Questions for Mormon Missionaries - God, Sex, and honesty | 16 questions for Mormon Missionaries

Video link: http://youtu.be/Tly3T_dc1Vk

Questions for Mormon Missionaries - God, Sex, and honesty | 16 questions for Mormon Missionaries

The Mormon missionaries are knocking at your door.

Be nice to them. Two years of strict abstinence from dating & masturbation. Have pity on these poor naive fools / chumps. I was one, and so I can speak from first hand experience.

Bring them in. Give them some milk and cookies. And then, kindly present to them the following very poignant questions, in all seriousness, and humility, and before the Mormon God & his holy representatives, we ask:

1. Did Joseph Smith enjoy having sex with a 14 year old and with the wives of other men?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joseph_Smith%27s_wives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Mar_Kimball

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,464173,00.html
"...EW What do you think the reaction will be from the Mormon Church?
JK They've already basically let it be known that good Mormons should not read this book. And I think they will be very uncomfortable with the history; they will not like the fact that I point out that Joseph Smith told 14-year-old girls ''God says you should marry me, if you don't...'' His way of getting laid doesn't reflect well on him..."

"...I am especially disappointed that they feel such an urgent need to attack writers, like me, who present balanced, carefully researched accounts of Mormon history that happen to diverge from the official, highly expurgated church version..."

http://www.randomhouse.com/features/krakauer/response.html

Horn Dog Joseph's direct activities to seduce young girls:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0DQaTU7Opq0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=under+the+banner+of+heaven&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eBUiU9X_CcnnkAeRpoFA&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=helen%20kimball&f=false
...check out page 122

2. How was the sex between the Mormon God & Mary the Mother of Jesus? When the Mormon God had sex with Mary the Mother of Jesus, did he go down on her? Did he give her head? Did the Mormon God have an orgasm, and did he help Mary have one too? Did they leave their clothes on?

References:
What was it like, when God had sex with Mary?
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/12/what-was-it-like-when-god-had-sex-with.html

and "... Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior. No extended explanation of the title “Son of God” as applied to Jesus Christ appears necessary..." from https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng

Mormonism and oral sex:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/02/ldsorg-discover-perversity-or-mormonism.html

In 1982, the Mormon God speaks about oral sex through his prophets, seers, and revelators:
Page 1: http://lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter.shtml
page 2: http://lds-mormon.com/worthy_letter1.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet,_seer,_and_revelator

A relevant parody of the situation: http://stakepresident.blogspot.com/2011/05/oral-abstinence-key-to-happy-fulfilling.html

3. Was it moral for the Mormon God to have sex with the wife of another man (eg: with Mary)?

4. Was it moral for Brigham Young to have sex with a 15 year old and with the wives of other men?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brigham_Young%27s_wives

5. How come the more religious a person is the more of an asshole they tend to be?

6. Are intrusive interviews regarding masturbation of 12 year old children conducted by strange men AKA Mormon Bishops a good thing, or a bad & abusive thing?

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_markepeterson.html

And more on masturbation (question 6 & 8 related):

I remember receiving "A Guide to Self-Control" while on my Mormon mission in Alaska.

"...When the temptation to masturbate is strong, yell STOP to those thoughts as loudly as you can in your mind..." Yes, I tried that. Didn't work though. And this is of course an abusive request to make of anyone, especially an 11-21 year old.

Boyd Packer's related evil pamphlet given to Mormon children:
To Young Men Only (PDF)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0ZmSLnUooZubEhUOF9OQkdKUk0/view?usp=sharing

7. Where is the Lamaite DNA? Why didn't Joseph Smith know about DNA? Wasn't he supposed to be hooked into the mind of the Mormon God? What about the basic denial of science in the totality of Mormon scripture?

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/09/hey-mormon-missionaries-where-is.html

http://nowscape.com/mormon/abraham/abraham.htm

8. When you're in the Mormon Church and you have sex with your wife, are you supposed to leave your garments on or have them off?

Relevant discussion:

http://www.exmormonforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2266

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_markepeterson.html#pub_-1343670037

9. How is a woman in Mormonism supposed to have an orgasm without oral sex? See references under question 2.

10. What is the "new name" you received in the Mormon Temple?

http://www.fullerconsideration.com/templenameoracle.php

11. If we say "Health in the navel, marrow in the bones, strength in the loins and sinews. Power in the Priesthood be upon me, and upon my posterity through all generations of time, and throughout all eternity," will we really get into the Mormon Heaven? And do we really want to go there? No oral sex? NO masturbation? A bunch of anally retentive assholes around. And we have to kiss the rear and of a hostile alien god just to get there? Doesn't sound like fun to me - going to the Mormon Heaven? What do you think?

related links:
http://corvus.freeshell.org/psittacus/three/tract/kolob_tract.htm
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/12/launch-mission-to-kolob-and-blow-place.html

S.L. Temple "live" version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8sbYtFOnxk

Temple film shown in other Mormon temples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19cHztniXRE

The campy stilted saccharin Mormon view of heaven - in "Man's Search for Happiness:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5oS2pZlvgI

12. You're so eager. But young people can also be nieve. Young and dumb. Don't you think you're believe deceived by old fucking farts, like Spencer Kimball, Boyd Packer, and by long dead cult founders like Joseph Smith & Brigham Young.

13. Show the missionaries the film "Jesus Camp" and get their response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Camp

14. When you get finished on your mission do you plan to attend BYU Idaho, and while there do you plan to complain about your roommates if they happen to have women staying over at night? If the answer is yes, then that means you're still an asshole. Free yourself, young, dumb, naive, Mormon missionary. Don't be a chump or a tool of old farts who just want 10% of your gross income.

15. What about the links between Mormonism and Masonry?

Why are the following photo collections related?
Salt Lake masonic temple images: http://goo.gl/hgIbF5

Mormon Salt Lake temple images: http://goo.gl/lOki78

And an additional question not mentioned in my view:

16. Watch the film "Plan 10 From Outer Space" with the missionaries and get their response.
http://www.echocave.net/plan_10_from_outer_space.html

IMG 8035 - 3-13-2014 7:42am

Exmormon Foundation 2013 conference: anti-human, anti-children, and anti-life!

Regarding the Exmormon Foundation 2013 conference:
http://web.archive.org/web/20130730052521/http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/conference2013.html

"...Due to the nature of the conference presentations and the serving of alcohol during the evenings, we have established a strict policy that no children are allowed except for nursing infants. In addition, since the presentations are recorded for our website, it's important that we control the ambient noise during the recordings. If you have any questions about this policy, please contact the Conference Chairman..."

Your strict "no children" AKA no-normal-human policy is still present. As such we won't be going.

Suggest your foundation be led by people who realize that people who grow up in a children-friendly environment (eg: sacrament meetings where children are welcome) may expect to have a similar environment in their so-called "recovery-from-Mormonism."

I think we need recovery from recovery from Mormonism, if "recovery" means giving up our kids or leaving them behind.

The Salt Lake conference should be Salt-Lake-people-originated, and operated by people who remember what many years of life were like as a Mormon: Children were there, and that was actually a good thing. We didn't kick them out or send them away like Unitarians do, and we aren't going to do so as so-called "exmos" - not even if there's a "strict" policy requiring this.

Hey, I remember when Tal Bachman brought his several kids to the conference. No problem right?

Anyway, in my view the current leaders of the Exmormon Foundation have constructed a group which is essentially a cult of personality.

Utah is a kid friendly place, even for people recovering from recovery from Mormonism. We aren't from Portland, and we didn't grow up going to UU churches. Sending kids away is not natural for us, and neither is a "strict no child policy." Such a policy is anti-human and anti-life.

Jonathan
http://corvus.freeshell.org/psittacus/one/jonathan.html
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/

related post:
Atheist Family Values: Attention Exmormon Foundation: humans have children. And more on presuppositional apolegetics.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/07/atheist-family-values-attention.html

Family Values Atheism: Questioning liberal dogma -- the Gay Flag: Freaks Welcome Here -- questioning gay marriage -- secular reparative therapy (choosing to live straight)

Family Values Atheism
Questioning liberal dogma
the Gay Flag: Freaks Welcome Here
questioning gay marriage
secular reparative therapy (choosing to live straight)

Examples of liberal dogma:

1. Everything is equal.

2. Gay marriage is as useful, helpful, healthy, and productive as regular heterosexual marriage.

3. Gay couples are as useful, helpful, healthy, and productive as regular heterosexual couples.

4. Gay sex is as useful, helpful, healthy, and productive as regular heterosexual sex.

5. For the individual, living the gay or homosexual lifestyle is just as useful, helpful, healthy, and productive as living a heterosexual life.

6. For groups of humans, it's important to be "accepting" of a much wider range of expressions of human sexuality.

7. Being gay is just "who you are," and whatever happens to pop into your head is "what's right for you."

8. If you find out you like men sexually, it's ok to cheat on your wife, get AIDS, die, and leave your family with no father (as happened with an uncle of mine).

9. Being around gay lifestyle living parents doesn't impact children to be gay. If you're the daughter of a gay man who otherwise cheated on your mother, got AIDS, and died as a result - it's no problem for you to learn from your father that being gay is ok and therefore to live as a lesbian.

10. It's ok for convicted pedophiles to be readily accepted back into the gay community after they get released from prison.

The gay flag essentially means: "Freaks Welcome Here." I first saw such a flag being flown over the entrance to a Unitarian Univeralist church, a church which for several years was headed up by a transgendered woman/man/it (woman to man). "We won't judge you." Well, after several years of being exposed to gay culture via a nephew of mine I can safely say this: Yes, we need to "judge" the gay lifestyle. Yes we need to judge whether gay marriage is equivalent to regular true straight marriage. Yes we need to judge whether inherently non-reproductive sex is as useful to humanity as regular sex is.

There are some gay people who spend there lives in service & helping others - being part of the social fabric in a good way. But, there's also hordes of homosexuals who spend their lives selfishly chasing their own & other people's tails - to no useful end. A permanent stunted petty vain childhood state.

In cultures which are less accepting of the state of being homosexual, there are less homosexuals. Socialization plays a much larger role in what happens than the gay rights advocates will admit. And "just being born that way" doesn't mean your brain is 100% blocked from life as a more normal, healthy, productive, and happy person - living a life which isn't stunted.

So, if you've found that you like people of the same sex sexually, I would submit that you can choose to open yourself up to happy sexual marital long term family type relations with a person of the opposite sex. And what will be the benefit of such an action? Immortality.

I agree with the Black Atheists of Atlanta where they state that the only true flesh & blood immortality we will ever experience is through having children.

An animal which doesn't wish to reproduce for whatever reason is damaged. As an advocate for naturalism, I'm for examining ALL human cultures to see what may lie at the heart of human nature. And many cultures discourage homosexuality. Is that a bad thing? No! I support them. And in as much as I can join hands with the rebels who are in the Black Atheists of Atlanta, I'll do so - as a guy with lighter skin. But I'll join them in spirit and with the brave concept that as an atheist we can rebel against, and take a step back from, liberal dogma too!

Not everything that comes from religion is necessarily bad. What they advocate for CAN be part of human nature. And reproduction is a damn important part of human nature. If you find the liberal dogmas you're being taught draw you away from this key fact, you're being abused. So work to free yourself...

Raising children in a household which is accepting of the homosexual agenda can lead to children who won't reproduce. That IS a problem. Liberal dogmatists will try and tell you otherwise. But such people are essentially part of a new death cult. That's my view.

So, do I think homosexuality should be illegal & punished? Maybe not. But I do question the value of legalizing gay marriage, and of assuming that a gay couple can raise a child just as well as a regular straight family. A gay could will introduce the gay agenda meme set to the child as being acceptable, and that may well open up the child to being sucked into a dead-end, petty, stunted life path.

For the gay people who do live service oriented lives, I feel empathy and sympathy for them, and I feel sad for them as well. I also feel sad for the heterosexual liberal who also chooses to not have kids because they've been lied to and sucked into the liberal death cult that teaches, among other things, that overpopulation is a concern, and that overpopulation in third world countries means you shouldn't have any kids.

What a crazy and destructive idea: "Your right to be a zero." Ok, you've got that right, but I don't have to respect it. And being gay is another way to be a zero. Yes we have certain artists who we remember, but even they could have hooked up with a woman and had kids - if they would have opened their minds to the possibility. The possibility and option for immortality. Some of them did.

So, from a secular perspective, there's no shame in living a "reparative" life, that is a life where you choose to live "straight" even if you're inclined to varying degrees to be "gay."

It's heresy in liberal & gay groups to state that choosing a straight life is a.) possible, and b.) preferable. They'll go on angry witch hunts against such ideas. Remember the Spanish Inquisition? Today we have the Gay Inquisition. Watch how angry your average "gay" person gets online when they encounter such ideas.

Hey, it's not about god my friend. It's about tying into true & honest human nature, and that nature may well discourage people from engaging in inherently non-reproductive sex in the long term. That nature may well also discourage other destructive behaviors, such as sex which leads to deadly diseases and so on.

Human morals have some rather key foundational reasons behind them. Discouragement of homosexuality and encouragement of being a normal, healthy, productive, and dare I say, reproductive person, is a good thing. There, I said it. And if you're an atheist group who is ready to excommunicate people for having this view, or if you fly the gay flag to show how "accepting" you are, well, you're really no different than the religions you claim to be against.You've got your dogmas, and you're ready to back them up. But, I would argue, you're not really true humanists nor a true naturalists.

Religious & atheist groups are essentially meme set advocacy groups. Atheists groups DO advocate for a set of memes. So do religions. All these meme sets operate in human brains, and on the framework known as the human body. It's all natural, like it or not atheist & religionist. So that's what a liberal today has to come to terms with: examining which parts of religion, the parts that actually ascribe stigma to certain human behaviors - which stigma-advocating parts are actually valuable & worth advocating for? Oh my god, that's a super hard one for an ex-religionist to do.

The ex-religionist may well spend years of "letting it all hang out," and exploring Alice in Wonderland style all the hippie shit out there. But in the end maybe you'll then come around and find that some of the stuff they taught you as a kid, in your religion, may actually be, at least in part, correct. How can this be so? Because even in your religion it was humans talking to humans. A natural occurrence.

Liberals claim to be able to be more introspective - willing to do self examinations. But are you introspective enough to examine whether certain activities actually DO deserve to be shamed for (eg: discouraged)?

video made August 12, 2013 7:41am

further links:

Sexual reorientation therapy not unethical: Column
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/07/30/sexual-reorientation-therapy-not-unethical-column/2601159/

"Former American Psychological Association President Says APA Has been “Hijacked” by Gay Rights Activists"
http://narth.com/2013/08/psychologist-for-kaiser-permanente-speaks-out-on-patient-choice/

National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) position statements - a secular group advocating for reparative therapy
http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html

Many atheist groups have been similarly hijacked. The Unitarian Universalists were already hijacked and have been for some time. The creep of the gay freak flag has now moved on to "main line" atheist groups. But, the black atheists are thankfully pushing back.

Is Homosexuality Destructive For The Black Family?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kka3ECinb6M

In the video they're critical of "cracker culture." If by cracker culture they mean ultra-left liberal culture that assumes that everything is equal - I agree.

Related previous post with more links & videos:

Homosexuality occurs in nature? So what. Can I be a "black atheist" too?
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/homosexuality-occurrs-in-nature-so-what.html

response to: "Porn site claims attack by LDS Church servers" and questioning sex with "boys" in gay culture
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/response-to-site-claims-attack-by-lds.html

Yelena Isinbayeva - You Go Girl! -- Questioning Hippie Dogma.
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/08/yelena-isinbayeva-you-go-girl.html

American Atheists: Censoring atheist thought, taking a step back from all ideologies, and questioning 100% acceptance of gay marriage

On the facebook page for American Atheists they don't allow links to other sites to be posted. Science and human progress generally requires having a free and open exchange of ideas. American Atheists' main focus seems to be acting as props on Fox News, suing people over 10 commandment monuments, promoting the ultra-left social agenda, and not much else. Is this "atheism plus," or atheism minus?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus

Maybe triple minus - more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnBGeoJsFOk
and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ69BhfiC6g

Pedantic motto of American Atheists: "I'm an atheist and I fight for equality."

Just because a human activity is natural doesn't mean we should embrace it 100%.

Maybe homosexual married couples should be required to adopt. How about that?

Just because a person becomes an atheist after leaving a cult or an ultra-conservative religion, doesn't mean they automatically become an ultra-leftie.

Be careful of people who want to control you after you leave a religion. Atheist plus people want to control your speech, just as much as any ultra-leftie might.

Frantic censoring ultra-lefties: http://goo.gl/wQ5BkP

A secular case against gay marriage:
http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/a-secular-case-against-gay-marriage/

I'm still somewhat undecided in general about gay marriage, but I'm not just 100% "for it" just automatically by default. The inherently non-reproductive nature of gay sex IS an issue, as are built in human nature that may feel some amount of concern over gay sex. That's natural too. Not everything is equal. Let's take a step back and not just jump wholeheartedly into the arms of the ultra-left. Maybe, just maybe, conservatives have something useful to contribute, even if at first glance their motives are motivated by "religion." Since, religion is a natural phenomenon, we cannot just fully dismiss out of hand every single thing they're concerned about.

A brain can be trained by genetics, socialization, and a combination of the two. During the following talk Warren Farrell talks about how in ancient societies homosexual sex which didn't include reproduction was discouraged: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4

An a fascinating article on the subject:
The End of Gays: Gay Marriage and the Decline of the Homosexual Population
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/08/01/the-end-of-gays-gay-marriage-and-the-decline-of-the-homosexual-population/
hmmm

I don't wish to see anyone harmed by the ideas people like past Mormon prophet Spencer Kimball, who equated masturbation and sex before marriage as sins akin to murder. That goes too far. And yet, even the happily free exmoron draws the line somewhere, between acceptable and unacceptable human behavior, regardless of the naturalistic status of that behavior. Of course it's all natural, and to some extent, so what. A better question may be: what do most people do, and what helps the species survive? Does this mean I advocate that gay couples separate? Not necessarily. But men who're in hetero relationships should not jump ship just because they find out they're gay. And already-gay couples maybe should adopt, or find other ways to have kids. And gay men, and rather self-centered straight no-children men & women, should find ways to not spend their whole lives in highly childish games chasing their own & other people's incredibly vain and shallow tails forever. Eventually we all have to grow up. Sex usually, even today, forces that upon hetero couples. It doesn't, automatically, do so for gay ones - and maybe that's the point.

I'm a social moderate, and an economic liberal.

Here's for an open discussion, and being free from censors.

June 30, 2013 afternoon

Exmormon Foundation: discriminating against children & their parents

Below are copies of post & replies in connection with a related post on here entitled Atheist Family Values: Attention Exmormon Foundation: humans have children. And more on presuppositional apolegetics.

Original post on 7/5/2013 on the exmormon email discussion group on yahoogroups:

Now that I actually have a child I'm finding that some secular  advocacy
groups either are actively not child friendly, or they are  passively so (by
inaction or just not thinking things  through).

Related blog post: http://goo.gl/4f1L2

Jonathan

Reply received from the vice president of the Exmormon Foundation:

On Fri, 5 Jul 2013 13:34:29 -0400 (EDT), Sue wrote:

>Jonathan -- if you will read carefully our position on children at the 
>Conference, I think you will find that it's pretty reasonable.  Because  we
>film and record the talks, and extraneous noise can seriously  affect that
>filming, we cannot have toddlers and older children in the  room.  We all have
>experienced times at other events (including Sac.  Mtg.!!)  when the noise
>from children has compromised a speaker.  The  serving of alcohol is another
>reason.  Nursing babies are allowed.
>
>Sue

----end of quote

And here's my reply as of July 14, 2013:


----quote beings

Howdy,

I'm aware of the reasoning behind the "strict no child policy" and I believe it's fundamentally flawed, for the following reasons:

1. Having people show up is more important than creating what some might perceive as youtube friendly multimedia presentations or podcasts.

2. Having a no child policy is discriminatory. In apartments, housing, work, and at exmormon conferences - and for the same reasons. It simply seeks to pretend and hope like a certain segment of the population does not exist, and should stay away.

3. Humans have children. Atheists & exmormons should have more of them and they should be encouraged to do so. Having a "strict no child policy" serves to directly counter that noble and highly valuable goal.

4. Children are part of life and part of valuing life, and they are the ones who will help us move forward.

So, when I was a 365 pound single guy with thick glasses living in my parent's basement, yes, policies which bar children didn't much affect me. When Steve Clark of Latter-Day Lampoon / the Salamander Society was running the Salt Lake conferences I don't believe he had a no child policy. But in any case, I've moved on from "needing" to have an association with a group which labels itself as "exmormon" per se. Naturalist. Humanist. Atheist. Skeptic. Enlightenment Values Advocate. These are a few of my favorite things. "Exmormon" is a bit too myopic, limited in scope.

It's unfortunate that participants in the current exmo conferences are little more than props in a presentation primarily targeted at the Internet.

I've seen groups go down hill before. A pet bird club in Salt Lake (Avicultural Society of Utah) was run into the ground by an overly controlling president. The other club here continues ok. Atheist groups have has similar splits and shenanigans, in Salt Lake, Portland, and Texas.

I guess the bottom line is that, if you're going to continue with this no child policy, you'll end up turning advocates into adversaries. So, as of this time I'm against support for attendance at the Exmormon Foundation conferences, and I suggest that other people also not support attendance. Instead, I'd suggest that people either attend local secular advocacy groups, or start a secular advocacy group of your own. But, if you really don't like children at your events, consider the morality of also excluding blacks, gays, and Mexicans from your events as well while you do so. As you pan your camera across the audience you'd perhaps want to ensure that no non-European faces appear, so as to not upset anyone - just as some people don't want to upset their youtube presentations with the presence of children.

I make this point just to remind people what category of activity discrimination against people with children fits into. Having a "strict no child policy" is in the same category as a strict no black person policy, a strict no gay person policy, and a strict no Mexican person policy.

Real people who show up are the most important.

I realize that in ultra-social-liberal culture there is the view that people should have less or no children. I don't agree with that view, and I think it's not only misguided it's destructive.

A child and his parents being present is more important than the audio quality on your online podcast.

A child and her parents being present is more important than whether you have a personal distaste for children.

A child and his parents being present is more important than whether people on youtube can hear 100% of what's being said by a speaker. Flesh & blood people who show up are the most important, and if they are not, then they are merely your unwary props.

We, who left the Mormon Church, are not your props. We're humans, and humans have babies.

So, don't get stuck in cults of personalities. That's one key thing we've learned. If you encounter a group with an overly controlling president, then don't spend too much time with that group. Be honest in what you say. Maybe found a group of your own. Find like minded people. That's my advise to people who leave the Mormon Church.

Not everything that happened in the Church was bad. Children are good and should be valued. A "strict no child policy" does not value them, nor does it honor the fact that humans have them.

I know you've done a lot of good work in the past. And when I was a fat bast*** virgin with thick glasses living in my parents basement, I didn't really think about "hey, where's the kids?" at the exmo conferences. But, now that I'm 100 pounds lighter, have a wife and a kid, and am living a more normal life I can now see the more true situation.

A group that meets in Salt Lake should have Salt Lake roots. And no group should have the right to discriminate against people with kids. It should be illegal, just as it is illegal to discriminate against black people, gay people, and etc.

Sincerely,

Jonathan

Official announcement: I'm now an ex-post-Mormon and maybe an ex-ex-Mormon also

Attention all post and ex Mormons: Recent engagements online and in person with "post-Mormon" and "ex-Mormons" have revealed to me the following: Regarding labels I'd rather just use "human," "naturalist," and "atheist." Post-Mormon is also a fairly irrelevant term. If you were a Mormon you'll always be impacted in your future life by what happened to you. If you were impacted sufficiently you'll always want to fight and to help free people from the brain washing prison. But, when it comes to groups, the label "postmo" or "exmo" is not quite sufficient. It's too limited in scope, as apparently are the groups who use these labels.

Related post:
Mormons, Exmormons, "post-mormons," and the "need" to control the speech of others and to "mother" people.

explorations & activities after leaving Mormonism: nudism, & Temple Square protests

explorations & activities made after leaving Mormonism: Protests at Temple Square in 1999 and 2002. Nudist group experiences. Nudists claim their activities have nothing to do with sex. Such a claim is a lie, and an indicator that Puritanism infects even this aspect of American culture.

By the term "girl" I mean an attractive woman. References:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/girl
"2. a young unmarried woman; lass; maid"
"4. Informal a woman of any age"


12-24-2014 addendum:

In response to the question posted in a comment below, regarding have I ever been to a nudist event:

Yes I have. Some of the leadership of those activities are very highly hipocritical. Claiming that events are "non-sexual," when they themselves are self-proclaimed "sex goddesness." But the truth only comes out after a while.

The general American nudist position on sexuality shows how they are very much afraid of sex and how they are inhibited. Adding and stating many extra rules for behavior when people have their clothes off - rules never ever stated when people are at parties with their clothes on - it's all nn indication of their being completely and fully inhibited while lying about being uninhibited. This is the general state of nudism in America today.

It's a fundamental lie to assume that sexuality is ever disconnected from an activity when *adult* humans are together naked. To claim this, to think this, and to require that others think this as a condition of participation, is abusive, hypocritical, just plain crazy, and an indication of some type of Puritanical memetic disease pervading nudist culture.

Nudists in America express even more fear of sex, when their clothes are off!

Uninhibited? I don't think so.

Related thoughts from others:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.nude/9Say7QWoaT4[1-25-false]

Anyway, there's something particularly perverse about asking humans to get naked, and them playing mind games with them and with yourself by claiming that when adults get naked the activities are "non-sexual." That's just plain bullshit. Utter abusive bullshit. A lie. And why? One may well ask. Perhaps nudism as it stands today is really a playground for liars, so long as they keep up what they're doing & claiming.

Adult humans are sexual animals. Taking your clothes off can mean "being free," but don't ever claim that your nudist event where adult humans can see each other naked is "non sexual." If you do, you're a liar.

Mormons, Exmormons, "post-mormons," and the "need" to control the speech of others and to "mother" people.

In Mormonism they tried to control our thoughts & our speech. So, upon leaving Mormonism I've found high value in opposite actions to these, and in fighting against people who are too controlling. I don't go on the net to be anyone's child per se. I've been here since 1994, and I wasn't born yesterday. Perhaps you cater to those who were, but there's been too much water under the bridge for me to kowtow to anyone.

Some exmormon websites do have forums with a very limited scope. Such controlling & micromanaging groups cater to exmos (people who've left Mormonism) who've just been out of the Mormon Church for perhaps one or two weeks - and that's all. Once you've become more psychologically adult, more than a "2 week exmo," you'll find such controlling forums infantile & incredible myopic.

Once you've exposed yourself to the writings, speeches, and debates of people who don't speak at Mormon General Conference (eg: Enlightenment Values speakers & thinkers), you will find controlling personalities to be even more distasteful.

Hey you, controlling forum admin: We don't exist to serve or exist at the pleasure of yourself or people who get angry at an open expression of ideas. People who want us to shut up - whether those people are Mormons, or control freak exmormons like you - no, you won't control what we say & think.

So to the mothering admin who tries to maintain "harmony" via suppressing a highly valuable crucible of ideas, here's my message to you: I stand by my videos and links, and the opinions expressed therein. People exposed to authoritarian culture can be authoritarian too - even in their desire to ensure that no one is ever offended.

For example: Carefully read over the restrictions at http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,45 - the forum rules for people who are just leaving Mormonism. It's a largely highly disgusting list of what's not allowed in their little forum:

1. personal attacks
2. politics (terrorism, party politics, foreign policy etc)
3. preaching
4. attempts to deliberately stir up trouble
5. faking a conversation by answering your own posts under different names (puppeteering)
6. complaints about censorship (ironic, ain't it)
7. questions for the admins (send those to ExMoLight@gmail.com instead)
8. complaints about the admins (ditto)
9. advertising and solicitations for money
10. legal issues not cleared in ADVANCE through admin
11. copyrighted material
12. posts about a topic that the moderators have said to drop
13. anything that collects personal information, requests for signatures on petitions or links to petitions, interview requests not cleared IN ADVANCE with admin. Requests for people to contact you off board.
14. anything illegal.
The above list is not exhaustive.

---quote ends 

Item 1 may be ok, as along as the term "personal attack" is construed to mean that we should generally not tell people to "FOAD," and as long as we aren't, again generally speaking, telling people to "shut up." I generally won't advocate that you shut up, unless such a demand is warranted, such as in cases of people who go around destroying the lives of children, people such as Boyd Packer or Spencer Kimball.

Item 2 on their list is evil. For example: Utah is still a theocracy in some respects, and especially outside of Salt Lake City itself. So, "policitcs" does relate to the state of being an ex-mormon. Also politics is about life and what leaders may choose to try & do with yours. So in any case such a restiction is not only myopic, it's abusive.

Item 3 may be ok, but advocating strongly for your position could be interpreted as "preaching," and again, we don't exist to serve at the pleasure of control freak forum admins or of people who cannot handle open discussion & debate. In general "trolls" should be allowed, because they can be Mormons or fundie Christians who simply need more exposure to atheists.

Item 4 is also a perniciously evil request to make of a former Mormon. Hey, we ARE here to "stir up trouble!" We left Mormonism! That stirs up trouble for Mormon leaders! And we're also here to "stir up trouble" with people who want to control the speech & thoughts of others. Yes, this means you micromanaging forum admin at exmormon.org, and your kin on other sites. Item 4 is an OUTRAGEOUSLY ABUSIVE request.

Go read the works of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. Are they "stirring up trouble?" Damn right they are! No, you're not going to shut us up.

Item 5 is a stupid thing to worry about. Who cares.

Item 6 shows what we have here is exmormons behaving EXACTLY like Mormon leaders.

Item 7 shows that the admins are very afraid of having their abusive micro-managing ways questioned in public.

Item 8 -same as item 6.

Item 10 - who cares

Item 11 - who cares

Item 12 - we don't exist to serve or speak or live at the pleasure of micro-managing forum admins. Now, there's a difference between telling people to stop directly attacking each other (eg: telling people to stop saying "f-off" or "shut up" to each other), and telling people to "stop talking about a given topic." Do you know the difference, forum admin? "Stop talking about a given topic" means an order to stop thinking, to stop the crubicle from doing it's work. And, forum admins seem quite adept at shelling out their own personal attacks while shielding themselves in their own propped up self importance and access to instruments of control. More on that below.

Item 13 - who cares

Item 14 - freedom of speech & thought may be illegal in North Korea, and in even in some places where the Internet now reaches.

So, what's the bottom line specifically about the forums at exmormon.org? It's a site that can be useful to help you leave Mormonism initially, and it's useful for most people during the first week they're out - but that's it! There is on there some separate good informational articles about Mormonism, but avoid the forums like the plague. Go out and find yourself a good old fashioned atheist forum or group. Seriously. Generally speaking groups with balls enough to actually use the term "atheist" in their group name will have people who're more psychologically adult, more intelligent, more willing to have pointed discussions & debates, and, generally speaking, be less controlling of free speech & thought.

Who are my heros, as a former Mormon Temple Worker, Sunday School President, and Mormon missionary?

Christopher Hitchens.
Richard Dawkins.
Daniel Dennett.
Stephen Pinker.
Sam Harris.
Carl Sagan.

Google all these people to hear & read their thoughts & words.

To the control freak "exmo" or "postmo" admins, listen to these people! Do they "stir up trouble?" Do they "question the admins?" Do they even bother to care about whether their speech "offends others?" Well on that last point yes they do, but they aren't afraid to nevertheless make judgements about others when they feel such actions are warranted. Judgements about religion. Judgements about religious leaders, or political leaders who act in in similar controlling ways. Judgements about otherwise slimy behavior.

Ideally I believe life is not so much about whether we offend others, it's about speaking the truth. We only have so much time on this rock to make a difference. For what it's worth, here's a copy of my the talk I gave at my mother's funeral, given inside a Mormon meeting house:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2010/12/funeral-talk-that-i-gave-in-february.html

And here's some related videos:

Richard Dawkins on being offended:

Stephen Fry:

Chrisopher Hitchens on the importance of having freedom of expression including the license of offend:

To control freak hippies who want to impose "harmony" by quelling freedom of thought & speech:

The 60s was your great experiment. The 70s was the hangover result. When I left Mormonism I didn't loose my ability to evaluate the behavior of others. Yes there are moral judgements worth dropping which are popular in Mormonism. Prohibitions against premarital sex & masturbation. Prohibitions against coffee, tea, and the moderate consumption of alcohol. But, there are some "generally universal human morals," and I'm less willing to drop these as a human who happens to also be a former Mormon.

No, becoming and "postmo," an "exmo," an atheist, or continuing to be a human doesn't mean that I loose my ability to judge the actions of others.

It's not my goal to show how accepting I am. I care more about the facts, the truth, and yes even how I get to advocate for my own position. I care more about long term survival than your "feewings."

Not every path in life is an equally valid one. If you disagree with my approach or think it's inappropriate, I welcome your direct feedback (as long as your feedback is not "shut up," or nicely-put versions of such a demand).

After leaving Mormonism I did try out a few "hippie culture" groups. Nudists. Groups which advocate more sexual openness. In the end I found serious problems with such groups. A fear of being human (nudist leaders), and strange controlling whackjobs (polyamorists). Their leaders were either hypocritical harmony-imposing-two-faced-deceptive-control-freaks or just strange.

I found going all the other way culturally and socially was not a good option. There's a reason the 70s were a hangover from the activities of the 60s. There's elements of 60s culture worth embracing, but the 1970s shows we can go too far with letting it all hang out.

Ok, so, here's a demand I received from one forum admin," on their super secret facebook page for the group SLC Postmos. The same group also exists on meetup.

Jonathan you wanted input about why people felt there were not enough kid friendly events. You received plenty of offers to them. You brought beefs with other groups on her and you posted blogs and videos meant to insult others. You may not have said those things on this page but you posted links to places that did. Yes name calling is not good here but you need to stop as well. As admin I suggest we drop this thread.

 And here is my video response:

My history with Mormonism:
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/life_path.htm

The importance of having "kid friendly" events as a rule rather than an exception in atheist & exmormon groups

Content:

1. Original open letter.

2. Original video (below).

3. Addendum added after I received a response from one of the groups involved.

4. Addendum video (also below)
5. Previous blog post (separate page).
6. Remaining concerns of note:

          A. The following Exmormon Foundation policy statement:

"...Due to the nature of the conference presentations and the serving of alcohol during the evenings, we have established a strict policy that no children are allowed except for nursing infants..."

B. Working to ensure that kids are welcome within the relevant groups I may be a part of, and perhaps starting groups or events of my own as needed.

C. Unitarian Universalism churches i.) requiring that children go away during their main meetings, ii.) being apologists for Mohamed & Islam, and iii.) having taboos against being critical of wacky New Age / Pagan type ideas (the freedom to believe - in bullshit). Believing bullshit is a time waster, whether you believe in Jesus, Thor, Zeus, or in homeopathy, the wacky woo woo of Depak Chopra, crystals, or in The Secret.

-------------------

(2.) First video:

(4.) Second video:

(1.) Original open letter:

An open letter to atheist & ex-Mormon groups, on the issue of whether children are welcome at your events or not: [I did receive a further response from a relevant atheist group - click here to read my reply.]

Speaking frankly, I have no use for events which aren't "kid friendly." Family isn't a dirty word. Funny how people can embrace "Pride" and then jump straight on to having "kids around" as an "exception" rather than a rule. Where's the pride parade for straight people with kids? Maybe we deserve one too.

I never really thought about this issue until I had a kid myself. Pretty much the only "events" I *might* consider attending without my kid are these:

1. A gay bar I have been to before, with my gay nephew - if he happens to come to town and decides to pay a visit to my house & asks me to go there for a short visit to the bar & I decide to say yes.

2. The very occasional (officially rated as, & not merely "unrated") NC-17 film that is economically viable enough to actually be shown, and that's worth watching - a perhaps once every 20 year occurrence.

Other than that, from ex-Mormon meetings to atheist ones to church meetings, if my kid isn't welcome to sit beside me while I'm present, then neither am I. My family is more important than your little meetings - speaking frankly...

"...Due to the nature of the conference presentations and the serving of alcohol during the evenings, we have established a strict policy that no children are allowed except for nursing infants..."

...as quoted from an exmormon conference website. But more recently I've encountered a similar de facto prohibition on admitting that I have a child in connection with an atheist semi-annual party at which elections were to be voted on. Well, I guess I won't be running in that election, right? I've got a kid after all, and the crazy meeting where they'll be doing the voting doesn't seem to be kid friendly. What's up with that?

Let me say here as a side note that the organizers of these various groups do work very hard, and deserve a lot of credit for helping a lot of people. But, on the other hand, my son takes precedence over even these otherwise hard working people. It's just that they don't (yet) realize what it means to be fully inclusive.

If you wish to be inclusive of "gay issues" then you also need to be inclusive of "straight ones," and of people who, yes, have children. And, from what I've been told, gay and bi people sometimes have kids also.

Does the right wing get to hijack and use-solely the word "family?" I don't think so. But the "left" doesn't either.

I'm not really into the self-hatred of the left or the right. Yes, family is a good thing and it should be supported and promoted. And social groups which are supporting people recovering from religion & people who're finding new ways to live after leaving religion should take into account that humans actually engage in sexual reproduction...

I don't leave home without my genitals attached - as Mormons would have preferred. And, I should not be required to leave home without my new son - or to keep him hidden away just for the privilege of socializing with fellows who are supposedly on a similar life path.

Children sometimes make a bit of noise. Yes, I'm willing to take them out temporarily if they're screaming. But the occasional child-originated outburst should be well tolerated in any group which is supposedly trying to be "welcoming" and "inclusive."

Also, I agree that there is a need for singles events & singles type dances in atheist & ex-mormon groups. That's fine. But, as for alcohol, remember that alcohol is also served at pubs, and pubs do not exclude children.

So anyway unless your event is somehow exactly the same as the singular gay bar my nephew may or may not ever invite me to visit again, or is similar to a loud dive-bar (a largely unhealthy atmosphere for anyone which I suggest you not try to emulate regardless), don't expect me to hide my children away...  Occasional "singles" events may be ok, which are designed for single people to meet each other. But sometimes single people have kids also.

Jonathan

-------

Related post:
Regarding the group Atheists of Utah, suggestions posted June 12, 2013

postscript: After leaving Mormonism I searched for new groups to associate with. The groups mentioned above represent at least three I've tried so far. Nothing is absolutely cut & dry and I realize that anyone can start a group. But this is just something I've noticed after a.) leaving Mormonism, and now b.) having a kid.

In the old days the exmo conferences were more laid back. But I was shocked to see the more recent restrictions on kids - strange. The Unitarians can only tolerate kids at their meetings for the first few minutes. Why? What if I don't want my kid to be shuffled away to some other room, and what if I think all the kids should stay with their parents?

Also separately UUism is I've found not really friendly to Enlightenment values, since they embrace the "freedom to believe - in bullshit" via embracing paganism/fluff-a-muff-crazy-unfounded-views and they have a taboo against being critical of views which are otherwise crazy.

Well, anyway, I do have suspicions on exactly why things are the way they are. Discrimination against people who have kids - yes, it exists, apparently. And apparently those of us with kids have to fight for our rights to "come out" as straight people with kids as well...

 ===============================

(4.) June 13, 2013 10:45PM addendum:

I received a more cogent response from the president of Atheists of Utah regarding my concerns in this & the previous blog post. Here is what I have posted in reply:

---quote begins

Greetings,

<clip>

>I couldn't find any such post on any of our
>online presence locations. I saw you post this at
>several locations, but no "copy" of your blog post.

There was an original copy which I then deleted once it was copied in total to my blog, and then a link to the post was posted for convenience & consolidation.

The original queries which caused the original first concerns were posted in the announcement for the party itself. Regarding the discouragement of the attendance of children, as far as I could tell at least one board member and another attendee recommended (in rather strong terms) that children not attend - in the specific announcement area for the meeting. Then I heard nothing from anyone else, and no further feedback until now.

<clip>

The wheelbarrow is perhaps indicative of the target audience for the meeting in question. I had forgotten about Joel starting the wheelbarrow thing - perhaps once the meetings were moved to Richard T.’s house. Back when they were still at Joel’s house I don’t think such a thing was occurring.  Clearly there’s a need to attract college age fratsters to atheist meetings (seriously & not in jest). They have a lot of dynamic energy worth tapping into.

Regarding music we never heard back whether there would be music at this particular party. But for us it’s a moot point at this point.

<clip>

>Most of the members in the group have children of various ages.
>There are only a few of the more than 150 of our gatherings where the exclusion
>of children is explicitly stated.

In the wake of my previous chats with people about these issues I came away with the impression that it was only the “ice cream socials” which were really welcoming for children.

<clip>

>It is always stated explicitly in the event description
>if it is recommended that children do not attend. For all other events,
>children are implicitly welcome.

Regarding group and committee suggestions, I’ll consider which options would be most fruitful. There’s certainly room to grow in either direction.

Well, in this case I don’t wish to impede anyone’s ability to have a raging good time with fellow youngsters without the perceived impediments or impositions the presence of a child may pose, since it was rather strongly previously made clear to me by others in the related forums that for the event in question that children not attend.

I realize the main announcement didn’t explicitly exclude kids, but like I say later conversations, which weren't merely completely unofficial (to my perception) made it clear to me that it would be unusual and not advisable to bring kids to this particular event.

Like I say there is a need for such events which are young-person-party-animal-wild-man-and-woman focused, so by all means have fun at the party - all those people who want to hook up with some hot atheist chick or dude. Just remember what may happen if you do:

http://goo.gl/pr2mi

I’ll see about amending my text & video blogs appropriately in response, now that I’ve finally received a more official response. I’m glad that you were finally able to get back. In this case I still believe the party in question is really more of one intended for young people to get more than a bit tipsy so that they can more effectively meet each other. And I shall take the advice of others and keep our son home. He’s too young for a baby sitter.

At the very least we’ll work on announcing events which may be of value to those with youngsters... Here’s some related ideas I found:
http://www.meetup.com/cfi-sfn/

So by all means attend & have fun. We'll just stay home with our young kid - that's all...

Our kid is too young for a baby sitter. But to tell you the truth I wasn't just concerned about this group. There's another group which does have a more explicit "no kids" policy which is quite a bummer. So the conversation here was kind of a tipping point, for what it's worth.

J

---end of quote of addendum to Atheists of Utah.

Regarding the group Atheists of Utah, suggestions posted June 12, 2013

Copy of a post made in an Atheists of Utah forum today. Posted here in part to keep track of my own thoughts & writings... Note that I did receive further feedback. See this newer post with key addendum notes and videos.

---------------- quote begins

Group suggestions:

Regarding the summer solstice party, it sounds as if it's really primarily a members-only singles event where children are not welcome (and by default, people who have infant children are not welcome either). I agree there's a need for there to be atheist singles groups. The Unitarians certainly aren't stepping up (& their church really isn't atheist, Enlightenment-values, and science & skepticism friendly). And in past years there was pretty much no options other than bar hopping & random chance. Now there's the Internet though & more opportunities to start groups.

As for this group, for the future may I suggest:

1. Having meetings/parties that don't have a membership requirement - but allow for donations via a donation box at the party.
2. Having parties that are pot lock, and simple.
3. Having parties that allow for alcohol to be brought, but not to raffle off a "wheelbarrow of booze" at such parties. We could also raffle off a "wheelbarrow of cigarettes," or a "wheelbarrow of hydrogenated oil" - with similar outcomes & value.
4. Having parties which do not have amplified music.
5. Having parties which do not explicitly or implicitly exclude people who happen to have engaged in sexual reproduction (eg: they have children).

I'm aware that anyone can host a party or start a group. "Official parties & events" should be more inclusive though, if your goal is to be inclusive. And I know that running an atheist group or any group requires a lot of work, and a partially-unfair personal investment of funds.

So without question there's a need for events focused on the need for single people to meet, and for dances which serve to meet that need, and so on, outside of the context of religious groups. I would just suggest being rather explicit about how events are labeled, so as to avoid confusion.

"This party is for single people who don't have young children, or for married people who don't have children or who only have older children - children who can be kept at home away from our party or event." Please add that label up front to events if it turns out that a given event deserves such a label.

I suggest opening up this facebook group so as to allow "trolls" to once again be educated. If a given troll becomes a rather large problem, they can then be banned. But until then, they should at the very least be allowed to be educated. By comparison, if comparisons are valid, the Atheist Community of Austin manages to have an open group on this website.

There are inherent problems with an increased organizational structure being created. But I'd like to thank Zac, Joel, and Richard for their past work with creating groups and organizing things at various venues, restaurants, cafes, and houses. And Harald and Qian Qian. Our new son probably would not be here if it weren't for all these factors being present, and people who worked to organize atheist meetings in the past.

As for group dynamics & politics: I've seen the evolution of various groups, related to atheism and not. I know where I personally stand within the "movement" - pretty much with the left leaning anti-authoritarians, with occasional alliances with right leaning anti-authoritarians where necessary and fruitful... There is definitely an evolution that takes place with groups, depending on personality type and who happens to show up. Perhaps it's time for more such evolution now (making a note to myself also)...

-----

Related post:
The importance of having "kid friendly" events as a rule rather than an exception in atheist & exmormon groups

the violence of Buddhism - relativism, cult of personality, ignorance, & pacifism

Video:

About our February 10th, 2013 visit to the Salt Lake Buddhist Temple.


During the service the following item was read, as from article 10 of the Japanese Seventeen Article Constitution, by Shōtoku Taishi:

Let us cease from wrath, and refrain from angry looks. Nor let us be resentful when others differ from us. For all men have hearts, and each heart has its own leanings. Their right is our wrong, and our right is their wrong. We are not unquestionably sages, nor are they unquestionably fools. Both of us are simply ordinary men. How can any one lay down a rule by which to distinguish right from wrong? For we are all, one with another, wise and foolish, like a ring which has no end. Therefore, although others give way to anger, let us on the contrary dread our own faults, and though we alone may be in the right, let us follow the multitude and act like men.

Shōtoku Taishi - authored in 604 and published in 720 CE

Also we have article 6:

Chastise that which is evil and encourage that which is good. This was the excellent rule of antiquity...

'How can any one lay down a rule by which to distinguish right from wrong?' - contrast that with the claim that we should '...Chastise that which is evil and encourage that which is good. This was the excellent rule of antiquity...' ?

Human morals come from a combination of socialization and genetics.

Additionally the preacher guy stated that people who come to his church from other religions should consider going back to their religions. How uneducated can a person be about what actually happens in other religions?

Related links:

lds.org : discover the perversity or Mormonism
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/02/ldsorg-discover-perversity-or-mormonism.html

Rationalism, Naturalism, Cultural Relativism, and having an accurate view of the world
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/12/rationalism-naturalism-cultural.html

atheist morality: response to Peter Singer, Moshe Averick: after birth abortions, infanticide, and human rights
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/atheist-morality-response-to-peter.html

Salt Lake Buddhist Temple: http://www.slbuddhist.org

Japanese 17 article constitution: http://www.duhaime.org/LawMuseum/LawArticle-1182/604-The-Seventeen-Article-Constitution-of-Japan.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeen-article_constitution

Criticism of Buddhism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Buddhism

Shōtoku Taishi:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Sh%C5%8Dtoku

http://www.buddhanet.net/nippon/nippon_partIII.html

Atheists, exmormons, ex-Muslims, and so on "moving on" - video commentary

January 19, 2013 video commentary on atheists, exmormons, and people who've left other religions "moving on."

Are you uncomfortable being around atheists, ex-mormons, ex-Muslims, or people who've left other cults - people with a lot of "religious baggage?"

Here's a video commentary for you, and also about whether people are free to speak their mind while inside various religions or not. Also avoiding cults of personality, even in atheist groups.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPADk2Kzj_g

Related blog post:

Why are exmormons and atheists so angry? Because they have damn good reasons to be. 
https://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/why-are-exmormons-so-angry-because-they.html

Why are exmormons and atheists so angry? Because they have damn good reasons to be.

Apparently some people really do wonder:

Why are ex-mormons & atheists so angry?

Examples regarding those who leave Mormonism, which some may highlight:

My own pages:
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/life_path.htm#history

A video about launching a mission to the Mormon god's homeworld:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12puVX3vtrY

A support group which has annual conferences in Salt Lake:
http://www.exmormonfoundation.org/

One of the forums where exmormons hang out:
http://exmormon.org/phorum/list.php?2
an additional forum: http://www.postmormon.org/

Additional good sites - about the kooky crazy nature of Mormonism. Can you detect some anger? Yes. It's refreshing & helpful...
http://www.salamandersociety.com/
http://nowscape.com/mormon/

Even some some atheists wonder about the anger of exmormons & fellow atheists.

Why? Why? Why are we so angry?

Because we have damn good reasons to be. Check out the links above. Read what people actually say.

All that baggage. Why don't we just "get over it?" We do live our lives and we move forward. But we never completely "move on." Why? Because the petrified penis of Mormonism still stands tall over Salt Lake. Because the "Miracle of Forgiveness" is still sold in the Mormon Church distribution centers. Because asshole Boyd Packer is still spewing human spirit destroying filth. Because the Mormon Church continues to oppress people. Because we're upset at being lied to. Because some of our families disowned us. Because some of our fellows committed suicide because of the pain.

Some people who had a fluffy exit from Mormonism, or who were only ever liberal religionists or who have always been non-religious, these people often have no idea what life was like in Mormonism or other conservative cults.

Why don't we just "get over it?" Ask us in a more respectful tone & maybe we'll tell you.

I will not disparage people for seeking social support after they leave a cult. You shouldn't either.
 
Why is it such a mystery to some why these people have "so much religious baggage?" Because they do. And maybe they need some help learning how to be more free from the cult they spent many years inside.

Atheist groups serve as a social support for people who leave various religions. People with a "lot of religious baggage" may well show up to such meetings, and if that offends you, too bad. It's par for the course at such meetings. Maybe those people need your help.

Related video commentary added January 19, 2013:

Related book:
Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007MCMKV6

Related site & a good quote:
http://new.exchristian.net/2011/02/why-are-atheists-so-angry.html
"...Atheists are fully justified in their anger, and that anger may be the last, best hope for our species surviving our own ignorance and gullibility. If religious forces ever manage to quell our anger, then they will have won the battle . . . and lost the world..."

Review of the film Orgazmo, the Mormon temple film, and candiates for other films to show inside of Mormon temples

My review of the film Orgazmo, on January 2nd, 2013

Orgazmo is a particularly important film, especially in Utah. In my view they should replace the Mormon temple film, with the above film.

The above is the movie version of the Mormon temple endowment ceremony. The live version can be found by clicking here - as performed in the Salt Lake Temple.

Other good candidates for Mormon temple movie replacements:

Caligula

Intimacy

Destricted - played at Sundance in Salt Lake in 2006

When the God had sex with Mary, according to Family Guy:

An even more accurate video, showing Mormon space & Jesus theology, and how the Mormon God  had sex with Mary:

We were all just sperm in god's balls - a 12-22-2012 reprise of a song I composed some time ago - also good for viewing inside of Mormon temples:

Related review post from January 2nd, 2013:

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/orgazmo-film-mormonism-and-sex.html