Thursday, December 01, 2011
Monday, November 29, 2010
Freedom From Religion (at least THIS one)
So, it has finally happened. I have stopped updating this blog. I wasn't sure I was ever going to get to the point where I would generally lose interest in what the Mormon church said or did, but (thankfully) it did happen, as it does for countless others who leave the church every year. I am still disappointed about the separation of my family into two factions (members and non-members), but on the whole, it doesn't affect my life the way it used to. Little things will still annoy me, I'm sure. But I won't be needing to use this page for venting. I've said what I needed to say, it's all here in the archives.
I'm going to continue writing, but elsewhere. Come find me at The Cauldron and Crucible, a new blog for spiritual musings and assorted thoughts.
I'm going to continue writing, but elsewhere. Come find me at The Cauldron and Crucible, a new blog for spiritual musings and assorted thoughts.
Monday, February 22, 2010
We are NOT a Christian Nation
House Resolution 397, recently introduced to Congress (May 2009), implies that the beliefs of our nation's founders were uniformly Christian, and that Christian beliefs are required for moral governance and societal cohesion.
From the New York Times (Oct 2007): A Nation of Christians is NOT a Christian Nation
An article of faith among many American evangelicals is “the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.”
Majority rule can not be the only expression of "supreme power" in a democracy. the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority. For one, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people's right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people's "supreme authority." The minority, therefore, must have the right to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections—speech, assembly, association, petition—since otherwise the majority would make itself permanent and become a dictatorship. For the majority, ensuring the minority's rights becomes a matter of self-interest, since it must utilize the same rights when it is in minority to seek to become a majority again.
One of the most common statements from the "Religious Right" is that they want this country to "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded". However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. Most of the men responsible for building the foundation of the United States had little use for Christianity, and many were strongly opposed to it. They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the Bible was true.
Talk about picking and choosing! The House bill selects quotes useful for their argument, and implies that every member of the Continental Congress felt exactly the same way. No one has ever argued that there were Christians among the founders of this country. But implying that each and every one of them had the same beliefs and set about to purposefully create a Christian nation is preposterous to say the least.
Lots of things that have passed through Congress do so much more because of tradition, not out of uniform belief in those things. For example, continuing on with the words "In God We Trust" on the coinage does not imply that every member of Congress is also Christian. The majority may rule, but they do not represent everyone in the nation. We have dissent, we have opposing views, and we are allowed to express those opposing views through the power of voting, speaking out in public, wearing symbols, and writing blogs such as this one.
I'm opposed to labeling this country as a Christian Nation simply for the fact that it implies uniformity of belief of the citizens. That is catagorically untrue. I have to wonder what our Jewish members of Congress have to say about this. I would fear a majority rule, and a silence of the minority. That is what our Constitution is about, allowing everyone equal protection, equal voice, and equal freedom. The implication that we cannot have morals or ethics without being Christian is something I am going to speak loudly against whenever I have the opportunity to do so.
Why is there such a rush, such an emphasis on getting the U.S. declared as a Christian Nation? What does it do but serve to alienate us from the rest of the world, especially Muslims and Jews? I fail to see for the life of me what possible good it would do to declare an allegiance to any one faith, and to insist on conformity of values and beliefs. Some of the founding fathers may have been Christian, but we need not jump to any conclusions about their intent when it comes to the Constitution. Clearly, in a democracy, the rights of the minority must be protected, or the majority rule becomes the oppressors, the tyrants that the pilgrims and immigrants to this country were trying to get away from in the first place.
From the New York Times (Oct 2007): A Nation of Christians is NOT a Christian Nation
An article of faith among many American evangelicals is “the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.”
According to Scripture, however, believers are to be wary of all mortal powers. Their home is the kingdom of God, which transcends all earthly things, not any particular nation-state. The Psalmist advises believers to “put not your trust in princes.” The author of Job says that the Lord “shows no partiality to princes nor regards the rich above the poor, for they are all the work of his hands.” Before Pilate, Jesus says, “My kingdom is not of this world.” And if, as Paul writes in Galatians, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” then it is difficult to see how there could be a distinction in God’s eyes between, say, an American and an Australian. In fact, there is no distinction if you believe Peter’s words in the Acts of the Apostles: “I most certainly believe now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is welcome to him.”
The kingdom Jesus preached was radical. Not only are nations irrelevant, but families are, too: he instructs those who would be his disciples to give up all they have and all those they know to follow him.
The only acknowledgment of God in the original Constitution is a utilitarian one: the document is dated “in the year of our Lord 1787.” Even the religion clause of the First Amendment is framed dryly and without reference to any particular faith. The Connecticut ratifying convention debated rewriting the preamble to take note of God’s authority, but the effort failed.
A pseudonymous opponent of the Connecticut proposal had some fun with the notion of a deity who would, in a sense, be checking the index for his name: “A low mind may imagine that God, like a foolish old man, will think himself slighted and dishonored if he is not complimented with a seat or a prologue of recognition in the Constitution.” Instead, the framers, the opponent wrote in The American Mercury, “come to us in the plain language of common sense and propose to our understanding a system of government as the invention of mere human wisdom; no deity comes down to dictate it, not a God appears in a dream to propose any part of it.”
While many states maintained established churches and religious tests for office — Massachusetts was the last to disestablish, in 1833 — the federal framers, in their refusal to link civil rights to religious observance or adherence, helped create a culture of religious liberty that ultimately carried the day.
Thomas Jefferson said that his bill for religious liberty in Virginia was “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindu, and infidel of every denomination.” When George Washington was inaugurated in New York in April 1789, Gershom Seixas, the hazan of Shearith Israel, was listed among the city’s clergymen (there were 14 in New York at the time) — a sign of acceptance and respect. The next year, Washington wrote the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, R.I., saying, “happily the government of the United States ... gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. ... Everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
Andrew Jackson resisted bids in the 1820s to form a “Christian party in politics.” Abraham Lincoln buried a proposed “Christian amendment” to the Constitution to declare the nation’s fealty to Jesus. Theodore Roosevelt defended William Howard Taft, a Unitarian, from religious attacks by supporters of William Jennings Bryan.
The founders were not anti-religion. Many of them were faithful in their personal lives, and in their public language they evoked God. They grounded the founding principle of the nation — that all men are created equal — in the divine. But they wanted faith to be one thread in the country’s tapestry, not the whole tapestry.
In the 1790s, in the waters off Tripoli, pirates were making sport of American shipping near the Barbary Coast. Toward the end of his second term, Washington sent Joel Barlow, the diplomat-poet, to Tripoli to settle matters, and the resulting treaty, finished after Washington left office, bought a few years of peace. Article 11 of this long-ago document says that “as the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,” there should be no cause for conflict over differences of “religious opinion” between countries.
Majority rule can not be the only expression of "supreme power" in a democracy. the majority would too easily tyrannize the minority. Thus, while it is clear that democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it is equally clear that it must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority. For one, a defining characteristic of democracy must be the people's right to change the majority through elections. This right is the people's "supreme authority." The minority, therefore, must have the right to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections—speech, assembly, association, petition—since otherwise the majority would make itself permanent and become a dictatorship. For the majority, ensuring the minority's rights becomes a matter of self-interest, since it must utilize the same rights when it is in minority to seek to become a majority again.
The Constant Threat
The American founders—Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike—considered rule by majority a troubling conundrum. In theory, majority rule was necessary for expressing the popular will and the basis for establishing the republic. The alternative—consensus or rule by everyone's agreement—cannot be imposed upon a free people. And minority rule is antithetical to democracy. But the founders worried that the majority could abuse its powers to oppress a minority just as easily as a king. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both warn in their letters about the dangers of the tyranny of the legislature and of the executive. Madison, alluding to slavery, went further, writing, "It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part."
Democracy therefore requires minority rights equally as it does majority rule. Indeed, as democracy is conceived today, the minority's rights must be protected no matter how singular or alienated that minority is from the majority society; otherwise, the majority's rights lose their meaning. In the United States, basic individual liberties are protected through the Bill of Rights, which were drafted by James Madison and adopted in the form of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. These enumerate the rights that may not be violated by the government, safeguarding—in theory, at least—the rights of any minority against majority tyranny. Today, these rights are considered the essential element of any liberal democracy.
One of the most common statements from the "Religious Right" is that they want this country to "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded". However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. Most of the men responsible for building the foundation of the United States had little use for Christianity, and many were strongly opposed to it. They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the Bible was true.
When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not once.
The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority.
None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.
Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here in blue italics: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.
If the Christian Right Extremists wish to return this country to its beginnings, so be it... because it was a climate of Freethought. The Founders were students of the European Enlightenment. Half a century after the establishment of the United States, clergymen complained that no president up to that date had been a Christian. The attitude of the age was one of enlightened reason, tolerance, and free thought. The Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if the Christian Extremists had their way with this country.
Consider this: IF indeed the members of the First Continental Congress were all bible-believing, "God-fearing" men, would there ever have been a revolution at all?
The New Testament gives clear instructions to Christians on how to behave when ruled under a monarchy, as were the Founders.
1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."
Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
The Founders clearly did not heed what was written in the bible. If they were in fact "good" Christians, there would never have been an American Revolution. Compare the above passages with the Declaration of Independence:
"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations... evinces a design to reduce (the people) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."
Anyone who can think for themselves can see that the Founders were not Christians.
***MY THOUGHTS***
Talk about picking and choosing! The House bill selects quotes useful for their argument, and implies that every member of the Continental Congress felt exactly the same way. No one has ever argued that there were Christians among the founders of this country. But implying that each and every one of them had the same beliefs and set about to purposefully create a Christian nation is preposterous to say the least.
Lots of things that have passed through Congress do so much more because of tradition, not out of uniform belief in those things. For example, continuing on with the words "In God We Trust" on the coinage does not imply that every member of Congress is also Christian. The majority may rule, but they do not represent everyone in the nation. We have dissent, we have opposing views, and we are allowed to express those opposing views through the power of voting, speaking out in public, wearing symbols, and writing blogs such as this one.
I'm opposed to labeling this country as a Christian Nation simply for the fact that it implies uniformity of belief of the citizens. That is catagorically untrue. I have to wonder what our Jewish members of Congress have to say about this. I would fear a majority rule, and a silence of the minority. That is what our Constitution is about, allowing everyone equal protection, equal voice, and equal freedom. The implication that we cannot have morals or ethics without being Christian is something I am going to speak loudly against whenever I have the opportunity to do so.
Why is there such a rush, such an emphasis on getting the U.S. declared as a Christian Nation? What does it do but serve to alienate us from the rest of the world, especially Muslims and Jews? I fail to see for the life of me what possible good it would do to declare an allegiance to any one faith, and to insist on conformity of values and beliefs. Some of the founding fathers may have been Christian, but we need not jump to any conclusions about their intent when it comes to the Constitution. Clearly, in a democracy, the rights of the minority must be protected, or the majority rule becomes the oppressors, the tyrants that the pilgrims and immigrants to this country were trying to get away from in the first place.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Why you can't just believe what you want in Mormonism
Let’s say that in a ward of 200+ members, everyone taught the lessons they felt were acceptable to them as Christians, skipped over the parts they don’t agree with, and re-interpreted the messages of the GA’s so that it fits their world view? How long would that last, before some SP or Area Authority noticed this rogue ward and made a special trip to give the sacrament talk on “Loyalty to the Church”?
In my view, it would be impossible for everyone in the church to adopt that position, because it would tear down the base of loyalty and devotion needed to sustain the church in the first place. They need the myth. It’s the only magical claim they have. It’s what sets the Mormon church apart and lures people to leave their own church behind to join up. People are becoming convinced that the Mormon church has something to offer them that no other church can do: authority and priesthood power. By choosing to remain, those that know better are becoming complicit in upholding the myth.
I chose to leave because I refuse to uphold a church whose claims are designed to “replace” mainstream Christian beliefs. Missionaries don’t limit themselves to non-Christian types, their target group is other Christians. Their bait is a lie, in my opinion. And I have the concern for others of various Christian beliefs, in that I don’t wish for them to chose to become Mormon, live the Mormon lifestyle of “literal belief”, make the sacrifices necessary to belong, and cut off their children and grandchildren who decide it isn’t for them. In my opinion, they would do just as well without the Mormon belief system if they just maintained their membership in whatever Christian denomination they currently uphold.
I can see why others would want to stay to maintain family relationships. But making the case for others to stay is only helping the church continue to draw others in that are not as enlightened as the lucky few are. Lots of people get ex’d for doing what John Dehlin does, and I don’t think it’s right that some get to remain in good standing while others are cut off and bullied into submission. That’s another reason to get out, in my opinion.
In my view, it would be impossible for everyone in the church to adopt that position, because it would tear down the base of loyalty and devotion needed to sustain the church in the first place. They need the myth. It’s the only magical claim they have. It’s what sets the Mormon church apart and lures people to leave their own church behind to join up. People are becoming convinced that the Mormon church has something to offer them that no other church can do: authority and priesthood power. By choosing to remain, those that know better are becoming complicit in upholding the myth.
I chose to leave because I refuse to uphold a church whose claims are designed to “replace” mainstream Christian beliefs. Missionaries don’t limit themselves to non-Christian types, their target group is other Christians. Their bait is a lie, in my opinion. And I have the concern for others of various Christian beliefs, in that I don’t wish for them to chose to become Mormon, live the Mormon lifestyle of “literal belief”, make the sacrifices necessary to belong, and cut off their children and grandchildren who decide it isn’t for them. In my opinion, they would do just as well without the Mormon belief system if they just maintained their membership in whatever Christian denomination they currently uphold.
I can see why others would want to stay to maintain family relationships. But making the case for others to stay is only helping the church continue to draw others in that are not as enlightened as the lucky few are. Lots of people get ex’d for doing what John Dehlin does, and I don’t think it’s right that some get to remain in good standing while others are cut off and bullied into submission. That’s another reason to get out, in my opinion.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The New Start
I've been gone for a long time from this blog, I know. Well, 2009 wasn't so kind to me, but I've changed a lot of bad things and moved to a new place, and got away from a negative vibe that was haunting me. So, on with the show.
My focus lately has been on Gnostic teachings of the original Christians, the Nag Hammadi Texts, and a new interest in Astro-Theology. And I recently went back to one Sunday of Mormon Church. One Sunday in 7 years, not counting the two funerals I attended. Wasn't much difference. Except all the hugs and "we miss you's" etc. That was to be expected. The little kids I used to teach in Primary are teenagers now. I don't know how many times I recited that my oldest child was 20 now, and my youngest almost a teen. I was only there because I felt like doing something nice for my mom, who was injured and couldn't drive for the past month. But everyone there looked so hopeful, so sure that I had an epiphany and was returning to their fold. There I was, sitting in the meetings with my pentagram ring and my triquetra-hematite necklace. I didn't feel anything but awkward at all the attention. I also didn't feel shame, guilt or remorse for the decision I made to leave the church. I'm on the right path for me, and I know it.
If I were to continue attending, just to be there with mom and take her to church, there is no doubt in my mind that sooner or later, the bishop would be asking to speak with me. There is a file on me in the office. I am a Resigned former member. There was no "court of love". There was no process of excommunication in the works. I simply wrote a letter and told them to remove me from the membership list. That was November of 2002.
I jumped through all the flaming hoops they laid out for me and still they could not give me what they promised. I will have to wait till the afterlife just like everyone else. And I am not going to spend THIS life sitting in endless meetings, and feeling guilty and ashamed of myself. Does that mean I'm going to do the exact opposite? If you ask a staunch Mormon, the answer would be yes, naturally. If I'm not in church feeling guilty, what would be the exact opposite? Sitting in a bar whoring around? Joining a BDSM club and hitting the Swinger's scene? Would I naturally be smoking and drinking and doing drugs, smacking around my kids, and living with STD's?
I'm really shocked at the assumption that morality and religion go hand in hand. Is there no such thing as a moral, ethical person without the Judeo-Christian stamp? Are all non-Christians immoral and unethical people? Have we no moral compass or sense of right and wrong? Really?
One of my favorite quotes is attributed to Abraham Lincoln, although I don't know for sure he said it. "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion."
What sets us apart from animals? Our sense of right and wrong. An INBORN moral compass. A gift from the Creator. The power to use logic and reason in our choices. And what does religion do? It seeks to take credit, to squash down our abilities to think for ourselves, to hand over autonomy in exchange for the promise of eternal life. We are not allowed to question, to doubt, to haggle over details, or even have hurt feelings about the way we are shuffled through like sheep. If the Brethren have decided, have chosen, and have pronounced it, then there is no more debate. The thinking has been done. It is left to those in charge, and doubting them is equal to doubting your god. Wow. No thank you. I prefer to muddle on through with my own thoughts and opinions and reason and logic. What I have discovered is that I flow through life like a river flows to the ocean. My thoughts and opinions change with the ebb and flow of life's experiences. I am not secured in a walled-in shelter. I am taking huge risks in being disappointed, in being shocked or confused. But I'm not living under a threat of eternal doom either.
Has anyone stopped to consider that we are all asleep and need to be awakened to the full knowledge and understanding of our divine nature? This is what the Gnostic Christians taught, generations before Jesus. The "resurrection" we need is not from death back to life in a literal sense. It is a transformation between ignorance and truth. Our 'resurrection' comes from gaining knowledge. The only good in this world is knowledge, and the only sin is ignorance. Yet the Mormon way would keep us all dependent upon others for all our wisdom and knowledge, and slam the door on anything that would cause us to question, to reason for ourselves, or to doubt.
If I were to have a vision, right now in this very room, of Joseph, Jesus and God, all together commanding me to take up a pen and write down their words and then go out in the world and tell everyone I know, no one would believe me. Even if it was true, it wouldn't matter. It would still be up to me to get others to believe and trust in me, in my character, and in my ability to relate the experience. If I was extremely good at charisma and charm, I could gather a small following. If I continued to claim more visions and experiences that only happened to me, and I was able to convince a few people that I had seen and spoken with Deities from heaven, it would still be balance upon the precipice of my word, my character, and my ability to convince others. There would be no magical, mystical quality about it. And it wouldn't even have to be true in order for me to accomplish it. I could do just as well with a lie as the truth. Real miracles are subject to the same fate as a lie, and I question and doubt that the Creator would use such means to convince us of anything. Is it more probable that a miracle might have occurred, or that a lie was told?
To quote Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason :
"In every point of view in which those things called miracles can be placed and considered, the reality of them is improbable, and their existence unnecessary. They would not answer any useful purpose, even if they were true; for it is more difficult to obtain belief to a miracle, than to a principle evidently moral, without any miracle. Moral principle speaks universally for itself. Miracle could be a thing of the moment, and seen but by a few; after this it requires a transfer of faith from God to man to believe a miracle upon man's report. Instead of admitting the recitals of miracles as evidence of any system of religion to be true, it should be considered as symptoms of it being fabulous. It is necessary to the full and upright character of truth that it rejects the crutch; and it is consistent with the character of fable to seek the aid that truth rejects."
So, if we want to put anything to the test, it would be a man's character. His ability to see a vision, relate it to others, and become a prophet rests on his moral character. It would not matter if the vision or miracle was true one whit. Because he was the only witness to it, then we would all have to rely upon his word. Having never met Joseph Smith personally, I would then have to rely upon accounts from others, and put my faith and trust in their character. It still would not matter if it was a lie or not. My belief would rest upon witnesses, not upon whether or not I believed such a miracle could occur at all. It is a thousand times more likely that no such miracle ever occurred. And I get that understanding from studying the character of the man who made the claim. This is why it is so upsetting to read volumes of Mormon history, to read the history of polygamy, of other "vision" claims from the same man. It's upsetting to discover just ONE lie in the story. It casts doubt upon the man. That's why there is such a movement in the church to maintain their beliefs and stand firm against any doubts. How would that be accomplished? Willful ignorance. The desire to NOT know any different. The desire to keep believing because so much time and effort has been invested in the cause and it would be TOO painful to realize it was based on a lie. Some people would rather live this way. And to me, that is the real sin. Turning down the use of the one gift our Creator gave us, the use of REASON.
My focus lately has been on Gnostic teachings of the original Christians, the Nag Hammadi Texts, and a new interest in Astro-Theology. And I recently went back to one Sunday of Mormon Church. One Sunday in 7 years, not counting the two funerals I attended. Wasn't much difference. Except all the hugs and "we miss you's" etc. That was to be expected. The little kids I used to teach in Primary are teenagers now. I don't know how many times I recited that my oldest child was 20 now, and my youngest almost a teen. I was only there because I felt like doing something nice for my mom, who was injured and couldn't drive for the past month. But everyone there looked so hopeful, so sure that I had an epiphany and was returning to their fold. There I was, sitting in the meetings with my pentagram ring and my triquetra-hematite necklace. I didn't feel anything but awkward at all the attention. I also didn't feel shame, guilt or remorse for the decision I made to leave the church. I'm on the right path for me, and I know it.
If I were to continue attending, just to be there with mom and take her to church, there is no doubt in my mind that sooner or later, the bishop would be asking to speak with me. There is a file on me in the office. I am a Resigned former member. There was no "court of love". There was no process of excommunication in the works. I simply wrote a letter and told them to remove me from the membership list. That was November of 2002.
I jumped through all the flaming hoops they laid out for me and still they could not give me what they promised. I will have to wait till the afterlife just like everyone else. And I am not going to spend THIS life sitting in endless meetings, and feeling guilty and ashamed of myself. Does that mean I'm going to do the exact opposite? If you ask a staunch Mormon, the answer would be yes, naturally. If I'm not in church feeling guilty, what would be the exact opposite? Sitting in a bar whoring around? Joining a BDSM club and hitting the Swinger's scene? Would I naturally be smoking and drinking and doing drugs, smacking around my kids, and living with STD's?
I'm really shocked at the assumption that morality and religion go hand in hand. Is there no such thing as a moral, ethical person without the Judeo-Christian stamp? Are all non-Christians immoral and unethical people? Have we no moral compass or sense of right and wrong? Really?
One of my favorite quotes is attributed to Abraham Lincoln, although I don't know for sure he said it. "When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion."
What sets us apart from animals? Our sense of right and wrong. An INBORN moral compass. A gift from the Creator. The power to use logic and reason in our choices. And what does religion do? It seeks to take credit, to squash down our abilities to think for ourselves, to hand over autonomy in exchange for the promise of eternal life. We are not allowed to question, to doubt, to haggle over details, or even have hurt feelings about the way we are shuffled through like sheep. If the Brethren have decided, have chosen, and have pronounced it, then there is no more debate. The thinking has been done. It is left to those in charge, and doubting them is equal to doubting your god. Wow. No thank you. I prefer to muddle on through with my own thoughts and opinions and reason and logic. What I have discovered is that I flow through life like a river flows to the ocean. My thoughts and opinions change with the ebb and flow of life's experiences. I am not secured in a walled-in shelter. I am taking huge risks in being disappointed, in being shocked or confused. But I'm not living under a threat of eternal doom either.
Has anyone stopped to consider that we are all asleep and need to be awakened to the full knowledge and understanding of our divine nature? This is what the Gnostic Christians taught, generations before Jesus. The "resurrection" we need is not from death back to life in a literal sense. It is a transformation between ignorance and truth. Our 'resurrection' comes from gaining knowledge. The only good in this world is knowledge, and the only sin is ignorance. Yet the Mormon way would keep us all dependent upon others for all our wisdom and knowledge, and slam the door on anything that would cause us to question, to reason for ourselves, or to doubt.
If I were to have a vision, right now in this very room, of Joseph, Jesus and God, all together commanding me to take up a pen and write down their words and then go out in the world and tell everyone I know, no one would believe me. Even if it was true, it wouldn't matter. It would still be up to me to get others to believe and trust in me, in my character, and in my ability to relate the experience. If I was extremely good at charisma and charm, I could gather a small following. If I continued to claim more visions and experiences that only happened to me, and I was able to convince a few people that I had seen and spoken with Deities from heaven, it would still be balance upon the precipice of my word, my character, and my ability to convince others. There would be no magical, mystical quality about it. And it wouldn't even have to be true in order for me to accomplish it. I could do just as well with a lie as the truth. Real miracles are subject to the same fate as a lie, and I question and doubt that the Creator would use such means to convince us of anything. Is it more probable that a miracle might have occurred, or that a lie was told?
To quote Thomas Paine in The Age of Reason :
"In every point of view in which those things called miracles can be placed and considered, the reality of them is improbable, and their existence unnecessary. They would not answer any useful purpose, even if they were true; for it is more difficult to obtain belief to a miracle, than to a principle evidently moral, without any miracle. Moral principle speaks universally for itself. Miracle could be a thing of the moment, and seen but by a few; after this it requires a transfer of faith from God to man to believe a miracle upon man's report. Instead of admitting the recitals of miracles as evidence of any system of religion to be true, it should be considered as symptoms of it being fabulous. It is necessary to the full and upright character of truth that it rejects the crutch; and it is consistent with the character of fable to seek the aid that truth rejects."
So, if we want to put anything to the test, it would be a man's character. His ability to see a vision, relate it to others, and become a prophet rests on his moral character. It would not matter if the vision or miracle was true one whit. Because he was the only witness to it, then we would all have to rely upon his word. Having never met Joseph Smith personally, I would then have to rely upon accounts from others, and put my faith and trust in their character. It still would not matter if it was a lie or not. My belief would rest upon witnesses, not upon whether or not I believed such a miracle could occur at all. It is a thousand times more likely that no such miracle ever occurred. And I get that understanding from studying the character of the man who made the claim. This is why it is so upsetting to read volumes of Mormon history, to read the history of polygamy, of other "vision" claims from the same man. It's upsetting to discover just ONE lie in the story. It casts doubt upon the man. That's why there is such a movement in the church to maintain their beliefs and stand firm against any doubts. How would that be accomplished? Willful ignorance. The desire to NOT know any different. The desire to keep believing because so much time and effort has been invested in the cause and it would be TOO painful to realize it was based on a lie. Some people would rather live this way. And to me, that is the real sin. Turning down the use of the one gift our Creator gave us, the use of REASON.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Iowa overturns ban on Gay Marriage
Oh, boy.....
Now the fight that has upended the rights of Gays and Lesbians to marry in California, (i.e. took away a right previously enjoyed by a minority group, simply because it makes some other people feel "icky" about it), is marching up to my doorstep.
Granted, this just happened today. And will come into effect in 21 days. And there won't be an appeal in the Iowa Supreme court, so it will likely come to pass. But, one more pea remains on the plate: The Ballot Initiative.
This is where the people of Iowa will get the chance to do just what California recently did: take away a right that will be enjoyed by hundreds of couples as they pledge their love for each other and commit to live together as spouses, gaining equal protection under the law. A ballot initiative to change the Constitution of Iowa will be for the sole purpose of stripping away a right from a minority group. Just cuz the Christian God is pissed.
I have no doubt in my mind that the Mormon church will once again work their magic here as they did in California, by pressuring the members here to oppose the Supreme Court's ruling that banning one minority group from marriage is unconstitutional. They will convince the Christian right that they must change the wording of the Constitution to reflect the popular opinion of the people residing in the state, whether it amounts to punishing gays or not isn't the concern. It's upholding the Christian standard above all else. They must prove how much they love Jeesus by showing up at the polls to be counted among his faithful. They must take and preserve the word "marriage" and only allow it under Christian circumstance. (Muslim-Judaism et all).
The Mormon Church is used to doing this because they've been in the biz for over 100 years! Check out some famous "revelations" from Brigham Young regarding the "cursed" Black Race of Cain, and the evils of intermarriage!
Brigham Young Journal of Discourses
February 5, 1852
But let me tell you further. Let my seed mingle with the seed of Cain, that brings the curse upon me, and upon my generations, - - we will reap the same rewards with Cain.
Where the children of God to mingle there seed with the seed of Cain it would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the priesthood upon themselves but it would entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot get rid of it. If a man, in an unguarded moment, should commit such a transgression, if he would walk up and say cut off my head, and kill man woman and child it would do a great deal towards atoning for the sin. Would this be to curse them? No, it would be a blessing to them. It would do them good that they might be saved with their Bren. A man would shudder should they here us take about killing folk, but it is one of the greatest blessings to some to kill them, all though the true principles of it are not understood.
...Suppose we summons them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to destruction,--we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed.
But say some, is there any thing of this kind in the Constitution, the U.S. has given us? If you will allow me the privilege telling right out, it is none of their damned business what we do or say here. What we do it is for them to sanction, and then for us to say what we like about it.
Even more disturbing is that just a mere 60 or so years ago, it was still ILLEGAL in a couple of states for a black person to marry a white person! All of the same arguments were used back then too, the family unit would be destroyed, God does not approve, blacks should stick with their own kind and be GRATEFUL that they have the privileges they've received so far, what's next PIGS and SHEEP wanting to be married?
I will repost part of what Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown commented just after Prop 8 passed in California:
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.
What a sad day, indeed, when we can't just look at a fellow human being and say, hey, here's a human being, equal to me in every way, entitled to all the protections, freedoms, and privileges that I enjoy. Without looking at their skin color, or giving a rat's patooie about what goes on after 10 pm in their own bedroom.
Now the fight that has upended the rights of Gays and Lesbians to marry in California, (i.e. took away a right previously enjoyed by a minority group, simply because it makes some other people feel "icky" about it), is marching up to my doorstep.
Granted, this just happened today. And will come into effect in 21 days. And there won't be an appeal in the Iowa Supreme court, so it will likely come to pass. But, one more pea remains on the plate: The Ballot Initiative.
This is where the people of Iowa will get the chance to do just what California recently did: take away a right that will be enjoyed by hundreds of couples as they pledge their love for each other and commit to live together as spouses, gaining equal protection under the law. A ballot initiative to change the Constitution of Iowa will be for the sole purpose of stripping away a right from a minority group. Just cuz the Christian God is pissed.
I have no doubt in my mind that the Mormon church will once again work their magic here as they did in California, by pressuring the members here to oppose the Supreme Court's ruling that banning one minority group from marriage is unconstitutional. They will convince the Christian right that they must change the wording of the Constitution to reflect the popular opinion of the people residing in the state, whether it amounts to punishing gays or not isn't the concern. It's upholding the Christian standard above all else. They must prove how much they love Jeesus by showing up at the polls to be counted among his faithful. They must take and preserve the word "marriage" and only allow it under Christian circumstance. (Muslim-Judaism et all).
The Mormon Church is used to doing this because they've been in the biz for over 100 years! Check out some famous "revelations" from Brigham Young regarding the "cursed" Black Race of Cain, and the evils of intermarriage!
Brigham Young Journal of Discourses
February 5, 1852
But let me tell you further. Let my seed mingle with the seed of Cain, that brings the curse upon me, and upon my generations, - - we will reap the same rewards with Cain.
Where the children of God to mingle there seed with the seed of Cain it would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the priesthood upon themselves but it would entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot get rid of it. If a man, in an unguarded moment, should commit such a transgression, if he would walk up and say cut off my head, and kill man woman and child it would do a great deal towards atoning for the sin. Would this be to curse them? No, it would be a blessing to them. It would do them good that they might be saved with their Bren. A man would shudder should they here us take about killing folk, but it is one of the greatest blessings to some to kill them, all though the true principles of it are not understood.
...Suppose we summons them to appear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with with us and be partakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to destruction,--we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the priesthood until that curse be removed.
But say some, is there any thing of this kind in the Constitution, the U.S. has given us? If you will allow me the privilege telling right out, it is none of their damned business what we do or say here. What we do it is for them to sanction, and then for us to say what we like about it.
Even more disturbing is that just a mere 60 or so years ago, it was still ILLEGAL in a couple of states for a black person to marry a white person! All of the same arguments were used back then too, the family unit would be destroyed, God does not approve, blacks should stick with their own kind and be GRATEFUL that they have the privileges they've received so far, what's next PIGS and SHEEP wanting to be married?
I will repost part of what Keith Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown commented just after Prop 8 passed in California:
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.
What a sad day, indeed, when we can't just look at a fellow human being and say, hey, here's a human being, equal to me in every way, entitled to all the protections, freedoms, and privileges that I enjoy. Without looking at their skin color, or giving a rat's patooie about what goes on after 10 pm in their own bedroom.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
California and Proposition 8
Members of the Mormon church, who were strongly urged by church leaders to contribute to the Proposition 8 campaign, had an undeniable role in the measure's victory. Opponents of Proposition 8 have accused the church of discriminating against homosexuals, but the backlash against the denomination has also sparked accusations of discrimination.
During the campaign, a website established by Proposition 8 opponents used campaign finance data and other public records to track Mormon political contributions to the Yes-on-8 campaign. Opponents estimated that members of the church had given more than $20 million, but the amount is difficult to confirm since the state does not track the religious affiliation of donors.
Leaders of the No-on-8 campaign said they did not believe they were engaged in Mormon-bashing. "This is not about religion," said Jacobs. "This is about a church that put itself in the middle of politics."
Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said she had grown up in the Mormon Church and thought it was "very disappointing what the church has done and the alliances they have made with churches that don't even like them and have called the church a cult."
Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and host of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" made this topic the centerpiece of his nightly Special Comment segment. I really liked what he had to say. Even brought a tear to my eye. This guy is a giant of a man, over 6 feet tall, very menacing if he wants to be. But his emotional appeal to the folks who oppose spreading Happiness to all men (and women), because of their personal religious faith, really set him apart in my eyes. I admire him greatly for making a stand against Prop 8, and I sincerely hope that the California Supreme court does overturn it. A right that was once enjoyed by all has been selectively restricted and removed from some, based soley on religious beliefs of others. Church and State should remain separate, not infiltrate every aspect of our lives. And the Mormon Church should DEFINITELY loose their tax-exempt status for using their church as a political platform.
Transcript of Keith Olbermann's comments, as aired on November 10, 2008:
A Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.
Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.
This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.
If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.
It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.
And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?
With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then spread Happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
---
You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...
Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.
During the campaign, a website established by Proposition 8 opponents used campaign finance data and other public records to track Mormon political contributions to the Yes-on-8 campaign. Opponents estimated that members of the church had given more than $20 million, but the amount is difficult to confirm since the state does not track the religious affiliation of donors.
Leaders of the No-on-8 campaign said they did not believe they were engaged in Mormon-bashing. "This is not about religion," said Jacobs. "This is about a church that put itself in the middle of politics."
Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said she had grown up in the Mormon Church and thought it was "very disappointing what the church has done and the alliances they have made with churches that don't even like them and have called the church a cult."
More than 40 people demonstrated in front of a Mormon church in Seattle's University District on Sunday morning, expressing anger at the role the national church played in the passing of Proposition 8, banning gay marriage in California.
They lined the sidewalk, chanting slogans such as "Tax the church!" and holding signs saying "Shame on the church" and "All marriages are equal."
"I don't tell them what to do in their religion. They shouldn't tell me what to do in my life," said Chris Campfield, 27, of Seattle.
Matthew Wilson, 26, of Seattle, who organized the protest, said: "We want to make it very clear to this church that Washington will not accept divisive or discriminatory actions."
Proposition 8 defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and overrides a California Supreme Court ruling that a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. It passed with 52 percent of the vote and throws into question the status of about 18,000 same-sex couples who wed in California.
Proposition 8 drew a range of opponents — including some Mormons. Proposition supporters, in addition to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), included the state's Roman Catholic bishops, some evangelical churches, and others.
But the Mormon church drew special attention after its top leaders issued a letter in June read in every congregation in California, asking members to "do all you can to support" the proposition by donating "your means and time." The church's position, the letter said, was that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children."
During the campaign, a Web site created by Proposition 8 opponents using campaign-finance data and other public records estimated that members of the LDS church had given more than $20 million, according to the Los Angeles Times. That amount is difficult to confirm, though, since the state does not track the religious affiliation of donors, the newspaper said.
Similar protests occurred Sunday around California — at the state Capitol in Sacramento and outside the enormous Saddleback Church in Orange County. In Oakland, a protest at the city's Mormon temple prompted the California Highway Patrol to close two highway ramps.
There are calls by gay leaders to boycott Utah and an online effort to challenge the church's tax-exempt status.
Section 501(c)(3) of US Code Title 26, which governs tax-exempt organizations, reads (emphasis added):
(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
(The “otherwise provided” clause does not apply, as the LDS Church, being a church, is a disqualified entity as described in subsection (h).)
The LDS church, through inciting its members to donate time and means to support Proposition 8 (resulting in millions of dollars of cash contributions from its members and countless volunteer hours), and in-kind campaign contributions to a group that supports Proposition 8, has now made a substantial part of its activities attempting to influence legislation.
(Wanna Help? File a complaint with the IRS and protest the Church's involvement!)
Gay-rights supporters, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, along with cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, have filed lawsuits asking the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 8. (YaY)
(oh, and listen to this crybaby)
"As a member of the LDS church we have known [and still do] the feeling of being ridiculed and mistreated because of our faith."
***My Thoughts***
Are you f**kin kidding me? Cries of persecution against YOU because you are persecuting the GAY community by stripping them of the rights to marry, have families, and be HAPPY!!?
Poor persecuted Mormons, getting picked on again for their faith. Maybe if you didn't overtly exercise your voting bloc power to make laws forbidding freedoms to those who don't share your particular views and faith, you wouldn't get "persecuted" in return. Haun's Mill Massacre was a great example of how Mormons brought persecution upon themselves by threatening to exert political voting power to control and limit the freedoms of the neighboring population, especially because they didn't share the same beliefs and faith. When will Mormons ever learn?
Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and host of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" made this topic the centerpiece of his nightly Special Comment segment. I really liked what he had to say. Even brought a tear to my eye. This guy is a giant of a man, over 6 feet tall, very menacing if he wants to be. But his emotional appeal to the folks who oppose spreading Happiness to all men (and women), because of their personal religious faith, really set him apart in my eyes. I admire him greatly for making a stand against Prop 8, and I sincerely hope that the California Supreme court does overturn it. A right that was once enjoyed by all has been selectively restricted and removed from some, based soley on religious beliefs of others. Church and State should remain separate, not infiltrate every aspect of our lives. And the Mormon Church should DEFINITELY loose their tax-exempt status for using their church as a political platform.
Transcript of Keith Olbermann's comments, as aired on November 10, 2008:
A Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.
Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.
And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics.
This is about the... human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.
If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not... understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want -- a chance to be a little less alone in the world.
Only now you are saying to them -- no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights -- even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?
I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage.
If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal... in 1967. 1967.
The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry...black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.
You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are... gay.
And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing -- centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children... All because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage. How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?
What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.
It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.
And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?
With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then spread Happiness -- this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness -- share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
---
You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of...love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate. You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know...It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow **person...
Just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Ranting against the Mormons
Recently, an anonymous commentator to this blog (they're almost always anonymous) pointed out to me that I haven't spent any time cornering Catholicism, Islam, or any other major religion, just this one church.
Well, duh, DipShit. This is MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY. I focused on the Mormon Church because that's what I was raised with. And, if you haven't noticed, I haven't ranted about it for quite some time. And, one of my last posts was about Christianity as a whole being ridiculous. Why should I go on to bash Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, or Buddhism? They are not part of my personal experience. Otherwise the blog would be titled: Everyone's Opinions on World Religions.
Poor Baby. Feeling persecuted again? Are all the Bloggers picking on Mormonism these days?
I'm sure if you dig around you can find some other blogs that target the other forms of religious beliefs (even anti-Wiccan ones), and then you can feel better about not being the only one persecuted for your beliefs. Unless feeling persecuted helps cement the belief that your church is the one-and-only true church on the face of the earth, which Mormons believe theirs to be.
That's a fact, Jack. Mormons are taught to feel special, feel select above all others, and feel like the "chosen" people. Kind of like Pharisees. And, they even get up in front of all the others one Sunday a month to talk about how blessed they are to be Mormons, and how unfortunate it is for the others who stay away, or leave it. As a matter of fact, it's actually better for those who remain outside and refuse to join, than it is for those who join and then leave it later. The first group still has a chance to be redeemed through Mormon proxy-baptism after their deaths. Those who leave after joining are cursed to spend eternity in the 'lake of fire'. Knowing this, it would seem more appropriate for missionary work to cease entirely, and just quietly process the dead into Mormondom, rather than spread the message, get them to join, and then condemn them to hell, torture, damnation, and 'outer darkness' for looking beyond the approved reading materials and speaking points and digging further into the doctrine, history and background of Joseph Smith and finding out he MADE IT ALL UP!!!
As to your assertion that your beloved prophet Gordo warned us all to get out of debt as soon as possible, you can say the same thing about Suze Orman on CNN, and she's no prophet. I don't feel any more pressure to obey Gordo than I do Suze, and it's just good grandfatherly advice as far as I'm concerned. What idiot WANTS to be buried under tons of debt, really? And because I am in debt for my house and my car (student loans, and some medical bills too), does that mean I'm going to HELL? What's your deal anyway? Everything Gordo speaks is a "prophecy"? Unless, of course, he's speaking as a man. Which he always did.
I don't live under a cycle of guilt and shame anymore. And I even quit bashing the Mormon ideology for a while. And all over this country, thousands of people like me hide their beliefs and practice in secret, because persecution of WITCHES is real. Documented history. Mormons also believe their persecutions were unwarranted attacks soley for their beliefs. My opinion is that if the Mormons hadn't arrived in Missouri haughtily claiming that all they survey would soon belong to them because "GOD" was giving it to them for being the 'chosen people', then maybe the current occupants of that land wouldn't have had any cause to freak out.
Imagine what would happen if some Muslim Extremists moved in to a house in your neighborhood, and brought with them ten other families who soon bought up all available properties in your town. Imagine hearing them speak to each other about how the whole town would soon be Muslim, by "Allah's Will". Then you might get an idea of what brought on the Haun's Mill Massacre in Missouri.
The Mormon Persecution Complex doesn't end there. Being driven out to Utah under disasterous circumstances (who the hell leaves for a cross country trek with handcarts in FEBRUARY??) , they arrived totally convinced that Utah was their own private country, separate from the U.S., and that they would be completely autononmous as a "Kingdom of God".
Rumors that the government was sending the U.S. Army to beat down the Mormons yet again, caused the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which incidentally happened on Sept 11, 1857.
I don't know any Muslims personally, but I don't have any reason to believe they all would take their religion to the extreme, and force everyone around them to adopt the beliefs or die. There are SOME radicals who would do just that, and feel justified in the work. Just as there are extremists in any religion, even Christianity. Right now, the Right-Wing Christian Conservative movement would do almost ANYTHING to turn over Roe v. Wade and bring women down to there most primitive biological level: baby machines. How far could women advance in the workplace if they had to take 6 weeks off every 9 months to pop out a kid? How much equality is there for women if they have ZERO ability to stop the 'Baby Train'? I'm not just talking abortion rights, but birth control of any kind. And they can just say no to sex, right? Tell that to the thousands who are raped and molested every year. Tell that to the twelve year old who has to carry a baby to term because her stepdad got her pregnant. Tell that to the woman who was gang raped and left for dead, only to live through it and then be forced to carry a baby to term, give birth, and raise it knowing that it was a product of violence, not love. Imagine being the child, growing up knowing you weren't wanted and came from an action of hate and violence towards your mother.
Look, there are TONS of things I could rant about on a daily basis. There is LOTS of injustice in the world. And Mormon or not, persecution will come your way. Injustice will cross you. Shit Happens. Thinking you're being tested on your affirmations of Mormoness when you come across something that makes you doubt your beliefs is a trap to keep you tied to those beliefs. The Mormon Church is more afraid that you will look behind that curtain and see the old man pulling the levers and speaking into the mike, pretending he's the Wizard of OZ.
Well, duh, DipShit. This is MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY. I focused on the Mormon Church because that's what I was raised with. And, if you haven't noticed, I haven't ranted about it for quite some time. And, one of my last posts was about Christianity as a whole being ridiculous. Why should I go on to bash Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, or Buddhism? They are not part of my personal experience. Otherwise the blog would be titled: Everyone's Opinions on World Religions.
Poor Baby. Feeling persecuted again? Are all the Bloggers picking on Mormonism these days?
I'm sure if you dig around you can find some other blogs that target the other forms of religious beliefs (even anti-Wiccan ones), and then you can feel better about not being the only one persecuted for your beliefs. Unless feeling persecuted helps cement the belief that your church is the one-and-only true church on the face of the earth, which Mormons believe theirs to be.
That's a fact, Jack. Mormons are taught to feel special, feel select above all others, and feel like the "chosen" people. Kind of like Pharisees. And, they even get up in front of all the others one Sunday a month to talk about how blessed they are to be Mormons, and how unfortunate it is for the others who stay away, or leave it. As a matter of fact, it's actually better for those who remain outside and refuse to join, than it is for those who join and then leave it later. The first group still has a chance to be redeemed through Mormon proxy-baptism after their deaths. Those who leave after joining are cursed to spend eternity in the 'lake of fire'. Knowing this, it would seem more appropriate for missionary work to cease entirely, and just quietly process the dead into Mormondom, rather than spread the message, get them to join, and then condemn them to hell, torture, damnation, and 'outer darkness' for looking beyond the approved reading materials and speaking points and digging further into the doctrine, history and background of Joseph Smith and finding out he MADE IT ALL UP!!!
As to your assertion that your beloved prophet Gordo warned us all to get out of debt as soon as possible, you can say the same thing about Suze Orman on CNN, and she's no prophet. I don't feel any more pressure to obey Gordo than I do Suze, and it's just good grandfatherly advice as far as I'm concerned. What idiot WANTS to be buried under tons of debt, really? And because I am in debt for my house and my car (student loans, and some medical bills too), does that mean I'm going to HELL? What's your deal anyway? Everything Gordo speaks is a "prophecy"? Unless, of course, he's speaking as a man. Which he always did.
I don't live under a cycle of guilt and shame anymore. And I even quit bashing the Mormon ideology for a while. And all over this country, thousands of people like me hide their beliefs and practice in secret, because persecution of WITCHES is real. Documented history. Mormons also believe their persecutions were unwarranted attacks soley for their beliefs. My opinion is that if the Mormons hadn't arrived in Missouri haughtily claiming that all they survey would soon belong to them because "GOD" was giving it to them for being the 'chosen people', then maybe the current occupants of that land wouldn't have had any cause to freak out.
Imagine what would happen if some Muslim Extremists moved in to a house in your neighborhood, and brought with them ten other families who soon bought up all available properties in your town. Imagine hearing them speak to each other about how the whole town would soon be Muslim, by "Allah's Will". Then you might get an idea of what brought on the Haun's Mill Massacre in Missouri.
The Mormon Persecution Complex doesn't end there. Being driven out to Utah under disasterous circumstances (who the hell leaves for a cross country trek with handcarts in FEBRUARY??) , they arrived totally convinced that Utah was their own private country, separate from the U.S., and that they would be completely autononmous as a "Kingdom of God".
Rumors that the government was sending the U.S. Army to beat down the Mormons yet again, caused the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which incidentally happened on Sept 11, 1857.
I don't know any Muslims personally, but I don't have any reason to believe they all would take their religion to the extreme, and force everyone around them to adopt the beliefs or die. There are SOME radicals who would do just that, and feel justified in the work. Just as there are extremists in any religion, even Christianity. Right now, the Right-Wing Christian Conservative movement would do almost ANYTHING to turn over Roe v. Wade and bring women down to there most primitive biological level: baby machines. How far could women advance in the workplace if they had to take 6 weeks off every 9 months to pop out a kid? How much equality is there for women if they have ZERO ability to stop the 'Baby Train'? I'm not just talking abortion rights, but birth control of any kind. And they can just say no to sex, right? Tell that to the thousands who are raped and molested every year. Tell that to the twelve year old who has to carry a baby to term because her stepdad got her pregnant. Tell that to the woman who was gang raped and left for dead, only to live through it and then be forced to carry a baby to term, give birth, and raise it knowing that it was a product of violence, not love. Imagine being the child, growing up knowing you weren't wanted and came from an action of hate and violence towards your mother.
Look, there are TONS of things I could rant about on a daily basis. There is LOTS of injustice in the world. And Mormon or not, persecution will come your way. Injustice will cross you. Shit Happens. Thinking you're being tested on your affirmations of Mormoness when you come across something that makes you doubt your beliefs is a trap to keep you tied to those beliefs. The Mormon Church is more afraid that you will look behind that curtain and see the old man pulling the levers and speaking into the mike, pretending he's the Wizard of OZ.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Moving On
I've been studying at a website I accidentally found, and I'm hooked. It's given me so much more to ponder and analyze than Mormonism ever did, and I am hoping to spread the word about it.
The Library of Halexandria :
"Halexandria is a Synthesis of new physics, sacred geometry, ancient and modern history, multiple universes & realities, consciousness, the Ha Qabala and ORME, extraterrestrials, corporate rule and politics, law, order and entropy, trial by jury, astronomy, monetary policy, scientific anomalies, religion and spirituality, and a whole host of other subjects ranging from astrology and astrophysics to superstrings and sonoluminesence to biblical and geologic histories to numerology, the Tarot, and creating your own reality. Halexandria makes the assumption -- an assumption which will be mathematically proven -- that all aspects of the universe are connected and that there are no limits to what we can possess or what we can become.
I have spent a few weeks at this site, reading everything I have time too. So, Mormonism goes by the wayside. I have better things to do now.
The Library of Halexandria :
"Halexandria is a Synthesis of new physics, sacred geometry, ancient and modern history, multiple universes & realities, consciousness, the Ha Qabala and ORME, extraterrestrials, corporate rule and politics, law, order and entropy, trial by jury, astronomy, monetary policy, scientific anomalies, religion and spirituality, and a whole host of other subjects ranging from astrology and astrophysics to superstrings and sonoluminesence to biblical and geologic histories to numerology, the Tarot, and creating your own reality. Halexandria makes the assumption -- an assumption which will be mathematically proven -- that all aspects of the universe are connected and that there are no limits to what we can possess or what we can become.
I have spent a few weeks at this site, reading everything I have time too. So, Mormonism goes by the wayside. I have better things to do now.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Satan has left the building
I just had a stray thought that I'd like to share.
It seems to me, all the time while I was Christian, and even the 20+ years I was a Mormon, the common mantra was that Satan was looking for ways to keep me from the "one true path" back to God. I was constantly vigilant, on guard against Satan, because I didn't want to be "trapped" or "led astray". I lived in fear of losing my toehold on God's narrow path, and I worried about my immortal soul perishing in Hell for my petty sins of lust, envy, greed, sloth, pride, gluttony, or wrath.
I'm now Mormon-free, Christianity-free, and you know what? The devil leaves me alone.
No more worries, guilt, shame, or fear. No more attending church because of what the neighbors or the minister might think. No more participation in endless meetings, temple rituals, scripture studies, and Bible classes to make sure that Satan doesn't "get" me.
Now I'm actually feeling sorry for the folks who think I'm the one going to Hell. Seems to me they're already living in it here on Earth.
As a practicing Wiccan, I have heard the occasional comdemnation from Christian folks. "Thou shall not suffer a Witch to live" etc. And I've even been accused of having Satan over for parties.
He must be way too busy teasing the Christian zealots. I've never met him. We do not share zip codes.
Something else that bothers me is the use of Bible quotes to prove that I'm wrong in my understanding of the human purpose. Because I don't acknowledge Jesus as my personal savior, I'm going to be burned. Well, then I guess there will be plenty of folks there with me, and I'm not so hip to acknowlege a God that would punish me simply for living a simple life free of drug and alcohol use, free of harm to others, free of polluting the earth, and doing what I can to improve the lives of others and the world around me.
In alot of ways, I'm more like Jesus than most Christians I've met. What if that was the point? what if Jesus really wasn't trying to tear down Judaism, but uplift it, or improve it? What if there was never supposed to be anything like Christianity, just a new and improved Judaism? He was a Rabbi, a teacher, and a JEW. And Christianity didn't even put down modern roots until the Council of Nicea almost 400 years after his death.
Christianity is stupid. I have to agree with a recent post found on The Gods Are Bored:
You want to travel from Detroit to Tampa.
There is only one route from Detroit to Tampa.
It is Interstate 75.
You may not take any other route from Detroit to Tampa.
There are certain exits from the Interstate that you cannot take, because they may lead you to a store that sells fireworks or some such. Or worse, those exits might lead you to an alternative route to Tampa.
There is no other destination if you are leaving Detroit, except Tampa.
No other city is as great as Tampa.
Don't listen if anyone tells you that, say, Indianapolis is just as nice, or that you can actually proceed past Tampa to Sanibel Island. Or that you can get to Tampa by taking a little detour and winding up on the Blue Ridge Parkway, and maybe in comparison to the Blue Ridge Parkway, Tampa suddenly doesn't seem as appealing.
My Thoughts Exactly.
Thanks to Anne Johnson over at The Gods are Bored. She is very witty and thought provoking, and I encourage everyone to go see her.
It seems to me, all the time while I was Christian, and even the 20+ years I was a Mormon, the common mantra was that Satan was looking for ways to keep me from the "one true path" back to God. I was constantly vigilant, on guard against Satan, because I didn't want to be "trapped" or "led astray". I lived in fear of losing my toehold on God's narrow path, and I worried about my immortal soul perishing in Hell for my petty sins of lust, envy, greed, sloth, pride, gluttony, or wrath.
I'm now Mormon-free, Christianity-free, and you know what? The devil leaves me alone.
No more worries, guilt, shame, or fear. No more attending church because of what the neighbors or the minister might think. No more participation in endless meetings, temple rituals, scripture studies, and Bible classes to make sure that Satan doesn't "get" me.
Now I'm actually feeling sorry for the folks who think I'm the one going to Hell. Seems to me they're already living in it here on Earth.
As a practicing Wiccan, I have heard the occasional comdemnation from Christian folks. "Thou shall not suffer a Witch to live" etc. And I've even been accused of having Satan over for parties.
He must be way too busy teasing the Christian zealots. I've never met him. We do not share zip codes.
Something else that bothers me is the use of Bible quotes to prove that I'm wrong in my understanding of the human purpose. Because I don't acknowledge Jesus as my personal savior, I'm going to be burned. Well, then I guess there will be plenty of folks there with me, and I'm not so hip to acknowlege a God that would punish me simply for living a simple life free of drug and alcohol use, free of harm to others, free of polluting the earth, and doing what I can to improve the lives of others and the world around me.
In alot of ways, I'm more like Jesus than most Christians I've met. What if that was the point? what if Jesus really wasn't trying to tear down Judaism, but uplift it, or improve it? What if there was never supposed to be anything like Christianity, just a new and improved Judaism? He was a Rabbi, a teacher, and a JEW. And Christianity didn't even put down modern roots until the Council of Nicea almost 400 years after his death.
Christianity is stupid. I have to agree with a recent post found on The Gods Are Bored:
How Fundamentalist Christianity Works
You want to travel from Detroit to Tampa.
There is only one route from Detroit to Tampa.
It is Interstate 75.
You may not take any other route from Detroit to Tampa.
There are certain exits from the Interstate that you cannot take, because they may lead you to a store that sells fireworks or some such. Or worse, those exits might lead you to an alternative route to Tampa.
There is no other destination if you are leaving Detroit, except Tampa.
No other city is as great as Tampa.
Don't listen if anyone tells you that, say, Indianapolis is just as nice, or that you can actually proceed past Tampa to Sanibel Island. Or that you can get to Tampa by taking a little detour and winding up on the Blue Ridge Parkway, and maybe in comparison to the Blue Ridge Parkway, Tampa suddenly doesn't seem as appealing.
My Thoughts Exactly.
Thanks to Anne Johnson over at The Gods are Bored. She is very witty and thought provoking, and I encourage everyone to go see her.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Mormons are Christian, right?
Then why is it that in order to obtain the Celestial Glory and be reunited with our Heavenly Father, we not only have to have faith and belief in Jesus Christ as our personal savior, but we are also required to have faith and belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet and as a instrument of restoration in bringing the temple ordinances previously unknown in the Biblical writings or teachings of Jesus?
Doesn't it strike any LDS member as strange that faith and belief in Jesus Christ alone won't get you there? Didn't he say that he was "the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me" ?
Jesus forgot to mention Joseph Smith as the "replacement messiah" for the latter days, didn't he?
Doesn't it strike any LDS member as strange that faith and belief in Jesus Christ alone won't get you there? Didn't he say that he was "the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me" ?
Jesus forgot to mention Joseph Smith as the "replacement messiah" for the latter days, didn't he?
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Explaining the Miniscule Differences Between the LDS Mormon Theology and the FLDS Mormon Theology Pertaining to Polygamy and Priesthood Authority
From the Dallas Morning News The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has more than a century of history and a system of beliefs and practices that have long set it apart. Here's a look at its roots and beliefs: Is the FLDS Mormon?
[ I don't personally believe this to be true. While the FLDS members maintain that they are the only true form of Mormonism because they did not relinquish polygamy, I do not accept the premise that the more well known Mormon Church based in Salt Lake City claims that they have no connection to the FLDS church. They will be forever tied to the FLDS polygamists because the original "prophet" of both organizations is the one who began the practice in the first place. If rejecting polygamy had not been a condition of statehood for Utah, we wouldn't even have to discuss the differences between LDS and FLDS faith and practice. They both tout the Book of Mormon as scripture, they both use the Doctrine and Covenants as a basis for their revealed doctrine, they keep all of the same observances for Joseph's birth, life, ministry, and death. The main distinction between them is that the FLDS still believes that separating from the mainstream is the only way to keep themselves elect and pure, and the Salt Lake City Mormons are trying very hard to appear mainstream and to integrate themselves among the many different Christian sects throughout the U.S. ]
What is the connection between the FLDS and the mainstream Mormon church – the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Both churches trace their origins to Joseph Smith. They believe that in 1823, an angel visited Mr. Smith, son of a farmer in upstate New York, and told him to reboot authentic Christianity, which was lost shortly after the deaths of the original apostles.
Among the teachings: Israelites came to what is now America more than 2,600 years ago, and their descendents were visited by Jesus after his resurrection. Both churches also believe that God was once a mortal man. The LDS church has more sacred texts than the Bible, including the Book of Mormon.
And the president of the church is considered a prophet, no less than Elijah, through whom God can deliver new revelations.
Where did the FLDS come from?
The FLDS, formally incorporated in 1991, is one of the largest splinter groups that rejected new Mormon revelations.
One of the early tenets of the LDS church was polygamy, patterned on the Biblical patriarchs. In 1890, as Utah was trying to become a state, the Mormon president announced that polygamy was no longer acceptable. But the FLDS believes that a former head of the LDS church instructed a group of Mormons to continue plural marriages.
A second major revelation occurred in 1978. Until that time, black men were not allowed full membership – "priesthood" – in the LDS church. The FLDS also rejects that change.
Are there differences in how the churches are organized?
The LDS president is closely advised, as a matter of church doctrine, by a group of more than a dozen other men. The organization that became the FLDS started with a group of advisers. But the father of Warren Jeffs, the current prophet, declared in the 1980s that the leadership should be held by one man.
Does the FLDS president hold powers that the LDS president does not?
One important power is the "placement marriage," according to historian Marriane T. Watson. Mr. Jeffs has the right and responsibility to assign girls or women to their husbands.
[The LDS church based in Salt Lake City had leadership that did the same thing while polygamy was practiced. It was normal for young girls to be assigned to the elders of the church, as young as 14, just to reserve them for when they reached maturity, and to prevent them from being available to single men within the church, who may not have earned their right to practice polygamy, or may not have sufficiently demonstrated their loyalty to the church. There may not have been sex involved, but there wouldn't have to be, so long as the young girl's affections were for her spiritual husband only, and any young potential suitor was cut off from approach.]
Are there other differences between the FLDS and LDS?
The LDS church once taught that its members should be self-sufficient and greatly restrict contact with nonmembers. The FLDS still holds those teachings, as shown by the substantial Eldorado compound. The compound may also represent a location for a "gathering of the saints" to precede the return of Jesus. LDS teaching no longer emphasizes the need for a literal, physical gathering place.
[Although Adam-Ondi-Ahman is still spoken of as a gathering place when the time is right to fulfill the prophecies for the building of the "New Jerusalem". This is still a widely held doctrine and belief within the Salt Lake LDS Mormon church.]
The following paragraphs are from RfM, because they only keep archives for 10 days. My comments will be in []
_________
Marriage Mormon Style and the Role of Women.
Author: Susie Q #1
The Mormon Doctrine of The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage, Plurality of Wives continues to define a women's role.
Is any of this information in the Temple Preparation Class?
Does anyone fully understand what is going to happen?
Don't we deserve Full Disclosure for Informed Consent and Informed Choice? Are the covenants binding if you have not been given full disclosure? I maintain that they are not.
This post comprises parts of the endowment and the actual marriage ceremony and the D&C 132 references that support the doctrine of eternal marriage or the New and Everlasting Covenant which is Plurality of Wives.
Note:
The only part that meets the requirement of the law, that I can find is:
authority vested in me, I pronounce you ______, and ______, legally and lawfully husband and wife.
Without that wording, the ceremony would not be legally binding in the US.
Married in the temple, to each other, are you sure? Where's the love?
After passing two interviews to get the temple recommend—
(see Temple Recommend Questions here ) either on the day of the marriage, or earlier, and going through the Endowment Ceremony: Washing and Anointing ceremony where the Holy Garment of the Priesthood (notice ladies, you wear the same garment of the Holy Priesthood!), is placed on you and covenanting to obey:
The Law of Obedience
The Law of Sacrifice
The Law of the Gospel
The Law of Chastity
The Law of Consecration --which is:
(I am only including this particular one on this post as it has it directly applies to the marriage covenant.)
A couple will now come to the altar. We are instructed to give unto you the Law of Consecration as contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, in connection with the Law of the Gospel and the Law of Sacrifice which you have already received.
It is that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.
All arise. Each of you bring your right arm to the square.
You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.
Each of you bow your head and say "yes."
Then and only then may you be sealed in the marriage ceremony.
Sometimes, the officiator will allow an exchange of rings at the end of the ceremony, and a kiss.
(I don't know the current policy on this practice. Maybe someone else does.)
Here is the ceremony:
Officiator: Brother ______, [naming groom] and Sister ______, [naming bride] please join hands in the Patriarchal Grip or Sure Sign of the Nail.
Marriage Couple:
Joins hands in the "Patriarchal Grip, or Sure Sign of the Nail."This token is given by clasping the right hands, interlocking the little fingers and placing the tip of the forefinger upon the center of the wrist. No clothing should interfere with the contact of the forefinger upon the wrist.
Officiator: Brother ______, do you take Sister ______ by the right hand and receive her unto yourself to be your lawful and wedded wife for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites, and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?
Groom: Yes.
Officiator: Sister ______ do you take brother ______ by the right hand and give yourself to him to be his lawful and wedded wife, and for him to be your lawful and wedded husband, for time and all eternity, with a covenant and promise that you will observe and keep all the laws, rites and ordinances pertaining to this Holy Order of Matrimony in the New and Everlasting Covenant, and this you do in the presence of God, angels, and these witnesses of your own free will and choice?
Bride: Yes.
Officiator:
By virtue of the Holy Priesthood and the authority vested in me, I pronounce you ______, and ______, legally and lawfully husband and wife for time and all eternity, and I seal upon you the blessings of the holy resurrection with power to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection clothed in glory, immortality and eternal lives, and I seal upon you the blessings of kingdoms, thrones, principalities, powers, dominions and exaltations, with all the blessings of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and say unto you: be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth that you may have joy and rejoicing in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
All these blessings, together with all the blessings appertaining unto the New and Everlasting Covenant, I seal upon you by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, through your faithfulness, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.
To make sure one understands exactly what the "New and Everlasting Covenant" is, see: D&C 132
REFERENCE for easy reading: http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. History of the Church 5: 501—507.
Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.
[INSERT: compare introduction to the 1969 edition of the Book of Mormon.]
Here's the 1969 version:
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives.
-------The Prophet’s inquiry of the Lord--He is told to prepare himself to receive the new and everlasting covenant--Conditions of this law--The power of the Holy Priesthood instituted by the Lord must be operative in ordinances to be in effect beyond the grave--
Marriage by secular authority is of effect during mortality only--Though the form of marriage should make it appear to be for time and eternity, the ordinance is not valid beyond the grave unless solemnized by the authority of the Holy Priesthood as the Lord directs--
Marriage duly authorized for time and eternity to be attended by surpassing blessings--E
ssentials for the attainment of the status of godhood -- The meaning of eternal lives--Plurality of wives acceptable only when commanded by the Lord--The sin of adultery--Commandment to Emma Smith, wife of the prophet. http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132
1981 edition:
1—6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant;
7—14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth;
15—20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods;
21—25, The strait and narrow way that leads to eternal lives;
26—27, Law given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost;
28—39, Promises of eternal increase and exaltation made to prophets and saints in all ages;
40—47, Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven;
48—50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation;
51—57, Emma Smith is counseled to be faithful and true;
58—66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.
Did you catch it? Celestial Marriage is Plurality of Wives! The Mormon Church has never, ever stopped practicing their law that applies to polygamy or plurality of wives as that is what Celestial Marriage (The New and Everlasting Covenant) is! It is clearly an eternal principle for the Celestial Kingdom.
Did you notice that the marriage sealing ceremony not only continues the practice of plurality of wives and, because of the covenant of the Law of Consecration, married you to the church and it's commandments by covenant, not each other?
Investigators BEWARE:
Demand full disclosure for informed consent. You won't get it from the Mormon Church, so do your own research.
Know what you are doing, and what it really means!
**********************
The Role of Women in the Mormon Church - Motherhood, Her Sexuality and how the Temple Ceremonies of Washing and Anointing Define Her.
WOMEN ACCEPT THEIR ROLE
Women accept their role in Mormonism with a promise that borrows into her heart and is the essence of motherhood - the absolutely belief that they will never loose their children and their family if they comply with the doctrines taught them.
The believe they will have their children for all eternity of they adhere to the Mormon teachings. In fact, to have a child leave the Mormon Church is a personal failure that is to be avoided at all costs, as this is a personal assault on her by the adversary, and she must do everything in her power to keep from loosing her offspring.
She willingly submits to these beliefs even though, to an outsider, they seem to infringe on her independence, her honor and her good sense. Some outsiders, even call it abusive.
Women who are well entrenched and strong believers in Mormonism, often with several generations of Mormonism flowing in their veins, see the accusations of abuse, and lack of independence and freedom of thought from outsiders as silly and false. She absolutely knows she is not abused, not programmed, not brainwashed, and can "think for herself."
What she does not realize is that she is restricted by the doctrines and what she considers "thinking for herself" means she thinks long and hard and prays long and hard to obtain a "witness of the spirit" so she is "worthy" to obtain eternal life. A mother is often willing to go to any length to save, protect, and keep her family.
The teachings of the Mormon Church make it clear that the Holy Priesthood of God is never to be questioned. To question a male Priesthood holder, especially the top leadership is tantamount to questioning God. Even to have doubts is unacceptable. Doubts are never to be spoken or written. They are to be kept inside. (That is one of the reasons, in my observation that anger brews and explodes when people finally get out from under the thumb of Mormonism's control.)
I have heard Mormon women admit that they did not like or understand their position in the Mormon Church but it was how "Heavenly Father wanted it" and they go along with it thinking it is the only right thing to do. So, they defer to the priesthood, (some more so than others) thinking they are laying up treasures in heaven. The woman's place is foremost and always to follow and support the priesthood in all things.
Their role is clearly defined in Mormonism's in it's doctrine and is one area that has not changed and will never changed.
Their role is defined in Doctrine and Covenants 132, as part of the official doctrine and even though polygamy or plurality of wives is not lived outright (technically it is still lived according to the marriage ceremony --exact wording from D&C 132 in the temple.)
She wears the same garment day and night of the Holy Priesthood of God, and covenanted to be a priestess to her husband in the Celestial Kingdom, but that is as far as her authority or equality goes. It teaches them that Heavenly Father meant for them to be the mothers, and for the men to officiate in the Priesthood.
The temple rituals and covenants (called Endowments) do not make her equal to her husband. She is to be a priestess to her husband who will rule over her in righteousness! The message is clear. She is taught from a young age, beginning with a blessing when she is just a few weeks old to give her a name, that she is to go to the temple and be married for "all eternity."
There is a lot of lip service given to the notion that they are equal, but every woman knows that only applies in certain areas. They might share equal chores in the home, or have equal input on decisions in the home, but when it comes to the church hierarchy and how the Priesthood functions, they might be listened to, but their recommendations can be and are overruled on the whim of the leaders as they are the representatives of the Lord. What the priesthood leaders say is accepted as they claim inspiration given to them as the Lord's mouthpiece.
She may be the "neck" that moves the "head" in many areas, but not when it comes to officiating in the Priesthood. Her role is to support and remind and see that he fulfills his Priesthood functions but not to question or direct it. After all, her eternal place with her children and family is dependent on him honoring the Priesthood.
WOMEN HAVE NO PLACE IN THE HIERARCHY
Men overrule women.
Women have no authority in the church and no place in the hierarchy and only serve under the men. If the men in charge do not like something, the women are told to do things differently. If they do not agree, they are considered: "prideful" think they "own" a calling, and not obedient to the Priesthood. All of which is unacceptable.
Her agency, the doctrine of freedom to choose between good and evil, (free agency is n a misnomer and not part of the teachings) is held in a very small box of do's and do not's, all determined by how the men interpret the scriptures how they supervise the organizations, and how they make assignments-- "callings" and give "counsel."
There is a "vote" in their Sacrament Meetings, but it means one is promising to support the member in their calling. Dissent is not accepted either. The vote is only intended to obtain the support of the members by raising their hand to the square.
The men's "inspiration" overrules anything a woman says or claims as an answer to her prayers.
All assignments or "callings" as they are called have a right to "inspiration" and one is expected to "magnify their calling." However, it is important to note that "inspiration" is only given for their respective "callings." No one is entitled to any "inspiration" or direction from the Lord about anything other than the "calling" they currently hold.
There is also no need for the Priesthood brethren to tell the truth as they have the privilege of "Lying for the Lord" a well understood underlying concept in Mormonism taught in their scriptures.
All of Mormonism is governed by men with very little input from the women, who are predominately used to follow orders - with a dust pan and broom to clean up after the brethren - in more ways than one!
The typical Mormon Priesthood leader looses respect for a female who uses her own mind, challenges them, or corrects them. They are threatened by the misuse of her position as it means he is not doing his job as a Priesthood leader and he is then expected to call her to repentance and make sure she changes her ways and never does it again.
Women are accepted in the Mormon Church and loved and respected and admired only if they comply with the role they are given. Once they are seen as disobedient, rebellious, take a different interpretation than the official one, explain themselves, they are no longer considered "worthy," and can loose everything, including their children, especially in divorce.
If the husband is "worthy" which generally means that he lives all the commandments, in particular: the Word of Wisdom, and pays tithing and can answer the temple recommend questions in the affirmative,(or correctly as they are asked) in the eyes of the Mormon Church it is acceptable for him to leave his "unworthy" wife and take her children away. The worthy Priesthood holder is entitled to a worthy wife.
Once the woman is accused of not being "chaste" she is no longer "worthy." Never mind that the man might be having an affair, or has abused his own children, or is a pedophile. It is the woman's fault these things happened. It is not uncommon for a Relief Society President for instance, to tell a woman to "be a better wife" so her husband won't beat her or stray.
Women in Mormonism are also defined by their sexuality.
The underlying message about sexuality is that you will give your life to keep from being raped. The worthy, honorable thing to do, if sexually assaulted, is to fight to the death to preserve your vagina from dishonorable intrusion. Often, an honorable Mormon father teaches his daughters that he would rather see her dead than violated. It is worth noting, however, that this not a concept solely held by Mormonism.
Mormonism has found the key to controlling generations of it's members. It is a typical ploy of religiosity since time began; control the sexuality of the female and control of the family for generations to come is maintained. This also solidifies the influx of money.
Women are also taught that they control "the spirit" of the home. It goes along with the old adage if "mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy" and Mormonism takes this a step further imprinting and programming young females from birth that they are to be sweet and worthy to have "the spirit" with them at all times. Of course, this is solidified at age eight with baptism, when they are commanded to receive the Holy Ghost as their constant companion and continues with the rest of the "ordinances."
Women in Mormonism are also defined by their attire.
Their whole wardrobe and their sense of their bodies is determined by the temple garment that is to be worn next to the skin as a protection and placed on her body in a ritual in the temple. It is also seen as a protection against her sexuality being defiled or assaulted in any way. She is told she is to remain chaste and worthy in thought and deed with the temple garment a constant, even Mosaic reminder that she is a daughter of Heavenly Father and this is what is expected of her. Again her sexuality is given a place before her life.
The temple garment, with it's Masonic markings is seen as holy and sacred and is never to be put on the floor or abused in any manner. In fact, discarding of used, and worn garments requires a further ritual as the markings are to be cut out and burned. Then, and only then, can the remaining material (now devoid of their sacred element) be used as rags to clean the floor, or wash the car.
Once dressed in the Holy Garment of the Priesthood, (worn day and and night)- an interesting title, as she has no rank in the priesthood or any right to officiate, only as a servant - she then must make her attire comply with it's restrictions.
That means, every part of her body that is covered by the garment must be covered - modestly. Because the garment comes to the lower thigh or knee, and has a cap sleeve, and is designed to fall several inches above her natural bra line, she is now confined to buying (or in many cases - making) clothing that covers her underwear. She has now become subservient to Heavenly Father - her God, who controls her (and men also) by her underwear, day and night.
There is the underlying message that women (and men) behave according to the clothing they are wearing, so the subtle indoctrinated, imprinted script says that the woman in Mormonism is wearing a holy-sacred reminder to dress modestly, and act accordingly and worthy of the blessings promised her.
*******************
Temple ceremonies -- define the woman's role
The following is how the Washing and Anointing Ceremony was carried out during the times I attended the temple from 1962 to 1990 when it was changed. I have written extensively about these rituals prior to the change, (as have many others) and am happy to know that our fellow human beings will no longer be subjected to this ritual.
Now the tunic is sewed up at the sides, and the naked body is no longer touched and anointed with water and oil. Hopefully, we all had a hand in seeing this ritual discontinued in our efforts to "give back" to humanity, especially our Mormon friends and loved ones.
These are some of my memories of the Washing and Anointing Ceremony in the Temple - beginning in 1962.
(All of these rituals are easily accessed on the Internet, also) I have attended nine temples from 1962 to 1995, eight of them in the US and one in Switzerland, doing hundreds of "sessions" as they are called.
You enter a small stall, and sit on a cold marble type slab. The female temple worker doing the washing and anointing stands behind and to the side of you and starts with the top of the head, the forehead, the eyes, nose, mouth, breast, bowels, legs..etc. She has a little spigot she gets water from that drips slowly.
The oil is done in the same fashion. There are promises given, with each part of the body that is washed-dabbed with water and anointed-dabbed with oil. These have to do with promising the female that she will be a priestess to her husband in the Celestial Kingdom if she is faithful to her covenants. Nothing untoward, or of a sexual nature is done, but it is just very, very ethically and culturally out of order. How anyone can equate that to something spiritual still amazes me.
I can still see the rows of tiny, narrow lockers where we completely undressed and donned the sheet-tunic, carrying our long garments into the little cubical where the old lady awaited me. One of the oddest things about the temple is that the lockers have keys, so in the whispered ambiance of the temple, one of the only sounds heard is the soft jingling of the keys attacked with a safety pin to your clothing..
Now back to the tunic used at that time. It is a true tunic - open at the sides and no seams. To walk in and out of the washing and anointing room, most people hold the sheets together.
I can still see, hear and feel and smell those old women assisting us. They reminded me of a grandma dressed in a white uniform, often with false teeth clacking, chewing a breath mint. I could feel her breath and smell the aroma of the mints as she whispered in my ear reaching under the sheet with those warm, sweaty, damp hands sliding over here and over there, anointing me first with dabs of water from head to toe, then going the same thing with oil.
I can still hear the water trickling from the tiny spigot that she put her hands into to begin the ritual of anointing. I can still hear the sing-song monotone of her memorized washing and anointing dialog.
This ritual is not just a tiny tap on an imaginary dot of the skin. Your body is stroked in a 2" to 3" area in a downward motion over specific areas of your body from your head on down to your legs and onto to your toes. You do not know exactly where they will touch you. You only know the general area. It is very uncomfortable as these women are usually seniors-retirement age of 65 to 75 and their head is outside the sheet. They cannot see where they hands are unless they look under the tunic where the sides are open. They open the sheet on the sides to begin.
Imagine a woman's hand under the sheet (for women-man for men) each time they say a body part, making a sliding motion of about 2" to 3" in some areas, with the four fingers of the right hand over the body part -probably trying to be very careful they do not touch the actual breast-nipple area for women, or the pelvic hair-penis-scrotum area for men when they get to the words that correspond with that part of the body.
Sometimes, I had to stifle a giggle as the old woman inadvertently tickled me and I squirmed. I tried to sit really, really still so she would not slide her wet, warm, oily hand anywhere it ought not to be as her face was averted outside the sheet and she could not see where she had her hands.
Sometimes she slid her hands within inches of my breasts and pubic hair as she slid her hands around in her predetermined and well practiced path. I always hated it and I would shudder when she slide those warm, oily hands down my legs onto my feet. Repeating in sing-song monotone, the blessings associated with the rituals.
When she finished she would help me step into my underwear, while still wearing that sheet tunic, adjusting it properly and sending me out into the dressing area where dozens of other women were coming and going. I was often hugged had the feeling she wanted to kiss me, she was so pleased. I still shudder.
The washings and anointing were only required the first time you go to the temple as these ordinances are done in blocks by people who do only those kinds of sessions as proxy for the dead. They are the first part of the Endowment.
After the washing and anointing ceremony, the initiate dresses in all white clothing from neck to wrist to ankle and follows the group of people all dressed the same, into the Endowment session which follows and includes a video and promises-covenants made which, until April 1990, included hand movements signifying ways in which your life could be taken - cutting throat and disembowelment if you divulged certain parts of the Endowment.
Those, fortunately were removed, along with the Five Points of Fellowship at the Veil which required the initiate to stand embraced with a man (unseen and representing the Lord) behind a curtain-sheet - ear to ear, hand to back knee to knee, etc. to review the covenants made earlier in the ceremony - then the curtain would open and you were led in by your hand to the Celestial Room of the Temple.
If you go through the Temple as proxy for any dead relative (what I often refer to as postmortem conversions) you must do the washing and anointing along with it. Years ago, we did the washing and anointing and the endowment session for the same name all in one evening, sometimes doing two sessions for two deceased people.
The part that is unethical and disrespectful, in my experience is that no one tells the new initiate anything ahead of time. You go along and do what dozens of other people are doing. It is very difficult to leave once you get in the temple. It can be done, I know, I have watched people do it, but it is rare. This is group pressure at it's most intense.
Under no other circumstances would anyone even dare to consider that you would strip naked, put on a shield-tunic, as it is called, and carry your underwear and go into a small room alone with someone you do not know while they whisper memorized, ritual dialog, usually with a breath mint in their mouth, then help dress you by helping you put on the regulation temple garment to be worn day and night.
To even suggest this bazaar, outlandish, absurd act is spiritual reeks of a complete lack of common sense and respect.
It is humiliating. I have never been so mortified in my life. It is a flagrant assault on one's self respect and dignity.
The Mormon church has no policy for full disclosure or they would disclose every single thing about their history, including their finances and their temple ceremonies to anyone who investigates or/or joins.
I maintain if these practices were made public, disclosed ahead of time, very few people would be interested in going to any of their temples. I am sure some would, it's tradition and they won't break with tradition.
Originally, I am told, this was a complete washing and anointing, similar to some other religious customs. There is no redeeming value to it. There is nothing spiritual about putting on a tunic, open at the sides, made from a sheet and carrying your regulation underwear into a little room to have your naked body touched by someone you do not know.
This is an obvious invasion of your complete being and done in a setting with a lot of other people so you go along because the rest are doing it, at least the first time.
You are assured by the members and leaders to believe that there is nothing that can harm you so when you feel violated and invaded, you are stuck with the mental gymnastics of trying to make sense of it.
Somehow, you must make a bizarre experience seem spiritual and good. If you don't the implication is that you do not have the right spirit. Surely it is not the church that is doing bad things, it must be me. So it goes on, around and around in circles. Always making you the one that is at fault, never the church.
The arrogance of Mormonism to assume that they had any right to touch anyone's naked body without full disclosure and full permission is out of the realm of common decency. This is the most despicable, horrid, spiritual abuse of another human being imaginable, but it must be done if they are to get your total submission.
This is the final frontier of breaking down boundaries - your naked body! This is about total submission, control, stripping you down and dressing the surprised, new initiate with physical touching under a flimsy tunic then dressing you!
Once that is accomplished, there is nothing you won't do and it does include giving your life if you divulge certain parts of the temple ceremonies. For this privilege you pay 10% + of your income for your life.
Generally, the women that object most vehemently to a husband changing his beliefs, have gone through this ceremony many times, some of them, hundreds of times. This is, in my observation, the crux of the power that motivates a Mormon female to be completely unable to deal with an apostate husband.)
The genius of the temple, especially the washing and anointing and the endowment is to keep the person totally committed, paying tithing and under their control. And it works.
How does the Mormon church get old Mormon men and women to believe it is a sacred ordinance to touch the naked body of strangers under a sheet with little dabs of water then oil while you sit in a small cubicle?
The only way you get people to do this is through extreme religious teachings: programming, conditioning, and trust and no prior specific information. It must be done while a large group of other people are doing the same thing so it is seen as acceptable in the eyes of the Mormon God.
(Note: even though the "naked touching" part is removed, the power of the initiation is still there.)
The unbelievable part is that the church does such a good job of convincing and programming the new converts and new initiate to the notion that this is spiritual, a higher law, you are special, God wants you to do this - that the members go along with it.
They get thousands of members to go to the temple thousands of times over their lifetime to continue this programming and, yes, what some call-brainwashing. They use a tried and true method. They call it "Building Relationships of Trust" or BRT. Get someone to trust you and they will believe anything you say and do anything you ask of them, especially if they are convinced it will guarantee them a place of honor in the Mormon Celestial Kingdom after they die. What we will do in the name of pleasing the Mormon God!
The interesting thing is that once you stop going to church, stop attending any function, stop reading any of their approved literature, you begin to separate and disconnect and break the code. Some call it blatant cult or cultish activities, although very subtle and well designed to subjugate you to them forever.
If a woman wants her place solidified in the after life with her children and family. she must, at all costs, have a husband that is "worthy" and honors the Holy Priesthood, and will, in the resurrection, call her by her "New Name" given her in the temple at her marriage, into the Celestial Kingdom.
Therein lies the power of years of imprinting, and programming by rote repetition, repeated temple attendance, talks from the "mouthpiece of the Lord" (the leaders) etc., and is the impetus for the disconnect when a Mormon woman is faced with an apostate husband.
______________
Escapee Describes Sex Horrors of Mormon Polygamy
Author: Deconstructor
Her story is very touching. She is an Ex-Mormon hero in my book, for leaving the tight mental grip of the FLDS Church.
Excerpts:
"But even though I hadn't wanted to marry [50 year-old] Merril, didn't love him, let alone like him, I still believed in the FLDS doctrines."
"I thought my husband was the revelation the prophet had received for me. I believed I was destined to bear his children and serve him until he died."
"I also realized the only way to protect myself in my marriage was by remaining of sexual value to him."
"Sex was the only currency I had to spend in my marriage - every polygamist wife knows that."
"A woman who possesses a high sex status with her husband has more power over his other wives."
"If she becomes unattractive to him, she is on dangerous ground - usually winding up as a slave to the dominant wife."
"So although I hated Merril touching me, I knew I had to make myself attractive to him, even though there was no chemistry between us and our sex life was always perfunctory."
"Nevertheless, I did bear him eight children - all of whom were regularly beaten by their father."
"The only way I could stop Merril beating my children was to have sex with him."
"But when my seventh child, Harrison, developed cancer as a baby and was whisked away to hospital, I finally realised that no one in our community cared about him."
"This whole experience was a wake-up call for me. For 32 years I'd been brainwashed into thinking that every person outside the FLDS was evil - but suddenly I saw the only people willing to fight for Harrison's life, and stay at his bedside, were outsiders, the wonderful doctors and nurses who saved his life."
"I secretly started to make plans to flee - from my husband, from the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints and from its leader Warren Jeffs."
"And so, in April 2003, at the age of 35 and with just $20 to my name, I ran away with my eight children."
"I packed my eight children into our van and drove away from the compound, even though my 12-year-old Betty was screaming: 'Mother, you're stealing us. Uncle Warren will come and get us. We don't belong to you, we belong to the prophet.'"
here's the story
Reading her story really puts context to the talks of Brigham Young and other Mormon Church leaders that created these doctrines that the FLDS try so faithfully to follow.
Compare her modern experience with polygamy with what Mormon women felt about it during
the time of the great prophet Brigham Young.
_____________
Author: Christy219
I have a new appreciation for the polygamy doctrine. I have finally come to realize what it is, and how ridiculous the current church members act about it. I was just like them not too long ago...one mention of the word polygamy and I was recoiling, explaining how it is no longer doctrine, and taking it the obligatory step further by saying the LDS church takes a clear stance that polygamy is wrong, etc.
But I realize now that Mormons STILL embrace polygamy. While they all talk about how "horrible" it was and think how glad they are that it is no longer "the word of God," in order to be a faithful Mormon you must fully embrace it. Not only are they taught that they will live in polygamy in the CK FOR ALL ETERNITY, but they are also taught to adhere to the teachings of the prophets.
Suppose in 25 years marriage is 'as you like it.' In other words, gays can marry, and polygamy is okay if you choose it to be. Bottom line, it's legal. So the new prophet reinstates (not institutes) polygamy again. The TBM's MUST believe in it and go along with it. It doesn't matter if this never happens, Mormons need to realize that if it did, they would have to be okay with it or find a new church.
So why they all pretend like polygamy is a thing of the past is a real weird thing to me. They're all subjecting themselves to hell on earth in order to be polygamists in the CK. LOL
____________
For the "regular" Mormon, this would be true
Author: ruthm
The regular Mormon or average Mormon wouldn't have studied anything, or rarely reads the BOM, or anything else. They have no idea what the doctrines of the LDS church are. So for them, the current thing they are being told would be what they believe. But for those who have actually read or studied past "prophets" know that is not the case. There is a deeper doctrine that joe schmo doesn't know, and that the hardcore fanatics don't really share with everyone. It is still a doctrine as long as it is in the D&C, everything that any LDS prophet said is still a doctrine, no matter what the current prophets say, and anyone that is a hardcore member will tell you that.
______________
Mormon Doctrine 101 - D&C 132 is official Cannonized doctrine.
Author: SusieQ#1
It is a continuing part of the current temple sealing/eternal marriage ordinances, performed daily in all of their temples
There is no way it can be considered anything but official church doctrine.
If the average Mormon does not know this, they do not know their own church teachings/doctrine/official scriptures and probably have not read D&C 132!
(Very possible, and probably very likely!):-)
_______________
Author: Use to be Mormon
So, if this is true why can a man "today" be sealed to another woman in the Temple and receive the Everlasting Marriage Covenant? [If the first wife is deceased] Because Mormons do believe in polygamy just not here on earth, only in heaven "the highest degree of heaven the Celestial Kingdom"! The Mormon church can hide behind it's facade about we don't practice polygamy today it was banded over 100 years ago, but the real TRUTH is they DO BELIEVE in polygamy and must accept this practice or be burned to damnation, just like Joseph Smith told Emma in D&C 132!
__________________
So did God and the Prophets divorce their wives?
Author: Deconstructor
According to Joseph Smith and other early LDS Prophets, the law of plural marriage is "everlasting." According to LDS scripture, God and the prophets practiced polygamy. It is the only marriage system in heaven.
So when the church stopped practicing polygamy, did God and the prophets in heaven divorce their wives?
Is God the Father now a monogamist in yonder heaven?
Inspired Church leaders spent decades condemning monogamy as the devil's marriage system - a counterfeit to the celestial way of the Lord.
See here
Did this change? Did the Lord end polygamy in heaven?
Of course not. That's why D&C 132 still LDS scripture.
As Apostle Bruce R. McConkie explained:
"Obviously the holy practice (of polygamy) will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium."
___________________
The long time it took to realize what polygamy really was, and is.
Author: lightfingerlouie
I grew up in a very orthodox family, full of the usual stories about "the Prophet," his greatness, and all he did.
I learned how the Mormons had been badly persecuted, and how everyone who spoke against the church was a "liar." So many liars. So very many liars.
I was told that Joseph Smith had numerous wives. But I was told the sanitized version, with "marriages" that did not involve sex, 14 year old girls, the wives of other men, and a life of lying, cheating, and skulking around from bed to bed.
I was even taught most of the problems were Emma's fault. She was the "weaker vessel," who could not come to terms with the Lord's program. She was so weak, I was taught, she left the fold when Joseph died. Brigham Young said "Joseph will have to go into hell to get her."
Whatever.
On my mission, I was constantly asked about polygamy. I gave the standard answers. I believed them myself. I could not understand it, but it "came from the Lord."
The first sense of just how awful it all was came years after my mission, when I read "The Giant Joshua," Maurine Whipple's novel about early Mormonism and polygamy in St. George. I first learned about the way arrangements were made, and how they were enforced----"blood atonement."
It made me question. I was not taught this. It sounded awful, but it made sense. How else could the stupid and pathetic practice of polygamy be enforced? It had to involve threats.
I have since read the good books about Mormon polygamy. That includes "Under the Banner of Heaven," 'Tell it All," and "Wife No. 19." It hit me very hard. Polygamy, as practiced by Warren Jeffs, is the same kind of polygamy practiced by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It did not change at all. The same methods used by the early church are used now. To make it work, you must remove all freedom from the women. They must become property.
Women were, and are, chattel. Girls are married off young, and assigned to the role of slacking the lust of 50 year old lechers who should be arrested and castrated. They are not patriarchs, they are child molesters. They operate under the guise of the 'holy Priesthood," which is just an excuse to pick and choose the nubile girls. Some sacred authority that is.
The whole damned thing is sick. It is beyond pathetic. But it goes on and on and on. Joseph started it, and it never would go away. It took on a life of its own, and became a huge monster that cannot be controlled. One man's desire for sexual experimentation led to hundreds of ruined lives, child molestation, and a sick, sick theology. How utterly nauseating it is.
I cannot stand to hear Mormons talk about it now. "We will practice it in the Celestial Kingdom," or "It will come back when we are worthy,"
Can't these dopes figure it out? It is not holy, pure, or moral. It is just sick. It has, at least done one thing. It has prevented the Mormon church from ever having a shot at being mainstream. They will never be accepted as a normal faith. The baggage of polygamy will hold them down forever.
____________________
Subject: Top 10 Reasons Smith Likely Had Sex With His Teen Brides
Author: Deconstructor
One of the most common denials regarding Joseph Smith is that he did not intend to have sex with his 14 year-old bride Helen Mar Kimball.
The fact that Joseph Smith married 14 year-old Helen is undisputed by church historians and apologists. That he did so by promising her family salvation is also accepted by Mormons who know church history.
Yet some still try and argue that because there is no physical evidence of sexual relations between Smith and his bride, that the relationship was merely "dynastic" and was not about sex.
No, there is no stained dress or other physical evidence of a sexual relationship. But the history record is pretty clear what Smith's polygamy was all about.
Here are the top ten reasons why I think Joseph Smith intended to have sex with his teen bride, Helen Mar Kimball:
1. According to current LDS scripture, sex was the only reason Joseph Smith was commanded to marry virgins "a hundred fold" in this life. See D&C 132:62-63.
2. Smith received this "Divine Law" to only take virgins, which also exempted him from adultery (a sex sin), during the very same time he married Helen. He married Helen in May of 1843 and wrote D&C 132 a month later!
3. There is no recorded revelation during Joseph Smith's lifetime that he should enter into polygamy for dynastic or any other purpose other than "raising up seed." To those who say Smith married Helen for something other than sex, I ask: "where is the revelation?"
4. In the Book of Mormon the Lord expressly forbids polygamy for any other reason than to "raise up seed." See BoM Jacob 24-30. So a dynastic-only marriage would have violated God's commandemnt.
5. Joseph Smith had sex with his other teen wives, including Fanny Alger, age 16, Sarah Ann Whitney, age 17, Lucy Walker, age 17, and Flora Ann Woodworth, age 16. So why not Helen? (In fact, Smith secretly married Helen in the same month he married Lucy and Flora!)
6. Helen said it was more than just a ceremony. In her own testimony, she wrote "I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it."
7. Joseph Smith did not describe his plural marriages as mere dynastic. He told his close friend and scribe William Clayton that Helen and the other teen girls "were his lawful, wedded wives, according to the celestial order" and "his lawful wives in the sight of Heaven."
8. In Nauvoo, Smith bragged about the pleasure he got from his teen brides, saying one "had given him more pleasure than any girl he had ever enjoyed."
9. Everyone Joseph Smith taught his polygamy doctrine to had sex with their secret brides. None of them thought they were merely dynastic relationships.
10. Those close to Joseph Smith understood he married these women for sex. When Helen's father, Heber C. Kimball, asked Sister Eliza R. Snow the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith, she replied, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that."
So why didn't Helen get pregnant?
It's likely that at age 14, Helen was still not physically mature enough to get pregnant. Girls that age in the 19th century did not start menstruating until age 17 to 19.
See: here
So where is the evidence Smith's plural marriages were about sex?
There is more evidence to suggest that Joseph Smith had sex with his wives than there is that he saw God and Jesus in 1820. If Mormons will believe that story with such weak support, why will they not accept such a strong case for Joseph Smith practicing polygamy as the Lord commanded?
If you read D&C 132 you'll note how it bestows upon Smith the "blessings of Abraham," which, in Mormon theology, was the blessing of endless posterity. The "revelation" goes on to command Smith to "go and do the works of Abraham."
Also, verse 63 gives the *only* reason for Smith to plural marry: "for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment..."
Again, ALL of Smith's statements to those to whom he introduced into polygamy affirmed that the practice was to have sex and children, rather than to care for old widows. Following are several statements from early Mormons which help to explain the concept. Benjamin Johnson was a close follower of Joseph Smith, and the brother of one of Smith's plural wives, Almera Johnson. Benjamin wrote in his journal that Smith had taught:
"The first command was to 'multiply' and the prophet taught us that Dominion and power in the great Future would be commensurate with the number of 'wives children & friends' that we inherit here and that our great mission to earth was to organize a [nucleus] of Heaven to take with us. To the increase of which there would be no end."
Mosiah Hancock, another disciple of Smith, wrote "Bro Joseph said 'the Lord has revealed to me that it is his will that righteous men shall take righteous women even a plurality of wives that a righteous race may be sent forth upon the earth preparatory to the ushering in of the Millenial Reign of our Redeemer---For the Lord has such a high respect for the nobles of his kingdom that he is not willing for them to come through the loins of a careless
people.' "
Another example is from the journal of Helen Tracy, who wrote of a conversation between herself, Lorenzo Snow, and apostle Rudger Clawson:
"The Principle was quite a trial to Sister V. K. [Vilate Kimball, wife of apostle Heber Kimball] but she essayed to submit to it and went and chose two very old maids of quite plain and homely appearance for her husband Bro K[imball] spoke to the Prophet Joseph about it and he said, Bro K that arrangement is of the devil you go and get you a young wife one you can take to your bosom and love and raise children by. A man should choose his own wife and one he can love and get children by." (As quoted in "Prisoner for Polygamy: The Memoirs and Letters of Rudger Clawson," p. 12.)
Brigham Young re-affirmed this doctrine when he preached:
"Birth control----There are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles [bodies], now what is our duty?---To prepare tabernacles for them; to take a course that will not tend to drive those spirits into the families of the wicked, where they will be trained in wickedness, debauchery, and every species of crime. It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can. This is the reason why the doctrine of plurality of wives was revealed, so that the noble spirits which are waiting for tabernacles might be brought forth."
(Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 197.)
Maybe Smith only INTENDED to have sex with Helen?
Perhaps.
As Randy Jordan has pointed out:
"We have no indisputable evidence that Smith had sex with the 14-year-old Helen; but considering Smith's sexual activities with other women, including teenagers, there is no reason to believe that he didn't intend to have sex with Helen and produce children, just as he did with others."
"It was common during the polygamy period for men to go ahead and plural marry desirable pre-pubescent girls in order to secure them into their harems and prevent them from marrying other men. Then when the girl had reached puberty, she would begin having babies. This is likely why Helen, even if she did not have sex with Smith, complained about not being able to socialize like other girls her age: it was her after-the-fact realization that she had been deceived into joining Smith's harem, and thus becoming ineligible to be courted by young, single suitors."
Let's also remember that
a) At the time Smith "plural married" Helen, he had many other women with whom he could have sex with; so he could have kept Helen "in reserve" for the time when she reached puberty, or perhaps when Smith was horny and no other woman happened to be available
b) Smith was killed 13 months after his sealing to Helen, so he simply may not have had the opportunity to consummate their relationship before his death. However, it's a virtual certainty that he would have if he had lived.
The bottom line is that it is futile for Mormon Apologists to argue that Smith's sealing to Helen was "dynastic" or "spiritual" only, in an effort to show that Smith's plural marriages to young girls were proper. Helen's own complaint that she was "deceived" into the sealing, and that she would not have agreed to it if she had known in advance that it was to be anything other than "spiritual," is enough to show the impropriety of Smith's motives and actions.
There's simply no good reason to believe that had he not been killed, Smith would not have had sex with Helen just as he did with his other so-called wives.
Details here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
