Easy to be Entreated

How atheism has helped me

2010-10-26T17:05:00.000-07:00

In church on Sunday (oh, I should mention that I am talking about my UU church [I haven't been a Mormon for over 4 years]), the sermon got me thinking about how I don't need to be comforted so much anymore. It seems like when I was a believing Mormon, I was so often struggling (trying to feel closer to the Lord, trying to become more valiant and faithful, more assurance from God that he was pleased with me, trying to understand the meaning of my adversities, or understand why God was testing me in a certain way or what he was trying to teach me, wondering why God wasn't helping me more despite me doing all that I could to qualify for his help, struggling with being stretched so thin by all my callings and responsibilities, etc). Due to all my struggling, I was so often delving into the depths of my soul to find comfort (and answers). I prayed so sincerely and often to my Father in Heaven. Occasionally, I would feel close to Him, feel hope through Him and comforted by Him. But, those were but moments in a sea of struggling as outlined above.

When I first quit believing in god, I occasionally missed my "sky daddy", missed the illusion that someone was up there that cared about me and my life and was powerful enough to help, if he would. But, I would remind myself that it had always been just an illusion, that he had never been there even when I was a believer. I had found a way to make it through the hard times then without his help, so I could make it through now without his help as I always had, except this time believing he isn't there.

But, now, I find that I don't struggle very often at all anymore. I don't need to delve into the depths of my being that much anymore. I no longer struggle to feel closer to a Lord because I don't believe he exists anyway. I am no longer trying to become more valiant or faithful. I am no longer seeking the assurance that a god is pleased with me. I no longer try to understand the meaning or purpose of my tough times, because I don't believe there is any purpose or meaning to them. They just are what they are, and I just have to deal with them. Life makes so much more sense when one is no longer searching for divine meaning in them. And it is a relief. There is no lesson God wants me to learn because in all likelihood there is no god. I don't have to wonder why a loving god isn't helping me out. I am no longer stretched too thin by church callings and responsibilities because I am not automatically obligated to serve the church and magnify my priesthood. I get to choose how involved I want to be with no guilt for not being totally active and involved.

It is a huge relief to no longer bear the weight of all that stuff. I didn't even realize how heavy all that was to carry until I took it off. I feel a lot better because of it. I still enjoy feeling what I formerly called the "Spirit". I have gotten to the point where I can pretty much produce those feelings on demand whenever I want to, but I find I don't need to comfort myself that often anymore. Atheism has been good for me and my wife. I understand that it may not be for everyone, but it really works well for us.

I am not atheist because it works for me. I am atheist because I believe that it is very unlikely that a god exists. The fact that it works for me is just a pleasant side-effect.

Where I am politically

2010-08-28T04:11:00.000-07:00

I took a test to measure where I am politically. http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -3.88 (Left leaning on economic issues)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82 (Left leaning on social issues)

I line up with the Dali Lama and close to Ghandi.

Did Brigham Young Teach that Adam is the Biological Father of Jesus?

2010-05-09T07:10:00.000-07:00

Here follows Brigham Young's early "lecture at the veil," excerpted from Elder Nuttall's Journal:

In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth. & putting Michael or Adam upon it. these things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus made while in Jerusalem. This is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. We were once acquainited [acquainted] with the Gods & lived with them but we had the privilige of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in. we did so and forgot all and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned. We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve. how they were formed &c some think he was made like an adobie and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life. for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return" Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. he was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came. on this earth he had lived on an earth similar to ours he had received the Priesthood and the Keys thereof. and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation and was crowned with glory immortality and eternal lives and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness. and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. and Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world. and when this earth was organized by Elohim. Jehovah & Michael who is Adam our common Father. Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of Progression. consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in. and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this Kingdom our earth he came to it. and slept and forgot all and became like an Infant child. it is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve-this should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other Men had the seed within him to propagate his species. but not the Woman. she conceives the seed but she does not produce it. consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. this explains the mystery of Moses's dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. Adam & Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh. bones and sinews. but upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life. Adam was not under transgression until after he partook of the forbidden fruit that was nesesary that they might be together that man might be. the woman was found in trans-gression not the Man- Now in the law of Sacrifice we have the promise of a Savior and man had the privilege and showed forth his obedience by offering of the first fruits of the earth and the firstlings of the flocks- this as a showing that Jesus would come and shed his blood

[Four lines without any writing on them.]

Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is Father Adams first begotten in the spirit World. who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit World. and come in the spirit [glory] to Mary and she conceived for when Adam and Eve got through with their Work in this earth. they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit World from whence they came.
I felt myself much blessed in being permitted to associate with such men and hear such instructions as they savored of life to me-

(Source: Journal of L. John Nuttall; BYU Special Collections; Pres. Brigham Young; delivered in St. George; Wed., Feb. 7, 1877. This was the first draft of the Lecture at the Veil. Brother L. John Nuttall was the private secretary to President Brigham Young until his (Brigham's) death in 1877. He then became the private secretary to President John Taylor (1879-1887) and again to President Wilford Woodruff (1887-1892)

"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken--HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do...When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone.

It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

Now remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost" (Journal of Discourses 1:50-51).

Other quotes

Mormonwiki

This thread is kind of a trial run to see what responses I get and how many quotes are necessary to establish my point. Eventually, I will rewrite this post as a double bind for TBM's. BY taught that one must believe the Adam-God doctrine or be damned. It was taught in conference and in the lecture at the veil by the then president and prophet of the church. If that ain't doctrine, then Mormons are pretty much free to question anything any prophet says no matter what the setting (which is what I want).

However, if then do resign themselves to believing it, then I can show how the later prophets declared it to be false doctrine and did not believe it and warned members against teaching it. So, if you believe Brigham then the later prophets must be damned and have apostacized from the truth. If the later prophets are right, then Brigham was teaching false doctrine, even in the temple, which means prophets can lead the people astray, which means the modern prophets might also lead us astray. Which means we are free to question them as well (which is what I want).

Policies, practices, even commandments can change, but doctrines are truths as they really are, were and will be, and as such can not change. Once a TBM is free to think for themselves and give themselves permission to view prophetic teachings with a skeptical eye, then they will be able to learn the truth about the church.

The Adam-God doctrine is unique in this ability to undermine absolute trust in the prophet's teachings.

We evolved the mechanisms of magical thinking

2009-12-30T04:44:00.000-08:00

Psychology Today has a great article on magical thinking that I think most skeptics would enjoy. Have a look: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200802/magical-thinking

Magical thinking springs up everywhere. Some irrational beliefs (Santa Claus?) are passed on to us. But others we find on our own. Survival requires recognizing patterns—night follows day, berries that color will make you ill. And because missing the obvious often hurts more than seeing the imaginary, our skills at inferring connections are overtuned. No one told Wade Boggs that eating chicken before every single game would help his batting average; he decided that on his own, and no one can argue with his success. We look for patterns because we hate surprises and because we love being in control.

Man's search for meaning

2009-11-14T20:24:00.001-08:00

It wasn't long after I came to believe the Church wasn't true, that I came to believe that in all likelihood, there isn't a god either. The cosmos then lacked the ability to give purpose or meaning. It did not create all that existed for a reason nor with intent. Creation came about by mindless matter/energy simply carrying out the soulless laws of nature.

At first blush, that makes the universe a rather emotionally cold and scary place because no powerful essence is looking out for you. You face the raw elements alone and if something tragic happens no Thing will notice, care, or rescue. The awareness of this and bold confrontation of this is what constitutes existential angst. Many people are so uncomfortable with the thought, that they will not allow their minds to accept or even entertain it. "There must be universal meaning," they protest with nothing to support their declaration other than their own discomfort.

But, why this discomfort? Why this angst? Must it have come from a god; a creator to persuade us He is there? If not, then why or how did nature put it there through evolution? Why does it seem that most animals and young human children never have to confront this angst? Why is it only the burden of adult homo sapiens? Why can't why be as blissfully unaware or unconcerned with the meaning of life? Maybe we need to become unconcerned with it and simply live as others do.

Is this dissatisfaction with meaning a mere side effect of other mental abilities which gave our ancestors an evolutionary advantage? I think so. One of our great abilities is to problem solve. When we solve problems trace back the steps to determine cause and effect of how the problem situation happened. Then as we attempt to come up with solutions, we play out in our minds how what we do might start a chain reaction to our desired end result according to what we know about how things work. We sense a disparity between what is and what we want. Then we give purpose to actions we take and tools we use. Their purpose is to make contributions to help us reach our desired goal. For example, we give a twig purpose when we use it as a tool to get to the termites in a stump. The twig has meaning for us as a termite getting tool.

I believe we humans began to see all things around us as potential tools to help us reach our desired ends. Even other people began to have meaning in our lives when we saw that they could help us get what we want. And then thanks to an ability that does not fully mature until our teen years, we are able to reflect on our selves and see ourselves as objects in the world. Once we can do that, we begin to wonder what purpose we serve and to whom are we a tool. That leads us to the next question, is all of creation a tool in the eyes of a being that could manipulate us all.

Now, organisms have a desire to conserve energy. It gives us an evolutionary advantage as it traditionally took a lot of calories to catch and consume calories, so it is best if you hold onto your calories until you need them to gather additional calories. So, we are lazy. If there is not a purpose behind an action (i.e., shelter, food, sex, etc), then our bodies slow us down and demotivate us. One why our bodies get us to slow down and be demotivated is through depression. When depressed our bodies are telling us whatever we are doing is not working, slow down, think it through, and come up with a better approach or regoal, but you have been wasting energy going down that path. We have learned to look for a purpose for doing something before you do it. If we can't find a purpose, we say, "What's the point?" and then don't bother.

So, let's put it all together. We aquired the ability through evolution to give meaning and purpose to things. We also aquired the ability to see ourselves as objects and wonder whether someone or something might have meaning or purpose for us. We need a reason to act, or else we want to conserve energy. Although we can see the functional reasons were do many survival tasks, we may start to wonder whether survival itself is worth the effort. What's the point?

(I have run out of time to finish. I'll post more later.)

My acceptance of no life after death

2009-11-14T20:20:00.000-08:00

Bonogold wrote:

Well, as my belief in TSCC disintegrated, so did my belief in God. Now there's nothing for me to fall back on when I need comfort from the terrible things I see in the world. I've suddenly become overly emotional, even crying at stupid little things - almost like some kind of separation anxiety. Then a colleague/friend died unexpectedly this week, and I don't know how to cope with all of this. Life seems cruel and pointless. It's one thing to never have believed in God, but it's quite another thing to have one view of existence/the universe for your whole life and turn it upside down all at once. Has anyone else experienced this? Any advice? My life isn't in shambles. I'm actually much happier now in all areas except this one. I don't spend most of my time thinking about these things. It's just that when they do come up, I can't find the comfort I used to find - and I really, really miss that. It's the only reason I ever wish I could believe again.

I think I can relate. I felt the way you did when I first lost belief in the church and god over 3 years ago. Frankly, I've just come to accept it (kind of like accepting the death of a loved one). Time dulls the pain of the injustice of having no day of reckoning. I believe the scales of justice are never balanced and that is just the way it is. I don't believe in karma or an afterlife.

Olivia Newton-John was a guest judge on American Idol a few years ago and she wore a shirt that had a slogan which has since become a favorite of mine. The shirt said, "It is what it is". I try to simply accept what is most likely reality. In a lot of ways I have given up the concept of justice and instead focus on consequences that foster pro-social changes in behavior. I reject the notion that "the scales" can really be balanced anyway regardless of what any judge - human or divine - could do to the offender. The important thing is to try to reduce the likelihood of the offending behavior happening again through consequences, therapy, social skills training, etc. Natural death serves a purpose in that it ultimately prevents a person from ever doing harm again even if the person never has to account for their wrongdoing.

Basically, I am ok with things being what they are. Most of us during childhood came to accept that life isn't fair. Accepting that there in all likelihood is no final day of reckoning is just one step beyond that. I think we can learn to accept that, too.

Importance of Informed Consent in Rituals

2009-11-14T20:16:00.000-08:00

I was part of the "Order of the Arrow" in Scouts growing up and also went through the Mormon temple without knowing in advance what would happen.

I don't like uninformed consent. It is disorienting and scary to not know what is going on or what will happen next or what limits there are to the experience. It puts participants in a psychologically vulnerable state in which they feel pressured to go along and do things they probably would not had they been informed ahead of time. Sure, any participant is free to leave or opt out, just like during a Mormon endowment, but the participant feels intense psychological pressure to conform (and none of the people in charge even have to make a threat). The experience just takes advantage of normal social pressure to conform.

But, after a person does conform, cognitive dissonance kicks in and their minds make them believe that they actually wanted to do it because that is the only reason they can think of for why they did it.Had they been threatened, then they would have that excuse for why they complied, but in the absence of threats, they can't understand why they wouldparticipate in such a humiliating ritual, and so their mind assumes then that they did it because they wanted to. And the more uncomfortable it was, the more they convince themselves they really like it. This is classic cognitive dissonance theory.

These are prime manipulation techniques whether the members putting on the ceremony consciously understand that or not.

Now, as a side note, people go into haunted houses not knowing what to expect, but they do expect the experience will be kept within certain boundaries. They expect to be startled and see gruesome things, but they expect that no real violence will occur. With secret rituals, the initiate has no idea what boundaries exist for the experience. Participants in psychological experiments know that some review board not affiliated with the researchers had to approve the protocol. But, there is no oversight of secret rituals.

Existential Angst

2009-11-14T20:14:00.000-08:00

Existential angst, even reaching to the level of depression, is common among deep thinkers. So, common, that there is even a great literary movement that goes by the name of existentialism with authors like Camus, and works like "Waiting for Godot" and "Rosencrats and Guildenstern are Dead". Perhaps it may give consolation to some that they are not alone in walking this path, for many have struggled with these same issues before them.

Sometimes it is useful to catergorize depression into two types: organic and situational. Organic depression would be caused by severe neuro-chemical implances and often result in psychomotor retardation, loss of energy nearly everyday for an extended period of time, and multiple depressive episodes throughout one's life. Situational depression, on the other hand, may only occur a few times within a person's lifetime, and usually accompany a series of life events (e.g., failures in an important life domain, repeated rejection and loneliness, a seemingly insurmountable problem, etc). Situational depression serves a purpose, it is to inform us that whatever we have been doing isn't working for us, and that we should slow down and re-prioritize our life and re-orient ourselves. Unlike frustration, which simply suggests that we should find another route to our goal; depression suggests that we perhaps give up on that goal and find another way to meet the underlying need our old goal was supposed to meet.

For example, I once knew a man who believed the only way he could feel successful and competent was to be a great salesman. The only problem was, he sucked at being a salesman. His failures led to frustruation and discouragement, but he was able to avoid depression as long as he could come up with a new pathway to use to approach his goal of being a great salesman. New pathways included: reading self-help books, attending seminars, talking to successful salesmen for advice, selling different products, trying new ways to attract customers, etc. But, when he had finally exhausted all the pathways he could think of and still experienced failure, he fell into a deep depression. The thing that finally freed him of his depression was realizing that he did not have to be a great salesman (goal) to feel successful and competent (underlying need). He could feel successful and competent by being a great employee and providing for his family with a steady paycheck. So, he re-goaled and found a new way to meet his underlying needs.

Philsopher King: Your brother had the goal to one day have an eternal family and become a god, etc. His principle pathway to that goal was to be a good Mormon and do all the things good Mormons do. That goal is no longer attainable now that he knows it doesn't exist. There are no more pathways to that goal, so he naturally has become depressed. If he were my client, I'd have him first search for his underlying emotional needs. What does he most crave? To feel: wanted, appreciated, valued, understood, needed, cared for, cared about, important, competent, safe, prepared, worthy, etc? Once he has identified that, I'd help him brainstorm ways to get that need satisfied. All of our emotional needs can be satisfied by either ourselves or by other people. And if it is by other people, there are things we can do to elicit the responses we need from other people.

I'll end by sharing how I found my way out of existential angst. I realized that although my existence has no eternal or cosmic meaning or significance, my existence could have meaning and significance locally, in space and time to the people around me whose lives I touch and influence. My life matters to my wife and kids. If I committed suicide, it would deeply sadden them and disadvantage them in their lives. And I choose to care about their feelings. And although, they, like me, are nothing more than a contained chemical reaction and all the feelings they have are nothing more than a chemical reaction playing itself out, I am a homo sapien and I am content to do what homo sapiens do, care about the feelings of other homo sapiens, even while knowing my "caring" is just a chemical reaction itself. My wife and kids give my life meaning, locally in space and time, no matter how ephemeral. The human mind is the only thing capable of giving meaning and it is also the only thing that craves it. So, I get my need for meaning fulfilled bythe only humans I'll ever know (my contemporaries). It would be convienient to be like the deer who have no need for meaning and blissfully live their lives without it. But, I am a human, so I will do what humans do: live my life, satisfy my needs, experience my emotions, and enjoy my fellow humans.

Did I consider the possibility Holland might be right?

2009-11-14T20:09:00.000-08:00

Someone asked,

Did any of you stop to consider that maybe Jeffery Holland was right and we are among those "who just wished to exit the church" who have to spend the rest of our lives "crawling around, over, or under the Book of Mormon" because it is something that even us apostates can't deny is true?

We're all just being decieved by Satan and we've given up our eternal exaltation and turned our backs on the truth and the faith of our Fathers, for what?

Holland is right that we don't know how the Book of Mormon was written. There is no clear consensus on the most likely scenario as to how the Book of Mormon was likely created. And there are many failed theories.

But, for me it does not matter who or how the book was written. It is enough for me to know that it could not be of ancient American origin. And if it is not ancient American in origin as it claims and as it has to be for the Church to be true, nothing else matters. It doesn't matter if it was written by Spalding and Rigdon or Smith.

I can't answer why Hyrum quoted from the Book of Mormon before his death or why Joseph testified of it to the guards. I have my theories, but I don't know. But, me not knowing the motivations of Joseph and Hyrum should not in itself negate what I already know through hard physical evidence.

The Book of Abraham was the smoking gun for me. It proves Joseph was a fraud and that he was deceitful while producing so-called scripture. The Book of Mormon has so many challenges to its authenticity, there is no question that it was written around the early 1800's in America, not 600BC to 400AD.

In short knowing the mind of Joseph is not necessary in determining whether the Book of Mormon is a fraud.

Happiness is no longer my goal

2009-11-14T20:05:00.000-08:00

I have been having a number of conversations with friends and co-workers lately which have helped me articulate my present views.

As Mormons we were taught that "Men are that they might have joy" and that happiness was the end of our existence and the purpose for which we were created. Since leaving Mormonism and belief in god altogether, I have familiarized myself with a fair number of philosophies of life that are out there.

One great objective in Budhism is to give up attachment and desire, for by so doing one can eliminate suffering. I believe that that works (if one gives up attachment, one will eliminate the personal experience of suffering), but I fundamentally reject the notion that getting rid of personal suffering is good or should be a goal. I don't want to give up desire or attachment, because they are the only way I can feel true closeness and intimacy. I will gladly suffer the risk of pain and loss so that I can enjoy interpersonal warmth and love. Suffering is not all that bad. I have no phobia for pain. It is not that I want more pain in my life, but I accept it as part of life and am willing to experience it if it leaves me open to truly live.

I also find no appeal in the waves of new age movements that have lately come along such as "The Secret" and the works of Tolle. Tolle could be right in his fundamental approach; there is certainly no way to know for sure (I think there is some benefit in at least occasionally attempting to give up one's sense of self), but fundamentally I believe we are biological creatures, and our mental functions and experiences are born of the hardware of our neural circuits and the "software" we pick up from the environment."The Secret" I find just wrong on the face of it. Thinking good thoughts doesn't metaphysically make things happen.

There are a whole host of other religions and philosophies that tell us that we should make more of ourselves - that we should through meditation transcend ourselves and be more/better than the typical human. There is this emphasis that we should be doing more, accomplishing more, growing more, there is so much personal development that we need to get done before we die, we must prepare for whatever comes after death, etc. UGGGHHH & ICCCKKK!

A co-worker asked me the other day how I might live my life differently if I knew I only had two years left to live. He said that would put an urgency in him and rattled off a number of things he would do or attempt to accomplish and how he would spend his time. I thought for a moment and realized I wouldn't do anything different. I am living exactly how I want to at the present time. My immediate family is my main reason for living and I am spending time with them, and if I die, I die. So what? I don't feel that there is anything for me to accomplish, anything I must do or expectation that I must meet.

As far as the Universe is concerned, nothing is expected of me. In a few hundred years my existence will be completely forgotten (if not before then), and in a few billion years, nothing will be left of the organisms that once inhabited the planet earth. The universe really doesn't care if we exist or not, and certainly doesn't care what we do with our lives.

I am content to be a human being, a homo sapien. I do what homo sapiens do. Birch trees do what birch trees do; robins do what robins do; and I do what homo sapiens do. Nothing at the cosmic level is expected of the birch, the robin, and nothing is expected of me. I don't have to be anything or become anything; and I don't have to be happy or reach some meditative state of being (which I think is just a psychological trick anyway - it is not like we are really transcending our brains - our brains are making the experience).

For me, it is relieving to not have anything I have to strive for at the cosmic level. Now, I know I do have expectations for me locally in space and time. My contemporaries expect me to behave a certain way (pro-socially) and provide for myself and family (physically, emotionally, socially, etc). As a human I have needs and wants that I desire to have fulfilled and I work towards satisfying them. I have dreams and goals, but they are my dreams and goals that come with no external pressure to measure up. They weren't goals that were given to me by a deity, pretentious prophet, cosmic entity, or some new age guru who has a misguided confidence that they have THE powerful answer to the purpose of life.

I don't need to be happy; I am content to just be what I am - a human being. I am happy sometimes. I have given myself permission to feel a wide range of emotions, so sometimes I feel angry, sometimes I feel peace, sometimes I feel discouraged, sometimes I feel hopeful, sometimes I feel frustrated, sometimes I experience flow, and on and on.

Now for a tangent. I think emotions are a natural and normal part of being a homo sapien. I don't feel that it is bad or evil or that one is sinning if one experiences a negative emotion. I believe each of the various emotions serve a purpose and gave our ancestors an evolutionary advantage. Most serve to draw our attention to something that needs to be addressed for our well-being. Sometimes, we get stuck in an emotion (like depression or anger) or experience an emotion when the situation doesn't really call for it (an intense phobia of germs). In these cases the emotions may be causing us problems in our lives, and we need psychological help to work through what needs to be taken care of or retrain our emotions to respond differently. I am a masters level psychologist and I do that kind of work.

The FLDS have a saying that they tell the women and girls among them - "Stay sweet" - meaning keep a smile on your face and a cheery disposition and stuff all negative emotions. To most of us that is obviously unhealthy. But, many religions and movements to a lesser extent promote that same message: happiness is the goal and if you are not happy you are not as developed, matured, strong as, good as, enlightened as, accomplished as you should or could be. The message is you need to become like the Buddha, the saints, the gurus, the masters, the transcendent ones, etc. They say, "these people have reached a level of peace, a spiritual plane, an enlightenment that you need to obtain. They have set the example for all to follow." I reject that. Sure it is enjoyable to reach those altered states, as I have done before and do on occasion. But, those states are just another part of the human experience and do not need to be the standard by which everything else is judged.

Look, I acknowledge that for some people, living their lives with those aspirations works for them. I celebrate their humanity and as a good friend support them. I am just saying that for me, I no longer feel expectations from the cosmos or a god. I no longer use happiness as a milestone to mark whether I am measuring up anymore, or being all that I could or should be. I don't look up to transcendental states of consciousness with any special awe or high regard.

I am sometimes asked are Mormons Christian?

2009-11-14T20:03:00.000-08:00

I've heard arguments both for the position that Mormons are Christian and for the position that Mormons aren't Christian. I've read the quotes by Hinckley and others that usually get trotted out in such discussions.

The question really only seems relevant to two groups of people: 1) those who believe Christianity is the only true religion so it really matters if one is a ChristianTM or not; and 2) Mormons who don't want to be thought of as "less than" because they are not thought of as part of the Christian majority. The question might also be relevant to anthropologists/socialogists.

To the anthropologist, when considering all of the different religions that have and do exist (Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism, etc), Mormonism clearly is a product of and fits in the camp of Christianity. Mormonism considers the Bible holy scripture and the word of God and features Christ as a god to be worshipped. Clearly, Mormonism has some unique theology and rituals and as such should not be catergorized within the Roman Catholics, or the Protestants, or the Armenians, Coptic Church, or Eastern Orthodox movements.But, Mormonism still fits in the larger umbrella of Christianity nonetheless.

Now, to many Protestants, those differences in theology in Mormonism are all so important. Since Mormonism doesn't fit into their rather overly strict definition of what a Christian must believe, many Protestants don't consider Mormons Christian. But, many people reject the Protestant definition of Christianity as THE definition of Christianity.

Some Mormon leaders, who wanted to emphasize that Mormonism is different/better than the predominant form of Christianity, have said things that one could interpret as them claiming they are not part of what they believe is the corrupt and apostacized Christian movement. But, most, if not all, would claim that they are the true followers of Christ and therefore the true Christians.

Many modern Mormons consider themselves Christian as they look to Christ as their Savior, Lord, and as the Son of God.

Personally, in a lot of ways, I just don't care. I don't believe either Mormonism or Christianity is true (or any other religion). To me, it is like arguing whether the Pharoah Amenhotep's brand of theology (monotheism) can be classified as part of the ancient Egyptian religion which believed in many gods, or not.

I sometimes think we get too caught up in trying to categorize things as opposed to just appreciating the differences and the similarities for what they are.

Would I have had a crises of faith had I not been Mormon?

2009-11-14T20:01:00.000-08:00

I have often said that I am glad I grew up Mormon, else I might never have figured out that Christianity and the theology in the Bible is not true.

I don't know that I would have investigated the true history of Biblical theology if I had not first had to investigate the true history of the Book of Abraham.

I don't know that I would have ever questioned what I believed were promptings from God or that I communicated with God in my prayers, if I had not first had to question the "promptings I had received from God" that Mormonism was true.

I might have never questioned divine miracles, if I had not had to question priesthood healings.

I might have never had second thoughts about the intense love I felt from God, if I had not learned that those same feelings indicate nothing and are almost certainly created by our own brains.

Mormonism has proven to be a great stepping stone to teach me to investigate thoroughly and critically religion. I am happy with where I am now, and I am not sure I would have gotten here had I not been raised Mormon.

How I stopped thinking about god

2009-11-14T19:56:00.000-08:00

Someone who no longer believes in god wrote this:

In my logical brain I just can't accept a higher power. But when I'm not sitting here thinking about it, random thoughts will come to me subconsciencely about God. Then I have to stop and remind myself that I don't believe in that anymore.

How can I start getting my subconscience to think the way my logic brain does?

I responded by saying: I think it was time more than anything else. I was a habitual pray-er when I believed. So, after I stopped believing, I would occasionally catch myself kneeling before my bed at night or folding my arms and bowing my head before meals. I would remind myself that I don't believe in that anymore. It has been years since I have even thought about praying. In fact, it is so natural not to pray now, I often start eating at my in-laws house when the food is served before the prayer (not intentionally, I would wait out of respect for them but I forget).

Do souls exist?

2009-11-14T19:51:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine named peter_mary had this to say when someone asked if we thought souls exist. Below is what he said and then how I responded.

peter_mary:
I tend to think I don't have a soul (this comes as HUGE suprise to everyone I've offended on my way to Outer Darkness...)

But then, I suppose it's how you define "soul." If we define "soul" as that sense of "self" that allows us to diferentiate ourselves from our surroundings, and that makes us truly unique in the spectrum of human beings, and that retains that sense of unique "selfness" (selfiness?) throughout the course of our lives, then yeah--I have a soul.

But in no way do I consider that soul to be differentiated from ME. In other words, there is no distinction between my body (the fleshy stuff) and my soul (the "selfy stuff). I believe that my sense of self resides in my brain, and that were my brain to be damaged (contrary to popular belief, it has NOT been damaged to date....that I know of) my sense of self could change radially and unalterably.

Furthermore, when I exhale my last breath, and the electrochemical processes in my body shut down, I believe that sense of self will simply cease. I see it as an emergent phenomenon of the manner in which the brain functions, serving us well (as evidenced by the ridiculous degree to which humans have moved into virtually every niche known to mother nature.) Subsequently, when the brain ceases to produce the electrochemical impulses, so, too, do all the associated emergent phenomenon cease.

Strangely, that doesn't bother me in the least.

By the way, I think "selfiness" is a most excellent made-up word.

Ditto! I could not have expressed my opinion on this subject better than peter mary just did for me. Thank you!

I believed in a soul before I delved into graduate studies in psychology. Every "function" we imagine a soul to do is done by the biological brain, from personality, to intelligence, to sense of self, to memory, to processing sensatory input, to whatever. The most convincing evidence of that is the loss ofspecific mental functions due tolocalized brain damage. If we do have a soul, it seems incapable of compensating for the loss of function from brain damage.

I researched Near-death experiences and have become convinced that there is no evidence there of a soul. And I dismiss outright reincarnation stories.

It is not bad if a woman is sexy

2009-11-14T19:46:00.000-08:00

Although a man, I consider myself a feminist. I am for women and for making opportunities for women to be who and what they want to be. I am also for men and for people of all races, and people of all sexual orientations and sexual identities. I am a humanist and want all humans to have opportunities to be who and what they want to be, provided they don't hurt others.

My morality is simple: it is not good to hurt others (sexually, physically, emotionally, mentally, socially, etc). Now, I have a few caveats to that which is not relevant in the current discussion.

I admire and value intelligent and accomplished women. I also admire beautiful and sexy women. I also admire nurturing and supportive women. I can find nothing fundamentally wrong or demeaning about being sexy and beautiful. Appreciating one or another attribute about a woman does not equate to objectifying them. When I recognize a woman as intelligent (or am even turned on by her intelligence), that does not mean I see that woman as nothing more than a brain built for the sole purpose of stimulating me. Similarly, when I recognize a woman as hot (or am even turned on by her hotness), that does not mean I see that woman as nothing more than a hot body built for the sole purpose of arousing me.

Now, I do have a big problem with those who truly objectify women as it gives them permission to invalidate the woman (her feelings, her personhood, her worth, etc). And I believe that is damaging to her.

But, I reject the notion that a woman flaunting her sexiness is by definition demeaning herself.She could be, but it does not necessarily follow that she is. It could be argued that there are women who demean themselves by flaunting their intelligence if they think they would be worthless if not for their intelligence.

The danger comes in thinking that this or that attribute is the only one of worth, and that we or others are worthless without it.

So, I'd suggest we lay off those who celebrate their sexiness. If we don't know them, we don't know whether or not they are demeaning themselves as it depends on what they think about themselves and the meaning they give to what they are doing. Furthermore, we should not think that a woman who flaunts her sexuality is demeaning other woman. It just does not follow. We need to spend more time battling ideas and beliefs than being critical just because we see a portrayl of someone being sexy. The ideas that we need to battle is objectification (that a woman is not a person, but exists only for us), that the only characteristic of worth is sexiness, that if you don't look hot you are worthless.

Integrity

2009-11-14T19:45:00.000-08:00

My wife once told me that one of the things she admired about me most was my integrity. Years later, it was my integrity that led me to leave the church immediately after learning it was not true. And the wonderful thing was my wife was understanding because she knew I was acting on my integrity. She eventually researched the same stuff I did, and left the church with me.

What the Hieroglyph that looks like Obama means

2009-06-07T16:52:00.000-07:00

There are a bunch of kooks on the internet claiming that the Egyptians predicted the dark reign of Obama, and take the hieroglyph that looks like him as proof that he is the anti-Christ. Nonsense like that, which is made out of thin air, bugs the crap out of me. And some people just lap it up only because it is consistent with their biases.

I decided to post this here because due to our learning about the Book of Abraham, a fair number of us learned a bit about Egyptology and how to interpret the products of ancient Egypt.

The following is from here:

In case you all were wondering what the big-eared hieroglyph that Obama joked about today, saying that it looked like him means…It is pronounced like the word “hair” and is commonly spelled “her” by Egyptologists. The hieroglyph often means “because,” or ”on account of.” It’s a standard sign...

A recent correspondence about evidence

2009-02-06T02:12:00.000-08:00

My wife and I left the church 3 years ago. When that happened my wife's brother and I wrote back and forth a little. Mostly me answering his questions about how I account for this or that thing if I no longer believe in God. It was very respectful convo. I wanted him to look at some of the evidence that challenges the validity of the Church, but he said he was too busy with work, grad school, and a young family. The issue dropped.

Fast forward three years. Now my wife's young sister who just started college just announced to the family that she left the Church because she doesn't believe in it. That same brother in law posted a message on his facebook page. You can read it below and my response. They are long, so read it if you want to, skip it if you don't. I didn't do a point by point refutation, because it would come across as a little too aggressive.

This note is prompted by a note posted recently by my sister about her religious choices. She's in college and is soul searching right now. Her decisions are hers to make, like they are for all of us. Her thoughts just prompted some of my own that I wanted to share for her and anyone else interested in thinking about it.

I believe in God. I believe in Christ. I believe He is my Savior. I believe these things because I believe there is more credible evidence to support them than to refute them. Let me warn you now, this is a long post, because it's a first draft. I'll probably try to refine it over time. Nonetheless I wanted to put something out here, even if it is more like a short story than a note.

The scriptures teach of a God who loves His children. Contrary to popular belief, the scriptures actually give us a history of a a God who on the whole, tells people what He wants but then lets them do what they want to do. It's hard to see that sometimes because most of the text in the scriptures are about the exceptions, when his interventions have been significant. However if one considers the number of people on the earth at various times and the amount of time that passes, along with the number of people involved in the events recorded, it seems that the majority of the general public that are discussed in the scriptures (not speaking of the prophets and those who wrote the books, now) had no more evidence than we have now to convince them to believe or disbelieve. There are exceptions, but people throughout scriptural times have found other ways to explain the creation and other things scriptures claim to explain. Their explanations range from their own sets of gods to acceptance of mysteries as unexplainable, to evolution, intelligent design, and other scientific pursuits.

But the scriptures have been here through it all. Did Moses part the Red Sea? Did Jesus walk on water? Did Christ come back from the dead? These books we have make some pretty tall claims. Some believe they are completely true, some believe they're partially true with exaggeration for good story telling, some think they're completely fictional.

The interesting thing about them, though, is that they teach about the spiritual life of a person. According to the scriptures, there is a spirit inside of us. Interestingly enough, this spirit only grows in certain ways. The scriptures teach that as we apply ourselves, and allow ourselves to believe, the spirit grows inside of us and we begin to learn more and grow more. Also interestingly, the scriptures teach that doubt destroys the spiritual growth.

That's a challenge I've always struggled with, because if you believe in something and don't allow yourself to doubt, pretty soon you convince yourself and you become very sure, even though you have no way of confirming that the thing you're sure about is accurate or not. The human mind is capable of a lot of things, and who's to say that those of us who choose to believe are not merely conditioning our minds to think in terms of God and faith, and by so doing, make other paradigms seem unacceptable?

So what if we do doubt? If we tend to think that the scriptures are stories that were made up for us, then what? We find other ways to account for the world around us. We rely on what we have to tell us what we need to know, and either develop an alternative faith and view of the world or become apathetic to the things we cannot see and understand. Many seek ways to achieve enlightenment, to achieve elevation or some other such things that gives extra meaning to life, as an answer to the spirituality offered by a religious faith.

Many thoughtful people have thought about this. Many philosophies have come out. Some claim their philosophies come from higher sources. Perhaps they do. But there's something I've found in my faith that I haven't found a parallel for in all other philosophies and creeds I've considered. There is a personal test.

Now, as stated before, when choosing faith, I think it's only honest to realize that the possibility exists that one is merely deceiving oneself. However, in my life, I've chosen faith because I feel that the scriptures make a solid case for the reality of the miracles they describe, and the preservation of the scriptures has been of utmost priority to a decent sized group of people throughout time--so although men are imperfect and capable of deception, the complete corruption of the scriptures would ultimately require collusion and conspiracy among such a wide range of individuals with such a wide range of motivations that it seems improbable that the miraculous stories contained in them would have been allowed to be lost.

By choosing faith, the scriptures tell me I'll be blessed, and I find that when I read the scriptures or engage in religious discussions, I feel a sense of peace and calm that comes to me distinctly, a sensation that I can separate from other sensations I feel during other activities. As various events occur, the intensity of the sensation varies. Sometimes the sensations I experience trigger thoughts in my mind. When I act on those thoughts, the sensations I feel seem to grow stronger. When I ignore them they fade and go away. I've been around long enough to feel this come and go again and again. I didn't begin to feel these distinct sensations until after I had made an honest, deep, sincere commitment. That commitment was made through many hours of prayer, with many hours of fasting and pleading, as the scriptures describe, seeking to find forgiveness and understanding.

It took me a lot ... I mean a LOT of effort to reach a point where I felt I was not being dishonest to say I really felt this. But now I do. I feel it regularly, and often. It is undeniable to me. Am I deceiving myself? Perhaps. But to me it's impossible to tell because I feel the influence come often before I become consciously aware of a stimulus that according to what I've learned from the scriptures, should cause it. These sensations always become intense and strong when I explore spiritual matters based on the scriptures I've come to accept as being true. They've also come when learning about various principles from various other sources, and I therefore believe that I've found truth in those sources as well. I don't feel it all the time, but I do know it is real, and I believe sincerely that although my actions influence how I feel it, I do not control the sensation myself.

In conjunction with these sensations, I have actually experienced miracles like those described in the scriptures. I've seen a guy who couldn't walk on his leg without toppling receive a blessing, stand up and walk as though nothing were wrong. I've seen weather change in response to prayers. I haven't seen mountains move or people walk on water, but I believe it could happen if necessary. The more I've allowed myself to believe, the more I understand what I read in the scriptures, and the more I relate to the things I read. I feel as though this sensation I experience gives me a new dimension of life to explore, one beyond what I see, hear, taste, smell, touch, or even feel with my emotions. And I feel the scriptures act as a guide book to help me understand this dimension.

This dimension of my life brings me great joy and comfort. It confirms for me the scriptures are reliable. I know and recognize that academically, one can find perceived inconsistencies in the scriptures. However, I also know that academically, one cannot understand the full context in which the scriptures are written. One can try, but without a spiritual dimension of analysis on what is written in the scriptures, I've become convinced that we cannot possibly hope to understand the true meaning of what is contained within those scriptures. For the people who wrote them, I believe, had achieved a certain level of mastery of this spiritual plain of which I speak. As they have written, they were forced to try to put into imperfect words the ideas and concepts they wished to communicate. But just as a picture can be worth 1,000 words, a spiritual idea cannot always be conveyed effectively even with a million words.

Am I deceiving myself? Is this a sense of elevation or enlightenment induced by my own self-delusion based on expectations I have built for myself? Maybe ... But how many people who believe that have themselves harnessed the capability to utilize their 'elevation' to heal a man? Some may say they're out there, but I have yet to see it. Having experienced some tastes of what the Spirit can do for me in my life, I've left doubt behind.

Now I have put a lot of time into studying various forms of history. I have sought out and read a lot of church history and a lot of philosophy, along with many other books and materials. I intend to continue to do so. I've investigated many claims that claimed to debunk the roots of the scriptures that have lead me to experience the spiritual enlightenment. I've not investigated every claim I've come across. But I have investigated many, and as of yet, I still have not found a single one that claims, with any believable basis, that the claims it makes are from God himself. Instead, they are all things written by humankind. They range from scientific studies to journal logs, to direct challenges based on thoroughly documented historical sources. But they all are written by people, and quote sources written by people.

People are imperfect. That is a fact. I am imperfect. I make mistakes. I make terrible mistakes. Sometimes even the people we admire most make significant mistakes. Some who have claimed to be the most divinely inspired of God have made huge, imperfect mistakes. I don't question that. Even if people claim that their writings they claim to come from God are pirated from other sources, and they can quote the sources, it still does not sway me if I feel that sense of spiritual confirmation while studying those things. It's illogical academically, especially if one as an undeniable academic case. But it's just that. An academic case. How can one say that the evidence is not flawed? How can one determine that the claimed original source, in the example given, was not in fact written after the revelation, then given a false publishing date so as to appear to have been the first occurrence of the text? One can call upon testimony of humans, only--humans who have agendas, who are imperfect in their own understandings, humans who may have every good intention but simply are mistaken. They are still human.

So do I put more stock in uncertain philosophies that are in fact claimed to have been conceived by imperfect academic humans who claim to be enlightened? Or do I put more stock in philosophies that are claimed to have been conceived by God, for which I can obtain my own sense and witness, and in fact an incredible life experience while embracing? I carefully choose the latter, while choosing also to remain conscious and aware of disagreeing philosophies, as I do find value in understanding them despite whatever fundamental disagreements I may have with them.

I know many may think me foolish. We have our scientists who tell us how the world and life on it came to be, and claim to discredit the scriptural accounts and evidences of God based on the world itself. But I think it foolish for scientists to pretend to be able to make the claims they do about our history. We have an entire convoluted legal system set up, much of which is centered around trying to understand the recent past. The most reliable sources for telling what happened at a crime scene are records that came from the event -- videos, tapes and memories (witnesses). While forensic science has come a long way in determining what *probably* happened, based solely on evidence (skid marks, DNA samples, etc.), the true sequences of events identified by forensics are still merely a best guess as to what actually happened. Short of more conclusive evidence (such as videos), the claims scientists make with forensics often cannot be proven absolutely. Even in recent times, DNA evidence, which has become considered to be iron-clad evidence, has shown to be completely unreliable in a few cases where human beings are found to have more than one type of DNA in their body.

What ?! But DNA doesn't lie! Well, that statement is based on an *assumption* that has been observed and widely accepted in the scientific world, that each body has a consistent type of DNA throughout their body. That assumption is now being challenged.

Science naturally evolves and changes as new discoveries are made. To believe exclusively in science as truth is to ignore the reality that future discoveries are to be made. Science is good, but it is merely a tool to be used to view the world--and in my opinion, is not reliable enough to become the sole source of information about the world.

I believe there are things science has yet to discover. I believe one major assumption that scientists rely upon is the consistent behavior of matter over time. Radioactive decay is used to estimate ages of objects based on this assumption. But is it a reliable assumption? How can we have any way of determining with any level of certainty that a certain radioactive isotope behaved the same way 1,000 years ago as it does today? Surely the academic mind will say that to question this is absurd. But is it? How can we know? We have no way to test a radioactive isotope IN THAT TIME FRAME. We can speculate, but that's it.

I think scientists have made a lot of unprovable assumptions that they consider absurd for anyone to question. And many embrace their assertions as evidence of truth. And often these same individuals are the ones who will say my faith is delusional and unfounded, who will say I'm ignoring reality. I'm not. I'm simply open to new ways of perceiving reality, and will not deny myself the opportunity to embrace my humanity through a source that claims to have all truth.

We have a source that claims to help us acquire all knowledge and understanding. I think it silly to ignore such a source, especially when the evidence I've experienced confirms it. Why should I choose to ignore Him because a bunch of arrogant humans think it's silly?

With that said, I do value science still, and would gladly lend my expertise to further the investigation of scientists' theories even if they seem to prove philosophies with which I simply don't agree. That's because I support the pursuit of understanding, and that pursuit is valuable in all its forms so long as one doesn't begin to take one's self too seriously.

But when it comes to my life, and my children, I have to make a commitment, a decision. Trust God? Trust man? Well, the evidence I see right now makes me choose God.

I could go on to detail why I've chosen God in the context I have (i.e. in Mormonism) but that's another subject and I've written way more than enough already on this note.

Here was my reply:

I am happy for you that you have a set of beliefs that bring you joy. I used to share those same beliefs and remember exactly the joy I felt when I had those beliefs. I now have a new set of beliefs and continue to feel great joy. I am fine with us having different beliefs. Each person follows the dictates of their own conscience and judgment. What I say here, I say only to communicate my perspective in the spirit of increasing understanding, not to convince. I have stood in shoes very similar to yours. Much of what you have written here could have easily been written by me 4 years ago and before (in fact, I have made many similar statements in my previous writings that I could dig up if need be). I am very familiar with the worldview you present as I shared it up until almost three years ago.

Given what I was aware of at the time, I too felt that there was more credible evidence supporting Mormonism than refuting it, and I couldn't imagine that ever changing. I too felt that it was more important to trust God and his scriptures and the witness of his Spirit, than man and his evidence which could be flawed; and that is exactly what I thought I was doing as a believing Mormon.

I now have reason to feel differently. Does it at all interest you why? The last time we went through this, it was three years ago, both of us were still in grad school and you said that you were too busy to read what I (and Lilly) had read. Now there are three members of your family (who are just as familiar with the potential of human error and bias as you) and yet, even while considering all that you have said here, still are persuaded to feel differently about Mormonism than you.

I am sure that must be puzzling to you. If I (Hueff) know that human evidence might be faulty, why would I ever be persuaded by it to reject the things I thought I knew by the Spirit? Most people never ask me that question and unfortunately many people resolve their puzzlement with assumptions. I have heard that your mom thinks it is because I am prideful. Others of our LDS friends suppose I have committed some sin and denied my beliefs so I wouldn't have to confront my sin and repent. Others think I just got too caught up in my studies of science and forgot my spiritual witnesses or that Satan deceived me. Perhaps most painful to me is when people assume that I somehow duped or manipulated Lilly and I am responsible for stealing her salvation. And you know what the first question your mom asked when Jana told her she no longer believed? It was, "Have you been talking to Hueff and Lilly?" Again as if I am to blame whenever anyone in the family doesn't believe in Mormonism anymore. Lilly and Jana are smart and can think for themselves, and I am not some enemy in the flock picking off family members one by one so that I can destroy your eternal family. I wish people would not assume bad things about me, but ask if my decisions confuse them.

For the record, neither I nor Lilly had anything to do with Jana leaving the Church. Although we were the first ones she told, she did not tell anyone until after she was certain in her own mind because she did not want to be unduly influenced by anyone. And Lilly reached her own conclusions about the Church after her own research and now she knows some details about Joseph's polyandry and other things that I don't even know because she has had the interest and time to read some books that I haven't yet. And, for the record, I am not guilty of some great sin, nor have I forgotten my "spiritual witnesses", or "answered prayers", or "priesthood healings", or any of the scriptures I have memorized or doctrines I used to believe in. I confront them with as much honesty and integrity as I can. Perhaps I am a little prideful (I have always struggled with that), but that is not why I don't believe. And yes, I fully remember 2 Nephi 9:28-29; I now see it as a rather convenient way to dismiss and demonize those who don't believe in the Church anymore.

I'll tell you what I think separates me from my former believing self. I have just learned some things that I did not know before, and I have honestly confronted those things and accepted the implications of them. I don't think I was foolish for believing the way I did. I was just uninformed, and there is no shame in that. Now, there were times when I was still a believing member, when I thought I was informed. If one reads the entire FAIR LDS site, one will get the false sense that one knows all the dirt and still believes. And after talking with great defenders of the faith such as Daniel Peterson and Jeff Lindsey who one suspects knows even more and they still believe, one feels secure that there is nothing to fear from whatever evidence is out there as these men surely know it and still believe. And one will assume that surely the General Authorities know everything and still believe (they even claim to "know"), so all is well in Zion. Besides any evidence that is out there comes from human sources and we all know humans can make errors.

But, then one remembers that everything we have has first been filtered through human minds: the scriptures, the general conference talks, the church sanctioned church history including Joseph's reporting of the first vision, even the meaning and interpretation we give to the experiences we call spiritual were filtered through our own human mind (or at least might be). We can't be sure that anything has come directly from God. So, now the playing field is a little more level. We have things that came through humans that is claimed to be from god and things that came through humans who acknowledge it came through humans. We know that not everything that is claimed to have come from a god actually did, for they contradict each other. We have a human bias to suspect that it is always the other guy's prophet that is mistaken or a liar; it is worth considering that it might be ours. We can so easily point out the flaws and inconsistencies in the other guy's message because we are not forbidden from doubting his message, but we are not allowed to doubt our prophet's message because "faith doesn't work that way". In my opinion, truth is truth and should be able to stand on its own when scrutinized.

Faith is so dangerous because it opens the door to be deceived. How can anyone ever learn that they are on the wrong path unless they allow themselves to doubt? How can scientologists, fundamentalist Mormons, or Muslims begin to fairly consider their religion if they are discouraged from looking at the evidence that might challenge their religions validity? LDS missionaries encourage investigators to doubt whatever religion they are coming from so that they can accept Mormonism. (Mormons don't like to frame it that way, but that is what they are doing. Missionaries are hoping that their investigators will believe in Mormonism and Catholicism both equally and at the same time. They want them to disbelieve, doubt, and reject those parts of Catholicism that don't gel with Mormonism). Shouldn't we be willing to at least fairly examine our own religion and be open to doubting if the situation calls for it? Many Mormons think they have fairly examined their own religion before they have exposed themselves to all the evidence. If one only listens to the defense attorney's case (and only a few distorted rumors of the prosecutor's evidence) then of course one is going to conclude that the defense has the more credible case.

Since one can never know if one has heard all the evidence there is a critical necessity to continue to read info that is critical of whatever your current beliefs are at the time. That is the only way to discover that you are on the wrong course. So, even though I left the Church 3 years ago, I still read things in favor of the Church, just to make sure I didn't miss anything. Alvin may not remember, but he has been confused in the past why I keep GospeLink on my computer even though I don't believe anymore. That is one of the reasons why. Sure, we have to be skeptical of any source. If we are talking about a person's account of events, we have to consider the author's possible bias, faulty memory or perception, etc. But, we also have reasons to believe a person's account, if it is consistent with the accounts given by others who likely did not coordinate testimonies, if it is consistent with collaborating physical evidence, and other things. But, there are many types of evidence besides testimony. Sure, anyone has a chance of being faulty, but they also have a chance of being right and when the evidence mounts up and it begins to paint a consistent picture, you are more likely to be right trusting what that evidence is showing than picking the position that is the direct opposite.

Tony, you now have three family members who have looked at the evidence that I don't believe you have fully examined or become acquainted with, yet (correct me if I'm wrong). We all believe there really is something to it (even after making considerations for human error, etc). I have stood in shoes very similar to yours and believed very similarly to you before I examined this evidence. It might be worth taking a look at it and at least consider it for yourself. You may not come to the same conclusion, but you may at least want to know what is out there. If you stay in the Church, you are likely to hold many leadership callings and be placed in a situation in which you will need to counsel those who have confronted and wrestled with this evidence. You might want to be familiar with it if for no other reason than to be better able to counsel those people. Simply claiming that the evidence might be faulty and we should trust God instead of man isn't going to help much or answer the serious questions posed by what is out there.

If you decide to really investigate this, you will need to read some books written by non-believers to get the full picture. Be as skeptical as you want and run all of their cross references, but don't ignore them or you will never get exposed to all the evidence, because faith promoting sources and apologist sites don't talk about things they don't have a good response for. Just consider, a Scientologist might never learn of the challenging evidence against his religion if he would not read anything written by a non-believer.

Now, some original sources you will not be able to get your hands on because they are locked up in the Church Archives which are now closed to the public. They used to be wide open to the public and BYU historians (such as D. Michael Quinn) used to love digging through them and researching, but once they started publishing their findings and their findings were not flattering of the Church, they started limiting access to them. But, many of the original sources are available, even online, through church approved venues or at least believing members' websites.

If you decide to start an investigation, I recommend starting with the FAIR LDS site. It is a pro-LDS apologetic site, so you will feel safe and comfortable there. They admit to a number of challenging things so you will at least know that the issues are legitimate, not just made up anti lies. Since they are an apologetic site, they of course give their spin on things to try to preserve the faith of those who are questioning. I am basically encouraging you to hear the defense's argument first. After you have read much of what is there (or whatever interests you) you might even feel stronger in your faith than before because you will think that you have now faced a lot of the difficult stuff with your faith in tact. But, don't stop there, for you have done nothing but hear the defense's argument. But, after you've done that (if you do it at all and no matter how long it takes) let me know and then I'll point you to some other things, if you want. Again, I am not trying to convince you, just expose you to some things so that you can begin to understand why Lilly and I don't believe in Mormonism anymore. (You'd have to ask Jana why she doesn't believe anymore if you want to understand her).

Your brother-in-law,

Hueff

Why the Issue of Blacks and the Priesthood Is Still Relevant

2009-01-30T03:24:00.000-08:00

The following comes from a conversation on PostMo:

Daniel Defoe:

"The racism in the church lasted a really long time, from Brigham Youngs presidency through the early 1970's"

While it is quite true that early members, and even modern ones, were racist, the same thing could be said about the american founders. Are you going to leave america because the early leaders were more racist than Brigham Young (Thomas Jefferson had 175 human beings as property as he wrote 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness', by 1822 he owned 267 slaves).

Remember gab92 said:

I know it is in the past but it bothers me that they don't accept it as one of Brigham Young's many human mistakes and one of his prejudices.

And therein lies the problem. America has acknowledged that its racists laws were a mistake. The LDS Church has not. Racist doctrines are still in the Book of Mormon, which they claim is still the Word of God.

You see the Church tries to paint this picture that it is led by God and the practices of the Church are led by God. If they were to admit that the Church was wrong about denying blacks the priesthood and temple sealing ceremonies and everything else, they would undermine the idea that the policies they set in place are god's policies. That would free the members to think for themselves and question the Brethern.

How might that play out? Some might then say, "Hey they were wrong about blacks and the priesthood, so they might also be wrong about gays now." Every decision, policy and doctrine could then be questioned. The Church would be vastly different then. Some members question the Brethren now, but are seen as on the high road to apostacy, but if the Church admitted it was wrong, then it would not be out of line to think they might be wrong again.

So, this blacks and the priesthood issue that is supposedly "in the past" continues to impact the present in a very significant way, and that is why it matters.

Evolution

2009-01-24T02:54:00.000-08:00

Yes, I believe in evolution. I am often surprised by how little my fellow Americans know about it. I mean they all had to take Biology in school, but apparently many were taught by teachers who themselves did not believe in evolution and so de-emphasized the material they were supposed to teach. Many people remain willfully ignorant and will not educate themselves. The evidence is all out there and the reasoning is so easy to follow, but people would rather listen to their religious leaders who hold fast to ancient views of the world. You know, humanity has learned a few things over the past 2,000 years, but you wouldn't know it by listening to the evangelicals.

Here are some links:

PBS site on Evolution

Understanding Evolution

Evolution Exhibit

Intelligent Designers want the public to think there is all this evidence that challenges the validity of evolution by natural selection (like irreducible complexity, for instance how could the eye develop when primitive forms of the eye would give the organism no survival advantage). But, it is simply not true, primitive eyes would give survival advantage, as has been demonstrated by many scientists since. IDer's misinformation is only persuasive to the uninformed.

I Really Did Truly Believe

2009-01-24T02:53:00.000-08:00

I absolutely truly believed "with every fiber of my being". People often try to negate a person's "loss of testimony" by saying that "they never really had a testimony in the first place". They say this because it is less threatening to them. They think to themselves, "I could never fall like that person because my testimony is too strong".

Anyone who ever knew me before my apostasy would have to confess that I really did believe probably more than most members, so if I could come to believe it is all false now, then that should shake them that there really might be something to what I claim to have learned about the Church.

Skeptical of Near-Death-Experiences

2009-01-21T03:43:00.000-08:00

There are hundreds of articles online illustrating problems with NDE's and alternative explanations for them. But, I wanted to highlight a copy, the first of which I always have the hardest time finding when I am looking for it and the information it contains is rather unique as far as I can tell:

You have to read this article: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html

Even if we disregard the overwhelming evidence for the dependence of consciousness on the brain, there remains strong evidence from reports of near-death experiences themselves that NDEs are not glimpses of an afterlife. This evidence includes:

(1) discrepancies between what is seen in the out-of-body component of an NDE and what's actually happening in the physical world;

(2) bodily sensations incorporated into the NDE, either as they are or experienced as NDE imagery;

(3) encountering living persons during NDEs;

(4) the greater variety of differences than similarities between different NDEs, where specific details of NDEs generally conform to cultural expectation;

(5) the typical randomness or insignificance of the memories retrieved during those few NDEs that include a life review;

(6) NDEs where the experiencer makes a decision not to return to life by crossing a barrier or threshold viewed as a 'point of no return,' but is restored to life anyway;

(7) hallucinatory imagery in NDEs, including encounters with mythological creatures and fictional characters; and

(8) the failure of predictions in those instances in which experiencers report seeing future events during NDEs or gaining psychic abilities after them.

And here are two more good articles:

Near Death Experiences & the Medical Literature by Mark Crislip

NDEs Redux Skeptics need to reclaim, redefine & embrace Near Death Experiences by Sebastian Dieguez

OK, one last article on Out of Body Experiences

The Most Influential Factor That Led Me To Leave

2009-01-19T07:48:00.000-08:00

The following came from a thread on PostMormon:

Hiram:

While we may disagree regarding some topics, I am interested to hear what the most influential factor was that led you to leave the church.

I'm not interested in changing your belief system or world view or arguing doctrines, I just want to respectfully hear the points of view of anybody willing to share them.

Hiram, your post makes me very happy. I rejoice whenever I see a person earnestly inviting others to share things that currently go against what that person believes. It is a hallmark of maturity and wisdom when we invite those kind of dialogues, for that is how we set the stage to learn. We listen and consider. It doesn't mean that we will necessarily give up our beliefs, but we will be better for at least having considered and weighed another's point of view. We might even find that we did not know as much as we thought we knew and in light of the new info must change our thinking on the matter. I once wrote a post on the critical necessity of reading articles critical of your current beliefs - it is as important for non-believing postMormons as it is for TBM's. I invite you to not make this post a one time thing, but continue to seek out opposing view.

Now, on to your question. Occasionally, polls are conducted on the forum to ascertain what the final straw was for each of us. Here is a link to one such poll. As you will notice, the Book of Abraham topped the list, followed by the Book of Mormon. The Book of Abraham was my personal coup de grace as well. First, let me tell you a little about myself. I once was an uber-TBM. I went to BYU, taught at the MTC for almost 3 years, was 2nd Counselor in two Bishoprics, and was an amateur apologist for the church resolving people's concerns with Mormonism both online and in person. Members looked up to me as someone very knowledgeable in the gospel and very spiritual. I knew most of the issues that can concern Mormons about their history and the standard apologetic responses, from Joseph's peep stone money digging to polyandry and Joseph's marrying his own teenage foster daughters to Masonic origins of temple signs and tokens, etc.

The apologist actually has an easy job. His is not to prove the Church is true. All he needs to do is demonstrate that the critics' evidence is not sufficient to prove the Church is not true - that there is some possibility that the Church might be true despite all of this challenging evidence. If the possibility remains, then it falls on each individual to exercise faith in that possibility that the Church is true and receive a witness of the Spirit that it is true, etc. The apologist is not concerned with what is most likely to be true (probable), only with maintaining that the Church might still be true (possible). That approach works very well in maintaining one's faith. One can find all sorts of ways to twist and adjust one's understanding of what it means to be a prophet to make it work. We PostMormons call that mental gymnastics.

Then, I had a friend whose mother left the Church and had supposedly become "anti". That friend wanted to save her and show her the error of her ways. He began studying what she had read so that he could counter her arguments, but he ended up being convinced himself that the Church wasn't true. Well, as an amateur apologist, I felt that I had been around the block a few times because "I had heard it all before". I thought I might be able to show him why whatever he had read did not prove the Church wasn't true. We discussed many issues from Blood Atonement to Adam-God doctrine to Danites to Masons, etc. But, then we got to the Book of Abraham. Now, I thought I knew all about the Book of Abraham issues, that it wasn't an actual translation of the rediscovered papyri, etc. But, my friend did bring up some things I had not heard of before, like the penciled in drawing of a priest in facsimile #1 where Anubis was supposed to be. I didn't really understand the significance at the time, I let it go and "shelved the issue" as we say around here. I never made any progress with reconverting my friend and figured he was just hopelessly lost, having no faith.

Anyway, two years later, something someone said on one of the apologist websites renewed the issue of the Book of Abraham in my mind. This time I determined I would get to the bottom of it so that next time I came across someone with Book of Abraham concerns I could intelligently resolve them. This launched a six month long investigation. I read everything critical, apologetic, and original sources. I took no one's word for anything. If I read an article in which the author claimed anachronisms, I read books on Egyptology until I knew for myself that yes, the land of Egypt got its name from the Greeks, not from the character Egyptus as the Book of Abraham claims. I read the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, including Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, I read Ritner's actual translation of the recovered papyri, I have seen high quality copies of the papyri, read the writings of Hugh Nibley, Jeff Lindsey, Kerry Shirts, John Gee, Daniel Petersen, etc, John Larsen, Kevin Mathie, John Day, etc, I have learned a lot about the ancient Egyptian religion, including Breathing Permits, Anubis, Osiris, Book of the Dead, etc. My knowledge of this Book of Abraham issue approaches that of an expert.

I began with the eye of an apologist, looking for any interpretation I could find that would still leave the possibility open that Joseph was still a prophet, seer, revelator, and translator. I, of course, encountered numerous apologetic explanations, but I eventually had to reject them all, for they were unworkable, the evidence simply left no room for them. They only work if you are either ignorant of or ignore parts of the evidence. There is no hole for the apologist to exploit. The case against the Book of Abraham is air tight and bullet proof. There is no uncertainty for faith to work in; no doubt to give the benefit of. If one wants absolute proof of fraud within Mormonism, one need look no further than the Book of Abraham. I think that is one reason why it ranks so highly in the polls of what was the final blow to our faith in Mormonism.

I believed that the Spirit had told me the Book of Abraham was exactly what Joseph claimed it to be: a translation of papyri written by the hand of Abraham; and I now had evidence to prove that it was nothing of the sort. It could not even be a true revelation, despite the whole translation issue, because the text contains anachronisms and incorrect reconstructions of history. Oh, and lest you buy into that old line that the text has all these marvelous parallels to ancient traditions about the life of Abraham, I invite you to really take a look at it. Read John Gee's book and then critically evaluate it running through every reference. You see so very few apologists or TBM's put the time into this that they need to. They hear a good theory that maintains their faith, embrace it, and pass it on, without having researched it themselves. I am currently working on a paper that will be a more formal rebuttal of just this "parallels with ancient text" argument. You can read a preview here.

OK, so the "Spirit told me the BoA was true", and yet it absolutely could not be. And it was not just a personal failure to interpret the Spirit correctly, for all the latter-day prophets and apostles presumably also believe the Spirit has told them it is what Joseph claimed it to be. I mean, it was ratified as scripture as part of the Pearl of Great Price in general conference. Yet, they all were mistaken. It appears that no one can tell when the Spirit is telling them the truth or a lie. At minimum this means that the Spirit is an unreliable way to discern what is true from what is false. And now that the witness of the Spirit is suspect, what does that mean for the weight of the evidence against the church. One starts to get sick to one's stomach when they consider that Joseph's promiscuity was not sanctioned by God. He slept with girls as young as fourteen, as close in relationship as foster daughters, and he slept with other men's wives. How revolting? How disgusting? And Brigham Young's Blood Atonement and Mountain Meadows Massacre and the deeds of the Danites...how corrupt and evil? And the discrimination against blacks, and gays, and the subjugation of women...ohhh*puke*. Mormonism begins to look no different from any other cult.

Well, what about the good that is done and answered prayers and such? Doesn't that prove the Church is true? I have found that there is nothing that requires us to reject natural explanations for those things in favor of supernatural explanations. We could talk about this for hours. But, if you want to understand why I no longer believe in Mormonism, begin by investigating why the apologist explanations for the Book of Abraham don't work and why there is no room for any explanation to work that doesn't result in acknowledging that the Book of Abraham isn't what Joseph claimed it to be.

Origins of the Word of Wisdom

2009-01-10T16:54:00.001-08:00

At dinner tonight, my non-believing wife was wondering why coffee and tea are prohibited by the Word of Wisdom. I said, "You know, Joseph didn't come up with that on his own; he borrowed it from the temperance movement (and the Cold Water Society) that was popular in the area at the time." She said she didn't know that, so I told her I would show her when we got back home.

True to my word I looked it up and showed her. So, I figured since I already looked it up I might as well share it with you, just in case some of you didn't know. The following is from the Tanner's book, "Changing World".

It has been suggested that the temperance movement led to Joseph Smith's "Word of Wisdom." Leonard J. Arrington, who has since become church historian, provides this enlightening information:

In recent years a number of scholars have contended that the revelation is an outgrowth of the temperance movement of the early nineteenth century. According to Dean D. McBrien .... the Word of Wisdom was a remarkable distillation of the prevailing thought of frontier America in the early 1830's. Each provision in the revelation, he claimed, pertained to an item which had formed the basis of widespread popular agitation in the early 1830's:

468

469

"A survey of the situation existing at Kirtland when the revelation came forth is a sufficient explanation for it. The temperance wave had for some time been engulfing the West.... In 1826 Marcus Morton had founded the American Temperance Society.... In June, 1830, the Millenial Harbinger quoted ... an article from the Philadelphia 'Journal of Health,'... which article most strongly condemned the use of alcohol, tobacco, the eating intemperately of meats.... Temperance Societies were organized in great numbers during the early thirties, six thousand being formed in one year... On October 6, 1830, the Kirtland Temperance Society was organized with two hundred thirty nine members.... This society at Kirtland was a most active one.... it revolutionized the social customs of the neighborhood."

McBrien then goes ahead to point out that the Temperance Society succeeded in eliminating a distillery in Kirtland on February 1, 1833, just twenty-seven days before the Latter-day Saint revelation counseling abstinence was announced, and that the distillery at Mentor, near Kirtland, was also closed at the same time (Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1959, pp.39-40).

In his book The Burned-Over District, pages 211-12, Whitney R. Cross points out that "the temperance movement ... began much earlier... During the 1830's it attained national scope. ... Further, if alcohol was evil because it frustrated the Lord's design for the human body, other drugs like tea, coffee, and tobacco must be equally wrong ... Josiah Bissell.... had even before the 1831 revival 'got beyond Temperance to the Cold Water Society—no tea, coffee or any other slops.' "

Critics Response to Book of Abraham Parallels

2008-12-09T01:21:00.000-08:00

This thread is a collaborative project. All are welcome to contribute and will receive credit for their contributions in any future online publications of this work.

This effort is in response to the Mormon apologists' argument that there are amazing parallels between the content of the Book of Abraham and many early traditions about the life of Abraham that were unknown before the Book of Abraham text was produced. The apologists' pose the question, "How could Joseph Smith have gotten all of these things 'right' unless they were revealed to him by God?"

The major work of the apologists that points out the parallels between the Book of Abraham and these early traditions is Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham by John A. Tvedtnes, Brian M. Hauglid, John Gee. You can read a review of the book by another apologist here. The book costs $50 (more than I am willing to pay), but is often available at many university libraries. The majority of the book is composed of translations of a variety of texts from early Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and other sources, the majority of which were discovered or first translated after the time of Joseph Smith and so could not have been used as source material for the Book of Abraham.

At the end of Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham is an index entitled "Unique Elements of the Book of Abraham Supported by Extrabiblical Traditions" with the following description:

The Book of Abraham contains information that is absent from the Genesis account of Abraham and, with a few exceptions, from other parts of the Bible. Many of these “unique” elements are supported by extrabiblical traditions included in this collection. These are indexed here by topic and subtopic. Some parallels are stronger than others, so the reader is advised to check each text before inferring support for the Book of Abraham.
The index then lists several subtopics with an accompanying reference from the Book of Abraham and a number of references to what the authors feel are parallels to extrabiblical material. I do not believe it is my place to post their entire index, but below is a list of their subtopics.

Abraham’s fathers worshipped idols (BoA 1:5-6) -

Idols were made of wood and stone (BoA 1:11) –

Terah, Abraham’s father, worshiped idols (BoA 1:16-17, 27) –

Terah, after repenting, returned to his idols (BoA 2:5) –

Abraham connected to Egyptian idols (BoA 1:6-7, 13, 17, 20, 29; 2:13; 3:20; Facsimile 1, figures 4-9) –

Children were sacrificed (BoA 1:7-8, 10-11) –

Those who would not worship idols were killed (BoA 1:11) -

Abraham was brought to be killed or sacrificed because he would not worship idols (BoA 1:7, 12, 15; Facsimile 1, figure 3) –

Terah was behind the attempt to kill Abraham (BoA 1:7, 30) –

Abraham was fastened or bound (BoA 1:15; Facsimile 1, figure 2) –

When his life was in danger, Abraham prayed (BoA 1:15) –

An angel came to rescue Abraham (BoA 1:15; 2:13; Facsimile 1, figure 1) –

God rescued Abraham from death (BoA 1:16; 3:20) –

The altar (furnace) and the idols were destroyed (BoA 1:20) –

The priest (or leader) was smitten and died (BoA 1:20, 29) –

Abraham was heir to the priesthood of his fathers (BoA 1:2-3, 1 –

Abraham held the priesthood (BoA 1:2; 2:9, 11; Facsimile 2, figure 3; Facsimile 3, figure 1) –

Abraham was linked to Noah (BoA 1:19; Facsimile 2, figure 3) –

Believers are the seed of Abraham and are blessed through him (BoA2:10-11) –

Abraham sought God earnestly (BoA 2:12) –

Abraham made converts in Haran (BoA 2:15) –

Abraham possessed the Urim and Thummim, by means of which he received revelation from God (BoA 3:1, 4) –

* Abraham was knowledgeable about astronomy, which he learned from ancient records and from God (BoA 1:31; 3:1-18; Facsimiles 2 and 3) – Book of Jasher 9:17-18; Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 1.7.1-2; 1.8.2

* Abraham taught astronomy to the Egyptians (BoA Facsimile 3) – no Book of Jasher reference; Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 1.8.2

* Earth has four quarters (BoA Facsimile 2, figure 6) – Book of Jasher 8:2, 10; 12:9

Abraham knew about the creation (BoA 1:31; 4-5) –

There was advance planning for the creation (BoA 4:31-5:5; Moses 3:4-5) –

The elements of the earth obeyed God (BoA 4:9-12, 18, 21, 24-25, 31) –

* Abraham saw the premortal spirits (BoA 3:21-24) – Book of Jasher 12:38

The Lord instructed Abraham to say that Sarah was his sister (BoA 2:22-25) -

Abraham possessed records from the fathers (BoA 1:28, 31) –

Abraham left a record of his own (BoA 1:31) –

The founding of Egypt (BoA 1:21-27) –

Pharaoh was a descendant of Ham but also of Canaan (BoA 1:21-22, 24-25, 27) –

The first pharaoh, a good man, was blessed by Noah (BoA 1:26) –

* Abraham was allowed to sit on a king’s throne (BoA Facsimile 3. figure 1) – Book of Jasher 15:22

There was a famine in Abraham’s homeland (BoA 1:29-30; 2:1, 5) –

Abraham prayed that god would end the famine in Chaldea (BoA 2:17) –

Haran died in the famine (BoA 2:1) –

Abraham was sixty-two years of age when he left Haran, not seventy-five as Genesis says (BoA 2:14) –

Note: I included a couple of parallels that they gave to the writings of Josephus and the Book of Jasher, which I can demonstrate that Joseph Smith was familiar with and had access to before the accompanying BoA verses were first written down. There were many other parallels to the Book of Jasher in the index, but those were not included in the above list because we know that BoA 1:1-2:18 were written before the Book of Jasher was published in English. There is more on that below.

I find that many of these so-called unique parallels to extrabiblical sources are not unique at all in that the ideas are also present in the Bible. 1) So, one thing, we need to do is find references in the Bible to as many of the items in the above list as possible. That will vastly narrow down the list of unique parallels with extrabiblical sources.

2) I believe there are other parallels we can find with books that we know Joseph Smith was familiar with like with Josephus, and Book of Jasher (with BoA verses after BoA 2:1.

3) Any remaining subtopics we might be able to explain as rational inferences from what was already written about Abraham, or necessitated by Joseph's having to incorporate the facsimilies into his BoA text.

4) The last point that I'd like to make is that the traditions about Abraham contradict each other in numerous aspects and there is no definitive version of the story of Abraham's life, so Joseph's version doesn't remarkably agree with any authoritative story. When one has scores of different stories about Abraham, one's story is bound to be similar to some of them in some respects.

Given all of the above there is nothing remarkable about the parallels between the BoA and these ancient texts - nothing that demands us to accept revelation as the only reasonable explanation for the parallels. Now, if we combine that with all the wealth of damning evidence against the BoA (the fact that it is not a translation, that the facsimiles were improperly restored and interpreted, that the scrolls are not old enough to have been written by Abraham, that Joseph reused characters that he translated differently elsewhere, that Joseph created Egyptian characters that don't even exist, the text contains anachronisms and incorrect reconstructions of history, and contains ideas such as intelligences that appear to be lifted from the writings of Thomas Dick and others, etc), and the apologists have nothing to stand on.

Source material:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/contents
http://www.biblegateway.com/

On June 25th, 1833, Joseph wrote the following to W. W. Phelps and others in Missouri:
“We have not found the Book of Jasher, nor any other of the lost books mentioned in the Bible as yet; nor will we obtain them at present” (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-1951], 1: 363).

In the summer of 1835, the Church purchased papyri fragments and mummies from a Michael Chandler who visited Kirtland.

Now, the timing of the creation of the Book of Abraham text is uncertain, but we do have some clues. Warren Parrish was a scribe and secretary to Joseph Smith, Jr., primarily in Kirtland, Ohio from 1835–1837. The Book of Abraham Manuscript 2 (BAbr MS 2' ), which comprises Book of Abraham 1:1 to 2:18, is written in the handwriting of William W. Phelps (BoA 1:1-3) and Warren Parrish (BoA 1:4-2:1. So, the text of the Book of Abraham up through BoA 2:18, was completed by the end of Parrish’s role as scribe in 1837.
The first English translation of the Book of Jasher was translated by Mr. Samuel of Liverpool, England, and published by Mordecai M. Noah in New York in 1840. In June 1840, it was announced in the Times and Seasons that an English translation of the Book of Jasher would soon be available.

In the March 1, 1842, edition of the Times and Seasons, the first translation of the Book of Abraham was published.

By Sept. 1, 1842, Joseph wrote in the Times and Seasons, “But if we believe in present revelation, as published in the "Times and Seasons" last spring, Abraham, the prophet of the Lord, was laid upon the iron bedstead for slaughter; and the book of Jasher, which has not been disproved as a bad author, says he was cast into the fire of the Chaldees” (Joseph Smith, Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Alma P. Burton [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1977], 180 - 181).

Let's start with Joseph Smith reading Josephus. The following is from "Examining the Book of Abraham" by Kevin Mathie (http://tinyurl.com/349hu5 ). "LDS author Grant Palmer explains:

In 1835, the year [Joseph Smith] produced the opening chapters of Abraham, his counselor Oliver Cowdery, in the Messenger and Advocate, mentioned Josephus three times in interpreting the pictures from the "Joseph of Egypt" scroll [Dec. 1835]. In the Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus wrote about how Noah, who had trouble with his son Ham, "cursed his posterity," whereas the lineage of Abraham and others "escaped that curse." Joseph Smith expanded this original curse (Gen. 9:20-27) to include denial of priesthood ordination to blacks (Abr. 1:21-26). LDS scholar Lester Bush, with these Abraham verses in mind, commented: "Mormon scripture [The Book of Abraham] and the contemporary pro slavery arguments are striking". Josephus further identified Abraham as a resident of Chaldea and "a person of great sagacity" who "began to have higher notions of virtue than others had, and he determined to renew and to change the opinion all men happened then to have concerning God." Abraham's preaching was not welcome. They "raised a tumult against him... and by the assistance of God, he came and lived in the land of Canaan. While in Canaan, a land promised to his posterity, Abraham encountered a famine. This brought him and his wife Sarah to Egypt, where he successfully pretended to be his wife's brother. The pharaoh eventually allowed him to "enter into conversation with the most learned among the Egyptians; from which conversation his virtue and reputation became more conspicuous than they had been before. ... He communicated to them arithmetic, and delivered to them the science of astronomy; for before Abram came into Egypt they were unacquainted with those parts of learning..."

This sketch by Josephus, which was available to Joseph Smith [note the signature at the bottom of the page pictured to the right*], explains why, upon examining Facsimile 1 of the Hor papyrus, Joseph might have assumed that Abraham was being sacrificed for preaching gainst heathen gods but escaped with God's assistance. Viewing the other end of the scroll, Joseph further saw (Facsimile 3) Abraham teaching astronomy in Pharaoh's court just as Josephus's narrative portrays (Grant Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, publ. Signature Books, 2002, pp. 16-19).

* This graphic is taken from Grant Palmer's book, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, publ. Signature Books, 2002, p. 18. Be aware that the handwritten notation "Hyrum Smith's book" was not originally on the title page of Josephus's book, but it was on another page of the book. When Palmer, or the folks at Signature Books, created the graphic, the signature was combined with the title page in order to more clearly illustrate that this book of Josephus was owned by Hyrum".

Now since I have used secondary sources to summarize the main points, allow me to go back and use primary sources. This is a quote by Oliver Cowdery concerning the Egyptian papyri directly from Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 2 (Oct. 1835 - Sept. 1836), Vol. 2 December 1835, No. 15, 236 (You can find this in GospeLink):

"Enoch's Pillar, as mentioned by Josephus, is upon the same roll.—True, our present version of the bible does not mention this fact, though it speaks of the righteousness of Abel and the holiness of Enoch,—one slain because his offering was accepted of the Lord, and the other taken to the regions of everlasting day without being confined to the narrow limits of the tomb, or tasting death; but Josephus says that the descendants of Seth were virtuous, and possessed a great knowledge of the heavenly bodies, and, that, in consequence of the prophecy of Adam, that the world should be destroyed once by water and again by fire, Enoch wrote a history or an account of the same, and put into two pillars one of brick and the other of stone; and that the same were in being at his (Josephus;) day."

The following is from The Works of Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chapters 6, 7 and 8 (http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-1.htm):

"I will now treat of the Hebrews. The son of Phaleg, whose father Was Heber, was Ragau; whose son was Serug, to whom was born Nahor; his son was Terah, who was the father of Abraham, who accordingly was the tenth from Noah, and was born in the two hundred and ninety-second year after the deluge; for Terah begat Abram in his seventieth year. Nahor begat Haran when he was one hundred and twenty years old; Nahor was born to Serug in his hundred and thirty-second year; Ragau had Serug at one hundred and thirty; at the same age also Phaleg had Ragau; Heber begat Phaleg in his hundred and thirty-fourth year; he himself being begotten by Sala when he was a hundred and thirty years old, whom Arphaxad had for his son at the hundred and thirty-fifth year of his age. Arphaxad was the son of Shem, and born twelve years after the deluge. Now Abram had two brethren, Nahor and Haran: of these Haran left a son, Lot; as also Sarai and Milcha his daughters; and died among the Chaldeans, in a city of the Chaldeans, called Ur; and his monument is shown to this day. These married their nieces. Nabor married Milcha, and Abram married Sarai. Now Terah hating Chaldea, on account of his mourning for Ilaran, they all removed to Haran of Mesopotamia, where Terah died, and was buried, when he had lived to be two hundred and five years old; for the life of man was already, by degrees, diminished, and became shorter than before, till the birth of Moses; after whom the term of human life was one hundred and twenty years, God determining it to the length that Moses happened to live. Now Nahor had eight sons by Milcha; Uz and Buz, Kemuel, Chesed, Azau, Pheldas, Jadelph, and Bethuel. These were all the genuine sons of Nahor; for Teba, and Gaam, and Tachas, and Maaca, were born of Reuma his concubine: but Bethuel had a daughter, Rebecca, and a son, Laban.

1. Now Abram, having no son of his own, adopted Lot, his brother Haran's son, and his wife Sarai's brother; and he left the land of Chaldea when he was seventy-five years old, and at the command of God went into Canaan, and therein he dwelt himself, and left it to his posterity. He was a person of great sagacity, both for understanding all things and persuading his hearers, and not mistaken in his opinions; for which reason he began to have higher notions of virtue than others had, and he determined to renew and to change the opinion all men happened then to have concerning God; for he was the first that ventured to publish this notion, That there was but one God, the Creator of the universe; and that, as to other [gods], if they contributed any thing to the happiness of men, that each of them afforded it only according to his appointment, and not by their own power. This his opinion was derived from the irregular phenomena that were visible both at land and sea, as well as those that happen to the sun, and moon, and all the heavenly bodies, thus: - "If [said he] these bodies had power of their own, they would certainly take care of their own regular motions; but since they do not preserve such regularity, they make it plain, that in so far as they co-operate to our advantage, they do it not of their own abilities, but as they are subservient to Him that commands them, to whom alone we ought justly to offer our honor and thanksgiving." For which doctrines, when the Chaldeans, and other people of Mesopotamia, raised a tumult against him, he thought fit to leave that country; and at the command and by the assistance of God, he came and lived in the land of Canaan. And when he was there settled, he built an altar, and performed a sacrifice to God.

2. Berosus mentions our father Abram without naming him, when he says thus: "In the tenth generation after the Flood, there was among the Chaldeans a man righteous and great, and skillful in the celestial science." But Hecatseus does more than barely mention him; for he composed, and left behind him, a book concerning him. And Nicolaus of Damascus, in the fourth book of his History, says thus: "Abram reigned at Damascus, being a foreigner, who came with an army out of the land above Babylon, called the land of the Chaldeans: but, after a long time, he got him up, and removed from that country also, with his people, and went into the land then called the land of Canaan, but now the land of Judea, and this when his posterity were become a multitude; as to which posterity of his, we relate their history in another work. Now the name of Abram is even still famous in the country of Damascus; and there is shown a village named from him, The Habitation of Abram."

1. NOW, after this, when a famine had invaded the land of Canaan, and Abram had discovered that the Egyptians were in a flourishing condition, he was disposed to go down to them, both to partake of the plenty they enjoyed, and to become an auditor of their priests, and to know what they said concerning the gods; designing either to follow them, if they had better notions than he, or to convert them into a better way, if his own notions proved the truest. Now, seeing he was to take Sarai with him, and was afraid of the madness of the Egyptians with regard to women, lest the king should kill him on occasion of his wife's great beauty, he contrived this device : - he pretended to be her brother, and directed her in a dissembling way to pretend the same, for he said it would be for their benefit. Now, as soon as he came into Egypt, it happened to Abram as he supposed it would; for the fame of his wife's beauty was greatly talked of; for which reason Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, would not be satisfied with what was reported of her, but would needs see her himself, and was preparing to enjoy her; but God put a stop to his unjust inclinations, by sending upon him a distemper, and a sedition against his government. And when he inquired of the priests how he might be freed from these calamities, they told him that this his miserable condition was derived from the wrath of God, upon account of his inclinations to abuse the stranger's wife. He then, out of fear, asked Sarai who she was, and who it was that she brought along with her. And when he had found out the truth, he excused himself to Abram, that supposing the woman to be his sister, and not his wife, he set his affections on her, as desiring an affinity with him by marrying her, but not as incited by lust to abuse her. He also made him a large present in money, and gave him leave to enter into conversation with the most learned among the Egyptians; from which conversation his virtue and his reputation became more conspicuous than they had been before.

2. For whereas the Egyptians were formerly addicted to different customs, and despised one another's sacred and accustomed rites, and were very angry one with another on that account, Abram conferred with each of them, and, confuting the reasonings they made use of, every one for their own practices, demonstrated that such reasonings were vain and void of truth: whereupon he was admired by them in those conferences as a very wise man, and one of great sagacity, when he discoursed on any subject he undertook; and this not only in understanding it, but in persuading other men also to assent to him. He communicated to them arithmetic, and delivered to them the science of astronomy; for before Abram came into Egypt they were unacquainted with those parts of learning; for that science came from the Chaldeans into Egypt, and from thence to the Greeks also.

3. As soon as Abram was come back into Canaan, he parted the land between him and Lot, upon account of the tumultuous behavior of their shepherds, concerning the pastures wherein they should feed their flocks. However, he gave Lot his option, or leave, to choose which lands he would take; and he took himself what the other left, which were the lower grounds at the foot of the mountains; and he himself dwelt in Hebron, which is a city seven years more ancient than Tunis of Egypt. But Lot possessed the land of the plain, and the river Jordan, not far from the city of Sodom, which was then a fine city, but is now destroyed, by the will and wrath of God, the cause of which I shall show in its proper place hereafter."

Having shown that Hyrum had a copy of Josephus and that Oliver referred to Josephus in describing what was on the Egyptian papyri, it is very likely that Joseph Smith was aware of the above quoted passages while creating the Book of Abraham. As for supporting my claim of the plagiarism of ideas, it will be the subject of my next post.

For reference, since we are talking about parallels here, I'll throw in the relevant passages from the Bible (Genesis 11:28-12:20):

"28And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.

29And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.

30But Sarai was barren; she had no child.

31And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

32And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.

1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

4So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

5And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.

6And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land.

7And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

8And he removed from thence unto a mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, having Bethel on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto the LORD, and called upon the name of the LORD.

9And Abram journeyed, going on still toward the south.

10And there was a famine in the land: and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there; for the famine was grievous in the land.

11And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:

12Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.

13Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

14And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.

15The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.

16And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.

17And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.

18And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?

19Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.

20And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had."

For more on the Book of Abraham see my earlier posts: http://tinyurl.com/2lgzd6 and http://tinyurl.com/38y7xp

The following is from "Examining the Book of Abraham" by Kevin Mathie (http://tinyurl.com/349hu5 ). "LDS author Grant Palmer explains:
The astronomical phrases and concepts in the Abraham texts were also common in Joseph Smith's environment. For example, in 1816 Thomas Taylor published a two-volume work called The Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of Plato. Volume 2 (pp. 140-146) contains phrases and ideas similar to the astronomical concepts in Abraham 3 and Facsimile No. 2. In these six pages, Taylor calls the planets "governors" and uses the terms "fixed stars and planets" and "grand key." Both works refer to the sun as a planet receiving its light and power from a higher sphere rather than generating its own light through hydrogen-helium fusion (cf. Fac. 2, fig. 5). LDS scholar R. Grant Athay, a research astronomer and director of the University of Colorado Observatory, has written, "At the time that the Book of Abraham was translated ... the energy source of the sun was unknown," and "the concept of one star influencing another was also a common concept of the time" (R. Grant Athay, "Astronomy in the Book of Abraham," Book of Abraham Symposium (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Institute of Religion, 3 Apr. 1970), ix, 60-61). Further reflecting nineteenth-century cosmology, Taylor (cf. Abraham 3:4-10) describes the progression of time among the universal bodies. Like Abraham 3:16-19, certain people of Joseph Smith's day also believed in progressive orders of orbs and the intelligences that inhabited them. According to Athay:
They believed that the surface of the sun was solid, and that it was inhabited by human beings. In fact, they believed that it was inhabited by man. They also believed that all the planets in the solar system were inhabited by man, and the moon as well ... [T]he concept of multiple-world systems, multiple dwellings of man ... was a rather common topic of that time (R. Grant Athay, "Astronomy in the Book of Abraham," Book of Abraham Symposium (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Institute of Religion, 3 Apr. 1970), ix, 60-61. ALSO, Grant Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, publ. Signature Books, 2002, pp. 21-22).
Corroborating the fact that this idea of people living on the moon and sun was prevalent within the social structure of the first generation of Latter-day Saints are the following statements.
In 1833, Oliver Cowdery stated:
"It is a pleasing thing to let the mind stretch away and contemplate the vast creations of the Almighty; to see the planets perform their regular revolutions, and observe their exact motions; to view the thousand suns giving light to myriads off globes, moving in their respective orbits, and revolving upon their several axis, all inhabited by intelligent beings..." (The Evening and the Morning Star, Vol. 2 (Dec. 1833): p. 116 - emphasis added)
In a sermon given April 27, 1843 by Hiram Smith on the plurality of gods and worlds, is this comment:
"...every Star that we see is a world and is inhabited the same as this world is peopled. The Sun & Moon is inhabited & the Stars & (Jesus Christ is the light of the Sun, etc.). The Stars are inhabited the same as this Earth. But eny of them are larger then this Earth, & meny that we cannot see without a telliscope are larger then this Earth. They are under the same order as this Earth is undergoing & undergoing the same change." (George Laub Nauvoo Journal, emphasis added)
More specifically, according to Grant Palmer, Joseph Smith owned one particular book that probably greatly influenced his cosmology:
Klaus Hansen, an LDS scholar, has written: "The progressive aspect of Joseph's theology, as well as its cosmology, while in a general way compatible with antebellum thought, bears some remarkable resemblances to Thomas Dick's Philosophy of a Future State, a second edition of which had been published in 1830," Joseph Smith owned a copy of this work, and Oliver Cowdery in December 1836 quoted some lengthy excerpts from it in the Messenger and Advocate [Dec. 1836: 423-25]. Hansen continues:
Some very striking parallels to Smith's theology suggest that the similarities between the two may be more than coincidental. Dick's lengthy book, an ambitious treatise on astronomy and metaphysics, proposed the idea that matter is eternal and indestructible and rejected the notion of a creation ex nihilo. Much of the book dealt with the infinity of the universe, made up of innumberable stars spread out over immeasurable distances. Dick speculated that many of these stars were peopled by "various orders of intelligences" and that these intelligences were "progressive beings" in various stages of evolution toward perfection. In the Book of Abraham, part of which consists of a treatise on astronomy and cosmology, eternal beings of various orders and stages of development likewise populate numerous stars. They, too, are called "intelligences." Dick speculated that "the systems of the universe revolve around a common center... the throne of God." In the Book of Abraham, one star named Kolob "was nearest unto the throne of God." Other stars, in ever diminishing order, were placed in increasing distances from this center.
Hansen observed further that:
According to the Book of Abraham, the patriarch had a knowledge of the times of various planets, "until thou come nigh unto Kolob which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord's time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest." One revolution of Kolob "was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord's time according to the reckoning of Kolob." God's time thus conformed perfectly to the laws of Galilean relativity and Newtonian mechanics."
What we find in Abraham 3 and the official scriptures of the LDS church regarding science reflects a Newtonian world concept. The Catholic church's Ptolemaic cosmology was displaced by the new Copernican and Newtonian world model, just as the nineteenth-century, canonized, Newtonian world view is challenged by Einstein's twentieth-century science. Keith Norman, a Mormon scholar, has written that for the LDS church, "it is no longer possible to pretend there is not conflict." He continues:
Scientific cosmology began its leap forward just when Mormon doctrine was becoming stabilized. The revolution in twentieth-century physics precipitated by Einstein dethroned Newtonian physics as the ultimate explanation of the way the universe works. Relativity theory and quantum mechanics, combined with advances in astronomy, have established a vastly different picture of how the universe began, how it is structured and operates, and the nature of matter and energy. ... This new scientific cosmology pose[s] a serious challenge to the Mormon version of the universe.
Many of the astronomical and cosmological ideas found in both Joseph Smith's environment and in the Book of Abraham have become out of vogue, and some of these Newtonian concepts are scientific relics. The evidence suggests that the Book of Abraham reflects concepts of Joseph Smith's time and place rather than those of an ancient world.
In 1833, Oliver Cowdery stated:
"It is a pleasing thing to let the mind stretch away and contemplate the vast creations of the Almighty; to see the planets perform their regular revolutions, and observe their exact motions; to view the thousand suns giving light to myriads off globes, moving in their respective orbits, and revolving upon their several axis, all inhabited by intelligent beings..." (The Evening and the Morning Star, Vol. 2 (Dec. 1833): p. 116 - emphasis added)
In a sermon given April 27, 1843 by Hiram Smith on the plurality of gods and worlds, is this comment:
"...every Star that we see is a world and is inhabited the same as this world is peopled. The Sun & Moon is inhabited & the Stars & (Jesus Christ is the light of the Sun, etc.). The Stars are inhabited the same as this Earth. But eny of them are larger then this Earth, & meny that we cannot see without a telliscope are larger then this Earth. They are under the same order as this Earth is undergoing & undergoing the same change." (George Laub Nauvoo Journal, emphasis added)
More specifically, according to Grant Palmer, Joseph Smith owned one particular book that probably greatly influenced his cosmology:
Klaus Hansen, an LDS scholar, has written: "The progressive aspect of Joseph's theology, as well as its cosmology, while in a general way compatible with antebellum thought, bears some remarkable resemblances to Thomas Dick's Philosophy of a Future State, a second edition of which had been published in 1830," Joseph Smith owned a copy of this work, and Oliver Cowdery in December 1836 quoted some lengthy excerpts from it in the Messenger and Advocate [Dec. 1836: 423-25]. Hansen continues:
Some very striking parallels to Smith's theology suggest that the similarities between the two may be more than coincidental. Dick's lengthy book, an ambitious treatise on astronomy and metaphysics, proposed the idea that matter is eternal and indestructible and rejected the notion of a creation ex nihilo. Much of the book dealt with the infinity of the universe, made up of innumberable stars spread out over immeasurable distances. Dick speculated that many of these stars were peopled by "various orders of intelligences" and that these intelligences were "progressive beings" in various stages of evolution toward perfection. In the Book of Abraham, part of which consists of a treatise on astronomy and cosmology, eternal beings of various orders and stages of development likewise populate numerous stars. They, too, are called "intelligences." Dick speculated that "the systems of the universe revolve around a common center... the throne of God." In the Book of Abraham, one star named Kolob "was nearest unto the throne of God." Other stars, in ever diminishing order, were placed in increasing distances from this center.
Hansen observed further that:
According to the Book of Abraham, the patriarch had a knowledge of the times of various planets, "until thou come nigh unto Kolob which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord's time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest." One revolution of Kolob "was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest. This is the reckoning of the Lord's time according to the reckoning of Kolob." God's time thus conformed perfectly to the laws of Galilean relativity and Newtonian mechanics."
What we find in Abraham 3 and the official scriptures of the LDS church regarding science reflects a Newtonian world concept. The Catholic church's Ptolemaic cosmology was displaced by the new Copernican and Newtonian world model, just as the nineteenth-century, canonized, Newtonian world view is challenged by Einstein's twentieth-century science. Keith Norman, a Mormon scholar, has written that for the LDS church, "it is no longer possible to pretend there is not conflict." He continues:
Scientific cosmology began its leap forward just when Mormon doctrine was becoming stabilized. The revolution in twentieth-century physics precipitated by Einstein dethroned Newtonian physics as the ultimate explanation of the way the universe works. Relativity theory and quantum mechanics, combined with advances in astronomy, have established a vastly different picture of how the universe began, how it is structured and operates, and the nature of matter and energy. ... This new scientific cosmology pose[s] a serious challenge to the Mormon version of the universe.
Many of the astronomical and cosmological ideas found in both Joseph Smith's environment and in the Book of Abraham have become out of vogue, and some of these Newtonian concepts are scientific relics. The evidence suggests that the Book of Abraham reflects concepts of Joseph Smith's time and place rather than those of an ancient world (Grant Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, publ. Signature Books, 2002, pp. 22-25)."

Now that I have used secondary sources to summarize. I will again point you to primary sources. But, first, I would like you to know of the list of books that we have evidence that Joseph owned (http://tinyurl.com/275oqc ). Take special note that during the Illinois period, among the list of books donated by Joseph Smith to the Nauvoo Library and Literary Institute on the 31 January 1844, is one Thomas Dick's Philosophy of a Future State. So, we know that he owned it.
I have gone through the trouble of finding an electronic copy of that book at the University of Michigan (starting on page 62; http://tinyurl.com/2w67l8 ). Below, I have a handful of quotations from the book teaching ideas that will be familiar to many Mormons:

"And the appearance of the heavens in reality receding from the view, would be produced, were the earth to leave its present station among the planets, and to be impelled with a rapid motion towards the distant parts of the solar system, or beyond its boundaries; in which case the sun would appear to fly off with a rapid motion to a distant part of space, till he had diminished to the size of a twinkling star, and the moon and the nearest planets would, in a short time, entirely disappear...The materials of which the earth and its atmosphere are composed will still continue to exist after its present structure is deranged, and will, in all probability, be employed in the arrangement of a new system, purified from the physical evils which now exist, and which may continue to flourish as a monument of divine power and wisdom, throughout an indefinite lapse of ages" (Thomas Dick, Philosophy of a Future State, page 64).

It occurred to me that perhaps many of you might not be familiar with how the last quote fits in with Mormon doctrine. Here is a quote from Brigham Young:

"but when man fell, the earth fell into space, and took up its abode in this planetary system, and the sun became our light. When the Lord said—"Let there be light," there was light, for the earth was brought near the sun that it might reflect upon it so as to give us light by day, and the moon to give us light by night. This is the glory the earth came from, and when it is glorified it will return again unto the presence of the Father, and it will dwell there, and these intelligent beings that I am looking at, if they live worthy of it, will dwell upon this earth" (Journal of Discourses 17:143).

Now back to Thomas Dick:

"Hence it is declared, with respect to the "saints of the Most High," "They that be teachers of wisdom shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever." In short, when we consider the boundless extent of the starry firmament, the scenes of grandeur it displays, the new luminaries, which, in the course of ages, appear to be gradually su*menting its splendor, and the countless myriads of exalted intelligences which doubtless people its expansive regions..." (Thomas Dick, Philosophy of a Future State, page 65).

"It is evident, therefore, that superior intelligences, such as angels, and redeemed men in a future state, must have their attention directed to the science of numbers" (Thomas Dick, Philosophy of a Future State, page 69).

"It is evident, then, that beings of a superior order, or in a higher state of existence, must have a more profound and comprehensive knowledge of numbers than man: in consequence of which they are enabled to survey the universe with more intelligence, and to form more distinct and ample conceptions of the designs and operations of infinite wisdom and omnipotence" (Thomas Dick, Philosophy of a Future State, page 70).

"...of the number of opaque globes which may exist in every region of space, of the distance to which the material world extends, and of the various dispensations of the Almighty towards the diversified orders of intelligences which people his vast empire..." (Thomas Dick, Philosophy of a Future State, page 72).

"...and the magnificence of his works are displayed in all of their variety and lustre to the countless orders of his rational offspring, over which he will continue to eternally preside" (Thomas Dick, Philosophy of a Future State, page 72).

"It is highly probable, in a future world, a considerable portion of our knowledge respecting the distant provinces of the divine empire, will be communicated by superior beings who have visited the different systems dispersed through the universe...We learn from Scripture, that there are intelligences that can wing their way, in a short period of time, from one world to another" (ibid, page 73).

"The grand aim of celestial intelligences will be, to increase in the knowledge and love of God" (ibid, page 74).

While we are talking about primary sources, I must add the Book of Jasher here. Joseph Smith was familiar with the Book of Jasher and likely used it to help him create the BoA. Most parallels between the BoA and the Traditions of Abraham can be accounted for by looking at the Book of Jasher, together with Josephus and the Bible. Here is a statement that Joseph was familiar with the Book of Jasher:

"But if we believe in present revelation, as published in the Times and Seasons last spring, Abraham, the prophet of the Lord, was laid upon the iron bedstead for slaughter; and the book of Jasher, which has not been disproved as a bad author, says he was cast into the fire of the Chaldees." Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), p. 261, quoting Times and Seasons (1 Sep 1842), 3:902.

The relevant sections are from the Book of Jasher 7:51 - 20:30 (http://www.cumorah.com/etexts/jasher.txt ; it also can be found http://entreated.blogspot.com/2007/04/reply-to-stan-book-of-abraham-part-2.html)

Evidence that Joseph had Sex with his Plural Wives

2008-12-06T06:23:00.000-08:00

Occasionally, LDS's want to claim that Joseph never had sex with his plural wives. Well here is the evidence.

Some other things I found from here:

Did Joseph Smith obey the commandment and have sex with his wives?

Compton writes:
"Because of claims by Reorganized Latter-day Saints that Joseph was not really married polygamously in the full (i.e., sexual) sense of the term, Utah Mormons (including Joseph's wives) affirmed repeatedly that Joseph had physical sexual relations with his plural wives-despite the Victorian conventions in nineteenth-century American religion which otherwise would have prevented mention of sexual relations in marriage."

- Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife "in very deed." (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 156.)

- In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, 427)

- Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she "roomed" with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had "carnal intercourse" with him. (Temple Lot case (complete transcript), 364, 367, 384; see Foster, Religion and Sexuality, 15.)

In total, 13 faithful latter-day saint women who were married to Joseph Smith swore court affidavits that they had sexual relations with him.

- Joseph Smith's personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith's first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated.
William Clayton's journal entry for 23 May (see Smith, 105-106)

- Smith's secretary William Clayton also recorded a visit to young Almera Johnson on May 16, 1843: "Prest. Joseph and I went to B[enjamin] F. Johnsons to sleep." Johnson himself later noted that on this visit Smith stayed with Almera "as man and wife" and "occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge as his wife." Almera Johnson also confirmed her secret marriage to Joseph Smith: "I lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F." (Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, 44. See also "The Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph F. Smith, Jr., Deseret News Press, page 70-71.)

- Faithful Mormon and Stake President Angus Cannon told Joseph Smith's son: "Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked [Eliza R. Snow] the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that."" (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives.)

4. Did Joseph Smith father any children from his polygamous wives?

- Stake President Angus Cannon also testified: "I will now refer you to one case where it was said by the girl's grandmother that your father [Joseph Smith] has a daughter born of a plural wife. The girl's grandmother was Mother Sessions . . . She was the grand-daughter of Mother Sessions. That girl, I believe, is living today, in Bountiful, north of this city. I heard prest. Young, a short time before his death, refer to the report . . . The woman is now said to have a family of children, and I think she is still living." (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 25-26, LDS archives.)

- Faithful Mormon and wife of Joseph Smith, Sylvia Sessions (Lyon), on her deathbed told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine testified: "She (Sylvia) then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church." (Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915)

- In her testimony given at a Brigham Young University devotional, Faithful Mormon Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner stated that she knew of children born to Smith's plural wives: "I know he [Joseph Smith] had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names." (Read her full BYU testimony here: http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/merlbyu.htm)

- Faithful Mormon Prescindia D. Huntington, who was Normal Buell's wife and simultaneously a "plural wife" of the Prophet Joseph Smith, said that she did not know whether her husband Norman "or the Prophet was the father of her son, Oliver." And a glance at a photo of Oliver shows a strong resemblance to Emma Smith's boys.
(Mary Ettie V. Smith, "Fifteen Years Among the Mormons", page 34; also Fawn Brodie "No Man Knows My History" pages 301-302, 437-39)

- Researchers have tentatively identified eight children that Joseph Smith may have had by his plural wives. Besides Josephine Fisher (b. Feb. 8, 1844) and Oliver Buell, named as possible children of Joseph Smith by his plural wives are John R. Hancock (b. Apr. 19, 1841), George A. Lightner (b. Mar. 12, 1842), Orson W. Hyde (b. Nov. 9, 1843), Frank H. Hyde (b. Jan 23, 1845), Moroni Pratt (b. Dec. 7, 1844), and Zebulon Jacobs (b. Jan 2, 1842). ("Mormon Polygamy: A History" by LDS Historian Richard S. Van Wagoner, pages 44, 48- 49n3.)

There is another piece of evidence you might consider in examining Joseph Smith's sexual behavior. The following excerpt is from a love letter Joseph Smith wrote when he wanted to arrange a liaison with Newel K. Whitney's daughter Sarah Ann, whom Smith had secretly "married." It reveals Smith's cloak-and-dagger approach to his extramarital affairs:

"... the only thing to be careful of; is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty. ... Only be careful to escape observation, as much as possible, I know it is a heroick undertakeing; but so much the greater friendship, and the more Joy, when I see you I will tell you all my plans, I cannot write them on paper, burn this letter as soon as you read it; keep all locked up in your breasts, my life depends upon it. ... I close my letter, I think Emma wont come tonight if she dont, dont fail to come to night, I subscribe myself your most obedient, and affectionate, companion, and friend. Joseph Smith."
- Joseph Smith Handwritten Letter, http://www.xmission.com/~research/family/strange.htm

I found an old thread of mine in which I argue with a TBM over whether JS had sex with his wives, especially minors, you can read it here.

What Do You Do for a Living?

2008-12-06T06:21:00.000-08:00

I am a psychotherapist in a sexual offender treatment program for inmates in a state prison. My wife is a stay at home mom of two young children.

What do you and yours do?

My Former Interest in Deep Doctrines

2008-12-06T06:15:00.000-08:00

I was one of those Mormons who thrived on meaning, symbolism, and deep doctrines. I was a perfect consumer for the more mystical sides of Mormonism. I would spend much time on trying to make parallels between the endowment and life. I "found" what I thought was a lot of neat ideas and concepts and experienced epiphanies and what I thought was clarity of thought, etc. Needless to say I was very disappointed and pissed off when I came to realize that the whole damn ceremony and gospel were nothing more than fiction and fraud.

I still like parables and teaching through analogy and symbollism, etc, as long as people aren't misrepresenting things as secrets of god and such when they are not. I am also bugged by authors who try to sell their stuff as deeply profound and mystical and full of wisdom when they are not all that. Two quick examples of that is "The Secret" by Rhoda Byrne and "What the Bleep do We Know". And it really sickens me to hear people praise them, about as much as it sickens me to hear people praise Joseph Smith and the profound doctrines he taught, because I feel like people are being suckered in by confident men (con-men) and women. It bothers me when people think their eyes are being opened while they are swallowing lies.

I remember telling the missionaries I taught at the MTC, "Having an epiphany doesn't necessarily mean that you are right". Meaning one can find cool connections and experience that euphoic clarity and be dead wrong. That happened all the time in my physics classes, students would think of these cool parallels only to find out that the physics doesn't work that way.

I was trying to make my calling and election made sure. I wanted my wife and I to have a personal visitation of Jesus Christ. I learned all about the second anointing so that I would be ready. It was only later that I learned they hardly ever do the second anointing anymore.

I read a lot of Hyrum Andrus during my TBM days and thought I knew a lot. I used to share some of his writings with people who were struggling with accepting Mormonism's "former" practice of polygamy. And, B.H. Roberts study on the Book of Mormon gave my TBM mind plenty to creatively accomodate.

I bought Infobase on cd in the mid 1990's long before GospeLink, and I still have GospeLink on my computer.

Before I became a complete disbeliever, I never lost my faith in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its presidents. I believed that the Church was led by God through his prophets. Now, as I learned more and more about the true history of the church, I had to reframe my conception of what a prophet was a number of times. At the time, I wished the Church would go back to teaching the deep doctrines publicly, but I believed that how the Church was run was how the Lord wanted it to be. I believed the Lord waited for church leaders (and membership) to be ready. Instead of the Lord dictating to the prophets what he wanted done, I came to believe that the prophets came up with their best ideas (heavily influenced by their culture and times) and then the Lord sanctioned their decisions. It was important that we were obedient. If the Lord did not want us publicly teaching deep doctrines, then we shouldn't do it or face excommunication. I never sat in judgement of the Brethern because that was forbidden. I truly felt that it was more important to follow the living prophet than a dead one.

I believed and accepted polygamy as a true doctrine and was prepared to live it when it was restored to the earth and/or in heaven, but I believed those who currently practiced polygamy were evil apostates who ran ahead of the Lord and trusted too much in themselves instead of following the Lord's appointed representative. So, that is how I never allowed myself to leave the LDS Church to join some fundy group. I awaited the coming of the latter day Patriarch of the house of Israel who would be a direct male descendant of Joseph Smith who would eventually lead all those who belong to Israel. At that time the Church's function would only be to bring new gentiles into the House of Israel through adoption (baptism). It would be the Patriarch who would lead us. Hyrum Andrus explains all of this very well, here is a link.

Oh, and bytheway, once I realized the whole Latter-day gospel wasn't true, I dropped my desire for polygamy like a hot potato.

I once took a religion class at BYU from Lloyd Newell (Music and the Spoken Word guy) on Teachings of the Living Prophets. He once told us the key to avoiding apostasy was to stick with the Brethern. If we held close to them and followed where they went we would never apostasize. And I did follow them...until I found out the BoA was a fraud, and by extension Joseph Smith was a liar about the Word of God, and the Spirit which testifies of the BoA and Joe Smith could not be trusted. The prophets had been duped just like the rest of us (who knows how much they believe). But, in any case I was no longer going to follow blind men who were at best following an unreliable guide (the Spirit), so I apostacized and am damn proud of it. There is no shame in doing the right and wise thing.

Solid Ground and Treatment for Anxiety

2008-12-06T06:10:00.000-08:00

On PostMo, Draconis wrote:

Now speaking of having the ground yanked out from under me: While talking to my psychologist she suggested that when I am starting to feel anxious I need to focus on something grounding- something I know will bring me peace and comfort; something "solid."

The trouble is, I can not think of anything solid to ground myself with. "Rocks" that I've clung to all my life have washed away as mud into the sea. Every piece of flotsom that looks promising seems to carry the risk of decaying as well. Nothing appears solid to me anymore. I can't find solid ground. I have a hard time having real faith in anything or anyone-- not even in myself. How can I feel grounded when everything in my life has become uncertainty?

What do you all find "solid" since you left behind the paradigms of TSCC? I wish I could have faith in things like love, friendship, myself, my family, "God," Superman; almost anything really. I just can't think of anything to keep myself anchored to anymore. Will it just take me time to regain the ability to trust? Have any of you gone through this and found the ability to trust again? Or have you just become so familiar with uncertainty that it no longer bothers you anymore?

Draconis,

If you are talking bedrock solid ground, of which no scientific discovery will ever turn on its head, and no human will ever change its mind about, or death cannot take away, then the only thing I know of that is that certain and stable is the knowledge that "something is happening". It is the one thing that is impossible to doubt and that we must be sure of, even if we are in the Matrix or are characters in someone else's dream, we can at least (and at most) know that something is happening.

Everything else is probability. We assume the earth and everything else actually exists. We thirst for patterns in behavior (such as the laws of physics). We crave congruence (when our sight, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling, sense of balance, etc, all agree). Those things give us more confidence to estimate the probability of those things existing as higher. We observe others watching for predictability in behavior (i.e., stable personality and character) so that we can gain confidence that we can trust that others will behave a certain way in the future that is similar to how they have behaved in the past. Now, that method is not perfect as people can change, but generally people behave fairly characteristicly.

I kind of feel bad saying this to you because I know your wife left you, but one great source of stability and reliability in my life is my wife and kids. They give my life meaning and purpose because I choose to care about their feelings and well-being and they would be quite upset to lose me and I, them. Yet, they are not my only source of meaning and stability. If they all died at once, I believe I could go on, living for the good I could do for others. You all, on this PostMormon site give my life and make my life worth living. I mean something to you, as you do to me.

I also look at the power and stability of reason and the philosophy of science. They are something I can count on and turn to help me make sense of the chaos of life. Now their findings may change, one can count of new paradigms overturning previous ones, but the method is sound.

Now as for how to deal with your anxiety, the state of the art treatment for all anxieties from phobias, to PTSD, to Panic Attacks, to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, to Generalized Aniety Disorder, is some variation of systematic desensitization. The one thing that psychologists treat more effectively than anything else (I dare say we have nailed this one) is the treatment of phobias. We can cure (and I don't say that lightly) any phobia through systematic desensitization.

Suppose you had a fear of snakes. We'd put a snake inside an aquarium and put him in the fall corner of the gymnasium. We would bring you into the gym and start you off as far from the snake as possible. We'd instruct you to approach the snake until your anxiety is about a 4 out of 10 (uncomfortable, but manageable), and then have you just stand there focusing on that snake and not using any kind of relaxation technique. It might take up to 30 minutes or an hour. Eventually, your body will become acclimated and return to homeostasis and your anxiety would go back down to a 1 or 2. It happens naturally. Then we would have you move closer to the snake until your anxiety rating was again a 4 and have you stay there until it is a 1 or 2. Repeated until you are able to handle the snake. With a few refresher sessions, you will be over your fear of snakes.

We do the same sort of thing for the other anxiety disorders, except this time the feared thing is not an object in space, but a thought. So, again we get you to approach your thought and hold it until the anxiety drops. Now, just as we would not just throw a snake on you at the beginning of treatment because that would do nothing but retraumitize you by sending your anxiety level to a 10, we also cannot allow you to rush headlong into your thoughts. So, the therapist may slow you down or use thought-stopping techniques if she or he notices that your anxiety is getting too high. But, this is why talk therapy works when confronting thoughts you are afraid of. People naturally do this when they tell a friend about a rafting accident they had earlier that day, or whatever. The main thing is to not be retraumitized, as that will turn you off to therapy and make you not want to return.

Use meditation techniques, visual imagery, or progessive muscle relaxation to address acute anxiety episodes and/or for daily maintenance. But, to really take care of the underlying anxiety problem find a therapist who is comfortable and trained in doing what I described above. Edna Foa, Ph.D. is the leading developer of these sorts of treatments for: OCD, PTSD, and social anxiety disorder, but the techniques apply to any anxiety disorder.

Evolution’s new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective

2008-11-18T16:20:00.000-08:00

Here is another piece of the puzzle in understanding evolution. I find it fascinating.

How good it is going to feel to defeat the Church on Prop 8

2008-10-18T06:01:00.000-07:00

Lately, I have cared less and less about the Church. It is quickly becoming irrelevant in my life. But, I do have to say that it is going to feel real good to defeat the Church on Prop 8 when they have poured so many resources into persuading others to pass it.

I just don't think organizations and their leaders who defraud people should win. And I do believe the Church hierarchy deceives its members, especially Boyd Packer and Dallin Oaks. How dare they take advantage of the pure hearts of so many good people who believe their misrepresentations and distortions, and invest so much because of them? I have no idea who all knows the Church isn't what it claims to be, but the words of Boyd and Dallin indicate to me that at minimum, they do.

Two, I really want gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered couples to enjoy equal protection under the law and the freedom to marry the one they love just like heterosexuals can.

Three, my work in opposing Prop 8 is kind of a small penance I am paying for the things I did while in the Church that was not in the best interest of gays. I served on a Bishopric council that disciplined and counseled a gay friend of mine with the intent to make him think that his homosexual attractions were wrong and that through some cognitive retraining he might diminish those desires. After leaving the Church I apologized to that man for the role I played in those meetings. He is much happier now out of the closet and out of the Church.

Anyway, I really want the Church to lose on Prop 8. Hopefully, if all things go well, on Wednesday morning, November 5th, I will be celebrating both an Obama win and a defeat of Prop 8 in California.

Hollywood Declares "Don't Vote"

2008-10-02T04:01:00.000-07:00

If you haven't registered yet or if you have but don't think you'll vote this election (or are amused by attempts at reverse psychology) take a look at this:

Obama: McCain was wrong (video)

2008-09-27T22:01:00.000-07:00

That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain

2008-09-10T19:22:00.001-07:00

Hamlet, disgusted at his partying, murderous, adulterous uncle, makes a mental note that "one may smile, and smile, and be a villain".

One of the difficult things people face as they try to reconcile the two images of Joseph Smith (God's spokesman and coniving fraud) is how can one man produce both the majestic, loving scripture as found in the D&C, and the evil deeds post-mo's are all too familiar with. I think that huge contrast is one reason why so many TBM's have a hard time believing the awful truths about Joseph Smith.

Here is Joseph "smiling":

"Let thy ^abowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let ^bvirtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy ^cconfidence wax strong in the ^dpresence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the ^edews from heaven. "

And "smiling":

"Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. ^aCourage, brethren; and on, on to the victory! Let your hearts rejoice, and be exceedingly glad. Let the earth break forth into ^bsinging. Let the ^cdead speak forth anthems of eternal praise to the ^dKing Immanuel, who hath ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to ^eredeem them out of their ^fprison; for the prisoners shall go free.

23 Let the ^amountains shout for joy, and all ye valleys cry aloud; and all ye seas and dry lands tell the wonders of your Eternal King! And ye rivers, and brooks, and rills, flow down with gladness. Let the woods and all the trees of the field praise the Lord; and ye solid ^brocks weep for joy! And let the sun, moon, and the ^cmorning stars sing together, and let all the sons of God shout for joy! And let the eternal creations declare his name forever and ever! And again I say, how glorious is the voice we hear from heaven, proclaiming in our ears, glory, and salvation, and honor, and ^dimmortality, and eternal life; kingdoms, principalities, and powers!"

And being a villain:

One of Joseph's ambitions was to resolve the heavy debt incurred by the church by establishing the Kirtland Safety Society Bank on January 1, 1837. However, due to being denied this privilege by the Ohio legislature, he established the Kirtland Safety Society Anti-Banking Company the following day. The bank was said to have been established through revelation from God, and it was rumored that Joseph predicted that like Aaron's rod, the bank would swallow up all other banks "and grow and flourish, and spread from the rivers to the ends of the earth, and survive when all others should be laid in ruins." (According to Warren Parrish, who succeeded Joseph as cashier of the bank, in a letter dated March 6, 1838 in Zion's Watchman. This letter was certified to be a statement of fact by Luke Johnson and John F. Boynton (former apostles) and Sylvester Smith and Leonard Rich (former seventies).)

The Messenger and Advocate published an appeal for investors which said:

-
"…we invite the brethren from abroad, to call on us, and take stock in our Safety Society; and we would remind them also of the sayings of Isaiah…'Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold (not their bank notes) with them, unto the name of the Lord thy God.'" (The parenthetical expression is part of the original text, reprinted in History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 473)

According to several individuals that left the church, the bank was established on fraudulent claims of capital security. They related that the bank vault was lined with many boxes, each marked $1,000. These boxes were actually filled with "sand, lead, old iron, stone, and combustibles," but each had a top layer of bright fifty-cent silver coins. Anyone suspicious of the bank's stability was permitted to lift and count the boxes. According to C. G. Webb:

-
"The effect of those boxes was like magic. They created general confidence in the solidity of the bank and that beautiful paper money went like hot cakes. For about a month it was the best money in the country." (Interview by W. Wyl. See Mormon Portraits, p. 36; also Oliver Olney: Absurdities of Mormonism Portrayed, p. 4; the letter of Cyrus Smalling in E. G. Lee, The Mormons, or Knavery Exposed, p. 14; and Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History, pp. 194-8).

William Parrish, secretary for Joseph and cashier of the bank for a short time, wrote in 1838:

-
"I have been astonished to hear him declare that we had $60,000 in specie in our vaults and $600,000 at our command, when we had not to exceed $6,000 and could not command any more; also that we had but about ten thousand dollars of our bills in circulation when he, as cashier of that institution, knew that there was at least $150,000." (Letter to Zion's Watchman, published March 24, 1838. Cyrus Smalling also wrote that Joseph had collected only $6,000 in specie. See E. G. Lee, The Mormons, or Knavery Exposed, p. 14)

It should be noted that Parrish left the church following this fiasco and began openly to describe Joseph's banking methods. He was later accused of absconding with $25,000, probably in bank notes which ultimately proved worthless.

On January 27, less than a month after the bank's opening, the Painesville Telegraph reported that Joseph had "shut up shop…saying he would not redeem another dollar except with land." Everyone with Kirtland anti-bank bills now realized their quandary and tried desperately to get rid of them. By February 1 the bills were selling for 12 ½ cents on the dollar. (According to Cyrus Smalling. See E. G. Lee, The Mormons, or Knavery Exposed, p. 14. Also William Harris: Mormonism Portrayed (Warsaw, Illinois, 1841), p. 30)

From the beginning, the bank had been operated illegally and Joseph was eventually ordered by the courts to pay the standard $1,000 penalty as well as court costs (see Chardon, Ohio, courthouse, Vol. U, p. 362). Needless to say, the dissolution of the bank and the catastrophic effects it held for those that trusted Joseph's word resulted in widespread disillusionment with the prophet. Under accusations of fraud, Joseph threatened to excommunicate any Saint who brought suit against a brother in the church. As Heber Kimball put it, during this time "there were not twenty persons on earth that would declare that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God." (Sermon delivered September 28, 1856. Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 105)

To be fair, many other banks failed during the "panic of 1837" and Saints who were ready to apostatize decided that Joseph's speculation looked more like an indiscretion than grand larceny. As related by Christopher Cary:

-
"It was marvelous to see with what tenacity they held to their faith in the prophet, when they knew they had been robbed, abused and insulted." (Pioneer and Personal Reminiscences, p. 45)

However, given the dishonest claims that appear to have been made regarding the bank's capital, the seemingly prophetic promises of prosperity in return for investment, and the fact that Joseph authorized and perpetuated the illegal operation of the bank in the first place, I personally consider this a poor reflection on Joseph's character and his ability to act under inspiration from God.

LDS Church counts almost 33 % more people as members than reported themselves to be Mormons

2008-09-10T19:20:00.001-07:00

The following paragraph comes from a recent article in the UUWorld magazine entitled, "Three in a thousand: A new survey estimates that 0.3 percent of American adults identify as Unitarians—a lot more than belong to our churches". In it, the author refers to the recent U.S. Religious Landscape Survey conducted by the Pew Forum.

Gaps between self-described and formal membership are common, said David A. Roozen, a sociologist who tracks religion trends as director of the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, in Hartford, Connecticut. For example, 25 percent more people identified themselves as Episcopalians and 33 percent more people claimed to be Methodists than either national body counts. The gap works the other way for some traditions, however: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints counts almost 33 percent more people as members than reported themselves to be Mormons in the Pew study.

Most churches don't count someone as a member unless they actually attend. If someone stops attending or donating after a period of time, the church drops them from the rolls. When asked in a survey, some of these people will still consider themselves as belonging to a particular religious movement.

The LDS Church on the other hand counts as members not only those who no longer attend, but also those who no longer consider themselves Mormon. This has long been suspected and infered from the Church's own statistics, etc, but here we have yet another well-conducted study showing that the church grossly inflates its numbers.

Parenting Resources for Non-Theists

2008-09-10T19:15:00.001-07:00

Since there are a number of us non-theists here, I thought we might share things we have found to help raise our kids to be skeptical and ethical. (Some of the religious parents might find these resources helpful, too).

Books - I haven't read all of these, yet.

"Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion"

"Maybe Yes, Maybe No: A Guide for Young Skeptics"

"How Do You Know It's True?: Discovering the Difference Between Science and Superstition"

"Life on Earth: The Story of Evolution"

"Our Whole Lives" - A series of books for teaching children about healthy sexuality

Summer Camps

Camp Inquiry

Camp Quest

Blog

Secular Parenting Blog

Parenting Beyond Belief forum

Abiogenesis

2008-09-10T19:01:00.000-07:00

Jahedgpeth wrote the following on PostMormon:

from wikipedia:

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules

Basically, I can't believe that we could ever get to a viable single celled organism and have that organism reproduce without some sort of "god" x-factor to begin the process.

It never has made sense to me.

Here is how I get past the probability issue.

First, it must be clear that we are not talking about pure chance. There are organizing forces at work. Electrostatic attraction organizes atoms into molecules, and molecules into protein stuctures. Spheres (the shape of the cell membrane and the neucleus) are very stable due to the laws of physics. That is why soap bubbles take the shape of a sphere.

So, we are not saying that all of these atoms just randomly aligned out of pure chance. Chance played a large role, but there are organizing forces of physics and chemistry that were at work naturally, just doing what they do.

Let's also remember that the formation of a cell without a god-like creator is not impossible. (A point which Jahedgpeth has already admitted to).

So, let's estimate the probability of the formation of a cell to be very, very low. Here is where the law of very large numbers comes in. If the numbers are big enough, even very, very improbable occurances become likely. To illustrate, let me use easy numbers to work with. The probability of one Powerball lottery ticket having all the numbers that are drawn on a particular day is 1 in 100,000,000, so very unlikely. However, if 1,000,000,000 lottery tickets are purchased, the odds are that 10 of those lottery tickets are winners. So, an event that is improbable becomes probable if given a whole lot of chances.

Now, the odds of a cell forming are a lot smaller than 1 in 100 million. But, no matter how infinitesimly small the chances are, we have to remember how large the universe is and how long billions of years are, and how many interactions atoms have each second. I mean we don't even have names for the number of interactions atoms had throughout the entire universe over the entire time from the Big Bang to the creation of replicating cells. Even very improbably events can happen. And remember it is not just chance at work, principles of physics are at work organizing the elements and holding the pieces together when they get in place.

I find that the formation of replicating cells become likely due to the law of very large numbers. I see no need for a Creator, and I don't believe there has to be a reason why.

Here is some reading:

Law of Truly Large Numbers

law of truly large numbers

I don't believe we matter at the cosmic level; we don't matter ultimately or permanently. But, I do believe we can matter at the local level in space and time - temporarily.

Incidently, that is also how we reconcile the law of entropy against the other organizing laws of physics such as those that arrange carbon atoms into diamonds, etc. At the cosmic level, the universe is cooling down and becoming more disorganized (entropy rules). But, at the local level we see matter moving into more and more organized and complex forms (organizing laws of physics rule).

Preparing Young Atheists for the Draws of Religion

2008-09-10T18:45:00.000-07:00

Someone named Draconis posted the following on PostMormon:

I was talking to someone today and the subject of religion came up. It turns out that he is an atheist who has never really been taught much at all about religion. What was interesting to me is that his world view seems to be very naive, based on lack of reason to believe anything in particular. He's never given it much thought, never been too concerned about it, and only knows that he disliked Christianity because to him they are "too pushy." Beyond that, he has never much pondered the mysteries of the universe at all.

In stark contrast, while I don't necessarily disagree with his conclusions, I almost found it offensive that he reached them so callously. He's never pondered the big questions. He has never yearned for the truth. He was totally ignorant to the reasons why somebody might choose to be an atheist and instead just never chose NOT to be an atheist. In short, he has no good reason to be an atheist.

I started wondering whether part of the reason I was annoyed by his apathy and gross ignorance was due to some jealousy on my behalf. What would it have been like to be raised without the concept of some all-powerful control-freak watching over me and judging my actions and thoughts? What would it have been like to not have to break free from the chains of spiritual bondage and fight my way to freedom?

The more I thought about it, the more I realized that what was unsettling me was that he didn't appreciate what he had, because he'd never earned it. Most of us here know what it means to suffer in order to find our own spiritual freedom, and here this guy has never been without it and doesn't even begin to appreciate what he has.

Once I understood the reason for my feelings I was able to change them. I know that I have something he does not have. I recognize the value of my perspective because it is based on hard-won experience. I will not be easily duped in the future. I have valuable experience to back up my convictions, where he merely has a lack of convictions due to a lack of experience. That is to say, I have good reason not to believe, whereas he merely has no good reason to believe.

Here was my response:

I have been thinking of this topic a lot recently. Obama was much like the guy you described. Obama's father was raised Muslim, but by the time he got involved with Obama's mother, he was atheist. Obama's mother was raised protestant, but was basically agnostic/secular humanist throughout he adult life.

Obama spent a lot of time with his maternal grandparents. But, while living with his mom in foriegn countries he was exposed to Catholic and Muslim beliefs, but never really internalized those beliefs. In his young adult years, he aimlessly wandered a bit using some drugs and alcohol. Then, he got his education on track and earned a law degree.

It was while he was working with the poor in Chicago that he realized that the people he was helping had something he did not - a spirituality that got them through the tough times. He wanted that, too, so he studied with the Rev. Wright and was really introduced to Christ. Obama challenged the pastor a bit, but eventually acepted Christianity as true.

See, I think Obama was unprepared like so many nontheists are today. I think those of us who are atheists need to teach our kids two important things: 1) spirituality that does not stem from the supernatural, and 2) all the evidence of why we find the dogmatic religions of the world false.

My kids are very young now, but they will know why I don't believe Mormonism is true, and they will know the evidence against the Bible, thereby ruling out a literal belief in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They will be free to choose to believe what they wish and I'll take them to many different religions' services, but they will also know the evidence and logical arguments I use to determine what I think about those religions.

But, the other thing I'll do is teach my kids to experience awe, transcendence, elevation, peace, connectedness, wonder, etc, outside of the supernatural context. They will know what I believe to be the natural mechanisms at work during "spiritual" experiences. I don't want my kids to feel like this is a gaping whole in their lives that can only be filled through superstitious religion.

I know why I am atheist and am proud of the research I have done into Mormonism and Christianity that convinced me that they could not be true. I hope that I will equip my children with critical thinking skills and a willingness to thoroughly investigate any religion before they believe in it. And I want them to know how to create those wonderful and calming experiences that are traditional thought of as spiritual without having to believe in the supernatural.

I think young atheists need to be religiously literate. Religion plays too large a role in world affairs and domestic agendas for any of us to not be educated in it. I don't believe one can have a suitable, welll-rounded education and be prepared to be a citizen of the world without having some working knowledge of religion. So much of great art and literature allude to religious icons. Religion is a very real and influential cultural phenomenon even if the beliefs they are founded on aren't true.

This is part of why I am proud to support Obama

2008-08-21T19:03:00.000-07:00

I just read this wonderful article on Obama's economic vision. This is one of the reasons we desperately need Obama in the White House.

How Obama Reconciles Dueling Views on Economy

It’s Deja Vu All Over Again!

2008-08-21T16:50:00.001-07:00

Ever wonder what it would have been like to have been witness to Joseph Smith tell his tales right there in front of you? A few former Mormons in England have founded a new church. They have a prophet that has translated a new book of scripture written by the ancient inhabitants of England. Their poor prophet hasn't the creativity to think of anything new, he is following the Joseph Smith story line by line as if it were a script. It is hilarious and sad. I wonder how big a following he'll get and how much money he'll make. As P.T. Barnum said, "There is a sucker born every minute".

Here is the church's website.

Here is a youtube video explaining the Book of Jeraneck.

This guy is an amatuer nave.

______________________________________________________________

Matthew Gill's story does remind me of another, much more gifted Joseph Smith imitator, Christopher Nemelka. Nemelka claimed to have translated the Book of Lehi (remember the 116 lost manuscript pages) and the sealed portion of the golden plates.

His site has been updated since the last time I visited: thesealedportion

He acknowledged his fraud here, but apparently he resumed his fraud hoping his followers won't learn of his earlier confession.

His online calendar.

Oh, and for a fun flashback, remember this story, when a woman interrupted the 2005 Christmas Devotional? Well, she was a follower of Nemelka's.

The whole structure and doctrine of Mormonism breeds these kind of copycat prophets. Almost every boy wants to be like Joseph and the next prophet.

Trust

2008-08-21T03:54:00.000-07:00

On a thread on PostMormon, Hiker R wrote:

A father took his son into the barn one day and asked him to climb up in the hay loft. Then he told the son to jump into his arms. The son said he was scared because he was pretty high up and didn’t think his dad could catch him. The dad assured the son he could. The son jumped and the dad stepped out of the way and the son hit the ground. The dad approached his son and said, “Important business lesson; don’t trust anybody.”

I wanted to dedicate a thread to the topic of trust. I disagree strongly with this father's tactics and the moral of the story.

I believe that we should trust others, but not with more than we are willing to lose.

Like it or not, homo sapiens evoled to become social animals, and trust is essential in all social interactions. We are vulnerable all the time - vulnerable to being taken advantage of, stolen from, injured, confined, or killed by others. We also depend on others, at least in part, for protection from all of those things.

I am not advocating that we be foolish with the trust we have to invest. I think we should start slowly in new relationships, risking only a little and then seeing what they do with it. Over time a track record is established. Nothing is certain; even the best performing stocks can fail. But, I'd rather invest in an individual with a proven track record than in an unknown person.

Before I invest a lot of trust in an etity that I have no previous experience with, I do my homework by learning of the experiences others have had with that entity. I check the BBB, epinions, and background checks depending on what services I'd use them for.

It can be scary when we realize how much we trust others. I trust my wife with my life every time I let her drive. Heck, I trust my life to every other driver on the road, and I know nothing about them. Any determined person could kill me if I didn't see it coming (school shootings, pipe bombs, arsenic poisonings, etc). Our society would not work without trust. Despite all the risk, I think prudent trusting is worth it. Because through it, we can get our emotional needs met, accumulate wealth, and enjoy the freedom to do what we want.

So, are you a "Trust no one, Mr. Mulder" kind of person; a carefree, perhaps overly trusting person; or one who builds trusting relationships carefully?

Scattering of the Saints: Schisms within Mormonism

2008-08-21T03:53:00.000-07:00

For those interested in learning about the various sects of Mormonism, there is an excellent book called, "Scattering of the Saints: Schisms within Mormonism".

The following graphic is of the front cover and shows the presidents of a few of the various offshoot churches. The image is a little hard to read, but the book itself goes through all the various churches.

http://www.annuitech.com/ms/ftp/Jim/FrontCover_SotS.gif
Once the image comes up, you can click on it to make it a little bigger.

Here is a link to the book on Amazon.

And here and here and here is some online information on a few of the sects (a number of which have their own websites).

It is not our fault the Church isn’t what it claims to be

2008-08-20T15:26:00.001-07:00

Sometimes TBM family members look down on us as if we are to blame. All they see is that we disrupted the balance. But, I believe that their disapproval is misdirected. It is not our fault the Church isn't what it claims to be. Blame Joseph Smith and those who followed for the emotional turmoil and familial upheaval. We just discovered the "bad thing"; we didn't cause it. And there is nothing wrong, morally or otherwise, with discovering the truth even if it is bad news.

It is similar to discovering my sister's husband is having an affair, and the rest of the family hears that I don't believe he is being faithful to my sister. They are unwilling to ask about or really consider the reasons I feel that way and the evidence I have against him. Instead, they all stand up for him and bear their witness that he is a good and faithful husband, and then accuse me of being deceived and blame me for causing this disruption in the family.

"Look, it is not my fault he cheated on his wife and I have done nothing wrong by discovering his unfaithfulness. You could know it, too, if you'd look at the evidence, but you won't consider it. I am not the bad guy here, and you guys are being unreasonable. I'm being ostracized when he should be the one that is ostracized. I am not going to substitute your judgment for mine when I aware of more facts than you are. You can't fairly judge whether I am telling the truth or not until you at least examine the evidence I am more than happy to share with you, but I won't force upon you".

Similarly, it isn't our fault the Church isn't true. We didn't do anything wrong by discovering the truth. It is the Church and its founders that have done a lot of things wrong. Perhaps we could be rightfully faulted if we tried to force our disbelief on family members. But, we suffer disapproval and judgment and are ostacized just for simply no longer believing, if others know about our disbelief. I repeat, it is not our fault Joseph lied, and TBM's negativity is misdirected if aimed at us.

Draft 2008 Democratic National Platform

2008-08-07T15:24:00.000-07:00

I just had to share:

Draft 2008 Democratic National Platform

The Gospel According to Homer Simpson

2008-07-20T16:52:00.000-07:00

I love the Simpsons! When I was a TBM, I found the show very inappropriate and sacriligious, but now I love it. Despite being crude, it tackles some serious philosophical and ethical issues with witty satire (as does South Park).

Anyway, since "losing my religion" I have espeicially enjoyed the religious humor of the Simpsons. I find this article on the Simpson's view of religion with plenty of quotes that made me laugh out loud. Here is the link. Enjoy!

"Dear God, this is Marge Simpson. If you stop this hurricane and save our family, we will be forever grateful and recommend you to all of our friends."

Or a nuclear meltdown, begun at Homer's workplace.

"Dear Lord," Marge prays, "if you spare this town from becoming a smoking hole in the ground, I'll try to be a better Christian. I don't know what I can do. Ummm . . . oh, the next time there's a canned-food drive, I'll give the poor something they actually like, instead of old lima beans and pumpkin mix."

For more religion on The Simpsons content, look here.

Oh, yeah. My wife and I always like Bart Simpson's blessing on the food: "Dear God, We paid for this food ourselves, so thanks for nothing."

Much Ado About Nothing

2008-07-20T16:41:00.000-07:00

After leaving the Church and theism, my priorities and values have changed somewhat. I mean I still value honesty and kindness and such, but much that I used to respect is no longer important to me such as I looked negatively upon less than valiant church attendence, watching R-rated movies, and shopping on the Sabbath. I can't believe how much I fussed over things that I now believe don't matter.

Personally, I would have absolutely no problem with my young kids cussing if I lived a society where everyone is cool with it. The only reason I don't think it is a good idea for my young children to cuss is due to the negative reaction other adults would give. Some people might advise, "Screw what other people think, live your life the way you are comfortable". But, I have found that there are numerous advantages to socially fitting in, and small concessions are worth the pay off. Although I still feel that those who have a problem with cussing are raising much ado about nothing, I respect their right to value what they value.

So, what do you think people fuss over that you consider not that important? What do you think people blow out of proportion or over-emphasize? How have your priorities or values changed since leaving the church? What do people consider a sin or inappropriate that you don't think is a big deal?

It might be helpful to think about what you feel is most important. If you think it is most important to please god, then it might follow that you wouldn't want to offend him through crass humour or by working on Sunday, etc. However, if you think it is most important to enjoy life and your relationships, things like laughing at Family Guy or working on Sunday won't necessarily be all that important in the big picture.

What follows was a guy named peter_mary's response to my post and it described so well my wife's and my position about premarital sex and alcohol that I just have to include it here:

This list probably doesn't qualify as "much ado about NOTHING," but it most definately demonstrates the continental shifting of my thinking with regards to things the church REALLY pounds it's members over. The reality is though, it has made me a MUCH better parent of teenagers, I find I can enjoy their adolescence and young adulthood so much more fully because I am not worried about their eternal salvation being at risk every single day of their foolish, inexperienced young lives.

1) I am not concerned whether or not my unmarried children are sexually active in the context of a committed but unmarried relationship. I AM concerned about WHY they might be sexually active. We talked at length as they were older teens and young adults about the importance of respecting the boundaries of boyfriends and girlfriends, respecting their "good names" and not manipulating anyone for hedonistic gratification. We were clear on the reasons why sex too early is a bad idea, and why casual sex is a really bad idea (for young, stupid kids...lots of adults manage this just fine, and I have no opinion on it). So now, instead of telling them we expect them to be chaste until marriage, we tell them that we expect no grandchildren until they're married. So far, they've done a very good job of managing those boundaries on their own, and they have relieved me from worrying about them being cast into the pits of hell for committing a sin "second only to murder" in severity.

2) I am not concerned if my underaged children "try" alcohol (and they know they won't be in trouble if they tell me after the fact). I don't worry that they will be on the slippery slope to impending doom. Instead, we talk about the importance of sober living, keeping (and valuing) clarity of thought, and the various risks that people have to be willing to accept if they introduce alcohol into their lives. Furthermore, I remind them that the LAW prohibits the legal consumption of alcohol until they are 21 years old, and I expect them to be law abiding citizens. In that same vein, however, we allowed our 18 year old to try whiskey, wine and Guinness when we took him to Scotland because a) he was legal there, and b) we encouraged him to join us in participating in the cultural nuances of Scotland. He handled it brilliantly, and returned to his tee-totaling self upon his return to the land where legal drinking is 21. (None of the members of my family express any real interest in alcohol, but not for moral reasons...)

Both of those issues caused me no end of anxiety as the parent of young teenagers, and I am an infinitely better parent for having let that go of all that "ado".

How I like my alcohol

2008-07-20T16:16:00.000-07:00

I love margaritas, strawberry daiquiris, mojitos and hurricanes. I can't stand beer, at least none that I've tried, but I am getting to the point I don't even want to try beer anymore. I think why waste money on another beer that I'll taste then throw out, when I can spend that same money on some other form of alcohol that I either know I love or am likely to love. I do like wine coolers which are actually flavored beer, but don't taste like beer.

I love wines of all sorts. I started out with the sweet wines, such as white Zinfandel, then progressed to the dry wines (not sweet). I like both white and red wines, but I'd suggest starting with a white wine if you are new to wines. I also found that I really enjoyed mead, which is a wine made from honey. One can drink mead cold, in which it is very similar a white wine in taste and viscosity. Mead is often sold with a packet of spices (nutmeg, cinnamon, ginger, etc). One can heat up mead over the stove and pour in the spices and drink it out of a mug like they did in Europe during the middle ages.

My Advice for Those Looking for Marriage Counseling

2008-07-20T16:10:00.000-07:00

Occasionally, I hear of couples having marriage problems due to differing religious beliefs.

While working on my MA in Psychology, I specialized in couples therapy. I suggest finding a therapist who practices Integrative Behavioral Couples Therapy (IBCT). Research shows that it is the most effective couples therapy out there.

You may also want to look into getting a copy of the companion self-help book Reconcilable Differences written by the developers of IBCT, Jacobson and Christiansen.

Allegations Abt Joseph Smith Encouraging Abortions for His Plural Wives

2008-07-20T15:28:00.000-07:00

I am sure the TBM's who read this post are going to accuse me of spreading anti-Mormon rumors/lies about the beloved Prophet. This will be especially the case because most if not all of my sources are statements from those disaffected with Joseph or the Church. I acknowledge the possibility that the allegations are untrue. I don't believe either of us can declare definitively whether these allegations are false or true, but no doubt some TBM's will speak as though they KNOW that these allegations are false, which of course they can't know that.

So, why post these quotes? Because people deserve the opportunity to investigate for themselves and make up their own minds about it. The more I research things, the more I trust the word of the disaffected Mormons more than the Church Leadership.

Mrs. [Sarah Pratt].: "You hear often that Joseph had no polygamous offspring. The reason of this is very simple. Abortion was practiced on a large scale in Nauvoo. Dr. John C. Bennett, the evil genius of Joseph, brought this abomination into a scientific system. He showed to my husband and me the instruments with which he used to * operate for Joseph. ' There was a house in Nauvoo, 'right across the flat,' about a mile and a-half from the town, a kind of hospital. They sent the women there, when they showed signs of celestial consequences. Abortion was practiced regularly in this house."

Mrs. H.: "Many little bodies of new-born children floated down the Mississippi..."
May 21, 1886, I had a fresh interview with Mrs. Sarah M. Pratt, who had the kindness to give me the following testimony additional to the information given by her in our interviews in the spring of 1885. "I want you to have all my statements correct in your book," said the noble lady, "and put my name to them; I want the truth, the full truth, to be known, and bear the responsibility of it...
"Joseph Smith, the son of the prophet, and president of the re-organized Mormon church, paid me a visit, and I had a long talk with him. I saw that he was not inclined to believe the truth about his father, so I said to him: 'You pretend to have revelations from the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord to tell you what kind of a man your father really was?' He answered: 'If my father had so many connections with women, where is the progeny?' I said to him: 'Your father had mostly intercourse with married women, and as to single ones, Dr. Bennett was always on hand, when anything happened...'
Bennett wanted me to return to him a book I had borrowed from him. It was a so-called doctor-book. I had a rapidly growing little family and wanted to inform myself about certain matters in regard to babies, etc., -- this explains my borrowing that book. While giving Bennett his book, I observed that he held something in the left sleeve of his coat. Bennett smiled and said: 'Oh, a little job for Joseph; one of his women is in trouble.' Saying this. he took the thing out of his left sleeve. It was a pretty long instrument of a kind I had never seen before. It seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one end. I heard afterwards that the operation had been performed; that the woman was very sick, and that Joseph was very much afraid that she might die, but she recovered. (Mormon Portraits I, von Wymetal, Wilhelm, SLC: Tribune Printing & Pub., 1886, page 59-62).

AFFIDAVIT OF HYRUM SMITH.

On the seventeenth day of may, 1842, having been made acquainted with some of the conduct of John C. Bennett, which was given in testimony under oath before Alderman G. W. Harris, by several females, who testified that John C. Bennett endeavored to seduce them and accomplished his designs by saying it was right; that it was one of the mysteries of God, which was to be revealed when the people was strong enough in the faith to bear such mysteries -- that it was perfectly right to have illicit intercourse with females, providing no one knew it but themselves, vehemently trying them from day to day, to yield to his passions, bringing witnesses of his own clan to testify that [there] was such revelations and such commandments, and that it was of God; also stating that he would be responsible for their sins, if their was any; and that he would give them medicine to produce abortions, providing they should become pregnant. One of these witnesses, a married woman that he attended upon in his professional capacity, whilst she was sick, stated that he made proposals to her of a similar nature; he told her that he wished her husband was dead, and that if he was dead he would marry her and clear out out with her; he also begged her permission to give him medicine to that effect; he did try to give him medicine, but he would not take it -- on interrogating her what she thought of such teaching, she replied, she was sick at the time, and had to be lifted in and out of her bed like a child. (THE WASP. --- EXTRA. Nauvoo, Illinois, Wednesday, July 27, 1842.)

"Did you ever hear of abortion being practiced in Nauvoo?"

"Yes. There was some talk about Joseph getting no issue from all the women he had intercourse with. Dr. Foster spoke to me about the fact. But I don't remember what was told about abortion. If I heard things of the kind, I didn't believe in them at that time. Joseph was very free in his talk about his women. He told me one day of a certain girl and remarked, that she had given him more pleasure than any girl he had ever enjoyed. I told him it was horrible to talk like this." (Interview with Wm. Law. March. 30, 1887; THE DAILY TRIBUNE: SALT LAKE CITY, SUNDAY MORNING, JULY 31, 1887.)

Could someone explain to me what is meant by the phrase “finding your truth”?

2008-07-20T15:27:00.001-07:00

Maybe it is just me, but I cannot comprehend what people are talking about when they say it is important to find your own truth.

You see, for me, there is no such thing as "your truth" and "my truth", there is only the truth and it is the same for all of us no matter what we believe. Because I understand truth to mean the way things really are, and they either are some particular way or they are not.

Either Mt. Rushmore exists or it does not; it cannot exist for me and not exist for you. Now, you might not know it exists, but that doesn't change the reality - that doesn't change the truth. You might perceive it differently or call it by some other name, but it either exists for both of us or it doesn't exist for both of us. There is no my truth and your truth about it; there is only the truth, at least the way I use and understand the word truth. So, others must be using the word differently from me and I want to understand what they mean by it so that I can communicate with them.

Now, some things work for some people and not for others. For instance, praying calms some people down, but doesn't others. Meditation works for some, but not for others. But, I would never call that "their truth". It is everyone's truth that praying works for calming some people down and you might be one of them. So, the reality of the situation is that it works for you. That is the truth, not my truth or your truth.

So, for those of you who think in terms of "my truth" and "your truth", what do you mean?

List of Questions to ask Mormon Leaders

2008-04-27T11:49:00.000-07:00

These aren't my questions, but were prepared by others on PostMormon.org . Yet, I thought they are so great, I thought I'd share them here. Now, as many of you know I was an amateur apologist for Mormonism before I discovered Mormonism wasn't true, so I know a good many apologetic responses to many of these questions. However, I think these questions bring up a lot of the significant issues and when one mentally adds up the probability that all of the apologetic excuses one right after the other one begins to see that the most likely explanation is that Mormonism is just not true.

Questions by wintersfootsteps

Do you consider it lying when someone does not tell you the complete story and purposefully leaves out certain details?

Why was I taught an inaccurate version of events from church leaders regarding the first vision and translation of the Book of Mormon?

Why was I not taught about Joseph Smith's past regarding treasure seeking with the same seer stone used in the translation of the Book of Mormon?

Can you understand that when people realize the church didn't share all the facts regarding this matter it makes the church seem as if it is covering something up?

Now that many people have admitted that Joseph Smith used a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon, as well as treasure seeking facts, why don't they teach and promote the accurate version of events?

Why does the church use tools, like paintings, that depict the translation of the Book of Mormon in a false manner to teach children and investigators?

Why not show paintings depicting the actual events of the translation of the Book of Mormon with Joseph Smith using a seer stone in a top hat?

Does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe the Book of Abraham to be scripture?

Why doesn't the church tell the complete and full story regarding the Book of Abraham?

Why did Joseph Smith translate the Egyptian papyri and claim it as scripture when many Egyptologists have studied the papyri and translate them to common funerary texts?

Do you find it troubling that a "Prophet of God" could get this wrong?

Do you understand why so many people see this as a giant red flag in regards to being able to trust Joseph Smith and his translating abilities?

Why did Joseph Smith believe the Kinderhook Plates were record from God and make plans to translate them?

Why don't most Mormons know about the situation regarding the Kinderhook Plates?

If Joseph Smith did nothing wrong, why not talk about it?

Why does the Mormon Church teach that polygamy will be practiced in heaven?

Why would it even be necessary to be married in heaven?

Why would God or an angel of God command Joseph Smith to practice polygamy?

If an angel of God commanded Joseph Smith to practice polygamy, why was it necessary for him to keep it secret from his own wife?

How could a "Prophet of God" deceive his own wife?

Isn't lying to your wife breaking a commandment?

Why would Joseph Smith practice polygamy even though the 12th article of faith clearly states: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. Even though polygamy was never legal?

If the current prophet were to receive revelation that polygamy was again necessary, would you or male family members take on other wives?

What if your own wife were against the idea of taking on other wives? Would you do it anyway?

Why were 33 of the know women sealed to Joseph Smith in the temple already married to living men?

Why would a "Prophet of God" think it to be a good idea to take on two wives (Helen Mar Kimball and Nancy Winchester) when they were only 14 years old at the time?

Do you know it was uncommon for 14 year olds to be married, even in that time period?

Why did the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (1835) include a section denying the practice of polygamy?

Why would it be necessary to lie about polygamy being practiced by Mormons if it was truly needed to reach the celestial kingdom?

Can you understand why it is so hard to trust an organization that was clearly being deceitful?

Why would God command people to break the law and then ask them to lie about it?

If polygamy was truly essential to reach the celestial kingdom, why was the practice stopped?

Why has the church changed it's position on gospel doctrine so many times?

Why did Brigham Young repeatedly teach that Adam was God the Father?

Why do most Mormons who talk to me about this issue believe it's either a mistake or something that was taken out of context?

Brigham Young clearly believed and taught that Adam was indeed God the Father. He told people he had revelation on the subject. Why do Mormon Apologists deny this?

Since the church has officially distanced itself from the comments about the Adam/God theory, how do you know what will be true doctrine and what will not?

Bruce R. McConkie claimed that Brigham Young's views about the Adam/God theory were "out of harmony with the gospel," He also bluntly stated, "...anyone who received the temple endowments and who yet believe the Adam/God theory does not deserve to be saved." (BYU devotional 6/1/1980). Does the church believe certain types of people shouldn't be saved?

If anyone who received the temple endowments and still believed the Adam/God theory didn't deserve to be saved, where does that leave Brigham Young?

One prophet teaches that Adam is God, something "which God revealed to him" as well as that his teachings are scripture. When then have another prophet who condemns the doctrine that Adam is God. Finally, we have an apostle who feels that the prophets can be an unreliable source of information. Therefore, he says, we should rely on the scriptures-- which themselves originate from prophets and apostles. How are we supposed to know who to believe and when?

Do you understand how that makes anything hard to believe?

When does one know to believe the prophets and apostles? It seems that it just depends on whom and when?

How can one believe the famous saying, "The prophet will never lead you astray" after Brigham Young led people astray?

Don't you think God would have designed a clearer system than this for receiving his divine messages?

Why has the temple endowment ceremony been changed if it came directly from God Himself?

Why were death oaths once used in the temple ceremony?

Why was it that people of color could not hold the priesthood until 1978?

Why would God not want all of his children to be treated fairly?

Why would God allow certain kinds of people the priesthood and not others?

Many people have mentioned that the Church was about to lose it's tax-exempt status and that is the only reason the prophet suddenly received revelation to allow men of color to hold the priesthood. What is the official reason for the change of heart?

Do you understand why its hard to believe this decision was made purely from revelation?
Why were missionaries taught not to baptize people of color on their missions before 1978?

Do you understand why many people will always consider the Mormon Church to be a racist organization due to the comments and actions of previous prophets and apostles?

Why was it taught that people who were born with dark skin were being punished in this life because of their actions in the pre-existence?

Do you understand why it is extremely offensive to people to judge their character because of your beliefs about them in the pre-existence? How can you judge someone on something that you have no personal recollection of?

Why was it taught that dark skin would turn lighter and more "delightsome" once they learned and accepted the gospel?

Now that we know for certain that skin color has nothing to do with any curse, how can we believe anything else these specific apostles and prophets said? How can we trust anyone who was so horribly and inhumanely wrong?

Why has the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints never officially apologized to people of color for this mistreatment?

Do you feel that the Church should apologize for their mistreatment of African-Americans and other races after the harm and hurt it caused many of them?

In the past it was taught that birth control was "wickedness" (Joseph Fielding Smith) and that if you used birth control "destruction was inevitable" (Joseph Fielding Smith). If these words came from a prophet, why do we now believe different things?

Yet another prophet has it wrong, how can we trust the things they say given this track record?

If temple garments were so important, why has the design for the garments changed over time?

Why wasn't Joseph Smith wearing his temple garments when he was killed?

Originally, the Word of Wisdom asked members not to have alcohol, tobacco, hot drinks, the use of wine only with communion, and meat only in the winter. How did that evolve into the no coffee/tea/alcohol/tobacco Word of Wisdom we have today?

If the word of Wisdom is so important, why did Joseph Smith have alcohol with him in Carthage Jail? It was not intended for communion. (History of the Church, vol. 7 p. 101)

If the word of wisdom was intended to teach Mormons not to have hot drinks, why is drinking hot chocolate allowed but not coffee? Is it the caffeine? If caffeine is the issue, why do many Mormons drink Mountain Dew or other caffeinated soft drinks?

Why were many of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon later quoted as saying that they saw the golden plates through "the eyes of faith?"
If church leaders think this isn't an issue, why isn't it discussed openly and honestly?

Why isn't this information shared with investigators?

Don't you feel that it is important to be honest with people that are deciding if the Mormon Church is for them?

Shouldn't everything be out in the open before someone is baptized? Isn't that fair and moral?

Why are items mentioned in the Book of Mormon not in the Americas at the time (Pre-Colombian)? None of these items have been discovered or verified in any ancient American archeological expedition or historical investigation in the last 200 years?

Silk (Alma 1:29)
Chariots (Alma 18:9)
Seven Day Week (Mosiah 13:18)
Cimeters (old world two-handed steel blade) (Mosiah 9:16 and other verses)
Land kept from the knowledge of "Other Nations" (2 Nephi 1:18)
Bellows (1 Nephi 17:11)
Brass and Iron (2 Nephi 5:15)
Breast plates and Copper (Mosiah 8:10)
Gold and Silver Currency (Alma 11)
Silver (Jarom 1:18)
Steel Swords (Esther 7:9, 2 Nephi 5:14)
Cattle, oxen, donkeys, horses, goats, and wild goats (1 Nephi 18:25)
Sheep, Swine, and elephants (Esther 7:9 and 2 Nephi 5:14)
Plow agriculture such as barley (Alma 11:7) and wheat (Mosiah 9:9)
Absence of foods known to ancient America such as chocolate, lima beans, squash, potatoes, tomatoes, etc.

Do you understand why its so hard for people to believe the Book of Mormon as true historical record with all of these problems?

Why are women not allowed to hold the priesthood?

If the color of skin (to hold the priesthood) is no longer an issue, why is gender an issue?

Why does gender determine so much in the Mormon Church?

Why are women basically groomed from a young age (I speak from experience) to be wives and mothers?

What happens when a Mormon woman decides she doesn't want to be a wife or mother and instead focus on a career or education?

What would you say to a young woman who didn't want to be a wife and mother?

How does anyone know what God wants for someone else?

Why are women only allowed to occupy subordinate roles to make priesthood holders?

If women are only allowed to serve under male priesthood roles, how is there any equality?

Why are women who raise their voices about this inequality receive disciplinary action?

Maxine Hanks, excommunicated, editor of "Woman and Authority: Reemerging Mormon Fundamentalism."
Deborah Lake, excommunicated, author of "Secret Ceremonies."
Lavina Fielding Anderson, excommunicated, collected stories of people (mainly women) who have been abused by the Mormon system. Edited the book, "Sisters in Spirit: Mormon Women in Historical and Cultural Perspective."

Is it the Church's position to say that one person has more power, control, and responsibility based on gender?

Why are women supposed to tell their husbands their temple names, but men are told to keep their temple name from their wives?

What is the purpose of the temple name?

Why must we have a new/different name in heaven?

Shouldn't God know who we are without secret handshakes and secret names?

Do you understand why many feel that women are second class citizens in the church?

Why was I told multiple times that my life wouldn't be as fulfilling if I didn't marry a return missionary and raise my kids in the church?

How would anyone know what would make my life, and others, more fulfilling?

Does the church know what will and will not be fulfilling to women?

Why can't a women bless her own child?

Why is it that women don't get to make any decisions about church wealth?

Do you think its fair and equal to not give women equal say in how this money is spent?

Can you understand that this inequality is an extremely valid reason to leave the church?

the poster amusick added these:

Why is the church so patriarchal, when it is clear that patriarchal societies foster abuse of women and children? Why do women have no clear voice in the church, especially in the upper echelons? Why do church courts have no female representatives in them, even when females are being judged?

Why did the church actively oppose the ERA and the marriage amendment, when it is supposed to not be a political institution, and becoming politically involved could jeopardize its tax exempt status? Why did it try to cover up this opposition?

What about the Greek Psaltery?

Why after 200 years is there still no archaeological record of any BOM peoples? Why is the genetic evidence so compellingly against the BOM peoples being descended from Israelite peoples?

Why is the temple ceremony so close to the masonic ceremonies JS participated in prior to his starting up temple ceremonies? And why have they been changed so much?

Why are women still subjugated in the temple ceremony? They have to veil, and be responsible to their husbands, not to the Lord.

Why does the church talk about JS so much, and neglects Jesus Christ so much (count the references to JS in any General Conference, and compare them with references to Jesus Christ)?

Why does the church feel it is acceptable to Christ's teachings to spend $2B on a mall, when so many of its own members are unable to feed their families?

The Offense-Taking Scale

2008-04-24T08:46:00.001-07:00

I thought some might find it enjoyable or informative to take the Offense-Taking Scale, which I developed and validated a few years ago for my master's thesis. If you are interested in reading more about this scale, you can find it here (I am first author).

Indicate the extent to which you are in agreement with each item by putting one number next to the item.

6 = Agree strongly

5 = Agree somewhat

4 = Agree slightly

3 = Disagree slightly

2 = Disagree somewhat

1 = Disagree strongly

____ 1. After someone has offended me, I usually think about the offense frequently.

____ 2. It takes something fairly severe to offend me.

____ 3. When I become offended, it is very difficult for me to concentrate.

____ 4. Once someone has wronged me, I stay offended for a while.

____ 5. It does not take much to make me mad.

____ 6. People rarely anger me.

____ 7. I usually do not stay angry very long.

____ 8. I lose my patience easily.

____ 9. I am relatively easy-going.

____ 10. The rest of my day is not ruined when I get offended.

____ 11. My friends often tell me I over-react to perceived slights.

____ 12. I get aggravated often.

____ 13. When I get frustrated, it does not take me long to calm down.

____ 14. I may become irritated at the slightest thing.

____ 15. There are people who owe me an apology.

____ 16. I recall every time individuals have wronged me in the past.

Scoring: The total scale score is found by reverse scoring items 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 13, then summing the scores with the other items. The Sensitivity subscale is formed by adding items 5, 8, 11, 12, and 14, with the reverse score of items 2, 6, and 9. The Severity subscale is formed by adding items 1, 3, 4, 15, and 16, with the reverse score of items 7, 10, and 13. The average score for the total scale is 45, for the sensitivity subscale 20, for the severity subscale 25.

The Sensitivity Subscale reflects both the frequency with which one takes offense and the tolerance one has for offense stimuli. The Severity Subscale, on the other hand, measures the magnitude of disruption of the offended state upon the person’s functioning, the temporal duration of the offended state, and the endorsement of entitlement cognitions.

RadioLab’s “Who Am I?”

2008-04-24T08:44:00.001-07:00

I just love the program on NPR called RadioLab. It is a very entertaining and thought provoking science show. Today's episode was all about the mind and one's sense of self. If you are even mildly interested, take a listen and you will not regret it. If you like this episode, listen to some more.

Who Am I?

The fallacy of the test “Try it. If it works, it is true”

2008-04-24T08:43:00.001-07:00

So many religionists believe that if they try something and it works then it denotes that something is true. Buddhists lean heavily on it. Mormons do too, as do New Agers.

Scientific research methods are designed to help scientists not be fooled by that fallacy. Let's discuss a few reasons why something might not be true, even when we try something and we get the desired outcome.

First, correlation cannot establish causation. For example, let's say these two events are correlated (i.e., they both occur in relative proximity), praying to find keys and finding the keys. Let's say that this has happened on a number of occasions. We cannot infer based solely on correlation that the praying caused us to find the keys. We might find the keys everytime whether or not we pray. Certainly there are people who don't pray (like me) who lose keys and then find them. Or, it could be that some third variable also co-occurs with the first two events, such as thinking about where you might have left the keys or you might actually look for the keys everytime you pray for them and find them. This third variable might actually be responsible for the event of finding the keys. And it could be that some other variable is responsible for causing both the praying and the finding of the keys. I can't think of one for this example, but there could be other examples in which this is the case.

Personal "tests" of a principle using do not include an adequate control group. In other words one condition in which you tried the procedure and one in which you did not. It is not enough to try each condition only once or twice as you would be taking advantage of chance. The relationship between procedure and outcome across both conditions needs to happen often enough to show that the relationship is not likely due to chance. And one needs to be on guard to make sure that you are not sabatoging the experiment by making the results what you want them to be (i.e., trying harder in the condition you want to succeed). Scientists prefer to use large sample sizes in which the subjects are unaware of the hypothesis to increase the reliability of the results.

Also, humans are very prone to remember the hits and forget the misses. For, example, they remember when their dreams have some things in common with future events, but forget all the things their dreams got wrong.

Furthermore, even if what we are doing does work, we may take the wrong lesson from it. For example, it may be that prayer actually does help us find our keys, but not due to supernatural influence but because prayer calms our minds and our calm minds are able to remember better where we left the keys. Native peoples might believe their tribal shaman has magical powers because everytime they have a headache, he gives them a special herb and their headache goes away. It might be that the herb is a natural (not supernatural) medicine or it might be that the shaman uses the persons belief to produce a placebo effect.

In summary, just because something works when you try it, it does not mean that you have established that the procedure causes the outcome, that you will get reliable results everytime you use the procedure, or that the implications that you take from the successful procedure are correct (i.e., praying works therefore there is a God, or snake oil cures broken bones, etc).

The whole idea of "this works, therefore it must be true" is how superstitions, lucky charms, and rituals like rain dances or human sacrifices are born. Some superstitions are harmless, but I am interested in discovering and understanding and teaching true causal relationships. It bugs me when people try to persuade others that something is true because it worked for them when their results may have nothing to do with what they so confidently teach.

I have no problem with people sharing with others what has worked for them in the hopes that maybe it might work for others as well. I would just caution against presupposing a causal relationship where none has been established and especially against using your fortunate results to promote some supposed truth that is in no way implied from your psuedoexperiment (i.e., that god exists because whenever you pray to him you find your car keys; or, that Mormonism is true because you often feel a good feeling when you read the Book of Mormon, etc).

Was Jesus the Jewish Messiah?

2008-04-24T08:41:00.000-07:00

The following is the most even handed summary of the arguments, although it is far from complete. I highly recommend not making a judgment based solely on the content of this post, but also read the material on the 8 links at the bottom of this post under the section "Sources and Further Reading". The following material is quoted from here.

The title "Christ," which was applied almost interchangeably with the name "Jesus" by Christians from the New Testament era onwards, comes from the Greek for "Messiah."

The Messiah is a Jewish hero-figure predicted by the Hebrew prophets to save the Jews and bring justice to the world.

Christians believe Jesus was and is this Messiah; Jews believe he is not and still await a future messiah. Presented below are basic outlines of the reasons given for both views.

Reasons for Jesus as Messiah (Christian Perspective)

Christian Argument	Jewish Counter-Argument
Jesus was born of a virgin. Matthew 1:22-23 fulfills Isaiah 7:14.	"Nowhere does the Bible predict that the Messiah will be born to a virgin. In fact, virgins never give birth anywhere in the Bible. This idea is to be found only in pagan mythology. To the Jewish mind, the very idea that G-d would plant a seed in a woman is unnecessary and unnatural." (5, p.31) "The Hebrew term in Isaiah “almah” which means a “young woman” is mistranslated as “virgin.” Honest Christian scholars now acknowledge that this is “a pious fraud” and now (see the new Protestant “Revised Standard Version” of the Bible) translate the word correctly." (5, p.33)
Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Matthew 2:4-6 fulfills Micah 5:2.	Jesus was likely born in Nazareth - the Bethlehem story has no historical foundation.
Jesus was from the line of David. Luke 3 fulfills Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24; II Sam. 7:14; I Chr. 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6.	A tribal line cannot be passed on through adoption, so Jesus cannot be "son of David" through Joseph. A tribal line also does not pass through the mother, and even if it did, Mary was not descended of David through Solomon. (6, p.2)
Jesus' side was pierced on the cross. John 19:33-37 fulfills Zechariah 12:10.
Jesus was the Suffering Servant. John 12:37-38; Acts 8:30-35; 1 Peter 2:21-25 fulfill Isaiah 52-53.	Isaiah 52-53 is referring to the people of Israel, not to the Messiah.
Jesus was God. John 8:58 fulfills Isaiah 9:6.	"Nowhere does our Bible say that the Messiah would be a god or G-d-like. The very idea that G-d would take on human form is repulsive to Jews because it contradicts our concept of G-d as being above and beyond the limitations of the human body and situation. Jews believe that G-d alone is to be worshiped, not a being who is His creation, be he angel, saint, or even the Messiah himself." (5, p. 31)

Reasons against Jesus as Messiah (Jewish Perspective)

Jewish Argument	Christian Counter-Argument
The true Messiah is to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem—but Jesus lived while the Temple was still standing. Jeremiah 33:18	Jesus will do this at the Second Coming.
The Messiah will reestablish Jewish religious law as the law of the land. Jeremiah 33:15	Jesus will do this at the Second Coming.
The Messiah will save Israel." In the case of Jesus, the very opposite took place. Not long after his death, the Holy Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, Jerusalem was laid to waste, and the Jews went into exile to begin a 1900 year long night of persecution, — largely at the hands of the followers of this self-styled Messiah!" (6)	Jesus will do this at the Second Coming.
He will establish a government in Israel that will be the center of all world government, both for Jews and gentiles (Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:10; 42:1).	Jesus will do this at the Second Coming.
The Messiah will return all exiles to their homeland. Isaiah 11:11-12 Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3 Hosea 3:4-5	Jesus will do this at the Second Coming.

Jewish response: The claim that Jesus will fulfill the Messianic prophesies when he returns does not give him any credibility for his "first" coming. The Bible never speaks about the Messiah returning after an initial appearance. The "second coming" theory is a desperate attempt to explain away Jesus’ failure. The Biblical passages which Christians are forced to regard as second coming don’t speak of someone returning, they have a "first coming" perspective. (6, p1)

Sources and Further Reading

"How do we know that Jesus is the Messiah?" ChristianAnswers.net.
"What proof do you have that Jesus was the Messiah?" Jews for Jesus.
"Evidence that Jesus Christ is the Messiah." Matthew McGee.
"Is Jesus Both Messiah and God?" Josh McDowell, A Ready Defense, ch. 22, published online.
The Real Messiah? A Jewish Response to Missionaries. PDF e-book published by Jews for Judaism.
The Jewish Messiah. PDF brochure published by Jews for Judaism.
Messiah Revealed.
"Mosiach: The Messiah." Judaism 101.

God cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving

2008-04-02T09:28:00.000-07:00

My argument is this: If god were all-loving, he would want to save us from needless suffering. If he were all-powerful, he would be able to save us from needless suffering. If needless suffering exists, either god is not all-loving or not all-powerful or not either. Said another way, if needless suffering exists, then god cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful.

It is beyond dispute that suffering does exist. What is in question is whether this suffering is needless. The standard apologetic argument is that we are not in a position to know whether suffering is needless or not; god could have a purpose for our suffering that we may not be able to comprehend. So, let us suppose that god does have a purpose for our suffering - if we suffer it accomplishes some end. Is there another way to accomplish that same end without our suffering? If god is all-powerful, he could accomplish that end without our suffering; if one suggests that he cannot, then one admits that he is not all-powerful and my point is proven. However, if one sticks with the idea that god is all-powerful, then he could accomplish the whatever end our suffering would serve, without us suffering. So, if the same end can be accomplished without suffering, then all suffering is indeed needless. Since we do suffer, we suffer needlessly if god is all-powerful, and if we suffer needlessly, then god is not both all-loving and all-powerful.

Suffering exists.

If god is all-powerful, then all suffering is needless, because he could accomplish whatever purpose suffering serves without our actually having to experience suffering.

If god is all-loving, he would have compassion on us and want to save us from needless suffering.

If god is all-powerful, he has the ability to save us from needless suffering.

Since we needlessly suffer, he either lacks the will or the ability to save us from needless suffering.

If he lacks the will, he is not all-loving.

If he lacks the ability, he is not all-powerful.

Therefore, the existence of needless suffering stands as a testament that god cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful.

Here are some responses I got and my replies:

OldSoul:
What if suffering isn't neccessary and God is loving and doesn't prevent it?

I have considered this and reasoned through it, but I am open to revisiting it again.

In what sort of a situation can we consider a god all-loving if he does not save us from unnecessary suffering and is capable of doing it? I am sincerely asking that question. I presently think it is impossible short of changing the definition of all-loving so much so that it no longer means all-loving.

If there were a reason for him not saving us from unnecessary suffering, then the suffering would not be unnecessary. But, if were all-powerful, he would be able to accomplish the "reason for allowing the suffering" without us actually having to suffer.

You, see every mental exercise I try, keeps coming back to the same conclusion. You would do me a great favor if you can find a hole in my reasoning. Think through what I quoted of what you wrote and show me how that would be possible.

Arky:
Love, however, is a human emotion and as we all know, emotion does not obey the rules of logic and defies the constraints of a single definition. I would agree with the statement that a loving father would not want his children to have to endure any needless suffering, but this is my definition of loving. The easy answer here for the apologists is to simply state that we, as simple mortal beings, are incapable of understanding love on the same level as God and are thus not well positioned to impose our definition of love upon him.

It is true that I am using the human conception of love in its perfect form which we can only imagine. God cannot be both all-loving (the concept humans represent by the words all-loving) and all-powerful (again, what humans mean by those words). I have demonstrated that. Mine was a conceptual argument. Regardless of the human language, I was reasoning with the human constructs that are best represented in English with the words "all-loving" and "all-powerful".

You are positing that the teaching that "god is all-loving" is actually trying to convey something humans wouldn't normally think of when they read those words. That humans don't have the capacity to understand what that teaching is about. So, the meaning humans get from that statement is not correct. Love no longer implies the desire to allieviate the needless suffering of others. I ask what kind of love is that? It is not love at all, so why use the word. When the meaning conveyed by a word is not the meaning one is trying to convey then you would be misusing the word.

For example, the word "translate" conveys a certain idea to humans who speak English. Yet, to hear the apologists speak, they suppose Joseph meant something very different by that word than what your typical English-speaker means by it. I can show that Joseph did not "translate" (meaning the normal human understanding of the word) the Book of Abraham. But, I make no claims about whether or not he "translated" when one is intending some other meaning for the word.

Similarly, I have shown that god cannot be both all-loving and all-powerful if we are talking about the normal ideas people think of when they hear those words. I have made no claims of what the results of reasoning would be when using an entirely different construct, that supposedly humans can't even understand. So, are you claiming then that preachers and Bibles don't make the claim that god is all-loving as humans would understand that statement? If so, publize that, that no one has ever meant to convey the human idea that god is all-loving, that everytime they said "god is all-loving" they meant something different that humans can't even understand. For, pity sake, they would do better to speak in tongues, at least then their words would not be misleading.

Now, lest you think I am getting hung up on the English word all-loving, the Hebrew and Greek scriptures also teach that god is all-loving, in their own way. It is the concept that is conveyed that is important, not the specifics of the language itself. But, evidently the human concept of all-loving isn't applicable when applied to god no matter what the language. Words are used to convey meaning, if the meaning that one is trying to convey is not represented by the word, then don't use the word, or say that it is close, but you humans couldn't really understand.

So, in a nutshell, most humans think all-loving includes a desire to end needless suffering of loved ones. That is the kind of all-loving that I have shown god cannot be if he is also all-powerful. I have no position on any other kind of "all-loving god" that isn't all-loving according to human meanings of that word.

Winyan:
A loving parent lets their children make their own mistakes and learn from them.

Whatever it is we could learn from suffering (i.e., knowledge, wisdom, compassion, etc), an all-powerful god could give to us without our ever having to suffer. Can he not? If he is unable to, he is not all-powerful.

An all-powerful god could even implant memories and program our minds with all the "growth and development" we could gain from 1,000 years in an instant without us ever having to actually experience any pain. That makes all pain unnecessary.

OldSoul:

1) We are eternal beings in a temporary human form. We chose our lives and knew what it entailed. Thus the suffering may be pointless, but something we wished to experience. A loving God stays out of it as it was our choice.

An all-powerful god controls all the variables. He can set up whatever rules for learning or growth or knowledge acquisition that he wants. He doesn't have to build a reality where suffering exists. Anything that he could accomplish with suffering, he could acomplish without suffering, so there was just no need to create or permit a reality to continue to exist that he did not create (if one wants to go there) a reality that has suffering.

If he had created a reality without suffering (all of which is needless), the option would not have been available for us to choose. We could still do whatever we want without being placed in a situation in which we could choose suffering. Choices are always constrained by what is available or possible; we can only choose among possibilities that exist in reality and an all-powerful god could create any kind of reality he wanted to. So, why would an all-loving god want to create a reality with suffering when it is completely unnecessary?

2) Free agency. God believes in our right of choice and interfering to remove the consequences of actions would in a way limit our free agency. These actions of course may not have been your own, or may be indirect.

An all-powerful god can control not only whether or not we are spared consequences, but can determine what the consequences will be. So, he could still allow us to choose and experience consequences, while making sure that none of the consequences include suffering.

3) Suffering is only bad in our current perspective. If life is eternal, that makes this life very short compared to the expanse of eternity. Perhaps a miniscule amount of suffering doesn't amount to much compared to the expanse of our own eventual experience and just doesn't warrant interference.

Needless suffering is needless suffering, regardless of whether it lasts only ten seconds or ten years. Ten seconds isn't very long when viewed from the perspective of a lifetime. Imagine me attacking your young child with a taser for no reason. She'll only feel it for a few seconds, which "doesn't amount to much compared to the expanse of her own eventual lifetime of experience". Does it just not warrant interference? It is purposeless suffering, don't you love your daughter enough to want to spare her those ten seconds of unnecessary pain?

If god really loves us, he knows we care about the pain we are in even if it seems small to him, he would want to spare us from needless suffering, even if it is only momentary.

Bizarre Biblical Tales

2008-02-02T06:04:00.000-08:00

I found this list of the Top 10 Bizarre Biblical Tales. I read the Bible cover to cover when I was a believer, so I knew of all these stories before, but this list is good just to remind us of how absurd a lot of the Bible is. I don't care for this particular author's write up of the stories, but it is entertaining nonetheless.

Here is a sample:

A story so eponymous, it gave way to its own neologism – onanism, an archaic term for masturbation. Basically, God kills Er. Why? We don’t really find out. However, in a stroke of good luck, Er’s father, Judah, has given you the right, nay the duty, to have sex with your dead brother’s wife. Onan is a bit apprehensive at first, but agrees to go through with this bizarre scheme to create a ‘true heir’ to Er. He begins to have sex with the girl, but at the last minute decides to pull out and spill “his seed upon the ground.” God is so irked he decides to kill Onan too, and thus nobody gets an heir. This story is the basis for the Christian condemnation of masturbation and birth control.

The moral of this story? In the words of Monty Python, “Every sperm is sacred…”

"If You Had Experienced It, You'd Believe Too" Nonsense

2008-01-31T07:16:00.000-08:00

Mormons say that once you experience the Spirit testify to you that something is true, it is pretty hard to convince yourself that you did not feel the Spirit. I felt what I used to call the Spirit many times, I now feel forced by the evidence to have to think differently about those powerful experiences. I now believe that those experiences are produced entirely by the biological brain.

When I was nine, I had an experience that I interpreted as being visited by an angel. I no longer interpret it that way. When I was 14 years old, my mother passed away. On the day of my marriage in the temple, I believed I felt her presence there. I now believe that that experience was entirely produced by my brain.

Experiences are always vulnerable to reinterpretation when we adopt a new perspective. So, the argument that "if you had only experienced what I have experienced, then you'd believe" does not have any validity for me.

Excellent article expressing why I love Obama

2008-01-30T20:45:00.000-08:00

What Counts as an "Issue" In the Clinton-Obama Race?

"Obama understands the importance of values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity."

My Peace with the Idea of No Afterlife

2008-01-30T16:27:00.000-08:00

I am one who is completely at peace with my belief that there is no continuance of my life after my cells stop metabolizing. What is so difficult for many to entertain (that there is no continuation of one's life or consciousness) is easy for me to accept.

I don't believe any of our lives matter at the cosmic scale. I don't believe there is any god/cosmos defined purpose for anything. I believe it is possible, as some Buddhists have done by overcoming attachment, to continue to live without a sense of purpose. But, many of us need meaning and purpose. I matter to my wife and child(ren). My life has meaning to those I live and work with. I have given my life purpose to help others in their lives. So, although my life may not matter at the cosmic scale, it does matter locally in space and time, and that is enough for me. I don't need or desire my life and influence to extend farther than that, infinitely in space or into eternally in time.

My critical response to "Irreantum"

2008-01-28T07:56:00.000-08:00

Here is a copy of a recent email exchange I had:

Hey there,

I know you were very active in apologetics and such before leaving the
church. Could you give me your opinion about the "Irreantum" evidence that
apologists like to bring up? If you could steer me to any resources about
this that would be great.

Thanks,
(Name Withheld)
______________________________________________________
I assume the apologist "Irreantum" argument that you are referring to is the one best expressed in this article: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=288

I cannot find a link to a critical response to this specific argument. I am not a linguist, but it seems to me that the author's approach is way off and he does a lot of post hoc reasoning. For example, Nephi is supposed to know Hebrew and Egyptian. A person would expect Irreantum to be derived from one of those languages, and if the author would have found an Egyptian connection, he would have been bragging that it is exactly what he would have predicted. But, Irreantum has no connection to those languages, so after discovering that, he claims he would have predicted that it would not have been Hebrew or Egyptian because Nephi gives a translation. That is unfair, anyone can come up with explanations (many of them wrong) for why something is the way it is after the results are in. If you want to show that your position has strength, you have to make a prediction before the results are in, and then see if the results support you or discredit you.

The other way the author cheated is he took the shotgun approach and examined all the words for water in all the many languages in the area looking for anything even close to any part of the word "Irreantum". You are likely to find something in the ballpark of one of the 4 syllables that means water if you look at enough languages, even by chance. And what the author found isn't really remarkably close: 'rwy (which even he admits not knowing how to pronounce). So, the author took advantage of random chance without any guiding theory as to why he would expect one language over another. So, his results mean nothing. He makes it appear as though he has a strong argument because his post hoc explanations are reasonable. But, it is analogous to coming up with an explanation for won someone won the lottery.

In my opinion, the whole Irreantum case is much ado about nothing. In short it is shotty scholarship and you won't find one non-Mormon linguist impressed in the least.

My Resignation Letter

2008-01-22T19:06:00.000-08:00

12 Oct 2006

Member Records, LDS Church
50 E North Temple Rm 1372
SLC UT 84150-5310

Often times the author’s tone is not properly interpreted from written correspondence, so allow me to say that my tone is direct, not angry. By this letter I am formally resigning from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As I am no longer a member, I would like my name permanently and completely removed from the membership rolls of the church.

I have given this matter considerable thought. I understand the seriousness and the consequences of this action. I am aware that my resignation "cancels the effects of baptism and confirmation, withdraws the priesthood held by a male member and revokes temple blessings". I also understand that I would only be "readmitted to the church by baptism only after a thorough interview" if I ever desired it.

My resignation should be processed immediately, without any waiting periods. I am not going to be dissuaded and I am not going to change my mind. I expect this matter to be handled promptly, with respect and with full confidentiality.

Now that the legal statements are out of the way, permit me to say a few other things. I know that there are a number of people who will read this letter. My language to my local leaders will be a lot less formal for after all, we know each other well and I love you and still consider you friends. We have served one another and have had a lot of great conversations which I cherish. There is nothing that any member of the church from the Stake level on down to the ward level has ever done that negatively impacted me or my feelings for the church. You are all wonderful and I love you. Please be able to separate in your minds my choice to leave the church from my feelings and relationships with you. There is nothing you can do or could have done to get me to stay. Contrary to statements made at the recent General Conference, I am not leaving because I have been offended by any local member of the church, nor have I committed any grievous sin (although I recognize that many interpret leaving the church a grievous sin).

Let me comfort my local leaders. I know that my leaving brings sorrow to you and you most likely worry and pray for me. Please know that I am doing quite well and am very happy. Contrary to what the Church would have you believe, one really can be just as happy and richly blessed even after one no longer believes and leaves the Church. I still feel what I formerly called the “Spirit” and the great peace and warmth that accompany it. I no longer believe that it reliably reveals truth and I believe it naturally arises from the physical brain. I know that you feel that I am mistaken about a lot of things now and may suspect that I have been deceived by things I have read. This saddens me, but I understand, because you cannot consider that I might be right about the Church without at the same time having to consider that you might be wrong, and that is very difficult to do especially when you have collected years of experience that you feel support the truthfulness of the Church. I once believed as you now believe, so I have empathy with where you are in your thinking about the Church and those who no longer believe in it.

Perhaps it is quite puzzling to you how I could no longer believe in the Church after having believed in it so strongly and after having received “witnesses from the Spirit” that it was true. I hope that you continue to find it puzzling and do not satisfy that nagging wonder with some incorrect pat explanation like, “he just wanted to sin,” or “Satan can deceive the very elect”. Pat answers are not what you need right now. You have had respect for my judgment in the past and trusted me. Don’t easily dismiss my judgment now that I believe differently from you. Frankly, you are without all the facts that you would need to come to any accurate conclusion about why I no longer believe.

The evidence is quite strong that all of the doctrines Joseph ever “revealed” were nothing more than man-made ideas for he stole many of them from contemporaries and used his active imagination to create the rest. His scriptures were fraudulent fabrications – we have so much evidence of that. The temple signs, tokens, and penalties date back only to the Middle Ages and do not go back to Solomon’s temple. The foundational story of how he obtained the “golden plates” started off tied to the mystical occult and gradually morphed into a completely different story full with heavenly interactions. Joseph was a despicable pervert – he took his teenage foster daughters as plural wives (look it up, no one who is informed denies this), he married the wives of men who he sent away on missions, and he married girls as young as 14 (examining census and marriage records show that even 19th century people thought 14-yr-olds were too young to marry). I know all of the apologetic responses for these things. I was formerly an amateur apologist defending the church against its threatening facts. There is so much more I could demonstrate to you. I knew all of this and more and continued to believe because the “Spirit” had told me the Church was true AND there was some way to justify these things through intense mental gymnastics….

That was true until I thoroughly examined the Book of Abraham. The evidence is so strong in the case of the Book of Abraham that it would be intellectually dishonest to ignore the inescapable conclusion. Shelving the issue is not an option because there is no ambiguity or wiggle room. There is nothing even God could put forward that would change the absolute fact that Joseph, while acting as a prophet and supposedly revealing the Word of God, knowingly cheated his followers by fraudulently creating scripture and bestowing upon his piece of fiction divine authority that it never deserved. I am not just saying that the BoA is not a translation, which even the apologists admit, but we have conclusive evidence that it is not even a revelation from God (that is the theory Elder Oaks wants to put forward [Doesn’t it disturb you that not even the Apostles believe the BoA is a translation from ancient papyri that was written by the hand of Abraham as it claims to be in our scriptures? It would be nice if the Apostles were honest with us about that and a half a million other things]). Apologists like Hugh Nibley, John Gee, Kerry Shirts, Daniel Peterson, and many others like to nibble around the edges of the case, but no one (not even prophets, seers, and revelators) will ever be able to escape the fact that the BoA is a fraud, plain and simple. Once one knows that for sure, one no longer needs to give Joseph the benefit of the doubt for anything else. He really was a power hungry pervert from the days of his magical peep stones that he used to defraud Josiah Stowell to his sand filled boxes that he used to defraud the Kirtland Safety Society investors to his hiding most of his plural marriages from Emma. There is so much more I could say.

Well, one might ask, “What do you do with all of the evidence in favor of Joseph’s prophetic call?” Let’s talk about the “Spirit” for a moment. The “Spirit” told me that the Book of Abraham was true scripture. I now know for an absolute fact that the Book of Abraham is not true (for a hundred reasons, but I’ll list a few) due to its anachronisms, incorrect reconstruction of history, stolen concepts like “intelligences inhabiting planets” and “governing stars” from Thomas Dick and others, blatant incorrect reconstructions of facsimiles #1 and #2, etc. Therefore, that impression or feeling that I called the “Spirit” cannot be relied on to accurately identify what is true, even on matters as important as what is scripture and what is not. My inability to accurately interpret the “Spirit” is not unique to me, for many members (unaware of the controversy surrounding the BoA) believe the Spirit has testified the BoA was true to them as well. Even the Prophets and Apostles could not detect its fraud or the fact that they did not know “the Spirit” was not telling them the truth. We have all been duped and taught to follow a transcendent feeling as though it were god when it is nothing more than a normal brain produced sensation. Once one realizes that the “Spirit” does not tell the truth, one has to start relying on physical evidence and rational thought, and the Church’s claims melt like warm butter once you do that and objectively look at its claims. We have been fed a lot of BS in our Institute manuals about archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. No professional archaeologist outside of apologetic researchers buys this so called evidence. In fact, much stronger evidence like DNA evidence shows that Native Americans have no Hebrew Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA. There is no evidence of steel swords, barley, elephants (bones or drawings) in the pre-Columbian Americas. The sermons in the BoM sound exactly like early 19th century sermons not like 1st century Native American religions.

“Well, what about the eleven witnesses?” says one. First, one should know that all of these men were knee deep into 19th century magic (talismans, peep stones, parchments), in fact that is how many of them met Joseph to begin with. Most believed in something called “second sight” in which they see things in vision (aka, their imaginations), and that second sight is just as valid as seeing things with their natural eyes. In fact, Martin Harris confessed in the Kirtland Temple that none of the eleven witnesses saw the plates with their natural eyes, but only through their spiritual eyes. Now, one guy can’t speak for everyone. However, some of the witnesses went on to “witness” miracles in some of the break off movements from the Church which the Utah branch consider not real. So, the Church is in the awkward position of having to support the credibility of their witnesses on the one hand and downplay their credibility on the other. The fact that Joseph had plates of some sort is fairly clear, but my guess, and it is purely a guess, is that they were made of common tin, which was often used in roofing in the area.

I don’t want you to take my word for anything. I will show you where to verify all of the things I’ve said if you ask me to. I am not relying on statements made by his enemies, but on his own statements, the journals of his scribes, his canonized scriptures, and the words of his faithful followers. It would not be right to discount these things without looking into them. I want you to study these things out for yourself. As a priesthood leader in the church you ask an awful lot of your members and they follow you because they believe you have authority to represent God. You are currently comfortable with that because you firmly believe you do have that authority. With many spiritual things it is impossible to falsify claims; even when things don’t work out as expected we have some available explanation for it. But, the great thing about the Church is that it makes some claims that are falsifiable like the historicity of the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon. Now, although there is a lot of evidence against the Book of Mormon, creative apologists can find some excuse for it (although they often have to discount the conventional understanding of things as taught by the prophets to do it). However, there is no and will never be a workable explanation for the evidence against the Book of Abraham because the evidence closes all doors to alternatives. One has to work within the tight confines of the numerous data points we have and there is nowhere for the apologist to take cover. Some have gone so far as to admit that it is a work of fiction, but that is ok because Joseph did it to bring others closer to Christ. The ends justify the means. That is not very satisfying because once one knows that LDS prophets and scriptures will mislead you if they think it is in your best interest, the entire foundation of authority and trust erodes. Then one can question the counsel to have children even if you can’t afford it or to discriminate against homosexuals, etc. The Church operates under the principle of when the leaders have spoken, they have spoken God’s will and you are not in tune if you disagree with them. But, once you learn that they are only giving their opinion on what they think and feel is best, you know that they are only men and can be wrong and are not speaking for God. So, the power one yields is enormous.

You owe it to yourself and your flock to find out if there is any legitimacy to what I am saying. You must admit that so much of your confidence comes from the meaning you give to the feelings you interpret as the Spirit and if there is a chance that you can prove that the Spirit is not a reliable source of truth, you would need to know that because it changes everything. Granted there would still be a few other experiences you would need to account for like answered prayers or priesthood blessings that were fulfilled. Confirmation bias – remembering the hits and forgetting or excusing the misses explains a lot. Watch for stubbornness or resistance to investigate these things. Why might you not want to look into these things and are they really legitimate reasons? If you are sure that you are right or think you have read all of this before, then you have nothing to fear from it, right? I assure you that you have not heard it all before if you have not read, “By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus” by Charles Larson, and “Examining the Book of Abraham” by Kevin Mathie. I have included a brief online article that hits the highlights of the Book of Abraham. The article is far from conclusive, but if you read the other books you will have a conclusive argument. It would not hurt if you also read “Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power” and “Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power” by D. Michael Quinn. There is no need to trust the words of these authors, they quote original sources that you can examine for yourself.

The Brethren have shown that they know more about these things than they reveal. It is dishonest and upsetting that they perpetuate a fabled faith promoting propaganda when many know it is not true. I trusted those men so much. Their own words condemn them, not the words of an anti-Mormon. I think for the most part, they believe the church is true. I do not think they have thoroughly examined the evidence against the Book of Abraham. But, they do know about Joseph’s hidden plural marriages, they do know that the Book of Mormon was “translated” by Joseph burying his head in a hat looking at his rocks that were found in a well and that he used in his money digging adventures, not by using the Urim and Thummim that were supposedly buried in the Hill Cumorah. But, they prefer to give Joseph’s revisionist 1838 history. They should know that Joseph did not even believe God the Father and Christ were two separate beings until after the church was founded which disproves the story he gave later that he saw God and Jesus before he was told about the golden plates.

But, as Boyd K. “We don’t have to apologize for our history” Packer says, “Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer…
"There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful” (Boyd K. Packer, 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271).
And as Dallin H. Oaks says, “My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors." (Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii f28)

I hate that these men don’t have enough integrity to tell the truth. They require sacrifice under false pretenses. Perhaps they know that if members or investigators had the chance to hear the whole truth they might recognize it as a fraud. I don’t exactly know how the church convinces its members to not read anti-Mormon literature. They don’t outright forbid it, but too many members won’t look at evidence that challenges the truthfulness of the church, and that is scary. It reminds me of cults or communist countries that limit open discussion and conceal threatening facts. If you really have the best thing on the block you welcome challenges because you are confident that your message will win over any opponent. But, the Church somehow scares its members into not learning the true history. Perhaps they do it by making fun of anti-material during conference by giving the impression that it is all as silly as the idea that Mormons have horns. Or, perhaps they try to discount all the people who leave by saying that they were offended. Well, I suppose I am offended at Joseph Smith for lying to us all and I should be, and I am offended that the Brethren authorize teaching materials that misrepresent the truth.

I am not leaving the Church because the Church is not true, for I now believe that no church is true. I would stay except for the fact that the Church is intolerable for those that no longer believe. My skin crawls to hear members sing praises and bear testimonies of Joseph who was such a fraud and they don’t even know it. Now that I don’t believe anyone holds the priesthood, I will not pretend to use it. Family and others suspect some great sin or transgression in men who will not exercise their supposed priesthood. I don’t need people judging me when I have done nothing wrong. Members will pester those that they see as less active to get them more involved and into greater activity, when the less-actives have no desire to go to the Masonic-derived temple, or do missionary work and introduce anyone else to a bunch of lies. Less-actives are viewed as inferior. I do not support the way in which women are treated as second class citizens. I cannot put up with the indoctrination of my children as they get older; I would have to spend the greater part of each day deprogramming them. I dislike how free discussion is discouraged in Sunday School and Priesthood (your comments are only welcome if they follow the party line). Hours of talks on doing one’s duty are unbearable if one no longer believes. You may not feel that you need to cater to or accommodate the needs of the disaffected members. That is fine, but if you choose that route you also need to be willing to have droves of members resign or go completely inactive. And those who can escape are the lucky ones. Others feel compelled to stay due to family concerns, and it is pure hell for them. I talk to them on a daily basis.

But, I, for one, am done with Mormonism entirely. I am so grateful for a wife who was willing to look into these things and study it out for herself. Leaving together as a couple is much easier than leaving without one’s spouse. We both have family who now think less of us, which is totally uncalled for. It is not our fault that the Church is not true and is unbearable to attend once you know that.

Greg Dodge,

First, I would like to sincerely thank you and your staff for all you do to help us resign. I have no idea if you ever share any comments from the resignation letters to the First Presidency during your weekly reports, but this is what I’d like the First Presidency to know. I am a BYU grad, returned missionary, former teacher in the MTC, married in the temple, and former counselor in the Bishopric. I was among the faithful stalwarts of the Church. As you surely know there are many even more faithful that have also left the Church after learning its real history. We all feel betrayed by the leadership of the Church for not telling us the truth. Strange, but it is often the most faithful who sincerely love the Prophet Joseph that end up doing the research to find out the Church is not what it claims to be.

I know that the heritage of Mormonism means a lot to you, and you don’t want the Church to collapse under your watch. You have inherited a history that you cannot change. Please care more for the individuals than for the institution. Please listen to the progressives among the Brethren. Please focus more on Christ in your messages. Please be more straightforward and honest with the members. Show the members where their money is going and give more to charities. Strive to be more inclusive and less exclusive. Above all else, tell the truth about the church’s history, not the faith-promoting, sanitized version. There is no better way to honor the living than to tell the truth. Become transparent, open up the church vaults and hide nothing. Only then will you earn back the respect of all those who know the truth. Think of your grandchildren. Do you want them to find out about your involvement in perpetuating the lies? End the charade. Come out from behind the curtain and let the members know that you don’t have any special access to God. Bottom line: Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and let the consequence follow. Find some integrity and have charity for those who know the truth and share it.

Sincerely,

Hueffenhardt

(The rest of the letter came from: http://trialsofascension.net/mormon/abraham.html )

"God Rest Ye, Unitarians" Hymn

2007-12-24T08:59:00.000-08:00

We sang this at fellowship last Sunday. Lilly and I think it is great!

"God Rest Ye, Unitarians"
Lyrics by the Rev. Christopher Gist Raible of the First Unitarian Church of Worcester

God rest ye, Unitarians, let nothing you dismay;
Remember there's no evidence there was a Christmas Day;
When Christ was born is just not known, no matter what they say,
O, Tidings of reason and fact, reason and fact,
Glad tidings of reason and fact.

There was no star of Bethlehem, there was no angels' song;
There could have been no wise men for the trip would take too long.
The stories in the Bible are historically wrong,
O, Tidings of reason and fact, reason and fact,
Glad tidings of reason and fact!

Our current Christmas customs come from Persia and from Greece,
From solstice celebrations of the ancient Middle East.
We know our so-called holiday is just a pagan feast,
O, Tidings of reason and fact, reason and fact,
Glad tidings of reason and fact.

I also post under the name of Enochville

2007-12-19T08:54:00.000-08:00

I also post under the name of Enochville on Hatrack and Perspectives. If you see any of my posts from this blog on those sites, rest assured that they are my words.

When Was Jesus Born? Fun Tidbit For Your Family’s Luke 2 Re-enactment

2007-12-18T17:45:00.000-08:00

When was Jesus born?

1)Before 4 BCE.

Matthew 2:1
Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king.

Luke 1:5
There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

Note: Herod the Great died in 4 BCE.
Wikipedia: Herod the Great
-------

2) After 6 CE.

Luke 2:1-2
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

Note: Quirinius (in Greek, Cyrenius) became governer of Syria in 6 CE, ten years after king Herod's death.
Wikipedia: Quirinius

The Gospel of Luke mentions the census taken by Quirinius when he was governor of Syria, as part of a census of the "whole world", in connection with the birth of Jesus. However Luke and the Gospel of Matthew date the birth to the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, nearly ten years before Quirinius became governor. Most historians argue that Luke is in error.

Are a candidate's religious beliefs relevant?

2007-12-04T12:47:00.000-08:00

The first question I want answered from each religious candidate is: "How do your religious beliefs influence your policy decisions and vision for the country?"

As with any employee, if their religious beliefs are completely separate from their job performance, I don't care what they believe. This might be possible in a presidential candidate if the person doesn't really take their religion seriously (i.e., a Christmas and Easter only attending Christian). But, I think that is nearly impossible for the devoutly religious. For the devoutly religious, their whole world view is filtered through their religious beliefs. Their understanding of world events and how they should be solved is influenced by their religious beliefs.

The worldview of a presidential candidate is relevant. Their epistemology (how they learn truth) is relevant. Their views on social issues are relevant. All of these things can be shaped by religious views, which makes the candidate's religion relevant if they believe enough that their religion informs their worldview.

Outing My Blog

2007-12-01T23:49:00.000-08:00

Lilly (code name for my wife) and I took a big step today. We decided to post a link to this blog from my Facebook page. Why is this a big step? Although all of our family knows that we left the LDS Church over a year and a half ago, many of our friends don't, but they will as soon as they visit here. Futhermore, even though our family members know we left, I don't think they realize the extent of our activity among the post-Mormon community and the DAMU message boards.

But, this is who we are. We are not asking anyone to read this blog, but if they want to, it is here. We are always willing to talk about anything here.

If anyone is interested how much traffic this site gets:

VISITS

	Total	3,913
	Average Per Day	25
	Average Visit Length	3:23
	Last Hour	0
	Today	3
	This Week	173

PAGE VIEWS

	Total	6,386
	Average Per Day	47
	Average Per Visit	1.9
	Last Hour	0
	Today	8
	This Week	331

Obama for President!

2007-11-26T07:52:00.000-08:00

Obama has as much experience as JFK and Lincoln had when they were elected. He will make a great president because he will be uniquely able to get the votes he needs in congress to pass the important legislation that needs to be passed. Why? Because he is a uniter, not a divider like Hillary. Hillary's philosophy is to overpower the opposition. But she will not be able to get things done by ostracizing her opponents. Obama takes a win-win approach and really listens to those who oppose his ideas to find ways in which their concerns will be resolved and they can work together. Obama is exactly what this country needs both domestically and abroad. This is our chance! Please elect Obama for President.

Time Magazine Article on Atheist Sunday School

2007-11-25T07:17:00.000-08:00

Sunday School for Atheists is the title of a new Time magazine article on church-like resources for atheist families.

I have known about "atheist churches" for a while, but did not know about these summer camp programs and private schools.

Hooray for the growth of freethinking! Just as there are growing numbers of people leaving Mormonism, polls show that there are growing numbers of people in America who do not subscribe to any religious identification (their number has more than doubled from 14.3 million in 1990 to 29.4 million in 2001). We have also seen the rise of many popular atheist oriented books, such as "The God Delusion", "Letter to a Christian Nation", "Parenting Beyond Belief" and "God: The Failed Hypothesis". Often these new freethinkers want services such as "churches", summer programs, and/or private schools.

I think we are living in a wonderful time.

Supernatural stuff

2007-11-16T09:54:00.000-08:00

BooBoo asked: "For the record, I am willing to consider both scientific and supernatural theories regarding spiritual experiences. Huff, where exactly do you stand? Sorry if I lost it somewhere in the translation."

Wow, it really depends upon which theory of supernatural stuff we are talking about. First, we must answer the question of whether this supernatural stuff in any way affects the material world. If it does not, but is operating in some other plane having no influence in the material universe, then science cannot investigate it. But, that sort of non-interacting substance seems irrelevant. If on the other hand, this supernatural stuff interacts with the material world, then science can investigate the effects because we can measure events in the material world and hypothesize what might be going on behind the scenes.

If things are as Joseph taught that there is no such thing as immaterial matter, that all spirit is matter just of a finer type (this is called qualified monism), then science should be able to investigate it just fine. It would be no different than monitoring neutrinos, mesons and bosons, or identifying the spin on quarks. This is hard work, but completely within the realm of particle physics.

Even if you speculate that the "supernatural" stuff is some kind of energy, that is still no problem for science because energy is part of this natural, physical world. We can measure charge and electric fields, heck we can even convert energy to particles. Energy and matter are just different forms of the same thing, like ice and water. Remember E=mc^2. Science can investigate energy and has been for years.

What if supernatural stuff is a force like gravity, or the strong force? That would be completely within the realm of scientific investigation. That is not supernatural, but natural.

What if this supernatural stuff was completely non-material and really supernatural, above nature? Well, then we have a problem. How can a thing with no physical properties (no mass, charge, momentum, etc) influence physical objects? There has to be some kind of interface. A neuron fires when the charge inside passes a certain threshhold (-70 mAmps). It will not fire any other way. Now we can change the charge by pumping in charged particles or we can send a current through it. But, how is some non-natural stuff that does not have charge (it cannot or else it would be natural) going to get a neuron to fire when it otherwise normally would not? This non-natural stuff needs to be able to produce some natural property to be able to have any influence in this material world. And if it produces a natural property, then we got 'em as scientists, because we can measure that. We can detect charges just suddenly appearing out of nowhere without an identifiable physical cause.

So, if the supernatural interacts with the physical world, then we as scientists can study it. If it does not interact with the physical world, then it is irrelevant because it plays no role in what happens here. The reader might be excited by this point and say, hey, then let's start researching these supposed supernatural phenomena: astral projection, near-death experiences, esp, prophecy, miraculous healings, answered prayers, etc. Well, I hate to disappoint you, but scientists have already been researching these things. You can read their research and critique it or be persuaded by it. But, the net result is so far all of these phenomena appear to have very banal natural explanations - no cool mystical forces at work.

Now, you can doubt that research without every even looking at it if you wish and instead lean on your own anecdotal evidence. The mind is easily amazed. There is excellent reason to not trust ourselves over carefully controlled and peer-reviewed research. I wish all knew our current understanding of how the brain uses heuristics to come to wrong conclusions.

God, I am proud of science. I encourage all those who are skeptical about science, to investigate those concerns so that you might get rid of them, instead of holding on to undeserved prejudice.

Some might find the story of Dr. Susan Blackmore interesting. She is a scientist who started out as a believer in supernatural stuff. She was going to show those stuffy scholars that there really was something to astral projection, near-death experiences, esp, etc. She went in trying to demonstrate that they were just as they seemed, but held true to her rigorous training by designing experiments that were sound. After years or research she finally had to conclude that there is nothing mysterious about these phenomena.

If all things are natural, as it appears to be the case. Then, we do not have free will, but are determined. For, how can we make our neurons do something they would not normally do based on their chemical inputs. In my opinion, we evolved to have the illusion of free will.

A long time ago, Beenthere asked for clarification about my belief that we don't have free will. Well, here it is.

So, there you have it booboo, this is where I stand.

The Perils of Anecdotal Evidence

2007-11-15T04:14:00.001-08:00

Most of this post is from the wiki post on anecdotal evidence :

"Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, which are types of formal accounts. Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific because it cannot be investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy and is sometimes informally referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; statistical evidence can more accurately determine how typical something is. Psychologists have found that people are more likely to remember notable examples than typical examples[1].

In all forms of anecdotal evidence, testing its reliability by objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation. This leaves verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence.

In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as:

* "information that is not based on facts or careful study" [2]
* "non-scientific observations or studies, which do not provide proof but may assist research efforts" [3]
* "reports or observations of usually unscientific observers" [4]
* "casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis" [5]
* "information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"

Researchers may use anecdotal evidence for suggesting new hypotheses, but never as supporting evidence.

Anecdotal evidence is often unscientific or pseudoscientific because various forms of cognitive bias may affect the collection or presentation of evidence. For instance, someone who claims to have had an encounter with a supernatural being or alien may present a very vivid story, but this is not falsifiable. This phenomenon can also happen to large groups of people through subjective validation.

Anecdotal evidence is also frequently misinterpreted via the availability heuristic, which leads to an overestimation of prevalence. Where a cause can be easily linked to an effect, people overestimate the likelihood of the cause having that effect (availability). In particular, vivid, emotionally-charged anecdotes seem more plausible, and are given greater weight. A related issue is that it is usually impossible to assess for every piece of anecdotal evidence, the rate of people not reporting that anecdotal evidence in the population.

A common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as the post hocfallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second. Another fallacy involves inductive reasoning. For instance, if an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty or hasty generalization. [9] For example, here is anecdotal evidence presented as proof of a desired conclusion:

"There's abundant proof that God exists and is still performing miracles today. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. Her whole family went to church and prayed for her, and she was cured."

Anecdotes like this are very powerful persuaders, but they don't prove anything in a scientific or logical sense. [10] The child may have become better anyway and this could be an example also of the regressive fallacy. Anecdotal evidence cannot be distinguished from placebo effects. [11] Only double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials can confirm a hypothesis.

Sites devoted to rhetoric [12] often give explanations along these lines:

Anecdotal evidence, for example, is by definition less statistically reliable than other sorts of evidence, and explanations do not carry the weight of authority. But both anecdotal evidence and explanations may affect our understanding of a premise, and therefore influence our judgment. The relative strength of an explanation or an anecdote is usually a function of its clarity and applicability to the premise it is supporting. [1]

By contrast, in science and logic, the "relative strength of an explanation" is based upon its ability to be tested, proven to be due to the stated cause, and verified under neutral conditions in a manner that other researchers will agree has been performed competently, and can check for themselves."

There are so many problems with anecdotal evidence for the existence of god. It is easiest to show those problems with specific examples. So, provide some if you have them.

One of the biggest problems is non-falsifiability. In other words, God is covered no matter what the outcome is. If one asks god for something, and you get it, he gets the credit. If you don't get it, either it was not god's will or god does not respond to our requests like a circus act or we were unworthy, etc. If we don't ask for anything, and we get something good, well, god sometimes blesses us even when we don't believe in him or it was going to happen anyway. If we don't ask and we don't get it, well, that is just what happens or god is punishing you. There is no control condition. There is no condition in which if such and such outcome happens, we have shown the premise of god's existence is false. This makes a true experiment impossible, and without that you only have correlational data, and correlations cannot prove causation, for there are many factors that can explain correlations.

Furthermore, the supposed correlations may be only perceived correlations and not true correlations due to selective memory, confirmation bias, and the availability heuristic. We fall victim to these effects without even knowing it and even when we are trying very hard not to. Sincerity does not mean accurate reporting.

Conditions of the experiement must be written down before the experiement is run and one must be specific about what constitutes failure or success. An independent party needs to write down the outcome. Skeptics need to review the evidence to see if the outcome actually satisfies the conditions set out in the beginning. A close call counts as a miss.

You see people often say that they watch a video and it was just like the vision they had earlier that week. Was the vision written down before the video was watched? If not, how do we know that your mind is not merging your memories or giving you a false de javu? We don't. You are sure it is not, but that doesn't count for squat. If I had you here with me I could implant false memories very easily. Our minds are not tape recorders. Each time we retrieve a memory different pieces of it are reassembled anew. It is very easy to be certain and wrong at the same time.

And we tend to remember our hits and forget our misses. We forget about all the premonitions we have that never came true.

We also forget how we subconsciously pick up on certain clues and warnings from our environment.

For every miracle, there are many possible explanations. We will never know what the true explanation of a past event was, but we can design experiments that replicate the situation and rule out many of the possible explanations. So, since we can never know the true explanation for past events, we can never be justified in being certain that god is the explanation.

We sometimes marvel at the odds that somethings could happen without god's intervention. What we forget is that we may not have to explain as much as it first appears. The event may not have happened quite as the person is telling you. The probability of what really happened may not be that rare. And we mustn't forget the law of very large numbers, in that even very improbable events will happen if given enough trials. And we need to remember that we have a tendency to way underestimate the likelihood of some events occuring. And our inability to imagine alternative explanations says more about our ignorance than the true possibilities.

What is Your Inner European?

2007-11-12T20:14:00.000-08:00

Your Inner European is Dutch!

Open minded and tolerant.
You're up for just about anything.

Who's Your Inner European?

My Blog's Topical Guide

2007-11-11T16:04:00.000-08:00

About Me
Why I left the LDS Church
My Perspective
To email me
My Patriarchal Blessing
Thinking About What Was Different With My Wife
Genealogy - Its Continued Significance to One Post-Mormon
My thoughts about going through the temple for the first time
Relaxing and Peaceful Sunday
BYOT: Spiritual Autobiography (part 1)
My Beliefnet Quiz Results
Why I left the LDS Church (Written in Jest)
My epiphany regarding the LDS Church
What is Your Inner European?
Outing My Blog
I also post under the name of Enochville
My Resignation Letter
The Offense-Taking Scale
How I like my alcohol
What Do You Do for a Living?

Book of Abraham
Book of Abraham: Joseph Knowingly Deceived
More Book of Abraham and Refutation of Expansion Theory
My Reply to Stan Barker: Book of Abraham Plagiarism
Reply to Stan: Book of Abraham (Part 2)
“THE BREATHING PERMIT OF HÔR” AMONG THE JOSEPH SMITH PAPYRI
Critics Response to Book of Abraham Parallels

Mormonism
Prejudice in the pre-1990 endowment
Hating the Sin and Shunning the Sinner
Swedenborg’s Heavenly Kingdoms and World of Spirits
Spalding's "Manuscript Found" vs "Manuscript Story"
Mormon apologist claims there is no damning evidence against Mormonism
Some things about Mormonism that many people do not know
My critical response to "Irreantum"
List of Questions to ask Mormon Leaders
Allegations Abt Joseph Smith Encouraging Abortions for His Plural Wives
Scattering of the Saints: Schisms within Mormonism
It’s Deja Vu All Over Again!
LDS Church counts almost 33 % more people as members than reported themselves to be Mormons
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain
My Former Interest in Deep Doctrines
Evidence that Joseph had Sex with his Plural Wives

Post-Mormonism
What should non-believers do? Stay or Go
Proud to be part of the DAMU and Outer Lightness
Charting our own paths: What do you use for a map and compass?
Do couples face one partner's disbelief similarly to how they face other problems that arise?
Tell us about one of the groups to which you belong
My Advice for Those Looking for Marriage Counseling
It is not our fault the Church isn’t what it claims to be
Solid Ground and Treatment for Anxiety

About Christianity
Christ preaches intolerance and abandoning one's family
Why I don't believe in Adam
New gods are created all of the time
There is nothing to be saved from
My Doctrinal Issues With Christianity
In Response to Which Guideline is Better
When Was Jesus Born? Fun Tidbit For Your Family’s Luke 2 Re-enactment
Bizarre Biblical Tales
Was Jesus the Jewish Messiah?

About Theism
Using the Construct of God as an Explanation Causes More Problems than it Solves
Beliefs Concerning the Existence of Gods: A Primer
Purposeless Suffering
My response to the Prime-Mover and First-Cause arguments
God cannot be both all-powerful and all-loving
Abiogenesis

Life as an Atheist
Introduction to Atheism
Atheist "Church"?
Freedom from Judgment
Why I celebrate Christmas even as an atheist
The love of an atheist
Atheist Blogroll
Atheists put less value on love than believers: study
Time Magazine Article on Atheist Sunday School
The Gospel According to Homer Simpson
Preparing Young Atheists for the Draws of Religion
Parenting Resources for Non-Theists
Evolution’s new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective

Life Approach - Meaning and Morality
Must we give life meaning?
Does An Objective Morality Exist?
Reality and Meaning
My Peace with the Idea of No Afterlife
Much Ado About Nothing

Epistemology
Recognizing our assumptions and subjective interpretations
The Single Most Important Thing For Mormons to Learn
Is the Truth about Reality Knowable?
The Critical Necessity of Reading Articles Critical of Your Current Beliefs
My Respect For Faith and Doubt
The Perils of Anecdotal Evidence
"If You Had Experienced It, You'd Believe Too" Nonsense
The fallacy of the test “Try it. If it works, it is true”
Could someone explain to me what is meant by the phrase “finding your truth”?

Spiritual Naturalism
Mistakes I made by following what I thought was the "Spirit"
The Emotions I Formerly Called "The Spirit"
This would be my endowment movie
How to produce spiritual experiences
The Odd Sensations Produced by Neuron Fatigue
Supernatural stuff
RadioLab’s “Who Am I?”

Values
The Virtue of Being Teachable
Sincerity and openness
My respect for faith and doubt

Attributes
Softening: Humility and Awe
Things we are grateful for that the LDS Church gave us
What Torture Has Taught the Former Head of Amnesty International
Learning to find the good after no longer having to fight "truth" claims
What the Ten Commandments Should Have Been
How to Protect Children Against Brainwashing
Refusing to be Manipulated
Trust

Consciousness and Free Will
Thinking about Consciousness

Hymns
We are a Gentle, Angry People
Adapting Familiar LDS Hymns for Atheist Beliefs
"Blue Boat Home"
"God Rest Ye, Unitarians" Hymn

Politics
Rank Order Voting for President
Obama for President!
Are a candidate's religious beliefs relevant?
Excellent article expressing why I love Obama
Draft 2008 Democratic National Platform
This is part of why I am proud to support Obama
Obama: McCain was wrong (video)
Hollywood Declares "Don't Vote"
How good it is going to feel to defeat the Church on Prop 8

Research Aids
New Personalized Search Engine: Scholarly Mormon Resources
Resources for Those Investigating All Things LDS

My epiphany regarding the LDS Church

2007-11-11T15:38:00.000-08:00

Short Answer: Book of Abraham

Long Answer:
I used to be an amateur Mormon apologist and I believed strongly in the witness of the Spirit. It was my perception that I had more experiences with the Spirit than most members. On countless, various occasions I felt the warmth of the Spirit in my chest, peace in my heart and mind, overwhelming love, what I can only describe as a brightness and clarity in thought, a sure confidence, a connection with God that was so real that it approached tangibility, a knowledge that God was my friend and father, excited joy, a passion for helping the Lord prepare for his Second Coming, a sense of the immensity and beauty of God's plan, heart-aching in prayers, crying out of amazement and gratitude, I gave beautiful priesthood blessings that meant special things to the recepient that I was not aware of, people recovered from their illnesses and sometimes were given instant pain relief and peace, I felt my ancestors prompt and cheer me in my family history and temple work, I had what I believed to be an angelic visitation when I was 9 years old, I sometimes sensed that certain things would happen before they did, I miraculously got unexpected scholarship checks when I needed them, etc. I knew and loved the scriptures and tons about church history. I read "Joseph Smith Papers" (Joseph's diary) because I so wanted to know the man and be able to receive the revelations he received. I even tried to find my own peepstones so that I could learn how to focus more intently on the still small voice.

In my intense interest to soak up all things related to the Church and Kingdom of God, I read a lot of original works and got exposed to many issues that cause members to question Mormonism. Due to all of my spiritual witnesses and insight I felt I had gained, I always dug for the explanation, the way to understand why certain things were done the way they were (i.e., how polyandry was right and approved by God, how God used Joseph's interest in peepstones to train him to listen to the Spirit, etc). And with every issue I came across, there was always some way to interpret or explain the data in a way that was favorable to Joseph. That was until I came to the Book of Abraham. After 6 months of studying all apologetic and critical and original sources, I had to face the fact that there was no workable hypothesis that sustained Joseph that did not ignore data. The Book of Abraham was not only not a translation, in all likelihood it was not a revelation, and the evidence points to it being a knowing fraud by Joseph.

Well, that shook me to the core. This wasn't some "prophets are imperfect" situation. This was the chosen leader of this dispensation while acting in the office of prophet, seer, revelator, and spokesman for God, at a time when he is supposed to be as in tune with God as ever, purposefully fabricates false scripture that has been cannonized and accepted by the whole Church. I had previously had a spiritual witness that the Book of Abraham was what Joseph claimed it to be. This witness met all the requirements that we have been taught to be a true revelation and not some feeling I had created and mistook for the Spirit. Presumably there would be many members, even Presidents of the Church that had had the same witness, and yet I now knew that we had all been duped for the BoA is not anything close to what it is purported to be. This is not to say that it does not contain passages that can be meaningful and give comfort to people, but that does not make it scripture.

So, at minimum, I had to conclude that the experiences that I had previously called the Spirit were unreliable as a method for discovering truth, not only for me, but apparently for modern day prophets as well. This is not to say that those feelings are wrong every time, but I could not tell when they were right and when they were wrong (and apparently neither could anyone else), so they should not be relied on. I thought back on the many personal experiences I had had when I interpreted the Spirit as telling me something and I was wrong. For example, on my mission I was certain through a powerful spiritual witness that when I blessed a convert of mine she would be healed of her endometriosis; or another time when I just knew by the Spirit that I would marry a particular girl. Neither thing happened. These things happen all the time in the church but we right them off as lack of faith or hormones or whatever. What if we did not find some excuse for them but stare them square in the face?

Those were big struggles for me at the time; I doubted myself after they happened and concluded that I was out of tune or did something unworthy to make the prompting not come true. But, now when I reconsidered those experiences, maybe I had not done anything wrong or was out of tune, maybe this unreliable Spirit never speaks to anyone and it is all in our heads. So, I tried out that theory. What if the Spirit isn't real? Can I account for everything in a purely naturalistic world? I found that I could. I have never come across any hard physical evidence that does not have a potential natural explanation. Now, is that explanation the right one, sometimes we may never know because we cannot cross-examine or replicate in a controlled environment. I have found tons of problems with interpreting reality with a supernatural component. I find the naturalistic view much safer and will stick with it, until compelled by evidence that naturalism is incapable of accounting for all observations. I don't want to be fooled again or taken advantage of by opportunistic charlatans that claim access to supernatural worlds.

Reality and Meaning

2007-11-11T05:58:00.000-08:00

A poster on NOM wrote the following:

Nothing makes sense. I am reading, but it all seems so contrived. I am just waiting for this dream to end so I can experience something real.

Life seems so contrived. All the motions: eating, sleeping, working. Death, joy. Everything is so imaginary. It all exists in my head.

Yet around me, I perceive a universe that actually exists, and I see nothing of myself in it. Yet I am completely and utterly dependent upon the universe for my existence.

So my question is, if it is made up then it isn't real? And if it is real, then it isn't made up?

If all the imaginary things exist because of me, and I am a product of the universe, then why are all these imaginary things separate from the materialistic world I live in?

And even if my thoughts are real, then why do they matter? If meaning doesn't exist, then why do I care? Why do I continue to live?

But if meaning is contrived, then what is meaning? Who's meaning? What meaning is the most meaningful?

And here is the clincher: Who is the bastard who taught me that imaginary things are not real? Life is imaginary! Everything is contrived, in our heads, and nothing is "real" by the definition of real. I will say this with arrogance or humility. Either way, it's how I see things at the moment.

"And I guess that I just don't know, and I guess that I just don't know."
-Velvet Underground "Heroin"

My response:

I am sorry for the anguish that you are experiencing.

One of the things I gather from your post is that you want to experience something real. In my previous post I showed that there is one thing that we can know for certain and is impossible to doubt, and that is that something is happening. That is real. That is reality. Something is happening. "What it is ain't exactly clear".

If we insist that we must be certain before we can move on, then we are stuck right here with the concept that something is happening and we can go no further, because any step we take beyond this point enters the realm of uncertainty; we have to start making assumptions and hypotheses. But, since our certainty journey is over, why don't we see where the uncertainty path might take us?

Now just because we are leaving the realm of certainty that does not necessarily mean that we are leaving the realm of reality. Our assumptions might match reality, but we have no way to be certain of that. With each assumption we make, we will be creating a model of what we think reality is, that might be correct and might not. But, it is important to remember that we will be working with a model of our own creation that represents our conception of reality; we will never be directly perceiving reality.

Let's start with the assumption that observation is happening and that there is an "I" that is doing the observing. Let's assume that there are a few different types of observation I can make: visual, auditory, olfactory, taste, tactile (including texture, temperature, etc), temporal, orientation, etc. Let's assume that there is something out there that exists; that I can observe even if it is only through rudimentary tools of observation. With those assumptions in place, let's start looking for patterns or consistencies in our observations. Can we then derive laws of perception such as Gestalt organization and Piaget's object permanence? Can we then also recognize what we term laws of nature: an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by some force, etc. If we do this, we end up with a scientific worldview that is based upon the above mentioned assumptions.

Might this model be faulty? Might our model making abilities be constrained by limitations in thought that we are not even aware of? Sure. But this is what we have to work with. This is one of the few models that we can make that does not lead to a dead end. So, if we assume that we really are homo sapiens spinning on the third rock from the sun, what now?

Some of the observations we have made were that we get hunger pains when it has been a while since our last meal, and it feels good to have sex, and it feels good to care about the feelings of our spouse and children. Drawing from our observations and the observations of others that they share with us, we learn that some pleasure seeking activities can lead to great pain later on. So, words of wisdom and morals are created and passed down to warn of those activities that can result in sorrow or danger. Things can be put into the moral code that don't belong, but that is a tangent to this discussion. So, the answer to what now is keep making observations and do what you believe will lead to lasting happiness.

Now, for many of us, we feel like we need a purpose in life. Without a purpose we observe an internal sense of sorrow and lack of will to do anything. I believe that purpose isn't something out there that we can observe. Purpose and meaning are perceptions that we have to bestow.

Personally, I can't think of a purpose to my life that I can bestow at the universal or eternal levels. I just really don't think my life has any influence at those levels. However, at the local level in space and time, I can give my life meaning and purpose. I choose to care about the feelings of my wife and child. They would be very upset and hurt if I were to suddenly not be here. I make a positive difference in their lives and I choose to care about that. I observe a feeling of emotional closeness when I have these thoughts. My life does not feel pointless. Even if all of what I assume to be reality is no more than a dream, I am emotionally invested in this dream, and that is real enough for me. It is the only thing I am aware of; it is my life and my only experience. I am going to go with the assumption that it is real. If I assume that it is not real and do something stupid like kill myself and it turns out that this life is real, then it would cost my loved ones dearly. I love them too much to take that chance. I'll die eventually regardless, but I'd like to make as much of a positive difference in the lives of my loved ones and posterity as I can. I observe that that thought makes me feel good, and that is enough for me.

Why I left the LDS Church (Written in Jest)

2007-11-06T15:12:00.001-08:00

I left because my dress shoes are uncomfortable. I now attend a church in which one can wear tennis shoes, sandals, slippers, or go bare foot.

No, I left because I have solid proof, a photograph even, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real. And where do you think he lives? Not in the heavens. The heavens are clear; if god lived there we would have seen him. The FSM lives in the most appropriate place for the god of the pirates - deep in the ocean.

And here is his pic:

Behold Your Maker!

Source Article

Refusing to be Manipulated

2007-11-06T15:09:00.000-08:00

I absolutely refuse to allow anyone to manipulate me or guilt trip me. For the most part I am an easy-going guy. But, I become a bear when someone tries to manipulate me. I just will not stand for it.

One reason I quit attending immediately after determining the church was not true was to circumvent any manipulation attempts and guilt trips.

poster:
Hueffenhardt, let me know how you do this..and how you can tell when you are being manipulated..I let people do this to me outside the church in all the corners of my life and I want it to stop!!!!

poster:

If you want to stop manipulation attempts, but are not doing it, I don't think it is necessarily due to a lack of know-how. It might be due to some internal factors on your part. May I lead you in a little introspection to see if we can identify why you are having difficulty doing what you want to do in this situations?

A person cannot be manipulated or guilt tripped without allowing oneself to be manipulated, or allowing oneself to feel guilty. Someone can shoot you without your participation, but no one can manipulate you without your participation. At the heart of manipulation is trying to get another to feel some emotion. I simply refuse to feel that emotion. You can't make me feel guilty about something when I know I was not in the wrong. You can't make me feel bad for not waiting on you hand and foot, when I know it is not my responsibility to wait on you hand and foot. You can't make me feel like a disloyal friend for not letting you cheat off my paper, when I know that true friends would not ask me to cheat.

Futhermore, I just get mad when I recognize that someone thinks they can use me or take advantage of my values or emotions. And when I get mad like that, I ain't doing anything for you. I'll tell whomever straight to their face that I recognize their manipulation attempts and that it makes me mad.

So, it looks like a few things are involved:

1) A confidence in one's own behavior that comes from a strong morality, and an understanding of what can reasonably be expected of you when you are in the wrong.

2) Valuing one's self highly. You are worth sticking up for and your own self-interest is a valid consideration.

3) A strong enough sense of self, that one cannot be unduely affected by what others think of you, especially others whose opinions shouldn't really matter when they are doing much worse by trying to manipulate you. I don't care if a manipulator thinks I am an asshole or unloyal, because I know that I am good to those who don't try to use me.

4) An emotional intelligence in which you recognize when someone is trying to manipulate your emotions.

5) An assertiveness to actually call people on the carpet and tell them it ain't happening.

Poster, when you introspect, what do you think is keeping you from refusing to be manipulated?

In Response to Which Guideline is Better

2007-11-05T03:36:00.000-08:00

On PostMormon.org, a thread was created discussing whether Confucious was ahead of Christ. The author made the argument that Confucious' Golden Rule was superior to Christ's "Love one another as I have loved you" because Christ encourages an external reference point (himself), whereas Confucious encourages an internal reference point. Here is my response:

If Jesus were god and loved us perfectly, then the saying, "Love one another as I have loved you," would be essentially saying, "Love one another with a perfect love even as I have demonstrated to you". I wouldn't have a problem with that if Jesus were capable of perfect love and demonstrated that. But, he did not in my opinion.

For the sake of brevity allow me to give just a few examples:

Matt 10:34-37: 34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Matt 13:41-42: 41The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The above examples do not demonstrate perfect love to me - maybe perfect sadism - but no where near perfect love and there are many more examples where these came from. Most everything that Jesus supposedly did that was nice involved using his supernatural powers, which example we can't follow because we don't have supernatural powers. About the only nice thing I think he supposedly did that did not involve supernateral abilities was that he forgave the woman taken in adultery and the people who killed him.

Anyway, as for the Golden Rule, I think in most situations it is good advice to follow, but there are times when it needs to be superceded. I believe a lot of problems in relationships happen because individuals treat their significant other the way they themselves would like to be treated instead of how the other person wants to be treated.

Example: Suppose Tom loves strawberry ice cream more than any other treat. He enjoys banana cream pie, but not nearly as much as strawberry ice cream. Ann loves banana cream pie more than any other treat. She wants to show Tom how much she loves him, so she does unto him the way she would like to be treated and gives him banana cream pie, which is a big sacrifice for her. She thinks Tom will be so grateful and appreciative. Tom recognizes that Ann is doing something nice for him, but is sort of disappointed, too. He thanks her, but not with the huge gratitude that she was expected and would have shown had she been getting what she was giving him. She is disappointed and frustrated. It would have been better for Ann to treat Tom the way he wanted to be treated instead of treating him the way she would like to be treated.

Real life examples might include a husband giving advice when the wife only wanted to be heard and did not want advice. The husband gave advice because that is what he wants when he shares his problems. Another example might be a wife trying to get a husband to talk about his bad day because that is how she would like to be treated, instead of giving him some space as he would like to be treated.

Futhermore, the Golden Rule causes problems in cross-cultural interactions in which treating someone from a different culture as you would normally treat someone from your own culture can be offensive.

Then, you also have people with odd tastes such as sadomasochists. Most people would not appreciate being treated by a sadomasochists the same way as they would like to be treated.

So, the Golden Rule isn't perfect either. In fact, I'd say that the injunction to love one another is superior to the Golden Rule, because if you truly love someone you will at least treat them as they would like to be treated and maybe even better in cases in which they want things that are not best for them. For example, many kids would like to be treated to fast food and junk food all the time, but if you love them, you will treat them better than they want to be treated.

Resources for Those Investigating All Things LDS

2007-11-05T03:31:00.000-08:00

"For there are many yet on the earth among [Mormonism]...who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it"
-D&C 123:12 (adapted from the original)

The following is a list of sites that are useful in helping the reader learn more about all things Mormon, everything from the Kinderhook plates to the Hoffman cover-up to the most recent happenings in the Church:

Search Engine

Scholarly Mormon Resources - Find original sources and scholarly articles fast about Mormonism. Includes information from both apologetic and critical websites.

Informative Websites (not an exhaustive list by any means)

Critical

Utah Lighthouse Ministries Topical Guide

LDS-Mormon Articles

Zarahemla City Limits

Deconstructor's Rethinking Mormonism

20 Truths About Mormonism

Recovery From Mormonism Articles

Reason

Real Mormon History

Mormon Classics Library

Mormonthink

Dr. Shades Mormon Information

Joseph Lied

Apologetic

FAIR LDS Topical Guide

Maxwell Institute

Shields

Jeff Lindsey's site

Ask Gramps

Blog Aggregators and Select Blogs

Outer Lightness - for DAMU (Disaffected Mormon Underground) blogs

Mormon Archipelago - for TBM blogs

Equality Time

MormonStories

Mormon Curtain

Discussion Forums

PostMormon.org

Mormon discussions

Mormon Think Tank

Ex-Mormon forums

Mormon Apologetic and Discussion Board

Recovery From Mormonism board

Further Light & Knowledge

New Order Mormons

The Critical Necessity of Reading Articles Critical of Your Current Beliefs

2007-11-05T03:27:00.000-08:00

One fundamental lesson I learned as I discovered the fraud of Mormonism that I cannot stress enough is the critical necessity to read information critical of whatever current beliefs you have. The only thing that kept me believing in the Church as long as I did was that I did not read good quality anti like "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" by Charles Larson. I was so certain the Church was true and I "knew" lots of evidence that "confirmed" it from institute manuals and other pro-LDS books. After finding out that I was wrong when I had been so sure that I was right, I knew that I needed to not fall into the trap of unjustified certainty again. It is not enough to build a strong case for an idea, one must be aware of the evidence against the idea as well.

After reading several posts here, I fear that many of us are again becoming convinced of the correctness of our new views when we have not fully investigated the literature opposing our new views. I believe that one cannot be a fully informed orthodox True Believing Mormon. Most TBM's aren't fully informed of the evidence against Mormonism. There are many other Mormons (i.e., New Order Mormons, Sunstone, Middle Way, etc) that are very informed and continue to attend, but are no longer orthodox TBM's. Then, there are apologists, some are TBM, but not fully informed, others are very informed but are not orthodox. They do not look at Mormonism the way regular chapel Mormons do. They buy into theories such as Blake Ostler's Expansion Thesis or the pious fraud theory. In any case, one seems unable to be a fully informed orthodox TBM while being true to the evidence.

Similarly, I believe it is impossible to be a fully informed, orthodox true believing Christian. I find that there are very few Christians who have read both the critical and apologetic info about the Bible and Christianity. In my opinion, the evidence is just too strong against a literal take on Christianity. I do believe that it is possible to be a fully informed, liberal Christian. Where there are unknowns, there is room for faith and to believe as one wishes. But, there are several knowns and a resonsible belief system must integrate the realities of those knowns, in my opinion. One is not likely to learn of those challenging pieces of evidence if one sticks to only reading pro-Christian literature.

Now, to practice what I preach, I am open to hearing the evidence for an opposing view point than the one I expressed. One thing to watch for though is a mistake I made while in Mormonism: I thought I knew all the evidence against Mormonism way before I actually did. I did not know what I did not know.

Tell us about one of the groups to which you belong

2007-11-05T03:24:00.000-08:00

This thread is your oppotunity to tell us about one of your current affiliations. It could be a home schooling group, a mountain biking club, a religious group, an online community of people with similar interests. Give us a link and/or an introduction. What is one of your hobbies or passions that you regularly chat with others about? How did you become involved?

I'll go first. I am a Unitarian Universalist. My wife, Lilly of the Field, and I left the LDS Church at roughly the same time and shortly thereafter became agnostics/atheists. We wanted to keep all that we liked about our previous lives as Mormons and change and improve on the things we did not like. We both enjoy feeling peace, transcendence, unity, joy, comfort. We wanted to be part of a community that encouraged those feelings through hymns and the sharing of thoughts and experiences, but without supernatural emphasis. I'd rather not have to filter through a bunch of stuff I don't believe that is taught from the pulpit as if it were the undisputed truth. I would not be comfortable with that.

We also wanted to be taught the sorts of things we were now into: environmentalism, skepticism, personal spiritual journeys, justice for all regardless of race, gender, orientation, etc. I wanted a community that I could raise my children in with those values and have mentors for them that would encourage exploration of ideas. I wanted people I could turn to for support during times of hospitalization, deaths, births, marriages, etc. I wanted to be able to unite to accomplish greater good through community service and pressure on legislatures. I wanted to enjoy community pot-lucks, seminars, and functions, etc.

Basically, I wanted an atheist church that valued a non-supernatural spirituality. I briefly entertained the idea of starting my own atheist church, but then I learned that they already exist. So, we visited a local Community of Reason, and I emailed several other secular humanist groups and freethinking "churches", but we found them to be devoid of spirituality and not very kid friendly. They felt more like academic societies with weekly lectures, than a church community. But, then we heard that many post-mormons had found a home in Unitarian Universalism. So, we went to our local one and felt right at home. It was a spiritual community that accepted atheists just the way we are. The sermons prompt introspection and contemplation. I have no fear that my kids will be indoctrinated. I am learning to be more tolerant of others who do have supernatural beliefs.

Unitarian Universalism has no creed dictating that all UU's must believe such and such. Instead, there are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Here is a link to a ten minute film on Unitarian Universalism.

Windows Media Version

Real Video Version

The Odd Sensations Produced by Neuron Fatigue

2007-10-19T22:05:00.001-07:00

Our brains are amazing! We often take for granted the sensations and perceptions and phenomenological experience different clusters of neurons give us. We become acutely aware of what these neurons do when we induce fatigue in them. Here are a few examples:

1) Wernicke's area is involved in language comprehension. It is the area of the brain that allows us recognize the meaning of words. To fatigue this area, say the same word over and over and over again until the word doesn't even seem like a word anymore. There is this weird disconnect, it is like a flip has been switched and the word is now meaningless.

2) Our brains treat faces differently than other visual objects. Face recognition generally activates a different area of the brain -the right middle fusiform gyrus - than non-face object recognition. There have been some remarkable studies with split-brain patients that have shown if you present paintings of faces created out of inanimate objects such as vegetables to the part of the brain responsible for face recognition, the patient will say they saw a face, but if you present the same painting to the hemisphere that does not have the face recognition area, the patient will report that they only saw vegetables.

Anyway, if you want to fatigue the face recognition area of the brain, stare at a picture of a face for a long time, until you lose the sensation that you are looking at a face.

3) There are many more examples, but I want to skip to the cool stuff. Some people report that through meditation they can reach a state in which they can see their hand, but it no longer seems to be a part of them. It is like the hand is just as separate from them as the desk in front of them. There is a part of the brain responsible for making us feel like our body parts are part of us (very useful from an evolutionary stand point). Apparently, some drugs can produce that same sensation achieved through meditation.

4) The sense of self, which comes from an area of the brain behind the left ocular cavity, has been reportedly lost temporary during episodes of meditation.

There are other odd sensations, or rather loss of normal phenomenological sensations, that can be achieved through meditation or drug use. I think what meditation and drugs are doing is causing below normal activity in the parts of the brain responsible for those normal experiences.

Many people want to attribute something mystical or supernatural to these odd sensations. But, I believe they are produced by hypoactivity in specific parts of the brain responsible for things like making a word "feel" like a word, a face recognizable as a face, a hand being perceived as belonging to us, or for producing our sense of self.

We are amazing creatures, and I am facsinated by the inner world produced by a collection of neurons. No spirit seems to compensate for the abilities lost due to neural damage. The ability is just gone.