Stake President Response Part 5

Previous Entries:

Introduction
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Here is the audio clip for part 5, and here is its transcript.

There’s a scientific principle called Occam’s Razor which states that all things being equal, the simplest solution is usually the correct one. So I ask, which is simpler:
A) that 2 entire huge civilizations were wiped off the face of the earth and God conveniently cleared out all evidence of it so we could have faith, or
B) that they didn't exist in the first place?

But he doubles down telling everyone not to go chasing after (non-existent) evidence. You should get your answer from the feelings you get when you pray, and if you get the wrong answer you’ll be in the dark. And if you don’t ask with real intent, you’ll get the wrong answer. He makes is seem like if you don’t get a definite ‘yes,’ then there’s something wrong with you (this is an extremely common thing in the church and other cults), either because you’re sinning or just not praying hard enough. But keep at it and eventually you’ll get the right answer. It’s called the double-bind, and it's used all the time by religious and political leaders.

Then he brings forth the excuse that if God were to actually answer you with hard proof, it would be worse off for you because then you couldn't screw up. See? It’s just God being merciful that he doesn't give you answers. It’s almost like what some of the church members say about God being “merciful” to black members – since they can’t hold the priesthood, they’re not under as much condemnation if they turn away from the church. Not to beat a dead horse, but what would your reaction be to a DA who says, "Because I love you so much, I'm not going to show you any evidence of the crime we are accusing this person of. Don't you feel special now?"

After he turns the water works on for a bit and implies that you'll get the "wrong" answer if you sin, he reads some words of Jeffery R. Holland, and then says that we need not be afraid of any truth wherever it comes from. However, what he neglects to mention is that if that truth contradicts the conclusion that the church is true, then we reject it. Here’s the difference between science and religion: Science adjusts its views based on what is observed, while religion is the denial of observation so the belief can be preserved (brief language warning on the clip).

Then he draws the proverbial line in the sand: will you be sheep or goats? This, of course, refers to a passage in Matthew 25 after the Prodigal Son parable. The analogy is not without its merit. Sheep are herd animals that follow without questioning or thinking. People who do this are called "Sheeple," and religions and dictators love this. It's how you convince people to fly planes into buildings, or blow up subways, or mass murder Jews, or even something as silly as convince followers you sank 11 holes-in-one the first time you played golf. But it's seen as a good thing for people to be blindly obedient within the church. They wouldn't want you to use the brain God gave you to think for yourself, now, would they?

Then, President Beech finally gets to the thing that probably inspired this meeting in the first place: our resignation. He says it’s easy to leave the church, and that you can do it on the back of an envelope. While it's true that one can do it on an envelope, the part about being "easy" is blatantly false, as any one of the ex-mormons we know will tell you. Some have had bishops refuse to process the paperwork. Others have had to send it via registered mail multiple times before it was acknowledged as received. Still another found out that years after formally leaving the church, the ward clerk was still able to pull up every bit of information they had. I realize that in some of the cases, paperwork is misfiled and some things fall through the cracks, but there are many, many stories like this.

Any other non-culty organization lets you go once you state your intent to resign (for example, I resigned from my Boy Scout Roundtable position in 5 minutes when I let them know that my work schedule changed and would be conflicting). But the LDS church makes you wait 30 days and requires a meeting with a local official, and they try to get you to change your mind by sending you a pamphlet in the mail. Perhaps I’ll write a blog post on that, but not today. But I would state that if that’s all that it takes, why did he have to come to my house to get some missing signatures? (discussed in the Introduction)

Now, here’s something that is interesting. The Stake President tells how hard it must be to live in our community (Ogden) and not be a member of the church. He encourages the audience to be friendly and not ostracize. Friends of ours who listened/read what he said took it as a passive-aggressive way of saying, “If you leave, it’s going to be hard,” in order to “scare them straight.”

But we didn't take it that way. Because of how we know him, we think he’s being sincere in his plea to not

shun us. However, that hasn't stopped some of them from unfriending Anne on Facebook, which is actually one of the reasons she was inspired to start this blog. I wouldn't say that we have been shunned other than that, but what we realized is how shallow our relationships with the ward members were. It is almost like having “work friends” that you socialize with because you happen to be in the same place at the same time, but once you change jobs you don’t think about them anymore because the one thing you had in common is now gone. I also think that running into some former ward members at the gym or grocery store has been a little awkward for them. A few seemed uneasy about saying hi or waving for some reason. Others have been totally fine almost like nothing happened. Those kind are more fun.

Anyway, that brings this six-part series to a close. I sincerely wish to hear any thoughts you readers have about what I said OR what the Stake President said, be it praise or criticism. I want to hear what you think ESPECIALLY if it is criticism, from grammatical/spelling typos to ambiguous sentences to errors in logic and reasoning to snarkiness.

Thank you for reading this. It has been cleansing to finally get this out of my system.

(Authored by Joseph)