Questions posed in the CES Letter - simple version

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.

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":

http://zelphontheshelf.com/the-millennials-brief-guide-to-the-ces-letter/

I thought about posting something on my Facebook wall that would start out with the following quote from Russell M. Ballard:

"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.

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;

To my LDS friends and family,

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,

"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.

In that spirit, here are several of my sincere questions that I hope you can patiently address for me the best you can:

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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.)

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?

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”?

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?

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)?

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.

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?

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.

15. Why did Joseph marry Fanny Alger years before he had the sealing power?

16. Why did Joseph marry some of his foster daughters?

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?

18. Why is it that Brigham Young taught blood atonement, if it is now also disavowed?

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?

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?

21. Why did Joseph Smith falsely translate fake plates called the Kinderhook Plates? Why did he claim they were historical?

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?

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 D&C 111?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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)?

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.

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.)

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?

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?

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)?

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?

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?

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?

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?

37. Why do we say that the Masonic temple ceremony has roots going back to the temple of Solomon when it doesn't?

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?

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?

40. How is it that science can prove that there was no worldwide flood 4,500 years ago?

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.

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?

43. Why does God seem really mean and radically different in the Old Testament?

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?

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?

46. Why is the church not transparent about its finances anymore?

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!”.

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?

49. Why has the church’s name changed a few times?

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?

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?

52. Why did Dallin H. Oaks say you shouldn’t criticize church leaders, even if the criticism is true?

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) ?

You can read the original CES Letter here: http://cesletter.com/

Is 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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

One thing I saw recently that I really like was a continuum for cults. It was a graphic as follows:

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.

Are 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.

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.

Conversion and your mind
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.

The next phase is the PARADOXICAL phase. In this state the brain responds more actively to weak stimuli than to strong stimuli.

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.

As stated by Dick Sutphen on his website entitled 'The Battle for Your Mind: Brainwashing Techniques Being Used On The Public' he says,

"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.

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.

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.

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."

Environments of conversion
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:

    - 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)

    - 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)

    - 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.

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.

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.

The telltale signs that conversion techniques are being used in meetings are:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

Organizational control
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Additional reading:
http://www.whale.to/w/mind.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning
http://www.cracked.com/article_16656_6-brainwashing-techniques-theyre-using-you-right-now.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control
http://people.howstuffworks.com/brainwashing1.htm
http://www.phinnweb.org/neuro/brainwash/

For more websites like these, just use your favorite search engine and type in "brainwashing techniques".

Faith, knowledge and emotions

In the New Testament book of John chapter 20 verse 29 we get the message that Thomas was blessed for seeing the resurrected Jesus and believing in him, but we also get the message that even more blessed are all those who believe without seeing Jesus resurrected and in person. For me, this scripture was the basis of feeling that faith in Jesus, without having seen him in person, could be even more powerful than actually having seen him to verify his exalted state. This was interpreted by me to mean that the knowledge that comes from faith in the unseen is more noble than knowledge that comes from our own senses.

Perhaps this is why I got so much blow-back from believers in the LDS church that are my friends when I posted the following quote on my Facebook wall, "The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty." by Ann Lamott. This rubs members of the LDS church the wrong way. We are so conditioned to believe that the knowledge that comes from faith is superior to knowledge gained from observation that when the very nature of faith (as a principle that is not knowledge, but a tool that can be used to obtain knowledge) is pointed out to us, we feel threatened and attacked.

To have faith in things that are unseen is viewed as a virtue in a religious context, however, why don't we feel the same way when it comes to book learning? One thing I never could figure out is why there was such a difference in the way I was taught things at school versus how I was taught things at church. For example, Sunday school teachers would teach things and then "testify" of their truth at the end of the lesson. My teachers in school never did that. My science teacher never taught me about some scientific theory or idea and then closed with some variation of, "...and I want you young people to know that I have a testimony of these things..." Why not? What is the difference between knowledge gained in church versus at school? I think the difference is pretty clear.

Faith is the foundation of what is taught at church and knowledge is the foundation of what is taught in school. Teachers in school don't need to "testify" of what they teach, because they have the scientific method backing up their position. If it is possible, they want to be proven wrong and, in some cases, they are.

I remember watching an interview with Brian Greene, the physics professor at Columbia University who popularized string theory in books and PBS television specials. He was asked, "What will you do if it turns out that (a certain aspect of) string theory is not accurate?" His answer actually surprised me since it seems like he has a pretty vested interest in seeing string theory become an accepted scientific principle. His response was something to the effect of, "that would be great, because then we would be one step closer to knowing more about how things actually are in the universe!" I'm sure people can find scientists who don't share this outlook on the future of scientific discovery because they have a heavily vested interest in seeing their view of things become the accepted standard, but  I think (maybe I simply hope) that these folks are in the minority.

However, teachers at church don't want to prove anything except what they have been taught and accept on faith as truth. Learning at church is a simple exercise in agreement. Every part of the institution is set up to confirm what has been taught at one time or another as a self evident truth. While there are references to experiments and ways of finding truth in the Book of Mormon, these are really just lip service. The faithful don't really want anyone to perform experiments to find out just how beneficial prayer can be, for example. They want allegorical or anecdotal evidence to confirm their pre-existing beliefs of what they have been told is the expected outcome.

To suggest that someone has performed an experiment on their faith with any scientific objectivity is considered insulting to the faithful. To even bring it up means being met with an argument from compartmentalization. Meaning, you will be told that science (i.e. objective observation to confirm or deny the most logical explanation [theory] for something) and faith are simply incompatible. I have been told several times that one cannot prove spiritual things with science and that science will not ever be able to prove spiritual things.

While that may be true to some, science can explain the cause of experiences that we may be tempted to attribute to a "spiritual" experience. Imagine that one has some sort of spiritual epiphany that brings one closer to the deity they imagine. If we can ask the person to describe what they feel at that time, we might find that it is some sort of euphoric, warm, tingly or happy feeling. So the question is, could that same set of feelings be reproduced under different circumstances? My guess is they could. I get those feelings, that I used to attribute to spiritual communication, at very odd times, with no apparent explanation at all. Usually the feeling comes when I talk with someone I care about and desire to help them in some way. But it is not a feeling I can reproduce at will. Even if I try to duplicate the circumstances as completely as possible, there just won't be the same feeling come. There is very little in the way of a pattern or predictability for it. It comes when I don't really expect it. Much like other emotions we experience, usually there is some environmental stimulus for them, but other times they may be the result of hormonal or chemical imbalances or seem to be completely random in nature. Those emotional responses that are based on hormonal or chemical imbalances can be reproduced and experienced at will given the right set of circumstances being reproduced in the body or brain if we could measure and alter those things in a precise manner (for the most part).

So, if I am genuinely interested in establishing whether or not these spiritual experiences are coming from some deity somewhere (Where exactly, no one seems to know. On a side note, the physical locations in the known universe that God could be existing/hiding in are pretty remote at this point. About the only place God could possibly exist is in other dimensions - which we have yet to prove exist with any certainty - or at some sub, sub, sub, sub atomic level that we don't have the ability to observe yet) or being generated as a simple, and somewhat predictable, emotional response, I would begin with a hypothesis.

That is; feelings of euphoria, peace, love, joy, happiness, goodness (internal sense of right and wrong) come from an unseen deity or they are merely appendages of the continuum of emotions we all experience in our human experience.

It would seem pretty simple to show that if any of the emotional responses we experience in everyday life overlap anywhere with what we might label as "spiritual" experiences that would be pretty damning to the belief that they originate from God. However, let's say that God IS found in all the mundane and petty details of our lives that stimulate emotional responses - i.e. God is the source of ALL of our emotions. If that is the case, then there is no way to differentiate between those feelings that are beneficial - and intended to bring us closer to God - and those that are just part of the everyday human experience. If that is the case, then it seems pretty meaningless to attach meaning where no meaning can be objectively derived. If God is the source of ALL emotion (and He very well could be), my conclusion is that emotional responses are not a good indicator of the existence of God or as a tool that should be used to gauge effectiveness in living a life worthy of God's approval. It is also safe to say that such emotional responses do not contain any explicit set of instructions or interpretations to go along with them (at least mine don't anyway but, then again, I may be a defective unit). This is especially troubling when we realize that emotional responses can be triggered through manipulation.

If someone tells me that someone close to me has died (and I trust them to the point that I don't think to question their information) then that could easily elicit a strong emotional response in me. In that case, my outpouring of feelings expressed at such news would have been generated by false information. If God is the source of all our feelings, why does He rely on such an unreliable medium to convey what could be seen as, arguably, the most important information we need (i.e. knowledge of the plan for being able to determine our ETERNAL station related to God)? To quote Boyd K. Packer, "Why would God do such a thing?" It really makes no sense.

So, until someone can explain why God would choose to place so much emphasis on such an unreliable mechanism for determining truth, I will maintain my position that faith is only useful if it brings us to knowledge (that is real, provable and able to be duplicated under any differing circumstances through objective experiment) otherwise, faith in things that can be repeatedly dis proven is not a useful mechanism to lead us to knowledge and deserves to be discarded in favor of something better (a better faith).

By the way, faith is actually a pretty useful tool in science, although it doesn't receive nearly as much airtime in science as it does in religious circles. Something that has really helped me understand the place of faith in the world of science is that faith is what motivates the performing of experiments to validate a belief in how the world works. If someone comes up with an idea about how they think things ought to work they try to develop a hypothesis (i.e. a statement about what they believe so that it could become a law to guide future scientists). Once a hypothesis is arrived at, a scientist - having faith in their hypothesis - attempts to come up with experiments to prove or disprove their hypothesis. Faith certainly drives the scientist to keep going when the going is difficult, but the ultimate courage (and test of faith) comes when the experiment reveals the truth or falsehood of the hypothesis. In that moment, faith is either strengthened or diminished in that belief (hypothesis). Of course, it is kind of odd to think that if faith is strengthened, that means it is actually going away because it is leading to knowledge. This is the way it should be. Faith either leads us to knowledge (where knowledge displaces our faith in something) or it leads to a revision of our hypothesis and faith in something different.  Faith is a tool that is useful as a stepping stone to knowledge, but that's it. It's not really good for much more than that.

To maintain faith in something that can't be proven through experiment seems pretty silly. In fact, I wonder what God would say to people who advocated maintaining their faith in Him in spite of lots of observable evidence to the contrary? Will He reward those who do not test and try to disprove their faith? Or how will He look on those who tried to find the best possible explanations for the world as we know it and tried to eliminate those ideas that turned out to be contradictory, unreliable, or non-universal in nature? I would like to think that God will look kindly on those that challenged their faith and relied on logic and reason to determine ultimate truth. I don't think God wants blind followers, I think God wants people who can think and reason and make tough decisions (even if that means they see that abandoning faith fits with experiment and observations in piecing together the big picture of who and what we are as people). People who have to come up with other things to base morality on besides tradition and ancient mythology. I hope God sees those people as deserving of great rewards in the afterlife believers cling to. Otherwise, I'm screwed, but I'm OK with that.

Making enemies on Facebook

For your reading pleasure. When I was pretty angry about the church, I thought I would engage in the following fishing expedition on Facebook and see what happened. Enjoy!

Me (Wall Post 1): How to know if you belong to a cult Part 1: Mind control techniques are utilized such as; 1. Deception 2. Exclusivism 3. Fear and intimidation 4. Love bombing and relationship control 5. Information control 6. Reporting Structure 7. Time control and 8. Recruiting new members is highly emphasized.
Monday 9:38 PM • Like • 2 People Like This

Me (Wall Post 2): How to know if you are part of a cult Part 2: Cults exhibit the following; 1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability. 2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
Monday 9:07 PM • Like •

Me (Wall Post 3): Cult groups/behaviors can also be manifest in political organizations. Be careful out there!
Monday 8:40 AM • Like

Me (Wall Post 4): How to know if you are part of a cult Part 2 (Cont'd): 3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses. 4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions. 5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.
Monday 9:07 PM • Like •

Me (Wall Post 5): How to know if you are part of a cult Part 2 (Cont'd): 6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances. 7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader. 8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough". 9. The group/leader is always right.
Monday 9:05 PM • Like •

Me (Wall Post 6): How to know if you are part of a cult Part 2 (Cont'd): 10. Followers are encouraged to forsake friends/family for the "good" of the group.
Monday 9:05 PM • Like •


Non LDS Friend from High School: That sounds like most jobs I've had.
Monday 10:15 PM • Like

My TBM Aunt: :(
Tuesday 12:42 AM • Like

Me: @ Non LDS Friend from High School: Some jobs actually do fall into that category!

@ My TBM Aunt: Why the sad face? Do you know someone trapped by such a system? It is very sad when people don't realize they are in a cult and therefore do nothing about it or they feel trapped and don't know how to get out. What is even more sad is when they don't see an organization for what it really is. For some reason everyone believes that it will never happen to them.
Tuesday 8:21 AM • Like

My TBM Aunt: The sad face is for you . . . I pity you!! You and your personal new religion fit your own description above (of a cult) to a "T". Your only purpose is to do your own recruiting!! You are rude, and you are driving those who loved you away!! Please don't continue this dialogue... I'm not interested in anything you have to say about it!!! Your wife and your parents are heartbroken at your behavior!!! You are entitled to your own beliefs, but you are NOT entitled to be disrespectful of others beliefs!!!
Tuesday 4:50 PM • Like • 1 Likes This

Me: How exactly am I being rude? I am trying to be educational. Whose beliefs am I being disrespectful to exactly?
Tuesday 9:13 PM • Like

My TBM Mom: Are you talking about the church, Facsimilogos?
Tuesday 11:35 PM • Like

Me: I am talking about cults. Is the church a cult?
Wednesday 7:25 AM • Like

My TBM Cousin In Law: Dude, chill out!!!
Wednesday 9:10 AM • Like

Me: I am sorry if people are uncomfortable with the information I am sharing. What I would ask, however, is that everyone take a step back and ask, "Why is what is posted here bothering me? Is there something troubling about what is listed here that I need to address in my beliefs/views?" Anytime people believe they have all the answers, that is when the fighting starts. I don't claim to have any answers, but I can identify behaviors that are psychologically manipulative. Why can't we all just get along and recognize there are people out there who support such organizations who need to be calling for reform. Let the light shine. Openness and honesty is the path to freedom and enlightenment.
Wednesday 9:31 AM • Like

My TBM Cousin In Law: What to expect from a person that actually believes that 9-11 was a Conspiracy? Wise up... Nobody is bothered by your thoughts.. This is America, u can say whatever you want to say. And I can say out loud, that you should take the American label out of you... How can you be that insane? Have you gone totally mad? I feel sorry for you... I'm done talking to you, dude. I have a life to leave, and I don't spend my time, bashing other people's religions or for that matter, CULT. And yes, I'm a very proud American citizen, no apologies, here.
Wednesday 10:17 AM • Like

My TBM Cousin In Law: Life to live, actually. TYPO, just for u not to think I'm an ignorant Mormon.
Wednesday 10:18 AM • Like

Me: Wow! Ad hominem attacks, eh? Character assassination? Appeals to patriotism? Whatever makes you feel better, I guess.
Wednesday 10:24 AM • Like

Me: For the record. I do not believe 9/11 was a conspiracy. I don't have any idea how it would have been accomplished if that were the case. What I do believe, however, is that there are a few anomalous things that happened on 9/11 that probably deserve further investigation. Things such as melted steel remaining in the basements of the collapsed towers for at least several days and traces of thermite/thermate residue found in the WTC dust to name a few. I am totally open to any theories to possibly explain these things, however I have not seen or heard any.
Wednesday 10:27 AM • Like

PM from My TBM Cousin In Law:
And by the way, I don't need to do any character assassination to you. We all know by now, you have no character whatsoever... Just the way you commented on my niece's posts, and after the whole family in California has opened our homes to you and family, you obviously have no integrity. I will say that to you, because you need to hear it.

I will have no association from here on with you, I cannot believe the trash you are spilling about you know what, I'm really sorry for you. My 13 year-old boy has read all the stuff you say, and he can judge for himself what kind of a man you are. I don't have to tell him, plus, the more exposure they have with people like you, they will know the truth for themselves.

Just like my husband says, I have a single question for you? Which commandment couldn't you keep?

I have blocked you from everything. So, go ahead and reply.
Wednesday 5:00 PM

New Facebook Thread:

Me (Wall Post 7): Friends don't let friends join cults!
Monday 9:08 PM • Like • 2 People Like This

TBM Friend 1: What's with all the cult stuff??
Monday 9:12 PM • Like

Me: I have been approached by organizations recently that kind of scared me and I almost became a victim to. I just want to educate people on what to look out for.
Monday 9:14 PM • Like

TBM Friend 2: Weird! What organizations?
Monday 9:28 PM • Like

My TBM Dad: I sure am glad I do not belong to any cults....
Monday 11:47 PM • Like

My TBM Dad: There are many organizations which exhibit some or many of the traits you have described. One also has to look at the things the organization does as well, usually if they are doing good in the communities they are involved in you need to be careful labeling them as a cult, as you may be wrong. There are many instances where the difference is very close, but not the same. Sometimes it is better to keep an opinion to yourself than to hurt the ones around you with wild thoughts and statements that are really not true and have no basis in fact.
Monday 11:54 PM • Like • 1 Person Likes This

TBM Friend 3: What is up with you?
Tuesday 12:32 AM • Like

TBM Friend 2: Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

There's the difference...moral code.
Tuesday 6:38 AM • Like

Me: @ TBM Friend 2: mlm. Are you saying that if an org exhibits all of these qualities, but they have a moral code, that it's ok?
Tuesday 7:29 AM • Like

TBM Friend 2: I'm just telling you what's in the dictionary. If you look up cult in the dictionary and compare it to the definition for religion, that's the difference.
Tuesday 7:42 AM • Like

Me: I see other differences such as: "followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices,
fad: an interest followed with exaggerated zeal; "he always follows the latest fads"; "it was all the rage that season",
followers of an unorthodox, extremist, or false religion or sect who often live outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader,
a religion or sect that is generally considered to be unorthodox, extremist, or false; "it was a satanic cult"."

But I think you are right. The difference between the two may not be much. However, I think there are religious sects out there that do not exhibit the qualities listed, that are definitely religions, but would clearly not be capable of being called a cult.
Tuesday 8:27 AM • Like

Me: Dad, I am not sure what you think I am talking about here. My intent is not to hurt, but to inform. My thoughts and statements are taken directly from professional sources who study and document such behaviors and groups. I am only copying them here for everyone's insight and to stimulate discussion. It seems to me that organizations that promote good ideals, works or behavior are fine, but they can be better by not engaging in the practices listed. I think there are good organizations, but there may be better one's that do not need to resort to the practices I listed.
Tuesday 8:36 AM • Like

TBM Friend 4: I think he is referring to supporting Obama I read through the definition a couple of times. It's supporting Obama or being a packers fan it's a toss-up!
Tuesday 8:43 AM • Like • 1 Person Likes This

TBM Friend 2: Or the hard core scrapbookers...I've always thought they were a bit questionable!
Tuesday 9:00 AM • Like • 1 Person Likes This

My TBM Dad: Sounds like terrorists to me
Tuesday 10:03 AM • Like

Me: We are the terrorists.
Tuesday 10:09 AM • Like

My TBM Dad: It depends on your point of view, as with many things. Also, as with life many things depend on your point of view, 2 people can look at the same things and come up with different ideas about what it is, so the question then becomes how to attract people to your point of view without turning them against you for your point of view. That is why we have elections, so the terrorists (candidates) can persuade you to their point of view. Then when they really see the true you you risk losing their support and their point of view changes.....
Tuesday 10:14 AM • Like

My TBM Dad: The things you have said about "cults" could also apply to most families around the world, I would hope you would educate yourself, not just reading about one side of such things, but equal education about these important things. If you only research one side of any org. your study runs the risk of becoming a vendetta against that org. and you may not be seeing important things that are good about them which separates them from being a cult or terrorist org......
Tuesday 10:21 AM • Like

Me: Exactly. However, I think as human beings we are all capable of understanding right and wrong. Murder is wrong. No matter how you sugar coat it, if you kill, you have committed an atrocity to the human race. Threatening to kill is wrong. It is just too bad we haven't made that a priority as a race of people. Instead, we kill when others don't see things our way and we justify it by saying it was for the "good" of the group/country or whatever.
Tuesday 10:21 AM • Like

Me: Dad, Like what are you talking about? So it is OK for families to engage in deception? Engage in exclusive-ism? Use fear and intimidation? Control access to information? I suppose there are families that engage in such things, but I don't think that would be the ideal. Do you?
Tuesday 10:34 AM • Like

My TBM Dad: To some, killing is wrong , only if you get caught, in the Quran, if you become a martyr for the cause you will be rewarded in heaven and this reward depends upon how many infidels you took with you into the afterlife, so your very definition of right/wrong is again subject to the way you understand it, and not necessarily the way everyone understands it. Statements of fact are still open to interpretation, even very basic things can change, remember that at one time basic science taught that the sun moved around the earth.......
Tuesday 10:35 AM • Like

Me: Are you saying that those that believe such things are correct?
Tuesday 10:37 AM • Like

My TBM Dad: I am saying that just because you believe something it may not be black and white, so do your research, but keep an open mind about things because you may need to change your mind and point of view, and eat your words, and sometimes they taste like crow. It is their belief, what I say will not change their minds as it is their culture and only time a being subject to change and good will make any difference...
Tuesday 10:57 AM • Like

Non-TBM Sister: Don't drink the Kool - Aid. Especially if it's BLUE.
Tuesday 3:41 PM • Like • 2 People Like This

Non-TBM Friend: you know what I think, I think we should eat more cake and be jolly!! Hahaha, seriously, none of us can or will be able to change the world nor can we change an individual persons mind, we have to believe in what we believe in because at the end of the day that is what gets us through it all BUT I am a firm believer in you think for yourself and you only follow when it's necessary, like a child from birth being told what to do until the child is old enough to make their own distinctions and decisions, people need to be more open-minded, more blunt in a reasonable manner, and more loving, if we did these things more those of us who may or may not be religious would be more accepting of one another and we wouldn't have so much conflict, the problem is that everyone believes that what they believe in is it that there is nothing else or that there is no other possibility and that clouds everything...Lesson for today: Think for yourself, don't follow others unless you are a kid, eat more cake, be jolly, have an open mind, love your fellow human being more, and please, please, please be more blunt but in a reasonable manner, communication is key folks!
Wednesday 12:46 PM • Like

Non-TBM Sister 2: don't drink the fluoridated koolaid
Wednesday 8:39 PM • Like • 1 Person Likes This

(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 dreamed a dream

I had a dream last night where I was in a room surrounded by close relatives and friends and everyone was engaged in making comments about me. No one was really talking directly to me, but they were all making veiled jabs at my disbelief to one extent or another. Some of them were quite hurtful and made me very sad. I awoke and made some observations about what transpired in the dream. The first one was that even though everyone in the room was aware of my disbelief, no one bothered to ask the obvious question, "Chris, Why don't you believe in the church anymore?", let alone listen to my thoughtful and sincere answers. In fact, no one even bothered to ask me any questions at all to attempt to understand where I might be coming from. Everyone just assumed that what they heard (or assumed based on their understanding of what causes people to fall away from the church) about me was true.

Another observation I made was that everyone was very condescending in their attitude towards me. They would seek affirmation from others in the group in various ways (to confirm their beliefs), but their comments were designed to either put me down or make light of my situation so that it did not have to be dealt with in any meaningful way. Everyone seemed to have an opinion about my situation, but they had no interest in finding out about my situation from the person who was in the situation. I found this very frustrating. I woke up at the most frustrating point of the scenario.

When I woke up I also began to formulate a question I wish I could have posed to everyone present at that time. Of course, it was a long question that needed a lot of foundation to be established, but now that I think about it, since no one seemed to be interested in actually learning about why I am where I am at, I don't know why they would even attempt to listen to a question posed to them in the most sincere and thoughtful manner possible. I started to feel like I was the only one capable of listening and actually processing what was being said by people without applying an automatic bias to what was being said. I felt like I was a scapegoat for everyone to unload all their fears and insecurities (disguised as convictions) on. Anyway, here is the question I began to formulate to ask my relatives and friends present in my dream;

We know from the bible it is taught that God giveth to ALL men liberally and upbraideth not when we ask Him for something (James 1:5). We also know that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). We also know that Jesus taught that God desires to give us exactly what we need because since we know how to give good gifts to our children, God most certainly knows how to give the best gifts to us (Matt 7:9-11). To me these scriptural teachings mean that everyone is entitled to answers to prayers and, at a minimum, to feel the spirit when those things that are taught contain God's truth for mankind. The feeling of the spirit should be inseparably interconnected with God's truth when it is uttered.

Based on these teachings, what I continue to fail to understand is two things:

1) Why is it that if two people who both earnestly seek for the feeling of the spirit to confirm the same truths that have been confirmed to others, that one person will claim to have received that divine guidance and the other will not? Why does Heavenly Father do that to anyone?

2) Why is it that when truths are taught that we may claim to have felt the spirit about when they were originally taught don't cause us to feel the spirit the next time the very same thing is taught at a different time or under different circumstances?

Both of these questions have to do with consistency. Is it too much to ask that the things of God that are manifest actually be consistent with the teachings in who is able to receive them and that we consistently feel God's spirit when the things of God are taught even though the circumstances of hearing the truths may be different?

The problem is that the response of believers to these questions is to blame the person who is never able to receive the hoped for answers or feeling that they are seeking. They will give some variation of; the person who does not receive the feeling of the spirit must not be in tune to feeling the spirit at that time. They will then cite a litany of possible reasons for their unworthiness of being able to feel the spirit which all boil down to, regardless of how sincere the person is or how hard they try to achieve that worthiness, they are just still failing on some level. It is always the fault of the person who isn't feeling the spirit and there is always some additional requirement that can be heaped on as a prerequisite before the person will be "worthy" of feeling the spirit.

The problem is the list of requirements never ends and is also literally impossible to completely fulfill. Once you are doing everything you are supposed to do, what will inevitably happen is you will fail in being diligent with one of the other requirements. For example, I can't possibly do everything the church teaches and not falter in some other area. I can't possibly attend all my meetings and do all my genealogy and attend the temple with the diligence that is required in all those areas. It is also a case where no matter how much a person does, if they claim to not be able to feel the spirit, there must just be something more they are missing or maybe it is some sin they are committing that is making them an unclean vessel. Since nothing can be entirely isolated as the reason, the assumption is that it must just be something more that everyone is not aware of, but it is still the person's fault who is not feeling the spirit. It is never possible to consider that God might be the one to blame, because no one can ever assume He might ever be wrong.

This type of blame the victim mentality is just sickening to those who are on the receiving end of it. It is just like if a woman is raped and then she is blamed for it. It is just heinous to think about when that happens. Of course, I realize that there are probably still circles where this is an acceptable reaction towards the woman who is raped (i.e. to blame them for it), and this makes my heart sink and go out to those poor women who are blamed for something they are absolutely not responsible for in any way shape or form. (Of course, I understand that the line between consensual and non-consensual is sometimes very blurry, but in conditions where force is evident, I believe we should always err on the side of compassion towards the one who is claiming to have been raped, since they are truly the victim in such cases).

This causes me to wonder if it is even possible for some to ever see the hurt, pain and loneliness the judgments that are cast on others result in? I know the pain I have felt has been immense at so many times, but the response of believers seems to be, "Well, you deserve to feel pain you stupid, unrighteous apostate! If you just had faith and conformed to the truth of God all your pain would go away." How can people be so presumptuously callous? How can people who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus (who taught that we should love our neighbor as ourselves) be so extreme on the opposite end of that spectrum by despising those that simply don't understand why there are inconsistencies. People are condemned for thinking that they might possibly have a more likely explanation for it all? In essence I am asking here, why can't we all just get along? Why can't believers not treat those disaffected members of the church so harsh and abrasively? Why can't they try to understand the disaffected members viewpoint and actually consider some of the points they try to convey?

Unfortunately, I have to conclude that it is in our very nature to be judgmental and ostracize people who do not belong to our perceived group. Maybe we cannot ever fully overcome this tendency and there will always be pain and suffering and division amongst those who are separate from, or outside of, religious groups everywhere. I just wish people would think a little more about how the things they say may be hurtful to others who may not agree with their view or see things differently for some reason. I believe that, while I am not perfect in this, I do try to see things from the perspective of others a lot more now than I used to. The difficulty comes when my sympathy is directed towards those who have historically been the one to blame for their woes.

Shouldn't a church that claims to have all the truth of God in it's doctrinal canon have, as a result of its influence, the means to help people be able to see things better from others' perspectives, instead of bringing people up to shun and be critical of others outside the group so quickly? Why is this not the case - especially in God's only true and living church on the earth today? Unfortunately, nobody who needs to hear these things is still listening to me at this point.

My dream is that the pain that comes from the critical comments and ostracism caused by believing members of the church towards those who do not believe, for whatever reason, will cease. I also wish that we could all work to understand things better from the perspective of others without automatically assuming they are sinning (or applying any other unsubstantiated bias until the situation is fully understood). Stephen Covey said it best, I think, when he said that one of the habits of a highly effective person is to seek first to understand, then to be understood.

If anyone is listening, I am not in pain because I have sinned. I am not in pain because I deserve it. I am in pain because I have been judged and cast out by those that I continue to love without due consideration of my viewpoint. My viewpoint has only been arrived at through thoughtful criticism of what I was taught should be considered the most important questions in life. Unfortunately the answers I have arrived at are now different than what I was taught. And if you ever want to know exactly what those things are, I'll be more than happy to explain. All you have to do is ask.

(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.)

Self Talk

I have so many thoughts right now. I am hoping that by attempting to write about them it will help to order my mind somewhat. Right now I am really struggling with the fact that belief in God is so polarizing. I am very sad that civil discourse between those that believe with those that don't is so difficult to find, let alone engage in. My wife and I have resorted to simply not talking about so many things because of the resulting "debates" and "arguments" that seemed to invariably occur anytime one of us brings up something religious. I know I win the debate each time, but it seems like I usually fail to convince anyone of anything (that and my wife doesn't like to debate, apparently). This makes me really sad. I have a very hard time being sympathetic to her views and she doesn't want to go where my searching has lead me, so we are at an impasse.

For this reason, sometimes I just hate the church and what it has done. While I want to blame the church for my present difficulties, I also hate to admit that if I had not gone against the teachings of the church and read "forbidden" "anti" Mormon things, I may not be in the situation I am in. However, I cannot accept that line of thinking because what really started me down this path was not because I was going quickly to forbidden "anti" literature. What started me on this path was studying and pondering the content of the the Book of Abraham! I was literally trying to understand my beliefs better and feel like I got the short end of the stick because of it. I now see that Joseph Smith left a lot of clues to be able to discover the extent of his deception. The problem is, the only way to find them is to begin to look critically at church history and doctrine. Many cannot even get to that point. Where there is no ability to be critical of a doctrine, or set of beliefs, there is no possibility of ever being able to deny it's truthfulness. The problem is the church teaches that truthfulness is most important while ignoring the fact that it is not being truthful with its members in presenting its history.

The other thing I have been thinking about (as a result of listening to a motivational seminar by Brian Tracy on a recent road trip) lately is the power of our self talk. We all have internal dialogue that takes place all the time. The power contained in our self dialogue is pretty immense and can affect our lives dramatically over time. While I want to look more into this to learn more about it, I understand that what we hear and say contributes to the responses we receive from our subconscious and the quality of the self talk that takes place all the time within us. This self talk usually consists of our conscious mind asking questions and our subconscious mind providing answers based on what we are asking. Therefore, the quality (and content) of our questions (or self talk) are what contributes to the response of our subconscious. The focus of our subconscious mind ultimately becomes our reality. Of course, Brian Tracy says this inner dialogue can be manipulated by saying positive things about ourselves to ourselves over and over. The more emotion we attach to these messages, the more powerful and convincing they become to affect change in our lives. The ability to change our inner dialogue is a difficult process and can take some time to actually accomplish, but doing so can really create change in our lives.

I believe this to some extent, but I hate to think that my beliefs changed because I asked different questions and focused on different things! I know people who know the same things that I choose to label as deal breakers in my belief in the church, yet they still believe in spite of the knowledge they have of the problems. They just choose not to label them as deal breakers, I guess. Then again, the ability to see these issues as problems can really be affected by our self talk when responding to the issues in our mind. I believe the ability to isolate and minimize the issues to prevent acknowledging the big picture is a direct result of internal dialogue that is constantly minimizing the issues or their larger implications. I also think some people use the implications of religion not being accurate as a quick reason to simply avoid going anywhere near there automatically. People say, "I don't like where this is going, so I am just not going to allow myself to go there."

I know that my self talk did change gradually as I made conscious decisions in regard to various aspects of my set of religious beliefs, but it took time because each part had to be analyzed and addressed on a case by case basis. However, sometimes I wonder (if this idea of being able to affect our self talk with what we say and hear is really true) what would happen if I went back to church for my family so I could make them happy when they go to church. I worry that maybe my self talk would change, because of what I heard, so that I wasn't so opposed to what the church asks and I would eventually get to a point where I could ignore all my issues. Would I eventually get to a point where I could participate in church without any reservations? I honestly think my self talk would drive me crazy pointing out all the inconsistencies, deception and troubling aspects and this would lead to anger and frustration that I end up taking out on my family. Right now, not going to church seems to keep the peace, so that is where I am at.

I know a couple of people pretty well who participate fully in church (out of consideration for their family) that say they don't believe. One has a temple recommend but tells me (in private conversation) its all a bunch of crap, but pays minimal tithing and just figures that since people want to believe, he is not detracting from that and allowing them to do so. Keeping peace in the family is the primary reason this person says is why they keep going to church. I worry that this response for me would lead to too much cognitive distress and anger. It is certainly less peaceful for my family when I go to church because I have been so angry afterwards, it makes for not very happy times at home on Sunday afternoons/evenings. I wonder if this response of mine could ever change. Is it just a matter of my focus right now? Since I am focused on the problems, have I made them out to be bigger or more serious than they actually are?

The other person close to me does not believe and does not have a temple recommend or pay tithing, but goes to church and tries to point out difficult issues whenever they come up in lessons. I have heard from others, in the ward they attend, that people think that this person's attendance at church tends to distract from lessons because they insist on pointing out the problems whenever they come up. I have a hard time with this because I think if I am going to church, it means that I am sort of giving up my right to dissent. Church is a place for believers to go to be strengthened in their belief. I don't think it is a place for non believers to go and try to tell the believers why they are messed up in their beliefs.

This idea of trying to correct the church from within, I think, is like swimming upstream. It is always going to be difficult and the reality is the group is not going see the opposite view of things because the church has many systems setup to keep people focused on ignoring or always putting the problems out of their mind. I think that no matter how many things you show believers to cast doubt on their beliefs, they will always find a way to gloss over or minimize or completely ignore the issues being brought up. I guess this is simply a matter of their focus. I just wonder if it is so simple a thing that if you just focus on one thing that you want to be true, that people can successfully ignore real challenges to their beliefs if they do that. I guess it is happening all over the world, so I have to assume it is that simple. So, why do I not feel like if I just changed my focus that I could go back to believing in the church and be able to participate without being angry? Is this just what I want? I want to be respected enough to have my assertions challenged and to be shown why I am wrong. I don't want people to blindly follow what I say. I want to build from a foundation of integrity and let integrity guide me when setting up a belief system for myself.

I think I also take for granted that I have faced the fear that goes along with questioning beliefs about God and the hereafter. These are extremely difficult things to challenge because there is so much fear (which I think is built up quite a bit by religion, however) surrounding an acknowledgement that beliefs in God may not be true. I also wonder if many people are simply not capable of facing this fear, of things not being the way they want, and therefore they are truly not capable of ever focusing on other possibilities. Facing fear, I think, is extremely difficult, but I think it is worth the effort. I can say that I feel so much better for having begun to address my fear of the non-existance of God and an afterlife. It has made my life all the more rich and meaningful. I appreciate my life so much more. I am more inspired by nature than I ever was before. I am also a little more cynical on some things, too, but I think this is OK. I am a realist. I live in the present and I focus on reality and I think I come away more inspired and more motivated to learn and take advantage of my time here on this planet than I ever was while believing that I had an eternal afterlife to be able to catch up in my understanding of things.

However, I know lots of people, who have not faced the fear, will find that statement extremely difficult to believe. How can I show them those things are true if they never want to go there? I guess by being an example of integrity and moving forward with a focus on the here and now instead of the hereafter. I think I struggle with wanting to help others understand what I think I know. I really want others to see what I see. The hardest thing for me to accept is that there are those (probably many, actually) that will never get to where I am at. I guess I just need to keep telling myself that and maybe one day I will accept it?

Salt and fairy tales

I am subscribed to the LDS Living newsletter and I sometimes peruse the Family Home Evening lessons that catch my interest. A recent one I just got was on the topic of personal revelation. I decided that since I need some of that, I would read further. You can read it here if you are so inclined.

So the lesson starts out making the statement, "As Latter-day Saints, we have testimonies . . . given to us by revelation, assuring us that this religion and its doctrines are true." That's nice. So, I have a question; What is it that makes LDS testimonies true more so than any other proclamation of belief by an adherent of any other faith in the world that is declared to have been received by revelation from God?

I'll read on...

Boyd K. Packer starts out a story to illustrate the idea, apparently, that revelation is different than something we can measure or be sure of in any logical or philosophical sense. He says, "Although a testimony of [the] plan is of crucial importance to us, we must not count on winning many debates on the plan of redemption versus the prevailing theories and philosophies of men."

Besides being everlastingly unfortunate that Boyd is admitting that church goers will never be able to win any arguments using reason and sound thinking with reasonable minds of the day, it is funny to me that people can never have a forum to question leaders of the church. If such a forum were available, I would ask, "Why is a testimony of God's plan of such "crucial" importance to me?" Alas, I may never receive an answer from the insulated LDS hierarchy.

The lesson continues with Boyd Packer's incontrovertible argument for the individual knowledge that is known as a testimony of the truthfulness of his beliefs. From his book published in 1997 "Memorable Stories and Parables" he tells of his chance encounter and conversation with an atheist on a plane. He says that the atheist ridiculed him and so he bore his testimony to him saying, "There is a God, I know He lives!". After much more ridicule (Boyd describes the atheist's words as "sneering" and "condescending") the atheist responded with something along the lines of, "Tell me how you know it?" Note, the atheist did not ask for Boyd to tell him what the knowledge was based on or to describe the attributes of the knowledge. He simply asked for him to tell the atheist how he knew what he claimed to know.

Boyd was stumped. He wasn't sure how to respond to the atheist's question. Finally, a flash of revelation comes to him. He decides to liken the experience of receiving a testimony of God's existence to salt. Boyd asks the atheist if he has tasted salt. To which the atheist responds, "Of course, I had some with my dinner on the plane just a bit ago." Then Boyd goes on to ask the atheist to describe what salt tastes like. The atheist can't do it. He can only describe what it isn't. Then Boyd triumphantly declares that his knowledge of the existence of God is just like tasting salt and since the atheist can't describe with words what salt tastes like, Boyd must be correct and there must be a God. Since Boyd has so confounded the desperate and miserable atheist the only comeback the poor atheist can muster is uttered under his breath as he slithers away in defeat, "I don’t need your religion for a crutch. I don’t need it." (Boyd actually used the word "mutter" which means to mumble, grumble or murmur, gotta love it :P

Of course, aside from all the derogatory characterizations of the atheist, Boyd will insist that his analogy is perfect and the failure by the atheist to be able to describe what salt tastes like is proof that he must be right. But let's take another look. The atheist asked Boyd to tell him "how" he knew it, not what exactly it means. The atheist didn't ask Boyd to describe what God looks like or where he lives or even what his favorite color is (which every good Mormon knows is white, by the way). Boyd responded by showing that the atheist couldn't answer the question of what he knows, when this was not the same question posed to Boyd in the first place. Remember, the question was, "how he knows", not "describe what it is he knows". If Boyd were to play fair and remain consistent in his point, he would have asked the atheist "how" he knows what salt tastes like. The answer would have been simple, "I have tasted it. I have felt the exact same sensation on my tongue that I have come to interpret, according to my experience, as the taste of salt." In order for Boyd to have the same experience and "know" what salt tastes like, the atheist could have offered him some salt and then Boyd could know right then and there what salt tastes like (if he did not know already - which he probably did, which made the comparison even more incompatible with the original question because the atheist genuinely did NOT know how Boyd knew God was real). After tasting for himself, Boyd's question of what salt tastes like could then be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Mutual knowledge and experience could have been enjoyed. Unfortunately, in this case, the poor atheist had to go on, in his miserable existence, not knowing what Boyd claimed to know or even how he knew it. What a kind and gentle man Boyd must be! Even talking with the poor atheist must have been such a sacrifice for him!

The difference between the two questions is that salt is real and it is something we can all agree exists. The existence of God (or, at least, who God communicates his will to), on the other hand, is something the world is very far from agreeing on. We can discern salt from any other white granular substance we may encounter through taste (as one means of identification). As for describing it, just because we can't describe what it tastes like (which is more a shortcoming of our language than anything else) doesn't mean it doesn't exist, which is the point Boyd is trying to make...just because we can't describe what the feeling/testimony/personal revelation confirming the existence of God feels like, doesn't mean it is any less real. No one can refute the reality (to the individual) of what they think they have personally experienced. The analogy of salt, however, fails because it does not endeavor to actually answer the question being posed.

Aside, from not being an accurate comparison of the question, I think there are additional problems with the analogy, even if we assume the comparison of the two questions were valid and that it does mean that Boyd can't describe how he knows that God lives (which is essentially what he is admitting to here);

While society at large can agree that salt exists, and can largely agree on what exactly it tastes like, independently confirming the existence of God is impossible outside of an individual's subjective experience/belief. In other words:

taste of salt = near universal agreement through objective means,

existence of God = individually determined through subjective means.

Some in the church proclaim that this is a wonderful attribute of personal revelation, but I think it is a recipe for disaster. The impression is given that the person, who is seeking to validate what others have said is real (in this case, the existence of God), is coming to an independent conclusion based on what they have personally experienced. However, this independence is an illusion because it is solely based on what one party (who claims to have a knowledge of the existence of God) is claiming to be true. Once this knowledge is proclaimed to be attainable by the individual, the party who is claiming the knowledge exists is actually the one dictating the terms of its existence. I'll illustrate this point with an example;

If I am walking, despondent through life, and I bump into you and for some reason I divulge to you that I need help with my love life. You say, "Oh, your fairy godmother should be able to help you out with that." I respond with, "I have never heard that I had a fairy godmother.", but, since I really want help with my love life, I inquire further, "How do I summon my fairy godmother?" Then you respond, "Well, it is different for everyone, but I can summon mine by ripping my clothes and kneeling down and crying and saying 3 times, 'Fairy godmother I need your help!'. That works ALMOST every time." So I ask, "What do you mean 'ALMOST' every time?" Then you say, "Well, it actually only worked for me one time, but I am sure it is the same for you...besides, if you really need help, she will appear for sure."

So I take your advice, rip my clothes, get worked up into an emotional state of need (just for good measure) and run outside, kneel down and tearfully exclaim, "Fairy godmother, I need your help!" repeated 3 times. Then I wait. I wait a very long time and nothing happens.

The next day, I come to visit you and say that I tried to summon my fairy godmother, but nothing happened. So you say, "Well, I guess you were just not desperate enough." At this point I am really frustrated, but I really want help with my love life so I ask if there is anything else I can do. To make a long story short, I try everything you can possibly think of to recreate the experience you had when you said your fairy godmother appeared, but she still does not appear for me. The question is, what should I conclude? I can conclude one of a couple possibilities, A) My fairy godmother exists, but she chooses not to come and help me, but if I do enough, at some point she will eventually show up. B) My fairy godmother does not exist, but if I imagine her to be real, and just believe enough, she will be real enough for me and that would be enough. Both possibilities assume that I really want to believe that my fairy godmother exists.

What I am trying to point out with this example is the control that is exerted by the person who claims to know that the fairy godmother is real. Whether intentional deception or not, the person claiming to have knowledge of something can exercise (and is exercising) some measure of control over a person who wants to have the same experience of their own. If a person wants something to be real bad enough, they will do pretty much anything that the person, who claims to have the knowledge, will tell them to do. It is only when a person can be mature enough to accept that the existence of a fairy godmother is a question that is not important, that one can get on with their life and find answers to questions about their love life that are proven to work in many documented cases - without the need for a fairy godmother to be real. One important thing I would point out about this is that it is not necessary to say there is no fairy godmother that is real to be able to solve real problems. We can still allow for the existence of the fairy godmother, but just choose not to exert so much effort in attempting to summon her to solve the problem.

This is what gets really irksome with the church. The church tells people who are found to be in some state of need (physically, emotionally, financially or otherwise) that there is a being (a "Heavenly Father") that could be labeled as a generous and loving heavenly being who really wants to help people out. Then, the person with the need is told that all they have to do is believe hard enough that this heavenly being is real and the heavenly being will start telling you important stuff and even reveal truths that you could not have otherwise discovered. The problem is, when a person asks how this all will happen they are told it is like trying to describe what salt tastes like, there is no way to independently confirm what the leaders of the church claim you will experience. In fact, they can't even begin to accurately describe how it will happen or even make any sort of guarantees that it WILL happen the same as it did for them (since they can't describe exactly "how" it happened without being extremely ambiguous). They just continue to assure that it will happen, on an individual level, if you just believe enough, without even describing what it is like when it does happen. The individual is left to create their own definition of how the knowledge will be confirmed and then decide when the definition has been fulfilled to their satisfaction. It is all defined by what the individual wants and how bad they want it.

Of course, the church then places conditions on the meaning of the experience you, yourself, have defined and determined that you have experienced to your satisfaction. These conditions include mandatory church attendance, mandatory service and acceptance of callings and mandatory payment of tithes and offerings...and all should be given only to the church that claimed to be able to let you define your own experience! It is just like all the stuff the person who told me my fairy godmother was real would tell me to do to be able to summon my fairy godmother. Rip your clothes, say some words, kneel down, these were all conditions given to assist in bringing about the manifestation. However, when the appearance fails to occur, the believer is told that they just aren't doing enough or have been negligent in their faith. Is the church capable of anything besides blaming the person who has not had the desired experience when the knowledge is not revealed as the believer hopes it will be? Unfortunately, I don't think so. By the way, to anyone that has experienced a visitation from their fairy godmother, I would love to hear about how it happened. Anyone?