Storm

Mostly just because it is really just, in my humble opinion, an absolutely lovely piece of art I share with you now Tim Minchin’s Storm:

J first shared this with me when I was well into my own faith crisis.  I had almost completely let go of the church realizing that it was ridiculous in its  claims but still letting go of those last few tendrils.  I love the way Tim Minchin expresses this but what really hit me the most the first time I heard it, and still does, is toward the end of the poem.

“Isn’t this enough?

Just this world?

Just this beautiful, complex

Wonderfully unfathomable, natural world?”

And I think that yes it can and should be enough.  Even if you believe there is an afterlife is it worth wasting this life over? At this point I personally see no evidence to support a belief in an afterlife but even if there is why waste what opportunities I have here just to hope I get to some type of heaven.

I want to live as happily and peacefully as possible here and now with my family doing the best that we can.

They Just Don’t Know

This is M.  I, once again, haven’t posted for awhile but here I go.

I was born well within the boundaries of Mormon territory and had very little exposure growing up to people who were not members of the LDS church. I wasn’t exposed to many (if any at all) outside voices. I only ever heard the pretty picture version of the church history that is taught every Sunday in thousands of cookie cutter meeting houses.

That pretty picture version of things is absolutely lovely. But, as I later discovered, it isn’t quite the lovely picture I was taught.

Imagine you are buying a house. After looking a while you find the perfect one. It is beautiful and you can move right in. After you move in you notice a creak in a floorboard here and there but you have your dream house and it is perfect. Slowly, over time, you notice a couple more things here and a couple more things there and eventually you are worried. When you investigate you notice termites have taken over.

That is the church. On the outside it is beautiful but when you look deeper you see that it is not what it claims to be. And that is where my biggest problem with the church lies. It is not what it claims to be.

If you have never been a member of the church this probably seems strange. But one very important thing to note it that members are very clearly told not to look at outside materials and “appropriate” materials very clearly do not go over a complete church history. There are facts about the church that you could confront a member about and they will think you are lying and being “anti-Mormon”. An example of this can be seen here:

Brandon Flowers unknowingly makes a fool of himself telling Richard Dawkins to “do his research”. Richard Dawkins was correct in this situation but Brandon Flowers just does not know that. The pretty picture version of church history does not included that fact.

The truth is there are significant chunks of the LDS churches history that the majority of members do not know about. And, unless they go against instructions and look at outside material, they have a very good chance of never knowing those things.

I decided to make a list. Others have done similar things but I wanted to make one for myself. So in no particular order here is a list of things Mormons do not know (or know little about) their own church:

-Joseph Smith was a convicted con artist and treasure seeker.

-There are multiple version of the first vision.

-“Translation” process actually included a seer stone and top hat and the plates were often hidden in the woods or some other location.

-Joseph Smith Sr. had a “tree of life” dream years before plates were discovered.

–“View of the Hebrews” by Ethan Smith was a book published in 1823 “[arguing] the Native Americans were descended from the Ten Lost Tribes“.

-Joseph was not uneducated.  His father was a teacher.

-Joseph Smith did in fact start and participate in polygamy.

-Joseph Smith married women who were already married to men who were alive and well.

-The marriages were consummated.

-Joseph married a 14 year old girl.

-Not all of the Egyptian Papyri that formed the Book of Abraham were destroyed.

-Book of Abraham does not hold up to Egyptologists’ examinations.

–Kinderhook Plates.

-The Priesthood was given to black members of the church before Joseph’s death.

-Book of Mormon witnesses actually “saw” the plates with “spiritual eyes”.

-Joseph Smith was not imprisoned in Carthage Jail without reason. He was put in jail for destroying a printing press.

-There are strong connections between the Mormon temple ceremony and  Masonic ceremonies. Joseph Smith and other early church leaders were Masons.

-The Mormon claim is that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book of any book on earth but it has been changed many times.

-Word of Wisdom was not an original idea.  An 1830 journal article suggested abstaining from tobacco, alcohol, tea and coffee.

–Adam-God Doctrine, and other strange things, were taught by Brigham Young.

-When asked in an interview if Mormons believed God was once a man Gordon B. Hinckley lied.

-In the PBS documentary ‘The Mormons” apostle Dallin H. Oaks stated, “It’s wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true.”

-In 1983 Mark Hofmann sold forged documents to then First Presidency member Gordon B. Hinckley.

-DNA evidence shows Native Americans originally migrated from Asia.

This list is in no way complete and I could (and might) go into more depth on my feelings on some of these issues.  The problem being that these things happened but are not taught within the church and in some cases actively covered up.  I was an active member until my late twenties and  I did not know most of these things. Members just don’t know.

Some songs to resonate with

Being a post-mormon can be hard.

Leaving any previously held worldview can be hard.  But when family and friends still exhert sinews of steel, binding you and preventing you from fully leaving, it becomes a little harder than merely washing one’s hands and being done with it.

Waves of doubt, of unbound and unlimited raw emotion wash over your body and soul like relentless waves in an angry ocean.  Conversations with loved ones crumble relationships before your very eyes as you see scales grow over their eyes right in front of you, as you speak.  You feel yourself removed from “loved one” in their eyes to “dangerous apostate”.  No longer do they prize your happiness above all else, but rather to see you proved wrong in this aspect and any aspect which may touch it.

In short, it can be hard.

But others have felt similar things in both similar and widely different situations.  Which is where music can be beneficial.

The Eden Express

“The Eden Express” did some amazing songs on their E.P. “The Common Sense”.  Specifically, tracks 2 and 3 sent chills up and down my spine–but the whole thing is an absolute treat to listen to.

Okkervil River, “A King and Queen”

Beautiful song with some haunting lyrics that relate a little too closely to the patriarchal system set up within the church.

Florence and the Machine, “Cosmic Love”

Especially haunting, considering the “Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial” ideas regarded by True believing Mormons.  When you begin to doubt, and look around at a universe from which what you previously believed to be light has seemingly disappeared, it can be a claustrophobically oppressing feeling to be surrounded by the darkness of uncertainty.

Manchester Orchestra

“The River”

These are literally the feelings I had as I first began to realize the extent to which my harrowing doubts had fractured into what I considered to be my unshakable “Testimony”.  It was a gnawing, begging plea to some god who I didn’t even know any more, on the off chance that my footing could somehow be regained, and I could be spared this horrifying vertigo I felt when I looked into my future with/without the church.

“Simple Math”

The truth cannot be fractioned.  Absolutely fantastic song.  Touches many of the themes that a post-mormon might be struggling to understand.

“What if I was wrong, and no one cared to mention?

What if it was true, and all we thought was right was wrong?

Simple math:  The truth cannot be fractioned either way”

If you happen to be feeling the raw emotional roller coaster that comes along with having the rug of your world view pulled out from underneath your feet, I hope that you take the time to listen to some of these.  And if you do, I hope that you’ll be able to feel a resonation within your soul, the very core of who you are.  When you do, I hope you can realize that you’re not alone in these feelings.  You’re not broken.  You’re not damned.  You are you, and what a magnificent thing that is to be!  The emotions you feel are valid, and important to making sense of what is happening with you right now.  Don’t push those feelings under the surface.  Have the courage to look at them and accept them as you try to make sense of everything you’re going through.

I have a feeling I’ll have more to add regarding music and resonation as time goes on 🙂

Coffee thoughts for a Post-Mormon

In the world, but not of the world (unfortunately)

Being raised Mormon for the first three decades of life is a strange experience.

Once you begin to question your previously held beliefs, once your old world view begins to shatter to the ground, and once you finally begin to pick up the pieces to assimilate a new world view full of hope, you begin to look around at the culture in which you have been raised with the sudden realization that you are “in the world, but not of it.”  And, contrary to what the church would have you believe, I would argue that this is not a good predicament to be in.  You inevitably feel like an alien in a strange new world with strange customs.  Lost in an ocean of inside jokes, cultural references, etc.

You see, the “world” (our society and culture) takes many things for granted.  Things which Mormons avoid as sins, because to Mormons, as strange as it sounds . . . they are.

Coffee

Walking down the grocery store aisles growing up with my mom, she would never pass the coffee aisle without saying something about the “scuzz buckets” who drank the abhorrent stuff.  When I was in 4th grade, I hated the smell–partially because of not really liking it, but also because of some really strangely passionate views against it instilled in me by my abnormally religious family upbringing.  Needless to say, Coffee is an acquired taste.  And I acquired the taste while on my mission in Chile.

No, no, no.  I didn’t drink coffee in Chile.  I was a straight arrow, remember?  I actually offended more than one investigator/inactive member when they offered “Cafe” and I refused as politely as I knew how at the time.  If only they knew that I was looking at them as a cop might look at a junkie anticipating a fix (how embarrassed I am at my former misconceptions!  And how embarrassed I am that my family feels that way about me–not embarrassed for myself, but embarrassed for them!)

So how did I acquire a taste for Coffee in Chile?  Coffee Substitutes, of course!  Not exactly like coffee, but the taste was close enough that I began to like that yummy roasted taste.  And the fact that we were expected to have it twice a day, every day, for about 2 years, made it a sink or swim type situation.  Of course I developed a taste for it.

Coffee:  Where to start?

So there I was, a near-thirty year old with a hankering for that coffee taste, and with literally no clue whatsoever of what I was doing.  What did I do?

I explored, as much as our limited budget allowed.  The first thing I purchased was some cheap coffee found in tea bags.  Not bad.  But not great.  I realized that I like it really, REALLY DARK, and you can only fit so many tea bags into your mug before you begin to feel a little sheepish (not that it stops me now, however, on the occasional whim I feel to drink some tea).

Next, I decided to try some Western Family Instant Coffee.  Yuck.  Yuck, yuck, yuck, yuck.  So acidic and gross.

Eventually I found some nestle instant single serving packets.  Yummy.  The best coffee I’ve tasted (some of you may be thinking that’s sad–that’s okay.  I own who I am 🙂  The only problem with those packets is that they’re fairly expensive for the amount of coffee that I would like to drink, now that I’m an “apostate heathen” (according to my aunt–long story).

So what to do?

Well, I’ve recently tried some Folger’s pre-ground stuff.  And it’s okay when I cold-brew it (dump about a cup of coffee in a very large jar and fill it up with about a gallon of cold water and let it sit for about 24 hours before straining it and drinking it like the yummy nectar it is).  But unfortunately, I think the plastic that the coffee comes in really imparts a gross plasticky taste to the coffee.  At first, I couldn’t really taste it, but as my taste has gotten more picky (curse me and my experiments to find the perfect cup!), that plasticky taste has become a deal-breaker.

So where to next?

I found a neat blog post on the subject here.  A fantastic article.

Why did I enjoy this particular article as much as I did?  Because the author wasn’t trying to be a snob about it.  So many articles I had read made it sound like there is a “right” way and a “wrong” way to make the “perfect” cup of coffee.  And you know what?  There isn’t.  The only thing that matters is . . . brace yourselves:

What do you think tastes good?

That’s it.  It doesn’t matter what some coffee snob tells you.  If you think it tastes good, then by all means drink it!  Just know that the more you drink, the more picky you become, which is what eventually leads people to freshly grinding their own beans minutes before they make their brew.  The only thing you need to decide is how much effort, time, and money are your willing to put into chasing after the perfect cup, and how low you are willing to settle with the quality of your brew?  And just like so many aspects of life, that’s all that matters.

I Want to do the things that I want to do

Title taken from the Weezer song, “Pork and Beans”.  Have a listen.  Or don’t.  Do what you want.

Why do we do the things we do?

Thinking about this question can yield various answers:

• One person might be motivated by love, or lust.
• Another might want power.
• Another has a gaping need to feel important, to feel useful, or needed.
• A different person may just feel as though they want to help others.

And all that is fine and well, but I believe that each of those things can be analyzed a little deeper.  I previously wrote on Ayn Rand and some of the issues that can arise when regarding anyone, any system of thought or belief, as sacrosanct.  But that’s not to say that I don’t find anything of value in some of her thoughts.  It’s there–but one must first dig through a few less than useful ideas to find them.  Let me explain what I mean.

 Ayn rand believed that the only moral way to live one’s life was to look after one’s own rational self interest above all else.  In her novels, this leads to some truly bizarre dialogue between characters as the author deliberately uses inflationary language to prove her points (Adam Lee did an excellent job of describing a couple of such moments in his posts on Atlas Shrugged).

On Turtles and Selfishness

I remember I was in the process of reading Atlas Shrugged some years ago at the urging of a self professed objectivist friend of mine, and in between chapters I found myself at a local zoo as part of a family activity.  Walking past the turtles, I noticed that one of the two in the cage had flipped over and was overheating in the uncomfortably warm sun.  I felt bad for the turtle, and as I looked around to see if any staff was around that could help, I noticed that the other turtle was moving closer.  Moving slowly, deliberately, the second turtle worked until it had successfully helped the first to regain its footing.

(Not my video, by the way–just a random one illustrating this cool thing happening in the act)

I stood there as thoughts of Ayn Rand, Objectivism, self interest, altruism, and helpful turtles exploded into colorful insights inside my mind.  According to what I had just read in Atlas Shrugged, the actions of the second turtle would have been immoral (if animals could behave immorally in Rand’s world view–according to Rand, one must first possess the mystical and elusive power of “reason” before one can behave morally or not by either following said reason or ignoring it, and she says nothing of varying levels of reason, I.e. handicapped humans versus children versus logically trained professionals, versus various “smart” animal species,  etc.)

On Rational Self Interests

I mulled that over, among other things, and talked about them with my objectivist friend when I had the chance.  Although my memory of the event may be skewed with the distortion of time, I have the distinct memory of my friend sitting there for a few moments, trying to figure out how this could fit into his objectivist worldview.  Eventually he latched onto an idea which proved to be fascinating to me:

 Rational self interest.

As in, it is not moral to merely look out for one’s own self interest.  It is only moral if one looks out for one’s own Rational self interest.

You see, that turtle (if it had been a human with Ayn Rand’s magical powers of thought and reason–but that’s yet another topic for a different day) was looking out for its own rational self interest.  If its friend had died in the warm sun, it would have missed out on all of the benefits which it’s friend provided (assuming its friend wasn’t merely the turtle equivalent of an asshole).

 True morality, then, depends on each of us being selfish after all–but not just any flavor of selfish–a special flavor of selfishness dictated by our ability to rationally think through strings of cause and effect, of choice and consequence.  The more rationally we can think through a decision and its implications, the more moral that decision becomes.  Suddenly the seemingly tipsy turvy worlds of ethics and morality coalesce into a neat and tidy little package of rational self interest.  Of course, when one begins to look at the definitions of the words “rational” and “self-interest”, one quickly begins to realize that neat and tidy aren’t necessarily words one might use to describe the package.  But that is a challenge for another day.

So why do we do the things we do?

And that brings us around to the opening statement:  why do we do the things we do?  You’ve probably noticed that if you follow the above lines of reasoning sufficiently, not only are so called “moral” actions a result of looking out for one’s rational self interest, but so is virtually any action a human might choose (the key operative word here being “rational”, which applies in various degrees from “completely” to “barely”).

An example:

Person A purchases a hybrid electric car because they think they’re being environmentally friendly.  What’s in it for them?

1. They spend less money on gasoline.
2. They build up an image of themselves as environmentally conscious (regardless of whether or not said hybrid is actually better for the environment due to the energy and materials needed to manufacture and run the car being not so much negated as displaced to other fields).  This is an image which person A wants to feel, or may even need to feel.
3. They want to live in a world where people drive hybrids.  They are participating to create the world as they want to see it formed.  I can’t think of a more rationally selfish motive (which is a compliment for me).
4. Any number of other reasons.  They like how quiet it is.  They like how it looks.  All of them ending in one way or another as selfish, to varying degrees of rationality.

Lets look at another example.

My mother, bless her heart, is the least selfish person I know.  She always goes out of her way to help others, even when doing so puts her at a disadvantage. But I think that even someone as selfless as her is pursuing her own rational self interests as she sees them.

1. She believes that if she’s a good enough person, she’ll go to the “celestial” kingdom/heaven, where she believes she will have an eternity of happiness, which in comparison, makes any price she might pay while living her “temporary” life worth living.
2. She actually likes the feeling of being useful.  She thrives off of it, and even needs it.  Helping others provides this feeling.  Even when she pays the price of postponing or canceling something she claimed she wanted to do in order to help someone, the positive feelings she gets in return make it seem worthwhile.
3. She can’t stand the thought of being seen as lazy/inferior/imperfect, etc., and even though it makes her tired to do so, she believes that helping others will prevent that.

Etc.

Of course as mentioned above, there are wide chasms separating opposing ends of the definition of the word “rational”.  Such a word has the potential to be so vague as to be practically useless when used in this way, and yet the principle remains . . .

Captain Jack Sparrow

My daughter has recently developed an interest in pirates, so allow me to use an example that comes to mind:

In the movie “Pirates of the Caribbean”, captain Jack Sparrow has a conversation with his associate Will Turner regarding Will’s reluctance to sail under a pirate flag. Captain Jack Sparrow, attempting to pilot the naval ship “The Interceptor” to capture the black pearl, tells Will that it all boils down to two variables:

1. What a man can do, and
2. What a man can’t do.

He tells Will that he could drop Will off the boat–but he can’t pilot the boat by himself.  So, in order to achieve what he wants (the third, unrecognized and arguably most important variable of Jack’s equation), he therefore can’t toss Will overboard without also tossing his hopes of achieving his desire.

Summary

I’ve talked too long on the subject.  Suffice it to say that I believe that even when mascots have many faults, It is worth the effort to earnestly search for any wisdom, in case there is such to be found.  For all her faults, I believe Ayn Rand might have been onto something with the idea that we must pursue our rational self interests.  Just not in the way that she thought.

Now go, do the things you (rationally) want to do!

 

Objectivism as a Mascot

Yesterday I posted about our cultural “mascots”–people, ideas, institutions, and terms which rally ideologies under an umbrella of dogma.  I posted some reasons I think those “mascots” are harmful in our search of truth, but I’d like to talk about a specific mascot I’ve come across in my life, and some of my specific experiences in dealing with it:

Objectivism

Although the novelist “Ayn Rand” considered herself to be a philosopher, I’m not sure how accurately she fit that description, unless someone like myself could also be described using the same definition, which is, a lover of wisdom.  But if using the word “Philosopher” to describe someone who is well versed in the intricacies and subtleties of logic and reason and their application to solve specific problems, I’m not so sure she fits the bill.

For any who aren’t familiar with Ayn Rand, I’ll give a brief primer:

She had some interesting opinions about humans and what makes a life meaningful, and wrote some novels in which none of her main characters ever seem capable of making mistakes as long as they followed her “methods”.  She then used these novels as a type of proof of her methods, which she called objectivism.  Unfortunately, she believed her ideas to be so unique and original that she couldn’t be bothered to actually read the writings of philosophers who had come before her and had argued similar things, but instead steamrolled everyone into a single group of “wrong”, and set herself up as a new mascot for “objectivism”.

Too harsh?  Of course, the whole story is much more nuanced and complex than that, but after having drudged through the valley of objectivism myself, this is the best way I can describe Ayn Rand in a nutshell.  Of course, I’m no professional philosopher or anything–just a humble seeker of truth wherever I can find it.

I would like to post some interesting resources that offer counter-arguments and valuable insight  to the objectivist viewpoints, however:

1)  The Partially examined life did a podcast on Ayn Rand and living rationally.  I think they did a fantastic job of describing in great detail both sides of many of her most important ideas.  Essentially most of them agreed that her ideas weren’t all horrible, but that many of the ideas she had were first proposed by the philosophers whom she had criticized.

For a link to said podcast, click here.

As an interesting side-note regarding mascots, if you look down below at the comments section of the podcast, you will see a case-in-point of what the podcast panel describes in the first few moments of the program, which is that for one reason or another, many adherents of “Objectivism” tend to treat their tenets as less of a collection of ideas, and as more of a catechism of sacred rites and tokens.  Instead of engaging in edifying discussion regarding the flaws and virtues of their system of belief, very often discussions devolve into radical feats of logical fallacies unheard of outside of religious circles.  It is a fantastically interesting thing to watch happen almost any time criticism of objectivism occurs.

2)  Adam Lee (one of my favorite atheist writers) is currently in the process of writing a detailed overview of his thoughts and reactions to Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged”.  He hits many of the criticisms directly on the head, and does it much better than I could ever hope to:

For a list of posts in his series on Atlas Shrugged, click here.

If you are even vaguely interested in the ideas surrounding objectivism, I recommend checking out both of these resources, at the very least.  And although I love hearing comments from people who disagree with me, if you feel the need to do so, please take the time to at least browse the information presented in the links I presented above before unloading on me!  If you do so, I believe you, too, will agree that objectivism is less of a “one-stop-shop” for truth, and is more of a waypoint along the path!

Perhaps I’ll write a little more on the subject at a later date.

Ideas: Ever searching

I am/I am more

Such a strange phrase, “I am.”  So much is contained in 2 syllables, and so much is overlooked.

I am a 2D/3D artist.  I love to take an abstract idea and pull threads of truth from it one by one, weaving ideas into sketches, paintings, sculptures, and sometimes even fully formed characters with lives of their own.

But like everyone, I am more than the sum of what I do for work.  I’m a father, a husband, an avid learner, a creative person, a creating person, and a thinker.  But enough about who I think I am.  Why am I telling you this?

Because I also think that a part of being a well-rounded person is being able to consider ideas and weigh them according to their merit to discern whether any idea has value or not, and if so, how much value it has.

Mascots:  Why we love them/Why we shouldn’t

We love a mascot, we humans.  We love something/someone to rally around, to unite our disparate views and make us feel like we’re not alone in our unique way of seeing, interpreting and making meaning out of the meaningless (and occasionally meaningful) events we experience on a daily basis.  Sometimes this is beneficial, and sometimes a little less so.  There are volumes I could write regarding our healthy/unhealthy relationships with mascots (or other forms of rallying cries), but I’ll resist that urge.

I’ve had the privilege and opportunity to read works from a variety of philosophers in an attempt to make some kind of sense of the world.  It’s been a neat journey, and one that I am still travelling (and don’t plan on quitting while there’s breath left in me).  This journey has led me through some strange valleys and even stranger mountains of thought, and at each fork in the road, I have been confronted with the choice of whether I should stop searching, confident that I have finally found the apex of truth, or whether I should continue to search, in an effort to see other, perhaps differing views of the same summit.  It’s such a tempting feeling to grasp onto an idea with certainty and declare the search over, the destination reached; and it’s such an uncomfortable feeling to acknowledge uncertainty, to admit that the journey is not yet done.  But I have come to believe that only by acknowledging our uncertainty can we continue to place one foot in front of the other, constantly moving in the search for an ever clearer view of the world as it “really” is.  And, similar to the idea expressed by Siddhartha Gautama regarding our acceptance of suffering in life, once we accept that the journey is the destination, once we accept that the beguiling sense of certainty we seek with such fervor is actually an illusion designed to lead us away from the ever-continuing and all-important journey towards greater light and knowledge (to borrow a phrase from my upbringing), we can begin to find meaning and acceptance in our resolve to see the world as it is and not merely as our myriad of mascots would make it out to appear.

This idea is not without its criticism, however.  To borrow another phrase from my upbringing, such an idea might be described as “ever learning, never coming to a knowledge of the truth.”  Which is sad, because that statement encompasses all that is wrong with following mascots in the first place.

1)  It presupposes that there is some sort of objective reality out there that exists outside of us, and would continue to exist, even if we did not.

2)  It presupposes that we as humans can not only get closer to an idea of said objective reality, but that we can grasp it in such a fundamental way as to describe our journey as having “reached” said “truth”.

3)  It presupposes the idea that they (the author of the statement) actually has the truth, and are therefore qualified to pronounce judgment as to who similarly “has” said truth, and who does not.

And therein lies the tragedy, as I described above.  Once a person believes that they have “found the truth”, then their search is over.  Regardless of whether they have actually found some way of viewing objective reality as it really is, or whether they have just observed a unique way of looking at things, in claiming that they have found the “truth”, their search is now over.  No further discussion on the matter will be accepted.

I think I’m going to leave it at this for now, but I would like to write more on the subject at a later date

Henry Eyring: Mormon Scientist and . . . Apostate?

Now, before you jump to insane conclusions about the title of this post, hear me out, okay?

A couple of weeks ago, I heard a knock on the door.  When I answered it, I saw two men standing on the porch in white shirts and ties.  Now, to fully comprehend what I did next, you need to understand some things about me:  I devoted a LOT of time and energy to the church over the course of my life.  In a lot of ways, I was mentally and emotionally affected beyond that which might be classified as “normal” or “natural” (some might even call it “Brainwashed”).  I was the straight-shooting-golden-arrow-posterboy of the church–Seminary Council, scripture mastery master (all 100 memorized, baby!  And a top performer in in the Scripture Mastery tournaments, as well), Institute goer (not even one “sluff”), Missionary superstar (Trainer and District leader while still young on the mission, Zone leader, Assistant to the Assistants to the President [maybe I’ll explain this one sometime later :)]), early marrying, answer guy for anyone with gospel questions.  So my head is full of all sorts of useless trivia (or, it would be useless if I wasn’t an atheist in a christian-majority country–as it is, it’s kind of nice knowing more about a person’s religion than they do . . . that way, they can’t use the argument “but if only you learned more about us, you would see that it’s true!”).  Contrary to what I believed, and was taught growing up, when a person leaves the church, all of the knowledge in their head does not leave with them.  All of those scriptures I memorized, all of those hymns I sung, all of those deep gospel thoughts I had–everything is still right there bubbling beneath the surface just waiting to be relevant somehow . . .

Which I believe nicely explains what I did next.

The men asked me if I was a member of the church.  And I said “No.”

Oh, come on.  Don’t roll your eyes at me.  I am technically NOT a member of the church (as of October 2011, my names are not on the church records–or at least the official ones, anyway).  I did not lie.  I may have withheld some information, but in daily interactions with other people, who doesn’t?  Just because we may have stolen a candy bar when we were seven years old doesn’t mean we should bring it up every single time we interact with another person regarding topics such as honesty and trustworthiness.  Besides, by the churches’ own standard of conduct, it is perfectly fine to with-hold information, if it would be detrimental to one’s end goal (not that I measure my morality by what the LDS co. does) . . .

Okay, okay.  Perhaps the most ethical thing would have been to tell them that I used to be a member, but that I would still like to talk to them (all of those LDS factoids swirling around in my head REALLY wanted to feel useful!).  But I knew from past experience as an LDS member myself that I had viewed people differently when I learned that they were  what I had labeled as “apostates”.  I (erroneously) believed that while I was talking with an  “apostate”, a dark cloud of mind-muddiness would shroud my understanding, and that the sheer cunning of the apostate would warp my world views until down was up and dark was light . . . which was all just a cunning way to maintain what some might consider to be the “brainwashing” of my youth.

Anyway, for better or worse, I really wanted to have a normal conversation with these guys.  Not as “apostate versus defenders-of-the-faith”, but as one human being seeking understanding to another (and another, if you count his partner).  After weighing all of the variables, I think my actions pass the muster of all but the most stringent (read:  brittle and easily shattered, not prone to elastic bending when necessary) of moral codes of conduct

We had a great conversation, and I brought up several of my doubts, for which I have never received any satisfactory answer beyond “it takes faith”.  When they were leaving, they remarked how good the “spirit” was in our home, and were somewhat surprised when I told them that what I find most important is being honest and fair with myself and with those with whom I have dealings, and that humanity has seen such great improvements in social issues the last two hundred years not because of religion, but in spite of it.

Anyway, this leads us to what inspired the title of this post.

They dropped by the other night, and although neither they (nor I) had time to talk, one of them wanted to share a book with me.  It was titled “The Faith of a scientist”, and was written by Henry Eyring (a certain Henry B. Eyring’s father).  One of the men said that it was his own personal book with his own study-markings and name in it, but that he felt like the book would answer a lot of the questions I had about the church.

I was interested, and did some research on Henry Eyring to get a feel for what type of book I would be reading, and I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by what I found.

Apparently, at one point he had a little skiff with Joseph Fielding Smith over some of the blatant disregard JFS showed for science and evidence.  Eyring famously stated that when reading the revelations of god, we can’t place too much of an emphasis upon the archaic and all-too-often-mistranslated and faulty revelations contained in scriptures that we forget about the revelations written in the rocks, the genetic material of the animals, and the general laws of the universe itself (paraphrased, of course)!  JFS apparently believed that simply because the scriptures said that the earth was 6 thousand years old, then it had to be so, regardless of any evidence to the contrary–whereas Henry Eyring was very fond of truth, regardless of where we might find it.  Someone once described trying to have a theological discussion with Henry Eyring as trying to pin jello to a tree, because he was famous for allowing himself to change his mind on any issue as more evidence came up.  For example, a person once asked him what his beliefs on evolution were, and he replied, “I believe whatever turns out to have been true.”

In many circumstances, when confronted with scripture, or even contemporary revelation by prophets and/or apostles on a variety of topics, Henry Eyring would vaguely point to the weaknesses of man being in no way indicative of weaknesses of his god.  Essentially, he was passive-aggressively saying, “just because you think you speak for god doesn’t mean that everything you say is what god wants you to, and just because something is written in a book doesn’t mean it’s true!”

Although there was a lot of cognitive dissonance going on in Henry Eyring’s mind, he was also (I believe) a seeker of truth in many ways, and I am interested in learning more about him! (his own errors in thinking, notwithstanding)

Jessica Ahlquist: American Hero(ine)

You may not have heard of Jessica Ahlquist, which is unfortunate if such is the case.  She is a High School Senior in Rhode Island who, upon noticing a flagrant violation of the United States Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state  in the form of a “school prayer” prominently displayed in her High School, decided to let the school administration know about it so they could do something about it.  She wasn’t looking for a fight.  She didn’t want attention.  She only wanted to do the right thing because it was right.  But regardless of her desires to avoid animosity and enmity, such emotional manifestations of the human psyche directed themselves at her just the same.

It’s been months of struggle, and even though the judge has ruled in her favor (or rather, in favor of the unconstitutional nature of the banner and the school administration’s actions) , the people of her hometown continue to direct anger and even death threats at her, as if she was somehow the embodiment of some antichrist sent to try the “good” christians of Rhode Island with tribulations in preparation for the end of times.

Well . . . I have a few thoughts on the matter:

1)  The United States was not founded as a Christian nation.  Separation of church and State is a right as vital to our country as freedom of speech, etc.

2)  Even if the U.S. had been founded as a Christian nation (it wasn’t–see above–but for the sake of argument, I’ll humor you), subsequent official United States Documents (one such document being the Treaty of Tripoli) specified in no uncertain terms the secular nature of the United States, especially in its relation with its citizens and with other countries.

3)  “In god we trust” was not added until 1956, as a response to the red scare infecting the country at the time.  Likewise, so many of our religious throwbacks in our government can be traced back to that ill-conceived moment.  Our religious fervor was a result of scare tactics in retaliation for imagined intimidation of a doomed-to-fail-Boogey-man-state across the ocean.

4)  “Majority rules” is nothing more than mob mentality, and is in no manner a just way for people to be governed.  It is a license for the “haves” to take advantage of the “have-nots”, a sanction for the members of the status quo to rape the rights of the members of the minority.

5)  As Martin Luther King Jr. stated, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”  It should go without saying that if there is any injustice anywhere, it should be done away with, because if any system allows those injustices to propagate, then there is nothing stopping those injustices (or varieties of those injustices) from reaching out and harming everyone.

6)  The Golden Rule.  “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”  I am flabbergasted by the so-called “christian” inability to apply their own deity’s teachings to their own situations.  On the one hand, they claim that it is appropriate to keep references of “god” in the courtroom, in the schools, in the textbooks, on the currency, but on the other hand, if the tables were reversed, and these “christians” found themselves the minority in a country governed by Islamic fundamentalists who wanted the currency to say, “submission to Allah”, those very same people would have a freak-fest until that text was removed.  The golden rule, although not originated by Yeshua of Nazareth, was popularized to a great extent by him, and his “christian” followers.  Failure to apply this fundamental teaching makes them nothing short of the very hypocrites for which Jesus saved his most vitriolic anger.

So, to Jessica Ahlquist and to all who see the importance of what she is standing for, for all who see the importance of fairness and equality, even when (especially when!) an unequal or unfair system is in our favor, for all of those who want to stand up and do the right thing simply because it is right, be they christians, mormons, muslims, atheists, or pastafarians . . . Rock on.

Or, as the mormon hymn states, “Do what is right, let the consequence follow.”

Dear Mom (you might be a buffet Mormon if . . . )

The past couple of weeks, my brother has been struggling as he has been trying to figure out how to tell the family that he is gay, and how to deal with their reactions.  He came out to two close friends, my mom, and then myself during Christmas–and our sisters after Christmas.  But he still hasn’t come out to our dad yet for fear of the homophobic upbringing that has colored his life experience.

Anyway, the other night I had the chance to talk with my brother and my mom about the news.  It was an interesting conversation, and one that we very much needed to have.  It covered various topics, but in the end just a few main topics can describe the entire conversation.

The below letter is one that I have not sent my mom, but one that I wish she could somehow read:

Hi Mom,

Thanks for the conversation the other night.  I know it was late, but I think it was important for us to be able to discuss things the way we did.  As I mentioned, communication is one of the most important things we can do in our relationships.  We might think that it would be better for us to suppress our thoughts and feelings, but in doing so, we’re not cutting those feelings off–only forcing them to germinate below the surface, where we have no control over the ways which those feelings will manifest themselves.  By getting our feelings and thoughts out in the open and communicating them sincerely and genuinely, at least we are able to deal with them out in the open–and at least it won’t be a surprise to us when those feelings begin to manifest themselves in our lives, because we will have been watching it happen right in front of us, rather than finding ourselves blindsided by an emotional explosion which came out from seemingly nowhere due to our hiding our emotions so deeply under the surface.

I feel like there are several things I need you to know.  During our conversation, there were quite a few times where I brought up information and you almost literally closed your eyes and ears to it, claiming that you simply did not want or need to know what I had to say.  This makes me sad, because truth is truth, no matter where it’s found–and by your own religious beliefs, “the glory of [your] god is intelligence”, so you should be seeking truth come what may.  That said, there are a few points which I need to communicate to you:

1)  Moderate alcohol consumption on my part does not mean that I am addicted, or that I am on a high path to hell.  Believing so is falling prey to the fallacy of the excluded middle which the church is so vulnerable to.  This fallacy infects almost every aspect of church life, and is one of the principle causes for so much bigotry that can be found in the church.  It’s similar to the “slippery slope” argument, suggesting that there is little or no difference between vastly different actions/habits because one action/habit leads so quickly and easily to another that before you know it you’ve transitioned all the way to the far end.  Happily, this is baloney.  ignoring the layers of nuance between different issues has done very little to bring happiness or goodness to the world, and has done very much to bring the opposite.

2)  You mentioned that accepting your son’s homosexuality is a bridge you can’t cross.  You compared it to Tevia in Fiddler on the Roof, when he said “there are no other hands!”  When I asked you why you felt this way when his actions are by any accounting his to choose, you said that although he may have the right to choose his actions, he does not have the right to choose the consequences of his actions.  I asked you if you were trying to say that you feel as though it is your obligation/prerogative to punish him for this, and you said that you do feel that way.  Mom, according to your religious beliefs, your god is the only one with the authority to punish another person in that manner.  Luke 17:1 says, “Then said he to the disciples, It is impossible but that offenses will come: but woe to him, through whom they come!”  In this situation, you are the one responsible for carrying through with these offenses–and woe to [her], through whom they come!

3)  In our conversation, your son mentioned that he still wanted to try to stay on the Mormon path, but that he is finally accepting that being gay is a part of who he is, and that he is finally okay with that.  You told him that he is being a buffet mormon by picking and choosing the doctrine which works for him, and discarding the doctrine which doesn’t.  You said it as though it was a bad thing–but I have news for you:  Not only is he within his rights to do so, but even you yourself do the same thing more often than you realize!

Do you remember when you were a little girl in Seminary, and one of your teachers told you that you would have to be a polygamous wife to your husband in the after-life?  Remember how you came running home to your dad who made everything better with a few well-intentioned questions?  He asked you, “Do you believe god loves you?”  And when you responded that you did believe that, he then asked you, “Do you think he wants you to be happy?”  to which your responded, “yes.”  He replied, “then don’t worry about it.”  And ever since then, you have completely closed your eyes to what the church has actually taught from the very beginning concerning the topic!  You are being the buffet mormon every bit as much as your son!

Some quotes to help communicate my point:

“Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change, and my covenants and my law do not. And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph, All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law, and have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham’s seed, and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham. I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof, even so, Amen.“
The Prophet John Taylor, Revelation of Sept. 26 1886

D&C 132:4 says “For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlastingcovenant”

“Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity or non-essential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words,some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I wish here, to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it to be false. The marriage of one woman to a man for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the law of God, is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage IN PART –and is good so far as it goes–and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law, he will receive his reward therefore, and this reward, or blessing, he could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has imagined that he could obtain a fulness of the blessings pertaining to the celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions, has deceived himself. He cannot do it. He cannot receive the fulness of the blessings useless he fulfills the law, any more than he can claim the gift of the Holy Ghost after he is baptized without the laying on of hands by proper authority, or the remission of sins without baptism, though he may repent in sackcloth and ashes.”

“I understand the law of celestial marriage to mean that every man in the Church who has the ability to obey and practice it in righteousness and will not, shall be damned. I say I understand it to mean this and nothing less, and I testify, in the name of Jesus that it does mean that.”
– The Prophet Joseph F. Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, pp. 28, 30, 31 (emphasis added)

“But if the woman is determined to not enter into plural marriage, that woman, when she comes forth, will have the privilege of living in single blessedness through all eternity. Now sisters, do not say, `I do not want a husband when I get up in the resurrection.’ You do not know what you will want. If, in the resurrection, you really want to be single and alone and live forever and ever and be made servants, while others receive the higher order of intelligence, and are bringing worlds into existence, you can have the privilege. They who will be exalted cannot perform all the labor, they must have servants, and you can be servants to them.” (Journal of Discourses Vol. 16, p.166)

“Now, when a man in this Church says, `I don’t want but one wife; I will live my religion with one,’ he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom, but when he gets there, he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all! He has had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forth and say, `Here is that which thou gavest me; I have not wasted it and here is the one talent,’ and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken from him and given to those who have improved the talent they received, and he will find himself without ANY wife, and he will remain single forever and ever.” Read D&C 132:53-55 (Original Version).

“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.”
– The Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol 11, p. 269

In the book Mormon Doctrine (page 578 of the 1986 edition), apostle Bruce R. McConkie says: “Obviously the holy practice [of Plural Marriage] will commence again after the Second Coming of the son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium.” Many LDS defenders of polygamy acknowledge that polygamy was merely suspended on earth because of the impracticality of practicing it currently on the earth. It will be practiced again, probably during the Millennium, and definitely in the next life. Of course to say otherwise would be admitting that the saints that practiced it in the 1800s did so in error.   From Website, http://mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm

“… the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people.”
– Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227

“We will not end the practice of plural marriage until the coming of the Son of Man“.  Wilford Woodruff, (Journal of John Henry Smith, 21 May 1888, LDS Church Archives)

“If we were to do away with polygamy, it would only be one feather in the bird, one ordinance in the Church and kingdom. Do away with that, then we must do away with prophets and Apostles, with revelation and the gifts and graces of the Gospel, and finally give up our religion altogether and turn sectarians and do as the world does, then all would be right. We just can’t do that, for God has commanded us to build up His kingdom and to bear our testimony to the nations of the earth, and we are going to do it, come life or come death. He has told us to do thus, and we shall obey Him in days to come as we have in days past” Wilford Woodruff, (Journal of Discourses 13:165 – p.166).

“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome…was a monogamic nation and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.”
– Apostle George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 202

“I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that JESUS CHRIST WAS MARRIED at Cana of Galilee, THAT MARY, MARTHA, AND OTHERS WERE HIS WIVES, AND THAT HE BEGAT CHILDREN.
–Apostle Orson Hyde, (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 210)

“We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if they (Non-Mormons) envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices; and it is not to be wondered at that they should envy those who so much better understand the social relations.”
– Apostle George A Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 291 (Deseret News, April 16, 1856)

And Brigham Young had quite a lot to say on the matter:

“The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.”
– The Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol 11, p. 269, August 19, 1866.

“Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266).

“Some of you may ask, ‘Is there a single ordinance to be dispensed with? Is there one of the commandments that God has enjoined upon the people, that he will excuse them from obeying?’ Not one, no matter how trifling or small in our own estimation. No matter if we esteem them non-essential, or least or last of all the commandments of the house of God, we are under obligation to observe them.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 339).

“Just ask yourselves, historians, when was monogamy introduced on to the face of the earth? When those buccaneers, who settled on the peninsula where Rome now stands, could not steal women enough to have two or three apiece, they passed a law that a man should have but one woman. And this started monogamy and the downfall of the plurality system. In the days of Jesus, Rome, having dominion over Jerusalem, they carried out the doctrine more or less. This was the rise, start and foundation of the doctrine of monogamy; and never till then was there a law passed, that we have any knowledge of, that a man should have but one wife.”
– Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses Vol. 12, page 262

In the Deseret News for Oct.10, 1866, President Brigham Young responded to a question which was frequently asked: “Do you think that we shall ever be admitted as a State into the Union without denying the principle of polygamy? If we are not admitted until then, we shall never be admitted.“

“The Church has never, and certainly will never, renounce this doctrine. The revelation on plural marriage is still an integral part of LDS scripture, and always will be.” John J. Stewart, LDS author. John J. Stewart, (Brigham Young and His Wives, p. 14). He was referring to the current edition of the D. & C., Section 132.

4)  The Church has changed its mind on every important matter it has been confronted against.  Who is to say that this time will be any different?  We admire individuals such as George Romney, who marched with Martin Luther King Jr. despite being strongly admonished against doing to by an apostle of the church at the time.  We admire him because he did what he knew to be right in his heart, regardless of what some other mortal told him to the contrary.  Mom, I know that you’ve been told your entire life that homosexuality is wrong–but look into your heart of hearts.  Truly look at the issue and see if the official church position on the matter doesn’t reek of the same unfairness and dogmatically ossified petrification that plagued the jews at the time that Jesus opened up his can of preachings on the world.  You need to do what is right simply because it’s right–even if others get angry at you for thinking that it isn’t.

Mom, I love you.  I hope that the coming weeks will reveal you to be the open-minded and even, dare-I-say, “elect lady” that I always hoped you were.

Your son,

J