Censorship and "Milking" in Mormonism.

In my previous post ("A 'Fire Ant' Apostate Speaks") I've related my banning experience on By Common Consent (BCC). John C replied to that post:

Ray,
At BCC, links to anti-mormon sites are not knowingly tolerated. I apologize for the confusion and encourage you, as does chris, to find more appropriate a more appropriate forum.

No thanks. I won't be posting on any Mormon forums or blogs again, and I still intend to avoid anti-Mormon sites where the anger is too much, and reasonable discussions can't occur. Anyway, now that I'm officially anti-Mormon, I might as well wear the label. I really thought I was just honestly expressing my opinions, and I'm not one in the habit of calling a spade a fork.

This was my other reply to John C:

John C,

Thanks for the eye-opener about BCC. I guess I thought it was a more "liberal" forum where people could actually think.

You've confirmed my suspicions from LDS.net, which is why I deleted my account there. It's really sad that so many Mormons have to be protected to maintain faith. I mean, this is really sad, and it doesn't bode well for the future of the Church, nor for those who join the Church, because what it means, essentially, is that investigators and also new converts, will similarly have to be protected to maintain a faith which has a very real future possibility of crumbling to ashes eventually, and you're going to have hoardes and hoardes of angry ex-Mormons on your hands.

Maybe I've been living in Liberal-land for too many years, and when you attain a certain level of knowledge, you can't always visualise how that will impact on others. It was while posting on LDS.Net that I realised I had to with-hold some of my views. I read post after post of glaring "beyond any shadow of doubt" testimonies, from people who were unaware of even some basics in Church History. Suddenly, I gained an insight into "how it all works". And here's how it works: Make no mistake that there some very knowledgeable Mormons who post on LDS.Net. But they restrain themselves too, so as not to offend the breast-feeding Mormons still on mother's milk (even if they've been in the Church 30 years). Now I can understand the point of view that some Mormons don't know about the more controversial aspects of Mormonism, and are "tender in faith". What disturbed me was those "invincible testimonies", which suggest they are not tender in faith. Every ex-Mormon was once a true believer, and many were "beyond a shadow of doubt" believers. So how do the more knowledgeable Mormons remain in the faith? It's simple, they liberalise their views when it comes to the "six impossible things", or "put it on the shelf" or the "too hard at the moment" basket. It's the Spirit that really matters. The Spirit which testifies to the Truth. Consider the following testimony:

After months of study and research I could not deny the truth anymore. I had put it off too long, but was still living the life I had before, and knew that if I became a Mormon I had to give all that up. One day while reading the Book of Mormon, I began to cry and fell to my knees and thanked God for guiding me to the truth. I found out that there was a chapel by my house so I went one Friday to see how Mormons prayed and conducted thier service. I saw that people from all races and colors attended the chapel A man got up and began to bear testimony. When I heard it my eyes filled up with tears because it sounded so beautiful. It was all so strange at first, but seemed so right at the same time. Mormonism is not just a Religion but a way of life.

Okay I cheated, This isn't a Mormon testimony, it's actually a Muslim testimony. Here is the original version:

After months of study and research I could not deny the truth anymore. I had put it off too long, but was still living the life I had before, and knew that if I became a Muslim I had to give all that up. One day while reading the Qur'an, I began to cry and fell to my knees and thanked Allah for guiding me to the truth. I found out that there was a Mosque by my house so I went one Friday to see how Muslims prayed and conducted thier service. I saw that people from all races and colors attended the Mosque. I saw that they took off thier shoes when entering and sat on the carpeted floor. A man got up and began to call the Adthan (call for prayer). When I heard it my eyes filled up with tears because it sounded so beautiful. It was all so strange at first, but seemed so right at the same time. Islam is not just a Religion but a way of life.

Some Mormons might not realise the spiritual impact "the Spirit" has on others in other religions. Islam and Mormonism are doctrinally light years apart, and the Qur'an is nothing like the Book of Mormon, yet these two books can generate powerful spiritual experiences in people. So how do we know which is true? By the Spirit? Remember, the Muslim is just as certain he has found "the truth", as the Mormon is. I have talked to Muslims who have been to Mecca, and to be frank, I can hardly see any difference in conviction to Mormons.

So when some Mormons decide to enter the path of greater knowledge, and read more controversial literature which tests their basic faith, many of them lose faith. Some become angry, and some brought up in the Church feel completely disillusioned and disoriented. Others become "Liahonas", or liberals, but maintain what I would call a "revised testimony", which Professor Martin Marty described as "second naiveté". In other words, history is reinterpreted to suit continuing faith. It's a problem, but the "witness of the Spirit" is greater than any problems. Those who leave the faith because they are unable to tolerate the cognitive dissonance, become known as apostates. And the "milking" of those "tender in the faith" continues. For a brief while early this year, I posted on a Muslim forum as there were one or two threads about Mormonism. I found the spiritual intensity and conviction greater than anything I had encountered on Mormon forums, and the potential to be easily offended. Most of them could not understand how anyone "in their right mind" could believe Mormonism, when Islam was "so obviously the true religion". I saw no point continuing posting there, and I didn't want a death warrant on my head, which I think they call a "fatua", because all reasoning was subjected to Muslim belief. The world and the universe were seen through the eyes of Islam, and there was no other legitimate worldview or belief. This is the phenomenon of True Belief. And now perhaps you may understand why I feel Eric Hoffer, in his classic book, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements is really on to something. I read Hoffer's book back in the 1980s, when I had my own crisis of faith, and I seriously wondered why in all the universe I would be so fortunate to have "the truth", and others who didn't, or rejected it, would have to spend eternity in some lower kingdom, where I would "reign as a God". This seemed grossly unfair. For the last two years of my activity in the Church, I was a liberal believer. During all of my brief returns over the years, I was a liberal believer. For the most part, I found that my Mormon colleagues were just not interested in further reading in controversial literature. Some did, and several also lost their faith, but the majority continued to rely on their spiritual witness. I don't have a problem with those who do, but what concerns me is that too many "milk-fed" Mormons eventually come to a real life-crisis, and too many marriages end in divorce. If you doubt me, just type "ex-Mormon" into your browser and witness the outpouring of disillusionment and anger. Some of it is so bad that I can't post on their forums, because it's depressing. They turn on the Church with as much ferocity as they once believed it.

My argument is that the Church needs to stem this by giving out much more information to potential converts. They should be told from the outset that there are, for example, controversial ideas and debates about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. They should be told that no non-Mormon archaeologist accepts the Book of Mormon as fact, and even a few Mormon archaeologists don't, though some believe that it is. Then let them decide if they want to proceed on faith through to baptism. They are not told this. They are told to "pray about it" and get the "sure knowledge" that it's true. So the innocents and "babes in knowledge" come to a spiritual conviction, just like our Muslim brothers and sisters do.

This is why interacting on Mormon (and Muslim) forums disturbs me. It's like walking on egg shells. People like me who come to believe that much of it is fiction are not welcome on such forums/blogs. That is all the more too patently obvious to me now. I refuse to mollycoddle. If I think the idea that Adam dwelt in a Garden in Missouri 6,000 years ago is twaddle, I will say so. But this is too much for the true believers.

I have often said that faith is a good thing, and I still think it is, and I think that people like Mormons and Muslims are basically good people, but I don't think either religion has anything to gain by "protecting" believers. My friend Chris Smith has given a basic outline Here of one example of how the Church tries to protect its members. If anything threatens faith, or is a potential threat to faith - it will be buried ten feet down. The "spiritual witness" once again prevails. "It's true", so why bring to light anything which is contrary to "the truth", or may potentially damage faith? The spiritual witness overrides everything. Once you know "its true", no argument mounted can dismantle that truth, and people need to be protected from any threats to faith.

In conclusion, I wish all the best to those who choose faith. My time on pro-Mormon forums and blogs is done - you're safe from this apostate!

A "Fire Ant" Apostate Speaks.

To my great amusement my "services" on By Common Consent (BCC) were terminated today. All I could do was laugh in amazement. Actually, I'm still laughing. My blog, it appears, has offended some brittle Mormons. I did say on the title of this blog that I would be "An Equal Opportunity Offender of Everyone". I was getting some "vibes" that I was probably skating on thin ice, but decided to keep posting sparingly. A thread started by Steve Evans, titled "How do we define ourselves online?" was too attractive for me to resist. I had avoided all other threads so as not to upset any TBM apple-carts. I know how sensitive Mormons are to any criticism of their beliefs. This was Steve Evans' opening post:

A wonderful reader writes, regarding the Church’s recent emphasis on online participation, blogging, etc.:
“I am hoping you could post something asking what your audience would suggest to Church PR reps [regarding participation in online fora, whether blogging or commenting], and to the general membership of the church to consider when commenting on media blogs. How should we respond? Where? Why? What should we not say? How do we define ourselves online?”

So, let’s ask!

Silly me. I didn't realise this was "for Mormons only". So like an innocent abroad in Mormon land I offered my bombastic opinion (what's new?):

Can I barge in here as an online observer of commentary on all things Mormon?

1. Don’t be overly defensive. If people aren’t going to believe Mormonism, being defensive isn’t going to change their view.

2. If you want people to respect you, and the Church, then respect them and their personal beliefs.

3. Don’t follow the rules of the correlation committee.

4. Don’t be afraid to say some of your views differ from the orthodox beliefs (if they do).

5. In fact, if you can - be different! Too many Mormon blogs are so predictable, and you know exactly what’s coming next.

I’ve lost interest in the LDS blog commentators at the Washington Post. They read like First Presidency statements, and afraid to say something controversial, or deal with controversies. Blogs that “advertise” Mormonism and look little different than the Church’s official website have no interest for me. Mormon bloggers should deal with the “hard issues”, the difficult questions, because that’s what people want to see. They aren’t all ignorant, and if an LDS blogger even tries to hide, (even by “tactful omission”) the fact that Joseph had at least 33 wives (ie, not what you hear in Church), for example, they’re going to ignore you. I would pay a $million to see an LDS blogger like J. Golden Kimball, but it has to be as natural and spontaneous as he was. Hell Heber, Mormons seem to have a fear of anything even approaching a swear word. Blogging can’t be formal, and it has to be who you are. You might run the real risk of being on a tightrope by expressing your real views (if they differ from “the Brethren”), but that’s how bloggers live, on the edge, by exposing themselves to the world at the real risk of being misunderstood, and even labelled. Real blogging isn’t for the faint-hearted. But anything less than that will be like the “chattering classes”, which we in Oz use to describe academics who only talk to other academics, or “Brights” who only talk to other “Brights”, and perhaps Mormons who only talk to other Mormons. They are up in the clouds and seem to have little practical understanding of what goes on in the real world.

I was trying to be honest and open. Basic message: Most LDS blogs are boring. True. Some, like those at the Washington Post, sound like First Presidency statements. I wrote a criticism of this on Mike Otterson's blog, but it was censored, never saw the light of day. This in spite of the Post policy on blog commentary:

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features. (emphasis added)

Really? So I thought I'd give it a shot. Naive me again!

I suppose I might have hit another sore spot with this comment on BCC:

Mormon bloggers should deal with the “hard issues”, the difficult questions, because that’s what people want to see. They aren’t all ignorant, and if an LDS blogger even tries to hide, (even by “tactful omission”) the fact that Joseph had at least 33 wives (ie, not what you hear in Church), for example, they’re going to ignore you.

Really offensive, isn't it? But the real catch was the fact that I gave a link to my blog, as many posters do when posting on blogs where it offers you the option of linking to your site.

Steve Evans commented, after my above post:

“Can I barge in here as an online observer of commentary on all things Mormon?”

Gee Ray, sure. And the rest of us are…….?

It was then naive me realised I stepped on some toes.

So I replied:

Gee Ray, sure. And the rest of us are…….?

True Believers?

This was when Big Brother J. Stapley (an apostolic-sounding name) stepped in, with three words:

Bye bye, Ray.

No warnings, no private emails, nothing, just - Bang! Gone. Well this is the second time I've been stabbed in the back by a Mormon website. I'll tell you about the other one later.

After I was banned, the insults began. So I couldn't reply, which is what I'm doing now. Immediately after Big Brother Stapley banned me, Steve Evans posted a quote from my website:

re: True Believers, here’s Ray A.’s view on those, and a little background in case BCC readers are curious as to why J. says bye:

The “true believer” is really an unstable person, basing his reality on what he believes, and not on what has genuine merit. Everything in life is gauged on whether it matches up to his Mormon beliefs. This is truly sad. I’m glad I moved on from this “baby story”, and that is all it is. A fundamental view of life boosted my religious mythology, one that you are continually trying to put square pegs into round holes.

Good luck with this. Hopefully one day you’ll explore beyond the parameters of your patently obvious religious mythology, and appreciate the diversity of life in our universe. In that day, your “corner” of truth will be seen for what it is: Self Interest. No more, no less.

I am thankful for the temporary release Mormonism was, and thankful that I no longer have to believe six impossible things before breakfast.

So there's why I got banned, because of the content of THIS blog! Hell Heber, you offered the link option, didn't you? Why should I hide my real thoughts? There are both positive and critical things about Mormonism on this blog, and I did say I'd be offering my personal opinions, which might offend some. Apparently there were more Mollys on BCC than I thought. Well, I guess you live and learn. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, and in this case all that was gained was a valuable lesson - don't disturb sleeping dogs, or you might get bitten! When True Believers meet to talk, don't fart too loud.

Well, I'm pretty philosophical about all of this. Such is life.

Anyway, back to the charade. The insults continued, after I could no longer reply.

One poster commented to Steve Evans (post ban):

Gee, Steve, you get all the best commenters …

To which he replied:

Ardis, if you build it they will come. “They” in this case refers to fire ants and other nuisances, apparently.

Then a poster named "Kaimi" added:

Does this mean that Steve is a Crazy Rasberry Ant driving out the fire ants? This is like Discovery Channel.

She links to a site made to mock me. I won't even bother posting her puerile back-stab.

Oh, these are very brave people, throwing insults knowing I couldn't reply, and the mods on BCC deserve even more praise for allowing it to go on.

Next comment was:

Nah, Kaimi, those are fundamentalist ants: “It’s a very fecund species, with multiple queens,” Mr. Meyers said.

Someone named "Christopher" then made this observation;

Ray A.’s comment posted by Steve in #32 violates his numbers 2 and 5 in his comment #23. That makes me laugh.

I'll comment in much more detail about this later.

He's not referring to my comments on BCC, he's referring to my blog entries. Well, I warned that some of my opinions would offend. But I hadn't posted anything on BCC worse than the comment you see quoted above. I could have avoided giving the link to my blog, but why should I be ashamed of my opinions, or what I write here? Naive me, again. You must not criticise Mormonism, and you must not offer your opinion if it's too critical. No, no way, I wasn't going to be ashamed of what I've written on this blog, and if that's too insensitive for Mormons - tough titties. I'm pretty sure I wasn't insulting on BCC, the real problem is that I'm not a true believer, and I believe there are many myths in Mormonism which I could only, honestly, classify as beilieving "six impossible things before breakfast". (I'll be adding to this list too) Just saying that some Mormon beliefs were "impossible" to believe, offended them, and perhaps quoting Lewis Carroll. And I really do think that True Believers are unstable people, in the Eric Hoffer mould. Should I hide that fact? Hoffer's book is an expose of the mind of the fanatic, be they atheist or religious, even though I don't believe all Mormons are fanatics, and I also believe there are far less true believers in Mormonism than many think. You only need to read Mormon blogs and forums to see the Doubting Thomases come out of the woodwork. Frankly, I think now that as a TBM I was quite unstable. I only began to feel normal when I realised I didn't have to believe all of the Mormon fairy tales. I stayed in the Church because I felt it had other benefits, but by 1987 I could no longer tolerate the atmosphere. One of the reasons was because of the very mentality you see in this banning of mine. This is a snapshot of how the Church really is. My posts still remain on BCC, but the link to this blog has been disabled. Why? Partly because it may be offensive to some, but the real reason is that Mormon true belief is so fragile that what I've written here could be a real threat to some.

Don't worry, Brethren, I haven't returned to Mormonism because of all the positives, which are definitely good in many aspects, I haven't returned because it is really often like trying to believe "six impossible things before breakfast". That's why testimony is as hard to hold "as a moonbeam", according to President Harold B. Lee. You have to perform Gold Medal winning mental gymnastics to believe some of the things I outlined. You have to go totally beyond reason to believe some of those things. I still think myth can be powerful. The problem with Mormon belief is that myth has to become reality to sustain devotion.

Now I'll return to the comment made by Christopher, which I couldn't reply to on BCC after Big Brother cut me off, in all his bravery, and allowed insults to be thrown my way when I couldn't reply. He may have known my history on the net, to be fair, and that I don't suffer fundamentalist fools like him willingly. It could have become quite nasty on BCC, and then my banning would have been justified.

What Christopher is saying here (above) is that I was not respectful of Mormon beliefs. Mind you, I never posted anything on BCC which I felt was disrespectful. It was the link to my blog, now disabled, which caused the offence. Bear in mind that this is the same Church which thinks statements like this are a-okay, and don't need repudiation:

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind....Cain slew his brother. Can might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290).
"In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 2, page 172.)
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)

That slavery will continue, untill there is a people raised up upon the face of the earth who will contend for righteous principles, who will not only beleive in but operate, with every power and faculty given to them to help to esstablish the kingdom of God, to overcome the devil, and drive him from the earth, then will this curse be removed. This was the starting point of slavery. Again after adam, and Eve had pertook of the curse, we find they had two sons Cain and Able, but which was the oldest I cannot positively say; but this I know, Cain was given more to evil practices than Abel, but whether he was the oldest or not matters not to me. Adam was commanded to sacrifise, and offer up his offerings to God, that placed him into the garden of Eden. Through the faith and obedience of Able to his heavenly father, Cain became jealous of him, and he laid a plan to obtain all his flocks; for through his perfect obedience to father he obtained more blessings than Cain; consequently he took it into his heart to put able able of this mortal existance. after the deed was done, the Lord enquired to able, and made Caine own what he had done with him. Now says the grand father I will not distroy the seed of michal and his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. Then Cain's seed will be had in rememberance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off.....Again to the subject before us; as to The men bearing rule; not one of the children of old Cain, have one partical of right to bear Rule in Government affairs from first to last, they have no buisness there. this privilege was taken from them by there own transgressions, and I cannot help it; and should you or I bear rule we ought to do it with dignity and honour before God.

Enough insults? None of it ever repudiated.

More:

Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; we will sommons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick, and all the elders of Isreal, suppose we summons them to apear 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 pertakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the preisthood 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 desstruction, -- 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 untill that curse be removed.

According to Brother Brigham, the modern Church is in apostasy. He could, of course, have been "speaking as a man". We may have a way of discerning this today. Go to your local computer store and buy a CD titled "Speaking as a man". Insert into hard drive, then peruse statements by Church leaders. The "Speaking as a man" CD detects all such statements. It was originally designed by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, who became experts on discerning statements when "speaking as a man".

Brother Brigham also said:

What the Gentiles are doing we are consenting to do. What we are trying to do to day is to make the Negro equal with us in all our privilege. My voice shall be against all the day long. I shall not consent for one moment I will call them a counsel. I say I will not consent for one moment for you to lay a plan to bring a curse upon this people. I shall not be while I am here.

And this classic:

"Why is it, in fact, that we should have a devil? Why did the Lord not kill him long ago? Because he could not do without him. He needed the devil and a great many of those who do his bidding to keep men straight, that we may learn to place our dependence on God, and trust in Him, and to observe his laws and keep his commandments. When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth" (Journal of Discourses 23:336).

Enough insults? I'm not finished yet. I refrained from putting Elder Mark Petersen's comments to open view, even though I've provided a link to it. Here is what Apostle Petersen said, in 1954:

The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a "Nation of Priesthood holders"....

I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace"....

Do you note something familiar in that last bold comment? This is what Apostle Boyd K. Packer said in regard to "intellectuals, feminists, and gays". In 1981. Will Packer's prejudice also afflict future generations of Mormons, just like Brigham Young's has? I think it will. An intellectual doesn't have to be an intellectual, and a feminist doesn't have to be a feminist, but many gay people cannot control their sexual orientation, so this will become the next serious issue. And the question will be, which God would "create" a person with a sexual identity and make up deserving of hellfire? Not the God I believe in!

More of Apostle Petersen's "revelations":

Now let's talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation....

When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation....

Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them.

The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there........

Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, "what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Only here we have the reverse of the thing -- what God hath separated, let not man bring together again."

Insert your "speaking as a man" CD here. Where did Petersen's ideas come from? Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The "Prophet of the Restoration", and his heir to the throne of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Let's go on with Apostle Petersen's comments, which were revered in his day as "gospel truth". The "Negro" shall inherit the Celestial kingdom, but with one important qualification:

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.

Does any of this seem strange? Can any human being read this and not think that anything an apostle says can ever be trusted again? Now you may understand why I lost my faith in the Church leaders in 1985, as explained in my previous posts. They are nothing but religious politicians selling snake oil to the unwary, in some circumstances, as mentioned above.

I'm still following the thread on BCC, and not one Mormon has stood up for me. So much for "free speech". Yea, behold, I think this event may alter my views. All I'm asking for is some kind of justice, but it has become more apparent to me that I cannot count on some common decency from the Mormons on BCC. I still hesitate to judge all Mormons by this, but I have to say I'm mightly disappointed. Not ONE person on that site has defended my right to free speech and expression. And I thought RFM was bad. It is, actually, but I'm seeing the Mormon equivalent here.

I may even have to revise my idea that Mormonism is not a cult. I may have to issue a formal apology to those who have argued that it is.

Now, back to what I promised earlier. I posted on LDS.net, and I felt the "warm fuzzies" interacting with Mormons. I really tried hard not to offend them. As I said, I like religious/spiritual people. But after a while I realised that some of my views could offend "TBMs", and the devoted ignorant of Mormon history. One poster, after bearing his online testimony for post after post, started a thread with this one line question: The Adam-God Theory: what is it?

I have to go with Goethe here: "Nothing is more terrible than ignorance in action."

Anyway, not wanting to offend Mormons who still believe in Three Nephites catching the number 54 bus to the North Pole, which shall eventually melt and the Lost Tribes appear from their frozen Paradise to worship Adam's altar in Missouri, after a conversation with the 2,000 year old John the Beloved en route, to Adam Ondi Ahman, to meet Nephites who practiced Christianity in 600 BC, with Adam himself presiding, the one who brought one of his plural wives to earth for a screwing session which would culminate in a race of reprobates who would be destroyed in a worldwide flood, followed by a rainbow which was a sign that God would never again destroy the earth by flood, only by fire, all revealed by a man with his head in a hat, I decided to give LDS.net a rest. So I politely asked for my account at Fantasyland to be deleted, lest I anger the True Believers. Next thing I know, I'm banned! LOL. I just couldn't stop laughing! I don't recall beng asked to be banned. I still wanted to read the site, and not say anything to disturb the party.

Anyway, to my Mormon "friends", I apologise if I can't believe in insults to a whole race of people, and the patently obvious fantasies you believe in, but must speak my truth. I'm sorry if you feel I've insulted you, and I'll consider an apology when you condider yours to these people. I still prefer you to the militant atheists and angry ex-Mos. But as I toss and turn at 3.30am on Wednesday nights, I often kind of wonder if there isn't something to what people like Richard Dawkins are saying.

God Bless.

A Theory About Mormon Testimony.

“Testimony isn't something you have today, and you are going to have always. A testimony is fragile. It is as hard to hold as a moonbeam. It is something you have to recapture every day of your life.” - President Harold B. Lee,
( Church News, July 15, 1972, 4. )

"Testimony bearing is not preaching. Do not exhort each other; that is not a testimony. Do not tell others how to live. Just tell how you feel inside. That is the testimony. The moment you begin preaching to others, your testimony ended. Just tell us how you feel, what your mind and heart and every fiber of your body tells you. " - The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, Pg.138

"To those of you who feel that you have a firm testimony, remember: a testimony is never static; a testimony can be lost. To keep it alive, it must be fed." - Franklin D. Richards, "Testimony," Ensign, May 1974, 57

"A testimony is a priceless gift from God. But even though a person may receive a witness through the Holy Ghost, there is no guarantee that this testimony will remain steadfast unless the person exerts constant effort to keep that testimony alive. - Elder Henry D. Taylor, Tuesday Afternoon Session, April 6, 1971

In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart. I simply can't build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery and death. - Anne Frank.

Myths which are believed in tend to become true. - George Orwell.



Twinkle, twinkle, little star,

How I wonder what you are!
Up above the world so high,
Like a diamond in the sky!
When the blazing sun is gone,
When he nothing shines upon,
Then you show your little light,
Twinkle, twinkle, all the night.
Then the traveller in the dark,
Thanks you for your tiny spark,
He could not see which way to go,
If you did not twinkle so.
In the dark blue sky you keep,
And often through my curtains peep,
For you never shut your eye,
Till the sun is in the sky.
As your bright and tiny spark,
Lights the traveller in the dark,—
Though I know not what you are,
Twinkle, twinkle, little star.

(English nursery rhyme by Jane Taylor. [1806])
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the ripe old age of about eight years, I became convinced that there is a God. I even remember the moment, playing on the outside lawn of my home with friends, and having this deep mental impression that God exists. I can't even explain how this thought came, but it seemed like more than a thought, because thoughts don't last that long. This was more like a revelation. Something that penetrated more than just a thought, and this moment, more than any other, formed my lifelong belief in God, which I hold to this day (not without some questioning). Similar impressions formed in my mind, when 12 years later I encountered Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. Now at 53, all these years later, these impressions haven't been dimmed by time. I no longer believe that the Book of Mormon is history, but I can never deny the impressions I felt while reading it. I still believe in God, even though I can't understand why any God would allow so much suffering in the world. In this sense I live by intuition that makes logic look like emptiness, and a poor explanation for our brief sojourn on this earth. When you look at things logically, not much makes sense, but the "God factor" allows us to expand possibilities. Maybe it's only a mess to us, but makes perfect sense to God. Without faith, it is impossible to please God, and he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him.

In my mid teens, following my experience years earlier, I wrote this:

I believe I am always divinely guided. I believe I will always take the right turn of the road. I believe God will always make a way, where there is no way.

I still have the original handwritten copy, which is accompanied by other thoughts about life and God. When I became a Mormon, my spiritual fires were rekindled. I once again sensed the God who "spoke" to me when I was about eight. I literally sold all that I possessed, and began to serve this God in my newfound religion. I spent my life savings to go on a "mission for God", and when I returned I only had one suitcase, mostly filled with white shirts, ties, and a couple of conservative suits. These were my only worldly possessions. I guess you could say, I was "led by the Spirit", and I lived by faith. Would I, should I, could I ever forget or deny this? Not at all. When I left my newfound religion 13 years later, I still believed that God was with me, shaping and guiding my destiny. But my "picture" of God broadened, to one that might be considered heresy to the orthodox of my former religion. I came to feel that religion often became a form of Pharisee-ism, a holier-than-thou mentality that Jesus condemned.

Matthew 5:20

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Mormonism, for me, became what one person described as a "top dog" mentality. Top dogs enter the Celestial Kingdom. All others eat the crumbs. I felt that God's thoughts were a little deeper than this. And I felt that all of our religions were only "shadows of the living God", the Creator we only saw through a glass darkly, whose mercy and love was greater than we could comprehend. I wondered about the "unsaved masses", and I could not imagine them being left to perish. No God would do this, at least not one I would want to worship. So I left religion, but I didn't abandon the God of my youthful experiences. I still held the Book of Mormon in high value. Men said that blacks were "cursed", but the Book of Mormon said:

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

And he "remembereth the heathen"? I didn't see this kind of tolerance in "official Mormonism", for want of a better description. And he denieth none that come unto him? Then why were blacks "cursed" by men? Why are gay people made to be pariahs? You know what? I still love the Book of Mormon. And I see the "fingerprints of God" in it. This what "testimony" is. It is a feeling, a sense of what is right, and wrong. It "speaks to the soul". And this is what I think "Mormon testimony" really is. The "details" of contradictory doctrine and historical problems may be massive, but Mormons "hang on" because of testimony, because their hearts were "enlarged" by scriptures like the Book of Mormon. Debates about "ink colours" (the Book of Abraham debate) and frauds hold little interest for me. These people are like scholastic Pharisees, to me anyway, and much of the time they are only out to impress the world with their learning. Mormonism is much more than about "ink colours", and "them and us".

I like Mormons, and I've always said this. I like Christians too, and Muslims, and all the "people of God", because they sense, along with me, that life is more than meat and drink. I'm not keen on "Pharisees" of any nature, and all religions produce this. Because I think God is greater than our thoughts, greater than our ambitions and self-centredness, and our "vain ambition" and prejudices. I think God speaks to all people, but not all listen to him, and one need not be in a specific religion, or any religion to "hear the voice of God", though that might help some. Most human beings want to do good, to contribute to the betterment of the world, and to have spiritual understanding and communion with others. Most human beings are peacemakers, people of good will, but sadly religion sometimes makes them divisive. I reiterate the words of Anne Frank, which I quoted above:

In spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart. I simply can't build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery and death.

I think "Mormon testimony" has a far deeper basis than mere orthodox belief. I think it springs from a spirituality common to all humanity, a "sense of God". That's why the critics of Mormonism are so baffled that most Mormons don't budge in the face of criticism and contradictions, and debates about "ink colours". They see more plusses than minuses, and they feel a great sense of community and acceptance among their brothers and sisters in the gospel, the "people of God".

In spite of having departed from the fold, I don't think any Mormon needs to feel any sense of shame or defensiveness for their religious choice. This is a noble religion, which has produced noble people, who are always trying to better themselves, and sometimes even accommodating to public opinion, even if some stubborn orthodoxies and crass prejudices linger among the more intolerant zealots. I always feel happier and more safe among "the people of God", than I do among the atheist sharks of cynicism, sarcasm, and the reductionism of just about everything, where "nothing is sacred". There is no doubt still much progress to be made, and many prejudices to be off-loaded, but I have faith in individual Mormons of good sense. I close with a quote from a friend of mine, who said: "God is not religious". Whoever we are, and whichever course we take in life, we never need feel that God has abandoned us, because even if you can move mountains, and speak with the tongue of angels, and have not charity (love), you are nothing. NOTHING. And this is the message of just about everyone who has had a near death experience. If in this life you have not learned to love, then you have wasted your life. No matter how religiously devoted you are, make sure you don't miss God's voice of love and tolerance, and not just in your religion, but all religions.

And don't let guilt eat you up. :)

God Bless.

PS: I forgot to add my message to J. Stapley:

Bye Bye Mormonism. As far as I'm concerned, you are now mince meat.

PPS: Stapley has now banned me from viewing some aspects of BCC, and I suspect he may have employed some hackers, or may be one himself. Don't be surprised if this blog disappears from view. I put nothing beyond Stapley and his Mormon mininions of the Council of Fifty. And the more I assess this situation, the more I'm concluding that Mormonism is like Scientology. You won't win, Stapley, I will expose your cult for all it's worth untl the day I die.

What Mormonism Gave Me.

As a young and restless youth just turned 20, I became a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It's probably one of the less bright decisions I made in my life, but it has been a profitable one. I am thankful to Mormonism for so many things. For giving me an education, for making me skeptical and questioning, for giving me so many spiritual insights into life, and the meaning of my life. Most of all, I am thankful for the five beautiful children I love and adore, who would never have been born except for my decision to become a Mormon in February 1975. As fate would have it, that marital union ended in a complete disaster, but the good fruits of it endure. I am an eternal optimist who converted from negativity and gloom and doom. Mormonism gave meaning to my life, something to really live for. Before that I described my condition as "cosmic claustrophobia", a meaningless existence. Mormonism brought me alive again. The power of religious myth rejuvenated my life, although I would not see it as such until many years later. It saved me from despair. And for that, all I can say is: God bless Mormonism.


As an apostate darkened in mind, I still see the ebullient light that penetrated my soul as a true believer. No, this isn't a longing for the past true belief, this is a statement of relief, relief that I walked away from Mormonism a rejuvenated soul, a religion which brought more perspective to my life than any other. A religion which, in effect, made me think about who I am, and where I'm going. A religion that motivated me to seek the best, and reject the worst. Do I think it's true? No truer than all the other religious fables that have motivated people to better conduct. This is why I don't consider it to be a fraud. I stand by the sidelines and watch benighted Mormon souls argue for the fundamentals, fundamentals which, in my opinion, have as much grounding as Aesop's Fables. Hear their distorted reasoning: I believe Mormonism because it stands up to the truth. But if it deviates, or is shown to be false, or the Book of Mormon not historical, I might as well turn anti-Mormon. Nay, I will turn anti-Mormon. Such souls reject any borderlines, it must be absolutely true, or absolutely fraud. I pity them. Because those very defenders of the faith can tomorrow turn enemies of it, because of their black and white worldviews. I marvel at this. You mean, you would turn on the religion that once gave you so much? Only because it doesn't match your version of "reality"? This is where the "true believer" syndrome has given some stomach indigestion. They profess undying love and loyalty, but only conditional. If it's false, you are no longer my brother/sister, I will oppose you. What a crock of toad shit. How false. How FAKE. "I will be your brother as long as we agree in doctrine". This is the downside of Mormonism. It requires absolute loyalty, or absolute opposition. And misguided ex-Mormons are a veritable symptom of this malaise. Can I say again? How FAKE. You will be my friend as long as I agree with you. And ex-Mormons are not exempt from this, because they carry the same black and white mentality, that you either accept or reject Mormonism, and by that determine who friends will be.

The "true believer" is really an unstable person, basing his reality on what he believes, and not on what has genuine merit. Everything in life is gauged on whether it matches up to his Mormon beliefs. This is truly sad. I'm glad I moved on from this "baby story", and that is all it is. A fundamental view of life boosted my religious mythology, one that you are continually trying to put square pegs into round holes.

Good luck with this. Hopefully one day you'll explore beyond the parameters of your patently obvious religious mythology, and appreciate the diversity of life in our universe. In that day, your "corner" of truth will be seen for what it is: Self Interest. No more, no less.

I am thankful for the temporary release Mormonism was, and thankful that I no longer have to believe six impossible things before breakfast.

Should the LDS Church Handbook of Instructions (CHI) be on the Internet?

I have mixed feelings about the recent placement of the LDS Church Handbook of Instructions online by Wikileaks. The CHI has been online/offline for years now, and this is nothing new. Jerald and Sandra Tanner first made it available online, and for a summary of this see Here

Despite this example of the public unpopularity of such moves, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), appears to be following in the Church of Scientology's footsteps, attacking Wikileaks for release a handbook of secret church procedures made for its leaders. According to a report posted on Wikileaks, LDS sued Wikileaks for copyright infringement in an attempt to silence it.

Wikileaks first received its copy of the Church Handbook of Instructions via a URL link. The two-volume work was received from an anonymous whistleblower on April 16. Wikileaks says the leak was significant as, "The book is strictly confidential among the Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka LDS in short form) bishops and stake presidents and it reveals the procedure of handling confidential matters related to tithing payment, excommunication, baptism and doctrine teaching (indoctrination)."

Wikileaks offered the document on the document sharing website Scribd. Scribd now offers this little tidbit on the books, which are no longer available: "This content was removed at the request of copyright agent B. S. Broadbent of the Intellectual Property Division of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

On May 5, the LDS' legal representation contacted the Wikimedia Foundation charging the site with copyright infringement and requesting that the material be removed -- the site complied with the request. No Digital Copyright Millennium Act (DCMA) notice has been filed as of yet.

The material had been released partially online previously in 1999 when Jerald and Sandra Tanner posted part of it. In the case Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, the Church won a controversial injunction from the U.S. court banning the Tanners from releasing the material online. The church eventually dropped their suit when they forced the Tanners to agree to destroy the books.

The LDS has recently been increasingly in the public spotlight due to former Republican presidential candidate front-runner Mitt Romney, an LDS church member, speaking publicly about his beliefs.

Wikileaks, despite the legal action, as of May 13 has refused to remove the book, which is still available from the site. It can be found here for those curious.

The person person claiming to be the source of 1998 CHI being placed online posted this on the web:

I am the original source of the 1998 Church Handbook of Instructions that is now found on the web. After 17 pages of the document were suppressed in the USA, I passed a copy of the document to someone outside the USA who agreed to put it up on a non-USA web server.
The CHI gives all sorts of instructions to bishops and stake presidents, that is, priesthood leaders. Some of these instructions impact women, but there is no position in the LDS Church that allows women to view or possess a copy of the CHI. Yes, of course you can go and maybe get information from your priesthood leader--if he chooses to give that information to you. I thought that was insulting and paternalistic and I thought the CHI should be available to all members of the LDS Church who seek it out. We women are compentent on our own and should be able to read an instruction book that impacts our social and spiritual lives within the LDS Church without the intermediary of a priesthood leader.

I am unrepentant. If someone were to pass me a copy of the most current (2006) edition of the CHI, I'd make that public as well. Information wants to be free. I call on the LDS Church leadership to put the Church Handbook of Instructions on LDS.org and stop this charade. (Emphasis added)

In rebuttal to this, one contributor noted:

I really hope you don't think that your nonsense First Amendment claim has any value. This is as clear of a copyright violation as one can imagine. Freedom of religion does not include the right to publish a church's copyrighted materials. In fact, the First Amendment cuts the exact opposite way: freedom of religion is what allows the church to retain copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property. Your argument is like saying the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee allows me to copy a best-selling novel verbatim. You demean the Constitution of the United States with your errant argument.

If I get a hold of the contents of your hard drive, I'll publish it online under my freedom of speech rights. It is important to the world to know what kind of idiot posts fully copyrighted materials.

TC

A former member also made this point:

I found this document a mere instruction manual, as other religions' ones. Yeah, yeah, the Mormons have several points that differ from other religions, but this ain't useful at all to "expose" one single thing on them.

I was a member of the Church for several years and had a copy of this book.

I was a relatively junior leader within a ward and was given this book upon taking up the role. I have never been asked for the book back since leaving the church.

You will not find anything in the book that is not publicly available on the church website or in church doctrinal books.

As a former bishop who had access to the CHI for several years, I agree with the above comment. I was never asked to return my copy of the CHI either (I threw it out ages ago). There is nothing secretive in the CHI. The Church's pre-1990 temple ceremony has been online for a long time, but this is not copyrighted, because it was written down or recorded by people who had access to the temple. The Church has done nothing to stop this, because legally it can't. The sequestered published material is not taken directly from copyrighted sources, because the Church has never published the temple ceremony.

According to Wikileaks :

3) The attached document is meant for the audience interested to know the inner workings of the LDS Church in terms of how the organization is run in regions by ward bishops and stake presidents in the management of financial and ecclesiastical affairs. The audience may be composed of ex-Mormons, active Mormons and comparative religion students and religion scholars/agnostics/atheists focused on the tenets of the "cult" behaviorial patterns in the governance of a particular organized religion.

Very true, and it could be helpful in gaining an understanding of what Church policies are if you're not inclined to collate it all from various Church and other websites. But the question is: What is the motivation for doing this? To become informed, or to find another reason to attack "the cult"? The latter seems more like the truth. I'm also quite certain that as a bishop I never felt I was implementing "cult teachings", and the CHI was a guide, not something that could never be by-passed in some circumstances.

The article goes on:

6) No urgent event. The purpose of a leaked document intended for the regional church leaders is to provide the truth on how the organized religion is managed internally that report to the higher authority with financial surpluses and ecclesiastical affairs. This will help further the understanding of a religious organization -- founded in America circa 1840 [sic - 1830] -- perceived as a sect and/or a cult.

No, no urgent event, but it looks like being a field day for the conspiracy theorists. The Church has every right to protect its copyrighted materials, and to pursue legal avenues to do so. That doesn't make it a cult, and the comparisons to Scientology are over the top. Some arguments against the Church are just not credible, and this is one of them.

Believing Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast. (More Reflections on Mormonism)

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
Alice in Wonderland.

What I tell you three times is true.
The Hunting of the Snark.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
Through the Looking Glass.

Mormonism is perhaps the most intellectually stimulating religion I've encountered, and proof of that is how it inspired me to read more than I would have, and write more than I would have, had I never become a Mormon. I don't claim to be a good writer, but if you think my present style is even passable, you should have seen it before I began studying Mormonism. There is little question in my mind that Mormonism has generated some profound ideas worthy of much consideration and debate. When the missionaries taught me I was more interested in deeper doctrines I had never heard before, like the idea of God once being a man, and that we too could progress to become Gods ourselves. This idea seemed to have some kind of esoteric appeal, and somehow I vaguely linked it with Von Daniken's idea of God being an astronaut, a book which I read almost ten years earlier, which also generated some ideas worth exploring. In spite of being labelled a "kook", I felt that Von Daniken may have been on to something, in a broader way, in regard to the possible "colonisation" of earth by aliens (later I moved on to a person I felt was far more credible on this subject, Timothy Good, and also Warren Aston, who is an international UFO expert, and a Mormon). Later, when I read Brigham Young's ideas about Adam and Eve being "transplanted" to earth from another planet, I didn't think the basis of this totally absurd, and was certainly more reasonable than Adam and Eve being created out of dust, then woman being formed from one of Adam's ribs. Mormon "thinkers" like Young have been legion, and I give credit to them.

What follows is not meant to be an indictment of Mormons, or Mormon beliefs, but a statement of why I, personally, find it impossible to believe some Mormon doctrines. I will use six examples.


1) God lives near Kolob.

Which God, to how many solar systems/universes? According to Brigham Young, even the Book of Abraham is mythology. From the Abraham 5:

14 And the Gods said: Let us make an help meet for the man, for it is not good that the man should be alone, therefore we will form an help meet for him.
15 And the Gods caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam; and he slept, and they took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in the stead thereof;
16 And of the rib which the Gods had taken from man, formed they a woman, and brought her unto the man.
17 And Adam said: This was bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; now she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man;
18 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.

But of this, Young said:

JD 2:29, October 23, 1853:

Some of you may doubt the truth of what I now say, and argue that the Lord could teach him. This is a mistake. The Lord could not have taught him in any other way than in the way in which He did teach him. You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please-that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.

So Brigham doesn't even believe in the Pearl of Great Price. At this junction one is entitled to ask: What can be taken literally? The six thousand year creation? D&C 77:

6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.
7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?
A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh....12 Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the trumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation?
A. We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judge all things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the preparing of the way before the time of his coming.

Were these "time periods"? Not according to the above, even if this was later understood differently by Joseph Smith, which makes D&C 77 metaphorical. What else is metaphorical?

D&C 19?

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.
6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.
7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.
8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.
9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.
10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—
11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.
12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

This isn't what the Book of Mormon teaches. This is an explanation of what the Book of Mormon means by:

26 For the atonement satisfieth the demands of his justice upon all those who have not the law given to them, that they are delivered from that awful monster, death and hell, and the devil, and the lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment; and they are restored to that God who gave them breath, which is the Holy One of Israel. (2 Ne.26:26)

The "qualifier" about "endless torment" is contained in D&C 19. It's almost as if God is saying, "just kidding".

So where does this leave us with Kolob? Another metaphor? In the whole universe, God sends his only son to earth? An insignificant planet in the rim of the Milky Way galaxy, in an obscure town in Israel 2,000 years ago? Why did he choose Jerusalem/Galilee, on earth, for his "only" child to be born and live, in a universe that seems boundary-less? I'm only throwing questions here, and my main question is: God lives on Kolob? The God of the whole universe? According to Joseph Smith, he chose earth because it was the most wicked of his creations, the only planet which would, essentially - kill God - and only the Jews could do it. This, to me, has a ring of geocentrism. We on earth are the centre of it all, because in all of the universe, we are the only inhabitants who would kill God, thus fulfilling the need for an atonement, presumably a universal atonement.

I've already put my loony ideas about aliens on the table, but from all reports their diversity (physical make up) is astonishing, and we have several millennia of these reports. I don't believe all of them, but I find these reports too persistent, over long periods of time, to entirely dismiss. I have also seen UFOs close up as well, but this is for another time.

According to current astronomical observations, the universe is about 14 billion years old, and 93 billion light years across.








Then there's the theory of multiple universes, or the multiverse, which incorporates the multi-dimensional theory.









The idea that God lives somewhere in this universe, as a glorified man, basically a homo sapiens, seems almost like thinking the earth is flat.



2) Polygamy

Let me get straight to the point here: The Book of Mormon does not teach polygamy in the way D&C 132 teaches it. Some apologists never seem able to get their mind around this one, and are fond of quoting Jacob 2:30

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

That's very different to D&C 132:

3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same.
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory....
29 Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne.
30 Abraham received promises concerning his seed, and of the fruit of his loins—from whose loins ye are, namely, my servant Joseph—which were to continue so long as they were in the world; and as touching Abraham and his seed, out of the world they should continue; both in the world and out of the world should they continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.
31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.
32 Go ye, therefore, and do the works of Abraham; enter ye into my law and ye shall be saved.

However, this covenant wasn't new, it was supposed to go all the way back to Abraham, yet nothing of this is mentioned in the Nephite record. In the Nephite record, this is what is mentioned in Jacob 2:

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

And here is the real result of polygamy:

35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.

Somehow, this becomes justified in D&C 132. The effects are supposed to be "different" if "God commands it". That doesn't stand to reason, or maybe it does in some quirky way, like the Jihadist who believes that killing will get him to Paradise, but without that belief, killing is wrong. The significant factor here is whether or not "God commands it". And as I've said before, Mormon women entered polygamy for one reason, and one reason only: Because they believed that God commanded it. None of them would have willingly volunteered to do this otherwise.

According to Section 84:

13 Esaias also lived in the days of Abraham, and was blessed of him—
14 Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah;
15 And from Noah till Enoch, through the lineage of their fathers;
16 And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man—
17 Which priesthood continueth in the church of God in all generations, and is without beginning of days or end of years.
18 And the Lord confirmed a priesthood also upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations, which priesthood also continueth and abideth forever with the priesthood which is after the holiest order of God.
19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.
20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest.
21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;
22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.
23 Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God;
24 But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory.
25 Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also;
26 And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;
27 Which gospel is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb.

The early Christians would have had this priesthood, including Christ, Paul, and the Apostles, and so would the Nephites, yet polygamy only appears at the time of Joseph Smith. But for more information on this, see this post by Steve Benson

This is not taught in the Church today, and if someone did teach it, they would be excommunicated. Bear in mind that none of this is historical fact, only what early Mormon leaders believed, and taught, to justify the idea of early Christian polygamy so it would harmonise with D&C 132.

Polygamy is not a credible doctrine, and according to the Book of Mormon, it is "an abomination".


3) The Book of Mormon as History.

I've already posted my doubts about the Book of Mormon being history, and I invite you to re-read that Here

I didn't mention Van Hale in that post, a prominent Mormon media personality, who said:

"I'm not persuaded that the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient history." - Van Hale September 18, 2005

For the full context, see Here

My own ideas about this go back to 1994, and if you want to know my own feeling about this, just remove the name Van Hale from the above comment and add mine.


4) The Former Black Ban.

The Church has moved on from this to a significant degree, although racial discrimination problems still remain, and partly because of this former belief. You can read my post on this Here

I wonder too how inspired patriarchs really are, and on this I offer a true personal anecdote. I was born in a country with a significant African population (Trinidad), and very few of us "whiteys" were "untainted" with African blood. In 1976, when I received my patriarchal blessing (PB), I knew of no African-descended ancestors in my line. The patriarch asked me if there was, and I said no, none that I'm aware of. My blessing revealed that I was from Ephraim. However, I had a friend who had his blessing some time later, and although he had whiter skin than mine, he positively knew there were Africans in his genealogy, so he told the patriarch this, and his line was revealed as "Cain". I know this, because he sent me a copy of the blessing. His "mission in life", he was told, was to bring others in the same "predicament" (my term) to the gospel. Two years later the ban was lifted. At the time, none of this struck me as particularly faith-devastating, but I definitely had an uneasy feeling about it. In later years, when doing my family genealogy, I wrote to my brother in Trinidad, and out of interest asked him if we had any African ancestry in our family. His reply was "most definitely", and he eventually provided the name of one of them, going back about three generations. I put this "on the shelf".

The fact is that this idea, especially the (former) idea, that blacks are "inferior", or were "fence-sitters" in the pre-mortal life, much advocated by writers like Bruce McConkie prior to 1978 (and even after!), is possibly one of the worst religious tenets ever manufactured, and the current justifications for it (where they occur) I can only describe as "abominable". I realise that many black people now find a secure spiritual home in Mormonism, and some have even defended the past Prophets, but in my opinion no present spiritual harbour can ever justify what was done in the name of "revelation", and the Church needs to make an apology for this. The present stance for why blacks were denied privileges is "we don't know why". Those who suffered with the "inferiority complex" are hardly likely to take any comfort. I realise there have been some "valiant" blacks who were not bothered by this, but they don't speak for the rest, and God only knows who many blacks rejected Mormonism because of this. I met one on my mission, who hailed from South Africa, and she nearly spat in our faces.

I fully admit that as a true believing Mormon I brushed all of this aside, and never really gave it deeper consideration until much later when I shifted to "liberal" status, and no longer saw it as a "revelation" issue, but a human rights issue.


5) Prophetic Inconsistency.

I don't believe (except as a former "TBM") that the Prophets are infallible, but there is a belief that the Prophet will never lead the Church astray. To that my reply would be a reference to the former Black ban. Do you think the Church will ever openly publish what Apostle Mark Petersen said about Blacks in 1954? No, it won't, because such ideas are now seen for what they are, opinion, misguided opinion. The problem is that many took the opinions of the leaders as gospel. Here is what President Ezra Taft Benson said in his speech, "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophets":

The living prophet has the power of TNT. By that I mean "Today's News Today." God's revelations to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the Ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore the most important prophet so far as you and I are concerned is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing. His will for us. Therefore the most important reading we can do is any of the words of the Prophet each week in the Church Section of the Deseret News, and any words of the Prophet contained each month in our Church magazines. Our marching orders for each six months are found in the General Conference addresses which are printed in the Ensign magazine....
Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to His Prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven't yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate degree in any subject, but as someone said, "A prophet may not have his PhD but he certainly has his LDS." We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you'll be blessed and time will vindicate you....

There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelations of God and reasoning of men--between the prophet and the politician or professor. Said the Prophet Joseph Smith,

"Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire." (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, Vol. 2, p. 173.)

(My emphasis)

This speech, by the way, has been suppressed by the Church. You won't find it in any LDS publication. Why? Well perhaps because the Church leaders felt Ezra Taft Benson wasn't speaking under inspiration at the time (even though his point was that they always do so, even in private statements). But he quoted previous prophetic teachings in this. You must follow the Living Prophet, even if he contradicts what previous prophets have said. I have never believed nor accepted that Mormonism is a cult, but this comes as close to Cult as possible. To the Church's credit, this speech has been buried to all but anti-Mormons. The "checks and balances" worked fine here. It is also noteworthy that one of President Benson's (President of the Quorum of the Twelve) speeches railing against communism, in 1979, was omitted from publication in The Ensign in communist countries, because Church Headquarters felt it would be too offensive to Saints in countries like East Germany. This says a lot for Church committees, but it doesn't say much for what the leaders teach, which they think comes directly from God, and teach this. Lesson: Be wary of anything spoken "in the name of the Lord". And Prophets can be wrong, unless corrected by "Church Committees".



6) The Garden of Eden in America.

Now to the last of my "six impossibles". Was the Garden of Eden in America? According to official revelation, it was.

D&C 117:

8 Is there not room enough on the mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters?

Apologists like Hugh Nibley have tried to explain this by such things as "continental drift", and references to the earth being "divided in the days of Peleg". Anyone who understands continental drift will realise that this occurred over millions of years, not 6,000 years, and even that is a generous time frame given it would have to have occurred in a much shorter time. This is really where religious fantasy takes over. This is where "the American Prophet" sees Adam in America, because it's the "Choice land", and Adam could not have dwelt anywhere else. This is not hearsay, this is official canonised Mormon doctrine.

Need I really say anymore? Do I really need to offer an explanation for the former Jefferson quote I gave? That all religions are built upon mythology. That doesn't mean they have no value. They have much value in regard to human behaviour, as long as we don't have to depend on mythologies as the prime motivation for that behaviour. There is no quid pro quo here. If you are a good person only because you feel you will be "exalted" because of it, while all others suffer eternal damnation - then you are acting purely out of self-interest.

The reason I haven't "dwelt" too much upon this subject is because even apologists seem afraid of touching it with a barge pole. Have they, apart from Nibley? Where? I invite them to do so.

More Thoughts On The Tal Bachman/Randy Keyes Fiasco

The discussions/debate about Tal Bachman's previous meeting with his stake president, Randy Keyes, continues. It, at present, only occupies a very small place on the Internet, but it is of interest to those of us who would like to know the truth about this. The latest development on this comes from a poster called "Nightingale", on Mormon Discussions, and seems to throw more light than previous posts on this contentious subject. I include the full post here, with original emphases retained:

I thought it would be interesting to reprint more of Tal's old posts about his exit from the Mormon Church and his conversation/s with his SP. These are from RfM, posted on Nov 21/22, 2005.

I have included a few of the replies on this thread as they focus on some of the issues that stand out. Even though this is about two years after the meeting (which I believe was in 2003, the year Tal left) and after Tal's talk at the Exmo Foundation Conference in October 05, you can see the same elements in his account and nothing that contradicts anything he has said before or since, as far as I can see and remember. (I believe someone at FAIR blog, for one, is looking for such discrepancies).

Posted by Tal Bachman on RfM – November 21, 2005 (Sorry - long):


Me and My Stake President (since so many have asked)


I mentioned meeting with the stake president in my talk at the conference. I have since received a number of inquiries about this, so I hope it is okay to post something more expansive for the record here. I can't relate all of what was said, but a few things might suffice.

First, I need to say that I really like my (former) stake president. He used to come up to our little branch and sit in on my gospel doctrine lessons, and he always took the time afterward to compliment me nearly until I blushed (which of course made me like him all the more...:P).

When my dad and stepmother renewed their marriage vows (prior to us all figuring this thing out), he officiated, and again took the time to come up and chat. He is the antithesis of the uptight, mindless, power-tripping stake president. He is an unassuming, well-tempered, soft spoken man, and in all sincerity, I will forever be grateful to him for helping me get rid of that terrible, excruciating nausea I had felt for weeks before meeting with him about the church.

In our meeting, as I mentioned during my talk, he admitted that he knew that some of the foundational events of the church had not occurred. He also mentioned among other things the meeting with Pres. Hinckley (in which he says GBH essentially admitted that church history won't stand up to scrutiny), which really meant a lot to me at the time, since I had come to believe Hinckley was exactly that kind of guy, but kept wondering if I’d gone mad seriously thinking that the prophet didn’t believe in the church the way most members did. Hearing his description of Hinckley’s comments immediately made me feel that maybe I wasn’t insane, or possessed by Satan. I actually blurted out, through my tears, “I knew it!”.

He also said he believed that Joseph had acted selfishly in pursuing his plural marriages (ya think?). He went on to make a number of, to me, shocking comments which I don’t think I ever will disclose as long as he wants to stay on as stake president. I mentioned a few while I was posting anonymously, but since I don't anymore, I should probably not.

After my meeting with him, my nausea disappeared, and for the first time in weeks I felt as though I wasn’t being crushed by a gigantic curelom (sorry), and I started laughing. I actually laughed all the way to the pay phone in Sidney, from where I called my wife and related to her the entire surreal meeting. I didn’t at that time realize how devastating this would all be for Tracy, and so for that whole hour or so on the phone with her I felt as light as a feather, and almost proud of myself for figuring the thing out (this would quickly change into self-reproach and stupidity for having it take so long).

Anyway, back to the SP. A couple of weeks after our meeting (after I’d decided I wanted to be released - he had actually encouraged me to stay in my callings even though I knew it was a fraud, if you can believe it), he asked to meet with Tracy and me again (he had in the meantime also met with Tracy and repeated to her many of the things he said to me). He came up to the island where we lived to do so. In this meeting, he seemed very much to backtrack, and took the opportunity to say that if he hadn’t made it clear before, that he really did believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. Since he had said all kinds of very unorthodox things a very short time earlier, including as I said an admission that Joseph had acted selfishly in pursuing sex and that he knew some of his stories weren't true to both Tracy and me in separate meetings, it was hard for both of us not to think, “I wonder what’s changed in the last two weeks. I wonder if rumours have flown about the meeting”. I’d only told my cousin and my sister, but my sister can talk a lot, so maybe this was it. To this day, I don’t know.

After his awkwardly expressed testimony of Joseph Smith’s prophetic status, I said, “Can I ask you a question? What would mean, ‘Joseph wasn’t a prophet’? What would you have to find out to conclude he wasn’t?”. He said, “I don’t know - maybe if he’d killed somebody...”. I said, “Well what about his Nauvoo goon squad, and Porter Rockwell’s attempt on Lilburn Boggs, which, if he didn’t know about beforehand, he seemed to be quite pleased with afterward? Doesn’t that count?” (I didn’t mention the men Joseph killed at Carthage because he did so in self-defence).

At this, he muttered, “Well, I don’t really want to get into this kind of thing...”, so I just let it go.

A little while after that meeting, my dad forwarded on to me an email that the SP had sent to him. In it, he said that he wanted my dad to know that I seemed to have misunderstood some of what he’d said in our initial interview. Actually, no, I hadn’t, in fact I wrote much of it down right after I got home, and neither had my wife, who met with him a few days after I had, and to whom as I said he related pretty much the identical things. No one could have misunderstood what he said that night. As I said, what I think is most likely is that the brief description of the meeting I gave to my sister a couple of days afterward was probably passed on by her, to someone else, and to someone else, and got back to him in altered form. Either that, or one of the many people who emailed me anonymously after I posted a description of my meeting anonymously had emailed him (a few people in private emails asked me what stake I was in), and he'd grown embarrassed. I don't really know.

In any case, I thought I sensed a certain tone in the SP’s email to my dad, one that said, “this could be kind of a problem for me”. I don’t know if I was imagining it, but that’s what I thought. So, feeling a kind of loyalty to him, thinking he was the best guy in the stake to be SP, and figuring he might need some cover, I sent him an email reciting back to him a few things he had said in SUPPORT of his belief in the church (which was also part of the conversation), for example, that he’d had a spiritual experience while working as a golf caddy as a teenager, etc. (As I said, it was a bit of a jumble in the first place). I feel kind of dumb about this now, like I was still protecting a guy in a church which, really, has no reason to be protected, but that's what happened, what can I say (come to think of it, I guess I am still doing this). After sending him this note, I then stayed mum about the whole thing (other than anonymous RFM posts), until I started doing newspaper interviews in Canada a number of months later, obviously, as myself.

One FARMS writer wrote to me once and asked if my SP would consider accurate my description of our meeting. I think definitely if we were in the same room together, he would admit it was. I don’t think he could face me and then deny it. But what he might say when asked by others in private when I’m not there, I don’t know. Truth is, I don’t think he ever had any idea that I might leave the church, or speak on the record about the meeting. I think in his mind, arguing that the truthfulness of foundational church claims is irrelevant since they “make us better husbands and fathers” would be very convincing to me, since that argument had been convincing to him (this in the end was the primary thrust of his remarks - that it was "irrelevant whether this stuff happened or not, since the church helps us").

Needless to say, after some consideration I found this argument unconvincing; and I think if he had known a few things said in our meeting would ever be made public he may not ever have said much of what he did. (Note: He never asked me to keep any of it confidential, and if he had, I think I might just have, no matter what. But he didn't, so here we are.)

I don’t think I had ever heard anything like what I heard from my SP in that first meeting. It seemed to be: “I believe it’s true, but then, I also know that some of this stuff didn't happen - but bottom line is, it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not since it makes me a better person” . He actually said at one point that while Mormonism was “right for (him)”, he admitted that it might not be right for someone else. Obviously, there is no provision for this within Mormon doctrine or scripture: Mormonism is God’s only true way.

But I have since encountered this weird jumble of sentiments a number of times from people still in the church. Usually it comes from males born and raised in the church, who have reached full maturity before realizing that something may be wrong. Honestly, I am now surprised by how prevalent this attitude seems to be. It sometimes seems that all you have to do is scratch ever so slightly against the veneer of chest-thumping, absolute knowledge claims, and all of a sudden you find a kind of broken man underneath saying "well, at least it’s the best thing out there, and we’re happy". Huh?

Anyway, the SP sent me a v