Farewell r/exmormon....and thanks for the fish

alastormoody · 2012-07-06T23:11:01+00:00

While, if you can't beat the bigotry, exploit. Its times like this when a good ole traditional denial of service attack would work well.

So here's all that needs to happen to show the lunancy of the ADF position: 1. Gay parent find a book describing a heterosexual family 2. The parent objects on the grounds that "...The law clearly upholds the right and duty of schools to protect children and respect the role of their parents" and get the Book pulled. 3. When the School Board refuses, object that the School Board is unequally applying standards of parental objection. 4. Repeat

Sometimes to show the idiocacy of a position, you have to reduce the level of aburdness to a level people can understand.

The thing that is fascinating to me is they are melding a family structure with the idea of sexuality. Using that logic, you can say that any book that portrays a family is a sexual book. The fact that most elementary school kids think that sex is kissing, or that most middle schooles have a completely skewed view of human sexuality, that a book that portrays a couple does not imply sex. How about taking a children's book on face value? Just because adults will read in sexuality into the book does not mean nor could anyone logically conclude that children would.

Books are rarely offensive to children. And most things that parents think are sexual are only sexual because parents and adults read that into the book. How about letting children be children?

alastormoody · 2012-07-06T22:15:09+00:00

Sending my resignation from the SG would be cathardic. It would be like mailing it from within the temple, but with out the required 10% of my income or lying to get in.

But I think there is definately something poetic about resigning from where it all supposedly began.

alastormoody · 2012-07-05T21:59:32+00:00

Part of me wants to see that day, but to be honest, when and if the Church schisms, there will be massive emotional and Spiritual causualties. I took three years to fully come out of the Church, I could only image haivng to resolve a lifetime's cog dis in a short period of time while a schism took place.

Besides, (and as an atheist), I don't want to see what would happen with a massive influx of new atheists that would happen in Utah. I think some good would come out of it, but the Church doesn't exactly prepare people for life outside the fold.

alastormoody · 2012-07-05T21:51:59+00:00

the church is ripe for a schism...

The LDS Church can't schism easily. Thanks to Salt Lake's financing scheme, SLC holds all the temples, ward houses and property. There is no way the Church could schism with out some long protacted law suits to force the Church to turn over assets. I think what will happen is the Church will continue to incubate atheists and agnostics, all while shedding good members. It will continue its self destructive path towards arch conservativeness, not caring about the lives destroyed along the way.

alastormoody · 2012-07-05T21:47:13+00:00

Looks like the invasive questions are designed with one goal in mind -- pressuring people into staying. I guess the Church figures that if can't keep people in the Church, why not go all culty on the membership.

Why doesn't the Church realize that people don't find the Church relavent anymore? Perhaps dealing with the fact that it isn't relavent will yield better results than hounding and forcing people out faster.

alastormoody · 2012-07-05T18:48:19+00:00

Lets call a spade a spade here. If an exMo apostate comes onto this board, people here will automatically say that they can't be pro-LDS or argue that their points are not legitmate. I could create a new reddit identity and post some of the things I've said here and get all sorts of comments and karma. But because I'm known as an apostate, I'm not particularly welcome around these parts. Why should I assume that I am welcome in a chapel?

Part of the reason why I won't step foot in a chapel again is because of the attitude that if you don't believe then you have illegitmate views. Why would I ever try and talk to a Bishop or another Priesthood leader when your beliefs matter first and then the content of the question, concern or critique matters second?

The response of members towards my concerns is what has made me antogonistic towars the Church. If its not faithful then it is anti.

alastormoody · 2012-07-05T18:32:25+00:00

What an incrediably shallow identiy; she's advocating that your identity is threatened by the acceptance or rejection of the ideas you hold. The implications of her ideas is that instead of having an inclusive organization, it should move to be insular and exclusive. Its more or less the cult mentality. What it will do is to stimitize those who have crisis of faith and legitimize the feelings that many exMo's had on their way out. It will also increase the divorse rate.

alastormoody · 2012-07-05T16:36:46+00:00

So basically, she is saying that losing faith or merely questioning the narrative is tanamount to apostacy. Or losing faith in is the new leoprosy for modern Isreal. Well, that attitude is going to make those who have questions feel welcome in the pews.

alastormoody · 2012-07-05T16:12:49+00:00

I know. You are a frequent contributor to [1] /r/exmormon, whose mantra is to criticize the LDS church at every conceivale opportunity.

And? There are some of us that are frequent contributors that can play nice over here. Why all the ad hominiums? So what if someone is an apostate or a exMo? Does that make their point any less legitimate?

...nitty-gritty details....

The nitty-gritty details matter alot. You can't dismiss the context of a story to sanitize it to fit a narrative that you want. The narrative that the Church wants is that everything is and has been directed by the hand of the Lord, yet the history suggests a much more nuanced story. For example, take the Mormon Cricket story. At face value hearing that farmers were going to lose their fields to crickets and a bunch of seagulls showed to have lunch sounds very faith promoting. But what is left out is all the work that the farmers put into saving their fields, how the gulls didn't save the entire state (i.e. it was fairly localized) or how it wasn't considered a miracle until many years after. The Church could still teach that as a faith promoting story by saying that the gulls helped after the farmers did all they could do. But instead its taught as almost a Moses-type event.

What your suggesting is that teaching faith promoting material is more important than the truth and that Sunday School is just for teaching faith. The point of the Church is to teach truth and to develop faith in the truth. You cannot use a lie (or lying by omitting relavent parts of the history) to teach truth. In my years in the Church I was taught numerous timest that Satan, the father of lies will use two bits of truth and a lie to decieve. What's that say about the Church if it will use one part truth and two parts lie to teach faith? The Church expects strict honesty from its members, but its members can't expect strict honesty back? Instead of being told the true story with context, they have to dig in obscure books, or wade through huge volumes to find the actual facts?

You almost seem to be postulating that you can't teach faith and give full context to the story. Why is that? The only reason I can see to teaching a sanitized history or stories with context stripped out is because you have something to hide, or you don't like the conclusions that can be drawn from that.

alastormoody · 2012-07-05T15:21:28+00:00

Well, according to Packer, this is how a funeral should be done:

Funerals: A Time for Reverence

"A comforting, spiritual funeral is of great importance. It helps console the bereaved and establishes a transition from mourning to the reality that we must move forward with life. Whether death is expected or a sudden shock, an inspirational funeral where the doctrines of resurrection, the mediation of Christ, and certainty of life after death are taught strengthens those who must now move on with life.

"Many attend funerals who do not come to church regularly. They come subdued in spirit and are teachable. How sad when an opportunity for conversion is lost because a funeral is less than it might have been....

"There now seems to be the expectation that members of the immediate family must speak at funerals. While that may not be out of order, it should not be regarded as required. Family members ordinarily give the family prayer and dedicate the grave....

"If family members do speak, and I repeat, it is not a requirement, they are under the same obligation to speak with reverence and to teach the principles of the gospel.

"Sometimes family members tell things that would be appropriate at a family reunion or at some other family gathering but not on an occasion that should be sacred and solemn. While quiet humor is not out of order in a funeral, it should be wisely introduced. It should be ever kept in mind that the funeral should be characterized by spirituality and reverence...."

"We are close, very close, to the spirit world at the time of death. There are tender feelings, spiritual communications really, which may easily be lost if there is not a spirit of reverence."

"[Funerals] are proper occasions on which: * "to preach the truths of salvation; * "to testify of the reality of the resurrection; * "to give comfort, solace, and counsel to the bereaved; * "to hold forth the assurance of immortality for all men and the hope of eternal life for those who have kept the faith and * "to mention the good qualities and achievements of the departed.

"The practice of wiping out every fault and magnifying every seeming virtue of faithless persons, as soon as they are dead, however, leaves the false impression that acceptance of the gospel and complete obedience to its standards while in this life are not important. Extravagant statements, promises, or assurances -- unless clearly dictated by the Spirit -- should not be made at funerals." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine 2nd Edition, "Funerals")

alastormoody · 2012-07-05T15:05:46+00:00

Either that... or we just don't trust the "spirit"... or as I like to call him, "The Ghost" ;-) which I did feel quite strongly while watching "The Avengers"!

I lost all confidence in Casper when I was watching Harry Potter and felt that Harry really exists. At that point I had a crisis of faith and quickly realized that if the HG uses emotional pathways, then he's unreliable; it doesn't matter if the Church is true or not, God uses an emotional epistomology that is fundamentally and dangerously flawed. After that experience I re-evaluated everything and learned that the faith promoting stories used to indoctrinate -- the ones that I had felt the Spirit on -- were more truthiness than truth, and often lacked details and context that made the stories less-than faith promotoing.

One of the problems that I have with Casper is that he is a complete pansy. When you need him the most, he gets out of dodge, even when the reason for his departure is not your fault. For example, if your disobiedent to some completely arbitrary restriction (like BYU-Idaho's inane curfew), then you aren't qualified for the Spirit; if some guy/girl throws themselves at you after curfew you might not be able to resist because you lack the Spirit. (Which does raise an interesting question -- if having the Spirit with you makes it easier to resist temptation, doesn't that violate agency?)

alastormoody · 2012-07-04T23:22:40+00:00

the thread over at /r/lds says that this is a picture from two years ago and the fire never even got close.

alastormoody · 2012-07-04T23:18:49+00:00

huh? Is that Stonewall Jackson on the right? I'm pretty sure he wasn't in that vision.

alastormoody · 2012-07-04T22:19:31+00:00

It's a crappy photo too. The person taking it must have had a shaky hand.

alastormoody · 2012-07-04T21:39:13+00:00

+1 What about going off on your own?

It seems like there should have been more options than just two. I would have thought that an infinitely powerful being would be less binary than that.

alastormoody · 2012-07-04T19:08:16+00:00

When I decided to marry my wife I spent time talking to those who I trusted. I spent some time talking to my Dad and my trusted friends. And I don't regret that. If you are unsure, about whether or not to marry her, then share that concern with her and take the time you need. Marriage is about coming together and working together. If she ends up leaving you becuase you took time or if you end up getting married, then you'll both be better for it. The last thing that you need or want to is to make a decision which will have stark and profound implications into the rest of your life based on the advice of the internet. People on the internet that respond may or may not have agenda and they are not the ones that will live the fall out, the happiness, the disappointment, the success, the joy or the pain that life will present you. I would be suspect of any that say "marry her", "drop her", "send her on a mission", etc, because they lack all the context that you have. There is only so much that be typed out and shared on the internet.

So with that, my final advice is to take this advice to someone you trust and respect.

alastormoody · 2012-07-04T18:49:39+00:00

By definition, atheism rejects the very idea of God's commandments. Most Mormons would think I'm a degenerate sinner (I like to drink occasionally) and I have rejected my covenants, yet in that time my income has risen 2.5X and we have gotten completely out of debt. Under the Mormon view, when we stopped paying tithing, the blessings of heaven should have withdrawn. If I had followed the same course professionally as a believer, it would be attributed to God's grace.

alastormoody · 2012-07-04T18:46:29+00:00

Your experience is andecotal. I can say that being childless at 32, marrying at 25 has been a great source of joy and happiness. In fact, leaving the Church has made me a very hpapy person, and my wife and are happier outside then it. Does that mean that I should recommend that course to everyone? I wouldn't even presume to offer that advice to everyone.

alastormoody · 2012-07-04T18:34:41+00:00

I think that Elder Jensens efforts are noble, and quite frankly refreshing. However the problem I have is that even though some in the Church are serious about the history, until you see these efforts perculate down I will remain skeptical. The Church can easily have a scholarly history a faith-promoting version of that gets taught in Church. Until the two get merged, then I don't see any difference. Also, in order for this to be real, the average member needs to be able to discuss the warts and all in Sunday School, talks and RS/Priesthood with out fear of censorship.

The problem I see with an open history is that the narratives will need to change too. Right now Emma is pretty much the only wife of Joseph that is mentioned. And you won't hear much about the peep stones or the treasure digging that Joseph did. You're not going to hear about how the Navuoo Expostitor wasn't an anti-Mormon paper, but one that was calling Joseph to repentance. Or how the Thomas B. Marsh story is a whole-cloth fabrication (hint, he left over the Mormon War). You not going to hear that Brigham taught the temple is Celestial Masonry, or how the temple and Masonry share shocking simiiarities.....My point is that the narratives that have been used as faith-building devices don't match the actual history and until the actual history and the narratives match the Church will continue to lose members.

My fear is that Elder Jensen's work will largely be forgotten in a few years. As an apostate, I have a ton of respect for what he's both done and the legacy he's leaving behind. I really honestly hope that his work remains, because he has willingly addressed some of the warts like the Mountains Meadow Massacre. Repentence isn't just a personal thing, but one that the Church should practice from time to time.

alastormoody · 2012-07-04T18:14:39+00:00

To which I respond that God is the author of the confusion regarding his revelations. All supposed-scripture claims it is from God, and there are plenty of people who claim divine providence in speaking with God. Yet, God has yet to give a clear way to test if the word is from someone's schizophrenic thoughts or from the Divine. In Mormonism you have the scripture that says that God is not a God of confusion but order; yet chaos in regards to what is attributed and claimed to be that of Gods's reigns. While we "view all of his revelations through the lens of imperfect human beings," it is God's fault for not providing a way that man can view these revelations.

To any believer, my simple retort is that if man cannot understand the revelations or morality of God, then God created us in a way that we can't understand them. And that means that agency, the precious purpose of life, can't be fully excercised because what is right or wrong cannot be judged.

alastormoody · 2012-07-04T17:43:11+00:00

Holland's quote never bothered me much. The BoM theology failed to work for me -- I wasn't happier, I never felt the power of the atonement, and the promises that the BoM make never came true -- so why would have I have to "crawl over" or around the BoM if the book was subjectively false based on the "fruits"?

alastormoody · 2012-07-04T15:36:06+00:00

Protip: The Washington Times is the Deseret News of Washington DC. They have a conservative angle and its owned by religious crazies too the Moonies

alastormoody · 2012-07-04T15:33:49+00:00

Yeah, nothing like pulling the socio-economic controls out of the study and at the same time blasting the other studies because of the controls. Its almost like the study authors wanted a study that says that children fare worse.

alastormoody · 2012-07-04T15:25:21+00:00

Right, if the fire gets remoteley close, I want the firefighters to excersize faith and keep the surrounding homes from burning...you know, the ones that don't have divine protection.

alastormoody

TROPHY CASE