Overposting

I don't know why I've been posting so much lately.  My baseline is to think about something awhile, mulling it over in my brain, trying to iron it all out so I can articulate it as best I can.  My recently attitude has been to just unload my current thoughts.  Maybe I don't want to mull it over? Regardless, here is my brain-dump for the day.

A popular meme/thought has been going around and evolving for some time now.  I remember seeing a quote similar to this pinned up in church hallways.  Here is the current iteration:

 

If this didn't frame a false narrative there would be no problem.  It starts with the qualifier "If," which keeps it accurate, but then frames the rest of it like it is the only option for leaving the church.  99.9% of people absolutely do not leave the church over imperfect people around them.  Furthermore, no one "denies" the concept of a church being a hospital where everyone goes to (try) to heal.  Along with that, the idea of a church being a hospital also frames it as though that is the only place for individuals to receive 'treatment,' or care.  Humanists believe that can be done when you truly empathize with others.  Spending time to reach out and care for others can heal. 

If you want to claim the Gospel as the only thing that truly heals, then you have to account for the billions of people living or who have lived that lived perfectly happy lives without it, finding healing powers in their family and friends.  Change the narrative. Change how you see people who leave.  Change can come from within. I'm just a dissenting voice. Don't accept damaging ideas that are fostering and bred to alienate and damage relationships.

Interfaith parenting

Interfaith parenting is complex and not an ideal situation.  One parent almost always has the advantage and  teaching children can be hard as many religions teach they have a monopoly on truth.  If a child learns the cultural rhetoric of a specific belief system, how does it look if one parent doesn't belong to it? It's always a balancing act of the 'outsider' parent, and that is often taken for granted.  While being respectful of the belief system, the outsider parent has to be allowed to give their perspective and opinion on things, encourage critical thinking, and articulate the differences between the parents' beliefs.  This is also hard, in light of the rhetoric, when the believing spouse thinks the outsider parent is morally deficient.  One of the primary responses is to protect the children from their damaging and dangerous ideas, as it will lead to 'sin,' and even possibly lose the child's relationship, not to mention losing their soul.

Directly because of that cultural rhetoric that many belief systems foster, families are torn apart.  Let me reiterate: loving relationship are torn apart by belief systems that foster the idea that they have a monopoly on morality and truth.  Let me be clear: I love my children just as much as my wife.  I worry about them day and night.  I want them to be happy.  I have learned a thing or two in my 36 years regarding where real happiness comes from.  I know they have the potential to be happy by choosing to be a part of a belief system, but I also know they have better odds choosing to leave.  I have never been happier personally after choosing to leave.  Many people suffer significantly less guilt, shame and depression being free from a control mechanism over their lives.

This letter will be my template for my own children that choose to go on a religious mission:
https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/4thajp/before_you_go_follow_up_to_my_son_planning_on/

Pot-Kettle Ignorance

I had an acquaintance ask me on Facebook questions regarding my Atheism and my knowledge of the Bible, religion and Christianity.  It was a public post and another individual was involved on an OP of mine.  The conclusion he came up for me was that my decision was based on ignorance.  Now sometimes I feel like it could be an equal foundation.  Atheists point fingers at theists and say they are ignorant, why can't they do that to us?  Those instances are happening less and less.  Most of us don't just read the Bible and conclude there is no God, even though that is pretty close to a valid conclusion in and of itself.  Most atheists use a complex set of inputs to come to that conclusion.

Atheists, first of all, conclude there is no God, while gladly suspending that belief based on any forthcoming evidence.  I learned this later, after deciding I liked the idea of the softer version, Agnosticism.  Realizing a rational Atheist would gladly reconsider based on new findings, I changed my mind.  But claiming ignorance was the basis of my decision is hard to wrap my head around.  Most theists conclude personal experience as the bottom line in the differences between us.  If personal experience is the difference between our spiritual experiences, then how could a theist claim my decision is based on ignorance? 

Also, even if one side of the argument thinks the other side IS basing their decisions on ignorance, why would a person use that in an argument rather than keep it to themselves? That is the quickest way to shut down any dialogue.  If that is what he wanted to do, it worked, but he has always claimed to foster and encourage discussion between parties who hold differing opinions and worldviews.  I have noticed it to be a pattern with him, though.  He seems to enjoy thinking he has the higher intellectual ground, especially if a discussion or relationship goes south.  The other person will cut it short, so he concludes that he had the upper hand because THEY couldn't come up with good rebuttals or counter-arguments.  This shows a massive lack of introspection and a stunting of personal growth.  I am very aware of my weaknesses and I try to learn from every experience and I know I am not perfect, but honestly I still have no idea how he came up with ignorance as my defining baseline.

Working title

The anger article where I got into a discussion with my brother, I noticed a common theme: Religious people doesn't acknowledge that what I'm saying might be legitimate for my own personal experience.

Questions in general within the church: there is another common theme, although not everyone will experience the same degree of pushback: hard questions are avoided and ignored.  REALLY hard questions.  I think when leadership delineates questions into categories of 'hard' and 'not hard,' we can see what they consider hard questions if we look at official responses to what they choose to address, then label it a hard topic.

There is also the idea that the organized church "hid" things from the general population that they didn't want to address or they didn't think it was 'uplifting' or 'essential' for salvation. People get really angry over this.  I was conflicted for a long time, as I could see both sides to this.  I started reading into every topic on my own, and I used non-internet sources to do it.  They ARE out there.

When people can sit down at a computer, type a specific chain of words together in Google, click on the right site and read for 5 minutes the gist of a 'hidden' topic after years of going to church faithfully and not hearing a peep about it, their anger is justified.  Just because they hadn't heard of it before, yet the information was available doesn't mean they don't have a right to be mad.

The church frames topics and conversations and lessons in such a way as to focus on the curriculum.  At the end of the lesson, there is a spiritual takeaway.  Sometimes the spiritual lesson that we can apply to our own lives is a bit of a stretch from the story they use.  If the correlation committee can't stretch a story to extract a moral lesson, then it will be discarded, or not used.  They simply don't care about alerting us to all the questionable things that have transpired.  Of course, we view the essays published on the official website today as a reactionary response to this very issue.

It is hard to understand this dynamic, especially when you are introduced to this information and your spiritual and emotional baseline just got a boulder dropped in it and the ripples aren't going to calm down for awhile.  The last thing on your mind is, 'let's look at the natural progression of how the church has correlated lessons, and how the church tries to focus on spiritual takeaways.'

Changing gears.  I have mentioned how damaging religious rhetoric is.  It ultimately hurts family units.  The most popular feedback I get for being anti-theist is why I can't leave religion alone.  It isn't something they can grasp.  If I didn't believe that religion poisons everything, then I could leave it alone. The fact is, I want it eradicated.  It isn't only religion, it is anything the believing brain comes up with and holds on to and makes it a huge focus in their lives.  Conspiracy theories is a good example outside of religion.  Our brains want to find patterns in things, then connect it with a higher power or in a power that explains things that are out of our control. Because I can't leave it alone, I must be filled with hate.  This is the furthest thing from the truth I can imagine.  Nothing is above criticism.  If a belief system can't handle criticism, what is the point of that system, or how strong can your faith in it truly be?

Another example of how rhetoric damages relationships.  Religion teaches its adherents that non-believers have no morals.  Morals come from their higher power, so how could non-believers have morals? This is a huge fallacy that can easily be proven by looking at criminals.  Bad people will do bad things regardless of what they believe in.  Horrific things are done in the name of religion arguably moreso than under any other banner, besides maybe statism.  Statism is intrinsically religious to itself, not necessarily to a Godless system.  They have replaced God with itself.  The argument that religion has a monopoly on morals is ridiculous and baseless.

Hijack

Joseph Smith Jr. wrote a book from ideas gathered that were popular during his time and geographic location of New England in the early 1800's.  He had a talent for storytelling.  A big part of his epic tale was the black or white fallacy that many religions adopt: you are either with us or against us.  If you are with us, our God will bless you. If you are against us, Hell and cursings await you.  At one point during this story, an Army Captain gets angry at a, 'very wicked man' because he is apparently seeking to destroy Liberty throughout all the land:

9 Yea, and we also see the great wickedness one very wicked man can cause to take place among the children of men.

 10 Yea, we see that Amalickiah, because he was a man of cunning device and a man of many flattering words, that he led away the hearts of many people to do wickedly; yea, and to seek to destroy the church of God, and to destroy the foundation of liberty which God had granted unto them, or which blessing God had sent upon the face of the land for the righteous’ sake.

 11 And now it came to pass that when Moroni, who was the chief commander of the armies of the Nephites, had heard of these dissensions, he was angry with Amalickiah.

 12 And it came to pass that he rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.

 13 And he fastened on his head-plate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren, so long as there should a band of Christians remain to possess the land—

 14 For thus were all the true believers of Christ, who belonged to the church of God, called by those who did not belong to the church.

 15 And those who did belong to the church were faithful; yea, all those who were true believers in Christ took upon them, gladly, the name of Christ, or Christians as they were called, because of their belief in Christ who should come.

 16 And therefore, at this time, Moroni prayed that the cause of the Christians, and the freedom of the land might be favored.

 17 And it came to pass that when he had poured out his soul to God, he named all the land which was south of the land Desolation, yea, and in fine, all the land, both on the north and on the south—A chosen land, and the land of liberty.

 18 And he said: Surely God shall not suffer that we, who are despised because we take upon us the name of Christ, shall be trodden down and destroyed, until we bring it upon us by our own transgressions.

 19 And when Moroni had said these words, he went forth among the people, waving the rent part of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had written upon the rent part, and crying with a loud voice, saying:

 20 Behold, whosoever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord, and enter into a covenant that they will maintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them.

 21 And it came to pass that when Moroni had proclaimed these words, behold, the people came running together with their armor girded about their loins, rending their garments in token, or as a covenant, that they would not forsake the Lord their God; or, in other words, if they should transgress the commandments of God, or fall into transgression, and be ashamed to take upon them the name of Christ, the Lord should rend them even as they had rent their garments.

 22 Now this was the covenant which they made, and they cast their garments at the feet of Moroni, saying: We covenant with our God, that we shall be destroyed, even as our brethren in the land northward, if we shall fall into transgression; yea, he may cast us at the feet of our enemies, even as we have cast our garments at thy feet to be trodden under foot, if we shall fall into transgression.

 23 Moroni said unto them: Behold, we are a remnant of the seed of Jacob; yea, we are a remnant of the seed of Joseph, whose coat was rent by his brethren into many pieces; yea, and now behold, let us remember to keep the commandments of God, or our garments shall be rent by our brethren, and we be cast into prison, or be sold, or be slain.

 24 Yea, let us preserve our liberty as a remnant of Joseph; yea, let us remember the words of Jacob, before his death, for behold, he saw that a part of the remnant of the coat of Joseph was preserved and had not decayed. And he said—Even as this remnant of garment of my son hath been preserved, so shall a remnant of the seed of my son be preserved by the hand of God, and be taken unto himself, while the remainder of the seed of Joseph shall perish, even as the remnant of his garment.

 25 Now behold, this giveth my soul sorrow; nevertheless, my soul hath joy in my son, because of that part of his seed which shall be taken unto God.

 26 Now behold, this was the language of Jacob.

 27 And now who knoweth but what the remnant of the seed of Joseph, which shall perish as his garment, are those who have dissented from us? Yea, and even it shall be ourselves if we do not stand fast in the faith of Christ.

 28 And now it came to pass that when Moroni had said these words he went forth, and also sent forth in all the parts of the land where there were dissensions, and gathered together all the people who were desirous to maintain their liberty, to stand against Amalickiah and those who had dissented, who were called Amalickiahites.

 29 And it came to pass that when Amalickiah saw that the people of Moroni were more numerous than the Amalickiahites—and he also saw that his people were doubtful concerning the justice of the cause in which they had undertaken—therefore, fearing that he should not gain the point, he took those of his people who would and departed into the land of Nephi.

 30 Now Moroni thought it was not expedient that the Lamanites should have any more strength; therefore he thought to cut off the people of Amalickiah, or to take them and bring them back, and put Amalickiah to death; yea, for he knew that he would stir up the Lamanites to anger against them, and cause them to come to battle against them; and this he knew that Amalickiah would do that he might obtain his purposes.

This is the situation that faithful LDS members take to hijack days like Memorial Day.  The day the United States of America, established in 1776, honors fallen soldiers who fought and died for our democracy.  A democracy established, wisely, with a strong sense of autonomy from religion. They knew, from the close proximity of European upheavals, that their democracy would last with a foundation built on religious freedom, even if that meant some wanted no God at all. Normal people will look at the above story and have a hard time putting the two together. 

One big piece of this overall story that is missing is the fact that Mormons take everything in the Book of Mormon literally.  A small family literally built a boat they made from handmade tools, crossed the ocean and established at least one strain of American Indians (there were actually some already here, but they killed themselves off to the very last dude after the tower of Babel).  From this one family we come to learn that God favors this land as long as righteousness is present.  That is somehow the connection.  After Joseph Smith failed, then later Brigham Young failed at establishing theocracies, and from a few select quotes favoring this country's Independence and Constitution as coming from God himself, the LDS community has adopted it as a divine substitute until they can ultimately establish a theocracy in this land.

It is completely fine to think this way, but don't hijack days like Memorial Day and July 4th for your own purposes.  Give those men and women who sacrificed everything their day.  Honor those people who have no idea who the crap Moroni from the Book of Mormon is.

People or Profit?

 I wrote some thoughts down that have been on my mind lately.  As with most people, I imagine many thoughts are strung together and interweave and connect fluidly within the mind, but trying to articulate their connection verbally or in writing is a bigger task. One of the most common themes I get in feedback is regarding not leaving religion and those who choose to participate in it, alone.  It is usually a simple, Why? Why can't you just let people believe what they want to believe?  Well that was my first response after leaving.  I just wanted to put it behind me and live my life.  After becoming engaged in various support groups and continuing my education regarding faith systems and my own evolving process, I conclude more and more that religion is destructive.  It has proven to be destructive throughout time.  You may consider this as just my opinion.  

I may be repeating some previous thoughts here...

The crack in the foundation for me that led to the fall or whatever analogy you want to formulate, was the biggest picture I could imagine: God. A supreme being that willed everything present before me today.  From there, we are led to scripture, prayer and a moral compass - from the religious point of view.  So I started with God.  With the personal experience and the information I had gathered regarding the world then and now, and what I have been told about the future, and what I have been told regarding what religion provides people, I concluded there was no God.  It was a soft conclusion.  I actually concluded that we didn't know.  We couldn't possibly know because the God that all humans came up with was unfulfilling and irrelevant to what was important to me: being a responsible, loving human being, owning who I am, being authentic and enjoying life without shame.

This thought that humans came up with God because God defined was rather useless to me started evolving.  I looked at everything in this context.  If your religion says God wants this or that, or even that it wills this or that, what is the overall outcome?  Are the followers better for it?  Time and time again I find that adherents to any type of dogma are being controlled.  There are obviously different levels of control, but this is immediately where we begin to have problems about God.  Religions want God to be capable of the whole spectrum of human emotion and possibly more.  It can be perfectly loving or perfectly angry.  Granted, anger is healthy, and religion has always touted God's anger coming from its love.  

Yet there is always plasticity assigned.  How does one know whether God is happy with me or not? Well since religion loses its relevance when they don't have power over you, God is happy with you when you obey religion, since religion speaks for God.  Free will is also touted by religion as coming from God to all humans.  I have the freedom to make choices. What makes the free will of a believer different than the free will of an atheist? Control.  Believers have additional consequences with associated shame attached.  

I have noticed some strong evidence that certain organized religions are not conducive to deep human connections.  Some religions even publicly claim that 'family' is one of their top priorities when in reality, those relationships are only important under the prerequisite of control.  If a family member refuses to be controlled, then directly or indirectly, the controlled, related loved ones are encouraged to distance themselves.  This is true whether one sees it or not.  It is deeply embedded in the cultural rhetoric found in the everyday lives of religious adherents.  Below are the different aspects in life where I see blatant disregard for relationships.  Connecting to another human becomes more and more important to me and it is quite maddening and saddening to see big organizations that pound the pulpit with messages of love, but subvert relationships on every level.

Interfaith relationships: The believing spouse is told in no uncertain terms by their priesthood leaders that their faith comes first.  It can only truly work if there is hope the non-LDS spouse will be brought into the fold.

Sex education: Without regard to their specific situation, the church not only teaches but enforces only abstinence. Abstinence from masturbation/sex and shame for any curiosity about one’s sexuality.  This shame and suppression leads to withdrawal from loved ones, as self-worth is significantly hindered. When a believer does have sex outside of marriage, or even outside of the temple, they are also treated differently.  If a believer gets pregnant outside of marriage, abortion is sinful, so they force the woman to have the child and then give it up for adoption through the church, which often puts the baby in the home of another LDS family, with the biological parents having little if any input.

Empathy and ethnocentrism: The church creates a culture where the faithful are encouraged to reach out and serve primarily their own.  Not very often do they organize service outside of the ‘faithful,’ and when they do, it isn’t anything but superficial charity (i.e., donating to an organization or giving your time or energy to something where the humans being impacted are behind the scenes).

Victim blaming: When a faithful individual goes to their priesthood leader with a legitimate issue or claim regarding another faithful member of the congregation, it is often dismissed out of hand and the ‘issue’ is then turned around onto the victim.  This damages relationships in that person’s family and friends, as they are now labeled and treated differently. This also damages the position and the trust the congregation is supposed to have in their leaders who represent not only the church, but is supposedly representing Christ. A current prime example is BYU rape culture where the victim is immediately investigated for breaking the honor code in lieu of taking any action or making any investigation into the perpetrator. A big aspect of victim blaming is making the victim feel alone and isolated in their victimhood. Power and control is more easily maintained this way.

LGBT policies: More popular, the LDS church recently came out with a small change to their LGBT policy that ultimately excludes children of gay parents from fully participating in church services.  Although I agree to a point with this policy, they shouldn’t make just those children the exception, they should broaden this policy to all children: they should not get baptized at the age of 8, no matter the status of their parents.  This suppresses a child’s natural instinct to love all family members who love them.

Patriarchy: The LDS culture also teaches the male population that they rule.  Females are subservient because the men hold the priesthood.  The inequity and inequality then shows its ugly head in every facet of their lives: marriage, dating, misogyny, even raising daughters differently than sons.

Feminism: Any woman who speaks out as either wanting to be equal or not putting up with the patriarchal system in general is considered apostate.  The men in her life are admonished to get her under control.

Critical thinking: anyone who asks ‘hard’ questions are dismissed out of hand.  Questions either get ignored or sidestepped and often made to look absurd or not legitimate by strawman or other types of logical fallacies.  Like the other situations, people close to the person asking questions are faced with the dilemma of choosing their relationship first or their faith.  Because the church frames this situation to make it easier on family and friends, the dilemma goes unnoticed, as they make you think you are looking out for their salvation, etc.

Abuse: Although it is exceptional and/or rare, abuse is subtly accepted to a degree. As previously referenced, victims’ claims will often be shrugged off, dismissed or turned around and placed on the victim.  This tells the perpetrator they are safe.  Often the leader that the victim goes to already knows about the perpetrator, and there may be an entire, working abuse system within that local community.  The rarity of these instances is stressed by the church, claiming “one bad apple…”, but it highlights the culture that is in place that puts humans second or third and the corporation first in priority.

Salvation-fixation: Because the emphasis is on the hereafter and how wonderful our joy will be if we ‘endure’ this life, believers will fixate on that goal and disregard their lives now (to differing levels or degrees).  They will tell themselves that their relationships will be made whole in the next life, if they are broken here. It often leads them to a ‘fuck it’ type attitude for mortality, if not a superficial attempt at a superficial relationship.  The church’s cultural rhetoric permeates every facet of life in this regard.  Enduring this life is the preemptive baseline with any struggle, and because of the anti-relationship vector they have established, all relationships tend to be naturally superficial in comparison to the ideal. 

The Mormon Mental Health Association - News/Events

The Mormon Mental Health Association - News/Events