This Never Happens

Mormons (TBM, NOM, Post and Ex) should be really proud of themselves today!  Not everyone in these groups should be proud, but those who spoke up against the Church's new policy on Gays that was leaked last week, should be proud.  See here   These combined voices, which is unusual for True Believing Mormons and Exmormons to have a combined voice, but this last week they did and they apparently "yelled" loud enough that the Church took notice and changed their new policy.  THIS NEVER HAPPENS!  Let me repeat that for those who may be missing my point, THIS NEVER HAPPENS!  A small group of members and a larger group of disaffiliated members caused the Church to change their doctrine/policy.  Of course they claim it's a "clarification"  but what else can they do?  They cannot apologize or change their doctrine, so it had to come out as a clarification.  That's okay, they can call it what they want, those in and out of the Church can bicker over the points of it. I think, besides the good that will come from the actual hurtful policy being changed, the bigger story is that those who spoke up, forced their hand!  This is an institution that is not used to having their hand forced, especially from within their own membership.  The members are an obedient group that values not questioning their leaders as among their highest moral behavior.  It's a sign of their faith and devotion to God, not to question His earthly spokesmen.  Questioning the leaders is akin to questioning God, which is sac religious at best. 

So what really happened here this last week or so?  The Church exposed its true stance on Gays, basically it looks as though the Church while indicating it's welcoming to those who might attend, they really don't want anyone living in a Gay family relationship part of the Church, even if you are a child.  They made it clear that if you are living in a Gay relationship, even if it is a legal marriage, especially if it is a legal marriage, there is no place for you among the Latter Day Saints.  Jesus wants it that way, according to them.  So fine that's their doctrine, its been written in stone, or at least in the Handbook.  They will have to live with that, and the consequences of that stand. 

The other thing that happened this week...the Church experienced an earthquake!  The people rose up and change was enacted.  THIS NEVER HAPPENS!  This was Mormon's Rosa Parks moment. They refused to give up their seat, they refused to throw the children under the bus.  The Church felt an earthquake and it caused some cracks in the foundation.  Only time will tell how bad those cracks are.  The people with the actual power, the members, are very blind, subdued, and brainwashed, and they don't realize they have this power, but it was demonstrated this last week and it worked.  Those most inside the bubble won't see it that way.  They still believe the walk and talk of their leaders, but it happened just the same.  The followers are mostly good people, sheep of the Lamb of God, and happily so, as they go safely back to their green meadows, but the leaders saw the upraising and reacted with lighting speed for a lethargic bureaucracy that is used to calling the shots.  For them to react so quickly there must be much more attrition going on inside this church then those closely guarded, never to be released actual membership numbers indicate. 

A Smarter Cult?

In a 2012 BBC interview between John Sweeney and Elder Holland, there was a reference to the Church and the Church of Scientology. It went like this:

Sweeney:  What they said to me (the 30 people he had interviewed who had left the church) is that they believe the Mormon Church is a cult.  They believe it's like the Church of Scientology but actually it's smarter and more powerful.

I knew nothing about the Church of Scientology, and I highly doubted that it was anything like the Mormon Church.  Are these former members of the Church claims true?  Is the Church a cult like Scientology but smarter and more powerful?  I decided to take a closer look at Scientology, check out what people who had left that Church say about it and its practices.  Would I find any similarities? 

Let me begin by saying, the ideology behind the two churches is very different, could not be more different!  BUT, having said that... I did find some similarities in the way they do things that surprised me.  Let me also state upfront, that the Church of Scientology is MUCH harsher in their tactics, then the modern Mormon Church, their tactics border if not cross human right violations, and anyone involved in that Church, excluding their celebrities, is at risk of mental and physical abuse.  But I said compared to the modern day Mormon Church, if you compared it to the early Mormon Church, especially during the Reformation in the 1850's, you could definitely find as harsh of treatment, especially when it came to things as outlandish as blood atonement.

So bucket up, let's go on a little exploration together:  (I learned about Scientology from places like This, content from that website is paraphrased or quoted from below)

The first thing I noticed is that they both claim to be the "one true church." They both claim to be expanding, and the "fastest growing" church.  Somehow that makes them "true" if they are the fastest growing.  It reinforces to the members that they are in the right place at the right time, and everyone is awakening to the truth and joining it. Members spend their life promoting the church, Mormons love to promote their church, apparently Scientologist's love to too.  Most Scientologist are caring, idealistic people, willing to dedicate their life to that effort, Mormons are too.

For Scientology, "The ultimate sin is dissent.  If you leave, you are a suppressive person (SP is a person who has harmful, evil intentions and acts on them)."  If you leave the Mormon Church, you are an apostate.  Mormons will usually try to help you see the mistake you have made and want you to come back, but you are a dangerous person, who could have a bad influence on other members.  Your opinions, especially about the Church are null and void, they carry no weight whatsoever.  Everything you say or do is analyzed.  Anything bad that happens to you is a direct result of your leaving the Church.  You most likely left because you could not hack it, you were too weak and perhaps sinning, or wanting to sin.  You are definitely wrong, you have lost the Spirit, and your association with your former friends, if you retain one, is more of a project relationship, trying to get you back into the fold. 


Scientologist's "expected to have a great expansion, long promised.  It isn't happening, but the Church management reports the contrary."  Mormon's too expect a great expansion, they think the Gospel will spread to every country and fill the earth.  They think there will come a day when the temples dot the earth and will be so busy that they will be open 24 hours a day.  They think their numbers are always increasing, but even with the great increase of missionaries they received due to lowering the age requirement, the reality is that the conversion rate is only up 4%, if that amount is even correct.  Many people are leaving the Church, but the Church controls the information on membership, so the official number remains at 15 million, there are many people who question that number.

Neither church approves of their members looking at material contrary to the church.  Mormons are cautioned not to read antimormon literature, anything that isn't from the Church would be considered antimormon.  Both churches are being adversely effected by the internet.  If you post concerns about the church on the internet, and you gain a large enough following, both churches will try to stop you.  If you are a Mormon, you run the risk of excommunication. If you are a Scientologist, the Church becomes very upset and tries to find out who you are if you are posting anonymously, "any threat to it must be stopped at any cost."  What's at stake for both Churches?  "If Church members in mass start to question it, then it will come apart.  It depends on fear of eternal damnation to keep members under control."

"Every Scientologist is taught, and it is drilled into him, that to be critical of L. Ron Hubbard, and/or the Church is to be guilty of hidden crimes."  Elder Oaks in a 2007 PBS interview said, "It's wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true."  President Hinckley said, "The Church will not dictate to any man, but it will counsel, it will persuade, it will urge, and it will expect loyalty from those who profess membership therein." 

When talking with a Scientologist, "they think they know all the answers, thus they really can't communicate with you.  A Scientologist thinks L Ron Hubbard knew it all and thus Scientology has all the answers.  He is computing in his mind constantly and can never agree with you over anything, which is critical of LRH or Scientology."  Mormons love to say,  "the Church is perfect, it's members are not."   The Church is perfect because it's from God.  How could it be anything but perfect?  So if you say anything critical about the Mormon Church to a Mormon, they are not going to listen to you.  They will not even consider what you're saying.  They believe everything about the Church is true and unchanging. That's what Mormon's are taught, that their doctrine is true and it never changes, so if you happen to mention a change that they have made to a Mormon, you get a blank stare from them, it doesn't compute, because it cannot be possible, God's doctrine doesn't change and neither does his Church.

To a Scientologist the success of the Church surpasses everything.  To a Mormon the success of the Church surpasses everything.  Converting people to the Church, missionary work, spreading the gospel, it's all the same thing and it surpasses everything. 

In Scientology, the small local churches are called Missions; "Hubbard had set the Missions up to be somewhat autonomous.  They were flourishing and expanding.  They were less set in ridged adherence, they also had more money."  David Miscaviage, Hubbard's predecessor, and "his finance police wiped out the Mission network in the early 1980's.  He striped them of their assets and much of their power."  A similar change also took place within the Mormon Church.  Wards, used to be more autonomous, they had their own building funds, and fundraisers.  We used to cut and dry apricots when I was a youth, and we had Spanish dinners once a month to raise money for our ward.  I have lots of fun memories of those fundraisers.  The ward kept their money, and the ward was able to make a lot more decisions on their own, without so much oversight from the top.  But a thing called Correlation was created, and now everything is controlled centrally by the leaders in SLC.  They collect the tithing and fast offering money and then portion it back to the ward on conditions of attendance and tithing payers, etc.  In other wards they are like the government, they collect your money and then give a portion back to you because they know best how to use the money, and they don't tell you where the money is going or how much they have.

I'm no expert on Scientology, in fact I know very little about it, but if I understand correctly, the Missions are run by Orgs, which is short for church organizations, which are run by non-Sea Org members.  The Sea Org is over the Orgs, they are those who have signed a billion year contract (I kid you not) and they are management.  "The Orgs get detailed management programs from the Sea Org.  The amount of control exerted by Senior Sea Org Management over the Orgs is overwhelming, statistics are kept of production levels."  The Mormon Church has its lay clergy.  Everything is voluntary.  The Bishop is head of the ward (congregations).  The Stake President is over a group of wards, usually 6 to 12 wards.  Then there are several stakes that make up an Area, and there is an Area leader called a Seventy.  He is a General Authority, they are called to their position by the Apostles.  When they come to visit a stake, usually at Stake Conference, they bring all the latest rules for procedure from SLC, and what they say is strictly adhered to.  No questions asked, it's the "law".  Everything is said and done in a nice way, unlike Scientology, but it is strictly adhered to.  And they too are very interested in statistics, especially tithing and membership statistics.  They want to make sure those dollars are coming in and people are being baptized.

In Scientology, "the indoctrination of your mind is subtle, it doesn't happen overnight.  The early courses are pleasant, cheap, and the staff is easy on you.  You feel that you have found real friends.  Slowly you are being fed Scientology.  It is the sad truth that the church must hide its real self until a person gets hooked."  Mormonism is also presented in doses. Most members are either born into the church or are converted by the missionaries. If you are born into the church, everything seems normal, you have been raised in it.  I was, and nothing seemed more normal to me than the church.  But converts are only told the wonderful things at first, Christ's church has been restored and there is a prophet of God on the earth receiving revelation from God. Your family can be together forever.  What two things could be more appealing to someone. You are now with God's very own church and your family is going to be together in Heaven.  These are the two things that keep people in the church, more than anything else, and what you are taught about by the missionaries.  They want you to gain a testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet of God. 

Mormons tell a lovely story of a farm boy who wanted to join a church, but didn't know which one to join.  He read James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."  Joseph thought to himself, if anyone needs wisdom it is me.  This scripture was the catalyst that lead to his praying in the Sacred Grove and seeing the First Vision of God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, in which he was told to join none of the churches.  Of course what most Mormons don't realize is that the First Vision account that they all love so dearly is not the first version of the First Vision.  They don't know that Joseph Smith didn't tell it this way in the beginning.  He actually didn't tell it at all in the beginning!  It was first written 12 years after it occurred, and shockingly that account only tells of one heavenly being visiting him.  For details about this click here .  This wonderful picture of a humble prophet of God, restoring Christ's Church in the latter days, is such a beautiful story! Unfortunately, the prophet that is painted by the church, simply doesn't exist.  The man existed, but the image that is portrayed by the church, that man did not exist.  But if he had, and it were all true that would be awesome! 

Going Through Notes

I was cleaning through my office yesterday, and was about to throw away a notebook.  I'm forever writing down thoughts that I have, or notes to an interesting book or interview, whatever, then I get these notes spread all over my house.  Anyway, I was just about to toss this notebook when I decided to glance through it, needless to say it never hit the garbage can because I saw the following story in it:

The story is about a NDE, that I think was supposed to have really happened, but I could be wrong about that.   Let me just say...I'm not sure about NDE's, I find some of them interesting, but I have no idea if they are real or not.  This one seems to be tainted with Mormon ideology, so... you can take it as seriously as you want, but I think there is wisdom in it.  From what I remember, this person, Allen R. Barlow, was a member of the church, who had become aware of it's false claims and left the church.  He had a NDE, in which he sees his deceased grandmother, who was a Mormon.  He asks her some pretty tough questions. In my notes I have written the words, "Main Points," so I guess these are the main points, as I saw them.

I'm just going to write them as they are in my notebook, sorry for not referencing this, or adding a link, I'm not sure where this came from, but a simple google search would probably provide more information. With that introduction, here we go, I believe it starts with a question from his grandmother:
  
"Why have you come before you are whole?"

(This is his response to his grandmother, Allen's words will be in blue, his grandmother's in red)

"Freedom is a miserable thing don't you think?  So painful."

"Painful to be sure.   To those who really know it, it gives moments more painful than death or birth.  But don't say miserable, say breathtaking or better yet, exhilarating.  There is no growth without it, and growth is life."

           Freedom = Growth = Life

"But did it have to be so confusing?  All I wanted was just to be shown a clear path. I could have managed the rest just fine."

"The rest is virtually nothing, making the path is mortality...hacking your way through the brush of temptation and persecution, stumbling up the hills of uncertainty and scaling the cliffs of ignorance, quenching your thirst at the springs of love.  These are the very things that bring you The Goal."

"It's so easy isn't it?  Make a path, and where should it go?  Hey, no problem we'll send down a hundred prophets (all with suspect credentials) to clearly explain it to you, and they will point a hundred different directions and then you can take your pick.  What? not enough help --tough break that's all there is, no maps on this trip.  No compass either." 

"I expected more of you, life's goal is plainly to draw near to God and become like him.  That cannot be a novel concept to you.  You must have heard it your whole life...which of the prophets didn't teach it to you?  And how shall you accomplish it without learning and loving?  No compass?  Who can doubt the validity of His path when he feels that inner peace that can come in no other way?  The goal and its direction have always been quite clear."

"Come on, people need a detailed plan. If they would have just made the steps plain and the leaders authority unquestionable, we good ones would have followed unfailingly."

"So there's the root of it...you think the answer is more valuable than the ability to work the problem.  It's not true.  Simple obedience is a necessary element in life, but its no virtue in and of itself.  Only as a forerunner to understanding can it aid the purpose of life. Then God asks obedience of His children, its for their own protection as they begin to explore new and unfamiliar realms.  But we must grow beyond it...

"Grandmother does God really answer the prayers of mortals?"

"Be grateful that God doesn't base His interactions with us on our often confused perception of our needs.  He loves us too much for that and gives greater gifts.  To those who truly seek Him.  He grants not what we ask, but what we need.  In your case, I don't know, let me speculate, He may have felt it time to dispel your confusion about the things in life that matter most.  Let us suppose he had answered your questions in just the way you wanted. Would it have made you love your fellow man more?  Increased your integrity?  Enlarged your creativity? Improving your ability to discern truth? Or would you have become ever less empathic toward your fellow man's struggles with life perplexities?  Small wonder then, that He seems to favor comforting, strengthening, and inspiring over clarifying factual curiosities."

   

   

  

Salvation versus Happiness

As Mormon's, and most any religion I assume, your goal in life is salvation.  I'm not sure you really think about it that way, all the time anyway, but that is the goal.  Your religion, whichever it is, owns your salvation, and they make sure you feel the need to adhere to its beliefs, so that your salvation is secure.  The teachings are easy to believe, no matter how ridiculous they are, because there's little incentive to examine them, since you're saved.

As I've learned that the church that I was born and raised in, is not what it claims to be, and no other religion seems to pass a thorough examination either, I have begun to question salvation in general. I believe in God, I just don't believe we need to be saved in this life, I think this life has another purpose.  Religion teaches you that you need salvation, and the institution that tells you that, also happens to hold the keys to that salvation.  I think this is a false notion, that gives religion a hold on your thinking, time, family, and money.  It takes a very courageous person to examine their religion, it's easy to see the falsehoods in other religions, but very challenging to see them in your own.  Why is it so challenging?  Because you are taught that anything or anyone that is suggesting to you to look at your religion is dangerous and your salvation may be at stake if you take a look, and it is foolish to listen to anyone who is obviously wrong, or evil, or trying to dupe you.  It's much safer to only look at things that are approved by the church... says the church.  After all, your church is only concerned about you and your salvation!  Or, you might just tell yourself, I don't have to look I know I have the truth.  And how do you know that?  You have been told that by all those around you.  You associate with people that believe the same as you, and everything you do and feel, reinforces that truth to you. 

So if this life is not about salvation, what is God up to?  I'll tell you what I think God is all about, and this really isn't new thinking for me, the "no need for salvation" is new to me, but the rest isn't.  I've said before, I believe that God is love.  I think God wants us to learn to be happy.  I really think this life is about happiness, and learning how to be happy, and making others happy.  Love is the main ingredient in finding that happiness.  Love is the basis of it all, and if I have this wrong, I choose to live my life this way anyway.  And any God that proclaims to be a God of love, could not possibly be unhappy with a person who sees life this way and chooses to live life this way.  What would be the point in condemning or damming a person who chose to see life as a learning ground for attaining happiness, and trying to make others happy through love and compassion.    This may seem like a very simplified answer to life, but just try it!  Have the courage to let go of your beliefs, just long enough to see the simplicity of love, happiness, joy, peace, and acceptance.  You may like it so much, that you never go back to a prior way of thinking again.

Coming Around

When I discovered that the Mormon Church was not what it said it was (thanks to Elder Holland and his comments in a PBS interview in which he answers questions about Blacks and the Priesthood ban, that were shocking to my true believing ears) it broke my heart to discover the hidden history of the Church, the remaking of events, and the cover up and elimination of much of the real history. But what really broke my heart was to discover that it isn't Christ's restored church on this earth, at least not in the sense that it claims to be.  Meaning, I doubt seriously if God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove and told him the things that the Church claims they did.  The evidence just doesn't support that story, I should say that version of the story, since there are three or four versions of the vision, and the Church only teaches the last one, which by that time included two Gods and a completely different vision then Joseph Smith originally claimed.  You can listen to apologist's try to spin a good reason for the different versions, but I'm not into spinning things.  If I was, I would have listened to the apologist's spin on the Blacks and the Priesthood, or almost every other topic and problem the Church has with its history, there is plenty of apologist spin out there, enough to make your head dizzy. 

It did break my heart, because I believed it so deeply, and my entire life structure was built upon it.  It's not easy to have your entire foundation ripped out from underneath you, lets just say, it's not for the faint of heart.  But I have never been faint of heart, I was taught to "put your shoulder to the wheel, and push along", I was taught to "lengthen your stride", I was taught "even the intent to deceive was a lie", and I was taught to "do what is right, let the consequence follow".  I guess in reality my church taught  me the skills, the integrity, the courage, and the ability to walk away, when I discovered it wasn't what it said it was.  So in that regard, I'm very grateful.  I'm glad that I learned those lessons so well, so when the time came that I needed to not be, faint of heart, I wasn't!

One problem the Church has are the literalists claims it makes, i.e. this literally is Christ's restored church, Christ is literally running it through revelation to the prophet, our leaders are literally Apostles and Prophets of Jesus Christ, the priesthood was restored to Joseph Smith by Peter, James, and John, and on and on and on...the literal claims are so numerous!  And that's why the Church is now being picked apart by some of its own members and others using historical records, primary sources, historical research, journal entries, scientific evidence, and words of their own leaders, just to name a few. The historical evidence doesn't match up with the Church's literal claims, plain and simple, and the Church is losing members because of it. 

Interestingly, the Mormon Church is not alone.  There are literalists of a different stripe, and they too are suffering from their literal claims.  Religion in general is suffering, but specifically Christianity, especially the evangelical, fundamentalist stripe.  Not every Christian believes that Noah was a real person, who built an ark and put two of every creature into that ark, and the earth was flooded. Not every Christian believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, without error or fault in all its teaching.  Not every Christian takes literally the virgin birth of Jesus, the resurrection of Christ, or the Second Coming.  But there are those who do and they would find good company with the Mormon's, because Mormons believe all of those things too, literally.  I say they would find good company with the Mormons, if the fundamentalists would stop sending Mormons to Hell, that is!  These fundamentalist's are holding on literally to all of these beliefs, even though there is no proof of any of it,  all of their literalist claims, fall apart, just like the Mormon's do.  But they are hanging on for dear life, turning a blind eye and deaf ear to all that is going on around them, and at the same time, proclaiming that only they know the real Jesus, and you have the wrong one, if you don't believe as they do, and they know who is saved and who's going to Hell. 

I don't begrudge literalist in any religion, I used to be one.  I know how strong those beliefs are.  There are two things in this life, I have learned, that are so strong... stronger than logic, stronger than facts, and stronger than family ties sometimes; those two things are beliefs and fears.  People will do some of the most amazing things because of belief and because of fear, both negative and positive. You could say that its these two things that makes the world go round.  And I'm fairly convinced that God gave us these strong senses as a survival mechanism, even though these two senses also cause so much destruction and havoc in the world.  Everything has its opposite and the goal is learning to choose love over other emotions, which is difficult to do, especially in light of our fears and beliefs.  Love is often the last thing we turn to, but I have hope in a patient God, allowing us to learn and grow at our own pace as our desires turn toward love and away from fear, which just happens to be the opposite of love.

Am I condemning literalist for their beliefs?  No, I love them, they are good people who do many good things, and some bad things.  All of us do.  They have a very strong world view and think that it's the only way, the correct way, and the goal for them and God also, is for you to think that way too.  But the literalists claims ruin things, because they're not really true, even though believers don't know that.  They don't see the harm that some of their beliefs bring to themselves and others, because they believe things so strongly they can't image that their "truth" could bring harm.  In a real sense literalist beliefs keep them hemmed into a tight knit world, usually surrounded by like minded people. Just as Alexander Leek says in the movie Mothman Prophecies:  If there was a car crash ten blocks away, that window washer up there could probably see it.  Now, that doesn't mean he's God, or even smarter than you are.  But from where he's sitting, he can see a little further down the road.  So in other words, those down below (those in their tight little world) may not be able to see out as far as someone who is not hemmed in by those literal beliefs, just like the window washer.       

The reason I say these literal beliefs ruin everything, be their religious or sectarian, is because the believer gets so caught up in the belief that they cannot see things clearly, or another's perspective.  In other words, they own the truth and cannot consider another's point of view.  The belief trumps everything, thinking stops, pride sets in, and adherence to the belief becomes the paramount virtue over love and acceptance of others, over consideration of another's position, or circumstance.

Okay, so it broke my heart to discover that my literal beliefs were not true.  There is value to literal beliefs, but there are drawbacks too.  Being able to open your eyes to all of that is very empowering, and yet unsettling.  You no longer have answers to life's important questions, be the answers true or false, there is a secure feeling in having them.   That's fine, but now it's grow up time.  Time to move on.  You are leaving a false belief behind where you found safety.  That's okay, its called growing.  I think its a false believe to think that the most important thing that God wants from us is to have faith, endure to the end, don't get out of the boat, just stay the course.  I think what God really wants is for us to think, think, think, learn truths through our own experiences, have experiences that will teach us love and compassion for others.  Why would a God want anything other than that?

I watched a movie the other day, at the end, a woman said:  You have to be willing to loose everything, for God to shape you into what he has planned.  Before I would have heard that and thought, you have to be willing to sacrifice all that you have, be willing to go through trials, have your faith tested, etc.  BUT, now I hear that and think, you have to be willing to loose everything, meaning your belief system, that's when you really loose everything, and allow God to shape you into what he has planned.  That's quite a different thing! Much more meaningful to God and to you. 

A God of Love

I almost quite doing my blog last night.  All I wanted was to close the door to everything, curl up in a little ball and let the world pass me by.  I'm tired of religion, every aspect of it: tired of leaving mine, tired of talking to people about it, tired of hearing about theirs, tired of being asked questions, tired of thinking about it, tired, tired, tired.  Can I just say this has been a hard year.  Good-bye to 2014, the year from Hell.  Good-bye to you! 

So why am I sitting at my computer this morning?  ...why... because I can't let go of God.  And I frankly don't care who God is, male, female, a spirit, the trinity, three separate beings, I don't care, because until I die, I won't really know.  So, I'm just sticking with what I do know...God is love.  And when we miss that, we miss it all!  Who knew those four adorable mop heads with British accents held the answer all along..."all you need is love." 


There's something about God that I just can't give up on... and it's love.

That's my story and I sticking to it!  That's the God I know and that's the God I will defend.  Here's the kicker though, love isn't easy.   Like Christ said, its easy to love those that love you, but others it's a bit more difficult.  But, and here's the good part... when you know love is the answer, at least you know which direction you need to go, and that's half the battle!  The other half is actually doing it;  that's hard and God knows it, so this life gives us PLENTY of opportunities to learn it.  And when we fail because pride gets in the way, and we become miserable, we can turn to love and dig our way out of the mess that we created, and try again.  Always try again, and again, and again! 

Many years ago, I had this most adorable friend named Grace.  She was my next door neighbor and 30 years older then me.  I loved her; we had so much fun together!  Grace had the best sense of humor, we laugh and laugh, and Grace had style, let me tell you she had style.  She was just one of those rare gems that comes into your life and adds a spark that you cherish forever, and even though I moved a few miles away, we still remained good friends.

A couple of years into our friendship, Grace was diagnosed with ovarian cancer.  We went to the doctors appointments together, I was by her side through chemo, she went into a short remission and then the end came.  My spark was gone, this adorable, full of life person was gone.

We had a neighbor named Natalie that was also our friend.  Sometimes we would have little luncheons at our houses.  One day, after Grace had passed away, Natalie stopped by my house.  I invited her in and we sat and talked about Grace.  Natalie seemed very emotional during our conversation and I wasn't quite getting what she was trying to tell to me.  (Oh...let me explain before I go on, Grace and I were both Mormons, and Natalie was a born again Christian, I don't remember which church she attended)  Natalie told me that she had vowed to herself that she wasn't going to let another of her Mormon friends go to Hell, and that she was here to warn me of the danger of me going to Hell.  Natalie had intended to warn Grace, but failed to do so and now Grace was in Hell and it tormented Natalie, so she vowed not to let that happen again and she was there to save me. 

I have to admit that at first I didn't grasp what she was saying.  But finally I did.  And I asked Natalie, I remember the exact words I used.  "You mean our darling Grace is in Hell?"  And when I realized that that was what she was telling me, I just said, "I don't know that God."  Let me just add here, that Natalie was not offending me at all.  I knew she was coming to me out of love and concern, and I respected that. I hugged her and told her I appreciated her coming, because I did.  But I also remember thinking to myself, I'm so glad I don't have to explain that God to anyone.  Really, more than anything else about our conversation, I was glad I didn't have to explain that God to anyone and that my concept of God did not send darling people like Grace to Hell.  You may recall in my last post that I said I don't believe in a pointless God and that in my opinion is a pointless God, it's the exact definition of a pointless God!

People confess God, say He is love...but sometimes miss the big picture.....GOD IS LOVE!  So anything unloving, like sending Grace to Hell just because she happens to be the wrong religion, isn't very loving is it?  Could it be that it's not God that isn't loving, but the religion that is proclaiming that Grace is going to Hell that isn't very loving?  You know the old joke... Christianity, isn't very Christian, or Gandhi's famous quote. "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."  Don't get me wrong, I do like Christian's, I consider myself one, but Christianity has a lot of explaining to do, and so many of its beliefs do NOT follow what Christ taught.

We went out to dinner the other night with our friends who are very kind, good people; after we ordered and were sitting chatting at the table, the wife asked us, "what do your kids think about your leaving the church?"  They looked intensely interested in hearing our answer.  The question kind of threw me a bit, I wasn't expecting it.  So I sat there for a minute to gather my thoughts.  Well first of all, two of our kids are not active members, so it doesn't bother them any, and the other two are very independent thinkers, especially our son.  He loves to discuss religion and would never be swayed by anything we said.  Our daughter, it has been a bit harder on.  Those were the thoughts going through my head, but I don't think I explained that to them; I think we began to explain our current state of thinking if I remember right.  But while we were talking, I asked them what they believed about why we were here, what was this life for?  I was very interested to know what they believed, as they are, I would guess Evangelical.  They said that God created us because He wanted people to return to Him that choose to worship Him.  He said, "God created us because He wanted people to worship Him and that free agency was important because He wanted people who choose to worship Him, God could have created people to worship Him, but God wanted us to choose it because that was more meaningful to Him."

At this point, I can hardly put the words together to make a sentence.  "You mean to tell me that your God, created all these people knowing that some would not choose to worship Him and would be cast down to Hell as a result and suffer there, just so He can have a group of people who choose to worship Him live with Him in heaven, even though He could have created people to worship Him, He wanted those who chose it because it is more meaningful."  And if the cost of that meaningfulness is to send some, many actually, people to Hell, so be it, that's the cost.  Okay, I have heard this same scenario too many times to just say, "I don't know that God."  This night I had to defend my purposeful God, from this pointless God, and I said, "I would not worship that God."  Is that so bad?  I wouldn't worship that God.  I worship a God who loves all of His children and shows that love to us by creating a world and experiences for us to grow and learn to Love as He does.  I believe He's bringing us all back to Him.  What all that in tells I don't know, He's the one that's Omnipotent not me, and if Christ's atonement is necessary to do that, then I believe in that.  I have a hope in Christ.  But I have a bigger HOPE and trust in a purposeful God that has a bigger plan that includes our becoming like Him, meaning learning to love like Him.  And where that all leads to in the next life I don't know, I think that is where faith comes in, we don't have the whole plan, but I have faith in it. 

Let me pause here, to say, I really mean no offense to our friends, they mean well and that is their belief and I don't want to be disrespectful. I really don't!  That's why I don't like religion.  It divides people, it causes arguments, it destroys family and friend relationships.  I have no ill will towards anyone and their beliefs and to quote Mormon doctrine, "let them worship how, where, and what they may."  I really believe in that.  And I know the hearts of Christians are good, very good, as are the hearts of Mormons, who are Christians.  And I know that born again Christians would take exception to the way I explained their God, I'm sure there is a lot more purpose and meaning to their beliefs, but you should hear what it sounds like to an outsider, this really is what it sounds like.  So now that I have made a lot of enemies, let me again say I love you all, I simply choose to believe in a bigger God, or at least a bigger plan.  And if I'm wrong you can come visit Grace and I in Hell, I'm sure we will need ministering to.

So I guess for now, I'm sticking with the Beatles... all you need is love.  Hey why not, I like their music too!

What Do You Believe Now?

I have a dear friend that joined the Church when she was in her late teens.  She was raised Jehovah's Witness, then joined the Mormon Church, then left it in her mid to late twenty's; I would call her Agnostic now, I think she would agree with that.  I contacted her the other day to tell her I too had left the Mormon Church.  She asked me some questions about what I believe now, and since I had been wanting to do a post on that I will include some of my answers to her here.  Not that what I believe is that important, but I think it's helpful to share with others our beliefs, even though beliefs are not a stagnant thing and they change as we grow and experience different things in life.  That's a good thing.  We don't want to become stagnant in our thinking.  So if you are in a stage that is difficult because your belief system has been challenged, just look around at all the gifts that is bringing you.  You are no longer stuck thinking a certain way, you are now free to experiment, to question, to challenge, to ask hard questions, to peek behind a curtain, uncover that stone.  You can now get down and dirty and fall of the pedestal that says, you own the truth; it's called humility, and it's a very powerful tool for learning, growing, loving, and finding happiness.  Don't ever be afraid of humility... it's God's best tool.  As hard and challenging as it is to admit to yourself that you have been viewing life through biased lenses, (and we all view life that way) and as grave and disturbing as it is to question one's faith or to lose that faith, the fears you will loose, the compassion you will gain, the joy of questioning, learning, seeking, experiencing life in new and exciting ways, far out way the price.  Just try it on, take it for a test drive, you will love it!  You might think, it's too dangerous, too frightening to question your views.  Let me just reply to that with:  it's very dangerous to stay stuck in a mindset that isn't correct, and no matter what your mindset is, I guarantee there are things in it that are not correct.  Why live life thinking that they are?  And as for it being frightening to exam your beliefs, I guarantee that you are frightened right now, about something.  There is something in your belief system that is frightening you: the government, society, your children's choices or potential choices, global warming, the Second Coming, Obama, terrorism, racism, the economy, the future, death, illness, salvation, or a million other fears. and the sad part is, we come to these fears with a biased mind, in which we have staked everything, and we let these fears play out in our mind and life for maybe no reason.  I read a book once called, Loving What Is, it's a great read, and the author says she puts anything that is out of her ability to control into "God's" category, even if you don't believe in God, she calls it that, just to remind herself that, "I have no control over that, and I will not waste anymore time worrying about it," I will leave that up to the powers that be.  But, if your belief system is so strong and you think you are so right, you will still buy into your fears, thinking that you are wiser and know more, I guarantee it, I have lived it.
Now to my friend's questions: she asked if I had lost faith in a Heavenly Father?  At first, I felt unsure about everything, which is a good thing, leaving the Church gives you so much compassion for others and their beliefs.  I totally get atheists now, I respect where they're coming from, and I don't think they are the evil people I grew up believing they were.  I get agnostic's, everyone, I respect them, even Mormon, especially Mormons,  I am a Mormon... I understand their beliefs and the commitment they have to them.  When people say that the Bible is not factual, I get that too, it falls apart under scrutiny, just like the Book of Mormon does, I agree with you when you say you don't have any confidence in organized religion, I agree with that, but I also see the  good it does, along with the bad, but the good out weighs the bad in my mind, but an argument can be made the other way too.  I do believe there is a God, and since my concept of who God is... is Heavenly Father, yeah I guess I stick with that.  Why switch that out for another God, since I don't really know for sure, why switch out the one I understand and have prayed to my entire life, and have a history with?  Did prayer get hard for me? Yeah, it did, but there is still that desire to thank God at the end of the day for all the wonderful things in my life, and gratitude is such an important facet of happiness, that I don't want to not have gratitude.  And if God, is really responsible for all the things in my life, which I think He is, I would hate to be ungrateful.

Let me just pause from my conversation with my friend for a moment here to add: I don't think we have a pointless God.. meaning that I think there is great purpose to our life. I believe in a God that has the same destination for all of us, and our life's purpose is to learn and grow.  It's called progression in the Mormon faith and I very much believe in it.  I don't believe in the Mormon idea of progression, if that means we will eventually end up in one of three  kingdoms and remain there for eternity.  Hey, but lets give Mormon's some credit, at least they aren't sending people to Hell to dwell forever just because they don't say a "sinner's pray" (that isn't biblical anyway) or they don't "confess"
Christ just the way some Evangelicals think they should.  Mormon's believe in Christ, and they love Him, they worship Him, and they are grateful for His atonement in their life, they view Christ's atonement as:  their means of salvation, what enables Christ to forgive our sins, and Christ's ability to change our nature.  They believe all of that in spite of their church's attempt to usurp Christ's authority, so that the Church speaks for Christ, the church is Christ, basically in a Mormon's eyes.    That's why Mormon's hold to the Church so strongly, the Church is Christ's gospel, they love Christ, so they of course love His Church, and reverence their leaders way too much, because it's one in the same to them. 

What do I think of Christ?  That question actually comes from Mormon scripture, "what think ye of Christ?"  Well... I have a hope in Him, I love his teachings, I think they are a good way to live your life.  I think the Biblical Christ is hard to prove, but I have a hope in Him, and in His saving ability, if that is necessary, which it might be, but I don't think the purpose of this life is salvation.  Was a Savior necessary for God to send us to this earth so we could progress and learn?  I have always been taught that, and for all I know it may be so, but, like I said, scriptures fall apart under scrutiny, so that just leaves you with faith, doesn't it?  And if that is what you are left with, then I have to give the person who wants to believe the Book of Mormon as scripture as much respect as the person who wants only to believe the Bible as scripture.  They are both a matter of faith in my mind, and cannot be proven as fact or historical.  That maybe where faith comes in, but not about KNOWING, like Mormons like to say they "know."  Mormon's don't "know" anything... anymore then Christians "know" things for sure.  It's all based on faith and teachings and your own personal experiences.  And I'm not slamming anyone's personal feelings, experiences, or faith, it's not my place to do so.  It was Christ that taught us not to judge. 

My friend asked if we felt betrayed by the Church?  I told her yeah, we do.  We feel like we were the faithful spouse, we were loyal, we did everything we were supposed to, we upheld our end of the bargain, and the Church played the harlot.  It lied, it wasn't faithful.  So you are constantly sorting your life out, the good, the bad, that came from spending your entire life in the Church.  I used to see everything good in my life, as a result of being a member, and that may be so, but there is a lot of bad too, mostly in attitudes and in the way you view things.
  
She asked if I thought Joseph Smith was mentally disturbed?  No, I think he was a brilliant con man, and self-aggrandizing womanizer.   But I could be wrong, and I hold that possibility out there.  Did he see God, and translate the Book of Mormon from gold plates?  The evidence strongly suggests that he didn't. Did he bring some truth and enlightenment to the world, yes I think so.  So that's where I give him a little possibility of being... what I don't know, a prophet? I would have to have a new definition for prophet to call him that.   But I certainly don't know all things, and I don't know how God works, remember, our ways are not His ways, and there are the mysteries of God. 
We just don't know exactly how God does things, do we?   It's kind of the mystery of it all that leads you right back to faith again, not knowledge.  I was listening to someone the other day and she was saying that she had to learn to live with uncertainty.  Uncertainty sounds a lot like faith, this life may be based on uncertainty, perhaps faith... why?  Why would God design it that way? I don't know but my thinking is that uncertainty gives you the ability to think, test, and grow, and to come to conclusions, rethink and come to new conclusions, test and grow.  All in all, not a bad plan after all.

No Stone Left Unturned - Part one

I have been watching Nazi Hunter's on Netflix, so when going to bed last night I had the Holocaust on my mind.  As the disturbing images swirled around in my head, my attitude was, how could a loving God let that horrific slaughter of a people happen, and if God would let something that awful happen, how can I suppose that God cares about my little life and insignificant problems? Why would God come to my aide and rescue and not come to theirs?  When I awoke this morning, tears filled my eyes as my attitude changed, thinking how hard it must have been for God to have watched that happen.  What was it that compelled God to do so?  What caused God to sit back and let the Holocaust happen?  What do others think about that, how do they explain it?   
So I googled, how do Christians explain the Holocaust?  Here's a sampling of the answers that I found, if you have better ones, please leave them in the comments section, because with answers like these, I'm really beginning to understand atheists better and better:

1) God allows bad things to happen, He gives us freedom, He loves and grieves with us in our pain when bad things happen.  Believe it or not, this is the best answer that I got, but it's glaringly incomplete.  Saying that "God allows bad things to happen," is not telling me why, it's just repeating my question. Try that one on a college test sometime,  just repeat the question back to the professor, that will land you an "F" every time. "He gives us freedom"...that's not a complete answer, you would have to tell me why he gives us freedom, now that would be an answer, and that freedom had better be worth dying for in a concentration camp!  Do you see that these answers are too shallow?  They lack understanding of what and who God is.  If I'm going to watch my child take his last breath in a gas chamber, I need a better answer then: "He loves and grieves with us in our pain." Again, without knowing why God is not intervening, knowing that God loves me and is grieving, doesn't help too much to ease the pain and suffering.  This answer makes a fair attempt, but comes up short.

2)  Someone said, "I'll assume you're not racing towards the Congo to help millions of innocent people from being murdered there"..."how indifferent are you to abortion? You understand your own indifference and faithlessness, right?  Look no further until your knees are grimy from kneeling, your indifference will be the answer to everything you cannot have without faith."  This person is attacking the questioner, that is just ridiculous!  The one asking the question, how could God allow such a thing, isn't God, they have no control over what's going on in the Congo, but because they haven't stopped what they have no control over, they are not allowed to ask a question about God who does have control?  That makes no sense to me.  That is really a poor answer, that's filled with accusations. 

3)  Behold the Lord's hand is not shortened that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:  But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.  Also, Satan is the ruler of this world and has blinded the minds of them which believe not.  Deception has caused the masses to be cut off from God.  In essence, this person is using Isaiah 59 to say that the Holocaust was the Jews fault.  They had it coming, or at least God wasn't going to do anything because of their sins.  Well, that just doesn't fly on so many levels. First, you are not supposed to judge others, so where does this person get the audacity to level such a blanket judgment against a whole group of people, which includes children?  Second, who could respect and worship such a vindictive God, that would say to a group of people who were just living their lives and worshiping God as they saw fit, that they were deserving of such an outcome?  And would that be the freedom, that was alluded to in the first answer?   That's not freedom that's coercion.  What about the second answer above, in the Congo reference, it said innocent people.  Why use that example to defend your God's actions, unless the Jews were innocent too.  Don't you need to compare apples for apples. That person allowed that murder and genocide was taking place on innocent people, how does that stack up with Isaiah 59?  According to that scripture it's because of their sins.  And the explanation of Satan ruling this world and has blinded the minds of them that believe not, and deception has caused the masses to be cut off from God.  Does not seem like a good reason to allow genocide to a reasonable mind, does it? If a people have been deceived by someone as cunning as the Devil, surely God would be compassionate wouldn't He?  If your child had been deceived by a very cunning evil person, would you take it out on your child?  If you are going to use the argument that Satan rules this world and has blinded people, that would be a better explanation for the perpetrators actions wouldn't it, then the victims?  Weren't the Nazi's the blind ones: blinded by pride, greed, fear, self-centeredness, hate and anger?  Aren't those Satan's characteristics? 

What I find interesting about all three of these answers, is a lack of compassion for the Jews and the horrific genocide they endured.  These answers were all from "loving" Christian people, who seem to be full of judgment.  A know this sampling is in no way scientific it's only anecdotal, and these people are not officially speaking for their church's, but it is interesting, the absolute lack of compassion.  I think back to the things that I have been taught about the Holocaust, and there is that same sense of judgment.  I remember, in Seminary, learning that the Jewish leaders had previous to the Holocaust signed a paper or document, claiming they were not the chosen people of God, and this was given as the justification for the Holocaust.  Maybe not in those words exactly, but I'm 56, and I can still remember being taught that when I was a teenager, so it must have lodged some where in my brain as at least a partial reason. This of course too, is anecdotal and does not speak for the Church.  But I do think there is, or at least was, a sense that the Jews were still being punished for rejecting the Messiah, and it's blatant arrogance and stupidity that allows for thoughts like that.

Let's consider some other answers, and I'm not going to pretend to know the answer, but let's examine some answers from people who claim to know.  You can decide if you think their explanation is worth considering or not.

Howard Storm, an atheist who had a NDE, while in a hospital in Paris, says he asked God about the Holocaust. He saw the Jews being transported in the railway cars to the camps where they were killed.  He says he saw "piles of naked corpses being loaded into the ovens, and began to cry 'these are the people God loves'." Then an angel told him to look up and he saw, "rising out of the smoke of the chimneys, I saw hundreds of people, being met by thousands of angels taking them up into the sky.  There was great joy in the faces of the people, and there appeared to be no trace of a memory of the horrendous suffering they had just endured."  He asked how God could allow this to happen, he was told that "it was not God's will.  This was an abomination to God.  God wants this to never happen again.  This was the sacrifice of an innocent people to whom God had given the law to be an example, a light, to rest of the world.  This Holocaust was breaking God's heart..."  The angels told Howard that "God was very unhappy with the course of human history and was going intervene to change the world.  God had watched us sink to depths of depravity and cruelty at the very time that He was giving us the instruments to make the world a godlier world.  God had intervened in the world many times before, but his time God was going to change the course of human events."

Dr. Eban Alexander, a brain surgeon, had this to say about his NDE, "I saw the earth as a pale blue dot in the immense blackness of physical space.  I could see that earth was a place where good and evil mixed, and this constituted one of its unique features.  Even on earth there is much more good than evil, but earth is a place where evil is allowed to gain influence in a way that would be entirely impossible at higher levels of existence.  That evil could occasionally have the upper hand known and allowed by the Creator as a necessary consequence of giving the gift of free will to beings like us.  Small particles of evil were scattered through out the universe, but the sum total of all the evil was as a grain of sand on a vast beach compared to the goodness, abundance, hope, and unconditional love in which the universe was literally awash.  The very fabric of the alternate dimension is love and acceptance, and anything that does not have these qualities appears immediately and obviously out of place there."

What about the Jewish people, what do they think about God allowing the Holocaust to take place? One of their religious leaders, Rabbi Alan Lurie, has these thoughts on the subject:  ..."the very question of 'How could God allow the Holocaust?' represents a profound misunderstanding of the nature of God, creation, and the spiritual dimension, because it is based on very faulty assumptions.  It posits God as a being who is totally separate from us, who observes our behavior, preventing harm from coming to those who follow certain rules (usually written in books), and punishing those who do not.  And it sees humans as helpless children.  But God is much more than that, and we are much more than that.  This image of God and humans, frankly, is childish and primitive,...the purpose of creation is to be in a loving relationship with its Creator.  In order to have a true relationship, though, there must be absolute free will, because a programmed or coerced being cannot experience true love.  Free will, then is a universal constant, built in to the fabric of creation like gravity and the speed of light.  Free will to choose love means that there must be the possibility to choose not-love to choose indifference and hatred.  So while the world may seem unfair, it must be exactly as it is in order for consciousness to emerge, and I am in complete agreement with the 17th century philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, who wrote that this is the best of all possible worlds...God deliberately does not interfere-not out of indifference, but out of great love.  God must "watch" in pain as we commit atrocities, because to interfere would negate free will, terminating the relationship and hence the very purpose of creation...This is the great gift of creation:  We can do something God cannot; we can elevate physicality by our choice to act in love."

Wow!!  Those are powerful answers, centered in an understanding of God's love for His creation and His gift of free will to us.  So yes, my initial attitude of, how can God be loving and allow such evil as the Holocaust to happen, was a shallow attitude and understanding of God.  My second attitude of, how hard that must have been for God to watch this horrific event take place, was a more enlightened, one, and makes me realize how important this gift is, and how important it is that I use it to be loving.  And I need to understand the sacrifice that the Jewish people went through for that gift of free will.   As Dr. Alexander says "...love and compassion are far more than the abstractions many of us believe them to be.  They are real.  They are concrete. And they make up the very fabric of the spiritual realm.  In order to return to that realm, we must once again become like that realm, even while we are stuck in, and plodding through, this one."

None so blind...

Yesterday the NY Times ran an article about the Church's essay on Joseph Smith and his plural wives.  The essay has been out for a few weeks, but most members were entirely unaware of it.  Why, because the Church didn't announce the publishing of the essay or any of their essays, they just quietly put them buried on their website, but everyone knows about them now, thanks to the NY Times.  So what's the reaction?  Varied of course, for some it will be so shocking they will reject the church, for others it will be disturbing, but something they can live with, at least for the moment.  My guess is that for the vast majority of members, they will just shrug it off, they will tell themselves they already knew that, and many did know about his polygamy.  I did, but it's never mentioned, and I mean never mentioned, in lessons, in Conference talks, in the manuals, so you mostly forget.  But what I'm sure the vast majority didn't know before, was the polyandry, the fourteen year old girl, and the number of women he married.  So what's the reaction to this new information?  Blindness.  And I don't mean that in a negative way, but it is blindness.  You can't jump out and scare someone, and not expect them to scream and run, and that's exactly what happened.  The NY Times jumped out and scared Mormon's, figuratively speaking, and they will scream and run. They may not scream, well... maybe they will scream at you if you try to talk to them about it, but they will run.  But can you blame them?  They weren't looking to have their beloved prophet exposed on the front page of the NY times.  They weren't even aware of most of the issues that were plastered there, how can they defend them, when they weren't aware of them, and it's not really logical of anyone to expect them to, is it? 

I knew Joseph Smith was a polygamist.  I knew that.  But like I said, it's never talked about: polygamy really isn't talked about much.  All you ever see are pictures of Joseph with Emma, and the portrait that the Church paints of him, as a kind, obedient, humble servant of the Lord, and devoted husband to Emma.  That's all you ever hear and see, period! We sing, Praise to the Man, we praise that man, that prophet of God, that gave his life to bring forth the gospel of Christ, to bring forth the blessings of heaven.  "None did more for the salvation of man, save Jesus Christ, then him," our leaders tell us.  God anointed that prophet and seerer. This is the story that's taught in General Conference, in the manuals, and in our scripture.  So can you blame someone for being blind?  The only defensive move is to shrug it off.  It's just another attack on the Church, another test of faith, to which you have covenanted to be true to, Mormon's will tell themselves.  If there's one thing that Mormonism does better than most religions, is it ties everything in one package: your family, your social world, your God, your faith, your reason for existing, your future, the truth, your value system, your view of life, your view of others, did I mention family?  It's all tied up together.  Do I need to reemphasize the magnitude of all that?  Your family, your view of the world, your God, your salvation, your truth, EVERYTHING is tied up together.  What incentive could a person possible have in wanting to unravel that?  Do you even understand what it takes to unravel that?  You would put everything at risk, your family relationships, your friendships, your security system, your reputation, and possibly your salvation.  And  what if you're wrong?  Everyone will tell you you're wrong.  They will tell you how concerned they are for you, as they shut the door to your relationship with them.  Your opinion about anything will now be tainted with apostasy.  Your opinion will not matter in anyway, it won't even be allowed to be expressed for the most part, and you will be shut out.  So given all of that, blindness is a quick easy answer.  It's not even a conscious decision, it just kicks in automatically.  It takes an incredible amount of time, energy, determination to know the truth, and integrity to put all of the things mentioned above on the chopping block, and say "go at it, I can take it."  The truth is, most of us can't take it.  And I don't blame anyone that falls into that category.  But it would be nice, although not likely, if the blind ones could show a little respect for those who do ask the hard questions, to allow them the right to pursue truth as they see it.  To give everyone the free agency that this Church so loudly touts, to make their own decisions without judgment from those who are supposed to be full of charity, to not be so "concerned" about those who have chosen a harder path, who seek truth no matter the cost. 
 
Respect from both sides of the isle should be the goal.  People have to live together in this big beautiful world.  God wants us to love each other, more than anything else, and he puts us in these difficult situations to learn just that... love. If you think there is something bigger and better to learn in life, you may not know God as well as you think you do.  Do you really think God's main objective is to just see if you can blindly hold on to what you perceive as the truth or have been taught as the truth, or do you think Gd's bigger goal is for you to learn to love others who think and do differently then you think they should.  One beautiful thing about discovering that the Mormon church does not hold all the truth, and is in fact not all what it claims to be, is the ability to reject all your preconceived notions, and with this new discerning eye, look objectively at everything, no rock or stone is left unturned.  And what you discover is that there are no belief systems or religions that don't have their dark side, unbelievable truth claims, and/or problems with their history.  But, this gives you a never ending gift of compassion and tolerance and love for others in their life's journey.  You don't hold the key to the universe and you know that other's don't either.  But, you can certainly respect their life experiences and views, and faith that they hold, and if you're wise you will learn from them.  I think God likes that.  I think God planned it that way.  But if you don't believe in God and think he has a plan like that, hey I respect that too, and I understand where you're coming from.  I believe it's integrity that took you to that life view, and I know that you have not lost any of your morals as a result, and maybe have gained some, which that too, I can learn from.

The Church Essays in a Nutshell Part Two

     Let's look at two more Church essays called: Book of Mormon Translation and Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham.  I'm trying to keep my analysis of the Church's essays brief, but  there are excellent thorough analysis of them here and here and here and many other places. 

Translation of the Book of Mormon
    
     Growing up in the Church, and still to this day, as far as I know, we are taught that Joseph Smith translated the golden plates by the use of the "Urim and Thummin", which were two clear stones bound together with a metal rim.  I recall being taught in Seminary that there was a table with a curtain that divided it, and Joseph Smith sat behind the curtain on one side of the table, and the scribe sat on the other side of the table.  Joseph Smith had the golden plates on the table as he translated them out loud to the scribe who sat on the other side of the curtain, and wrote down what Joseph Smith said.  The curtain was to keep the scribe from seeing the golden plates, as they were not to be viewed by anyone else but Joseph Smith.  I was taught that it was a matter of faith and that's why the plates were not allowed to be seen by anyone.  And also that they were of great monetary value and needed to be kept hidden from others.  This same scenario is portrayed in various Church pictures that are in our books and in our chapels. You are taught the story and then the pictures are a visual confirmation of what you are taught.  Any small child in the Church could tell you this same story.

Seer Stone

     So what a surprise it is to learn from the Church's essays that, ..."Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, a small oval stone, or 'seer stone'.  As a young man during the 1820's, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost and buried treasure.  As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture."  Excuse me, this is news to me!  When did this seer stone become part of the narrative?  When were we taught that Joseph Smith found a stone and used it to look for buried treasure?  Never, ever, never, that's when.  I was taught that people tried to accuse Joseph Smith of looking for buried treasure but they were just trying to slander his name,   that they were lying. Now the Church is saying he did hunt for buried treasure.  Did you know that our Prophet and founder of our church was a treasure hunter?  The same person that found the gold plates, was also a treasure hunter.  Boy, you just don't learn this stuff in Seminary, do you? 
     According to the essay, "Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather then the two stones bound together to form the interpreters.  These two instruments--the interpreters (Urim and Thummim) and the seer stone--were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term 'Urim and Thummim' to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters."  Come on!  Are you kidding me?  This stone that Joseph found as a youth, which he used to look for treasures buried in the ground, is now going to be interchangeable with the Urim and Thummim that was carefully stored away and preserved by the Lord for 1,500 hundred years.  Fifteen hundred years, it sat waiting for the time of the restoration of Jesus Christ's gospel on the earth, and now for convenience sake, it will be interchangeable with a rock. Really?  This man who will be tarred and feathered and persecuted, and will know all kinds of hardships, can't be inconvenienced enough to use the Urim and Thummim, that was reserved specifically for the translation of the gold plates? 

Rock in a hat

     But here's the real kicker! ..."Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out the extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument."  Is that news to you?  I sure haven't seen any pictures in the chapel of Joseph Smith putting his head in a hat and reading from his rock that he found as a youth to translate the golden plates, have you?  The essay says Emma described, "Joseph 'sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us'."  What happened to the curtain? What happened to the gold plates? Why is Joseph burying his head in a hat and translating from a rock he found, when all the pictures show him with the gold plates open on a table and studiously translating from them?

Translation of the Book of Abraham

     This one should be short and sweet.  Well maybe not sweet, but short.  If you are new to all of these issues about the Church, as I was, you will not even know that there are any questions concerning the Book of Abraham.  But this one is huge, it's the issue that caused my husband to completely loose his testimony of the Church. Let's begin with what we were taught.  I learned that Joseph Smith had been shown some Egyptian mummies and papyri from a traveling salesman, of some kind.  As Joseph examined the hieroglyphics he realized that one of the rolls was the writings of Abraham.  The Church collected enough money to buy the ancient records and from them Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham.  It says in the introduction to the Book of Abraham, that it was "translated from the papyrus by Joseph Smith" and that it is "the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."  
     The original papyri had been sold by Joseph Smith's family.  In 1967, the Church was given what is left of the remaining fragments of the papyri. According to the Church essay, "The fragments included one vignette, or illustration, that appears in the book of Abraham as facsimile 1. Long before the fragments were published by the Church, some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith's explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings...None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham's name of any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham.  Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham...Scholars have identified the papyrus as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies.  These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived." 
     And that's why this is going to be short, what more can I say?  The essay says it all.  The papyri were not written by Abraham; they are not about Abraham; they are not from the time period of Abraham.   They are common funerary texts and that's most likely why they were found along with mummies!  End of story.  Like I said short, but not sweet.

What we learn from the essays

     Joseph Smith used a seer stone, that he found in his youth to look for buried treasures, to translate the gold plates, by placing the stone in a hat. He often used the stone that he found, instead of the Urim and Thummim that had been preserved for that exact purpose.  Joseph Smith's translation of the papyri which constitutes our book of Abraham, which is part of our scriptures, does not match any of the fragments of the papyri.  The papyri are common funerary texts that were buried with a body.  We have the fragment with facsimile 1 on it,  which is shown in the Book of Abraham, along with Joseph Smith's explanation of it; but Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that characters on the fragment do not match the explanation.   These were not written in Abraham's hand as claimed by Joseph Smith, and they are not from Abraham's time period.

So in other words, everything we were taught about the translation of the Book of Mormon is different from the way it was actually translated, according to the Church's essay.  And in the Book of Abraham, which Joseph Smith was supposed to have translated from the papyri, none of the Egyptian Hieroglyphics match Joseph Smith translation,  He said they were about Abraham and written in his hand.  They turn out to be ordinary funerary texts.   

Family funeral

Yesterday I went to my husband's Aunt Helen's funeral.  Helen lived to be 93 years old.  She was the only girl of nine children; she was the second oldest child, and my father-in-law is just younger than her.  They lived in a two bedroom farmhouse.  Helen got one bedroom and the parents got the other.  The eight boys had to sleep on the screened in front porch, summer, winter, spring and fall. To get to the only bathroom in the house, the boys had to go through Helen's bedroom. As my father-in-law told this story, I had visions of this poor girl never getting any sleep with eight brothers tromping through her room all night long.

Helen was raised LDS, her mother's side goes back into early pioneer stock and her father's side came from converts in Norway in the mid 1860's.  Helen married a nonmember and never attended the Church in her adults years, nor did several of her brothers; but her other brothers were active all their lives, including my father-in-law, who served as a bishop, in a stake presidency, and as a stake patriarch. 

It was a simple funeral, held at the funeral home. Helen has two daughters who asked my father-in-law to conduct and be in charge of the funeral program, which he has done many times because of the positions he has held. Dad, my father-in-law, is a kind gracious person who did a wonderful job.  Although, he did tell a story about Helen that she asked him not to tell... but brothers will be brothers, apparently even at your funeral!  But beside the story, of Helen throwing a pair of scissors at dad, which apparently landed in his thigh, he gave a beautiful account of her life and the kind of person she was.  Dad said that Helen is in heaven now with her mother and father, and her husband.  Very nice, nothing preachy and nothing that would be any different from a typical Christian funeral service. 

Then Helen's younger brother spoke.  He started out by saying he had been assigned to do the spiritual talk for the funeral.  He then rattled off the basic points of the "plan of salvation" including the war in heaven, the need for free agency, Satan's plan, our premortal life, why we are here, where we are going, etc.  He ended with leaving his testimony that all the things that he talked about were true.  As he spoke, I had so many thoughts go through my head. And my analysis is not meant to be a criticism of him, just an observation.

To begin with, the daughters are not members of the Church, and like I said, Helen hadn't gone her entire adult life.  So, for about 75 years, she had not attended the Mormon church; but somehow she got a Mormon funeral, even in the funeral home!  The most striking thing about this whole thing to me was the way the Church usurps the family.  This Church, that proclaims family is at the foundation of it's doctrine, comes in time after time and usurps the family, always placing itself before the family; or I should say we willingly put it before the family, thinking that putting the Church first is putting the family first.  But it's not, it's putting the Church first, at the expense of the family, relationship's, and people's feelings.  Take her younger brother's first remark, "I've been assigned to talk..". who talks like that?  Someone who has lost sight that he is actually speaking at his sister's funeral.  He forgot she has daughters that are not members, and they most likely had no idea about, nor cared about his, "plan of salvation".   Who says, "they have been assigned" at their sister's funeral?  Only someone who has let the protocol of the Church overtake their thinking, and they can't even relax at a service for their sister, and just talk about her, without having to hold a church meeting and do things the way the church instructs.  Namely assigning people to talk.  So when my father-in-law, asked him to speak at the funeral, he was incapable of seeing it as a brother asking another brother to speak at their sister's funeral.  He saw it as a Church assignment and proceeded to carry it out as one, all the time missing the fact that this was his sister's funeral and all that was needed was a personal remark from her brother.  She didn't need him to use her funeral as an opportunity to "spread the gospel" to a room of trapped people who were going to listen to the Mormon plan of salvation, whether they wanted to or not.  I just kept thinking how insensitive we are as members' of the Church, that we can't see two daughters that are at their mother's funeral and the last thing they probably wanted was a sermon on a belief system that they do not believe in. 

But people are for the most part gracious, and the daughters didn't say anything, they might not have even minded.  But why take the chance?  It's just not necessary to spread our beliefs around at every opportunity.  Especially at someone's mother's funeral.  I'm sure that all the members in attendance there thought it was just wonderful, and I'm sure for all the others in attendance, the message fell on deaf ears.

This is not the younger brother's fault.  He has been trained from his youth, to honor his Priesthood.  And sharing the gospel is an extension of that.  And if there is an opportunity to do that, it will be foremost in a priesthood holder's mind.  He thinks he's just doing what Jesus wants him to.  And doing what Jesus wants us to is a powerful thing!  So powerful, that we do things for him that he never asked us to, and we do all kinds of things in his name, that he never did. Mormons are certainly not the only ones guilty of that. 

The Church Essays in a Nutshell. Part One

If you're not familiar with the new church essays, that have been posted on the Church's official website lds.org for about a year now, they deal with church historical and doctrinal problems.  These problems have been the catalyst for many people's Mormon faith crisis.  Since my faith crisis centered on the priesthood ban on the blacks, I will start with that essay entitled, Race and the Priesthood. To see the essay click here .   For an in-depth analysis  of the essay, go to Mormonthink.com

Blacks were not banned from the priesthood in the beginning! (who knew, right?)

The Church's essay says, "as the Book of Mormon puts it, 'all are alike unto God'." So the first thing they point out, in essence is, that our doctrine contradicted our scriptures.  So, if "all are alike unto God" why did we have a priesthood ban on the blacks?  The essay goes on to state that, "during the first two decades of the Church's existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood.  In other words, for the first 22 years of the Church's existence, blacks were not banned from the priesthood.  Do I have to point out that, MOST MEMBERS HAVE NEVER BEEN AWARE OF THAT!  It was certainly news to me.  I'm in my fifties, I've been a member all my life, and I had never heard that before!  Why would blacks have the ability to receive the priesthood for 22 years, then have it taken away?   

Brigham Young or revelation behind the doctrine?

The essay says, "In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood..." The essay gives no explanation for Brigham Young's  announcement.  No angel with a sword came and threatened his life, like happened to Joseph Smith about polygamy.  Remember how Joseph Smith didn't want to have to carry out the commandment to marry other women, but his very life was threatened by a sword-bearing angel?  Brigham Young doesn't even seem remorseful about his new "doctrine".  No angel threatening his life if he didn't carry this out. Why did God change His mind on the blacks ability to receive the priesthood? Where's the revelation?  In this speech, that Brigham Young gives to the joint session of the Legislature on February 5, 1852, he unfolds this doctrine.  He basically says that he understands the "principle of slavery," and that the "Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood nor his seed...people that are more commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the priesthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the residue of the posterity of Michael and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed...Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has had the African blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of priesthood.."  He goes on to say, "It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants..." 

Yeah, you get the picture, no mention of a revelation from God, just a lot of Brigham Young hubris.  So there you go, that's the starting point for our doctrine banning blacks from the priesthood, proclaimed in a Joint Session of the Legislator of all places!  All the time, being taught from the pulpit, in Sunday school classes, in Seminary, that it was a revelation from God.  That blacks had the curse of Cain on them, that they were less valiant in the pre-existence and therefore were born into that linage, and we bought it hook, line, and sinker.  And the thing that bothers me the most and where the Church looses it's credibility in my eyes is when the leaders decided that, "none of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church" they didn't shout it from the roof tops; they didn't announce it over the pulpit; they didn't write it into their manuals; they didn't apologize to an entire race of people.  If they had, it would have been so much more bearable.  Instead we had to find out ourselves by chance, if we happened to catch a PBS interview with Elder Holland where he says that he doesn't know where this "doctrine" came from and the reasons given for it are "folklore."  Or we happen to run across a website like Mormonthink that spells it all out.  But still, 36 years later, the vast majority of members have no idea that the Church has admitted to such things.  And the truth is, most members don't even know about the essays.  I was in that group until recently myself.  My very good friend, who's husband is a stake president, hasn't even heard of the essays, I asked her a few days ago if she knew what they were and she didn't.  

Advancing the theories.

"Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions."  When the essay says Church leaders, it means all subsequent Prophets, who are supposed to be prophet's, seer's, and revelator's, continued on with this doctrine, and the reasons for it.  The essay refers to these reasons as 'theories', but they were never presented that way in church, I know, I was there, and so was anyone else who grew up in this church.  The reasons for the ban were not taught as theories, or folklore as Elder Holland likes to call them.

It's a small thing.

As shocking and unsettling as all of this is to discover 36 years after the "revelation" to remove the ban on blacks is, the emotional trauma to an entire race of people is immeasurable.  At least to anyone who was affiliated with the Church and just happened to have the curse of Cain on them.  Mormon's are so cautious to question the Church, and I understand that in a way, because we think that the Church is literally run by Jesus Christ, and to question it is to question God.  So I get the hesitancy to do so, but there comes a time when thinking just has to take over, or you really run the risk of becoming a dupe.  As I mentioned in another post, when I told our friend about this issue, he said it was a "small thing."  I don't think our friend is racist, I just think the natural reflex is to protect the Church, so it has to automatically become a "small thing."  But let's analyze it and see if it's a small thing.    

I'm 56 years old and my husband is 59.  We were married one year when the ban was lifted in 1978.  We were both born in the Church, we married in the temple and my husband served a two year mission, and both our parents are sealed in the temple.  Now, lets just say that the circumstance remain the same but our race is black; how would things be different?  Well, we both would have been raised in the Church, but our families would not have been sealed in the temple, my husband would not have served a mission because he could not become an Elder and go to the temple to receive his endowments.  When we got married in 1977, we would not have been sealed in the temple.  We would have been taught our entire growing up years, that we were of the lineage of Cain and therefore had a curse on us because we were less valiant in the pre-existence.  How would that play into your make up as a person I can only imagine.  And just because the ban was lifted in 1978, and we could then attend the temple and have our marriage sealed and our children sealed to us, there was no change in the doctrine, that we were less valiant in the pre-existence.  We would still have carried that burden with us and all the people at church would have learned the same thing, and you would wonder what they thought about you.  And there never has been an official end to that teaching, just because that teaching fell by the wayside, doesn't mean it was ended.  And I guess you just had to discover for yourself that the Church no longer advances those "theories."  See how damaging that is?  And really unchristian to NOT shout it from the roof tops that we were wrong, we meaning the leaders of the Church, were  wrong!!  Is that really so hard to say?  What are they so afraid of? That the illusion that they speak for God and receive revelation from God and that they are literally Jesus's Prophet and Apostles  may be broken or marred a bit?  They are willing to let people suffer, just so their image isn't tarnished.  I hate to keep repeating myself, but that's not Christ like. 

In a nutshell.

So in a nutshell what do we learn from the Church's essay on Blacks and the Priesthood?  First, that our doctrine contradicted our scriptures, but no one seemed to notice.  Second, for 22 years blacks were allowed to receive the priesthood, then our second Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, Brigham Young announced a change in the Church's doctrine, at a Joint Session of the Legislature February 5th 1852.  He mentions no revelation, just gives his reasons for the blacks unworthiness to receive the priesthood.  There's no revelation canonized in our scripture, as had previously been done with revelations received for the Church, by the Prophet.  Third, we learn the reasons for this ban, that we were taught as doctrine, from the pulpit and in Sunday school and in Seminary are now described as "theories" instead of doctrine, and that none of these explanations are accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church. Having said that, the Church has done nothing officially to make amends to an entire race of people for their slanderous doctrine that excluded an entire race of people from the priesthood blessings and temple sealing's that are central to our faith, and family blessings through eternity. How is this possibly from a Church that claims to speak for Christ?  Do any of these actions sound like something Jesus Christ would endorse?