Confuse The Righteous

Thoughts on Justice vs. Mercy

If anyone sits down and really thinks about justice and mercy as it pertains to God, there are really only two mutually exclusive options, both of which are supported and also contradicted by scripture and other sources:

1) God serves out eternal punishments and rewards for finite, and sometimes petty and arbitrary acts. This view of god is fundamentally incompatible on a deep level with a reasonable understanding of justice and mercy. Even if it is claimed that this god is merciful and/or just, his actions prove otherwise if you dig deep enough.

2) God is loving, just, and merciful, and has worked everything out so that his beloved children will learn what they need to learn and come back to him eventually. All those unjust things in the scriptures were misunderstandings, Just sit back and relax, man.

In my experience, monotheistic religions always tend to lay somewhere on this spectrum, from fundamentalists who believe the smallest un-repented unclean thought will doom you to an eternity of unimaginable torture, to the free-wheeling feel-good churches that basically say “you can do whatever you want! God loves you and so you’re saved!

I think the LDS church sits closer to #1 than #2. Some leaders disagree and are closer to #2, but not many and not often. Most members don’t think about it that deeply, though, so they tend to believe a mixture of the two without realizing they are mutually exclusive, and in my experience the balance tends to be much more in favor of #1.

The problem, though, is this: If you explicitly teach #2, that people have plenty of chances to get it right, that they can eventually make it to the top no matter what, the human propensity for procrastination will cause the vast majority of people to not bother. Why go to church and keep commandments and pay your tithing today, if you can get to the Celestial kingdom on the next go round? You literally have eternity to get it done.

Thus, the leadership is compelled to teach the first, ruthless and unjust god most of the time, even as they give occasional lip service to the merciful, loving one. Otherwise, the church would evaporate in only one or two generations because there would be no compelling motivation to remain faithful and sacrifice for the cause.

The best way for religious people to stay friends with those who no longer believe?

Leaving the church is a very emotionally complex process. For me, it felt very close to discovering that my spouse or fiancee had been habitually lying and cheating on me for years. There was a huge feeling of betrayal, and it hurt a lot. I felt lied to, taken advantage of, and to top it all off all of my friends and family were still really close to my now-ex (the church), and blaming me for ending the relationship, when I felt that I was the victim and had no choice but to end it.

If you think of it that way, the social dynamic of a friend who’s just been cheated on and abused, but you’re also friends with their ex, you’ll probably get it close to right. They don’t want to hear what their ex is up to these days. They don’t want to go to a party their ex is throwing. They may want to talk about it, but they know you’re still friends with the ex so they don’t feel like they can open up to you about it. Just do something else and never bring up the ex, and you’ll probably be fine.

If you DO want to talk, let them know that it’s ok to vent frustrations, and be prepared to listen to accusations you may not want to hear about your good friend, the church. Nod and be sympathetic, even if you don’t agree. This is their genuine emotional experience, even if you think they’re over reacting or whatever. They’ve given this more thought and consideration than you can know, and nothing you can say in one conversation can change that.

This analogy is pretty adept, I think, and maybe others can expand on it. Of course people are different; some will react with more anger, some with more sadness, some maybe weren’t really into their ex in the first place, I don’t know.

Six years on, I’ve finally gotten over my ex, and I really don’t mind talking about him or running into him at parties. I’m with someone new, who’s nicer, more honest, and better looking. The only reason I don’t bring up the church with you, is that I know you’re still friends with him and I don’t want to bad-mouth him around you. That’s just me, though.

“A liberal in the Church is merely one who does not have a testimony.”

Behold the word of the Lord’s servant, Harold B. Lee, spoken at General Conference in April 1971, and published in the One True^tm Magazine, the Ensign:

There are those in the Church who speak of themselves as liberals who, as one of our former presidents has said, “read by the lamp of their own conceit.” (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine [Deseret Book Co., 1939], p. 373.) One time I asked one of our Church educational leaders how he would define a liberal in the Church. He answered in one sentence: “A liberal in the Church is merely one who does not have a testimony.”

Dr. John A. Widtsoe, former member of the Quorum of the Twelve and an eminent educator, made a statement relative to this word liberal as it applied to those in the Church. This is what he said:

“The self-called liberal [in the Church] is usually one who has broken with the fundamental principles or guiding philosophy of the group to which he belongs. … He claims membership in an organization but does not believe in its basic concepts; and sets out to reform it by changing its foundations. …

“It is folly to speak of a liberal religion, if that religion claims that it rests upon unchanging truth.”

And then Dr. Widtsoe concludes his statement with this: “It is well to beware of people who go about proclaiming that they are or their churches are liberal. The probabilities are that the structure of their faith is built on sand and will not withstand the storms of truth.” (“Evidences and Reconciliations,” Improvement Era, vol. 44 [1941], p. 609.)

-Harold B. Lee, The Iron Rod, from the June 1971 Ensign

Fossils in the Altar of Adam

“You know they’re not always agreeing in the Twelve on some of these things, particularly when it deals with science. [John A. Widtsoe] said brother Joseph Fielding Smith and brother [James E.] Talmage used to have it pretty hot sometimes, and he said that brother Talmage, see he talked about fossils and that was part of his subject as a geologist, went down to Adam-ondi-aman where the altar of Adam is supposed to be and he had a pick and picked around through it and finally found a fossil right in the cement of this altar. He found two or three of them and brought them up and put them in a bag and brought them home. He said he came back at one of the meetings of the Twelve, and he said, ‘Now brother Joseph, I understand that you thoroughly believe and are very sure that the first man on earth was Adam, the first life was Adam.’ He said, ‘I certainly do believe that.’ He said, ‘Well, what about these?’ then, he handed out the fossils, and said, ‘I found those in the altar.’”

Harvey Fletcher, Oral History of BYU, no. 17, 11.

Horribly Awkward First Sexual Encounter 'Worth The Wait' For Christian Newlyweds

“At last the indians are suitable”

There were some real racist doozies delivered in general conference back before 1970. No wonder the church doesn’t make them searchable online with the newer stuff. I forget- does a general conference address by an apostle count as “folk doctrine”?

At last the Indians are suitable. I heard them bear their witness, saw them shed tears of joy, heard them express their affection for loved ones. I saw Indian boys actually coming in to the president to offer their services as missionaries. That couldn’t have happened a decade ago. As we look into the future, surely we shall see thousands of Indian missionaries, for through our various agencies we are now training probably three thousand little Indian boys in our various departments who are growing toward missionary work. Very soon there will be an Indian boy paired off in missionary work with each white boy, and this will happen in the other Lamanite missions, I am sure.

The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised (2 Ne. 30:6). [“White” has been changed to “pure” in more recent editions of the BOM - A.Q.] In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.

-Spencer W. Kimball, October 1960 General Conference Report, pp. 32-37

(Source: scriptures.byu.edu)

The One True® Church, a short story on reddit by raiseurheadnsayno

(Source: reddit.com)

A few non-doctrinal, non-official quotes from Moromon leaders which hint at a more merciful and just god than the one taught in Sunday school

“President Brigham Young has suggested that the ultimate punishment of the sons of perdition may be that they, having their spiritual bodies disorganized, must start over again—must begin anew the long journey of existence, repeating the steps that they took in the eternities before the Great Council was held. That would be punishment, indeed.”

-John A. Widstoe, Evidences and Reconciliation, 213.

************

“The brethren direct me to say that the Church has never announced a definite doctrine upon this point. Some of the brethren have held the view that it was possible in the course of progression to advance from one glory to another, invoking the principle of eternal progression; others of the brethren have taken the opposite view. But as stated, the Church has never announced a definite doctrine on this point.”

-Secretary to the First Presidency in a 1952 letter; and again in 1965

************

“None would inherit this earth when it became celestial and translated into the presence of God but those who would be crowned as Gods — all others would have to inherit another kingdom — they would eventually have the privilege of proving themselves worthy and advancing to a celestial kingdom but it would be a slow process [progress?].”

-Brigham Young, in Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 5 Aug 1855

************

“I am not a strict constructionalist, believing that we seal our eternal progress by what we do here. It is my belief that God will save all of His children that he can: and while, if we live unrighteously here, we shall not go to the other side in the same status, so to speak, as those who lived righteously; nevertheless, the unrighteous will have their chance, and in the eons of the eternities that are to follow, they, too, may climb to the destinies to which they who are righteous and serve God, have climbed to those eternities that are to come.”

-J. Reuben Clark, Church News, 23 April 1960, p. 3

************

“It is reasonable to believe, in the absence of direct revelation by which alone absolute knowledge of the matter could be acquired, that, in accordance with God’s plan of eternal progression, advancement from grade to grade within any kingdom, and from kingdom to kingdom, will be provided for. But if the recipients of a lower glory be enabled to advance, surely the intelligences of higher rank will not be stopped in their progress; and thus we may conclude, that degrees and grades will ever characterize the kingdoms of our God. Eternity is progressive; perfection is relative; the essential feature of God’s living purpose is its associated power of eternal increase.”

-James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith [1899 edition] pp. 420-421

A gentle but thorough refutation of the Mormon case against same-sex marriage

The following was posted on Reddit. It is one of the best arguments I’ve heard refuting the Mormon church’s stance against same-sex marriage, yet it maintains a gentle tone that makes it suitable for sending to sensitive Mormon mothers with a minimal risk of undue offense.

Allowing ourselves honest time for personal reflection to understand our reasons for why we take certain political positions in my humble opinion makes us more thoughtful, honest, and compassionate. So while we are on the gay marriage topic I would like to add a few thoughts of my own. I would like to state clearly that I support gay marriage. I would also like to state that I believe in “The Case for Marriage” you made but not exclusively reserved for straight people. Before I give some my reasons, I would like to address some popular quotes from the Church in their stance against gay marriage.

First a quote from the LDS Press release.

“Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children.”

My response:

Let’s examine closely some of these claims. How does gay marriage “constitute a serious threat to marriage?” How will “the institution of marriage be weakened” if gay people marry? What “negative consequences for both adults and children” will result from Gay marriage?

Of course there was no evidence given to support any of these claims. No logical connection is made whatsoever. These claims are without merit and only serve to create a false dilemma and an appeal to fear.

If one makes the argument that two gay people who are married will ruin the institution of marriage then clearly on those grounds I could make the same argument that two gay people who are dating will ruin the dating process for straight people. This type of logic would then call for new legislation that prohibits gay people from dating, and so it goes.

The arguments from the church and its members presented against equal marriage rights for same-sex couples are almost identical to the arguments which were presented over the years against women’s suffrage, equal rights for blacks, no-fault divorce, removing the bans on interracial marriage, banning sexual discrimination in the workplace, and other social advances. The arguments made no sense then, and they make no sense now. The dire consequences predicted by those improvements in society have not materialized, and neither will the dire consequences prophesied for same-sex marriage materialize.

Second Quote: From Gordon B. Hinckley

“Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.”

My Response:

Notice that the logic that Hinckley uses was also used by the Christian mob. Polygamy was “not a matter of civil rights” for them but a “matter of morality”, so they murdered and drove out the Mormon pioneers for the same reasons as Hinckley is using against gays. Christian mobs thought polygamy was immoral and a threat to traditional Christian marriage. This goes to show you that when government and religious groups start defining morality esp. in the bedroom it can have devastating consequences. So let’s suppose that we accept the premise that Joseph Smith was commanded by God to live plural marriage, this then makes it acceptable and moral. Now let’s use Hinckley’s logic and apply it to the Christian Mob. The Christian mob was “defending the sacred institution” of marriage in their day, one man one woman, by driving out the polygamous Mormons to “preserve traditional marriage” and this was “clearly within their religious and constitutional prerogatives” or so they justified. Remember, for Hinckley and the church, believe gay marriage is “not a matter of civil rights”, the Christian mob clearly felt this way too, and they gave them no civil treatment. The Mob was “compelled” to drive out the immoral polygamous Mormons, they didn’t want their kids to get corrupted or influenced by people who sleep around. Remember, the Christian Mob and the Government didn’t respect or acknowledge plural marriage as legitimate or accept Joseph Smith as prophet. This same attitude holds true for many faithful Mormons; they believe gay marriage corrupts traditional marriage so therefore it is justified to deny them civil rights. Do you see the conflict here? Gay people are seeking marriage certificates and equality, not temple recommends.

Most all black people I associate with including my wife are for gay marriage not because they necessarily endorse that life style but because they know what it is like to be treated like second class citizens, they know that life becomes harder to bear for those who have unequal opportunity. Reasons for Marriage:

In “the case for marriage” there are several benefits listed for married people. Clearly these benefits for married couples translate to a better society, the overall well being of the community. There are many other specific benefits that could have been added to that list, one being that monogamous couples who are married tend to be more productive and responsible citizens, they contribute more to the overall wellbeing of the community, this is a very good and desirable thing!

Proposition A: Case for marriage, Equal rights: The better your relationship and marriage is the less we need to worry about you. Equal rights make your life easier and better.

Better Financial picture

Longer Life

Better mental Health

Greater Safety

Better Sex

More shared sacrifice for the well being of the community (my addition)

Proposition B: The opposite of A. No marriage, single, straight and gay people, no equal rights, harder life.

Not as good as married people’s finances: More debt, bad credit, higher probability of bankruptcy and possibly a burden on the welfare system and so on.

Shorter Life: Blacks had shorter lives too when they were not given equal rights because of the violence against them, are we going to deny marriage and equal rights to gay people knowing that their lives may possible be shortened?

More susceptible to poor Mental Health: Depression, more prescription drugs, more doctor visits, poor self image. People with mental health are more at risk for suicide. Type in gay suicide on Google and read the reports. Poor mental health can lead to impaired ability to form healthy relationships.

Less Safety: Before and after the civil rights movements, blacks were the target of violent hate crimes by whites, usually white Christians. Gay’s are still violently attacked in society for being gay. If you doubt this, just type in “gay people attacked” in your Google browser and then go to videos. Would it seem irreverent to assume that societies who deny equal rights to minority groups make it easier for some of its citizens to justify hate crimes?

Promiscuous sex: Single people, gay or straight are much more likely to have multiple sex partners, greatly increasing their chances of contracting an STD. People with STD’s spread STD’s to others within the community. This is bad. It is worse when the STD is life threatening such as the HIV virus.

Less shared sacrifice for the community: Unmarried people will give back less to the community than married people. This is undesirable.

Clearly, Proposition A is better than B.

So the real question is this; If we take “the case for marriage” seriously, if we believe in the evidence shown, if we believe married people will be much better off and the community will be better off, then why would anyone deny gay people, living in the community, the right to marry, especially when marriage is proven to be better for the overall wellbeing of the community in which we all live and pay into?!

Room for disagreement: this is a website by faithful active Mormons who are pro gay rights. It’s a great way to become more informed on the topic by other people who share your beliefs: http://mormonsformarriage.com/

(Source: reddit.com)

Welcome to Bakersfield, Elder

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. Proverbs 22: 6

Humans are strongly evolved to believe what their parents teach them as children without questioning. Think about a pre-agricultural hunter gatherer in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago:

A mother tells her child, “Don’t go near the river alone, there is a monster hiding under the water that will eat you if you get too close.”

One child might get a kind of warm, positive feeling (or a frightened, fearful feeling), and take their mother’s word at face value. This child would not go near the water alone.

Another child might have a weaker feeling or none at all and think, “I don’t see any monsters, the water looks peaceful and refreshing!” That child might go down for a drink when no one’s looking, and get devoured by a crocodile.

Thus, over a million years, children who have a strong emotional attachment to their parents’ teachings were selected over and over again.

Because this is a general rule, however, over the years many parents have either been mistaken or outright lied to their children, saying there is an invisible monster in the sky that will eat you if you are disobedient, and our poor biological brains are unable to differentiate between the two; the feeling is an evolved trait that applies to pretty much anything our parents tell us.

The trick , as an adult, is to separate what our parents taught us: things that are true and useful (the monster under the water), and things that are false and/or outdated (the monster in the sky). Choose wisely.

Family History Miracles, a.k.a. Confirmation Bias