I look back on my life and regret how much I let the church rob me of my childhood. You are taught, as a young Mormon, that sex is a horrible sin if used outside of marriage. You are forbidden from heavy kissing, feeling out, going all the way and even THINKING ABOUT IT!
What normal teenager doesn't think about sex? What normal boy doesn't look at an attractive girl and just wish he could have his way with her? But teenage Mormons are taught that these feelings and desires are evil.
I'm no expert in the psychology of sex. But I do know that it is good not only for your health, but also your esteem. However, it's the complete opposite for Mormons. If you've engaged in anything sexual, then you have offended god. You are only slightly less wicked than a murderer. You might as well just flush your self esteem right down the toilet.
In the name of being righteous, I turned down several sexual opportunities (much to the surprise of the girl making the advance). I even had one girlfriend who broke up with me because I wouldn't "do" anything with her. She was hot. I'm kicking myself now, of course. She would have let me do anything.
Of course, there were those times when the flesh gave way to temptation. I had a few girls here and there who let me play with their boobs. Of course, I felt terribly guilty. But damn! It was so much fun! What is it about boobs that is so damn cool? I even went as far as "dry humping" with one girl. I had an orgasm and really wondered if I was still a virgin.
So mission time came along and I had a few minor sexual sins under my belt. I debated with myself as to whether or not I confess to the bishop. I had to serve a mission, to fulfill the " *right of passage".
* The right of passage is the event in any culture in which a boy is transformed into a man. In Mormonism, completition of a successful mission is the right of passage.
Do I confess? If I do, I might not be allowed to serve. That is way not cool. If I don't confess, I can serve, but I will have unresolved issues. It turns out that I decided to lie to the bishop. I figured that if his sense of discernment couldn't detect my crimes, then they must not be that bad. I was allowed to serve.
It turns out that in the MTC, they put tremendous guilt and pressure on missionaries who have gone on a mission with unresolved sins. They pile the guilt high and deep. They threaten you that if you serve unworthily, you will go to hell. It turns out that there are thousands of bishops all over Utah who need to have their spirit of discernment in the shop.
Why does the LDS church control the sexuality of it's members so much? Sex is a very strong desire. If you can control that, then you can control anything. TSCC tells you when you can and can't have sex. They tell you how and where.
In Mormonism, sex is viewed as the "power of pro-creation". It is a gift given to us by God that, when used righteously, can allow us to bring more of his spirit children into the world. Since the power of pro-creation is so powerful, it must be used carefully. If you abuse it, then you will be in big trouble.
I always used to wonder that if sex outside of marriage was so offensive to god, then why would he allow a child to come of it? Doesn't that child have a right to be born into a righteous home with two righteous parents? Why would god send an innocent child to a whoring woman who has no right to be a mother? I mean, if you get pregnant outside of marriage, then obviously you're a sinner and a whore. So why would god send an innocent child into these circumstances? Only god knows. That child is being given the trials that it best needs.
So that must mean that god wanted the woman to get pregnant outside of marriage. Since he wanted it to happen, then she is actually fulfilling gods will. How can that possibly be a sin?
If everything that happens is gods will, then everything we do, both good and bad, must be gods will. And since whatever happens is gods will, then they can't be a sin, because sinning is doing what god doesn't want us to do. But since all things happen, then all things must be gods will. Therefore, there is no such thing as sin! Everything you do must have been gods will; otherwise, he would have stopped you from doing it!
It was gods will that a boy and a girl liked each other and had sex.
It was gods will that the girl got pregnant.
It was gods will that the girl got an abortion.
It is gods will that some people are for abortion.
It is gods will that some people are against abortion.
Basically, anything that happens is gods will. Because if it wasn't gods will, then it wouldn't happen.
So if I have sex, or drink, or smoke, or gamble, or steal, it is all gods will because he doesn't stop me from doing it.
This is why I am an atheist. For one thing, if god didn't want me to have sex then he wouldn't have given me a dick. If he didn't want me to masturbate, then he wouldn't have given me hands. Secondly, when you sit down and really analyze what god is, you'll realize, as I just demonstrated above, that it's all just nonsense.
It must be gods will that I am an atheist; otherwise he would force me to not be an atheist.
I really jumped around a lot in this post, but I wanted to provide a good look into how Mormons view sex. I also wanted to complain about all the opportunities I passed up. If I sit down and count the opportunities missed, there is probably about a dozen.
Damn it! I'm just sitting here kicking myself! The few memories I have are very nice. I wish I had a dozen more to add to the list!
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Spiritual Giants
Every ward has its person who everyone considers to be the spiritual giant.
Spiritual Giant: As far as I know, this is strictly a Mormon term. It is used to describe a person who is hopelessly in love with TSCC. This person is admired by all the Mormons around them as being so "strong" in the church, that they will never lose their testimony. In fact that person always bears their testimony, always has comments in sunday school lessons, and is usually a convincing speaker so they always give talks in SM and teach lessons.
Every ward I have ever lived in, I can still remember the spiritual giant. In one ward, there was one week where there was not enough priests to bless the sacrament so they got another priesthood holder to do it. I remember that as he recited the sacrament prayer that he was in tears.
The ward where I currently reside has its spiritual giant as well. In fact, the male spiritual giant is married to the female spiritual giant. Together, they are the giant couple. She teaches at BYU and he teaches at church. They really are a nice couple with really great kids. They love the church so much that the missionaries are at their house almost every other night.
During my days of activity, I was once in a conversation with Dan (we'll call him Dan). He recounted to me how, out of all his siblings, he was the only one who was still strong in the church. At the time, I admired him for his strength.
Of course, now I look at him and see a man who is desperately clinging to a myth. Don't get me wrong, he really is a great man. Even as an apostate, I admire him. He is generous and kind. In fact, his only flaw is that he is Mormon.
His wife, while humble on the outside, just loves knowing that she is the golden woman of the ward. You can just tell when you look at her. She loves being looked at. She has some way of drawing attention to herself while doing nothing at all. She sings in the ward choir and somehow, you always find yourself watching her. It's almost scary. She's not even that attractive.
What more prestigious couple could there be? She is a professor at BYU for cryin out loud! In Mormon Land, that is the ultimate job.
Every ward needs it's spiritual giant. This ward has it's spiritual couple. Awww, how sweet.
Spiritual Giant: As far as I know, this is strictly a Mormon term. It is used to describe a person who is hopelessly in love with TSCC. This person is admired by all the Mormons around them as being so "strong" in the church, that they will never lose their testimony. In fact that person always bears their testimony, always has comments in sunday school lessons, and is usually a convincing speaker so they always give talks in SM and teach lessons.
Every ward I have ever lived in, I can still remember the spiritual giant. In one ward, there was one week where there was not enough priests to bless the sacrament so they got another priesthood holder to do it. I remember that as he recited the sacrament prayer that he was in tears.
The ward where I currently reside has its spiritual giant as well. In fact, the male spiritual giant is married to the female spiritual giant. Together, they are the giant couple. She teaches at BYU and he teaches at church. They really are a nice couple with really great kids. They love the church so much that the missionaries are at their house almost every other night.
During my days of activity, I was once in a conversation with Dan (we'll call him Dan). He recounted to me how, out of all his siblings, he was the only one who was still strong in the church. At the time, I admired him for his strength.
Of course, now I look at him and see a man who is desperately clinging to a myth. Don't get me wrong, he really is a great man. Even as an apostate, I admire him. He is generous and kind. In fact, his only flaw is that he is Mormon.
His wife, while humble on the outside, just loves knowing that she is the golden woman of the ward. You can just tell when you look at her. She loves being looked at. She has some way of drawing attention to herself while doing nothing at all. She sings in the ward choir and somehow, you always find yourself watching her. It's almost scary. She's not even that attractive.
What more prestigious couple could there be? She is a professor at BYU for cryin out loud! In Mormon Land, that is the ultimate job.
Every ward needs it's spiritual giant. This ward has it's spiritual couple. Awww, how sweet.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Looking Back
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon558.htm
An ex-Mormon gives a short but awesome overview of life as a Mormon. The follow up comments are good to read as well.
An ex-Mormon gives a short but awesome overview of life as a Mormon. The follow up comments are good to read as well.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Testing the Book of Mormon
This post is actually a flyer produced by Utah Lighthouse Ministry. Since it does not say anywhere that it can't be reproduced, I have gone ahead and posted it here...
Some members of the LDS Church have made fantastic claims about archaeologists using the Book of Mormon. For example, one letter circulated among LDS members in Ohio in 1959 claimed that the Book of Mormon was used by "the government to unravel the problem of the aborigines... it was 1920 before the Smithsonian Institute officially recognized the Book of Mormon as a record of any value... it is true that the Book of Mormon has been the guide to almost all of the major discoveries... This record is... recognized by all advanced students in the field" (Mormonism - Shadow of Reality?, Tanners, p. 97)
Because of many false statements disseminated by members of the LDS Church, such as the one cited above, the Smithsonian Institute was forced to publish a statement concerning these matters. The 1986 statement begins with a denial of the claims put forth by Mormon enthusiasts:
"The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book." ("Statement Regarding The Book of Mormon." Smithsonian Institute, Spring 1986).
In 1973, Michael Coe, one of the best known authorities on archaeology of the New World, wrote an article for Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973. After summarizing Book of Mormon claims, he frankly stated:
"Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true... nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon... is a historical document relating to the history of the early migrants to our hemisphere." (pp.42, 46)
Some LDS scholars are beginning to publicly admit that archaeology does not furnish any significant evidence for the Book of Mormon. Dee F. Green, who at one time served as editor of the University Archaeological Society Newsletter, published at the church's Brigham Young University, made it plain that archaeological evidence did not prove the Book of Mormon:
"The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists... If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration of geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78)
Thomas Stuart Ferguson was one of the most noted defenders of Book of Mormon archaeology. Mr. Ferguson, co-founder of the New World Archaeological Foundation, hoped to prove the Book of Mormon through archaeological research. The LDS Church granted hundreds of thousands of dollars to this organization, but in the end, Thomas Stuart Ferguson admitted that although the Foundation made some important contributions to New World archaeology, all his work with regard to the Book of Mormon was in vain. He admitted, in fact, that he had wasted twenty-five years of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon. In 1975 Ferguson prepared a 29-page paper in which he wrote: "I'm afraid that up to this point, I must agree with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book of Mormon geography." In a letter to Mr. and Mrs. H.W. Lawrence, dated Feb 20, 1976, Thomas Stuart Ferguson plainly stated: "...you can't set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere - because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archaeology.
"Dr. Ray T. Matheny, Professor of Anthropology at the church's Brigham Young University, admitted that he has a difficult time reconciling New World archaeology with the Book of Mormon:
"I really have difficulty in finding issue or quarrel with those opening chapters of the Book of Mormon [i.e. the first seven chapters which only relate to Lehi and his family around the area of Jerusalem]. But thereafter it doesn't seem like a translation to me... And the terminologies and the language used and the methods of explaining and putting things down are 19th century literary concepts and cultural experiences one would expect Joseph Smith and his colleagues would experience. And for that reason I call it transliteration, and I'd rather not call it a translation after the 7th chapter. And I have real difficulty in trying to relate these culturalconcepts as I've briefly discussed here with archeological findings that I'm aware of...
"If I were doing this cold like John Carlson is here, I would say in evaluating the Book of Mormon that it had no place in the New World whatsoever. I would have to look for the place of the Book of Mormon events to have taken place in the Old World. It just doesn't seem to fit anything that he has been taught in his discipline, nor I in my discipline in anthropology, history; there seems to be no place for it. It seems misplaced. It seems like there are anachronisms. It seems like the items are out of time and place, and trying to put them into the New World. And I think there's a great difficulty here for we Mormons in understanding what this book is all about." ("Book of Mormon Archaeology," Response by Professoy Ray T. Matheny, Sunstone Symposium, August 198, typed copy transcribed from a tape recording, pp. 30-31)
Three years after speaking at this sypmosium, Dr. Matheny wrote a letter in which he made it clear that there was still no Book of Mormon archaeology:
"While some people choose to make claims for the Book of Mormon through archaeological evidence, to me they are made prematurely, and without sufficient knowledge.
"I do not support the books written on this subject including The Messiah in Ancient America, or any other. I believe that the authors are making cases out of too little evidence and do not adequately address the problems that archaeology and the Book of Mormon present. I would feel terribly embarrassed if anyone sent a copy of any book written on the subject to the National Museum of Natural History - Smithsonian Institution, or other authority, making claims that cannot as yet be substiantiated... there are very severe problems in this field in trying to make correlations with the scriptures. Speculation, such as practiced so far by Mormon authors has not given church members any credibility." (Letter by Ray T. Matheny, dated Dec. 17, 1987).
When we turn to the Book of Mormon, we are unable to find any evidence at all that the Nephites ever existed.
Hmm, I wonder why...
Some members of the LDS Church have made fantastic claims about archaeologists using the Book of Mormon. For example, one letter circulated among LDS members in Ohio in 1959 claimed that the Book of Mormon was used by "the government to unravel the problem of the aborigines... it was 1920 before the Smithsonian Institute officially recognized the Book of Mormon as a record of any value... it is true that the Book of Mormon has been the guide to almost all of the major discoveries... This record is... recognized by all advanced students in the field" (Mormonism - Shadow of Reality?, Tanners, p. 97)
Because of many false statements disseminated by members of the LDS Church, such as the one cited above, the Smithsonian Institute was forced to publish a statement concerning these matters. The 1986 statement begins with a denial of the claims put forth by Mormon enthusiasts:
"The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book." ("Statement Regarding The Book of Mormon." Smithsonian Institute, Spring 1986).
In 1973, Michael Coe, one of the best known authorities on archaeology of the New World, wrote an article for Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1973. After summarizing Book of Mormon claims, he frankly stated:
"Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true... nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon... is a historical document relating to the history of the early migrants to our hemisphere." (pp.42, 46)
Some LDS scholars are beginning to publicly admit that archaeology does not furnish any significant evidence for the Book of Mormon. Dee F. Green, who at one time served as editor of the University Archaeological Society Newsletter, published at the church's Brigham Young University, made it plain that archaeological evidence did not prove the Book of Mormon:
"The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists... If one is to study Book of Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration of geography should be the first order of business, but we have already seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp. 77-78)
Thomas Stuart Ferguson was one of the most noted defenders of Book of Mormon archaeology. Mr. Ferguson, co-founder of the New World Archaeological Foundation, hoped to prove the Book of Mormon through archaeological research. The LDS Church granted hundreds of thousands of dollars to this organization, but in the end, Thomas Stuart Ferguson admitted that although the Foundation made some important contributions to New World archaeology, all his work with regard to the Book of Mormon was in vain. He admitted, in fact, that he had wasted twenty-five years of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon. In 1975 Ferguson prepared a 29-page paper in which he wrote: "I'm afraid that up to this point, I must agree with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book of Mormon geography." In a letter to Mr. and Mrs. H.W. Lawrence, dated Feb 20, 1976, Thomas Stuart Ferguson plainly stated: "...you can't set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere - because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archaeology.
"Dr. Ray T. Matheny, Professor of Anthropology at the church's Brigham Young University, admitted that he has a difficult time reconciling New World archaeology with the Book of Mormon:
"I really have difficulty in finding issue or quarrel with those opening chapters of the Book of Mormon [i.e. the first seven chapters which only relate to Lehi and his family around the area of Jerusalem]. But thereafter it doesn't seem like a translation to me... And the terminologies and the language used and the methods of explaining and putting things down are 19th century literary concepts and cultural experiences one would expect Joseph Smith and his colleagues would experience. And for that reason I call it transliteration, and I'd rather not call it a translation after the 7th chapter. And I have real difficulty in trying to relate these culturalconcepts as I've briefly discussed here with archeological findings that I'm aware of...
"If I were doing this cold like John Carlson is here, I would say in evaluating the Book of Mormon that it had no place in the New World whatsoever. I would have to look for the place of the Book of Mormon events to have taken place in the Old World. It just doesn't seem to fit anything that he has been taught in his discipline, nor I in my discipline in anthropology, history; there seems to be no place for it. It seems misplaced. It seems like there are anachronisms. It seems like the items are out of time and place, and trying to put them into the New World. And I think there's a great difficulty here for we Mormons in understanding what this book is all about." ("Book of Mormon Archaeology," Response by Professoy Ray T. Matheny, Sunstone Symposium, August 198, typed copy transcribed from a tape recording, pp. 30-31)
Three years after speaking at this sypmosium, Dr. Matheny wrote a letter in which he made it clear that there was still no Book of Mormon archaeology:
"While some people choose to make claims for the Book of Mormon through archaeological evidence, to me they are made prematurely, and without sufficient knowledge.
"I do not support the books written on this subject including The Messiah in Ancient America, or any other. I believe that the authors are making cases out of too little evidence and do not adequately address the problems that archaeology and the Book of Mormon present. I would feel terribly embarrassed if anyone sent a copy of any book written on the subject to the National Museum of Natural History - Smithsonian Institution, or other authority, making claims that cannot as yet be substiantiated... there are very severe problems in this field in trying to make correlations with the scriptures. Speculation, such as practiced so far by Mormon authors has not given church members any credibility." (Letter by Ray T. Matheny, dated Dec. 17, 1987).
When we turn to the Book of Mormon, we are unable to find any evidence at all that the Nephites ever existed.
Hmm, I wonder why...
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Honda Dealers and Mormonism
Missionaries, when trying to convince their investigators to only read pro-Mormon sources, often use the following analogy:Would you go to a Honda dealer to learn about Ford? Would you go to a Chevy dealer to learn about Dodge? No. If you want to learn about Honda, go to a Honda dealer.
Their point is that if you want to learn about the Mormons, go to the Mormons.
But let's think this through a little more carefully...
If you go to a Ford dealer, that dealer wants to make the sale. Therefore, he is going to tell you everything great about the Ford and everything bad about the Honda. If the Ford has flaws, and even if he knows about them, he is going to withhold that information from you. Why? He wants to make the sale!
So...
I think it's a great idea to learn about Ford from a Honda dealer. Learn about Chevy from a Dodge dealer. That way, even if their opinions are biased (which they most certainly will be) at least you will be getting two different perspectives.
You would be an utter fool to go to a Honda dealer, learn everything you can about Honda from him, and make the purchase without any other research. The information he will give you will be biased because he wants to make the sale. He doesn't care about you or your car... He just wants the commission.
So don't take the advise of LDS missionaries. Learn about Mormonism from every source you can get your hands on.
In fact, who would be the best person to ask about Honda? A former Honda owner.
Who is the best person to ask about Mormonism? A former Mormon.
LDS, Inc. just wants the sale! They don't care about you or your car.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
The Day I Made Eye Contact With An Apostle
I was at the Home Depot on 2100 S. and 300 W. in Salt Lake City. As I entered the store and approached the paint area, I made eye contact with a tall man, nicely dressed and wearing a French beret. I immediately had the impression that he looked familiar. As I was at the Home Depot to get paint, I got inline behind this gentleman at the paint desk. Once I heard his voice, I knew exactly who he was; the person standing directly in front of me at the paint desk at Home Depot was none other than Dallan H. Oaks of the quorum of the twelve apostles! He was buying paint just like a regular person.
At first I seriously doubted that it was really him. Afterall, general authorities of that rank seldom show themselves in public. But his voice was unmistakable. He was accompanied by a man wearing a tie whom I presumed was his body guard. The body guard did not look happy at all. I would think that guarding the life of a man who has walked and talked with Jesus would be like the ultimate job. But this guy did not look happy at all. Interesting...
I realized it really was Oaks by his unmistakable voice. He was asking the person working at the paint counter different questions. I must admit that the man has a commanding presence. His voice carries much confidence and he is quite a tall man. I obviously do not respect him as a religious leader but as a man he appears self confident and very sure.
I didn't speak to him, although I would have liked to. Naturally, there are a million questions that I would like to ask a general authority but it was not the right place.
As Oaks was leaving the paint counter, some child must have recognized him. This young child ran up to him and gave him a hug. Does Oaks really like children, or did he hug the child because he knew people were watching? I am sure that many people in the store recognized him. But other than the child, at least that I saw, no one made any attempt to approach him.
Dallan H. Oaks, if you ever read this post, please e-mail me. I know you're busy and certainly don't have time to entertain an apostate like me. But if you happen to, it would be appreciated.
Let's chat. I've got a lot of questions for you.
Mormon411
Friday, November 27, 2009
TG Day Memories With the Mormons
As per tradition, we gather with friends and family on Thanksgiving Day to eat and be together. Naturally, you can't have a reunion without religion being thrown in. Allow me to share some of my encounters with the Mormons on TG-Day:
I happened to have a can of Coke in my car. I was planning on using it to mix with a good drink later, but ended up drinking it at the reunion. As I was enjoying my drink, I was solicited to help with a small problem. Someone had put a pitcher under the tap to fill it with water. However, they had forgotten it was there and the position of the pitcher allowed the water to run out onto the counter top and from there to the floor. I was recruited to retrieve the pitcher and clean up the water.
As I was turning off the water and wiping up the spill, I heard a comment from a young man, "That's what happens when you drink Coke."
What? What happens exactly? You spill water? You get asked to clean up spilled water? Do you honestly think that my drinking Coke is related in any way to the phenomon of gravity pulling water towards the floor? Are you telling me that everyone who drinks Coke simultaneously spills water? Are you telling me that, since you have never drank Coke, that you have never spilled water? The kid who made this comment is going to make a fine Mormon; a complete lack of any type of logic or critical thinking.
The moral: Don't drink Coke unless you want to clean up water that someone else spilled.
***
I have mentioned in posts past how the patriarch of the family has inquired of me as to the delay in baptizing my children. I have politely informed him that when they reach the age of adulthood (18) they can make that decision for themselves.
Well, today, patriarch was not asking me about junior's baptism... he was asking my wife.
Wasn't the answer I gave you before sufficient? I am the parent. I know that you think I have thrown my life in the trash and am therefore incapable of making parently decisions. However, that is just your opinion. My children won't be baptized just because you want them to. They won't be baptized just because it's what everyone is doing. My children will be baptized when two things happen: one, they are old enough to make that decision for themselves; two, and most importantly, they will be baptized when they understand and accept all the commitments that baptism represents. I simply don't believe that eight years old is anywhere old enough to make such a commitment.
If my children understand and accept the commitment at the age of 18 or older, then they will have my blessings as they are baptized. But when you're eight, do you even have the capacity to comprehend the law of tithing or chastity? No, and since that is the case, no baptism at eight.
***
Driving from one party to the next, I had a chance to talk with my oldest son. I made the following analogy to him:
"Since the church house is the house of god, then being in heaven must be like being in church all the time."
That was all I had to say. My son sneered and said, "Then I'd rather go to hell!"
Amen and amen!
I happened to have a can of Coke in my car. I was planning on using it to mix with a good drink later, but ended up drinking it at the reunion. As I was enjoying my drink, I was solicited to help with a small problem. Someone had put a pitcher under the tap to fill it with water. However, they had forgotten it was there and the position of the pitcher allowed the water to run out onto the counter top and from there to the floor. I was recruited to retrieve the pitcher and clean up the water.
As I was turning off the water and wiping up the spill, I heard a comment from a young man, "That's what happens when you drink Coke."
What? What happens exactly? You spill water? You get asked to clean up spilled water? Do you honestly think that my drinking Coke is related in any way to the phenomon of gravity pulling water towards the floor? Are you telling me that everyone who drinks Coke simultaneously spills water? Are you telling me that, since you have never drank Coke, that you have never spilled water? The kid who made this comment is going to make a fine Mormon; a complete lack of any type of logic or critical thinking.
The moral: Don't drink Coke unless you want to clean up water that someone else spilled.
***
I have mentioned in posts past how the patriarch of the family has inquired of me as to the delay in baptizing my children. I have politely informed him that when they reach the age of adulthood (18) they can make that decision for themselves.
Well, today, patriarch was not asking me about junior's baptism... he was asking my wife.
Wasn't the answer I gave you before sufficient? I am the parent. I know that you think I have thrown my life in the trash and am therefore incapable of making parently decisions. However, that is just your opinion. My children won't be baptized just because you want them to. They won't be baptized just because it's what everyone is doing. My children will be baptized when two things happen: one, they are old enough to make that decision for themselves; two, and most importantly, they will be baptized when they understand and accept all the commitments that baptism represents. I simply don't believe that eight years old is anywhere old enough to make such a commitment.
If my children understand and accept the commitment at the age of 18 or older, then they will have my blessings as they are baptized. But when you're eight, do you even have the capacity to comprehend the law of tithing or chastity? No, and since that is the case, no baptism at eight.
***
Driving from one party to the next, I had a chance to talk with my oldest son. I made the following analogy to him:
"Since the church house is the house of god, then being in heaven must be like being in church all the time."
That was all I had to say. My son sneered and said, "Then I'd rather go to hell!"
Amen and amen!
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Follow That Star
On the night that Jesus was born, a new star appeared in the sky. The shepherds followed this star to the manger where Jesus was sleeping. How in the hell is that possible?
It's true that the stars have been used for centuries to navigate. I don't know the details of how it's done, but ships could use the stars to stay on a straight course. So it is possible to follow the stars if you're trying to go in a specific direction...
... BUT how can you follow a star to an exact location?
Starlight is dim. In fact, a star just appears as a small pinhole in the black night sky. So the traditional ideas of a ray of starlight shining down on Jesus is just dumb. That didn't happen. Have you ever seen a ray of starlight? I didn't think so.
Oh, it was a really bright star! Fine. So why did only the shepherds see it and follow it? Wouldn't thousands of people follow this ray to see where it was shining as well?
Secondly, in order to follow the star, we must assume two things: one, stars can move about in the heavens at random, and two, the star must have known where the shepherds were and could move itself accordingly. Both of those ideas are just plain absurd. Yes, stars move, but not back and forth at random. Stars are not intelligent... they are just burning balls of gas hundreds of millions of light years away. In order for the star to have actually moved about in the sky to guide the shepherds, it would have to have traveled many thousands of times faster than the speed of light. Not possible.
Here is another point to consider. Why would the creater of the universe go to all that trouble just to guide a few shepherds to Jesus?
The shepherds left no testimony. In fact, their story is all told in third person. Who is that person telling the story? Maybe the shepherds told the story and it is being re-told by someone else. Perhaps. But if the shepherds were eye witnesses of the newly born Jesus, then why didn't god see to it that their testimony made it into the Bible? All we have is a third person account. What good does that do us?
The only benefit the shepherds got from this long and detailed event is the pleasure of seeing baby Jesus. But what good does that do? The scriptures often talk about how seeing is not as important as believing.
So it seems to me that the whole story about the shepherds following the star is not only impossible, but also pointless. What purpose does this story actually serve? None that I can think of.
It's true that the stars have been used for centuries to navigate. I don't know the details of how it's done, but ships could use the stars to stay on a straight course. So it is possible to follow the stars if you're trying to go in a specific direction...
... BUT how can you follow a star to an exact location?
Starlight is dim. In fact, a star just appears as a small pinhole in the black night sky. So the traditional ideas of a ray of starlight shining down on Jesus is just dumb. That didn't happen. Have you ever seen a ray of starlight? I didn't think so.
Oh, it was a really bright star! Fine. So why did only the shepherds see it and follow it? Wouldn't thousands of people follow this ray to see where it was shining as well?
Secondly, in order to follow the star, we must assume two things: one, stars can move about in the heavens at random, and two, the star must have known where the shepherds were and could move itself accordingly. Both of those ideas are just plain absurd. Yes, stars move, but not back and forth at random. Stars are not intelligent... they are just burning balls of gas hundreds of millions of light years away. In order for the star to have actually moved about in the sky to guide the shepherds, it would have to have traveled many thousands of times faster than the speed of light. Not possible.
Here is another point to consider. Why would the creater of the universe go to all that trouble just to guide a few shepherds to Jesus?
The shepherds left no testimony. In fact, their story is all told in third person. Who is that person telling the story? Maybe the shepherds told the story and it is being re-told by someone else. Perhaps. But if the shepherds were eye witnesses of the newly born Jesus, then why didn't god see to it that their testimony made it into the Bible? All we have is a third person account. What good does that do us?
The only benefit the shepherds got from this long and detailed event is the pleasure of seeing baby Jesus. But what good does that do? The scriptures often talk about how seeing is not as important as believing.
So it seems to me that the whole story about the shepherds following the star is not only impossible, but also pointless. What purpose does this story actually serve? None that I can think of.
You Can Be A Monson "Fan"!
I was browsing around on Facebook today and happened across the profile of Thomas S. Monson, the current profit for the LDS church. First of all, I noticed that you can't "add" him as a friend... you can only become a "fan".
That tells me that he doesn't really care about anyone. He wants you to be a follower but doesn't want to have to interact with all the mindless Mormons who constantly sing his praise.
But the part that really made me laugh was a comment in the review section. All the "fans" of Monson seem to think this is the place to bear their testimonies and kiss the ass of the profit. This quote by Jennifer Foust made me laugh:
"I love the Good News. The Gospel is wonderful in its fullness. The scriptures are so inspiring and keeps us safe against those who lust after the advisary. I am so blessed to have the Gospel of Jesus Christ in my life."
Have you ever known anyone who "lusts" after the advisary? Lust is a superficial sexual desire, right? So, how can the scriptures protect us from those who want to fuck the devil? Besides, if they do want to fuck the devil, then why do the "sheep" need protecting?
That whole statement just made me laugh and makes absolutely no sense at all.
That tells me that he doesn't really care about anyone. He wants you to be a follower but doesn't want to have to interact with all the mindless Mormons who constantly sing his praise.
But the part that really made me laugh was a comment in the review section. All the "fans" of Monson seem to think this is the place to bear their testimonies and kiss the ass of the profit. This quote by Jennifer Foust made me laugh:
"I love the Good News. The Gospel is wonderful in its fullness. The scriptures are so inspiring and keeps us safe against those who lust after the advisary. I am so blessed to have the Gospel of Jesus Christ in my life."
Have you ever known anyone who "lusts" after the advisary? Lust is a superficial sexual desire, right? So, how can the scriptures protect us from those who want to fuck the devil? Besides, if they do want to fuck the devil, then why do the "sheep" need protecting?
That whole statement just made me laugh and makes absolutely no sense at all.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
