me well in helping me to avoid any of these vices throughout my life. I think I'll keep the analogy. I do know that people all over the place choose to engage in behaviors that either bring physical pleasure, emotional comfort, stimulus, danger or a dulling of the senses. And many times these behaviors can become addictive. <br />
<br />
<b>Addiction</b><br />
Addiction is a very real problem for many people. I fully acknowledge this. However, I am also prepared to acknowledge that for every person who finds their self hopelessly addicted to some behavior or substance, I know that there are people who can engage at various times in the exact same behavior and are not addicted to it. They do it for recreation, entertainment or a little escape from the ordinary. So what is the difference between these two groups? I'm not really sure. One could say that it may just be a matter of self control. Those that can engage in the behaviors and maintain balance and avoid addiction are just better at controlling themselves. I believe it may also have something to do with how you are taught to think about the behavior growing up.<br />
<br />
I think if you are taught to avoid something at all costs, because you are told that you are weak and will not be able to control yourself while engaging in that behavior or you will not be able to help it becoming an addiction for you, then that will likely be the case. However if children are taught that feelings of arousal, curiosity, physical pleasure and an ability to control oneself while engaging in adult behaviors is not only possible, but a normal part of enjoying life, I think that will be the result as well.<br />
<br />
I really think we do children (and especially adults) a disservice by labeling certain behaviors or substances as harmful and by attempting to jolt them into submission by scaring their pants off (or on in this case) to get them to avoid the behavior through any means necessary. If it means telling them they will feel bad or they will be considered impure, unworthy or in any other way inferior to everyone else or that they are making God sad (or more sad, I guess) or are a disappointment to loved ones, I think these teachings are unfortunate and unnecessary.<br />
<br />
<b>What should we teach children?</b><br />
We should not be teaching what we think are the consequences of actions without making absolutely sure those are, in fact, the real consequences for everyone. Don't get me wrong, I think it is absolutely imperative that we teach children the importance of understanding the consequences of their actions. This, in my opinion, is the ultimate judging mechanism. If we always think about the potential consequences of our actions, or at least try to understand what they are as best we can, and work to try to produce the best consequences for ourselves, this is a very good standard to use in teaching and modeling behavior. Asking ourselves if we would like something done to us that we are considering doing to someone else, is a wonderful way to evaluate behavior. The golden rule is a very good one to follow. Unfortunately, opinion tends to creep in where evidence is scant and labeling behaviors as evil, or socially unacceptable, becomes a tool used to manipulate and control others. Shame and guilt are extremely effective tools in teaching behavior, but they are also most widely used to control behavior also.<br />
<br />
I can't help but think of the movie "Footloose". Honestly, I haven't seen the latest remake (let alone really watched the original all the way through) but I completely understand the premise. A town is working to follow a set of moral standards that were imposed over time (prohibition of dancing), which become challenged when young people want to have dances. The idea being that dancing, either in itself or the result of what it causes, results in widespread immorality or eventual acceptance of immorality which leads to social decay, destabilization or destruction. Now, I guess I can't really address whether or not this is truly the final result of dancing and that it just might be the first step in a decline of social stability over the long term...I mean, who knows, maybe all this free thinking and following a consequence model of behavior really does lead to a complete lack of control in society and therefore long term annihilation. Obviously, I don't think so, however, to be fair. I don't think we (meaning I) will be around long enough to really find out. I do know that dancing probably has less of an effect on creating a state of anarchy in society than something like, say for example, technology. If anything, I think dancing likely results in a more stable and happy society because it encourages a familiarity with the opposite sex, which can only result in greater respect and concern for each other as one learns how people of a different gender are different from us but also more alike than we may have originally thought.<br />
<br />
<b>My experience with alcohol</b><br />
As I have been on my journey of questioning all of my previously unquestioned beliefs, I have realized that I can make decisions based on my likes and dislikes as well as the commitments I have made in my life. Believe me, this is not an easy process. In some cases, I think it has been prudent to try things that I have always been taught were to be avoided at all costs. Once I was flying on a plane on an airline that offered, in addition to free juice and soft drinks, free beer or champagne. Since I am too cheap to ever pay for alcohol on a plane, I figured I would try it out. I tried beer for the first time that day. Honestly, I didn't like it at all. It tasted nasty. I couldn't help but look across the aisle at a man who had also ordered a beer and had already finished it, and looked like he really wanted some more, and resist the urge to offer him what was left of mine. I decided that it must be an acquired taste. I also tried champagne and didn't really like it either.<br />
<br />
My point in saying all of this is that just because something, for some people, leads to addiction and uncontrollable urges, that also happen to be self destructive, doesn't mean it will do that for everyone. Granted, some people may always struggle with certain kinds of things. But I think the struggle is actually different than many want to label it. It is not a struggle of whether or not we should sin and bring the displeasure of our church leaders, families, friends and God, but it is a struggle of maintaining control and understanding the consequences of our behavior. If we recognize, understand and establish the consequences of behavior for ourselves personally before engaging in it, then we will be better equipped to safely and satisfactorily engage in the behavior, following all of the pre-determined precautions to stay safe and out of harms way - as well as prevent any harm from coming to others. As long as we are not harming others, of course, I don't see anything wrong with looking at pornographic images. Just so long as we make sure that we do not cause any harm (or exposure) to come to others, like children for example.<br />
<br />
<b>Other reasons porn is bad</b><br />
I have also heard that viewing porn leads to the objectification and abuse of women. This is always assumed to be a bad thing. My response to this is that I think there are women that enjoy participating in those kinds of things. Sure, someone might be able to find examples of abuse or someone that was not completely willing in their participation. I do not feel that this would ever be acceptable. If abuse is encountered or brought to light, appropriate safeguards should be instituted for that situation. We should not tolerate any activity or behavior that takes away someones ability to choose to participate. But barring a violation of that, I honestly don't see the harm.<br />
<br />
<b>Feeling dirty</b><br />
If we automatically label such behavior, such as viewing pornographic images, as dirty and unacceptable, then those that engage in such behavior (even though it causes absolutely no harm to others), will be thought to be dirty and unacceptable by those who know what is going on. How sad is that? I would hope that people would begin to ask themselves what, specifically, they object to concerning this practice and then engage in discussion that outlines the pro's and con's of it...overall and specifically for the individual.<br />
<br />
<b>The spiral of shame</b><br />
If we choose to automatically label viewing porn as dirty or sinful, this is the start of what we now know to be a "shame spiral". This is especially detrimental to those that believe what they are taught regarding the behavior. The system that teaches that such things are completely unacceptable, without considering a purely consequence based approach, causes people to feel fear towards such things. This fear later turns to curiosity about the behavior. Curiosity turns to experimentation. Experimentation leads to guilt and shame. This guilt and shame leads to a feeling of hopelessness, inferiority and self deprecation. The remedy often presented to those caught in this pattern, among believing LDS members, is to look to their heavenly historical figure (Jesus, in the case of LDS) for deliverance and forgiveness. While I suppose this imaginary figure might be able to offer some relief from the pains of guilt and shame that are self inflicted through an imagined feeling of wrong-doing and eventual forgiveness of some sort, this reliance comes at a price. It further reinforces the authority of the religious leaders that claim to be able to interpret the whims of their imaginary "savior". Unfortunately, you can't express this without being labeled as a detractor of the faith. Well, I'm past that stigma, so I go on.<br />
<br />
Obviously, the idea of the effect of belief in God and the impact it can have on behavior is one that definitely deserves further consideration. I can see that it can potentially lead to a somewhat healthy place of reconciliation and peace, but I can also see that it could lead to a very conflicted and dangerous place of self abuse and mental instability. Even though I would love to continue to explore this, there is something that I think deserves more discussion first, the question of infidelity.<br />
<br />
<b>Marriage and porn</b><br />
When in a marriage, there are some spouses that think viewing porn is an act of infidelity. Indeed, some would see it as equal to actually cheating on their spouse and some would further see it as grounds for separation or divorce. This is unfortunate in my opinion. I suppose that there are lots of different ideas about this, including an infinite number of possible scenarios, behaviors and levels of "addiction", or abuse of porn, but I am not going to go into all of the possible scenarios and relationship dynamics out there. I want to narrow my focus here and outline my understanding of the differences between the sexes.<br />
<br />
While porn viewing can be found among both men and women, men tend to be thought of as the common culprits. The reason for this is simple. Men enjoy visual stimulation. You ask men what arouses them sexually, and most will answer with some body part of (or the body of) an attractive woman. When you ask women what arouses them sexually, the answer has more to do with how they feel or being able to look into the eyes of a man who cares for them. With women the bond is centered more around the person their mate is, and how they have been treated, and not as much about the physical characteristics they possess. Men are very centered around the physical characteristics of their partners and, while personality is certainly a factor that can lead to attraction and physical intimacy, it is much easier for men to remain emotionally detached from a sexual partner. <br />
<br />
Emotion is just not as big a factor for men in intimacy and sexual arousal. While women feel that their husband viewing another naked woman is akin to an emotional affair, that is not the case at all for a man. For men, emotional attachment to the picture of the naked woman simply does not exist. I guess some men may be somewhat attached to women they see in porn, but it is very limited in my opinion because most men realize they are not going to be able to have intimate relations with that particular woman. It seems to me that women equate their feelings of emotional intimacy and project that onto their partner and assume that it is the same for them. When viewed in this context, it is no wonder a women can feel that a man looking at pictures of other naked women is akin to having an affair.<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion</b><br />
I feel like what I have written here has only begun to scratch the surface of my feelings surrounding morality, beliefs, pornography, addiction and differences between the sexes. I could say a lot more about each of these things but this post has gotten pretty long. I think I have provided many launching points for further discussion and exploration. However, the point I really wanted to make is that there are a differing ways that morality is constructed and when I consider the different ways to construct beliefs about right and wrong, I can see that there are various pathways to arrive at similar conclusions. While these conclusions may appear equal on the surface, the ways in which they are arrived at are very different and can actually have a large impact in the eventual outcome, mental stability or emotional health of the constructors of the morality. Unfortunately, some people are content to adopt a morality they are taught without questioning the efficacy of it or the big picture about what it will do for them in the long run. When morality is not questioned, or scrutinized for validity, I think it causes harm because it may serve to ostracize or alienate those we are close to. I hope that discussions of what frames our beliefs about right and wrong can be had among thinking people everywhere. I know I enjoy talking and thinking about it...much to the dismay of my wife and children. I hope they can forgive me. It is just me and what I enjoy. May you find people to talk to about these things if you are so inclined. Good luck and good talks!Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-87175090324851877332012-03-20T11:11:00.002-07:002012-03-20T11:13:47.575-07:00Joseph Smith Poster<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu_x_SE1ZKlAsGg-BGG604aWtqtdWKmNKyjzezmUrTox1VTbiNilCwU0GX4vKHU0ygyTFhlTCjvBBT0y6f1VJ31goLa8GSvOhMIyqvfOWLVJqALsSMnXd_sWqlDJXRTXslgSFQwyrxbneh/s1600/JosephSmithPoster.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhu_x_SE1ZKlAsGg-BGG604aWtqtdWKmNKyjzezmUrTox1VTbiNilCwU0GX4vKHU0ygyTFhlTCjvBBT0y6f1VJ31goLa8GSvOhMIyqvfOWLVJqALsSMnXd_sWqlDJXRTXslgSFQwyrxbneh/s400/JosephSmithPoster.JPG" width="316" /></a></div>
<br />
This is a cutesy poster I made to give to 8 year old's when they get baptized.Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7832594338870888537.post-61703992791001747002012-03-06T17:30:00.000-08:002012-03-06T17:30:00.916-08:00Personal Apostasy Research from LDS.orgBelow I have compiled a list of references, along with samples (some very lengthy...OK, this entire post is VERY long - that's why I have highlighted the good stuff) from those references, of talks and lessons that refer to personal apostasy from the LDS.org website. My primary purpose in collecting this information was to try to determine the most prominent teachings to members of the church as it relates to those who decide to leave the church.<br />
<br />
While I cannot emphasize enough my complete disagreement with what the church teaches in this regard, I can understand why members of the church may be so judgmental when it comes to characterizing those who decide to leave the church for whatever reason. It seems that in the eyes of many members of the church, no reason could ever be good enough for leaving the church...and when you understand what members of the church are taught about this, it is easy to see why.<br />
<br />
While my research only represents a small sample of the
amount of information contained throughout the church website, I would challenge
anyone to come up with sources, prevalent in the church, that do not seek to
characterize those who leave the church as evil, wanting to sin, being offended or
being ignorant in some way.<br />
<br />
I have highlighted the main points in the information below
that seek to characterize in some way those that leave the church. My comments will be sprinkled throughout in <span style="color: white;"><i><b>white bold italics.</b></i></span> Enjoy!<br />
<br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/06/avoiding-personal-apostasy?lang=eng" target="_blank">“Avoiding Personal Apostasy” Ensign June 2009 By Elder Claudio D. Zivic, Of the Seventy</a></h2>
"...However, we need to be concerned and watchful that we do
not fall into personal apostasy, which can result from several causes. I will
mention only a few.<br />
<br />
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Apostasy
frequently results when a person commits serious sin but does not repent.</span>
To silence his conscience or justify his sinful actions, the individual moves
away from the truth, looking for imperfections in others or questioning Church
doctrine with which he no longer agrees.<br />
<br />
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Conflicts
between Church members can also lead to apostasy.</span> Some individuals begin
to think the Church is not true when they feel that a leader did not treat them
well. They become offended and, without considering what they are losing, they
stray from the Church.<br />
<br />
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Faultfinding
can be another source of personal apostasy.</span> When we look for faults in
others or begin to think we could make better decisions than our leaders, we
should remember the experience of Oliver <span class="SpellE">Cowdery</span>, the
second elder of the Church...<br />
<br />
... I testify that we can avoid the mists of darkness that
lead to personal apostasy by <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">repenting
of our sins, overcoming offense, eliminating faultfinding, and following our
Church leaders</span>. We can also avoid those mists by humbling ourselves,
forgiving others, keeping our covenants, partaking of the sacrament worthily
each week, and strengthening our testimonies through prayer, daily scripture
study, temple attendance where possible, magnifying our Church callings, and
serving our fellowmen.<br />
<br />
We need to be concerned and watchful in order to <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">avoid the mists of darkness that
can lead to personal apostasy.</span>"<br />
<br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-12?lang=eng" target="_blank">Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young Chapter 12: Preventing Personal Apostasy</a></h2>
<br />
"Teachings of Brigham Young<br />
<br />
Apostasy is turning away from the Church and ultimately
denying the faith.<br />
<br />
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">What is
that which turns people away from this Church? Very trifling affairs are
generally the commencement of their divergence from the right path.</span> If
we follow a compass, the needle of which does not point correctly, a very
slight deviation in the beginning will lead us, when we have traveled some distance,
far to one side of the true point for which we are aiming (DBY, 83).<br />
<br />
If the Saints neglect to pray, and violate the day that is
set apart for the worship of God, they will lose his Spirit. If a man shall
suffer himself to be overcome with anger, and curse and swear, taking the name
of the Deity in vain, he cannot retain the Holy Spirit. In short, <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">if a man shall do anything which
he knows to be wrong, and <span class="SpellE">repenteth</span> not, he cannot
enjoy the Holy Spirit, but will walk in darkness and ultimately deny the faith</span>
(DBY, 85).<br />
<br />
It is most astonishing to every principle of intelligence
that any man or woman will close their eyes upon eternal things after they have
been made acquainted with them, and let the (gay) things of this world, the
lusts of the eye, and the lusts of the flesh, entangle their minds and draw
them one hair’s breadth from the principles of life (DBY, 82).<br />
<br />
It was said here this morning that no person ever
apostatized, without actual transgression. Omission of duty leads to commission
(DBY, 82).<br />
<br />
You hear many say, "I am a Latter-day Saint, and I never
will apostatize;" "I am a Latter-day Saint, and shall be to the day of my
death." I never make such declarations, and never shall. I think I have learned
that of myself I have no power, but my system is organized to increase in
wisdom, knowledge, and power, getting a little here and a little there. But
when I am left to myself, I have no power, and my wisdom is foolishness; then I
cling close to the Lord, and I have power in his name. I think I have learned
the Gospel so as to know, that in and of myself I am nothing [see Alma 26:12]
(DBY, 84).<br />
<br />
Let a man or woman who has received much of the power of
God, visions and revelations, <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">turn away from the holy commandments of the Lord, and it seems that
their senses are taken from them, their understanding and judgment in
righteousness are taken away, they go into darkness, and become like a blind
person who gropes by the wall</span> [see Isaiah 59:9–10; Deuteronomy 28:29]
(DBY, 82–83).<br />
<br />
Many receive the Gospel because they know it is true; they
are convinced in their judgment that it is true; strong argument overpowers
them, and they are rationally compelled to admit the Gospel to be true upon
fair reasoning. They yield to it, and obey its first principles, but never seek
to be enlightened by the power of the Holy Ghost; such ones frequently step out
of the way (DBY, 86).<br />
<br />
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">When we
find fault with Church leaders, we begin to separate ourselves from the Church.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Whenever
there is a disposition manifested in any of the members of this Church to
question the right of the President of the whole Church to direct in all
things, you see manifested evidences of apostasy</span>—of a spirit which, if
encouraged, <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">will lead to a
separation from the Church and to final destruction</span>; wherever there is a
disposition to operate against any legally appointed officer of this Kingdom,
no matter in what capacity he is called to act, if persisted in, it will be
followed by the same results; they will "walk after the flesh in the lust of
uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed; they
are not afraid to speak evil of dignities” [see 2 Peter 2:10] (DBY, 83).<br />
<br />
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">When a
man begins to find fault, inquiring in regard to this, that, and the other,
saying, "Does this or that look as though the Lord dictated it?” you may know
that that person has more or less of the spirit of apostasy.</span> Every man
in this Kingdom, or upon the face of the earth, who is seeking with all his
heart to save himself, has as much to do as he can conveniently attend to,
without calling in question that which does not belong to him. If he succeeds
in saving himself, it has well occupied his time and attention. See to it that
you are right yourselves; see that sins and folly do not manifest themselves
with the rising sun (DBY, 83).<br />
<br />
Many imbibe [conceive] the idea that they are capable of
leading out in teaching principles that never have been taught. They are not
aware that the moment they give way to this hallucination the Devil has power
over them to lead them onto unholy ground; though this is a lesson which they
ought to have learned long ago, yet it is one that was learned by but few in
the days of Joseph (DBY, 77–78).<br />
<br />
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">[Such a
person] will make false prophecies,</span> yet he will do it by the spirit of
prophecy; <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">he will feel
that he is a prophet and can prophesy,</span> but he does it by another spirit
and power than that which was given him of the Lord. He uses the gift as much
as you and I use ours (DBY, 82).<br />
<br />
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">One of
the first steps to apostasy is to find fault with your Bishop;</span> and when
that is done, unless repented of a second step is soon taken, and by and by the
person is cut off from the Church, and that is the end of it. Will you allow
yourselves to find fault with your Bishop? (DBY, 86).<br />
<br />
No man gets power from God to raise disturbance in any
Branch of the Church. Such power is obtained from an evil source (DBY, 72).<br />
<br />
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">People
do, however, leave this Church, but they leave it because they get into
darkness</span>, and the very day they conclude that there should be a
democratic vote, or in other words, that we should have two candidates for the
presiding Priesthood in the midst of the Latter-day Saints, they conclude to be
apostates. There is no such thing as confusion, division, strife, animosity,
hatred, malice, or two sides to the question in the house of God; there is but
one side to the question there (DBY, 85).<br />
<br />
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Those
who lose the Spirit are filled with darkness and confusion.</span><br />
<br />
When men lose the spirit of the work in which we are
engaged, they become infidel in their feelings. They say that they do not know
whether the Bible is true, whether the Book of Mormon is true, nor about new
revelations, nor whether there is a God or not. <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">When they lose the spirit of this work, they lose the
knowledge of the things of God in time and in eternity; all is lost to them</span>
(DBY, 83–84).<br />
<br />
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Men
begin to apostatize by taking to themselves strength</span>, by hearkening to
the whisperings of the enemy who leads them astray little by little, until they
gather to themselves that which they call the wisdom of man; then they begin to
depart from God, and their minds become confused (DBY, 84).<br />
<br />
What have the Latter-day Saints got to apostatize from?
Everything that there is good, pure, holy, God-like, exalting, ennobling,
extending the ideas, the capacities of the intelligent beings that our Heavenly
Father has brought forth upon this earth. <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">What will they receive in exchange?</span> I can
comprehend it in a very few words. These would be the words that I should use: <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">death, hell and the grave</span>.
That is what they will get in exchange. We may go into the particulars of that
which they experience. <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">They
experience darkness, ignorance, doubt, pain, sorrow, grief, mourning,
unhappiness;</span> no person to condole [lament] within the hour of trouble,
no arm to lean upon in the day of calamity, no eye to pity when they are
forlorn and cast down; and I comprehend it by saying death, hell and the grave.
This is what they will get in exchange for their apostasy from the Gospel of
the Son of God (DBY, 85).<br />
<br />
You have known men who, while in the Church, were active,
quick and full of intelligence; but after they have left the Church, they have
become contracted in their understandings, <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">they have become darkened in their minds and everything
has become a mystery to them</span>, and in regard to the things of God, they
have become like the rest of the world, who think, hope and pray that such and
such things may be so, but they do not know the least about it. <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">This is precisely the position
of those who leave this Church; they go into the dark, they are not able to
judge, conceive or comprehend things as they are.</span> <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">They are like the drunken man</span>—he
thinks that everybody is the worse for liquor but himself, and he is the only
sober man in the neighborhood. <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">The apostates think that everybody is wrong but themselves</span> (DBY, 84).<br />
<br />
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Those
who leave the Church are like a feather blown to and fro in the air.
They know not whither they are going; they do not understand anything about
their own existence; their faith, judgment and the operation of their minds are
as unstable as the movements of the feather floating in the air.</span> We have not
anything to cling to, only faith in the Gospel (DBY, 84).<br />
<br />
We can stand firm by living our religion and seeking the
Holy Spirit.<br />
<br />
Will there still be apostasy? Yes, brethren and sisters, you
may expect that people will come into the Church and then apostatize. <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">You may
expect that some people will run well for a season, and then fall out by the
way</span> (DBY, 85–86).<br />
<br />
Why do people apostatize? You know we are on the “Old Ship
Zion.” We are in the midst of the ocean. A storm comes on, and, as sailors say,
she labors very hard. “I am not going to stay here,” says one; “I don’t believe
this is the ‘Ship Zion.’” “But we are in the midst of the ocean.” <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">“I don’t care, I am not going to
stay here.” Off goes the coat, and he jumps overboard. Will he not be drowned?
Yes.</span> So with those who leave this Church. It is the “Old Ship Zion,” let
us stay in it (DBY, 85).<br />
<br />
God is at the helm of this great ship, and that makes me
feel good. … Let those apostatize who wish to, but <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">God will save all who are determined to be saved</span>
(DBY, 86).<br />
<br />
If the people would live their religion, there would be no
apostasy and we would hear no complaining or fault-finding. If the people were
hungry for the words of eternal life, and their whole souls even centered on
the building up of the Kingdom of God, every heart and hand would be ready and
willing and the work would move forward mightily and we would advance as we
should do (DBY, 84).<br />
<br />
We want to live so as to have the Spirit every day, every
hour of the day, every minute of the day, and every Latter-day Saint is
entitled to the Spirit of God, to the power of the Holy Ghost, to lead him in
his individual duties (DBY, 82).”<br />
<br />
<span style="color: white;"><i><b>Gotta love Brigham Young!</b></i></span>
<br />
<br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-teacher-manual/chapter-29?lang=eng">Book of Mormon Teacher Manual </a></h2>
<a href="http://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-teacher-manual/chapter-29?lang=eng">
</a><br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-teacher-manual/chapter-29?lang=eng">Chapter 29</a></h2>
Introduction<br />
This scripture block will help students fortify <span style="color: white;"><i><b>(Because we have to have a strong defense mechanism against all those Korihor's in the world.) </b></i></span>their
testimonies. As they study the tactics of the anti-Christ <span class="SpellE">Korihor</span>,
they will <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">learn to
recognize the tactics and philosophies of modern anti-<span class="SpellE">Christs</span>.</span>
As they study Alma’s response to <span class="SpellE">Korihor</span>, they will
be prepared to <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">defend
themselves and others against those who seek to destroy their faith.</span><br />
<br />
Some Doctrines and Principles<br />
• <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Anti-<span class="SpellE">Christs</span> try to lead people away from God and His prophets</span>
(see Alma 30:12–18, 23–28). <br />
<br />
• A firm testimony of Jesus Christ and His prophets helps
safeguard us from personal apostasy (see Alma 30:19–22, 29–44).<br />
<br />
• <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Disobedience
leads to error and apostasy</span> (see Alma 31:8–25).<br />
<br />
• Disciples of Jesus Christ love and serve others (see Alma 31:12–38).<br />
<br />
Suggestions for Teaching<br />
Alma 30:12–18, 23–28. Anti-<span class="SpellE">Christs</span>
Try to Lead People Away from God and His Prophets<br />
<br />
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Ask
students to share some typical arguments people use to challenge faith in Jesus
Christ.</span> (Do not go into too much detail. Class members will discuss this
further when you ask them to look at <span class="SpellE">Korihor’s</span>
specific teachings.) As students share their thoughts, tell them that some
people in Alma’s day tried to challenge those who believed in Jesus Christ. To
help students understand that the Book of Mormon is a powerful resource to
strengthen them against these challenges, ask them to read the statement by
President Ezra Taft Benson on page 213 in the student manual.<br />
<br />
• How can studying the Book of Mormon protect us “against
the evil designs, strategies, and doctrines of the devil in our day”? <br />
<br />
During the lesson, encourage students to look for reasons
why some of Alma’s people stayed faithful while others did not. Ask them to
consider how the same principles apply to us today.<br />
<br />
Invite students to read the Bible Dictionary’s definition of
the word antichrist. You may also want to refer them to the commentary on page
213 in the student manual. Briefly discuss characteristics of a person or idea
that could be considered anti-Christ, emphasizing the Bible Dictionary’s broad
definition: “anyone or anything that counterfeits the true gospel or plan of
salvation and that openly or secretly is set up in opposition to Christ.”<br />
<br />
• What affect can counterfeit money have on governments and
individuals? <span style="color: white;"><i><b>(My question here is; What about counterfeit truth?)</b></i></span><br />
<br />
• What does it mean to counterfeit the true gospel? <span style="color: white;"><i><b>(My observation here is that setting up every other "gospel" - or religious teaching or interpretation - as counterfeit is not productive. We should be talking about how to discover counterfeits - and including the possibility that elements of our own teachings may contain counterfeits as well - rather than seeking to label everyone outside of our belief system as being a counterfeit)</b></i></span><br />
<br />
• <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">What
are some modern-day counterfeits that pretend to offer salvation?</span> (As
you invite students to respond to this question, do not allow any discussion
that is critical of other religions. Rather, ensure that the discussion helps
students recognize the dangers of false philosophies and attitudes like <span class="SpellE">Korihor’s</span>.)<br />
<br />
Explain that today they will examine a Book of Mormon
account of an anti-Christ. Invite them to turn to Alma 30:12–18, 23–28. Use the
following chart (either by preparing a handout for the students or drawing the
chart on the board) or have students make their own lists to identify <span class="SpellE">Korihor’s</span> false teachings. Help students compare <span class="SpellE">Korihor’s</span> tactics with those used in our day.<br />
<br />
Discuss these verses by asking questions such as the
following:<br />
• How are <span class="SpellE">Korihor’s</span> teachings like
the false teachings in our day?<br />
<br />
• <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">What
are possible sources (such as people, institutions, or philosophies) of such
false teachings today?</span> <span style="color: white;"><i><b>(Hmmm? Could the corporate LDS church be one of those "institutions"?)</b></i></span><br />
<br />
Explain that the first step in protecting ourselves against
these teachings is to recognize them. <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">By identifying <span class="SpellE">Korihor’s</span>
teachings and tactics, we can more readily recognize their modern counterparts.</span>
Other portions of this chapter focus on ways to stay true to the restored
gospel even when we face situations that try our faith.<br />
<br />
Alma 30:19–22, 29–44. A Firm Testimony of Jesus Christ and
His Prophets Helps Safeguard Us from Personal Apostasy <span style="color: white;"><i><b>(In other words, put on blinders to any possible wrongdoing by your own leaders because falling away should be avoided at all costs. And, if you do fall away, you will likely end up like Korihor! Don't end up like Korihor is the message to the members of the church. Very sad.)</b></i></span><br />
<br />
Ask the following question:<br />
• <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Why
is it difficult to respond to arguments like <span class="SpellE">Korihor’s</span>?</span>
<br />
<br />
Explain that we can learn from the responses of the people <span class="SpellE">Korihor</span> tried to deceive. Write People of <span class="SpellE">Ammon</span> on the board. Invite students to read Alma 30:19–21
silently.<br />
<br />
• From what you know about the Ammonites, why do you think <span class="SpellE">Korihor</span> was unable to lead them astray? (Write students’
answers on the board next to People of <span class="SpellE">Ammon</span>.) <br />
<br />
Write <span class="SpellE">Giddonah</span> on the board. Ask
students to read Alma 30:21–23, 29.<br />
<br />
• How did <span class="SpellE">Giddonah</span> respond to <span class="SpellE">Korihor’s</span> arguments? (Write students’ answers on the board
next to <span class="SpellE">Giddonah</span>.) <br />
<br />
In connection with Alma 30:29, invite students to read the
statement by the Prophet Joseph Smith on page 217 in the student manual.<br />
<br />
• <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">How
can we tell if a person is sincerely seeking truth or just being contentious?</span>
<br />
<br />
• In what ways can we respond to someone who is asking
difficult questions but sincerely seeking the truth? In what ways can we
respond to someone who is being contentious? <br />
<br />
Write Alma on the board. Invite students to read Alma
30:30–44.<br />
<br />
• How did Alma respond to <span class="SpellE">Korihor’s</span>
arguments? (Write students’ answers on the board next to Alma.) <br />
<br />
Alma bore strong testimony of God the Father and Jesus
Christ. To emphasize the power of personal testimony, ask a student to read the
statement by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland on page 217 in the student manual.<br />
<br />
• In what ways is a personal testimony a “timeless and
ultimately undeniable weapon”? <br />
<br />
Alma was able to share his testimony so powerfully because
he had worked to gain that testimony and strengthen it. To help students
understand how Alma gained his testimony, divide them into four groups.<br />
<br />
Write the following question on the board: What experiences
prepared Alma to deal with <span class="SpellE">Korihor</span> and his teachings?
Assign one of the following scripture blocks to each group: <span class="SpellE">Mosiah</span>
27–29; Alma 1–3; Alma 4–7; Alma 8–16. Ask the groups to search the chapter
headings in their assigned scripture blocks to help them recall Alma’s
experiences.<br />
<br />
When students have had enough time to study their assigned
passages, ask each group to report their answers.<br />
<br />
• What experiences have you had that have strengthened your
testimony and prepared you to defend your faith? <br />
<br />
• What can we do to prepare as Alma did? <br />
<br />
Invite students to read Alma 30:39, 44 silently, marking the
evidences Alma gave for the existence of God: (1) the testimonies of others,
(2) the scriptures, and (3) God’s creations. Then discuss each of these evidences,
using some or all of the following ideas:<br />
<br />
Testimonies of Others<br />
<br />
Ask a student to read Doctrine and Covenants 46:13–14.
Explain that the ability to believe others’ testimonies of the truth is a gift
of the Spirit.<br />
<br />
You may want to share the following statement by President <span class="SpellE">HaroldB</span>. Lee (1899–1973), the 11th President of the Church:
<br />
<br />
“Some of you may not have a testimony, and so I have said to
other groups like you, if you don’t have a testimony today, why don’t you cling
to mine for a little while? Hold on to our testimonies, the testimonies of your
bishops, your stake presidents, until you can develop it. If you can say
nothing more today than I believe because my president, or my bishop, believes,
I trust him, do this until you can get a testimony for yourselves; but I warn
you that won’t stay with you unless you continue to cultivate it and live the
teachings” (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, ed. Clyde J. Williams [1996], 136).<br />
<br />
• How have other people’s testimonies strengthened your
testimony? <br />
<br />
Scriptures<br />
<br />
Have a student read the following statement by Elder <span class="SpellE">Donald L</span>. <span class="SpellE">Staheli</span> of the Seventy: <br />
<br />
“Personal, sincere involvement in the scriptures produces
faith, hope, and solutions to our daily challenges. Frequently reading,
pondering, and applying the lessons of the scriptures, combined with prayer,
become an irreplaceable part of gaining and sustaining a strong, vibrant
testimony” (in Conference Report, Oct. 2004, 40; or Ensign, Nov. 2004, 39).<br />
<br />
• In what ways have the scriptures and the words of
latter-day prophets strengthened your testimony? <br />
<br />
God’s Creations<br />
<br />
Ask a student to read the statement by President Gordon B.
Hinckley on page 218 in the student manual.<br />
<br />
• In what ways do the earth and heavens testify of God? <br />
<br />
Alma 30:52–53. “I Always Knew That There Was a God”<br />
<br />
Invite a student to read Alma 30:52–53. Then read the
following statement by Sister Janette C. Hales, who served as Young Women
general president. Ask students to listen carefully to the statement,
reflecting on <span class="SpellE">Korihor’s</span> mistakes. <br />
<br />
“<span class="SpellE">Korihor</span> is described … as an
antichrist, but I’m not sure that he started out that way. Have you ever
thought that possibly <span class="SpellE">Korihor</span> started out … with lots
of questions? Although his questioning may have begun honestly, he made two
really bad mistakes. First, he denied his faith. He denied the Light of Christ
that had been given to him. Second, he started to preach false doctrine to
others. Alma, his leader, bore his testimony to <span class="SpellE">Korihor</span>,
and then <span class="SpellE">Korihor</span> made another mistake. <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Rather than listening to his
leader and listening and relying on the Spirit, he defended his position with
logic and became more argumentative. He demanded that he be given a sign.</span>
<span class="SpellE">Korihor</span> was given a sign. He was struck dumb. He
didn’t perhaps intend for the sign to have such an effect on him personally,
but often the consequences of our mistakes do affect us personally.<br />
<br />
“Verses 52 and 53 of chapter 30 are most important, I
believe. <span class="SpellE">Korihor</span> acknowledges, ‘I always knew that
there was a God. But behold, the devil hath deceived me’ (Alma 30:52–53). Isn’t
that interesting? ‘I always knew.’ He had the Light of Christ in him, but Satan
deceived him” (“Lessons That Have Helped Me,” in Brigham Young University
1992–93 Devotional and Fireside Speeches [1993], 89).<br />
<br />
• According to Sister Hales, what were <span class="SpellE">Korihor’s</span>
mistakes? <br />
<br />
• <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Why
do you think someone in <span class="SpellE">Korihor’s</span> position might become
defensive and argumentative rather than follow a leader’s counsel?</span> <br />
<br />
• <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Why
is it unwise to become defensive and argumentative when we have questions or
doubts?</span> <br />
<br />
Alma 31:5. The Word of God Has the Power to Help Us Improve<br />
<br />
Have a student read the statement by President Boyd K.
Packer on page 219 in the student manual.<br />
<br />
• Why is it important to learn the doctrines of the gospel?
(See D&C 84:85.) <br />
<br />
• Why is it important to study the doctrine on our own and
not to simply hear it spoken at church? <br />
<br />
Ask a student to read Alma 31:5.<br />
<br />
• What gives the word of God power to change our lives?
(Make sure students understand that one reason the word is powerful is that it
invites the Holy Spirit into our lives.) <br />
<br />
Invite a student to read the statement by President Ezra Taft
Benson on pages 219–20 in the student manual. Ask students to list the
blessings President Benson described that come from studying the scriptures.<br />
<br />
Alma 31:8–25. <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(128, 0, 128);">Disobedience Leads to Error and Apostasy</span><br />
<br />
The <span class="SpellE">Zoramites</span> had been members of
the Church but had “fallen into great errors” (Alma 31:9). Have the students
compare the <span class="SpellE">Nephites</span> described in Alma 30:3 with the <span class="SpellE">Zoramites</span> described in Alma 31:9–10.<br />
<br />
• <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">In
what ways does disobedience influence our testimonies?</span> <br />
<br />
Have students cross-reference Alma 31:9 with John 7:17.<br />
<br />
• <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">How
does obedience influence our testimonies?</span> <br />
<br />
Invite students to quickly review Alma 31:1–25 and list
characteristics of the <span class="SpellE">Zoramites</span> and their worship
habits. (Students’ lists could include that the <span class="SpellE">Zoramites</span>
said repetitious prayers, had one set place to pray, worshipped only once a
week, believed that God had elected only them to be saved, were materialistic,
and looked down on the poor.) Invite a few students to share their lists with
the class. (You might consider drawing a parallel between the <span class="SpellE">Zoramites</span>’ actions and some of our modern-day tendencies,
such as saying repetitious prayers, worshipping only once a week, feeling that
we are chosen and better than others, and becoming materialistic.)<br />
<br />
Through the following questions and discussion, help
students understand that active involvement in the gospel, such as temple work,
family home evening, service projects, and activities through our branches and
wards, helps us stay close to the Lord. Such activities help us invite the Holy
Spirit into our lives throughout the week, not just on the Sabbath. As the
Spirit becomes part of our daily life, we are able to withstand the anti-<span class="SpellE">Christs</span> of our day and stay faithful to Jesus Christ.<br />
<br />
• Alma 31:10 says that the <span class="SpellE">Zoramites</span>
refused to observe the “performances of the church.” What are some
“performances of the church” today? (Answers may include priesthood ordinances,
opportunities to serve in the Church, family responsibilities such as family
home evening, personal prayer, scripture study, and temple and family history
work.) <br />
<br />
• How do these performances help us avoid entering into
temptation? <br />
<br />
• How do these performances invite the Spirit into our
lives? <br />
<br />
• Why is the word daily in verse 10 important in our efforts
to keep the Spirit in our lives? (See 2 Corinthians 4:16; <span class="SpellE">Helaman</span>
3:36. Note that since pride can “grow upon [us] day to day,” we need to be
“renewed day by day.”) <br />
<br />
Alma 31:12–38. Disciples of Jesus Christ Love and Serve
Others<br />
<br />
Alma 31 contains two
prayers that are very different from each other. As students compare the <span class="SpellE">Zoramites</span>’ prayer with Alma’s prayer, they can identify the
possible thoughts and beliefs that led to the prayers. Have students quickly
read Alma 31:15–18 (the <span class="SpellE">Zoramites</span>’ prayer) and Alma
31:26–35 (Alma’s prayer). Ask them to share what they learn about the <span class="SpellE">Zoramites</span> and Alma from the words of these prayers. Invite
two students to list these insights on the board, one student listing insights
about the <span class="SpellE">Zoramites</span> and the other listing insights
about Alma.<br />
<br />
• What do you think motivated Alma to serve? (Answers might
include his testimony, his love of God, and his love for other people.) <br />
<br />
Help students understand that a testimony of Jesus Christ
leads us to love and serve others. Read the following statement by Elder <span class="SpellE">MarvinJ</span>. Ashton of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
(1915–1994): <br />
<br />
“When we truly become converted to Jesus Christ, committed
to Him, an interesting thing happens: our attention turns to the welfare of our
fellowmen, and the way we treat others becomes increasingly filled with
patience, kindness, a gentle acceptance, and a desire to play a positive role
in their lives. This is the beginning of true conversion” (in Conference
Report, Apr. 1992, 26; or Ensign, May 1992, 20).<br />
<br />
• What did Alma ask because he loved the people? (See Alma
31:34–35.) <br />
<br />
• In what ways can we apply Alma’s example in our lives?<br />
<br />
<br />
<h2><a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-tim/4.1-3?lang=eng#0">
New Testament:<br />
1 Timothy 4: 1-3</h2>
</a>
<br />
1 Now the Spirit <span class="SpellE">speaketh</span>
expressly, that <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines
of devils;</span><br />
<br />
2 <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Speaking lies in hypocrisy;
having their conscience seared with a hot iron;</span><br />
<br />
3 Forbidding to
marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be
received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-tim/3.1-7,13?lang=eng#0">
2 Timothy 3: 1-7</h2>
</a>
<br />
Header: Paul describes the apostasy and perilous times of
the last days—The scriptures guide man to salvation.<br />
<br />
1 This know also,
that in the last days perilous times shall come.<br />
<br />
2 <span style="background:purple;">For men shall be
lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient
to parents, unthankful, unholy,<br />
<br />
3 Without natural affection,
trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are
good,<br />
<br />
4 Traitors, heady, <span class="SpellE">highminded</span>, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;<br />
<br />
5 Having a form of
godliness, but denying the power thereof:</span> from such turn away.<br />
<br />
6 For of this sort
are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins,
led away with divers lusts,<br />
<br />
7 Ever learning, and
never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-tim/4.3-4?lang=eng#2">
2 Timothy 4: 3-4</h2>
</a><br />
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine; <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">but after their
own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;"> 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the
truth, and shall be turned unto fables.</span><br />
<br />
<h2>
<a href="http://www.lds.org/ensign/1979/02/a-house-divided-the-john-johnson-family?lang=eng">
Ensign Feb. 1979 </h2>
<h2>
A House Divided: The John Johnson Family </h2>
<h2>
By Keith Perkins</h2>
</a><br />
“...Three months later the Twelve Apostles left on missions,
departing from John Johnson’s inn in Kirtland. As members of the Twelve, Luke,
Lyman, and Orson spent much of their time on missions, bringing many into the
Church. <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">But the seed of
apostasy was sprouting in Kirtland.</span> The Lord had said that where one’s
treasure is, there would his heart be also (Luke 12:34); <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">sadly, many who had once given
liberally of their means to build up the kingdom began to seek for personal
wealth</span>. Many who had once defended the Prophet now became his accusers.
This spirit affected almost all of the Johnson family, including son-in-law
Orson Hyde.<br />
<br />
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Both
Luke and Lyman accused Joseph Smith of speaking disrespectfully of and to
members of the Church.</span> (See statements of Lyman E. Johnson, Orson Pratt,
and Luke Johnson, 29 May 1837, Whitney Collection, Brigham Young University
Special Collections Library, box 2, <span class="SpellE">fd</span>. 1.) On one
occasion during the passing of the sacrament in the Kirtland Temple, Lyman
stood and cursed the Prophet, who was on the stand. When the bread was passed
to him “he reached out his hand for a piece of bread and flung it into his
mouth like a mad dog.” <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">His
face turned black “with rage and with the power of the devil.”</span>
(Millennial Star, 57:340) <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Joseph
Smith later pinpointed such faultfinding with the Church leadership as the cause
of apostasy.</span><br />
<br />
Affairs in Kirtland continued to worsen. Luke Johnson and
other dissidents organized for the overthrow of the Church, claiming they were
the “old standard,” and calling themselves the “Church of Christ.” Luke
described those dark days: <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">“Having
partaken of the spirit of speculation, which at that time was possessed by many
of the saints and Elders, my mind became darkened, and I was left to pursue my
own course. I lost the spirit of God, and neglected my duty.”</span> (“History
of Luke Johnson by Himself,” Archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, p. 7)<br />
<br />
Father John Johnson was also affected by this apostasy and
was dropped from the high council and excommunicated. (See History of the
Church, 2:510 and The Historical Record, Andrew Jenson, <span class="SpellE">ed</span>,
and pub., vol. 5, Salt Lake City, 1889, p. 32.)<br />
<br />
It is both sad and inspiring to follow the lives of Lyman
and Luke Johnson and of Orson and <span class="SpellE">Marinda</span> Johnson
Hyde and to see the effect that apostasy and, in turn, personal righteousness
had on their lives.<br />
<br />
Upon being ordained the first apostle in this dispensation,
Lyman received a powerful blessing. He was told that his faith would be like
Enoch’s and that he would “be called great among all the living; and Satan
shall tremble before him.” (History of the Church, 2:188) <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Yet in only three years his
obedience and his faith had failed, and Satan, rather than trembling before
him, had conquered him.</span> (Apostates are conquered by Satan)<br />
<br />
After apostatizing, Lyman remained friendly to his former
associates, making occasional visits to Nauvoo. On one such visit he related
his present feelings, as reported by Brigham Young:<br />
<br />
“If I could believe ‘Mormonism’ as I did when I traveled
with you and preached, if I possessed the world I would give it. I would give
anything, I would suffer my right hand to be cut off, if I could believe it
again. Then I was full of joy and gladness. My dreams were pleasant. When I
awoke in the morning my spirit was cheerful. I was happy by day and by night,
full of peace and joy and thanksgiving. <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">But now it is darkness, pain, sorrow, misery in the
extreme. I have never since seen a happy moment.”</span> (Journal of
Discourses, 19:41) (Also from this reference: “Lyman E. Johnson belonged to the
Quorum of the Twelve; he was the first man called when the Twelve were called;
his name was first, Brigham Young's second, and Heber C. Kimball's third. The
testimony that he gave of his bitter experience is the testimony that
every apostate would give if they would tell the truth. <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">But will they</span>
<span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">acknowledge
it? No, because they do not want to tell the truth.”)</span><br />
<br />
It is little wonder his death was tragic. According to <span class="SpellE">Wilford</span> Woodruff, “he did not go and hang himself [like
Judas], but he did go and drown himself, and the river went over his body while
his spirit was cast into the pit, where he ceased to have the power to curse
either God or His Prophet in time or in eternity.” (Millennial Star, 57:340;
see also Andrew Jenson, Latter-Day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia, Vol. 1,
Salt Lake City: The Andrew Jenson History Co., 1901, p. 92.)<br />
<br />
As Lyman’s brother Luke was ordained and set apart as a
member of the Twelve, he was promised that if he were cast into prison he would
be a comfort to the hearts of his comrades. (See History of the Church, 2:190.)
In three years, however, he was an apostate. But his blessing still came about:
he was a comfort to the hearts of his comrades in prison, but as a constable
instead of as a fellow prisoner. Remaining friendly to the Church, he assisted
the Prophet to legally escape from those who were pressing him with lawsuits.
(See “History of Luke Johnson by Himself,” Church Archives, p. 6.)<br />
<br />
Luke was also able to help Joseph Smith, Sr., to escape
imprisonment on charges “instigated through malice.” Luke took Father Smith to
court for trial, but since the court was not ready to convene, he took him into
an adjoining room to wait. While in the room, Luke removed a nail which secured
the window, and then left, locking the door behind him. Back in the courtroom,
he started telling funny stories so laughter would cover Father Smith’s escape.
When the prisoner was called by the court, Luke entered the room where Father
Smith had been kept, replaced the nail in the window, and came out reporting
the escape of the prisoner. Members of the court rushed in. Upon finding the
window fastened, they declared it another Mormon miracle.<br />
<br />
Luke met Eliza R. Snow the following day and asked her how
his escaped prisoner was faring at the Snow house. He then commented, “Father
Smith will bless me for it, all the days of his life.” Upon returning home,
Eliza repeated Luke’s words to Patriarch Smith, who affirmed the truth of the
statement. (See “History of Luke Johnson by Himself,” Church Archives, pp. 6–7,
and Eliza R. Snow Smith, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, Salt Lake
City: Deseret News Co., 1884, pp. 22–24.)<br />
<br />
But Luke did not die an apostate like his brother Lyman did.
Before the Saints left Nauvoo, he rose and spoke to an assembled group, telling
of his apostasy, but declaring that his heart was with the Saints and that now
he wanted to “go with them into the wilderness, and continue with them to the
end.” His brother-in-law, Orson Hyde, <span class="SpellE">rebaptized</span> him.
(See Manuscript History of Brigham Young, 1846–47. <span class="SpellE">Elden</span>
Jay Watson, ed. and pub., Salt Lake City, 1971, p. 72.) Luke then went back to
Kirtland to pick tip his family.<br />
<br />
Luke’s newly-restored faith was tried by fire as he started
West with his family. His wife, Susan Poteet, died as they traveled to Council
Bluffs. After burying her in St. Joseph, Missouri, Luke continued on with his
six motherless children. The Church leaders seemed to feel concern that this
trial might be too much for the newly <span class="SpellE">rebaptized</span>
Luke; however, it was recorded that he was “yet apparently feeling well and
enjoying himself.” (Watson, p. 494)<br />
<br />
On his arrival in Council Bluffs, Luke was comforted by a
poem written for him by Eliza R. Snow, his neighbor for many years in Ohio,
which in part read:<br />
<br />
Mourn not o’er your long-beloved Susan,<br />
<br />
Love her still—she’s gone above,<br />
<br />
To <span class="SpellE">fulfil</span> a heavenly mission,<br />
<br />
To perform a work of love.<br />
<br />
(A History of Clover, Centennial Year, 1856–1956, rev. ed.,
Tooele, Utah: Transcript-Bulletin, 1960, p. 41)<br />
<br />
At Council Bluffs, Luke married America M. Clark, by whom he
had eight children. Selected as captain of ten men in the original pioneer
company, he had to leave his family at Council Bluffs while he found a home for
them in the valley of the Great Salt Lake. When his first trek was over, he
returned to Council Bluffs to get his family, and together they reached Utah in
1853, settling in Rush Valley, near Tooele, Utah, in 1856.<br />
<br />
He was appointed by <span class="SpellE">Wilford</span>
Woodruff to be the first presiding elder over the little Utah settlement which
later was called Clover, Utah. Luke also served as the first and only probate
judge of <span class="SpellE">Shambip</span> [Rush] County, now a part of Tooele
County, and he became a friend of the Indians. He was the first doctor in the
area, and his wife, America, served as midwife. He served faithfully both his
Church and community until his death at the home of his brother-in-law Orson
Hyde in Salt Lake City in 1861.<br />
<br />
Luke’s family has continued to serve the little town of
Clover. His son, Orson A. Johnson, served as a counselor to three bishops. A
grandson, Edwin H. Johnson, served as a ward clerk to two bishops, and three
great-grandsons, Merlin M. Johnson, Joseph William Russell, Jr., and Orson
Albert Johnson, have all served as bishops of the Clover Ward. Merlin M.
Johnson also served as a county commissioner for Tooele County.<br />
<br />
Records aren’t complete concerning the fate of all the
members of the Johnson family, but much mention is made of <span class="SpellE">Marinda</span>
Johnson and her husband, Orson Hyde. During the Kirtland days, Orson became
temporarily sympathetic with the apostate faction, but within a very short
time, he had repented and returned to the Church. He walked into a meeting
where Heber C. Kimball was being set apart to open England to the preaching of
the gospel and to preside over the mission. Overwhelmed by the words of the
blessing, Orson asked for forgiveness and for permission to accompany Heber to
England as a missionary. His repentance was accepted, and he too was set apart.
(See History of the Church, 2:489–90.)<br />
<br />
When Orson left for England, <span class="SpellE">Marinda</span>
was left with a three-week-old baby. Many years later, it was said of her that
she experienced “what so many ‘Mormon’ women have since felt, the cares and
anxieties of the wife and mother when the husband is on a mission in a foreign
land, and the sustaining influence of the Holy Spirit that enabled her to bear
cheerfully—even happily—the many scenes of hardship and persecution that all
the old members of the Church have endured.” (Journal History, 24 Mar. 1886, p.
3) This was one of many times <span class="SpellE">Marinda</span> was asked to
wait for her husband as he traveled the globe in Church service.<br />
<br />
<span class="SpellE">Marinda</span> was the only one of the
Johnson family known to have moved to Nauvoo. There she experienced joy in
living the gospel and sorrow as she bade farewell to her husband on his
frequent missions for the Church. Undoubtedly one of her greatest trials came
when Orson fulfilled a mission to Palestine, traveling approximately twenty
thousand miles. In his dedicatory prayer on the Mount of Olives he particularly
remembered his family at home:<br />
<br />
“Though Thy servant is now far from his home … yet he
remembers, O Lord, his … family, whom for Thy sake he has left … The hands that
have fed, clothed, or shown favor unto the family of Thy servant in his
absence, or that shall hereafter do so, let them not lose their reward, but let
a special blessing rest upon them, and in Thy kingdom let them have an inheritance
when Thou <span class="SpellE">shalt</span> come to be glorified in this
society.” (History of the Church, 4:458)<br />
<br />
This prayer was heard, and the answer given only nine days
later in a revelation to the Prophet Joseph. The Lord instructed Joseph Smith
that <span class="SpellE">Marinda</span> should have a better place to live, “in
order that her life may be spared.” Joseph was further directed to importune
the Ebenezer Robinson family to provide for her and her children until Orson
returned from his mission. The Robinsons were promised that as they provided
for <span class="SpellE">Marinda</span> ungrudgingly, she would be a blessing to
them. Finally, <span class="SpellE">Marinda</span> was charged to follow the
living prophet “in all things whatsoever he shall teach unto her,” and promised
that this would prove to be a blessing to her. (History of the Church, 4:467.) <font color="white"><i><b>(Not mentioned in this article
is that <span class="SpellE">Marinda</span> was married to Joseph Smith in April
1842. This is what Joseph meant when he charged <span class="SpellE">Marinda</span>
to “follow the prophet”.)</b></i></font><br />
<br />
<span class="SpellE">Marinda</span> experienced the anguish of
being driven from her home again as the Saints left Nauvoo. Her sorrow was
offset somewhat by the joy of being one of the first to receive her endowment
in the Nauvoo Temple. Another cause for great rejoicing before leaving Nauvoo
was the return of her prodigal brother, Luke, to the Church.<br />
<br />
Orson and <span class="SpellE">Marinda</span> Hyde lived at
Council Bluffs until 1852, with Orson presiding over the Church there. During
that time, <span class="SpellE">Marinda</span> received a letter from Sarah M.
Kimball, a dear friend in Nauvoo:<br />
<br />
“Nothing affords me more pleasure than to be assured that I
am not forgotten by one whom I so dearly love as yourself. I was sorry to hear
that yr [your] family have been sick dear Sister H. You must have had yr heart
& hands full but you say, you had strength given according to yr day,
inasmuch as you have not been overcome it is all right for your husband said
when here that we must overcome all things in order to become pillars in the
Temple of God. (Sarah M. Kimball to <span class="SpellE">Marinda</span> Hyde,
dated 2 Jan. 1848, Church Archives.)<br />
<br />
Much of <span class="SpellE">Marinda</span> is revealed in
this letter: her suffering, her patience in affliction, and her faithfulness to
the kingdom.<br />
<br />
Like her brother Luke, <span class="SpellE">Marinda</span>
Johnson Hyde made a lasting contribution in the establishment of Utah. After
coming to Utah in 1852, she and her husband settled in the Seventeenth Ward. In
1868 she became the ward’s Relief Society president, serving in that position
until her death. She also was a member of the board of directors of the Deseret
Hospital in Salt Lake. She sought the rights of Mormon women at a time when
much of the nation was attempting to destroy the rights of all Latter-day
Saints and was selected as a member of a committee which drafted a resolution
against some of the <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">vicious
<span class="SpellE">antipolygamy</span> legislation being considered in
Congress.</span> (See Millennial Star, vol. 32, p. 113.) She also was one of
fourteen women who drafted a resolution thanking the acting governor of Utah,
S. A. Mann, for signing the act that gave the women in Utah the right to vote,
the second such act in the United States.<br />
<br />
(See Journal History, 19 Feb. 1870, p. 4; also see Russell
R. Rich, Ensign to the Nations, Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University
Publications, 1972, pp. 372–73. Utah women were, the first to vote but the second
to get the franchise.)<br />
<br />
The year before her death, <span class="SpellE">Marinda</span>
was honored on her seventieth birthday as being one of the oldest living
members of the Church, having been baptized in 1831. She died 23 March 1886 in
Salt Lake City. Her husband, Orson, had died previously on 28 November 1878.<br />
<br />
<span class="SpellE">Marinda’s</span> death ended the earthly
career of the original John Johnson family, a family who left a lasting
impression on the Church and all those who knew them. <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% purple;">Like <span class="SpellE">Lehi’s</span> family,
their disobedience resulted in unhappiness and tragedy,</span> and their
faithfulness resulted in the blessings and happiness of the gospel.”
<br />
<br />
<font color="white"><i><b>Just to sum up. If you leave the church, not only have you lost the faith and the spirit, you are; unhappy, ignorant, lost, contentious, fallen, sorrowful, overcome by evil, counterfeit, sad, unsuccessful in life, vicious, disobedient and your life will end in tragedy. Those poor souls. They don't realize what they are doing to their loved one's by labeling them so and insisting they know, better than others do, what their lives are like. Thanks for reading this entire post (if you made it)! I know it is a long one, but I wanted to have a pretty comprehensive summary from LDS.org sources of how members of the church are taught to feel about those that leave. Good luck out there in the world of personal apostasy...if that is your place...apparently you will need it! </b></i></font>Facsimilogoshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15025274115373690229noreply@blogger.com2