Showing posts with label Cognitive Dissonance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cognitive Dissonance. Show all posts

Thursday, April 11, 2019

Mormon Thought Experiment

This post is in response to a YouTube video posted by the LDS church found here.

If prophets are such a key part of LDS theology, the current day prophet is set up as God's mouthpiece on the earth today for the whole earth. The presumption is that this status (of being the "one" prophet for the whole earth) is acceptable because the LDS church has the means and technology to potentially reach all people throughout the earth. Ok. Well, what about in past times?

The Book of Mormon is claimed to be a record of prophets, and their dealings, following a people who came from ancient Jerusalem to the American continent. The record starts out by following a man named Lehi who is claimed to be a prophet, called of God, to preach to the ancient inhabitants of Jerusalem and warn them of their pending invasion and enslavement by the Babylonians.

Since the people in Jerusalem would not listen to Lehi, he was commanded to take his family and leave the area. They eventually made their way to the American continent where the Book of Mormon proceeded to come forth as the record of that people and their history.

It is presumed that Lehi and his successors represented God as his chosen prophets throughout the history of that book.

It also could be presumed that, since the LDS church teaches that the Bible also contains words of prophets which lived in the ancient Mediterranean region, that prophets lived there until there was a falling away when the words of the Bible stopped being added to.

This would mean that there were, simultaneously, two or more prophets speaking to groups of inhabitants, in different locations of the world, based on the region that people would have access to hear them?

Is it possible that there could have been other prophets that lived in other remote regions at the same time throughout history based on the assumption that God will continue to speak to people who are isolated geographically from hearing the words imparted by His chosen prophets in different regions of the world?

If so, this lends credibility to the idea that there could be (or have been) other prophets to other peoples of the world at different times historically.

Could this explain that Buddha or Mohammed were actually prophets in their times that spoke for God to the people in the regions where they lived?

If that is possible, what should be said of their writings?

Does that mean that there could actually be other books of scripture on the planet besides the Bible and Book of Mormon?

If that is so, why is there not at least some recognition given by the LDS church of the potential for truth to be found in these other books of scripture? I know the LDS church says that there is much good in other religions and that people should bring their good from their heritage and join the LDS church. However, should people be expected to absolutely forsake their closely held religious teachings which may have come from actual prophets of God?

The whole idea of having a chosen prophet of God seems pretty ridiculous and does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny when you begin to ask what should happen when two people both claim to be true prophets of God at the same time.

The LDS church would say that God will reveal which prophet is the true prophet of God if He is sincerely asked in prayer. It is interesting that the LDS church did have to answer this very question in their own history.

After the death of Joseph Smith, several men came forward and declared that they should be Joseph's rightful successor. Each had their own ideas based on what they felt were good reasons for being such. The modern LDS church says that their leader (Brigham Young) was the "real" successor to Joseph Smith. However, each of those men that claimed a right to succession of Joseph Smith, and be recognized as the current prophet, took many followers - and those followers sustained those men as their chosen leaders (and prophets) for their churches.

In this case, at least two different people, within communication range of each other, claimed a different man to be "their" prophet and recognized that leader to be God's chosen mouthpiece for them and their mutually recognized adherents.

To this day, many of these offshoots from the original LDS church, founded by Joseph Smith, remain. To this day, each member of each of these differing churches believes that their sect's founder was the legitimate successor to Joseph Smith. Many of them will also say that they prayed and asked God whether or not their church (as informed by their chosen prophet) is the "one true church on the earth" and they will each tell you that God answered their sincere prayer to that end.


(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.)

Mormons and Facebook for Dummies

Apparently there is some confusion out there surrounding posts or friends disappearing on Facebook recently. Here's the thing, it is not Facebook's fault. If you experience missing posts or conversations not making sense because people seem to be responding to comments that are simply not there or people who post regular family pictures and/or status updates seem to be disappearing from your news feed, you are not alone. Millions of Facebook users are experiencing this phenomenon known as "Facebook Censorship".

Facebook Censorship could happen because of Facebook manipulations of the things that show up in your news feed because Facebook uses algorithms to define your interests and uses the history of the things you have clicked on in the past to define what to show you in your news feed. This is not really censorship, but it is annoying if people are posting things that you want to see, but that Facebook deems you would not be interested in. The way to change this over time is to seek out those friends you want to see their statuses and updates. However, even more common is the user directed Facebook Censorship that happens when people take steps to block you from seeing posts, unfriend you, delete your posts or comments (made on their wall or in response to their posts or comments). This happens more frequently than you may think. Sometimes there is no way to know that this is going on unless you are able to use a different Facebook account to see the response to your posts.

If you do not want to become a victim of this behavior you should know a few things;

1. Do not post anything related to religion or your religious views in public on Facebook.

2. Do not mention any of the following (even if you are referencing them for educational purposes);
 - Cults
 - Mind control
 - Brainwashing
 - Racism
 - Polygamy
 - Polyandry
 - Fallibility of religious leaders
 - Cognitive Dissonance
 - Former abuses by religious leaders (especially past or present Mormon/LDS leaders)
 - "Lying for the Lord"
 - Blood atonement
 - Adam-God doctrine
 - Temple ceremonies
 - Masonic rights
 - Gay marriage or gay rights
 - City Creek Mall (unless you are praising how nice it is)
 - Mountain Meadows Massacre
 - Kirtland Banking Society
 - Misogyny

3. Do not mention any links that provide information about LDS church history besides LDS.org, Mormon.org or JosephSmith.net

By following these simple steps you can be assured that Facebook will continue to do what they do and only show you the stuff you want to see.

Happy Never Ending Scrolling!

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

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/

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Tithing and multi-level marketing

I really wish people would think about what they are saying to themselves and others when they pay tithing to the church. I don't care what church it is. I don't care what charity it is. Tithing is about giving to those organizations or groups who reflect your values and in whom you have confidence in to spend the donations they receive in a prudent and accountable manner that will mostly help those intended. I do not believe in paying any tithing to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for these reasons. OK, now that you know where I stand (and I have lost all credibility as one expressing my opinion to the faithful members of the church), please bear with me and consider what I am about to say;

Paying a tithing in a manner that is based on faith, and not on practical principles of prudent money management, is a completely unreasonable approach.

Let me explain what I mean by this with an analogy: I know there are lots of multi-level marketing organizations out there. Some have been around a long time, others are fairly new and many have come and gone. I am not trying to knock the potential for earning an income in these types of organizations, what I wish to point out is the magical thinking that tends to cause problems for people who do not exercise common sense when it comes to their amount of investment and hope for reward participating in them. Participants may anticipate earning certain amounts of income based more on the promises of others and not so much on a realistic approach to their likely investment to reward ratio.

Let's say you get recruited into _____ (insert the name of your least favorite multi-level marketing organization here). Your friend has a meeting at their house where you are introduced to the product/service and you are impressed by what you see. You think this is something you could see yourself at least buying for your own personal use. Then you are introduced to the business aspect of the organization which, you are told, requires further investment in business management materials, larger or more frequent subscription levels of the products/services, and efforts in recruiting others to join the organization. You realize that you enjoy talking to people, and you think you know lots of people so you figure this could be a good business opportunity for you.

Swayed by the expressions of confidence by this person you thought was your good friend (who you thought had your best interests at heart), you decide to sign up and determine to make the financial commitment you are assured will result in the success you are hoping for financially. Unfortunately, you haven't taken the time to examine your real financial situation to be able to determine whether or not you will realistically be able to afford the anticipated investment. Once you take a more critical look at your finances you realize that you just do not have the ability to spend the kind of money (or time) that soon it becomes apparent is required to have the success you are hoping for. The question soon comes to your mind; How much should I continue to invest in time and money on something that is not turning out as I hoped it would? Sure, maybe you are not doing enough in terms of investment. Maybe you are not patient enough to see the fruits of your labors, after all, it takes at least a year to cultivate a crop to be able to finally enjoy the harvest. Maybe you didn't think through enough of the obstacles that would come your way. Not only that, but you also begin to see some problems with the service of the organization and perhaps even the desired results advertised are not really as great as promised. The soap kind of starts to smell annoying after using it for so long. Maybe a lifetime commitment to one brand of soap isn't what I want.

The point is the doubts creep in. At some point, in this consideration of the difficulties encountered in keeping up with things the way you hoped you would be able to, you begin to seriously question whether or not you can really afford this investment to be able to see it pay off. You decide to start charging the cost of participation to credit cards. You soon find yourself unable to even keep up with the monthly payments on those cards. You are really in a crisis now. This investment is actually ruining your finances and you determine that you cannot continue this endeavor in good conscience.

You decide to talk to the friend who introduced you to the business in the first place. You tell him your concerns, but he seems un-fazed. He says you are just experiencing a little buyers remorse and that in order to have the success he has enjoyed you just have to keep up on buying the products and inviting people to the meetings. He again assures you that if you will just run with the plan you will soon have success. The promises are never really quantified, however. There really isn't any way to gauge the success you are being promised will come. You are pretty much told that if you just continue to buy the products, at the level required, every week, the success will come.

A few months later, you are really suffering. The collections calls are becoming more frequent, the bills are piling up and many are going unpaid. Regardless, you continue to be steadfast in the plan you believe in. If I can just get one more person to the meeting this month, it will start to turn around. If I can just reach the next level of achievement with my weekly product purchase (or even just increase the amount of my order a little bit), I will finally start to see the income I deserve. I will soon have the success I desire and the financial independence I so believe is possible. I get re-assured that I can succeed at the weekly meetings for the company. They all testify to me of their successes and I really believe that success will soon come for me too, if I just have faith in the business and the plan set out by the leaders of the company.

So what is wrong with the thinking here? It must be simply that the person is lacking the faith necessary to succeed, right?

Wait a minute! Who is screaming the obvious right now that the person in this situation needs to stop living beyond what they can realistically afford IMMEDIATELY! They need to be able to admit that they simply cannot continue the purchases each week and need to severely curtail them or even eliminate them altogether until they can have the funds to invest IN A BUSINESS- that they treat like a profitable BUSINESS venture. They should not be encouraged to spend money they do not have under any pretense of a get rich scheme.

We all are susceptible to this magical thinking. The belief that we can just get what we want if we have enough faith in those people or institutions that promise us untold successes and blessings, is sometimes a trap we easily fall into. We fall into these traps because we are greedy and because we want to believe people when they promise us a way to obtain what we want most. It is not that we are not smart or that we don't really have the potential to understand and gain control of our financial situations, it is just that we get caught up in the hope presented to us. Our minds naturally fill in what is missing from the advertisements.

There is a commercial on TV that advertises a guaranteed issue life insurance policy to seniors. They make it seem like such a good deal by saying that the cost of the coverage will never go up. They also say that it is guaranteed issue (meaning that you can't be turned down). These kinds of promises make it sound like a pretty good thing (and it may very well be for the right candidate), but there are also some things they don't tell you which could make a very big difference in your decision to purchase the coverage. They don't tell you that the policy will exclude certain health conditions and not pay out if you happen to die as a result of an excluded health condition. They also don't tell you that the policy is really for only a very small amount of money and likely would barely even be able to pay for your casket, let alone your funeral should you need it. They deliberately and intentionally leave these things out of the advertisement. Is that right or just or fair? I don't know. Obviously we should all proceed under the mantra of buyer beware and try to get answers to the questions the sales person is not asking for us. In my opinion, we need to be coming up with our own questions and not settling for unresponsive answers from sales people when we ask them the tough questions. Preparing yourself with challenging questions, to ask of those trying to sell you something, about the potential weaknesses of a product or service should be something to remember.

This is all abandoned as unnecessary, for some reason, when it comes to religion. When promises are made (surrounding the ultimate success that is, or blessings that are, promised to come for living as taught by the church) and don't come, why do we abandon the obvious questions we should be asking? Why do we suddenly abandon our skepticism in favor of this faith that might actually be asking too much of us? Why is it that if someone decides to question the faith, they are encouraged to remain silent as to not discourage the faith of others in the group? Shouldn't these things all be warning signs?

Unfortunately, for many, these signs are just not enough. Unfortunately, the lure of magical thinking and the belief that there is an afterlife where all of these things will be made known, and justice equitably meted out at the judgment bar, is just too enticing of a thought-if you feel your actions are in line with the judgment being delivered. It is the hook that keeps us thinking if we just can get through this trial, which-we are constantly reminded-is only 'but a small moment', everything will be right again and I will be so much better because of it. It may not be money we are necessarily focused on, but the things money can buy is sneaked in every once in a while to keep it interesting. Streets paved with gold and glorious mansions on high are mentioned just enough to keep the carrot clearly dangling in front of us to condition our behavior and thinking.

Tithing is such a huge example of this. The church will not come out and clearly say how the members should define the payment of a full tithe. I believe they are deliberate in this. Tithing is talked about in terms of the faith required to pay it and not in terms of what exactly it should be paid on. I believe the design has had the intended effect. In the LDS Church, especially, the conversations among believers tend to center on whether or not members should pay 10% of their gross or net income. Nobody ever seems to mention the idea that income isn't increase or interest at all! Income is the exchange of your labor for monetary units (by the hour or a fixed amount per year) that can be used to live and put away in investment. Increase, or interest as it is referred to in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants, is the amount your monetary units have increased due to investment in the marketplace (or bank or whomever you trust to earn you a return on your money).

From this new understanding of WHAT tithing should be paid on, we can derive a few things;

1. Tithing isn't really expected of the poor. However, the church likes to tell the story of the widow's mite and how even the poorest widow can give 10% of what she has to the church. Perhaps the widow is entitled to her faith, but the widow should also be told by a responsible church leader what exactly tithing is expected to be paid on. It should not be expected that we give 10% of our estate (i.e. the sum of our earnings and investments) every year. If the poor are doing this, then they deserve to be taken care of by giving back to them a 10-fold increase of what they put in. While she may be expected to pay, the lesson should be focused on the desire to help and serve others and not on the amount of money paid to the church. Unfortunately that is the focus of too many sermons on tithing.

2. Tithing IS expected of the rich. People who have healthy investment portfolios that represent a sizable income should be paying 10% of THAT income (interest/increase). That income IS actually interest. It is the earnings on the principal. Do you think the wealthy should give 10% of their principal sums in tithing every year? If they did that, they'd be near broke in about 11 or 12 years (obviously depending on the size of the investment). Tithing is not meant to diminish our estate or principal holdings. It is meant to be taken from the fluff that comes once our estate is secure. When we pay tithing on our principal (the monetary units gained for the exchange of our labor), we are actually causing a significant diminishing of our estate. While this diminishing may not be immediately felt by some, it is very real (and, I would submit, dangerous).

3. Tithing is not expected to support a large multinational corporate structure with massive real estate holdings and a diverse portfolio of large investment holdings. Tithing is meant to help the poor among us...period. It may include support of community projects, that are as transparent as possible and, that directly benefit the community the donations are coming from. Perhaps there are cases where groups may decide to reach out to more impoverished parts of the world, but those are decisions that should be made at the local level by those whose money has been contributed. A centralized collection system and distribution by a corporate board of directors in charge of the for-profit investment holdings of the corporation, on the other hand, does not sound like the way tithing should be handled to me.

The real poison of these teachings, of paying tithing on income instead of interest or increase - in my opinion, is the actual increase of poverty due to the pervasiveness of these ideas. The church should do the responsible thing and come out and give clarity on this issue, but they choose not to.

I humbly submit that the LDS Church is so caught up in the support of it's corporate structure and survival that it is really not concerned with the harm its teachings are doing to society. People are having to make due on less and less nowadays and the church is continuing to emphasize the number of gaudy, under-utilized structures (temples) it is building all around the world. Does anyone see what is really going on here? The church is more interested in increasing the size of it's real estate holdings than it is in helping people in ways that are community based and directed by the ones making the contributions.

Sure, the defenders of the faith will point to the amount of aid the church has given to devastated areas around the world. While this is a good point, it would be even more poignant if the church would release more information about how much it is actually giving in comparison to what it takes in. My guess is that the amount spent by the church in these efforts is meager and paltry compared to what it takes in. I welcome being proved wrong on this point. However, I think my challenge will simply fall on deaf ears. Of course, it really could be that the church understands the principle of tithing even better than the members do and they only pay out to charitable causes 10% of the interest they earn on all of their holdings. This is an interesting possibility...

It is simply unconscionable to me that these ideas (I would actually rather refer to them as heresies) are allowed to persist in the church. When I have asked faithful members why this is, or even how the amount of tithing paid should be calculated, I am told it is always up to the individual. However, when I press them or ask what they pay on, they will usually answer with 10% of either 'net' or 'gross' income. The idea that the amount to be paid is based solely on the thoughts of the individual, when coupled with the idea that we WILL be judged based on our works creates a very lucrative self perpetuating cycle of thoughts leading to behaviors that cannot be broken in the members of the church. Many, at least in my opinion anyway, will continue to follow this concept even though doing so represents a huge and unnecessary sacrifice to their families. Putting them deeper and deeper into poverty as they pay their estate away to others in the church and the government. Well, I don't really want to get started on that subject. Suffice to say, I feel it is very unfortunate that those who are best in the position to fix this problem (church leaders) are the one's least having the incentive to do so. This is a problem.

The way I think most members of the church justify this, clearly irrational, way of thinking about their large overall contributions to the church is to think in terms of the blessings they will get if they pay as they think they should or the loss of blessings they will experience due to not paying enough in tithing.

Let's think on that for a moment. If you ask the member to identify the specific blessings they can clearly associate with the payment of a full tithing (at least according to their faithful and overly generous interpretation), what will they say? Usually the member will be quick to point out that paying tithing is not a get rich quick scheme. In other words, you can't expect to be blessed financially for the payment of tithing. (To this, I just want to say, well duh...no self respecting financial planner would advocate giving away 10% of your farm, or land, every year to achieve financial independence. But that is exactly what members of the church believe, and actually feel bad about falling short of, when they do not diligently practice the payment of a full tithe.) So what, exactly, are the blessings that come from paying tithing? If financial abundance is off the table, what is left? And why is it that the church seems to choose only those that are financially well off to be called to positions of leadership? It seems awfully convenient to attempt to preach that the payment of a full tithe will not lead to financial abundance and then tend to call only the financially abundant members to enjoy the great blessings of serving in high capacities of responsibility in the church and kingdom of God on the earth! Perhaps I am just jealous I was never called to be a high ranking leader in the church. No, actually, there is no perhaps about it. I was told in my patriarchal blessing that I would be called to sit in the councils of the church when I got older, gosh darn it, I was expecting that to be the case and fully expecting to be called to be in the Quorum of the 12 apostles. Why did I think such a thing? More magical thinking on my part most likely.

Whatever the faithful member comes up with in terms of blessings that they believe have come because of the payment of their overly generous tithes and offerings to the church, for each one of them, they are likely forgetting an instance (or more than several actually) where that blessing did not come.

Why do we pick and choose to see as consequences, aka blessings for obedience to a principle of the gospel, only those times or instances which happen to support our views? Why do we block out all of the dis-confirming evidences for our beliefs? Sometimes, the dis-confirming evidence even shows up in the very scenario the believer is using to bolster their faith in the payment of a full tithe. These are actually somewhat humorous to think about when they are encountered. Of course, one has to then grapple with whether or not such thoughts should be spoken out loud. Usually they aren't, but they cause a chuckle or two anyway.

I'm pretty sure Jesus said something along the lines of, 'Let those who have ears to hear, hear and eyes to see, see.' I hope someone will hear and see what I am saying here.

While I freely admit that I may have some things to learn in terms of my attitude of giving to those causes that will support my community, I think that I also need to feel that the financial security of my family simply must come first. When I feel comfortable that the security is there to some extent, I believe I will then be more likely, and able, to look to the ways I can best contribute generously to those causes I desire to support. I honestly do think giving is important, but I think I must feel it is OK to give to the support of my family's security first. I'm OK with that and you should be too.

Just like Maslow's hierarchy of human needs, I need to be sure my needs of survival, social interaction and financial support of my family are met first, before I am capable of stepping up and into the need of giving back to others outside those in my immediate care and contributing generously to my community.

Of course, I do feel the need to address the fact that many self development guru's do advise listeners and readers to practice the payment of a tithe in donations to charity. I believe this could be due to the incentive a generous tithe gives to be motivated to work harder. I guess it could be thought that the more painful the offering to charity, the more diligent one will work to be motivated to earn more. We likely all could benefit from being less selfish. I'm sure I need it more than most.

However, I almost wonder if these kinds of positions are motivated more by political beliefs than religious ones. Conservatives, I believe, tend to be more about tenets that encourage a rugged individualism and support those ideas that motivate humans to behave in ways that encourage taking care of themselves. This view of paying generous, and substantial I suppose, offerings to charity could be a necessary component of getting radical conservatism to actually work over the long term. If people don't give generously and voluntarily, however, the government will necessarily come in and ask it of us. The liberal corollary, thus, would be that since we have shown that it is not really in our nature to voluntarily give substantially of our wealth to support the poor among us, in a way that is meaningful, someone has to take care of these things. If churches are falling down on the job, someone has to pick up the slack. And, unfortunately, as inefficient as we all like the claim the government is, it actually does the job of cutting out the middle man in terms of those who would seek to profit off the donations intended for the poor and otherwise afflicted whom we have an obligation to support.

I feel like I can only begin to scratch the surface of some of these issues. I feel sometimes like I can come across as angry in what I am saying. Maybe I am a little angry. Maybe my anger isn't really anger. Maybe I am actually just very hurt that I see now that the church was not all I was told it was my whole life. Maybe I am now just a half-full kind of guy. Regardless of my personal issues, I think what I am saying here has some merit. Please stop to consider what motivates your actions before putting your family in jeopardy by paying tithing on your gross or net income. Think that it is OK with God if you actually use that money to take care of the needs of your family first. There are plenty of people who earn plenty on their dividends and investments to take up the slack. Tithing is not really a sacrifice that is expected of you without consideration of your family and their needs to be taken care of. It is not about sacrifice really. It is just a practical method of taking care of people that is meant to be painless and sort of ancillary. At least, this is my opinion anyway.

To put it in simpler terms; if you are a person who feels very strongly that tithing should be paid to the church as 10% of your gross OR net income, think of it this way. Each month you write that tithing check out to the church, you are literally taking 10% of your house payment and giving it to the church (since you are taking it out of the money you earn to make your house payment or rent). You are taking 10% of your car payment and giving it to the church. You are also taking 10% of all of your other bills and household expenses for the month and giving that to the church. Do you really think the church wants this? Do you think God wants this? Do you really think that if you just keep up in this silly behavior that you will actually be better off for it? Sure, if you want to say, well, we eat out at fine restaurants a lot or we take really nice vacations or we put a bunch of money in savings every month and therefore taking 10% of that and giving it to the church would be OK...fine. Then reduce the amounts you spend on these luxury items by that same 10% and give that to the church. I personally still feel like this is a bit generous, but that's OK. Do what you want but, please, stop acting foolishly and then beating yourself up about not giving enough or it not being a 'full' and 'honest' tithe! Don't give what you can't realistically afford. If you have to borrow money from savings to get through the month, it is OK to not pay tithing that month. If you are even worse off and have no money in savings, but feel like you need to charge purchases on credit cards to get by, go ask the church for some assistance with food (since that is all they will really give you), but, by all means, do not pay tithing. The Lord doesn't expect it and you shouldn't either. If you feel bad for some reason about your new outlook on the law of tithing, think on the atonement. It was done so you could forgive yourself about your misunderstanding of the intent of the law of tithing. Forgive yourself. Stop hurting yourself and your family. Give to them first and then things will take care of themselves. Be kind. Love one another. Love yourself.

I'm going to step down from my soap box now. Perhaps I'll come back and have more to say sometime soon. Thanks for reading.

Monday, March 25, 2013

If women had the priesthood

I have seen some buzz lately surrounding the idea of women being able to hold the priesthood. My initial reaction is that they should be able to hold the priesthood, and be able to hold any calling men do in the church. However, after I think about it for a while I come to realize that it actually may not be such a good idea.

The reasons I can think that it might not be such a good idea to give women the priesthood is because it would likely result in some pretty major changes in the church. For one thing, if girls got the priesthood at 12 years old, as the boys do,  then boys and girls would be passing the sacrament together. This would encourage more interaction between boys and girls and would only result in more teen pregnancy. I also think it would lead to girls feeling equal to boys and, since girls are superior to boys intellectually and emotionally, boys would quickly feel inferior to their superior priesthood holding counterparts. This feeling of inferiority would only serve to denigrate those boys that may already have low self-esteem to begin with.

Also, since holding the priesthood requires wearing dress slacks, white shirts and ties, and girls would look kind of silly in white shirts and ties (not to mention they are not allowed to wear pants), this would just not work.

If women held the priesthood then that would mean they could give priesthood blessings. I don't know how women would be able to come up with the same kinds of things that men are able to receive from the spirit when it comes to giving blessings. Again, all of their blessings pronounced would probably be far superior to what men have been able to muster up so this would only lead to further feelings of inferiority by men.

I'm trying to imagine if women were also able to hold the high and responsible callings in the church like bishop and stake president. I can't even begin to imagine what that might be like. Women conducting meetings?! I'm not sure they would be able to handle such a great responsibility. They would probably want to make drastic changes to the way the meetings are held and the current meetings would just end up wholly unrecognizable in comparison. This would obviously result in more women giving talks and prayers and such and, well, this would just make more men feel left out.

There might also be very big changes to current programs such as home and visiting teaching. The good news is, men would be able to phone their families and have it count as a home teaching visit, the bad news is meals and/or treats would likely be mandatory as part of the message to the families when they were visited. There might also be more prayers uttered to Heavenly Mother and her sacred name and position would just become common and ordinary and not special and completely sacred as it is now.

Then there are the changes that would likely occur if women were to eventually be called to the high and holy callings in the church as apostles or prophets. This would just simply not do. How could women be expected, or even able, to devote the time needed to such callings? With all their housework, cooking, cleaning and taking care of children and grandchildren, they simply would not have time to engage fully in such callings. This would ultimately lead to a downfall in the quality of the revelations received and the whole church would likely suffer as a result. The members might actually decide to leave the church in greater numbers than they already are and the church may not actually survive such a change.

Of course, all of the reasons listed above do not take into account the effect such a change would have on the membership of the church almost immediately should such a change be instituted. When the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now Community of Christ) made the change to allow women to hold to the priesthood they lost nearly 60-70% of their membership almost overnight. The modern LDS church would likely not be able to survive such a loss to their membership numbers.

For all of the reasons listed I don't think allowing women to hold the priesthood would really be such a good idea. Of course, I am writing all of this tongue in cheek. Women should hold the priesthood simply because it is right for such a thing to happen. Yes changes would occur, but all of them would only be good.

What do you think? Should women be able to hold priesthood callings and, if they were, what sorts of changes do you think would be the result?

Friday, July 20, 2012

Letter to my parents

Here is a copy of a letter that I found that I wrote to my parents back in May 2009. I never sent it to them because I had a discussion with them shortly after that pretty much went over most of the things in the letter. For your reading enjoyment here is my letter:


Dear Mom & Dad,

I wanted to let you know what has been going on with me over the past year. 3-4 years ago my co-worker (who is LDS) and I got into some lengthy conversations about the church. He basically told me that he didn’t believe in the church anymore and I tried to give him every response I could muster to respond to his concerns. I thought I did pretty well and I remained satisfied with the answers I had come up with to his questions and we ultimately decided to agree to disagree. Well, about a year ago things started to bubble up a little bit for me. On my own, I began formulating questions to things that had been nagging me for some time. Of course, I had become very good at ignoring or putting on the shelf things that were uncomfortable or that did not add up for me. Until one Sunday I was pondering the pictures that had been taken from the Egyptian papyri discovered and printed in the Book of Abraham.

I really sat and pondered those pictures and began to have doubts that they were really representative of the life of Abraham as Joseph Smith had represented. I began to wonder if they might actually have a different meaning. I wondered if there was any other interpretation of the facsimiles and the hieroglyphs contained in them that might go against what Joseph Smith had taught or if he was accurate in his translation. Well, looking through the illustrated book of Egyptian archeology we got for Christmas a few years back (I think from you, actually) the same elements of the pictures in the Book of Abraham have been found in other places in artifacts and what not. I also learned that scholars are now able to read Egyptian with ease thanks to all the historical work done, artifacts unearthed and the discovery of the Rosetta stone back in 1799. What I found was that there was very little accuracy to the translation that Joseph Smith presented in the Book of Abraham of the facsimiles. This discovery, of course, led to questioning the authenticity of the text of the Book of Abraham and to Joseph’s ability to translate altogether. The shadow cast in my mind was very dark and very deep.

Needless to say, this question led me on a quest to find out everything I could to formulate a better understanding of who Joseph Smith really was and whether or not all of the foundational events in church history could be called into question. Well, about a year later, I have ultimately arrived at my answer.

I want to point out that, as you know, I do suffer from an acute case of foot in mouth disease and I certainly do have a tendency to be deliberate and hurtful with my words (as Mrs. Facsimilogos well knows) so I want to mention that even though I would love to convince you of everything I have discovered and try to spell it all out here that I will refrain from doing so. I will refrain because such a work would require volumes to relay my findings, notes, etc. (Not to mention addressing any specific questions or perspectives that would come up as I went along). Instead I want to share with you my feelings and hope that you will begin to understand where I am coming from and that you will not think of me any differently because of a change in my beliefs.

As you can imagine, my new understanding and perspective places me in a very big bind. I am not sure what the future holds, but I know that I am 100% dedicated to my children and to doing whatever it takes to make their lives productive, comfortable and peaceful. I certainly could not see myself out of their lives, nor do I wish to be.

Mrs. Facsimilogos and I do not agree on much of what I believe as she is still very much a strong believer in the church. In fact, it was a conversation with her that has led me to write this letter. You see, she got so fed up with me and my questions one night a few days ago that she called her parents to tell them what I was going through and to ask them for advice. I figured it wasn’t fair that her parents should know where I am at and you not know.

Anyway, my new beliefs cause me to be confronted with tough decisions and to be torn in many directions. With our son’s baptism, he wants me to do it…and I probably will do it, but I now find praying to be an empty, rhetorical experience. I think my mind has been very powerful at helping me to believe what I wanted to believe in the past, but now that I really want some objective experience to latch onto, there is nothing but dead air. I will probably have a hard time hiding my true feelings and will probably not be able to do the expected “special” confirmation blessing, although in thinking about it, I could probably say some nice things that would hopefully be helpful to my son, but they probably wouldn’t fit in with the church’s party line. I may go ahead and ask Mrs. Facsimilogos’ father to be voice for his confirmation, we’ll see. (I ended up confirming my son, but was painfully told later that it was not the blessing my son was "entitled" to)

I now struggle with the thought of whether or not to continue to enforce the belief structure as laid out by the church (even though I don’t believe it is 100% healthy) because it is a good moral foundation for the kids or do I begin to introduce ideas of independent thought that would move them towards non-reliance on the church for their identity. This is a tough call…Hey, where is my parenting manual anyway? Of course, this question is only for me to speculate on in my mind, since Mrs. Facsimilogos continues to insist on bringing the kids up active in the church and I must continue to support that.

Getting to where I am at was not easy and will continue to present challenges; HOWEVER, I can honestly say that I am at peace and feel renewed and refreshed in my conscience. The feeling is so exhilarating, yet also troubling when confronted with the reality of what family and friends think because of where it is that I have come from and was brought up with. This is probably the most difficult part; however, most people in the church take solace in just figuring it is a phase I am going through and that I will come back eventually. I don’t see this as being the case, but I guess anything could happen. On the other hand, I think it is unfortunate that this idea of the lost sheep eventually coming back into the fold has been taught over the pulpit. The arrogance of the leaders of the church and their viewpoint surrounding the choices of others does not cease to astound me. In my opinion, people should be encouraged to do what they feel is right for them (even if it is something outside of the church) and not have to be condemned at every turn for deciding  their own happiness.

This is where I am at; I go to sacrament meeting to be with the family, but that is about it. I didn’t go for a while, but it was too much for me to handle. I skip out of Sunday school and priesthood because I can’t stand it (that and it is so boring and nobody wants to hear what I now think). I won’t accept a calling (because I can’t in good conscience) and I don’t pay tithing. Of course, it goes without saying that I don’t have a temple recommend. I have been in to talk with the bishop so he knows where I am at, but as far as helping me, he tried for a little bit, but then sort of gave up on me telling me how he had a good friend who left the church to go be a polygamous fundamentalist. He said the church is still good because of what it does to keep kids from doing bad stuff later in life and that is essentially why he still supports it. However, from what I have seen from our family, church activity is no guarantee that kids will never do anything bad. In my opinion, kids are going to do what they want to do and all I can do as a parent is teach them right from wrong as best I can and trust that they will do the right thing…that and continue to love them unconditionally, right? As far as requesting to have my name removed from the church, I don’t see any point. I don’t care if people from church contact me and I think it would probably be the final nail in the coffin for my marriage if I did make that request. I also continue to wear garments because it helps give Mrs. Facsimilogos something to hang onto. Of course they are pretty worn out, so I am going to need to do something about that one of these days.

You may think that my confession here means that I don’t want to talk about the church any further; however, nothing could be further from the truth. My mind is more open now than it ever has been in the past. I am just drawing conclusions based on my life’s experience and what I think I know. I am open for discourse and would welcome any and all rebuttals to my points. Of course, you should remember that I can be quite belligerent and always think I am right so there’s that to deal with. I hope we can talk about things going forward and I welcome any thoughts or questions you may have.

I hope this isn’t going to rock you to your core(s). I hope it does not make you want to give up all hope in me and my ability to do the right things. I am still that person, I just have an expanded view of the world and I am taking it all in. I am still forming my viewpoints and learning new things all the time. Unfortunately, it is true that the more I reject the teachings of the church the more I see error and fallibility in the things that are taught. Don’t get me wrong, the church is filled with really good people that I really admire, I just wish so much that more people could open their eyes and see what I now see. I will openly condemn any organization that teaches obedience to a hierarchy over independent thought and individual accountability. Boyd K. Packer taught in an infamous address that there are things from the church’s history that, while they may be true, are not very useful. I reject the notion that my exposure to events from church history necessitates being screened and edited until they become faith promoting and useful. The result is lies that are intended to deceive and increase the power and influence of the church. As Gordon B. Hinckley said, it is either all true or all false, there is no middle ground. I accept that and have pretty much concluded it is all based on the ideas of men…granted they may be considered by many to be some pretty good ideas, but they are the ideas of men nevertheless.

I’ll close by telling you that I am sorry to be telling you all of this, but I think it is better to get it out in the open instead of continuing to allude to it all the time when we get together. Please forgive me and don’t hesitate to talk to me. I am still very open to seeing the error of my ways. Thanks in advance for your patience and any advice you can offer. I would really value your feedback.

I hope things find you well. Thanks for your love.

Most Sincerely,
Facsimilogos

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Why am I sad?

Sometimes I feel very sad. I feel sad because it is so difficult for my family members to relate to how I feel about the church now. I don't feel listened to any more. I don't feel like the people that I care about the most are really interested in what I think about things any more. I feel like my loved ones want to just put me in a box and ship me off somewhere until I see things the way I used to. It saddens me that I feel this way. It makes me even more sad to think that, if people that I care about read what I am saying here, I think they might revel in my sadness and see it as punishment for me not believing as they do any more. I don't understand why people who claim to be followers of a man, whose primary teaching was to love everyone - especially the outcasts and dregs of society, choose to be so cruel in their application of those teachings. Of course, what I don't know is if they are even able to see the sadness they have conjured in me. If they don't even see it, shouldn't I be able to forgive them for it?

I have really tried to help my family understand why I feel the way I do. However, when I try to make the attempts, I feel like barriers go up and a defensive posture is assumed. Why can't people try to understand me without assuming I am going to personally attack them? I have been told that I just need to get over feeling this way, and I have often asked myself why it is so difficult for me to do so. Could it be that the sadness and the defensive posturing is all originating from me? That people truly don't care what I think enough to burden themselves with putting me out to pasture? I suppose this is possible. I suppose I make some of these things out to be more serious and pronounced than they actually are. So then I have to ask myself, why this is? Why is it that I am so dead serious about wanting to explain my current stance on the existence of God or what I feel are deceptions put forth by the church? I guess part of it is because I want to be listened to. I want to be heard and understood. I want to feel the way I used to feel when I was the spiritual leader in my home and everyone hung on my every word as I pronounced the veracity of things that I now sincerely doubt were ever there in the first place. However, maybe there is something more.

I think the reason these things are, and have been, so vitally important for me to understand and relate to others is because I have been taught that they ARE JUST SO VITALLY IMPORTANT! After all, if there IS life after death and, if our station in that life after death is PRIMARILY determined by what we believe, and do, during this life here on earth, then this life is pretty important indeed! That idea is what motivated me for so long. I figured that if my ETERNAL existence was going to be SO heavily weighted by what I do here and now, then, by golly, I had BETTER do my BEST! If I didn't do my best, my soul would be tormented for ETERNITY by all of my shortcomings. All the home teaching I didn't do, all the missed opportunities to attend the temple, all the priesthood sessions of general conference that I missed would all haunt me ETERNALLY! I would be so filled with regret...which would be further enhanced by the knowledge of what I could have had, if I had been more valiant, that my misery will know no end. Who wants to be miserable forever? I certainly did not.

So, now I am at a place where I have given up on that thinking. I think I needed to give this thinking up for my sanity. To relieve myself of all the guilt I could easily pile up on myself for not doing EVERYTHING I was taught that was essential for obtaining everlasting life with God the Father in His celestial glory. However, even though I think I have given up on that thinking, I still have to wonder if I actually have? The question of the existence of God and whether or not God has ONE true church, that He fully endorses in place upon the earth today, is still a very important question to me. Is it possible that I have maintained my absolute thinking about the importance of this question and just moved my position from one of belief to one of non-belief? To be honest, now the question of the existence of God (and the origination of life and all of the attendant questions that seem to follow from it) is not important to me any more, but the need to be understood and be correct about it IS still immensely important to me!

If I had to guess, I would say that this is likely the reason that I would classify myself as more atheist than agnostic, or that I don't identify with the sentiment of being spiritual but not religious, now. I am not concerned with spirituality because I cannot sufficiently identify with it in terms that can be easily understood by everyone. We all have had differing experiences with spirituality and, when we attempt to describe those experiences to others, to me, they come across sounding more like bragging than anything that can be mutually beneficial. I cannot escape this thought now. Whenever someone says to me that they had a spiritual or moving experience it grates on my nerves because I cannot help but think what the consequences of that experience being real (in the context of my religious upbringing) must be. I am not irritated because they had the experience, I am irritated because of the fact that this person is essentially reminding me of everything that I am not any more. If, in fact, their spiritual experience is valid, and is actually from God, then that means that my previous thoughts about the ramifications of such things must also be valid to them and I am left to wonder how screwed up that person thinks I will be in the afterlife. After all, I am not active in church, and I don't do any of the stuff the church teaches is essential for eternal life (i.e. all that enduring to the end stuff). How can they not see me as some sort of heretic? At the very least as someone who will be relegated to a lower kingdom of glory where they may, at some point, decide to grace me with their presence every once in a while. Why? So they can remind me how much more glorious and better their eternal residence is than mine? How can people feel good about teachings that have built in mechanisms for looking down on others who do not conform?

How did I decide to devotedly follow such teachings for so long without paying any attention to what affect my beliefs might have on others that disagree with me? How could I have been so self centered? I feel really bad about that, but I wonder how it happened? I mean, when I was on my mission and talking to people who adamantly disagreed with what I believed, not because they simply didn't know what I believed, but even if they knew what I believed and yet still chose to deny it was true, how did I deal with that? I think I just concluded in my mind that, even though they claimed that they had some idea about what I believed, they must not actually know what I did. My knowledge was always superior to theirs...unless, of course, they agreed with me...then their knowledge would likely exceed my own, that is, if they seemed to know what they were talking about and it was in line with the teachings of the church as I understood them. Don't get me wrong, I met a bunch of people that I would consider totally wacky, even in the church, that now I ask myself what could have possibly compelled me to feel good about the fact that we would be spending eternity together?

I think something that might help in answering my question is something I have learned about human behavior. We tend to agree with, sympathize with and look up to people that we either associate with or have things in common with. I know out in the mission field I could tell how relieved I felt to be in the company of members versus non-members of the church. With non-members I had to make sure my words and actions were at their most impressive to make a good impression and get them to agree with me and my beliefs and eventually join me at church. However, with members, I could relax, enjoy the food, the company and not be worried that my behavior might reflect poorly on the church. I felt secure with those that I had the church in common with. It is definitely true that we feel more at ease and comfortable around those that we share some bond with. In social settings where both members of the church and non-members are present, the members will tend to congregate together since they share a bond that seems to transcend the other purpose of the gathering. The church creates a bond in people that is immediate and larger in scope than anything else. Of course, this tendency has been used to great effect in Utah where pyramid schemes and multilevel marketing tends to dominate the landscape. But, what is it about the church that readily brings people together that other groups seem to lack? I'm sure a book could be written to answer that question (or I'm sure there already has been one written).

My point in saying all of this is that I feel that I have now lost this bond with my family. Even though I haven't resigned from the church, I am a disaffected, inactive member of the church, who can actually be somewhat hostile towards members of the church (well, not really to most ward members, but I think I come across that way to my family quite a bit) when talking about things that are church related. So why am I so hostile? Because I know the perceived benefits that can be enjoyed when one is "in" the group and I am no longer really able to be considered "in" the group. I am now an outsider. Again, maybe this is all just going on in my head and I just need to not worry so much about it. But that response just feels wrong to me. I know how I felt towards non-members as a believer and I can't help but think that others must feel the same way I did...even if it isn't a conscious or deliberate sentiment towards me, I know it is there. As much as everyone wants to deny it or pretend it is not real, it is real because I have experienced it first hand.

So how did I really see people who didn't believe as I did? I saw them as outsiders. I saw them as ignorant and missing out on what I got to enjoy. I had the truth and the truth was going to bring me eternal happiness that others could only dream of. How naive I was! When I rejected these notions of an afterlife of judgment, misery and glory, I began to see everyone as valuable. Everyone has, not only a contribution, but importance and worth, regardless of their conformity to the church. Not because they are divine in nature, but because they are human and have feelings just like me. They want to belong to something bigger than themselves, just like I do. They are all relevant and I now feel that they all should be listened to and trusted for their unique experience. When people say that they have been hurt by church policies, I will now choose to believe them. And instead of asking how they can better be marginalized to conform to the infallible policies of the church, I might actually decide to denounce those policies in favor of more tolerance and trust of people who may disagree with leaders of the church. And, right now, I don't see how it is possible for me to stay in the church and maintain this view.

So, maybe I have been taught to be an absolutist from my youth, and maybe I still am in the way I see the world, but this is who I am and how I think. If I am going to change from it, I need some help. But, I'm pretty sure that the way I thought about things as a believing member of the church, or trying to get me to go back to that way of thinking, is not going to get me the help that I need. I am looking for a better way. I hope I get there, for my sake and for the sake of my loved ones.


Monday, April 30, 2012

Inherent worth and achievement

I just finished reading a book that has had a profound impact on my thinking about human behavior. The book is called "Mistakes were made, but not by me" by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. Since I am thinking about it, I decided to contribute some of my thoughts in response to the last chapter of the book. This chapter proposes to introduce a possible idea about how we as a society can get to a place where we can see greater achievement and less cognitive dissonance (i.e. excuses and self-justification) surrounding the bad decisions we make. You see, I think this is a pretty big problem. That is, I believe there is a general state of apathy among people regarding individual achievement in our society, because of our self-justification in defense of our bad behavior, and our beliefs may only be contributing to the problems we are facing. First let me begin by attempting to outline some of the problems as I see them.

We are a society (here in America, at least, and possibly in much of western society) that values achievement, but somehow believes that doing so must come with a minimum of mistakes. We tend to regard mistakes as bad. We oftentimes choose to see bad behavior (and the mistakes that invariably result) as a symptom of a problem with our soul. Many of us are taught, through our beliefs or maybe even intuition to some degree, that we are either inherently good or inherently bad. And while the teaching that we are inherently bad is not overt, it may be felt by those who do not receive the message as often or as loud that they are inherently favored. We attempt to condition our children in the belief that they have worth that is inherent due to their very nature. The evidence used to support this belief is the good behavior or favorable disposition of the child pointed out by parents and teachers.

This paradigm is especially pronounced in Mormonism where children are taught from a very early age that they are of infinite worth not because of anything they did or did not do (at least in the here and now), but simply because of who they are. Children are not only a gift from God, but they are considered gifted by God with talents and worth that is innate in them. They are further taught that the evidence for this belief is the fact that they are here. Because in Mormonism, the belief is that the people here on Earth are the one's that chose wisely to follow Jesus and the plan presented by Him. The polarization between us and "the others" (those wicked spirits that chose to follow Satan or really anybody that appears to be choosing to follow Satan while here on Earth) begins when we were told that, while we chose wisely to come to Earth, there was an entire third of the hosts of heaven who did not choose wisely as we did. We are further told that we are children of God, even God's in embryo, and that God didn't make junk. We were then told that our life here on Earth is designed to allow God to test our worth to determine if we can live up to His expectations for us. This further re-enforces the idea that mistakes are bad and to be avoided at all costs. If we make mistakes, our entire eternal glory/reward/life with God and our family may be in jeopardy.

I believe this conditioning may be damaging because if a child begins to believe that they have greatness inherent in their being (as many children honestly believe after being taught this as gospel so convincingly by their parents and teachers - I know I did) and that mistakes are something to be avoided at all costs (which seems to be the emphasis of the now correlated, authoritarian LDS church) this can result in a great amount of shame (as opposed to guilt, since guilt is focused on the mistake and shame is focused on the worth of the individual). This shame can result in a great downward spiral of shame that becomes more pronounced and damaging when further mistakes are invariably made. The reason for this is because once a child believes that they are not of inherent worth, their very nature and identity is questioned. I think children are better at questioning their worth than questioning the badness of their behavior.

Thank goodness that at least a concept of a savior to redeem people from the shame they feel is taught. However, this teaching leads to further dependence on the organization that is purported to represent the dictates/demands of the "savior" in order to receive forgiveness. Redemption from the shame cannot ever come fully, however, because of teachings that pile on the damnation and judgment (potentially to the level of compounding the effect - which is the shame - of all of the past mistakes if repentance is not thorough or complete to the leaders' satisfaction) once the same mistake is repeated. This can also lead to a general state of apathy regarding achievement. The reason for this is due to the following line of thinking;

I am of inherent worth (because my parents and teachers have told me so)

I know I made a mistake (bad choice or I feel bad)

Since I made a mistake, I must not really be of inherent worth but, rather, my inherent worth is now tainted and not really the case. I am inherently bad.

Since I am inherently bad, what is the point of even trying to be good anymore. I may as well just give up since I can never live up to the expectations of who people say I am.


The solution to the problem of focusing on inherent worth of individuals and the potential damage of the shame spiral that is likely to result, is either to focus on the savior as redeemer or to focus on the ability of everyone to overcome mistakes through learning and experience.

The difficulty I have with focusing on the savior as redeemer is the lack of personal responsibility for dealing with the consequences of one's mistakes. It is not considered a valid teaching in our society that others should pay for the consequences of our individual mistakes, so why do we consider it a valid teaching in religion? There should be an alternative to the idea of a savior as redeemer for those who see the problem with a reliance on this idea and therefore reject it on the grounds that it does not fit with their experience in all other aspects of life.

If the message we teach to children is one of, "Hey, everybody makes mistakes, it's how we learn and grow." and that mistakes are even a necessary part of learning and getting better, the line of thinking is instead;

I am going to make mistakes, it is how I learn and become better

I know I made a mistake, I just learned what not to do.

We all make mistakes and I am not a bad person because I made a mistake. Hopefully I can learn from this experience and remember the bad result the next time a similar situation is encountered.

I think this is a much healthier outlook and should lead to a lack of apathy surrounding growth in people and their potential. The support for this idea comes from the fact that the lowest math scores by students in Japan are higher than the highest math scores here in the United States. Psychologists wanted to try and find out why this is the case so they went to Japan to observe students there. What they found was that students there encourage each other because they believe that no matter who you are, if you work hard enough, you can achieve mastery of even the most difficult problems. They value mistakes and see them as an essential part of the learning process. Here in the U.S. I think we believe that success in math is a talent or something that is a gift from God and therefore that people either have it or they don't. When failure is encountered, we are much more likely to think that we are just not gifted in that area and we then have a built in excuse for giving up on it.

Of course, I cannot say where this mindset, of valuing mistakes as part of the learning process, comes from. Whether it is due to cultural or religious influence in the society in Japan, I cannot say. What I can say is that I believe this simple shift in thinking about our worth and abilities could go a long way towards solving the problem of apathy in individuals concerning their abilities to succeed.

I also realize that this shift in thinking may be more difficult in light of the theology of Christianity, especially as taught in the LDS church. I'm not sure how LDS can even desire to make a shift in thinking in this regard since there is such a built in arrogance towards those outside their circle of influence. They would likely receive such advice as coming from "outside" their revelatory chain of command or from "the world" and immediately dismiss such things as not valuable. However, even if the idea could be received somehow, there is an immense amount fear towards what might happen if children make serious mistakes in judgment. While these kinds of mistakes are possible, if the negative consequences of such actions could be highlighted in a constructive way and seen as a lesson learned rather than something that requires a severe confession and repentance process (which leads to further embarrassment and re-enforcement of the idea that inherent worth has been tainted) I think it could be more productive.

There is some good news, though. The good news is that children are incredibly resilient and have been shown to be able to overcome teachings that lead to undue shame. Children who experience trauma at young ages do go on to mostly live happy and productive lives. The other good news is that the LDS church does seem to be distancing itself from teachings that emphasize that young people today are more valiant (or were more valiant in the pre-existence), and therefore of inherently more worth, than those of previous generations (or races of people).

My fear, however, is that if belief in LDS teachings of inherent worth continues to be emphasized, it may lead to a place where ones outlook on life becomes somewhat twisted. I think this happened to me. I'm not sure exactly how to describe it, but I do feel that my life outlook became somewhat warped. Warped because I was somehow able to maintain a belief in my inherent worth even while I would engage in behaviors that I knew to be bad and then somehow believe that I could minimize the effect the behavior had on me. I did this by believing that if I could keep the bad behavior a secret it really would not catch up with me or have an effect on my worth. I was only fooling myself. I simply did whatever I had to to maintain the belief that I was special and not capable of being "really" bad. I think it is true that as adults we tend to believe that we never do anything wrong. We judge ourselves by our best intentions and others by their worst behavior. It is through admitting and acknowledging that we have made a mistake (and believing it is OK because we are learning) that we are able to eventually overcome the cognitive dissonance that leads to justifying bad or foolish behavior. It is not until we can do this that the damage cognitive dissonance causes can be fully overcome.

Essentially, to get what I am saying here we need to further define cognitive dissonance as I am using it above. Cognitive dissonance describes a state that occurs in our mind when we hold two competing ideas that cannot both be true. In my post here this would be 1. the belief that a person is of inherent worth and 2. the knowledge that they have done something wrong. In order to maintain consonance (consistency or integrity) our mind will cling to the belief that is more painful to abandon. In this case, we are assuming that it is more painful to abandon the idea that I have done something wrong so the belief that one is of inherent worth is abandoned and the sinful nature of the individual is embraced. This leads to the shame that I described, which can turn into a self perpetuating shame spiral.

What happened to me in this example is that I embraced the belief that I was of inherent worth and sought to minimize the fact that I had done something wrong. I justified my behavior by thinking that it just wasn't that bad. I believed that I could keep it a secret or that it was understandable considering my circumstances. While I continue to be very good at justifying my behavior as congruent with someone who is superior to others and of inherent worth, my loss of belief has caused me to have to reevaluate this idea. I no longer see myself as superior to anyone outside of the LDS church, however, I do now see myself as being superior to those who maintain belief in LDS theology. This is something I have only recently begun to realize and need to be continually mindful of. I suppose it would be accurate to say that I have an arrogance toward those who continue to believe in God and religion which is likely not healthy. I hope that this could be considered a positive first step in working to overcome this attitude. As I come to better understand how cognitive dissonance, and the effect of thinking about my behavior has on my outlook and beliefs, I hope that I can arrive at a place of enlightenment and transcendence. Apparently I still have a long way to go.


Monday, April 23, 2012

Brain damage

I think I have finally figured out why I seem to be so disadvantaged when it comes to being able to feel the spirit and retrieve my testimony of the existence of God, Jesus, Satan (Isn't it interesting that if you accept the reality of God and Jesus that you must also accept the reality of Satan? Satan is scary.) and the truthiness of the LDS church as the only "true" church on the face of the whole earth (meaning all the other churches on the face of the earth are lacking in some way in the truth department, apparently). I have come to one overwhelming and inescapable conclusion; I must be brain damaged. This is the only logical conclusion I can arrive at based on the facts I have in my possession. Here is my train of thought on this;

Fact 1: I have no idea if I have felt the influence of the spirit in my life, let alone what this experience would actually be like were I to have it. The additional problem with this is that even if I were feeling the spirit as I have been told many times throughout my life that I would (or should be) no one seems to be able to tell me exactly at what moment I have actually felt the spirit so that I can identify the experience for future reference. Because it is certainly my experience that, while some people claim to have felt the influence of the "spirit" during some occasion, others haven't felt anything at all. I am now the one who doesn't feel anything at all when others claim to have felt the "spirit". Of course, this whole concept of "feeling" the "spirit" begs the question of which "spirit" they are feeling, since there are supposedly a whole host of "spirits" out there that are attempting to influence our thoughts at any given moment all the time.

Fact 2: The brain is the center of emotional activity and "feelings" in people. Since all feelings I have are the result of firing synapses and chemical and electrical activity in my brain, my inability to "feel" the spirit must be the result of a lack of connection somewhere in my brain or due to a part of my brain that is malfunctioning in some way.

Therefore: I must have brain damage.

It's a miracle! I have finally figured this all out! Now I have a great response when people inquire about me not going to church, or ask why I don't believe, I have a simple and concise response, "Oh, I have brain damage that makes it so I can't feel the spirit or gain a testimony."

This makes me wonder how extensive the damage really is for me and if I should have it checked out by a doctor who specializes in determining such things. I wonder if such a doctor exists and what they would tell me? Should I be worried? I mean, I seem to be able to function in life OK. I am able to operate an automobile to travel long distances. I can carry on somewhat coherent and logical conversations with other people. I can hold down a job and complete most of the duties I have there. I can walk and talk and chew gum at the same time. Of course there is this annoying habit I have of looking at things from the opposite perspective all the time, maybe that is the clear indicator of my brain damage. Hopefully people will understand and forgive my defect. I can only hope so.

Friday, April 6, 2012

My testimony

Children of the earth! I would like to make bare my testimony to you of a knowledge that is very plain and precious which I recently gained. You see, there is a phenomena that I have only recently become aware of, among the humankind, that deserves further reflection for sure. It is this interesting state that occurs among people of religious organizations, or affiliations, that causes them to feel that their beliefs are only found to be strengthened by information they encounter that may cause that very same organization to be discredited or, at a minimum, severely questioned in their integrity. I have often pondered this question as I have encountered this sentiment on at least a few occasions. Well, my friends, I think I have finally discovered a key reason for this reaction. The term for this phenomena is "cognitive dissonance".

Since I was introduced to this fabulous phrase, I thought my understanding of it was somewhat complete. However, I have now come to realize that I do actually have a capacity for further learning. I was recently introduced to a book that began to summarize exactly what this state of mind means but, more importantly, exactly how its impact is manifest in the behavior of people. You see, and here is the most precious truth of all, we tend to defend most vehemently that which we perceive to have sacrificed the most for. Let me try to say that even more plainly if I can; If we give up something (our money, time, talents, labor, self-respect, friends or family) to be part of a group (church, club, fraternity, social group, cult) then, the greater we perceive our sacrifice to have been, the greater extent to which we work to build up the merits of that organization - to ourselves and to others. This can be demonstrated repeatedly by looking through history or by experiment, if desired.

First, a look at history. It seems hardly worth mentioning, but the most extreme cults are where this oddity of human nature is most heartily exploited. Countless thousands of lives have been lost because devout followers of charismatic leaders were more willing to give up their lives than admit that their faithful leader was a little bit nuts. Why is this so? Why is it that, when a group of cult members discover that their leaders' predictions did not come to fruition - or that their leader is really just a liar and a fornicator - do they find themselves adhering ever more closely to what that same leader tells them to do? It is literally mind boggling! It defies reason to a most ludicrous degree! Yet it continues to happen. The amazing thing is, these people are not dodo's, at least we wouldn't consider them such by reviewing their level of education or history of worldly credentials. They are reasonably intelligent people, but their intelligence seems to fall flat on its face when observing their behavior towards that which they have the most faith in.

When Susan Atkins, a follower of Charles Manson, was interviewed by a grand jury, deciding whether or not to pursue charges against Manson and his devoted followers on seven counts of murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder, she gave a remarkable, bloodcurdling testimony of the events. What amazed the jurors most was her complete lack of any sense of remorse or shred of guilt for the actions she had participated in. So what could possibly have caused someone to act in such a way? Well, the peculiarity and confidence of Charles Manson as a charismatic leader is likely a big cause, but what is even more close to the root cause can be found in what his followers gave up to become one of his followers. They left their homes in San Francisco and rode on a bus around before settling north of Los Angeles. In leaving their homes, they were fully committed to that lifestyle. Even though that lifestyle meant living off of scraps of food pulled from dumpsters and living in a crowded and communal community lacking many conveniences of personal hygiene. This sacrifice led to what is known as "self justification". Since nobody wants to entertain the thought that they have given up so much for nothing, we deal with the cognitive dissonance that is created in our mind (by being told or reminded somehow that what we are doing, or the person or ideal we are following, is less ideal than we originally thought) by justifying our actions.

We humans are great at rationalization and self justification.

The thought that we might be doing something that is harmful or painful, boring or worthless is overcome by the build-up of justification for our participation in the group. We build up the positives in our mind, while successfully ignoring, or blacking out, the downsides. People can come to us with factual information that, on the whole, completely discredits our faith, and what do we do? We adhere more closely to its tenets. We ignore the information. We label it as not credible. We label the person who gave us the information as not credible in some way. And, if the information turns out to be confirmed, we immediately work to minimize the impact the information has on our belief. We say things like, "My beliefs are only stronger now because of this." or "You haven't shaken my faith one bit." We use absolutes to minimize the damage that has been done. We may say things like, "I know this is true, absolutely." or we may be a little less certain, albeit not willing to concede we may be wrong by saying things like, "Well, its still the best thing out there." or "Have you found anything better?"

This phenomena has also been conclusively shown to be the case by experiment. Elliot Aronson and Judson Mills performed just such an experiment. Their hypothesis was that the greater the level of sacrifice, or amount of personal discomfort, the initiation rite was to join a group, the greater the individual would work to find the good that the group provided or express positive things about the group. Even if the group turns out to be boring or worthless, rather than admit that, it seems it is easier to enhance the value of the group than admit that we might have made a mistake in joining the group. Since the mind doesn't like to hold simultaneously contradictory information (e.g. The church may be a farse, but I have paid in money and time to be a big part of it) we tend to move away from the least comfortable conclusion to justify our behavior. For many, it is easier to negate or discredit any information that might show the church to be a fraudulent organization, and admit they have given so much to something ultimately not true, than it is to admit they might be wrong and everything they have given wasn't worth what they believed it was. This is a painful decision many members of the church face and, therefore, it is not difficult to understand why so many make this choice in the face of discrediting information.

When I think about what I gave to the church over my life, it is a wonder that I was able to see what I now see. I was willing to give up 2 years of my life specifically devoted to church service on a mission. I gave up 10% of my income (or at least tried to) for so many years. I gave up time with my loved ones so I could go out and visit members or attend boring meetings. For crying out loud, I stripped down naked in the temple so some old guy could touch me on my stomach, knees, chest and shoulder and pronounce me clean from the blood and sins of this generation! However, the way I have dealt with all that I gave up to be a member of the church in good standing (the severity of the initiation) is that I now tend to discount what I really gave up to join and, instead, I have chosen to enhance the seriousness of my finding the untruth of it. I am human after all.

This is my testimony and I leave it with you, to do what you will with it, in the name of all that is good and true in reality. Amen.