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.
Monday, February 15, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
