Long But a Good Read

I really enjoyed this blog post. It is long but a very good read and explains a lot of my feelings and thoughts as well.

 http://www.linkingarms.org/2015/10/21/authentically-healthier-and-happier-in-most-ways/

An Amazing Poet

He summed it up so well.

The just several sentences short of 14 Articles of Faith

This was too good not to repost. User stratiform from Reddit made these (not me), but I have altered them slightly with suggestions from the comment thread about them and added links to relevant material.


·         1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His wives who are nameless and numberless, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost . . . . or at least we do after the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon was published.

·         2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression, but there was a time where we believed men would be punished for Cain's sins. He was pretty bad, so all his descendants were black. Many of our infallible prophets preached this, but they were wrong. But women are still totally going to be punished for Eve's transgression. 5 Nov 2015 UPDATE: Also, if your parents are gay, you're outta luck too. 

·         3. We believe that through faith in Joseph Smith, the current prophet and Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of our slightly modified version of Joseph's Gospel.

·         4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the current prophet and his apostles; second, Repentance by confession to your middle-aged male neighbor; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for everything; fifth, temple rituals in which you dedicate your life and possessions to the church; sixth, having your immortal calling and election made by mortals, if you are well connected.

·         5. We believe that a prophet is determined by gathering a group of well connected Mormons with good bloodlines, and by observing who outlives the others of the group, he will then preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. This is deemed correct by God and it is His way.

·         6. We believe in a pretty unique organization not seen in the Primitive Church, namely, prophets by succession, apostles, seventies, stake presidents, bishops, and so forth. We do agree with primitive churches that women cannot become any of these.

·         7. We literally believe that Joseph Smith placed a rock into a hat and God made words glow upon them. He would then repeat these aloud and this is how the Book of Mormon was written. We call it a translation. We also believe "translation" can mean when one uses a historical document for inspiration in writing about the cosmos and various ordinances.

·         8. We believe the Bible and Book of Mormon to be the words of God as far as they are translated correctly; we also believe listening to what our prophets and apostles require of us is more important than either of these.

·         9. We believe all that God revealed a sword bearing angel to Joseph Smith. The angel commanded Joseph Smith that he must wed little girls and other men's wives, and that he should keep it secret from his legal wife, Emma.

·         10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent in Jackson County, Missouri, the same place Adam and Eve existed; that Christ and his prophets will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaical glory.

·         11. We claim to be followers of Christ, but in reality we follow the Almighty President Newsroom which dictates our own conscience and political stances, and request all Mormons take the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what we tell them to.

·         12. We believe in being subject to the current prophet and his apostles. Kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates are known for their wicked desires of us to obey, honor, and sustain their laws, but we will only obey them as far as legally required of us. We do not honor or sustain them unless they go along with our religious beliefs.


·         13. We believe in being deceptive, misleading, chaste, complete dicks to former members, subjectively virtuous, and publishing apologetic essays; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Brigham—We believe ridiculous things, many of us hope things end soon, for we have endured many things that we bring upon ourselves, and hope to be able to endure more of these things. If there is a down and out person desperate for friendship or potential exposure to good media, we seek after these things.

Thoughts on Marriage

In light of the SCOTUS’s decision to allow gay marriage across the whole country, I keep hearing two complaints from conscientious objectors: 1) Religious freedom is under attack, and 2) Freedom of Speech is under attack. 


Part the First

For the first part, I’m going to use a post from Facebook reposted on Reddit through Imgur because it states what I think perfectly and beautifully. Unfortunately, I don’t have a name to give the credit to for the original text. I have made a few slight corrections for grammar and clarification, and put his/her words in Yellow to differentiate from my own. 

Religious liberties in this country are not at risk. Today was not a blow against religious freedom, but rather a mighty blow for it. Bear with me: you are allowed to eat pork, despite the presence of Jews and Muslims in this country. You are allowed to drink alcohol despite the presence of Mormons and Muslims in this country. You can eat beef despite the presence of Hindus, and buy birth control despite the presence of Catholics. You can drive a car despite the Amish. You can smoke, eat meat, curse, divorce, have sex, remain abstinent, dance, put cheese on your hamburger and work on the Sabbath. All of these are at odds with someone's religion. Religious freedom is not only my freedom to practice my faith but your freedom to not. Religious freedom is your freedom from my religion, I from yours, and us from our neighbors. As a matter of religious freedom my religion is no more valid than yours, nor yours mine. As a matter of religion most everyone will believe their own the most valid. 

Many moralities are generally accepted as universal, regardless of religion: things like murder or stealing is bad, and children are the future. Many moralities are dictated by culture and religion (like swearing or drawing pictures of Mohammed), and we must, as a free society and a decent people examine these with an eye towards different cultures and religions. 

You may ask, "What about public officials giving marriage licenses to marriages against their religion?" My opinion is that they can deal with it (as far as I am aware the ruling does not address this). That is part of taking a job that serves the public indiscriminately. EMTs are still required to treat the drunk driver, with just as much care as their victims. Judges must abide by the decision of the jury even when they know an innocent man is convicted, or a guilty man going free. Public officials of any sort may be put in uncomfortable positions, and they still must perform their duties. It a sacrifice that is made for the greater good. 

As for religions and clergy the ruling specifies they neither have to condone nor recognize same sex marriages. This is as it should be. A religion has the right to define marriage for the purpose of religion. The Supreme Court ruling changes nothing in the eyes of whatever God someone believes in. But as long as marriage is also a legal institution with various legal benefits it cannot be made available to only a select group from that standpoint. The ruling not only specifically protects the right of religion organizations to define marriage as they see fit, but to preach and proselytize that view. It encourages that discourse, and recognizes its importance in this issue. The ruling minces no words in very strongly invoking the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty.

Lastly, this doesn’t cheapen marriage or the family. The fact that people of all walks of life, and all cultures want to partake in marriage and family only speaks to its value and importance to the human condition. My love of mushroom pizza doesn’t discount your enjoyment of pineapple pizza; it just shows the variety that is possible. What marriage and family means has continuously evolved all through human history, and across cultures. This trend likely doesn’t stop now, and will likely never stop. Look at the myriad types of marriages across cultures today, or through history, even in religious texts. 

Today is a victory for religious liberty, for family, for justice, and for all who want to live in an equal and free society. 



Just to add my own thoughts, the government won’t (and I don’t think they legally can) force someone to perform a marriage against their will, but it’s the Justice of the Peace’s job to do so.  As a 7-11 employee, I was required to sell cigarettes and alcohol even though I was Mormon at the time, and had the freedom to seek employment elsewhere if selling such things was "against my religion."

And just to add to the bit about different types of marriages, this image shows the 8 different kinds of marriage found in the Bible, some of which you may find repugnant. And as a special note to the LDS church, I find the push for monogamy between one man and one woman ironic. Officially, Monogamy is policy that can be found in the Church Handbook of Instructions, while Polygamy is still doctrine, as found in D&C 132. 


Part the Second


For the second part, I’ll be tackling the “attack on Freedom of Speech” myself. 

Freedom of speech isn’t being attacked. The freedom refers to not being arrested/imprisoned for saying something. You are free to make fun of the president and the government officials without fear of imprisonment. If this were not so, late night Talk shows would be very, very different (watch V for Vendetta for what it’s like to have this liberty revoked). 

Because of freedom of speech, you are allowed to speak your mind and post on Facebook whether you are for or against Gay marriage (or any other law/bill/ruling). I am free to voice my disdain for the TPP without fear. 

But that means that other people are also free to disagree with you, and (even though it’s probably not nicest reaction) to call you names if your opinions differ. If we change it to some other issue, such as whether the earth is flat or round, you will probably see what I mean. 

To my complete bafflement, there still exists today a group of people who insist the earth is flat, aptly named the Flat Earth society. They are free to believe what they want despite the absolute mountains of evidence against their position. They are free to post their opinions on Facebook, and free to attempt to persuade you to see their point of view. 

But we are also free to disagree with them, and to call them idiots for not understanding the science behind why we know (and can prove beyond all doubt) the earth to be roughly spherical. I’m sure they see themselves as being persecuted because their opinion doesn’t fall in line with the general public’s opinion, and feel they constantly have to defend their position against naysayers. 

But nothing in the Constitution protects them from being thought of badly by the rest of us. 

Wanting the freedom to express an unpopular opinion and being shielded from public scorn is a classic case of eating your cake and having it. Think if you had expressed the opinion that slaves should be allowed to be freed and even hold public office in the year 1800. You would have a rather unpopular opinion, and the public wouldn’t agree with you or like you for it.

If you held the reverse opinion today (that African Americans shouldn’t hold public office), you will be called a racist among other unpleasant epithets. But, again, you would be allowed to have such an opinion and no government pressure would or should dissuade you. You just may not be liked by a lot of people, and your business or friendship may be boycotted. And all the while why you hold this (hypothetical) opinion, African Americans will be allowed to hold public office despite your thoughts because the general public has decided that equality should be the rule of the land. 

As a final thought, you should watch X-Men, X2, X-Men: First Class and X-Men: Days of Future Past. Not only are they good movies, but if you substitute "homosexual" for "mutant," you will get a good idea of my position. 


(written by Joseph)

Today's Thoughts

When we decided to leave the LDS faith a little over 2 years ago, we lost a lot. We lost our sense of religion and had to come to terms with what we now believe, and we lost a lot of our community/friends. We were also accused of looking at "anti-Mormon" sites, joining a polygamous group, and much more. Our former stake president held a special meeting about apostasy for our former ward where we were mentioned by name and he warned everyone to stay away from the internet when looking for answers about the church. But over the past year and few months the LDS church has published a series of essays on their site dealing with some of these issues. The following link will take you to the church’s website: https://www.lds.org/topics?lang=eng. Most of the "difficult issues" essays are displayed on the right for convenience.

I know that many struggle when they come across these facts and aren't sure what to do. Some choose to stay and some choose to leave like us. Either way it is my hope that we don’t judge one another for the choices we each make, and that everyone can find peace for themselves.

Joseph and I now run the Ogden Post-Mos ex-mormon group. If you are struggling with your faith, need to make new friends, or just need to vent, we are here and willing to help in any way we can. We understand that losing the church is like losing a loved one and that it takes time to heal. We have met many who struggle to tell family and friends because they know that they will lose many. Leaving the Mormon faith wasn't easy for us; it was the most difficult thing I have ever done. I still mourn for it at times because I miss knowing exactly how the afterlife is supposed to work, having ward parties and gatherings, and I miss chatting with friends in the hall at church. 

Anyhow those are just a few of my thoughts today. This post was inspired by this video by Brother Jake.

Going back to Church

Recently, I've been asked variations of a question several times by active Mormons, ex-Mormons, and Never-Mos. That question is: “What would it take for you to go back?” or “What would it take to change your mind?”

It’s an interesting question, to say the least, and I've thought a lot about it. I know a lot of people who would say, “I will never go back,” or “I will never change my mind,” etc. But I’m not someone who works in absolutes. Only a Sith does that . . . 

But the simple answer to that question is the same as the one Bill Nye (the Science Guy) gave at the end of his debate with Ken Ham: Evidence. (You can watch the part in question here.) Before we move on, let’s examine those answers. Ken Ham’s answer was: “No one is ever going to convince me the word of God is not true.” While I have to admire his personal conviction, I believe it to be the epitome of foolishness to stick to one’s guns in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

Here’s my favorite example of this exact thing. Like him or hate him, Jon Stewart often has really good points. This is a piece about Nancy Grace, the HLN anchor who was absolutely sure that the Duke Lacrosse team raped a girl. She harped about it for *months* almost every night. When the evidence cleared the boys of any charges, she didn't come out and apologize or admit she was wrong. If you skipped past the link, go back and watch it. It's quite entertaining. (For what it's worth, if you want to see a great fictional representation of her, go watch Gone Girl)

Can you imagine what our justice system would be like if the police or ADA just decided someone was guilty and ignored any evidence to the contrary? Every so often we’d have a press conference with the DA or a judge explaining that there doesn't need to be a trial because they felt it in their hearts that the suspect was guilty and put them into the correctional system earlier that day. Doesn't sound very fun to me.

I know eating crow is humbling and not very fun, but admitting one is wrong when the evidence says so is taking the high road, and it is what should happen in an honest society. I remember an “argument” that I had with a companion while I was in Japan regarding the filming location of the movie Karate Kid Part II. I had known a guy who went there on his mission and wrote back about how he was serving where the movie was filmed. My companion said it wasn't really filmed there, but was shot in Hawaii instead. We went back and forth with our reasons for why we thought the way we did, and it got a little heated, each of us absolutely sure we were correct. After a while, we realized that this was something that could be easily verified using the internet. We did so at a member’s house later that week, and it turns out that it was filmed in Hawaii. I admitted I had been mistaken, we moved on, and it was never brought up again. I believe that had I not admitted defeat, ( by saying something like, “The people who run that website are all liars,” or, “I don’t care what it says”) it would have become a wedge between us. But it wasn't and didn't have to be.  I’m not trying to boast of myself, just give an example I know from my own life.

I think it’s admirable that someone is able to change their views to fit the evidence. That’s what science (usually) does, and I wish it were more common in the world. It takes an amount of integrity and maturity to do this, but for a lot of people, not admitting to having ever been wrong is more important than almost anything.

But anyway, back to the question: What would it take for me to go back? 
Based on the numbers the BoM reports, there should be scads of archaeological evidence of some kind of Christian-believing Hebrew civilization. We should be able to find DNA evidence of Hebrew blood in Native American populations. We should be able to show that Joseph Smith could translate Egyptian before anyone else. Sadly, this kind of evidence is sorely lacking.

But if the church were able to show evidence that its current claims were true, I would be stupid to not go back. After all, my eternal salvation would be at stake. But even still, it's an interesting thought experiment, but I would rephrase the question as, "What would it take for me to go back knowing that it's just another man-made organization?"

Well, it would have to be a lot of things that would be changed. I can't un-know what I now know about the true history of the church. But I will admit that there are a few things I miss about it. Things like, having instant friends, having a community of support, and organized parties (for Halloween or Christmas).

So I guess I would go back just for a sense of community, but the following things would have to happen (this list is partially my own thoughts mingled with suggestions from other ex-mormons):

• They would have to dispose of the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham as canon because neither has proof in scientific evidence which is externally supported. (Scientists aren't out to get Mormons or deliberately ignoring evidence that supports it. The evidence just isn't there). A couple of Egyptologists at BYU suggest that the Book of Abraham isn't wrong, but who signs their paycheck?
• The Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency would have to publicly admit that they are not actually prophets seers and revelators but merely businessmen running a church. It would also mean coming clean with their entire history, and dropping the "one, true church as the only way to get back to heaven" shtick. 
• They would have to become financially transparent and probably minimize excess wealth in a mass donation of services especially to its poorest regions. ($1.4 billion in humanitarian aid over 26 years versus $3.5 billion spent on a mall by Temple Square is unethical and I am almost positive Jesus as depicted in the New Testament would rebuke the leadership as he did the money changers).
• Their teachings would have to focus solely on teaching Christ-like values of charity, forgiveness, withholding judgement, and entirely drop the sexual shaming of children and adults. 
• Drop F&T meeting - it's just people reassuring themselves that they are right and "brainwashing." Change the culture from the top down to stop saying, "I know the church is true," and start letting people say, "I believe in Christ's teachings," or something like that. Stop the emphasis on the organization and more on the teachings. 
• No more temple recommend interviews at any age. Confession becomes entirely optional and self driven.
• Drop the sexist culture of modesty of women to help men keep their minds clean and focus on respecting each other. Women, are not, as Dallin H. Oaks suggested (paraphrased) "walking pornography" because they choose to wear a low cut or sleeveless top or shorts/skirt above their knees or a bikini, and men are not mindless sex addicts who will hump a bare shoulder on sight. 
• Ditch the garments; they're pretty unbearable, especially in summer heat. Also, having everyone check up on each other's underwear in order to know how righteous everyone else is being is creepy.
• Ditch the temple ceremonies entirely and make temples an open place of worship and meditation. It's clear that the Endowment is a hybridization of Masonic rites and Moses 4. They made no sense to me when I went through. I have learned that they are out of place due to being a man-made combination of a medieval fraternity's ceremony and Joseph Smith's version of Genesis. I expected something more focused on Jesus or learning about self. 
• It would have to accept science and history where applicable. No more young earth teaching in Seminary, no more anti-gay mantra, no more anti-history (see Boyd K. Packer as an offender with The Mantle is Far Far Greater than the Intellect specifically in his commentary about truth not being useful and that historians should hold back things that don't promote faith).
• The church would have to promote equality of all members. (Probably either need to offer priesthood to all, or dispose of the idea entirely and just treat each other as equals including having female leadership even up to the First Presidency and among the apostles and 70's. "Women are to motherhood as men are to fatherhood," not "women are to motherhood as men are to priesthood," which is a false equivalency.
• The church would have to stop "love bombing" people, because it's intrusive. If someone is interested in returning to church, they'll do it of their own volition. Groups of people just dropping in on others, frankly is cultish and rude. People should always call ahead before appearing at someone's front door, especially if this person has never met the other person. How can Home and Visiting Teachers actually suggest that they love or miss someone who they've never met? Also, it's a shallow system, I have yet to keep in touch with anyone I was home or visit taught by after I moved out of that ward or branch. These are "assigned" associations, not natural affiliations and friendships.
• Missions could continue in an entirely humanitarian aid function. No more proselytizing and no trying to find people who have just gone through a life change as "Golden contacts." It's exploiting people in a time of weakness to get people to convert after divorce, death, or financial hardship. Having 80,000 strong as a humanitarian force would do a lot more to drum up interest in the LDS church than knocking on door after door interrupting dinner after dinner.
• Ditch tithing as a requirement because the whole justification for it out of Malachi is flawed reasoning (but that's a discussion for another day). Make it a voluntary contribution, not mandatory if someone wants to see their kid/sibling/cousin/whatever get married in the temple. 
• Seriously cut down on the unnecessary meetings. 1 hour a week for church services should be plenty, and combined with other church activities/meetings, I would think that fewer than 3 hours per week should be spent in callings and such. 
• Change the amount of responsibility the leadership (specifically Bishops and Stake Presidents) have, along with the amount of time they spend away from family. Of all the people who suffer from "too much church," I think bishops' families are probably up there.

So there's a whole bunch of things. I really doubt it will happen, but you never know. It happened to the RLDS Church when it changed itself into the Community of Christ. After learning about them, I think that if I were forced to pick a church to belong to, it would be them. Partly because of the shared heritage, partly because it's somewhat familiar to what I knew/learned as a kid, and partly because I can respect their integrity in all the changes they made.

(Written by Joseph)

It's been a good Summer (and Autumn so far)

This is the first post in quite a while, and for a good reason. I'd like to think that we have made further progress on our transition out of the church. It still comes up in conversation when things remind us about it, and I still go to the ex-Mormon discussion boards for updates, but it's not the obsession it used to be.

It will still be a long time before we hardly think about it at all, but we're getting there. We're still running the bi-weekly Ogden PostMos coffee meetups and met some really great people. Some of their stories have bits of humor and irony in them, and a lot of them have hurt and sadness because they were rejected by spouses and family after announcing their disaffection from the church. For a lot of them, their personal integrity was too strong to continue to pretend to believe and smile when they know the truth about the church.

But recently it's been being brought up a little more often because of a few things. General Conference is the main one, but along with it comes all the Facebook updates that our friends make about it. Hearing the chatter about the new "film" (I'm loathe to call it that, as it resembles an infomercial  more than anything) also does it. Admittedly, a lot of it is because we live in Utah. Had we been living somewhere else, it would not have been as big of a deal when we left, nor would we have to hear about it all the time on TV or at work.

Still, we like living here and have no plans to move because of it. There's just too much we love about living so close to just about everything (except the ocean, much to Anne's chagrin). So we will continue to endure and hope that we can help some others do the same.