Yes, We Can and Will Win!

We must hold ever more tightly to our testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Then we will win the daily battles against evil.

Before I get started I just want to point out that Ulisses is a brave man.  He uses no middle initial to make himself sound authoritative, and yet made it all the way to the presidency of the Seventy!

Second, I’m not sure who thought using Barack Obama’s “Yes, We Can” as the intro to a speech that, again; could be talking entirely about homosexual marraige (Which they lost), but I think it was in poor taste.  Not that people should never use “Yes, we Can” ever again, but it just seems cheap and trashy to work someone else’s slogan who is still known for that phrase, into a speech contrary to what that person’s beliefs are.  It would be like taking Spencer W. Kimball’s “Do It” and meshing it with sexual innuendo, awkward and not very couth.

President Thomas S. Monson once said:

Must we quote the living prophet?  It comes across as brown-nosing and scoring points rather than inspired.  Whatever.

The world can at times be a frightening place in which to live. The moral fabric of society seems to be unraveling at an alarming speed.

We’ve covered this before, but since they repeat it, let’s repeat as well, the world is a much, much better place.   Wars, rape, starvation, all are down.  Whatever could he mean?

None—whether young or old or in-between—is exempt from exposure to those things which have the potential to drag us down and destroy us. …

I’m guessing that he means Pornography here.  I mean, people certainly had more exposure to war, rape, and starvation before this period.  Let me remind everyone that believing that pornography is addicting is far more harmful than pornography.  I know, I know, that pesky science contradicting “the prophet” again.  Numbers, facts, statistics.  Such bothersome things when there is belief to be sold.

“… But we need not despair. … We are waging a war with sin. … It is a war we can and will win. Our Father in Heaven has given us the tools we need in order to do so.”¹

Let’s talk about this war for a second.  There are roughly 7 billion souls on this earth.  That means that there were at least 21 Billion souls in the pre-existence (This is rough numbers people, there have been about 7 billion throughout history and there are more people being born, it’s just an illustration of the numbers), and 7 billion of those followed Satan.  That means that for Adam and Eve, there were 3.5 Billion devils to tempt each one.  For Noah on the Ark, there were about a billion devils to tempt each person (and there weren’t even pigs for the devils to go into the bodies of, because everything was drowned except what was on the Ark). Today, there is only one devil per person.  Our modern life is actually less tempting, less dangerous, and less devils per capita than any time previous.

Maybe that’s why the world is a better place?

All of us, young and old, are faced daily with the war mentioned by President Monson. The enemy and his angels are trying to distract us.

And why do we have to call it war?  I’m opposed to calling it a “war on drugs” or a “war on Terror”.  Why does it always have to have the sharp imagery.  Why is it a “War in heaven” instead of the “Great eternal debate” still being discussed in our lives?  Instead of thinking of Angels with swords and devils assaulting youth on every side, we could talk in terms of philosophy and agency.  I mean, that was what the war in heaven was about, right; agency?  So we could couch it in terms of choices and decisions.  “The Great Decision”.   Let’s face it, God needs violent imagery to appeal to his base.  I’d rather be around people who will do good without threat and rhetoric, thank you.

The scriptures contain countless examples of those who have won their wars even in the midst of very hostile situations.

Again, the scriptures have a lot more of this, than the quiet examples of people doing good even when tempted not to.  War appeals to the people who read scriptures.

Figuratively, all of us need to transform ourselves into modern Captain Moronis in order to win the wars against evil.

Ah yes, well, why not.  I mean, it’s like setting the standard that everyone needs to be a George Washington in order to get to heaven.  It’s unreachable, because he was extraordinary, and yet feels tangible.  And when we fall short, we can blame ourselves to go through the guilt cycle again.

He told me one day he was surprised by a very difficult and uncomfortable situation—his friends were accessing pornographic images on their cell phones. In that exact moment, this young man had to decide what was most important—his popularity or his righteousness.

See, it’s all about pornography.  And yet, science tells us that this very idea, that “pornography is a great threat” is far more damaging to people than viewing a boob.

In the few seconds that followed, he was filled with courage and told his friends that what they were doing was not right. Moreover, he told them that they should stop what they were doing or they would become slaves to it.

And there you have it.  This kid pushed his friends more towards a damaging mindset because of his religion.  Far more damaging than the image itself.

Undoubtedly, he and his friend faced mockery and persecution because of that decision.

 

Oh and while we’re at it, if one tells others harmful meme’s and attempts to enforce their beliefs on others, if those others do not comply or make a statement back, then the one enforcing their beliefs on others is persecuted.  We see this with Kim Davis at the courthouse.  Some day, religious people need to get over themselves and understand that standing for truth doesn’t mean decrying other people’s choices, it means doing what they feel is right.

The war of good against evil will continue throughout our lives since the adversary’s purpose is to make all people as miserable as he is.

And yet, being miserable in church, or in the temple is never used as an example of an accurate measurement that the devil was there.  To suggest such a thing is shocking to any member.  And yet, some people genuinely are miserable in church, in the temple, or being around people who enforce their beliefs on others.  This is just rhetoric to try to bolster those who  try to enforce their religion on others.

Please stop.  Stop with war rhetoric.  Stop with implying that you are better than everyone else if you are part of the church.  Stop with encouraging your members to smack down their friends and relations.  Stop with calling the world wicked, evil and getting worse all the time.

For a group that claims to have good news and to be about families and an eternal perspective, you spend a ton of time dwelling on the awful state of everyone else.

The Greatest Generation of Young Adults

What we need now is the greatest generation of young adults in the history of the Church. We need your whole heart and soul.

Pandering.  Flattery.  And what do they ask in exchange for the flattery, that’s right, he asks for their whole heart and soul.  There is no clearer definition of a cult, than the introduction to this talk.  Find young people, malleable people, get their trust, and flatter them for exact obedience and giving over of their free will to you.

During the October 2002 general priesthood meeting, I challenged bishops, parents, and prospective missionaries to “raise the bar” for full-time missionary service.

Here’s the problem, this is measurable.  Not what the bar was raised to, heaven only knows what that means, but rather whether raising the bar was effective.  Similarly there was a pure increase in number of missionaries during the age drop.  The impact of both raising the bar and increasing raw numbers is measurable and the measurements aren’t good:

Data and analysis provided by: http://cumorah.com/index.php?target=view_other_articles&story_id=516&cat_id=30

Not exactly stunning is it?  That’s a pretty flat graph there at the end.  I doubt you could even tell when the “raise the bar” edict was given, or when the surge occurred.  Nevertheless, the Deseret news reported a success, because the missionaries themselves were affected.  Got that?  Again the goal is to “convert” the missionary, or another way of saying that is to “Have members spend a predominant amount of time in conversion activity” and that the primary focus is the convincing of the teacher.  These are indicators on the BITE model of defining a cult.

“… We need your whole heart and soul. We need vibrant, thinking, passionate missionaries who know how to listen to and respond to the whisperings of the Holy Spirit.”¹

I know this is crazy, but what if the “whisperings of the spirit” are no different than what other cults use to motivate their members?  For example

If you jump to 5 m 28s, you’ll hear a woman bear testimony that she is a plural wife, and it is true, then a muslim, and others from other faiths.

In many ways the world today is more challenging than it was 13 years ago. Our young men and young women have many more distractions to sidetrack them in their preparations for both a mission and a future happy life. Technology has expanded, and almost everyone has access to handheld devices that can capture the attention of the human family of God for both great good and unconscionable ill.

Everything Good is of the Church, and everything that could distract you from the Church is evil.  We’re back to the BITE model of cults.

In the early days of the Church, missionaries were interviewed by a General Authority before they went on their missions.

This is left ambiguous for a reason.  Joseph Smith Jr. did no such thing, nor did Brigham Young.  Joseph F. Smith was sent on a mission to avoid the law, for example after he hit a constable.  But whatever, “early days” I guess could be 1905.

These days you are interviewed to serve as missionaries by your bishops and stake presidents, and most of you will go through your entire lives without being interviewed by a General Authority.

A gentle reminder of how impersonal the religion has become.

That is simply a reflection of the reality in a worldwide church of more than 15 million members.

The 15 million here is used to brag.  Approximately 5 million are active, but the real number that matters is the 80,000 missionaries for only 200 or so General Authorities.  For each GA to meet with a missionary, they would need to meet about 1 a day, and that would leave very little time for managing real-estate investments, Elk Ranches, and shopping malls.  Or they’d have to pay for more men to be General Authorities.  Ya know, have seventies devoted specifically to missionary interviews.  Crazy idea, huh?

Your photograph comes up on a computer screen, together with key information provided by your bishop and stake president. When your picture appears, we look into your eyes and review your answers to the missionary recommendation questions. For that brief moment, it seems as if you are present and responding to us directly.

This is partially true.  In fact, there is a white list of missionaries who are pre-assigned.  They are never reviewed, but assigned by computer.  There is a list of missionaries who are flagged as needing a human to review them.  These missionaries go through the process outlined above.  People with medical conditions, or missions that have a special need, or individuals who have a particular trait are identified and hand selected.

Source:  Someone who helped build the computer system.

No, it isn’t the same as a personal, face-to-face interview. But it’s close.

No, it isn’t close.  It isn’t even in the same category.  Imagine you applied for a job, and when you applied you found out that you were hired as the janitor because the HR person looked at your picture and decided what job was best for you.  If you are female you might feel like some sexism could have occurred.  If you are black, native american or have a disfigured face, you might think that human prejudice would be sufficient to levee a lawsuit.

I wonder if anyone has looked into if the “Spirit” places non-white people in less desirable missions more frequently than white females who are attractive.  I wonder if there is a gender/racial lawsuit waiting to happen by this “near interview” method of selecting people.  In the 50’s, this had a name, it was “Discrimination”.

In fact, we see it even on resumes with the exact same qualifications just by the name at the top of the resume.  The LDS method, if non-discriminatory, would be something to parade about and really shout from the rooftops.  However, if it actually was laden with discrimination, it would be a heavy blow to the idea of inspiration.  I wonder if anyone will ever attempt to measure it.

Conclusion

The religion gets a lot more cult-like for missionaries.  It is stated that the organisation wants their hearts and souls blatantly.  Increases in “the bar” or numbers did not impact conversion rates. Member should understand that when they send their children off on missions, they are sending them into a cult-programming program and the church openly admits that.  Nevertheless this machine for turning thinking high-schoolers into devoted salespeople of the corporation doesn’t even warrant having dedicated General Authorities to make it a little more human.

Shameful.

We’re going to take a break from the “All General Conference Talks” but hold to “All General Authority” talks that are significant for today.  Thanks to user latterdayskeptic at Reddit for capturing the audio and transcribing this portion of Dallin H. Oaks’ talk:

You see these men who have been called by the Lord and their lives are an open book. Their motives and their experiences are transparent to you. You know over a period of time, you sustain them in their callings, you know where they came from, what they’ve done in their life. Look at these men. She was motioning to her husband and others similarly situated. She said, now, will you choose to believe them or are you going to choose to believe somebody that went on television and made a comment or somebody that recorded something in the internet anonymously. You don’t even know. Who do you choose to believe? These that you know, whose credentials and motives and experiences are transparent or some anonymous figure on the internet or somebody whose motive you don’t understand.You don’t know the background. [Possibly incorrect transcription here: 13:30] Now she, her husband, and I have both been educated as lawyers. One thing a lawyer has to know is that if somebody tells you something you’ve got to examine the possibility of bias or intent that causes them to say something that is not true. We have had that kind of experience. And so I share with you, brothers and sisters, especially with my young brothers and sisters, look for the possibility of bias, look for the possibility of evil motive, look for the possibility of stupidity because some people preach and wax eloquent about things that they don’t know anything about, and that is another part of my experience [don’t understand, 14:18] with that talk. [audience laughs]

I’ve included some very relevant links for each of the things he said, I could have included more on the deceitful motives from links to the church buying up 2% of Florida, to bailing out businesses with tithing funds, or missing accounting for funds,

We could talk about their prior careers and how they could never have made as much money or have as much status there as they do in their current positions.  We could discuss the total lack of accountability for these men

This entire talk is an appeal to authority.  We know so very little about the apostles, but one feels like they know them from seeing them on TV.  How many children does Elder Ballard have?  What kind of Surgery did Gordon B. Hinkley’s Great Grand daughter have? What is the number one expenditure of Russel M. Nelson?  What is his favorite drink at a party?  Which is the one and only Seventy who does not fly first class?

We feel like we know them, but we do not.  This is con-artistry, pure and simple.  The art of making you Confident (hence the “Con” root in “con-artistry”)  in someone you should be questioning.

As soon as the church releases its financials since 1959 for public review, then maybe he might have a leg to stand on to say that we know their motives.  Until that day; all we know is that they take money and are secretive about it.

The link to the audio is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3ltbht/oaks_look_for_the_possibility_of_bias_me_how_much/

The Lord Is My Light

Our ability to stand firm and true and follow the Savior despite the vicissitudes of life is greatly strengthened by righteous families and Christ-centered unity in our wards and branches.

Especially if those changes of fortune (What a vicissitude is) come from the CPA of your hospital giving all the money to a private shell corporation so that your level of care is greatly diminished, eh?

The clamor that reverberates across the earth because of worldly wickedness creates feelings of vulnerability.

“Worldly Wickedness” is such an interesting choice of words.  Is there such a thing as “Heavenly Wickedness”?  I think most people would answer “of course not”, so then we can look at the Mountain Meadows Massacre, or Joseph Smith removing consent from relationships with women around him and quickly call that “worldly wickedness”, as murder of innocents and non-consensual relationships cannot be called anything but wickedness.  “Worldly Wickedness” is meant to claim everything done that is bad outside the church while at the same time implying everything inside the church is just fine.

With modern communication the impact of iniquity, inequality, and injustice leaves many feeling that life is inherently unfair.

Another fascinating line, as without modern communication I’m pretty sure that Hobbes still wrote that life was “nasty, brutish and short”.  I think he means that modern news outlets paint the world bleaker than it actually is, but that’s not what he said.

As significant as these trials can be, they must not distract us from rejoicing in and celebrating Christ’s supernal intercession in our behalf.

Eat, drink and be merry; for tomorrow, when we die it’ll be just fine because God.

Seriously though, this is a pretty good Easter talk for any Christian faith.  It is filled with hope, it focuses on Christ, it gives a nod to his wife and finding hope in unexpected and dreary places.  He seamlessly flows into a sweet story about family and faith.  His Jab at Ordain Women was so subtle it could be easily overlooked or missed

Husbands and wives are equal partners.¹³ They have different but complementary responsibilities. The wife may bear children, which blesses the entire family. The husband may receive the priesthood, which blesses the entire family. But in family council, wives and husbands, as equal partners, make the most important decisions.

He cites the handbook a number of times as though it were doctrine, moving Christ and Family to be all about the church:

“The Church provides the organization and means for teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to all of God’s children. It provides the priesthood authority to administer the ordinances of salvation and exaltation to all who are worthy and willing to accept them.”¹⁵

An interesting move from a doctrinal standpoint, but he stays well in safe zones of what the handbook says without touching controversial points.

In the world there is rampant contention and iniquity and a major emphasis on divergent cultures and inequality. In the Church, except for language units, our wards and branches are geographical. We don’t divide by class or rank.¹⁶ …Cultures often divide people and are sometimes a source of violence and discrimination.¹⁷

This is a fascinating statement, it makes it sound like culture is separate from church; and that the LDS church surpasses class and division.  The errors in the world come from people having “culture”, a statement I’ve never heard expressed that way before.  It ignores those who are “cultural mormons” and I would argue removes the often used excuse “The Church is true, the people are flawed” as here the people in the church are held up as classless, non-divided entities of perfect harmony.  One need only visit any ward or branch in the world and become friends with a relief society president to know this is not true.

But it also ignores a selection bias or two.  Missionaries almost always have success among the middle class in whatever country they are in.  The message itself speaks primarily to family-oriented individuals who have enough discretionary income to give 10% to the organization.  The anti-abortion and sexual fidelity stances of the church appeal to a more morally conservative group.  One of the reasons there are not more divisions of culture in the church is that it weeds out other cultures.

Further, the church just excommunicated a set of people who held a different culture.  You can’t honestly say there are no divisions in the church, if you just divided groups of people who don’t think like you.  That is the very definition of “division”.  And it was “in the church” until those people were thrown out.

Without the context of the contemporary events this talk is a decent Easter talk taking Christ’s sacrifice and using it to bolster family and church-first focus.  But with context, it becomes clear that this is a manipulation of telling anyone who believed that John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, Rock Waterman, or Denver Snuffer had a point, that they are in danger of losing family and ultimately rejecting Christ if they don’t comply.  It eliminates differences of opinion and sets any kind of individual thought as a “worldy culture” and equates worldliness with wickedness; while ignoring church-led crimes.  It is a 1984-style talk to bring compliance out of the membership and crush individuals who think differently.

And that’s a pretty awful way to use Easter celebration.

Truly Good and without Guile

The good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ is that the desires of our hearts can be transformed and our motives can be educated and refined.

I thought it was an account describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth which comes from the Greek euangelion, or “good news” and implies the good news of the Kingdom of heaven returning, but that’s what I get for trusting Wikipedia, I guess.

Unfortunately, there was a time in my life when I was motivated by titles and authority.

That’s an awkward phrase coming from a man with a title, speaking from a podium as though he had authority, and having his talk run through a committee before he can share it (bowing to authority and people with titles).

As I was preparing to serve a full-time mission, my older brother was made a zone leader in his mission. I heard so many positive things said about him that I couldn’t help but want those things said about me. I hoped for and may have even prayed for a similar position.

Ah yes, confusing “position” with “being a good person”.  It happens on missions, doesn’t it?

“Over the course of my life, I have had the opportunity to rub shoulders with some of the most competent and intelligent men and women this world has to offer. When I was younger, I was impressed by those who were educated, accomplished, successful, and applauded by the world. But over the years, I have come to the realization that I am far more impressed by those wonderful and blessed souls who are truly good and without guile.”¹

Did he just “name drop”, quoting President Uchtdorf as an authority on who we should be impressed by?  Also note that the title of his talk is not a quote from the scriptures, but from Dieter.  That’s called “brown-nosing”, Dale.  It kinda goes with still caring about who has authority and what their position is.

Continue reading →

The Music of the Gospel

The music of the gospel is the joyful spiritual feeling that comes from the Holy Ghost. It brings a change of heart.

I love the anecdotal story of the doctor and the medicine man and dancing.  The conclusion, I think is poignant:

Then the doctor asked, “Could you teach me to dance?”

The old man’s response has for many years caused me much reflection. “I can teach you to dance,” he said, “but you have to hear the music.”

I think a lot of the talks at the April 2015 General Conference about marriage and family as rebuttals to the Homosexual Marriage issue could be summed up as old men, unwilling to hear the other side’s music.  It’s a great metaphor for not just going through the motions, but actually comprehending the depth of the action.

I’ve been engaged in martial arts for a number of years.  When one learns martial arts, one first learns the rough motions, then learns to make them smoother, but at some point the hum and rhythm of what one is doing snaps and one can “hear the music” of the move.  I’ve learned enough to know that this happens over and over again as one learns more martial arts.  Moments of sudden deeper realization of the underlying intent of moves are astounding and important.  I think this concept is incredibly important and I’m happy to hear it in General Conference.

So often LDS leaders encourage individuals to just go through the motions or try to discourage a deeper understanding by asking “Is that pertinent to your salvation?” on questions  people have.  These thought-stopping actions prevent people from “hearing the music” to the dance.

The other thing that is relevant with martial arts is trust of the teacher.  If you trust the Sifu, Lao Sher, or Master then one can get to hear the music.  If teachers are not trusted, one is not going to be able to hear the music even if it is there.  Many of the questions people have involve trust of leadership in the church and that is very pertinent to hearing the music.  If your Kung Fu or Karate teacher is molesting female students, you may not want to “hear” his or her music.

In section 8 of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord taught Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, “Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart” (verse 2).

The issue with this idea of being “music for a dance” is that this same set of instructions can be shown to convince people of things that are not true.

The dance steps of the gospel are the things we do; the music of the gospel is the joyful spiritual feeling that comes from the Holy Ghost.

Is it?  Can we prove that the Holy Ghost is responsible for “the music”?  For example, if a person who truly believes feels they should kill a person, would we accept that they were guided by the “music of the Gospel”?  Nephi did in cutting off Laban’s head, but so did Ron and Dan Lafferty (Under the Banner of Heaven).  Was it different music?

When Apostles publish talks that are filled with logical fallacies or bigotted comments about race or sexual orientation, is that the “Music of the Gospel”? Many talks discuss how hard it is to tell emotional impact from the Holy Ghost, so how can one be sure?

And what about HeartSell(TM), the method the LDS church trademarked for manipulating individuals emotions that it was selling to other churches.   You might notice that link goes to an Archive.org page, because after I published about Heartsell(TM) on this blog and on Reddit, the page was edited to its current version removing much of the questionable content.

If your church has a method to sell you false music, and they will sell it to other churches, it’s going to be hard to trust the leadership enough to not just go through the motions.  The LDS faith needs to commit to not playing the notes on the organ at the conference center that cannot be heard, only felt.  They need to remove the use of subliminal messaging in their videos. They need to be honest about the impact of telling a lie frequently to one’s self and how that can impact a testimony.

Otherwise, one could very well never “hear the music” of the gospel or perhaps, hear a different music that might push one away from the LDS Church that was true music unimpacted by deceptive music imposed upon members.

Why Marriage and Family Matter—Everywhere in the World

Family is the center of life and is the key to eternal happiness.

This is perhaps a bit more touchy as this is kinda the final words of L. Tom Perry, and overall, I liked him pretty well.  I only met him a couple of times in real life, but overall, he was the “Grandpa” of the quorum.  Less racial and bigoted language from him than others. But, this talk has some real issues.

Here’s the problem, you can’t (TM) family.  The LDS church doesn’t own the concept of families.

I had the privilege of being invited—along with President Henry B. Eyring and Bishop Gérald Caussé—to attend a colloquium on marriage and family at the Vatican in Rome, Italy. In attendance were religious representatives from 14 different faiths and from six of the seven continents, all of whom had been invited to express their beliefs on what is happening to the family in today’s world.

That’s cool.  I mean, getting together with religious big-wigs and talking about families.  That’s cool.  I’m sure they talked about starving families, imigration and how deportation impacts families, and divorce and how to support single parent families via government and religious supports.  Things like time off for fathers when babies are born, and better day care for working women, right?

“We now live in a culture of the temporary, in which more and more people are simply giving up on marriage as a public commitment. This revolution in manners and morals has often flown the flag of freedom, but in fact it has brought spiritual and material devastation to countless human beings, especially the poorest and most vulnerable. … It is always they who suffer the most in this crisis.”¹

Okay so… divorce is bad.  Um.  What else did you guys talk about?

This was followed by three days of presentation and discussion with religious leaders addressing the subject of marriage between a man and a woman.

Wait wait wait… it’s just a smack-talk session on homosexuailty and divorce?

I heard them agree completely with each other and express support for one another’s beliefs on the sanctity of the institution of marriage and of the importance of families as the basic unit of society. I felt a powerful sense of commonality and unity with them.

Ah yeah, it’s so good to have a community of like-minded individuals who agree with your thought.  One of those things that non-straight, non-white, non-male individuals fight for.  You know, one of those things single-mothers are commonly denied when they are shamed from communities.  Or that homosexual men desire when they go to priesthood session and instead are told they are evil, corrupt, and need to repent.

One of my favorites was when a Muslim scholar from Iran quoted two paragraphs verbatim from our very own proclamation on the family.

No mention that the Koran says that murdering a husband or wife who commits infidelity or that this kind of punishment is frequently meted out in the Arab section of the world.  I mean, I’m glad that the Muslim quoted the proclamation on the family but if he’s trying to say that all religions on earth agree with the current Mormon concept on family, that’s kinda deceptive.

It was remarkable for me to see how marriage and family-centered priorities cut across and superseded any political, economic, or religious differences.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and state that this is because the people who had political, economic and religious differences about families weren’t invited.  Unitarian Universalists?  Atheists?  How about the religious heads, how many of them counted as “poor” or made less than $40,000 a year?  How many pro-choice heads of religion were there?  How many women?

Yup, if you’re all straight, male and the top of your culture, you have a lot in common in how you think other people should live.  No surprises there.

President Henry B. Eyring gave a final testimony at the colloquium. He bore powerful witness to the beauty of a committed marriage and to our belief in the promised blessing of eternal families.

I wonder if every other religious leader picked up on that what Eyering meant “Eternal families only if they all converted to LDS Mormonism and had temple rites performed for them even if that was after death”.  To the Jewish leaders, this is considered necromancy (Called necro-dunking), and is blasphemous and worthy of death.  To the Catholics, there are no marriage or family after this life as we become a sort of “Singularity” with god.  I’m thinking that L. Tom missed the differences that others were sharply aware of, because he was a little fish in a big pond trying to fit in.

“If the majority felt that similarity of family priority and beliefs, if all of those faiths and religions essentially agreed on what marriage should be, and if they all agreed on the value that should be placed on homes and family relationships, then how are we any different? How does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints distinguish and differentiate itself from the rest of the world?”

only we have the eternal perspective of the restored gospel.

And there we go; we’re back to the “We’re just so much more special and better than everyone else because they don’t understand eternal families!”  And yet most religions do believe that families continue after this life.  It is really only the Joseph Smith Jr. derived faiths that state that might not be the case anymore (Even the catholic singularity with god idea admits that families are still together forever).

The entire theology of our restored gospel centers on families and on the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.

And holding them hostage if you don’t obey.  Don’t pay tithing, you won’t see your daughter get married.  Don’t obey the word of wisdom, public shame when someone else names your baby.  Don’t comply with leadership and speak up too much, it would be a real shame if your family learned you were excommunicated, wouldn’t it.

It is because of our belief that marriages and families are eternal that we, as a church, want to be a leader and a participant in worldwide movements to strengthen them.

But only if those families meet our definition.  We’d never want to strengthen a Gay-couple marriage.

No one has ever come up with a more efficient way to raise the next generation than a household of married parents with children.

Maybe not, but just because others are EQUAL in effectiveness doesn’t mean they should be ignored.  And even in less-than-perfect scenarios, that doesn’t justify this kind of down-putting of those.  Single-dads who strive to bring their kids up well, single-mothers like Heber J. Grant’s mother who worked day and night to support his son, and grandparents who raise children whose parents died in accidents shouldn’t be discarded or put down like this statement implies when they are doing the best with the realities they face.

Public opinion polls show that marriage is still the ideal and the hope among the majority of every age group—even among the millennial generation

Even among homosexuals.  Why shouldn’t they be given the same chances for that hope and dream for life?

“People are not better off when they are given maximum personal freedom to do what they want. They’re better off when they are enshrouded in commitments that transcend personal choice—commitments to family, God, craft and country.”⁴

This is a quote from David Brooks in the NYT.  Just a paragraph or two down he says:

But the two-parent family is obviously not the only way people bind themselves. We are inevitably entering a world in which more people search for different ways to attach. Before jumping to the conclusion that the world is going to hell, it’s probably a good idea to investigate these emerging commitment devices.

L. Tom, did you read that article?  Did you read down a bit before you quoted it to realize that what he was really saying is that we should adjust to the new world and not cling to the old one?  Maybe Gay families aren’t the end of the definition of family, but we should broaden the definition?  No?

One problem is that much of the media and entertainment that the world shares does not reflect the priorities and values of the majority. For whatever reasons, too much of our television, movies, music, and Internet present a classic case of a minority masquerading as a majority

“Damn liberal media” sentiment is now doctrine said at General Conference by Apostle.  It’s not that gays are under-represented in actual life, it’s that Hollywood is overrepresenting 1% of the world’s population.  They also allowed female actors to talk about something other than a man about 6-12% of the time which is SO overblown compared to real life.

In such a media and Internet-dominated world, it has never been harder to raise responsible children and to keep marriages and families together.

How about when the Roman empire was enslaving countries they conquested?  How about in Somalia where media and the internet are not the threats but local warlords drafting children to fight for them is more a concern?  How about for Africans brought across the ocean to America in the 1800’s?  No, it is white suburban families who possess the internet that are most threatened.  Okay.

the solid majority of mankind still believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

 

And when that turns, when the majority doesn’t think that anymore, would you go with it and urge your listeners to do so as well, or would you play the “persecuted minority” card? What the majority believes doesn’t matter at all.  Slavery was always wrong even if a majority wanted to bring it back.  Rape is wrong, even if a majority of people say it should be legal.  Appealing to the majority isn’t exactly a strong position.

We need to remind ourselves once in a while, as I was reminded in Rome, of the wonderfully reassuring and comforting fact that marriage and family are still the aspiration and ideal of most people and that we are not alone in those beliefs.

 

Funny thing, Mr. Perry, I remember another talk about marriage and family and Rome given by a general Authority like yourself who didn’t exactly agree with the majority or the definition of family, you; yourself, are putting forward:

“Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout all Christendom, and which has been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious.”

– Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 11, p. 128

Preach My Gospel—the Unifying Tool between Members and Missionaries

Missionaries and members must … become one in our efforts to proclaim the gospel.

This sales pitch, clearly drafted by the marketing department, run through the correlation committee and handed off to a Seventy to sell members on a program of the church, was crafted to support the missionary program’s new book “Preach my Gospel”.  It starts with his personal testimony of the techniques in the book.

…we immediately recognized it as a scripture study exercise suggested inPreach My Gospel. As a family, we are so thankful for this great and powerful missionary tool.

After the Book of Mormon Warehouse logistics issue of Benson’s day, I can’t help but wonder if they church over published the Preach My Gospel books as well and is foisting them on the members

For the past three years missionaries have been usingPreach My Gospel all around the world. It has truly revolutionized missionary work. The great vision of President Hinckley is being fulfilled: Missionaries “master the concepts of the lessons.” They “teach the concepts in their own words under the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit” (see “Missionary Service,”Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting, Jan. 11, 2003, 19).

But that’s really a side note. I want to focus on the phrase “Preach my Gospel”.  You see that phrase is found in two places, the Book of Mark and in Mormon 9: 22-24.  In other places preaching the gospel is mentioned, but he particular phrase “preach my Gospel [to every creature]” is only stated in these two locations (it is also in the D&C but as a reinteration of the former two locations).

Now first, it is a little odd that Mormon would know what Jesus said to his disciples in Jerusalem word-for-word from the King James version of the bible.  I mean, it’s possible that He said the same thing in North America and that the exact phrasing was maintained for hundreds of years to Mormon in the exact grammar and punctuation as the Greek-to-English translation of the bible would have…

But the problem really comes when we find out that Jesus never said that phrase.  The Book of Mark actually stops several verses earlier at verse 8

Got that?  And this isn’t some random minister who is saying this.  No, this is how most of the world accepts the Book of Mark.  The Bible Gateway discusses it, Wikipedia goes into detail that there was a shorter ending and a longer ending and where one can find these endings and what the oldest documents are.  But there isn’t really a debate that these verses were tacked on as all evidence points to these verses being added after the fact.

Now the apologist may reach out and say “Well, maybe the scribes knew what Jesus said”, but that is an extraordinary claim and should require extraordinary evidence.  Further, that these verses were cannon was declared at the Canon of Trent in 1546; which means that the apostasy and fallen Catholic church was somehow inspired to include these scriptures.  That’s a tall order for a Mormon who believes the church was fallen ever since 300 A.D. (give or take a bit) to claim.  Martin Luther used Mark 16:16 as the basis for a doctrine in his Shorter Catechism, and it was included in the King James Version, so Mormons are not alone in assuming these verses of scripture are real when they were a later addition.

But the implications for the LDS are quite a bit more staggering.  Now, finding these verses in Mormon 9, we should seriously ask ourselves which is more likely, that verses added to scripture hundreds of years after the fact were accurate, or that Joseph was willing to plagiarize a bit of the New Testament?

The very tool of members and missionaries to convert people to the LDS branch of Mormonism is, in fact, based on false verses of scripture.  One could even say that if the scribes did add them to complete the story as Bart Erhtman describes above, it is the philosophies of those men, mingled with scripture that was chosen to be the basis for the new Missionary program.

I’m sure no members have any trouble with that because, after all, a sales pitch that you should go buy anyting in this world with your money to help encourage the teaching of people the philosophies of men mingled with scripture is perfectly fine.

The Parable of the Sower

It is up to each of us to set the priorities and to do the things that make our soil good and our harvest plentiful.

I really like the parable of the sower.  I’ve found it useful in many settings, but my take currently is a lot different than what is typically expressed in Mormon Culture, which is echoed in this talk.

What I’ve learned is that no matter how good of a teacher you are, not everyone is going to listen.  There are people who have difficult things in their lives, or who are unprepared to hear whatever you are teaching.  Don’t feel like a failed teacher simply because not everyone listened, but cultivate those who seem to “get it”.  However, be aware that even a portion of them aren’t really getting it, but you’ll only really see that after they’ve had a chance to “grow” based on what was taught.

The Mormon Culture version, instead, views this as a failing of the listener.  It is our duty to make ourselves “Good Ground”.  The introductory quote not only declares that we should make our ground into good ground, but also that we are responsible for our harvests. Continue reading →

The Comforter

I give my witness that the living Christ sends the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, to those we are pledged to help Him comfort

Overall this talk isn’t bad.  It’s meant to comfort those who need comfort, and mourn with those who mourn.  It’s the purpose of religion to deal with life’s hard questions and to cope with things.  Some individuals view this as a crutch, but even if it is, sometimes crutches are necessary.

Many are praying to Heavenly Father for relief, for help in carrying their burdens of grief, loneliness, and fear. Heavenly Father hears those prayers and understands their needs. He and His Beloved Son, the resurrected Jesus Christ, have promised help.

If the religion centered around this concept, rather than lists of do’s and don’ts and judgemental, false concepts as we’ve seen in other talks, I don’t think many people would take issue with it.

A great change began in your heart when you came into the Church. You made a covenant, and you received a promise that began changing your very nature.

We were so close.  We were just discussing comfort and God carring, and we’re back to “Mormons are more special than other people”.  Not just Mormons, but LDS members only.  This is the problem.  Why does it have to be that LDS people are more special than others, even in being comforted?

That is why you have a feeling to want to help a person struggling to move forward under a load of grief and difficulty.

We’ve moved into dickhead land.  No, being a member of the church is not why you want to help a person who grieves.  That’s human.  That’s part of the natural man.  It’s not unique to members of the church, nor do church members get an added measure of empathy.  Anyone who claims otherwise, I’d love to see your numbers and evidence for the claim.

Recently three generations of a family were grieving at the death of a five-year-old boy. He died accidentally while with his family on a vacation… I watched the way the Lord made their great burden lighter.

Here is the thing, this is his family, and his story, and he is testifying what he witnessed. He’s allowed to do that.  But there is not evidence that God comes down for some individuals and not others.  And there is no explanation why God didn’t lift the burden by not having the boy die.

It’s a fair thing for him to say, but for the people who are crossing out of Syria, trying to find refuge in any place that will take them, having lost everything, including, typically, multiple family members, this talk of comfort must sound very dickish… “My God comforts us over accidents, while yours lets you suffer!  If only you followed my God you’d feel comfort”.

Death sucks.  It sucks for everyone.  Thinking that there is an eternity, that’s nice, and comforting, but it’s a claim that exists in all religions.  No this is claiming that “LDS Mormons get more comfort than everyone else, because God really does help them more”. And with the suffering in the world, the talk goes from “We should comfort everyone because that’s human” to “We are more special-er than everyone else”.

Which is a pity because it started out on such a nice premise.