Wednesday, October 27, 2010

If I Were God

If I were God

If I were God would I...
Make one man suffer for all the wrongs and sins of others?
Create humans in my image then call them unnatural and an enemy to myself?
Create humans in a fallen state when I call them the pinnacle of my creations?
Give them emotions and then say half those emotions are evil?
Give them reason and logic and then tell them to blindly obey?
Kill my creations through floods, earthquakes and tsunami's?
Create disease, birth defects and life long pain and suffering?
Give commandments to only a portion of my people that
are a requirement to return to my presence
thus damming the rest of my creations
to hell for simply being born to the
wrong parents and wrong
country and wrong

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Research on being Gay

I recently stated an opinion that being gay was genetic. My brother took me task over that, stating that my opinion was over simplistic.  I agree, it may be, as nature and nurture are not so easily defined in any situation.

I'd like to give some more research for anyone who'd like to learn more.

BYU Professor Bill Bradshaw on a Biological Origin of Homosexuality" (ref.

hemaphrodite (male/female) creatures:

 hemaphrodite Leopard slugs engaging in 'perverse' sex:

What prompted my response was a comment made by the second highest leader in the LDS church who said that god would not make a person gay.  What is interesting is that he has made animals gay, animals and humans hemaphrodites, and many other things.  

Is there just one cause of sexuality, either straight or gay? I don't know, but if we question how a person is gay, we must also have to question how a person is straight.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

When I first became Disillusioned

I have often been asked when I became disillusioned with the Mormon church. I tell people it wasn't a one time event.  It was a process.  There were many things I found odd, many things I didn't believe in. I knew that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. In my studies of Sunday School I even ran across the word, polyandry, the practice of marrying another man's wife while they are still married to them; which Joseph Smith did. I knew about the Danites, the Mountain Meadows Massacre. I knew about the failed Kirkland Bank that Joseph prophesied would be successful. I knew that Pres. Smith had prophesied that man would never land on the moon.  I knew Brigham Young to be less than honest in his business dealings, a racist, that he didn't treat his wives well.

Yet, I stayed. Why, people outside the Mormon church ask.  Because I was taught from the time I was born that it was the only true church of god and there was only one way to heaven, and it was through that church.  No matter how flawed it was, and I believed that.

Then there were the contradictions in receiving revelations and I began to be at a place where I could not believe any more.  Not only were we supposed to blindly follow what the profit said and we were told that when we followed him, even if what he said may lead us astray, we would not be held accountable (the leaders would say we were not required to have blind faith, but this is blind faith!).  But local leaders began claiming this same infallibility. I could not accept this.  The ward I was in was planning a Trek. The leaders decided to make the trip more authentic, they were going to withhold food and water. I and several others were opposed to this.We voiced our complaints. We were worried about health issues, possible liability, and that the trek was already a difficult experience, it didn't need to be added upon. We were told to be quiet, to implicitly trust our leaders, to not have a voice of dissent. We would not be quiet. I didn't want to have to pull my child out, but if it came to it, I would. We went to former bishops and stake presidents and voiced our concerns and asked them to plead our case. In the end, the pressure that was put on the trek leaders worked and they backed down on this terrible decision and reason won out--this time.

This was a trend. It happened over and over. Dissent was not allowed. If a voice of opposition was expressed, you were labeled as someone who was questioning the spirit. I was questioning policy and poor decision-making. I began questioning how decisions were made. Were all these decisions really being made by the spirit? Or were these men making decisions on their own and then claiming god-inspiration to squelch dissent? The more poor decisions were made, the more I questioned.  I even asked one bishop how he came to make church callings. This was his answer. 'Well, we (the bishopric) pray at the beginning of our meeting, we discuss who we want in each calling, come to a decision, then we pray at the end of our meeting.'  WTF?!   That's men making the decisions and hoping they got it right!

If a forger named Mark Hoffman can con the very top officials of the mormon church into buying fake documents over several years and he not be found out until he commits murder, then there is no spirit of discernment leading this church.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

A Wasted Life

I tried to be the Mormon that was expected of me. I just cleaned out a 4-drawer filing cabinet full of files from F.A.R.M.'s articles, lessons I taught from 20 years as a gospel doctrine teacher; ideas as an activities leader, and 100 family home evening lesson that I spent one year and several hundred dollars putting together.

I accepted every calling that was asked of me. I was a stay at home mother for 15 years despite the fact that it was against my personality and I resented being it. I was a square peg in a round hole. There was only one way to be a Mormon woman. It was okay for the husband to neglect me, to abuse me. It was not okay for me to walk away.  When I began to openly question if this was really God's plan for me, I realized that a loving God would not require me to suffer such abuse. That He would not require only one way to live. Why would a loving God make me have desires to serve people in the real world then say I can only serve by putting together an activity lesson? It was silly, trite, absurd to say that I could not do good in the world like I am now, working with children with disabilities. I feel fulfilled, content, happy. I never felt any of that serving in the church.

The church told women like me that we were selfish for desiring to work outside the home. I do not feel selfish. I could only clean my house so much. It was linear work- I never received pay, a promotion, or was told I had done a good job, let alone a pay raise. I never felt I was accomplishing anything. I could only change so many diapers, clean so much, do so many crafts. There are women who love it, enjoy it, are fulfilled by it--I just wasn't one of them.  Then, when the children were in school, I tried to have the talk with the husband about going back to work part time. No go. He would not even discuss it with me. He walked out of the room when I brought up the topic.

Each. And. Every. Time.             For five years.

I was only good for cooking his meals, cleaning his house, taking care of his needs. I had to beg for money. I had no access to the checking account balance, to the finances. I was a servant. I existed for his pleasure. He was having no change in his status.  This was going to be my future. This is Mormon heaven. Good for the men. Bad for the women.

A wasted life. That is what it is. I wasted my life trying to do what other's told me to do instead of what I wanted and desired. Sad.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Clinging to a belief system despite all evidence to the contrary

When I was in the Mormon church, I was told there is only one way to think. I was told that I could not have an opinion different that those held by the Mormon church.  I had lots of opinions that were different, some I shared openly, most I kept to myself. I was told that there was only one true church, one way to think one way, one, one, one.

Now that I am out, many of the ways I used to think have changed dramatically. One thing that I have learned is that my thought processes can change. Given new information, I am capable of changing my thoughts and opinions. Sometimes this is difficult, such as when I decided that my marriage would not work. It was as though a part of me died. I had to change my belief system and everything I knew. I had been told that if I just loved him enough or more, he would love me back; that was a fallacy and I had to change my belief system.  When I came to the realization that there was no such thing as a one and only true church of god and the Mormon church had lied to me about that, it was as though a part of me had died again. I had to once again change my belief system and change the way I viewed the world, viewed God and viewed myself.

I am capable of changing my beliefs, by thoughts and my views, given new information. This is why I am capable to accepting other people with differing view points and listen to them with an open mind. What I cannot tolerate is someone telling me I am wrong and must change to their way of thinking. This, I will not do.

I believe people should question everything, be skeptical, ask questions, not take anything on blind faith. If is seems off, sounds bad, smells bad, it needs more investigation.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

With the help of a friend

I have received a comment from my brother on one of my blog writings. After careful consideration, I have decided to allow his comment. I am not going to comment on each one of his arguments, although I disagree with him, I agree with his right to disagree with me. However, this is my blog and its existence is here for me to vent. If he wants to vent, he can begin his own blog.

I have a friend who is much smarter than me. With his permission, I am publishing part of a paper that he has researched. I hope that those who have an open mind find it fascinating, as I do:

by Reverend William E Wilson
Intricacies of Language
I have studied many languages over the years. These include Spanish, German,  Italian, Welsh, Navajo,
Greek and Hebrew. I speak and read these languages at varying degrees of competence. Currently I
translate 16th and 17th century Northern Italian fencing manuscripts. I can tell you with some surety that
the translator will always be biased in heir translation. Their cultural morays and personal biases will
affect the words they use in their translation. This has happened over the years with the New
Neil R. Lightfoot wrote a book called How We Got the Bible and in this book lays out where especially
the New Testament comes from, the dates of the various original manuscripts that are in existence and
in regards to translation said: “however, we should keep in mind that the version, because they are
translations, are necessarily secondary in rank as witnesses to the text. Something is always lost by way
of translation.” (p 65)
Specifically in regard to English translations he said “Eventually the Vulgate was made the official
Bible of the Roman Catholic Church, and so it remains today. The result is that the Roman Catholic
Bible in English is a translation of a translation and is not a translation from the original languages.” (p
Compounding the issue is the fact that Paul made up words in Greek that were not used by anyone else
which makes translation difficult. This will be discussed in more detail later.

The Scriptures in Question
I will address three scriptural references  from the New Testament that are used to condemn
homosexuality. I will treat each one separately. They include:
1 Tim 1:9-10
1 Cor 6:9-10
Romans 1:26-27
 For this study I will use the Greek-English Interlinear New Testament and also the King James
versions of the Bible.
Before addressing the writings of Paul, I should note that Jesus never addressed homosexuality. In a
number of places in the Gospels Jesus mentioned sins of the spirit but he rarely mentioned sins of the
body and he was completely silent on the topic of homosexuality. As Christians should we listen more
to the words of Jesus than Paul? And what did Paul really say or mean?
I believe the most telling scripture that we may examine to get to the core of the matter is found in 1st
1 Timothy 1:9-10
King James Translation
"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the
ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for
manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars,
for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."
“This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and
disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or
mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is
contrary to the sound teaching . . .”
In looking at these verses in context we are able to see that Paul is setting up classes of behaviors that
are contrary to the law. These classes are
godless and sinful
unholy and profane
murderers of parents or others
those taking part in sex sins involving slavery
liars and perjurers
The section on sex sins involving slavery is stated as “for whoremongers, for them that defile
themselves with mankind, for menstealers”.  Looking above at the translation offered after the Greek
passage we see that it is translated as fornicators, sodomites and slave traders. Depending on the
translator a different translation or even meaning may be intoned. When looking at the Scriptures, it is
important in my estimation, to not only look at the translation but also at the original. Without being
able to read and study the original it is very hard to understand what the author meant by what they
wrote. Since at least the time of Jesus, the Jews have maintained their scriptures in the original
language (Hebrew) and have maintained their commentary on the Tanakh and Torah since the early
rabbinical period that  dates to just after the time of Jesus. Just prior to the time of Jesus, Hillel, one of
the most famous of the rabbis, lived in Jerusalem and taught and expounded on the Torah. Jesus taught
in a similar vein to Hillel and would have heard not only the written Torah but also the Oral Torah
which later became the rabbinical writings. Being able to work in the original tongue allows us to delve
into the intricacies of the vocabulary used.

The Greek terms for the sex sins are pornois, arsenokoitais and andropodistais. The first word pornois
is based off of the word to sell. General consensus is that this refers to a male prostitute. The second
word, arsenokoitais is a word that was created by Paul. It consists of two words arsen and koitas. Arsen
means male and koitas means bed and the exact meaning of the word is not known. However, a
definition may be determined and most definitely is not homosexual. The last word is andropodistais
and means slave trader. If we take these in context, we may see that the section deals with those that
prostitute their bodies or who do the same with others.
Arsenokoitai should not be translated as homosexual. This is a 19th century and later term and shows
the bias of the translator. And the word is a joining of words in two different languages, Greek and
Latin. This term has been applied to not only males but also to females and the original Greek
specifically applies to males and not to females.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
King James translation
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor
thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
9 ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονοµήσουσιν; µὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε
εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε µοιχοὶ οὔτε µαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται 10 οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ
µέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονοµήσουσιν.
“Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived!
Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers,
robbers – none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Like the quote from 1 Timothy, this scripture refers to “arsenokoitai”. Unlike 1 Timothy this scripture
is not set up in pairs or triplets of like behaviors. If Paul had meant to refer to homosexuals (or
specifically to male-male sexual liaisons) he would have used the standard term for the time –
paiderasste. This was the term for male same sex relationships.
So what did Paul mean? It is very difficult to say. But reading these scriptures in context and looking
carefully at the meanings of the words involved we may make a best guess and this is not homosexual.
Romans 1:26-27
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use
into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving
in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."
“διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη τιµίας· αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν µετήλλαξαν τὴν
φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, ὁµοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες  φέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας
ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς λλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν  σχηµοσύνην κατεργαζόµενοι
καὶ τὴν  ντιµισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς πολαµβάνοντες.”
“For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse
for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were
consumed with passion for one another.”
As stated by Dr. R.S. Truluck, "Paul's writings have been taken out of context and twisted to punish and
oppress every identifiable minority in the world: Jews, children, women, blacks, slaves, politicians,
divorced people, convicts, pro choice people, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, religious
reformers, the mentally ill, and the list could go on and on.  Paul is often difficult and confusing to
understand.  A lot of Paul's writing is very difficult to translate.  Since most of his letters were written
in response to news from other people, reading Paul can be like listening to one side of a telephone
conversation.  We know, or think we know, what Paul is saying, but we have to guess what the other
side has said." "The six Bible passages used to condemn homosexuals," at:
Paul wrote this letter to the Romans who were immersed in Roman culture (see verse 7).  The whole of
chapter 1 is an exhortation against  idolatrous religious worship and rituals. Verses 26 and 27 are part of
this. Today many religious leaders take these verses on their own out of context.  If we take these
verses in context it is a diatribe against Christians who have reverted to pagan practices including
heterosexuals engaging in ritual homosexual behavior. This does not attack homosexuals who may be
in monogamous homosexual relationships.
Looking Back to the “Old Testament”
First I would state that the Old Testament is best studied and viewed within the context of the history of
Israel and the Jewish people. I personally believe that Christianity is removed far enough from Judaism
that the Jewish scripture (Torah and Tanakh) should be minimally used by Christian communities
especially if these communities believe that Jesus fulfilled the Law.
Leviticus 18:22:
"You shall not lie with a male as those who lie with a female; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination and they shall surely be put to death."
These two passages are used by Christians to condemn homosexual behavior. However, these passages
when read in context cannot be taken out of the context that they were written in. Leviticus is the Law
as given to the Israelites. One portion of the Law may not be taken without the whole of the Law.
Leviticus 11 talks about food restrictions. If Christians condemn homosexuals they should also
condemn Red Lobster for serving shellfish. Leviticus 23 details the prohibition of doing any type of
work on the Sabbath. Leviticus 19 prohibits mixing breeds and also prohibits cutting specific types of
hair on a man's head. These are just a few examples. All the laws given in Leviticus are demanded
equally. None may be left out. It is either all or nothing.
The warning is given in Leviticus 26:14-16 that "If you do not obey me and do not carry out all of these
commandments, if instead, you reject my statutes, and if your soul abhors my ordinances so as not to
carry out all my commandments ...I, in turn, will do this to you: I will appoint over you a sudden terror,
consumption and fever that shall waste away the eyes and cause the soul to pine away; also, you shall
sow your seed uselessly, for your enemies shall eat it up." This is just a sample of the punishments that
the Lord would deliver if any of the Laws were broken.
Using Leviticus to condemn homosexuals is ludicrous and hypocritical.
What did Jesus say about homosexuality?
Outwardly no. He definitely did not condemn. But what many do not know, he did condone. But the
question that English speakers will ask is how?
We all know from Sunday School the story of the Centurion who comes to Jesus asking that his
"servant" be healed. The term this Centurion uses is translated typically as servant in English.
"Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering." (Matthew 8:6 NIV)
The word in Greek translated into English is pais. This term may mean son or boy, servant, or a special
type of servant - a male lover. At this time in history Men would often buy a male slave as a lover. This
may seem bad in our modern minds but at that time it was a respected practice. And Jesus would have
known of this practice.
When talking of other slaves the Centurion uses the standard term doulos. In Luke's account the servant
was the Centurion's entimos doulos or honored slave. So it was not a son. And in Matthew where the
Centurion directly talks to Jesus he uses the term pais in talking of his servant.
Can you imagine a Roman officer stooping to speaking with a Jewish Rabbi who he knew should
denounce gay relationships? And what did Jesus say? He said he would come and heal him. There was
no denouncing the "sin." Jesus did not discriminate. And if Jesus did not discriminate, why should we?
In conclusion I would state that it is crucial to look at the original language that scripture was written
in. It is also crucial to look at the social setting and most important to not take scripture out of context.
As was stated earlier the Bible has been used to persecute and condemn many types of people. Instead
of using the Bible to condemn it should be used to uplift. How the Bible is translated may also foment
this type of behavior. If we try and determine the actual intent of the authors and not take English
translations of the Tanakh and New Testament texts at “face value”, we may walk away from our
studies with a very different view on many topics.


Anger: I was told my entire life in the Mormon church that anger is an evil emotion.  When I began taking college courses I was told that no emotion is good or bad, they just exist.  I needed to reconcile this.  As I began to learn about my inner self, I decided for myself that no emotion is good or bad, it is how we deal with them that matters. Anger can be very motivational to change a particular situation that we may find ourselves in. If we find ourselves in an emotionally abusive marriage, the emotion of anger may be the only impetus to get us out. Anger can be bad if we take it out on others by yelling at them if we had a bad day at work.

I admit that I have been angry. I have been angry that I was told to stay in an emotionally abusive marriage.  I admit that I have been angry that women are treated as less than equal to men in the Mormon religion. I admit that I have had no voice on many other issues. Does this mean that I am less objective on the subject of Mormonism than someone who chooses to stay in the religion?

Absolutely not.  This is like saying that a Toyota salesman is more objective about how dependable his cars are than Consumer Reports (okay so I'm not Consumer Reports, but I have been a Mormon my entire life, and I have checked out objective, non-biased, well researched opinions) and it is important to look at all sides.  I have.

Anger does not make me more biased. My blog is my healthy outlet for my anger, my anger does not make me blind.

Friday, October 8, 2010

Cover your Ass

The Mormon church is already changing BKP's talk. I am publishing the original and the changes to hold them accountable:

The version spoken in conference can be found here :
We teach the standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes and counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From The Book of Mormon we learn that wickedness never was happiness. Some suppose that they were preset  and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father.

The version now on the churches website: edited version   We teach a standard of moral conduct that will protect us from Satan’s many substitutes or counterfeits for marriage. We must understand that any persuasion to enter into any relationship that is not in harmony with the principles of the gospel must be wrong. From the Book of Mormon we learn that “wickedness never was happiness.”
Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? (deleted) Remember, God is our Heavenly Father.

Since I am writing, I want to add this; think for yourselves, think reasonable, be rational, ask questions. If something smells bad, ask why.

*I asked why. This is what I came up with: BKP said that god would not do that to people. Well:

Here is some information on what god has done to people:

If this loving God  wouldn't make someone gay, why would he make someone have Angelman's, where they are non-verbal, they have joint problems, they are violent toward their loved ones, they have difficulty learning and have low IQ, they have difficulty eating and swallowing and sleeping. The cannot sweat well and sunburn easily. They will have to be taken care of their entire lives. They cannot dress themselves without help, brush their teeth without help, sit or sometimes walk without help.

*He says that being gay is unnatural. He goes on to say that the natural man is an enemy to god. You can't have it both ways. Is it unnatural or natural? Are we as humans natural or unnatural? Which way? Confusion and conflict. 

*He says you cannot vote against the law of gravity. Has he never heard of the 3 laws of motion that govern flight? There are higher laws that allow birds and planes to overcome gravity, Mr. Packer! Know your science! There are also gay animals in all species. When an animal species is facing extinction or other extreme conditions, there is an increase in homosexuality. Homosexuality is born, not a choice, science has shown that time and again. Here is a link:

I want to add my own personal story. When I was in college, one teacher had several students come into one of my classes. They gave their own personal stories of being gay. It was moving and emotional. After the class, I was confused, as I had been told my entire life that being gay was a choice but the stories just told where the opposite. I sought out my teacher. I told her I was having difficulty relating to the experiences just shared with the class. I told the teacher that I had never questioned my sexual identity. Her response, "exactly." That was an epiphany to me. If I never questioned my sexual identity, then how audacious was it for me to assume that people who are gay should have to question theirs.  

The Mormon church continues to say that being gay can be cured. This is their idea of trying to 'cure being gay'
If God wants the Mormon church to cure being gay, then why hasn't he revealed to BKP how to do it? Electroshock treatments didn't work, behavior modification being used in an organization called Evergreen isn't working.

Where's your revelations, profits? Where?

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Charity for the Living

The Mormon church spends millions and millions of tithing dollars every year building temples. They believe that doing baptisms and temple sealings will bring salvation for the dead. They do not understand their own scriptural teachings:

Moroni Chapter 8
22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law.  For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing
23 But it is mockery before god, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy spirit, and putting trust in dead works.
I appeal to all Mormons everywhere to stop giving tithing dollars to dead works. Give to an organization called, instead. Your charitable dollars will actually help do living people some good.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Why would any Woman stay in?

I have written a lot on my blog about men who are emotionally distant/constipated.  To be married to one of these men is torture. To have a marriage like this for eternity would be the same as hell.  Now imagine a woman being required to share her husband with many, many other women. Imagine this is the law of heaven. Imagine being eternally pregnant and spending little time with that man because he was off making heaven babies with other wives. Talk about physical and emotional distance! This is the Mormon idea of heaven. It is even  memorialized in their scripture. They deny they still practice polygamy, but it is in their canonized scripture. It is required to live in their heaven. It must be believed and practiced to make it into their heaven:

In D&C 132:  4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting acovenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye bdamned; for no one can creject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.   52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.  62 And if he have aten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

  65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to takeaHagar to wife.

Why would any sane woman accept this, believe this?

By the way, this scripture specifically states that any wives multiple wives must be virgins. According to the mormon churches' own website,, several of Joseph's polygamous wives were already married to other men, thus they were not virgins. This information can be found here:

Sunday, October 3, 2010


This crazy stuff just writes itself.
Sleepovers are of the devil: Yeah, that's right! When I was a kid, we froze each others' bras and toilet papered the neighbors house. Such evil antics must be stopped or we will all go to hell!

Or maybe since homosexuals are actually not born, but made, kids experiment at sleepovers and become gay, so if we limit sleepovers, then there will be no more gays in the world. Yeah, that's it, sleepovers cause people to be gay! No more sleepovers, no more gays! Hahahahahaha!!!!!

I suppose the church is now going to have to cancel all future girls and boys camps and treks and anything that requires overnight stays (all boy scout events included). No more family reunions where the kids sleep in the same room. These have now been deemed evil. Hahahahaha!

Children, don't play on train tracks, you might fall out of the Mormon church! Parents, instead of teaching your children to think for themselves, force them to pray, pay and obey! If they rebel, force them to do your will. That is God's plan. That will make them want to go to church! Don't teach them that train tracks are dangerous, don't lead them away, don't guide them away from danger, but force them to do what you think is right for them, yeah; that's the right thing! They will thank you for taking away their agency one day.

Crazy church for crazy people. Thank you God, for leading me out. Wake up and think for yourself, people. You don't need some organization telling you if your children can have sleepovers, have double earrings, or wear flip flops to church. You can make these types of decisions for yourselves. You have a brain! Why aren't profits solving more important world problems like poverty, world hunger, social inequity?  Parents are capable of deciding for themselves if sleepovers are safe, people who claim to talk to god should be focusing on bigger issues.

Family, it's about Diversity

Historically, families have provided the social, economic and pro-creative needs of individuals. Families living in close proximity to each other make up larger units in society, such as towns, cities and countries. If this sounds like a 4th grade social science lesson, it is because the Morg seems to have forgotten this basic tenet. They seem to think they have a corner on what constitutes a family. They seem to think families did not exist before the church existed and told people how to be a family.

Family arrangements in the United States have become more diverse with no particular household arrangement representing half of the United States population.[16]
 It shows that there is not one single group that is a majority that constitutes a family style in the USA. Historically, there have been many family types, as well. The patriarchal family, with the man at the head of the family, with the mother staying at home raising the children is a modern concept of what defines a family. It also does not define the majority of family styles in the USA or the world as a whole.
I like to think of the world as a box of crayons. It has many colors. I get to choose any of the crayons in my box to color my world with. When I was a Mormon, I felt like my crayon box was limited to two crayons, black and white. If I chose the black one, I was evil, therefore I was only left with the white. This flies in the face of the concept of free agency where we are supposed to have choice. Do we have choice, or are we forced to choose only one way? I was told that was Satan's plan. Is there only one family choice in the Mormon religion: get married in the temple, raise many children, pay tithing to the Mormon church. Or are there other choices? Can I be a single Mom?  Can someone choose to not have children? Can a gay couple have children? Or is there only one way? Is there there just one way to have a family?

Is my family not a family because it does not fit your mold? No, Mormon church, you do not get to define me. I love my family and it is every bit as valuable to me as your family is to you. 

Cult Meter

 If the following came from the mouth of Kim Jung Il, we would be calling for his downfall to save the people from not being allowed to think for themselves, from not being free, from not being allowed choice. Since it is spoken from over the pulpit of General Conference, it is praised as god's word. Scary to the point of cultiness. 

 14 Fundamentals to following the prophet:

1. The prophet (insert Kim Jung Il) is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

2. The living prophet (Kim Jung Il) is more vital to us than the standard works.

3. The living prophet (Kim Jung Il) is more important to us than a dead prophet.

4. The prophet (Kim Jung Il) will never lead the church astray.

5. The prophet 
(Kim Jung Il) is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

6. The prophet 
(Kim Jung Il) does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.

7. The prophet 
(Kim Jung Il) tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

8. The prophet 
(Kim Jung Il) is not limited by men’s reasoning.

9. The prophet 
(Kim Jung Il) can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.

10. The prophet 
(Kim Jung Il) may advise on civic matters.

11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud (the intellects, women, gays) who are learned and the proud (the creative, the innovative, those who think for themselves) who are rich.

12. The prophet 
(Kim Jung Il) will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

13. The prophet 
(Kim Jung Il) and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.

14. The prophet 
(Kim Jung Il) and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

I am recommending the following website:
Based on this website, a very smart person has put together a spreadsheet for people to rate how cult-like some religions can be. Even some businesses can gain a rating if they require conformity and dress codes. Here is the rating scale: HassanBiteModel_re_LDS.xls 

Wake Up Mormons! Think for yourselves!

Friday, October 1, 2010

Fallacy: Separate but Equal

I have many regrets. One of the biggest is that I bought into the Morg's idea of separate but equal. I am an advocate for women, yet when that church taught that women should be treated differently than men it didn't mean they were not equal to men, but separate. They separate women from men in the temple, in church.

 In the temple they make the women bow their heads and promise to obey their husbands. In the temple they make the women pull a veil over their faces to cover their faces before they can say a prayer to god. They teach that women should be separated out in the home by doing women's work of raising the children, cleaning the home and not working with men in the world.,4945,161-1-11-1,FF.html . They begin this separation at the age of 12.They have the teen boys going out on hiking trips, water skiing, camping, basketball, taking trips out of state. They have cooking classes for the girls, they teach them how to be a good babysitter, they have service projects where they clean the nursery toys. I have even heard of one where they took the 16 and 14 year old girls to a bridal shop and had them try on wedding dresses! They teach that only women can fulfill the  role of nurturer and they are not suited to working in the world.  It goes even further since men are given the priesthood where they are allowed authority over other men and all women.  Even a 12 year old boy has more authority in the mormon church than any woman has.

Women in the mormon church are not even allowed to hold their babies when they are blessed. These blessings are not even a saving ordinance.  Women are not allowed to hold positions of authority over men, to rise  to a position of bishop, etc.

This idea of separate but equal was tried with race. This country had separate places on buses, separate drinking fountains, separate cafes for blacks. This idea was ruled unconstitutional. The Morg fought against the women's rights movement in the 70's. The Morg poured lots of money into this idea in California in Proposition 8 in fighting gay marriage. That idea will also lose. You cannot treat a select class of people as separate and then claim they are equal.

Equal means they have the same access to opportunities, money, authority and rights. If these are being withheld in any form, then this set of people are being discriminated against. This is the definition of discrimination. It is a fallacy that any group of people can be treated as separate yet be equal. The Morg treats women and many other groups as less than equal to white men.

Please consider signing the following: