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!

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.

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.

Are you brainwashed?

Here I am going to outline a summary of the circumstances and techniques commonly used in brainwashing. Since brainwashing is a term that can sometimes have a negative connotation, we could also use the term sometimes utilized by those in the field of hypnosis; conversion. Conversion techniques are another name for brainwashing and involve some form of manipulation that is used to effect, or most often, control behavior. I believe many religious meetings (including those of the LDS church) utilize these techniques in varying degrees to extreme effectiveness which would, in my opinion, explain why many religious people have thought stopping mechanisms put into place to prevent them from being open to alternative explanations for "spiritual" experiences or being resistant to reading things that might cause them to question their faith.

The first thing to recognize about brainwashing or conversion is that people usually do not know it when they have been affected by such techniques. These techniques are very powerful and are very effective at controlling behavior and the most devious method of their use is when people have no idea when they are being used. People in the business of using forms of hypnosis, if they are respectable, will always disclose what they are doing and how they are doing it. Even when disclosed, however, even the most resistant people can still succumb to its control and influence. Needless to say, people that utilize such techniques unknowingly can be the most dangerous. It is also true that the techniques are utilized in many instances without a conscious awareness of what they are doing. Many people have been conditioned by effective conversion techniques and will go on to duplicate or reinforce those techniques in future circumstances.

Conversion and your mind
Conversion is accomplished through getting deeper into a process of progression of the state of suggestibility that your mind is in. The Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov (famous for the dog salivating experiments) identified the 3 general states of the human mind. The most aware and alert state is full beta consciousness. This is also known as the EQUIVALENT phase. This phase is marked by the brain responding equally to both strong and weak stimuli.

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

The most suggestible state that the mind can be in is the ULTRA-PARADOXICAL state. This state is when our conditioned responses to stimuli, and patterns in behavior, can be flipped from positive to negative or from negative to positive.

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

"With the progression through each phase, the degree of conversion becomes more effective and complete. The way[s] to achieve conversion are many and varied, but the usual first step in religious or political brainwashing is to work on the emotions of an individual or group until they reach an abnormal level of anger, fear, excitement, or nervous tension.

The progressive result of this mental condition is to impair judgement and increase suggestibility. The more this condition can be maintained or intensified, the more it compounds. Once catharsis, or the first brain phase [ultra paradoxical], is reached, the complete mental takeover becomes easier. Existing mental programming can be replaced with new patterns of thinking and behavior.

Other often-used physiological conditions that are used to modify normal brain functions are; fasting, radical or high sugar diets, physical discomforts, regulation of breathing, mantra chanting in meditation, the disclosure of awesome mysteries, special lighting and sound effects, programmed response to incense, or intoxicating drugs.

The same results can be obtained in contemporary psychiatric treatment by electric shock treatments and even by purposely lowering a person's blood sugar level with insulin injections."

Environments of conversion
Some characteristics of initial meetings that utilize conversion techniques include things that are designed to get the participant into a trance like state. This may include:

    - Music with a beat between 45-72 beats per minute (which most closely mimic a slow resting beat of the heart - Most LDS hymns are played at this rate)

    - Lighting and/or effects that are designed to encourage relaxation (think of the lighting in the temple endowment - when you enter the room the lights are turned down to represent a lower kingdom of glory)

    - Speaking (or a speaker) that speaks in a monotone, repeating fashion. This is also referred to as a "voice roll" and is a patterned, paced style of speaking that is designed to induce a trance in the listeners. Ideally this speaking style resembles a metronome ticking away at a beat of 45 - 60 words per minute. In addition to hypnotists, this is a technique utilized by many attorneys in the courtroom when addressing jurors as well as preachers at charismatic style or revivalist church meetings. You could also identify this as the kind of voice used by speakers in many LDS church meetings or the voice recording used in the LDS temple endowment session.

Any or all of these things may be utilized to bring the participants to what is known as an alpha state. The alpha state is when the participant is ready to be reprogrammed with new information about themselves, their circumstances or how they perceive their surroundings or even what they think about to eventually affect behavior.  When in the alpha state, participants are 25 times as suggestible as compared to a fully beta or "conscious" state.

Other things that will aid in creating an alpha state in the participants includes cutting off the participants from their normal routine or contact with those they would normally communicate or associate with. This could be done in any number of places but, usually, it is done in a group setting where the participants are discouraged from leaving, using the restroom or attending to personal comforts.

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

1. The initial meeting is held in a place that is cutoff from the participants normal surroundings and regular follow up meetings are suggested or encouraged to be attended. At these meetings the participants are asked (or reminded) to follow the rules of the group, encouraged to bring in new members and most participants have some form of trigger or activation button that will remind the participant of their promised loyalty to that group, leader or organization. At some point in the initial meeting participants are reminded of the importance of keeping their "agreements" and are asked to make a vow that they will keep their "agreements". This is what is done in the LDS temple endowment session. Members of the LDS church that have attended the temple are encouraged to return regularly to "renew" the agreements made there.

2. A rigorous schedule is utilized, or encouraged to be followed, to maintain a state of physical and mental fatigue of the participants. Long hours are demanded in order to prevent participants from taking time to relax or reflect on the demands presented by the group. This totally reminds me of all the work that is asked of members of the church. Between regular church services (which are actually long - at 3 hours each Sunday - compared to worship service times of other churches) there is a demand of time and energy placed on members to serve in callings, prepare for that service, attend meetings outside of worship services related to those callings, going on regular visits to members homes for home and visiting teaching assignments, going out and doing work with or for the missionaries, preparing meals for others in the group, participating in seminary or other firesides or instructional meetings, going to the temple regularly and doing genealogy or family history. All this is in addition to all of your regular work around the house, vacation time and job.

However, when you ask devoted members of the church about all this work they do for their religion, they say it is not that much, really, or that sacrifice is what God wants from them. Usually they don't realize how much time they actually spend in these activities which take away so much time from their families or relationships outside of church. I think this may be why many active members of the church don't have that many friends outside of their church circle of friends. This causes me to wonder how much of this is by the design of the LDS church.

3. Techniques are used to increase the tension or anxiety of the participants. I think of the tension created when it is Fast and Testimony meeting Sunday and everyone in the room is wondering if they should get up and speak and bare their testimony to alleviate the awkward silence in the room. Sometimes things that are said are done so in meetings to directly cause a feeling of tension in the participants.

4. Uncertainty. This is similar to number 3 above, but it would be more directly referring to the anxiety or uncertainty related to possibly having to speak in front of the group. A public opinion poll, conducted several years ago, indicated that the number one most-fearful situation an individual could encounter is to speak in front of an audience. It ranked above window washing outside the 85th floor of an office building. There is also the uncertainty that is created when one becomes aware that they may be asked about personal or private practices or behaviors (such as sex or masturbation, for example). Participants in groups where conversion techniques are utilized often feel tempted to reveal their innermost secrets because of the environment created, or are encouraged to be involved in activities that encourage them to "remove their masks". This is par for the course in regular worthiness interviews conducted by leaders in the LDS church.

5. Another tip off that conversion techniques are being used is the use of jargon or terminology that has a special meaning to those in the group or a meaning that is different from traditional understanding. Sometimes this language is vicious in nature. In the LDS church there is most definitely a lingo that insiders are familiar with. This vocabulary includes such terms as atonement, dispensation, "latter-days", Jesus Christ (in the context as framed by LDS, inc.), Plan of salvation, endowment, agency, celestial marriage, etc., etc. Again, when asking members of the church about this jargon, they do not readily admit that these words or phrases (or others like them) mean something different to those inside the church as opposed to those outside, but when asking for definitions of these terms it becomes obvious that this is the case.

6. The final tip off is that no humor is introduced until the participant has been fully indoctrinated. Once members are considered fully active, then expressions of humor and fun are encouraged to demonstrate the joy that the participants have now "found" as part of the group. This reminds me of my mission. Meetings with investigators or non-members were highly subdued until agreements were made to join the church. Then the interaction became much more jovial and upbeat. While I was unaware of this behavior I exhibited while on my mission, the more I think about it the more I realize this was true. Laughter and fun were reserved for when in the company of "believers".

While any of the above techniques may be utilized by organizations that seek to control their members, it is readily apparent that not all of these organizations would automatically be considered bad. Many times members of such organizations accomplish much good under this influence, however, members should be able to understand when and how these techniques may be utilized so they can have a more adequate ability to choose their level of participation or to not participate. Continual involvement may result in behaviors that become detrimental to the participant when they have no idea what has happened to them.

Organizational control
Once the initial conversion of the participant is accomplished, critical thinking or dissent among the ranks cannot be tolerated. In order to prevent cynicism from becoming an issue among the group safeguards are implemented. If these safeguards are not implemented, members become dangerous to the control of the organization. These safeguards are known as the decognition process. This three step system is designed to prevent questioning of the organization.

The first step is ALERTNESS REDUCTION. This essentially means that the participant is kept in a high state of exhaustion, or state of sensory deprivation or confusion, to keep them from being grounded and questioning the intent of the group or looking further into the history of the organization. The other outcome of this state is to cause the participant to be confused between fantasy and reality causing the nervous system to malfunction. More overtly, cults will cause alertness reduction through controlling diet and encouraging the consumption of only fruit or vegetables (or cookies and koolaid) and limiting the consumption of a well balanced diet. Being bombarded with intense or unique experiences can have the same effect. This totally describes the MTC (Missionary Training Center - where missionaries go to prepare for going on their mission) and mission experience. Missionaries are introduced to an entirely new and intense schedule and environment that completely alters their state of alertness to receive the programming of the organization.

The next step is PROGRAMMED CONFUSION. Alertness reduction prepares you for a mental assault on your common sense. Once in this weakened mental state, the participant is bombarded with questions which are designed to confuse the person into not being able to discern between reality and illusion. This is the point when perverted logic is likely to be accepted. This can either be introduced directly or subtly by encouraging the participant to arrive at illogical conclusions on their own. The LDS church, I think, will say that they don't make any fantastical claims directly, but their questions and statements don't leave much alternative when confronted by possible alternative explanations.

The final and most essential step of the decognition process is THOUGHT STOPPING. This is essentially the step that causes the mind to go "flat". These are altered-state-of-consciousness techniques that initially induce calmness by giving the mind something simple to deal with and focusing awareness. The continued use brings on a feeling of elation and eventually hallucination. The result is the reduction of thought and eventually, if used long enough, the cessation of all thought and withdrawal from everyone and everything except that which the controllers direct. The best example of this from LDS teachings is the advice that the spirit will teach the member "all things" that they need. The very phrases repeated by faithful members of the church are designed to enhance this thinking and mindset. Actual knowledge and observations are considered secondary to knowledge supposedly gained from the spirit.

Thought stopping is also programmed into members of the church in regards to reading material that goes against teachings of the leaders of the church or is endorsed by the church. At some point, I believe, members reach that alpha state that promotes suggestibility (probably during each general conference) because they are in a trance like, open eye, state (but essentially asleep on the inside) and it is then that members are "counseled" to not seek out anything that is contrary to church teaching. It is further programmed into members that any such information is likely deceptive, evil or controlling. The irony is that the church is the one that is really controlling its members.

The interesting thing is to observe members when they are confronted with information about the church that comes from the church itself. When something brought to their attention obviously goes against what they have been taught (or created for a belief from what they have been taught), the first reaction is to deny that the information is valid. Once they have been shown the source of the information in the context of the church publication, they immediately move to minimize the impact such information has on them or their testimony. It is amazing to witness the degree to which members will work to defend the church in this effort. Only those that are able to wake up to the conditioning that has been taking place on them (in some cases for a lifetime) through regular church participation can they really see what is going on.

Of course recognizing all of these traits of groups or organizations that utilize conversion techniques does not attempt to answer the philosophical question of whether or not people should be encouraged to participate in such groups. On the one hand, it can be argued that participation leads to doing good things for people, even if it is a result of brainwashing or subtle long term mental conditioning. I'm not sure I can answer that question sufficiently. I just know that for me, participation is unacceptable because of the reluctance of members of the church to acknowledge, or even listen to, my objections with what is being taught and the methods utilized to encourage activity and discourage dissent. I wish that productive discussions could be had about these observations, but unfortunately that just won't happen.

I hope this has helped in recognizing traits of organizations that work diligently to brainwash their members. I also hope that more people wake up to the many ways in which conversion techniques are being utilized on them all the time by many different groups, media or politicians because these techniques are only becoming more common. Be careful out there!

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

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

Let men's hearts fail

I recently watched a Mormon messages video sent to me (that can be found here). The video is a story shared by Russell M. Nelson who is a member of the quorum of 12 apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In the story, Nelson tells of a hair raising experience he had while flying on a small plane. He said the engine, that he could see outside his window, burst into flames, exploded and then spewed burning oil all over the side of the plane. He said that he was curious at a woman who was crying and screaming hysterically as the plane started to dive due to the loss of the engine. He said he was calm and felt "ready to meet his maker" as he thought the plane might be spiraling to his certain death. The implication is then made, through the comments he makes next, that those who fear or are suffering are somehow inferior to those who have faith or belief in an afterlife.

I think there must be something wrong with me because, while many will say they find the message and the video inspiring and uplifting, I find it condescending and demeaning, especially to the poor woman who wasn't ready to die. He is taking a perfectly normal reaction to facing potential death in a plane crash (screaming and crying hysterically) and turning it into something that is to be avoided if you believe strongly enough in God and an afterlife. Who's to say that the woman didn't believe in God or that she wasn't crying because she was sinful or felt inadequate...SHE WAS CRYING BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T WANT TO DIE! THAT'S IT. Is he saying that those who are afraid of something (like dying) lack faith and if they just believed more they would all be calm like he was? I'm sorry, but I have seen many faithful people get scared and cry when their life was in danger. No matter what your level of faith, everyone will react differently - sometimes with calmness, sometimes with hysteria - when faced with a life threatening situation. Regardless of who you are or what you believe, everybody get's scared once in a while.

It is normal to be scared and our particular reaction in that moment may be more due to our personality or current disposition than anything to do with spiritual or religious beliefs. It is normal to be afraid and we shouldn't put down people for engaging in a perfectly reasonable and normal response to the loss of their life. And we certainly shouldn't put our response to that situation on a pedestal because we happen to not be afraid in that moment. If we did not have fear, or get scared, we would all die off because of what we would now call stupidity.

Don't get me wrong, fear is not something that is desirable. I don't go around looking for things to be afraid of. Rather, fear is a normal thing. It is not something to be demonized in order to get you to believe the way I do about the existence of a higher power or what might happen after we all die. I see this as a despicable tool being used by Nelson to manipulate people and get them to convert to his point of view. It just seems like this man is taking something that is normal and exploiting it to make himself appear knowledgeable and as having something that you need. How is this different than a snake oil salesman who tells you that you are suffering from this or that and only he has the cure? Frankly, I don't see much difference.

After re-watching the video, I am actually impressed that Mr. Nelson does not make any definite statements as to what you need, rather he says "a faith" instead of "the faith" when referring to what is needed to overcome fear or sadness. Baby steps towards increased tolerance and acceptance of other faith traditions, I guess. I honestly think Nelson has the benefit of a skilled PR and legal department guiding and editing his words in this video so those that are paying attention can't gather too much literal ammunition to cry intolerance on the church. While he is very careful, the presumptions are glaring.

I would also submit that Mr. Nelson's interpretation of the scripture he quotes in the video is being misinterpreted. The verses he quotes are a snippet of a lengthy response from Jesus to his apostles asking when he would come again and what signs would follow so that they might know and be ready (see Luke 21:7). The verses Nelson quotes are as follows (from Luke 21);


 25 And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;


 26 Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.


 27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory.

When I read these verses it sounds to me like the faithful will be the one's aware of the signs that indicate the 2nd coming of Jesus is near. Especially since the audience in these verses is the apostles of Jesus. Those that believe are the one's whose hearts will fail them. This means the faithful will fear because it is perceived that the things they are "looking after" (meaning the signs that they believe have been foretold - even though there is really nothing explicit or detailed about what these events might be exactly, except for those things that have plagued us for centuries like war, famine, natural disasters, etc.) are coming and the "powers of heaven" shall be shaken. In other words, the powers of heaven can only mean those that are the one's supposedly possessing said powers. Those that supposedly have these powers (God given power, authority or priesthood) will be shaken.

To understand this verse further, and add a different perspective, let's try to understand what would happen if astronomers see something out of the ordinary concerning the sun, moon or stars. It will most certainly not cause them to remember that Jesus' second coming is near. Rather, if these things seem to spell the end of our lives on this planet, scientists will attempt to understand what is happening and warn us if there is an impending disaster due to those things. Certainly the world at large would be scared if that sort of thing were announced, or experienced, but it would not be according to signs having been foretold in the scriptures. Scripture is intentionally vague when it comes to specific signs or atrocities so that they are all inclusive. These vague things are then used as mechanisms to convince, and ultimately control, people to believe in what the current professors of those teachings are saying.

Nelson then goes on to tell us that the reason hearts will fail (or people will experience fear or sadness) is because we forget our identity and our purpose. Apparently showing people in silence as they argue or look generally sad is supposed to re-enforce this idea. I feel bad about this representation because, while it may speak to those who struggle in different ways, it portrays these people as lacking in some way. People who experience normal things that may cause stress in their lives are shown as imperfect and needing the help that Nelson can apparently provide.

What makes me even more sad is that many times the church, and the teachings that Nelson espouses, are actually the CAUSE of those feelings of inadequacy or stress, fear or sadness. It is very much a self perpetuating and self sustaining mechanism. You feel fear or sadness because you lack what the LDS church can supposedly provide for you and if you continue to feel those feelings, you are just not doing enough and need to do more. Read more, pray more, do more service and eventually those feelings will subside. When in reality, the more you engage in those kinds of behaviors, the more you realize you can't possibly do it all AND keep up with everything else in your life. Something's gotta give and, invariably, the things that give first are those things the church is telling you that you are not doing enough of. If only you did better you will eventually find the peace Nelson promises. Only trouble is, it never really shows up because the messages repeated every week at church are geared to making you feel inadequate.

He says that the following things brought sadness or "trouble" in his life;
- Death of his wife
- Death of his daughter

He's seen the troubles brought to people through;
- Divorce
- Children or grandchildren going astray
- Disability, illness, injuries
While pictured is a women crying over a baby in an incubator at an ICU, a man packing up and leaving after losing his job and a woman who is sad after an argument with her husband.

Nelson is grateful for the gospel of Jesus Christ that allows him that kind of strength to be helped during these tumultuous times. I'm sorry, but I would rather prefer to see our society as being in a BETTER state than it was a century or two ago. While there may have been several major natural disasters (shown in Nelson's video) to happen in recent years, studies have shown that these events are actually decreasing (according to a Freakonomics Radio podcast: "The folly of prediction" 9/14/2011). Violent crime is down, homicide is down, nearly every statistic that could be utilized to potentially measure the state of bad things happening (maybe with the exception of joblessness and homelessness which are pretty cyclical) is down. We are more tolerant and less violent towards each other. I'm not sure to what Nelson is referring when he labels these as tumultuous times, unless he is alluding to the things listed above that are inevitable (i.e. death, disability, illness, premature births, unemployment, arguments and injuries) to happen in all of our lives. If that is the case, the message that we need to lift ourselves up and move on is appreciated. However, the presumption that it is only the gospel of Jesus Christ that will enable people to do that is highly insulting, intolerant and narrow-minded.

While the music and scenes are all precisely designed to evoke emotion using the church owned, Bonneville communications HeartSell® technique, it is really difficult to not shed a tear over watching this video. But something just doesn't feel right. Such blatant manipulation of emotion ought to be outlawed when used to make you believe that you are screwed up and that what the church has to offer you is what represents the cure.

Of course, it is even more humorous that he is holding a Book of Mormon in his lap at the end of the video. As if he was not afraid because of the Book of Mormon. It's like he is saying, "If you will just read the Book of Mormon you will not be afraid like the poor woman that cried hysterically when facing the prospect of her imminent and untimely demise." What a crock! Tell me if you disagree, I can take it.

Reactions to General Conference

I only watched the two Sunday sessions of the recent general conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints because that is about all my blood pressure can handle. However, here are a few of my thoughts in response to what was said in those two sessions:

- I feel like all the emphasis on reliance on Heavenly Father may serve to marginalize the recognition and respect for our earthly fathers. I find it especially sad that at some point my children may look at me as a failure because of my unbelief in the church, but will look to their imaginary Heavenly Father (as interpreted by the LDS church) for the support and recognition they desire to give to their father. I guess the lack of emphasis on Heavenly Mother in the church is somewhat providential so that earthly mothers don't receive the same marginalization.

- I was surprised at the number of references to people who died of cancer (or other illnesses) ...even when in the presence of a supposed "apostle" of Jesus Christ. Aren't the apostles of Jesus Christ supposed to be able to heal people who are sick or otherwise afflicted? Apparently the leaders of the LDS church (AKA Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ) are not able to do that kind of stuff (heal the sick) anymore.

- I was disappointed by the talk by Tad R. Callister. He was very divisive and continued to endorse the false dichotomy of either the Book of Mormon is of God (and therefore 100% true) or it is of the devil. While saying there can be no other alternative, I wish I could propose the reasonable alternative...which is that there is no devil and there is no God. Of course, this would negate everything the church stands for, and since the mission of the church is to survive I suppose we won't see them admitting this is an alternative to that stance any time soon.

- I also had to kind of laugh at his comment about how the bible represents one point through which many lines could be drawn representing many different interpretations of the gospel. He went on to point out that the Book of Mormon represents another point through which only one line can be drawn. I would assume this assertion is designed to point out that the LDS church represents the one true religion through which the gospel of Jesus Christ can be interpreted. However, what I would point out is what about all those different churches that exist on the earth today that also use and believe in the Book of Mormon and bible as scripture? Don't all of those (nearly a dozen or so including the Community of Christ, Church of Christ, Strangites, LDS fundamentalists, etc.) other religions represent the truth using that line of thinking?

Other than the above, I was just amused by the fact that grown men (and one woman) can speak for nearly 4 hours and not say one thing that can be seen as new or applicable to real life except for to serve as inspiration for taking a nap. Oh well, I guess we all need to nap every once in a while.

Making enemies on Facebook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Facebook Thread:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Please note: When using Firefox web browser, if you type a comment without logging in first, your comment may disappear when attempting to submit. To avoid this, login first and then type comment or always copy comment before attempting to submit.)

Force, coercion and manipulation

In thinking about the idea of forcing people back to heaven, versus inviting or enticing them, I wanted to outline the various ways it could be accomplished. However, before I can begin to talk about how it could be accomplished, I need to outline the ideas and behaviors that would make up such control mechanisms.

What are the various forms of control over people and how are they manifest?

Based in my experience, control can be exercised in one of several ways:

1. Physical force. This would be causing another to engage in a behavior because one party is physically controlling another to do something. An example of this would be if I hold your arm and drag you up the stairs to bed while you are crying because you don't want to go to bed. The circumstances necessary for this kind of control to exist are one party being physically stronger than the party being controlled and the controlled party allowing, to some extent, themselves to be controlled physically (or not being able to understand, willing to obey, things to that point that it would necessitate the control being administered).

My children often either run up the stairs on their own or try to run away from me when they suspect I am getting to the point that I am ready to drag them upstairs to bed. The reality is, however, this kind of force is only necessary (and remotely practicable) when children are large enough to walk on their own but young enough to feel the need to disobey their parents. When children become physically able to resist such force, it usually becomes ineffective.

Physical force is also justified when attempting to correct children because their behavior being engaged in may harm them. Like pulling their hand away from a campfire, for example. Physical force is never justified when it is solely intended to cause injury to another. The only exception to this, in my opinion, is when having some form of injury is risked in order to prevent some other, more severe, injury. For example, pushing someone out of the way of an oncoming car, may result in some injury, but it would be caused in order to prevent being hit by an oncoming car. It is presumed, however, that physical force is rarely justified among persons who have the ability to think and act for themselves because they are not in a state where the care of another is necessary. Children are said to be in the care, custody and control of their parents or guardians. In other words, parents are the only one's who are allowed to utilize physical force for correctional/instructional/disciplinary purposes. I suppose a very long debate could be started over the kinds of physical force that are allowed to take place by parents with their children (or those that have been placed in responsibility for children by their parents), but I am not prepared to try to outline all of that.

2. Threat of physical force or inflicting injury. This would be control that is exercised by threatening that if a particular behavior is not engaged in, then the person fears that they will experience physical pain or injury that will be inflicted by the one exerting the control over another. The circumstances necessary for this kind of control are one party having the physical ability, weapons or resources to carry out this injury or harm to a party that does not have the physical ability, weapons or resources to protect their self.

I do this all the time with my kids. I say, "You better eat your peas or you will get a spanking." I don't really say this, by the way, I only threaten to spank for much more severe disobedience, like talking back.

This is a form of control that is utilized by parents with their children all time, even though we may not be aware of it. The threat of physical injury is a very real concern for little people who are at the mercy of big people around them. Many times parents may be threatening physical injury and not even realize that they are doing it. For example, sometimes, just getting angry, yelling or moving quickly towards a little person can cause the fear of physical injury for the little person and cause them to alter their behavior.

I have even experienced this misunderstood fear on the part of others first hand. I used to live next door to a lady that was kind of paranoid. She was a single, fully grown, woman that lived alone. She lived in a house that overlooked the road leading up to it and she insisted that no plants or fence be placed in her backyard because she always wanted to be able to see the road to make sure her ex-husband wasn't on his way to "get" her. I assume she feared that he would come and inflict physical violence on her - which fear I am not discounting, because apparently when leaving a physically abusive relationship, is when people are at the highest risk of being killed by their abusive partner - however what she did one day did lead me to believe she was kind of paranoid. One day I was working in my yard on a warm sunny day. I had been working on some landscaping for a couple of hours and had gotten some sun. I was red in the face, apparently, and my two year old son wandered over into her back yard (because there was no fence) to chase a cat that was on her back porch. I yelled over to my son to come back over to our side of the property. My son didn't immediately respond so I started to walk over to retrieve him. Eventually he wandered back over to our property and we all continued about our business. The next day the police showed up at our door. They said they had received a complaint from our neighbor who said I was all red in the face in her backyard carrying a shovel and yelling. She was afraid I was digging up, and taking my anger out on, some weeds in her back yard and thought I was coming for her next, I guess (she never pulled her weeds, so I could have easily gotten very upset that I had to look at them all the time). The police said they were sorry to bother us, but said they had to make sure I was not a real threat and get our side of the story. I could not believe that she would call the police on me! Needless to say, we were not on much speaking terms after that.

My neighbor apparently felt threatened by me being red-faced, yelling over to my son and carrying a shovel. I feel bad that some people live in such fear that a slight misunderstanding causes them to feel the need to call the police. I guess I cannot discount people, or their bad experiences with physical harm being inflicted by another, but I do think it can get to a point of being unjustifiably paranoid. This further illustrates that sometimes the threat of harm can be interpreted to one person where no threat to someone else is evident. It makes me wonder what can be done when one party is constantly accusing the other of threatening physical violence when that is not their intent and no physical violence has ever been committed?

Threats of violence as a means to control others can be used by so many different parties in so many situations. It can be used by children against their parents, parents against children, spouses against each other, neighbors against each other, communities and, most visibly, countries against each other. As to the merits of this form of threatening to inflict injury to control others, I am also not prepared to write about that. What I will say, however, is that the threat of physical violence as a means to control should diminish as people show that they have no intention, or ability, to carry out the threat.

3. Threatening to inflict physical injury on oneself if a certain behavior is not engaged in. We would say this is pretty foolish because it is based on the assumption that if someone we care about hurts their self the other party will care enough to not let that happen. Sometimes this is a pretty big assumption. Usually when someone hurts their body intentionally, I just laugh. Of course, the laughter becomes more awkward the more it becomes evident they might be causing such injury to their person that it could threaten their life. However, even at that point, I sometimes just can't stop laughing.

On my mission, we were with our zone leaders going to a members house for dinner and, on our way into the house, my zone leaders companion found a fire ant hill. Where I served my mission in south Texas there are a lot of fire ants. We all joked about how these fire ants could literally cause a lot of pain if someone were to be bitten by them. So this Elder says, "I'll stick my arm on the ant hill, and see how long I can keep it there, and see what happens." Of course, after a while, the ants came out and started climbing on his arm and biting him. About 2 or 3 seconds after he put his arm on the ant hill, I started laughing uncontrollably. It turns out, he started to experience an allergic reaction to the ant bites and had to be rushed to the hospital. It was sometime on the way to the hospital that I finally stopped laughing...even though I couldn't help but let out a little chuckle every now and again when I thought about how stupid a move it was that he made.

4. Emotional manipulation. This is when one party attempts to make an appeal to the emotional center (or response) of another person to move them to engage in a behavior. I think forms of emotional manipulation are extremely numerous. Suffice it to say that it involves attempting to arouse an emotion in one party and then telling them that the emotion they are feeling is evidence that they should engage in a certain behavior. Threat of violence and threat of violence to oneself, are forms of emotional manipulation because the fear of harm is the emotion that is utilized to invite a behavior that would otherwise not have been engaged in by the other party.

Aside from fear (which I think is the most common tool of emotional manipulation), other forms of emotional manipulation may involve; security, love, lust, compassion, conformity, sadness, sexual arousal, conviction and dependency.

What I think it all comes down to is everybody is potentially motivated (ergo controlled) by either fear or pleasure. We either fear something bad will happen if we do or don't do something or we do or don't do things because we think it will bring us pleasure.

I wonder which of these methods Satan would have used in his great plan of no-choice to bring us all back into God's presence?

Physical force? At that point we would have basically been robots being physically controlled by another entity. I wonder if we would have ever been able to resist such a force? What would have happened then? Would we eventually become so conditioned in certain behaviors/actions, that the force could eventually stop and we would not be able to act in a manner that worked against the will of the force because it became engrained in our being? A lot like muscle conditioning and ingrained memories allow us to engage in certain behaviors without even thinking about them (like riding a bike, for example). Large elephants can be restrained by a tiny chain that they could easily break. How is this possible, you may ask. Well, it starts when the elephant is a baby and it is chained up. At first the elephant tries to break free, but once it realizes it is of no use, it gives up and never tries to break free again. This is a form of control through conditioning of physical force. That may have been a good plan for us too. Tell us that it isn't possible to break free of a behavior or belief for long enough and, after a while, people will stop trying.

How about the threat of physical force, harm, injury or death? This would be a fear based form of control. We would comply because we would fear death or some other form of physical pain or injury as a consequence. We would be told repeatedly that we should comply or else. We might be subjected to seeing or hearing others having the physical pain or injury inflicted on them so that we become convinced of the power of the controlling entity to administer such a punishment on us. And as long as the controlling entity maintains the power to administer such judgments/punishments, we would remain in compliance because it would remain in our best interests to do so in order to avoid the pain or suffering. I also think this form of control could be very effective on us as human beings.

What about Satan threatening to harm himself if we did not comply? I don't think this form of control would be very effective...if we placed Satan in a position that is equivalent to how most people see him today. However, what if he were promoted to being equivalent in status to a world leader or Jesus? Would we work to avoid allowing pain to come to (or feeling the need to inflict pain on himself) if we highly revered his character? Maybe to a point, but our sympathies, I think, would quickly wane as the threat of harming himself continued. We might get to a point where we would welcome the threat of violence towards himself being carried out so we could be rid of him. This would quickly be seen as selfish and would therefore not be effective for very long. This probably would not be a good form of control for us.

This brings us to emotional manipulation. I believe emotional manipulation would be an excellent form of control to be exercised by Satan to keep us in control. He would constantly be appealing to our emotions to get us to do his will. He would constantly be telling us how the emotional response he just elicited in us was clearly an indicator that we should follow him. He would point out that the emotional response is the ultimate indicator of truth for us and that our emotions should be relied on in every case (that is, as long as they are used in a manner that remains in conformity with his agenda). He would tell us to ignore any emotional response that is received outside of the controlled emotions elicited inside his programming because these are obviously deceptions designed by his enemy to distract us or lead us astray. Any emotional independence would be highly discouraged because emotional dependency would be the only way maintain control. Subjects would be told that within their group is the only place such heart-warming emotions are able to be experienced and that seeking for them outside the group setting is a waste of time because they are never experienced.

The tools of emotional control would also need to be implemented throughout a large group of God's children. For that reason, the emotional control would need to be implemented throughout some sort of organization. A strictly hierarchical organization would likely be utilized. Peer pressure would be used to encourage conformity to the "correctness" of behavior by God's children. People would be told about all the bad things that will happen to them if they ever decided to leave the group, however, since leaving or not participating would simply be absolutely prohibited, these appeals to our emotions elicited when thinking about being separated from the group would be absolutely essential. Basically, no one would be permitted to leave, but they might be made afraid to leave by constantly being reminded about how miserable anyone is that ever decided to leave the group. The reasons for leaving would be considered irrelevant. The misery and, almost certain, loneliness of those that leave the group would be the constant mantra of the believers...err, I mean, subjects.

Of course, as part of that emotional manipulation, fear conditioning would be utilized to try and ingrain a fear of seeking information that originates outside the group-think standards of information. Satan's subjects would be told that to seek information from outside Satan's organization would be tantamount to heresy and would be strictly forbidden. Those enticed by such outside information would quickly be discovered because everyone would be taught to turn in those that are guilty of being exposed to, or searching out, such things. Subjects would be told that all other sources of information originating outside the group are false and are only designed to deceive and misinform. Any possible consideration of such information would quickly be dispelled by accusing the author of the information of attempting to lead others astray.

In addition, emotional control would be exercised by telling us our bodies are something to be ashamed of and that our body represents an enemy to the will of our noble leader. Simply because anything that is not directly controllable through fear or some other form of emotional manipulation (like our body) is a threat to the power of the leader and needs to be quickly put in its place as something to be feared and placed under strict and constant supervision for any deviant behaviors. Deviant behaviors would be quickly made out to be bad, forbidden and quickly dealt with through some form of punishment (or fear of punishment).

Anyway, I think you get the idea of what things would be like if Satan's plan had won the day in the pre-existence and one, or all, of the above forms of control were utilized to keep us in line and force us to return to God's all knowing and all loving presence. Thank goodness Satan is not our ruler and our God today. I can only imagine how terrible the world would be if that were the case.

P.S. My thanks to the Stake Presidents blog for my inspiration on these thoughts found here.

(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.)