And, this uncle who grew up in ultra-conservative Manti, Utah - dying of AIDS leaving his straight family with no father. A victim BOTH of Mormonism, and of the opposite side he jumped to in response.
Examples of the dark side of "social justice" advocacy in the atheist (bowel) movement:
Atheism Plus Social Justice Update Pt. 1: The Lulz
Here is some general advise for the religious & social right & middle:
1. Put more of your energy into searching for secular arguments to back up the otherwise good & valuable human morality that exists with your cultures.
3. Admit that on the "god" front (including on evolution), the intellectual argument has mostly gone to the side of the left.
4. Many of the moral arguments you make do have value - when made a bit less harsh.
Daniel Dennett's dangerous idea: Religion is a natural phenomenon. This fact cuts both ways. Fully natural, normal, valuable, and useful human morality can and does exist within religious frameworks. A damn hard thing for a liberal to admit! In fact many liberals are in active denial.
It's no wonder that Steven Pinker has commented about the modern denial of human nature, in his book The Blank Slate.
The left IS in denial, just as the right has been about god & evolution.
Yes we ARE animals, with BUILT IN morals, AND some damn good reasons for ascribing shame (yes shame!) to certain otherwise descructive human behaviors.
I remember when Christopher Hitchens made not of how the left was in denial about Islam and both the right & left about Mother Theressa.
I remember when Daniel Dennett stated "Dennett's Dangerous Idea" (thanks go to me for coining this if no one else has to date!), that: Religion is a natural phoenomenon. Again, this apparent fact cuts both ways. Very inconventient for the social agenda of assholes like P.Z. Myers and the like. The fundie left.
Why all the gay stuff? Because the left worships homosexuality as the pinnacle of liberal sex. No kids. "Cha-ching" they say - "we're helping the environment!" Automatic birth control. Perfect liberal sex. Also perfect liberal marriage.
People trying to "recover" from conservative religion can be and are easily sucked into the abusive fundamentalism of the left.
For example: Atheists of Utah - in my view a fundamentalist religion of the left. Doctrines. Dogmas. Unquestionable paradigms. An ultra-leftist social agenda. Voted by Q Salt Lake as the best religion, and a runner up to being the best social group.
But where's the regular straight families? Where's the children? Where's the people who value good old fashioned healthy happy useful family values? They're actively excluded. They MUST be, because politically correct leftist dogmatism is their core religion.
Boozer parties where high alchohol content liquor is raffled off.
Not only does the conservative emperor have no clothes (eg: Joseph Smith), the liberal emperer has none also (eg: "gay culture"). The latter group are happy about that though, with their constant posting of near-naked photos of themselves on facebook.
Hey, I've seen it all first hand. I've seen the ultra-right AND the ultra-left. Unlike your average muff mouthed muff brained liberal, I've done in depth research into BOTH "ultra" sides. And here's what I've found: BOTH SIDES are nearly equally abusive!
It's sad that scientists claim they're being objective when they're not - on social issues.
They're ok with being mostly-objective when it comes to far off things like planets, or far distant in history things like dinosaurs. BUT, question their ultra-leftist social agenda on things like marriage & family, and by fuck they will revert to the new-ultra-dogmatic-religion-of-the-left as quick as a bat out of hell. Two seconds. Maybe one
"Yes, here on the high pillars of academia, we poo poo and laugh at the poor middle & right leaning religionists, with their views on the existence of god & evolution. BUT, question our social views and we'll quickly show you just how religious WE ARE as scientists - so-called scientists who refuse to be scientists when it comes to social issues."
So, yes, Mr. & Mrs. Conservative, you ARE right to conclude that groups of scientists, AND atheist groups, AND secular groups, most such groups are religions - dogmatic religions of the left.
----------
Both sides, right & left, poison of the well of reasonable discussion regarding natural normal good valuable useful human morality.
Jumping from one extreme to the other is no solution.
Honesty is the answer! Both to dogmatism on the right & the left.
Thoughts on recovery from Atheists of Utah, and similar "secular," "humanist," and "naturalist" groups.
A new religion is born, and as with all religion there are de facto elders, priests, doctrines, dogmas, belief maintenance, heresy trials, and excommunications. With the new religion of atheism things are a bit more subtle, but not by much.
The common stance of your membership falls along similar lines to the STFU-Parents-woman who'd prefer that normal families just shut up about the joys of having children.
In response to my expression of appreciation for Duck Dynasty, your group has given religious responses thus far, straight from the latest human religion.
The
founder of your church hooked up with a pro-life atheist and had a kid
with her. But she was never welcome at SLVA (Salt Lake Valley Atheists) because of her views. SLVA
was decidedly pro-ultra-left.
The
fruit of the founder's outreach work has resulted in an ultra-Stonewall
focus for your group. That's just the way it is. But it's a bit ironic
that the founder of A of U ended up having a kid with a woman forcibly excluded
from SLVA because of her social conservative views.
Hmmm. As the world (or
stomach) turns. I would have expected better, but it's all rather par
for the course in the long history of human religion.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled mirrored echo chamber of unquestioned newly dominant paradigms.
Is the judgement of the church court in now? Sounds like it may be.
Yes I like Duck Dynasty.
Heresy for A of U.
If
you want to have a discussion that's one thing. But if you're just a
priest of a church, who pulls every tool out for discounting an argument
other than possibly reasonable ones, then I'm not particularly obliged
to respond - any more than I am to the leader of any other religion.
---
Atheists of Utah was recently named the "best Religious Group" and a runner up for the Best Social Group,
as awarded by Q Salt Lake. Apt & appropriate awards. But being at
the pinnacle of appreciation for the ultra-left is not all it's cracked up to be. An ultra-leftist cult. That's what Atheists of Utah has become in my
view - and so I don't wish to be a member.
Were a group to be founded to help people recover from this new destructive cult of the left, here's draft short & long descriptions for such a hopeful recovery group:
Short description:
At Recovery from Atheists of Utah we help you recover from recovery from religion, particularly the religion known as Atheists of Utah.
Long description:
Did you leave one cult just to find you'd jumped right into another? Atheists claim their beliefs are falsifiable - unless you question the social-agenda aspects of their views. THEN the de facto heresy & excommunication trials begin.
Here at Recovery from Atheists of Utah we recover from the ultra-leftist side of atheism. The extreme-cultist left. Yes the right has their problems, but the left can be just as dogmatic and abusive.
Our in group morality is expanding, and that's a good thing.
But human nature DOES naturally include shaming for certain activities which are otherwise destructive. A damn hard thing for an ex-conservative religionist to realize is that SOME of that shaming actually is a damn good thing for the future of humanity.
We didn't leave one religion just to join another.
Atheists of Utah, in the view of the author of this description, has become a leftist cult. Just as abusive as cults on the right.
But it's worse in my view: It's a part of the LDC - the Liberal Death Cult, a cult which does not value life & survival - again in the view of the author.
Does this description go too far? Maybe. My beliefs may be falsifiable. I'm willing to listen to evidence. They however, apparently, are not.
Recover from the dogmatism of the left. Avoid politically correct destructive whirlpools of consensus, mirrored echo chambers, and unquestioned newly-dominant paradigms.
Does the right have a point, at least on some issues? It's heresy amongst liberals to say: YES!
But again, we didn't leave one fucking cult just to join another.
Recover, from Atheists of Utah, and similar destructive leftist cults. How? Through honesty, and avoiding affiliation with all de-facto ultra-leftist new-cults. Cults & religions, on the left & the right. We need to find a new way to be human than these petty shallow infantile first-attempts: Through science, honesty, honest history, and being willing to listen to ALL sides.
Does the other side have a point? For example, the guys on Duck Dynasty? What if they do? What if the right is right on at least some points? Heresy, heresy, heresy to admit this. But the LDC is stuck in their own narcissistic hole.
These are all the views of the author - after a lot of observation & seeing what happens on all sides - PLUS after taking a step back from America and seeing what happens in other countries. Come to find out social-conservatvism, aspects of it, DOES actually help humanity survive, thrive, and be happy. Whodathunkit?
The TBMs (True Believing Mormons) don't like my blog. AND the TBULAs (True Believing Ultra Liberal Atheists) don't like it either. Maybe that means I'm making progress!
It's also worth noting that we may need recovery from the Exmoron Foundation. That's another story.
All sides are right (& wrong), liberals, moderates, & conservatives.
All sides are right - all sides have valid points. And all sides are wrong also.
Attention atheist groups: I don't want to be in your religions. I left one religion already. I don't wish to join yours. I don't wish to kiss the ass of your de facto priests. I don't wish to join your chump chorus of ultra-liberalism.
It's been a long hard road. I've examined what goes on with "the left," and I've found it to be just as abusive as what goes on with "the right."
Key background:
1. Spending 26 years in the Mormon Church.
2. Went on a Mormon mission to Alaska.
3. Going to Rick College for a year (now BYU Idaho).
4. Being a temple worker in more than one Mormon temple.
5. Going to BYU in Provo, Utah for a year.
6. Leaving the Mormon Church.
7. Living in Texas.
8. Living in Oregon, checking out the wild Alice-in-Wonderland-style scene there & the fucking hippies.
9. Marrying a woman from China, where they've had pretty much zero exposure to Mormonism, Catholicism, & most other churches, and examining what their views are.
10. Hearing from people like Steven Pinker with his book The Blank Slate. Also from Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.
11. Daniel Dennett talking about how religion is a natural phenomenon.
12. Making note of how I had one uncle who grew up in Manti, Utah (ultra conservative Mormon small town). This uncle went to San Francisco to "let it all hang out," to apparently rebel against his ultra-conservative upbringing. He ended up dying of AIDS as a supposedly gay man, leaving his straight family with no father. WTF. A victim of BOTH Mormonism, and the gay freaks of San Francisco. Forced to jump from one side directly to the other. Abused by both!
13. Making note of the drunk bum aunt with no kids I knew as a child, the one who'd often phone my father while drunk. No kids of her own. A dead end largely meaningless life.
14. Making note of my gay nephew who leads an incredibly petty, shallow, and misguided life as an angle reader, and as a guy who readily accepts convicted pedophiles into his network of friends - I saw this first hand. Also making note of my many experiences going out with this nephew to gay bars & parties, and observing first hand the narcissistic messed-up people who tend to show up to such events (friends of my nephew). Truman Capote types. Shallow, sorry, messed up, narcissistic, people.
15. And yet (!) also making note of the service oriented gay people who help us & other people, and whose life work is centered around helping others. Also making note of the life work of people like Stephen Fry & Oscar Wilde.
16. Making note of how BOTH ultra conservatism and ultra liberalism are abusive to the progress of humanity.
Before viability (the closer to conception & the further away from viability), the more "choice" there is that can be reasonably allowed.
In the case of the average crack whore pregnancy, or rape, or incest: before viability, the "choice" is still there to help prevent the birth. But, once viability is reached, the point of "choice" has fully & completely passed.
On the whole gay thing:
It's true that a gay marriage is not the same as straight marriage. Gay sex is not the same as straight sex.
Straight sex & straight marriage is inherently more valuable, to humanity, and to the individual, and to human flourishing!
Gay sex is not as inherently valuable as straight sex. Gay sex is inherently a dead end.
Whatever the biological underpinnings are for being gay, because of the nature of how sex works in humans (& other animals), unless you work to avoid it you may end up having a dead end stunted life.
I was a liberal chump about this issue in the past. Now, as per taking a step back and examining what I observed first hand both with my gay nephew & gay uncle, I've changed by views.
And yet: There are service oriented gay people who spend their lives helping others. That's great! And I value the life work of people like Stephen Fry & Oscar Wilde!
It's true that gay people shouldn't be discriminated against regarding apartments or jobs! They should be able to have civil unions.
But on the other hand, when we talk about things like adoptions, or having children around, a straight kid growing up in a gay household will not have his or her straightness valued as much - by default. The abusive narcissistic petty dead end shit that goes on in gay culture could well easily mess up any otherwise-normal straight kid growing up around gay culture. So the right does have a point about this!
A certain level of concern regarding homosexuality is good, but on the other hand, the ultra-right goes way to far with their level of concern.
For example, in Mormonism they tell their children that masturbation can lead to homosexuality. Such a claim is child abuse. And of course the stance of Uganda on the issue is abusive. So the right goes way to far in their condemnation.
We shouldn't be as harsh as the right on the issue, nor as open as the left.
Children may NEED a mommy & a daddy, to be healthy, happy, well rounded, and thrive.
So like it or not, both sides are right, to a point, and with appropriate caveats.
On environmentalism, tree hugging, and overpopulation:
How are both sides right?
We do need to work to preserve & protect the garden. Yes that's quite true. Humans DO contribute to global warming. Also true. BUT, on the other hand, population control IS an abusive response!
Science & technology are the answers! Nothing else is! NOT forced population control on a personal or country level! That is an abusive response!
There's no such thing as overpopulation in first world countries - this is quite true. And humans DO come first above other animals and plants.
Liberal ideology, prompting you to be childless, may leave you a zero on the great mandala.
From what I've seen: Liberals hate children, normal families, and so on. STFU Parents is the tip of the iceburg. It seems to me that: liberals hate having children, and the normal family structure.
Your average college age kid will go to a liberal college or university & come away convinced that he or she should probably not have kids of his or her own because of concern over the environment. Abusive. Wrong headed. Brainwashing. Just as much braining washing by the left as what goes on with the right.
For the relativist liberal their ideal "family" is a childless one - because then the environment and the Earth is protected - supposedly. Stupid. Abusive. Such wrong headed evil ideology will lead them, and everyone sucked in by such ideology, to be pretty much a zero in the long term. Win or loose now you must choose now. Where will you be the tapestry of life?
To fully accept the equality of gay marriage the left must first assume that having children is not a valuable thing.
It's a good thing that we want to have kids - for many reasons. Not just because we're horny. Children are our future. And the liberal death cult is rather quite similar to the Shakers. The childfree life, and the homosexual lifestyle, is de facto celibacy.
Simply replace the word "god" with "14.5 billion years of evolution by natural selection." I know it's hard, but try to see though the Bible-centered language - through to our incredibly deep history as a species. DOES HAVING NO CHILDREN really honor your own personal billion-year history?
Being childfree is sad, petty, and ultimately a dead end. A death cult, by any other name, is still a death cult.
Leftist relativist brain washing. Leftist dogma that will stunt your life!
No, having a dog or cat around is not the same as a having human child! Not the same in the fucking least. Abused by liberalism, just as much as you may have been abused by conservatism!
Go to the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City. There you will find a congregation of grey haried liberals who don't really value having children, and normal families. Cultural relativists being abused by their own anti-children anti-family leftist ideology.
De facto religions of atheism & humanism are abusive.
Catholicism is also of course abusive when it comes to child raping priests. But, both Mormonism & Catholicism DO have valid points when it comes to abortion & birth control. Yes, you ARE abusing yourself if you exclude the possibility of children from your life!
It's a damn fucking hard truth to realize that very valuable & good elements of positive human morality can be fully rooted within otherwise abusive religion.
HOW can we realize this?
By examining what non-Catholic non-Mormon human cultures do and think!
Here's a hard question for the religion of Judaism:
Is your own promotion of separation from other groups, as part of your religion, in any way responsible for the past expression of fully natural human out-group morality, natural human out-group morality which was expressed in the past?
Forced genital rape of your own children.
Teaching your children that they are better than others.
Such actions naturally caused other groups of humans to more readily express natural human out-group morality in your case. Like it or not.
Examining what happened with Naziism and the Holocaust is rather like staring human out-group morality directly in the face.
The Nazis were fully human, humans expressing out-group morality.
And when your religion promotes separation between your group & others, you could well more easily fall victim to sociopathic nut jobs like Hitler who were able to effectively take advantage of this fully natural readily available negative side of built-in human morality.
Group think. Mob mentality. Survival morality. Nationalism. Provincialism. And even the Old Testament is completely filled with expressions of advocacy for out-group morality.
I don't accept your religion, left or right. Rather I want to be an advocate for science, helpful progress which promotes widespread happiness, well being & health, and survival.
Truth & honestly are required for healthy progress. That means staring our own history in the face and being willing to accept what we see. And to then try to work through what we see clearly.
Mormon Bishops DO abuse children in their care when they teach children that masturbation is evil & may lead to homosexaulity.
And yet, homosexual couples do PERHAPS abuse children by raising them in forcibly-relativist dogmatically politically correct households where straightness is not valued, nor honored, nor supported, nor promoted.
So BOTH sides are being abusive, ok?
The answer to conservatism is not liberalism. Instead it's honest science, observation, and tying into ALL of what it means to be human (including being willing to shame & blame & judge where appropriate & useful - !!!). A VERY VERY fucking hard thing for an ex-conservative-religionist to accept! Damn hard.
-----
Thank goodness the Internet is expanding our in-group morality.
There is hope though. In all religions people are becoming less abusive. It just takes time.
And, let me say there's aspects of ALL cultures & religions which I personally value.
I'm PRO-human. Pro-happy-human. Pro-true-and-honest-naturalism, in as much as being for those natural parts of us which can help us be happy. But, I'm also pro-honesty. Falling into naturalistic fallacies is also a consideration.
We have to be willing to look ourselves in the mirror, and to help promote what looks good, and remove the pimples which don't. That's all.
---
Did Jewish Circumcision help lead to the Holocaust? | Both sides are right: Liberals & Conservatives
Social conservatism. Social liberalism. Politics. Etc.
Q. Do you all see a difference between being an atheist and being anti religion?
A. Atheist / Humanist / Secular / Unitarian Univeralist groups all have the trappings of a religion. They are naturally & of course "anti" to other religions they disagree with, just as all religions are "anti" to other religions.
Not everything is equal. Some religions, including the religion of atheism, do make valid claims & contentions about the problems with other religions.
The UUs will admit their group is a religion, "but with no dogma." However that claim of theirs is basically a lie.
Most atheist & secular groups will & do have (unless great effort is made to avoid it) de facto or outwardly expressed dogmas, doctrines, tenants, heresy trials, excommunications, priests, elders, and prophets.
The trappings of religion appear to be part of human nature, and thus are VERY difficult to exclude from ANY social group formed by humans. Meme set (belief) maintenance. Heresy trials. Excommunication. And so on. These are a few of religion's favorite things.
The god thing is not so much an issue, really - when we consider how religious liberals use the term. The muff mouthed Templeton Foundation smoke generator Krista Tippett has shown us the way: for the liberal god can mean anything you want. She & her cohorts strongly want to continue to use the "g" term even if their definition essentially means nothing.
But in any case, like I say liberal religion (which includes most atheist groups) includes dogma, doctrines, tenants, heresy trials, excommunications, priests, elders, and prophets - and that's the main problem, and why they ARE religions in my view.
A "break" from the religious tradition would entail the following key principles:
1. Not being doctrinally tied to any one political AND social agenda.
2. Being willing to accept what honest science, honest experience, honest history, fully uncensored & open discussion, and fully open membership, may result in. A free & open exchange of ideas. A crucible. Science has shown as the way, as have people like Pinker & Hitchens.
3. Being willing to challenge our own suppositions, really challenge them & not just give lip service to such challenges. Are your beliefs falsifiable? From what I've seen many atheists do not maintain their beliefs are, not really. G term this G term that. It's not so much about the G term. It's about doctrines, dogmas, and ideologies, and agendas we ourselves are unwilling to question.
4. Not having de facto heresy trials for people who disagree with the group-leader's positions or beliefs.
5. Not having de facto excommunication trials for people who disagree with the group-leader's positions or beliefs.
6. God forbid, being willing to accept that some aspects of social conservatism may actually have some value to human happiness & well being. The fact that religion is a natural phenomenon (ref Daniel Dennett) cuts both ways.
7. However we have to be careful of the "naturalistic fallacy." Just because something is natural doesn't mean that activity is helpful to humanity. And yet, fully-naturally highly-valuable actions & activities can be fully couched within fully-natural religion. This is a hard pill for the recoverer from an abusive cult like Mormonism to accept. Mormonism by it's own actions is hurting the otherwise good causes they advocate for. Revisionist history. Harsh treatment of heretics. Child abuse. Their extreme abusive actions actually HURT the otherwise good things they may advocate for. Their way-over-the-top responses to things like masturbation, well, it pushes people WAY over to the other side - but the other side isn't any better. But it takes time for an exmo to learn this - via first hand experience, and taking a step back from ALL the craziness on ALL sides.
Additional related thoughts:
Humans are not a tabula rasa. Pinker showed this via his most excellent book.
Libertarians are "lightly" tolerated in atheist groups. Social conservatives are not. Such a state of affairs indicates a problematic naivete which is highly common among "liberals," speaking as a liberal myself perhaps for the most part.
Liberals don't know crap about what happens in conservative religions. They pretty much know nothing about Islam for example. AND they also know nothing about what happens within their own camp on the ultra-left side.
Conservatives have their problems. But the answer or solution to a given problem is not always the exact opposite view. Being willing to take a step back from our little realm & sphere of experience helps to see where the real truth may lie.
All the other points are either purposefully wrong, stupid, or lies.
Hey, whomever created that image with collections of mostly outrageously untrue & abusive quotes, seeing stuff like that pushes people like me ever more into the pro-gay-marriage camp.
I have examined both sides, or is it three sides?
A gay uncle who died of AIDS leaving his straight family with no father.
A gay nephew who leads an incredibly petty & shallow life.
On the other hand I very much appreciate the work of people like Stephen Fry and Oscar Wilde. I also have seen first hand how some gay people are much more service oriented, and who appear to have their heads screwed on much more than my Angel Reading Boy Chasing Convicted Pedophile Friend Accepting gay nephew.
There are atheists who agree with concerns about homosexuality:
Black Atheists of Atlanta
Greek Culture - Black Atheist Of Atlanta - 05-23-11:
However I don't believe they'd agree with too many more points than point three on your photo.
Serial killers? That is destructive abusive bullshit, no question.
"Consider the source." This phrase is pushing me more & more toward the pro-gay camp. Now, I do still believe ALL sides need to be questioned. Unlike some I AM willing to at least listen to the few seculars who are either socially moderate or conservative.
As we know, it's not the number of people who believe in something, it's whether the ideas are actually valid or not.
What you'll find on my blog is the playing out of a tension between several forces. The ultra-pro-gay-everything-else-be-damned position within the secular community, and the built-in desire to be more, well, pro-reproduction & pro-family.
Having gone to China & having a Chinese wife has given me a wider perspective.
Again my experiences with my own gay nephew have influenced my views (and having a gay uncle who died of AIDS leaving his straight family with no father). But, on the other hand, there's this very nice man who helps keep our birds while we go on vacation. A service oriented guy who spends his life helping others. He's not a petty kook like my nephew. The guy is softening my view. So I'm perhaps somewhere in between the Black Atheists of Atlanta and the left at this point - on that issue. And the image you posted is pushing me further left still.
Children may really NEED both a mommy & a daddy. You ARE selling yourself short if you don't have kids. These two points may be true, regardless of how much hand wringing the left may do. But, on the other hand, the right is completely unhinged (as per what's in that fucking image you posted). So the right is completely wrong & lying about the issue also. The bottom line is that I'm not going to be tied to either side, not until more evidence is in. And if the evidence shows that children DO need a mommy & a daddy, then we should accept that evidence, period.
The following is a response I posted elsewhere when I noticed a first poster was from Fairbanks, Alaska:
----------------
From '86 to '88 I lived in Alaska, including Anchorage, Eagle River, Sterling (Soldotna), and North Pole (Badger area - Fairbanks). I spent most of my time in Alaska doing the following:
1. Taking pictures of sunsets.
2. Walking door to door.
3. Mapping streets and highways onto 3x5 cards.
4. Trying to avoid being punched by crazy psychotic companions.
5. Trying to avoid getting shot by reclusive Alaskans.
6. Avoiding masturbation.
7. Confessing to my Mormon leaders about masturbation.
8. Baptizing a few lonely misfits.
9. Learning how to be a salesman when not going door to door (seriously - that's what they teach the nineteen year old pretentious pompous snotty nosed know-it-all kids who go on Mormon missions - professional sales techniques).
I have one sister in hippie town Homer. She first moved there working on the spit in a cannery. Now she has about 7 acres and a small house, and is a small ship captain.
Anyway, so yes there are a few former cult members here.
I don't believe in the new religion Atheism Plus, nor in anything similar (eg: the assumption that an atheist is automatically an ultra-leftist, and that to question that position means a person is not a true atheist).
I particularly appreciate the work of Hitchens, Steven Pinker, Daniel Dennett, Dawkins, Sagan, and some of Sam Harris's work. I suggest checking them all out if you've not done so thus far. Pinker & Hitchens have been particularly useful in the realm of questing both the left & right's presumptions. I think we need to question all sides, and not just assume that the "exact-extreme-opposite" of a given position is any better than the first one we used to embrace. Anyway...
------------------------
Addendum:
Boo fucking hoo. My profile got removed from the "mission alumni" database at http://www.mission.net/alaska/anchorage
...a place where former missionaries get to tell how things are going in their lives, after I asked the site admins of mission.net to find out why the Alaska mission webmaster wasn't responding to my emails to get my previous profile text approved. Instead of responding themselves (the main site admins) they deleted my profile.
Ok, well, now I'm working to re-add a new profile, with even more honest text inside.
Hey, on the profile setup page is the following text:
"Here is where you can say anything you want about yourself. Tell us
about kids, church callings, your testimony, a recent vacation or
anything you feel like sharing." (emphasis added)
Anything I want? I don't think so. You can only say "anything you want" if you're still a brainwashed true believing Mormon.
You see my friends, Mormons are NOT very nice. Not kind. Not caring.
They're fucking control freaks, period. That's the bottom line. Cult members, nothing more, dressed up in pretty suits & dresses. Fucking cult members.
This type of thing goes on in Mormonism all the time: Allow you, who you are, to exist among them ONLY if you tow the strict party line!
My previous profile which they removed me for just simply stated my life status. Married. Have a kid. Oh and my personal website linked over to this blog. Perhaps that was the tipping point for them. But the truth is the truth. "You can say anything you want?" Nope. In Mormonism you can't be who you are, deep down, as a normal human being.
Anyway I did submit another add request for my profile on that site. I rather suspect they'll either ignore or delete it again. Well, when you're in a scaredy-cat fearful cult like Mormonism, it's very important to protect yourself & all other Mormons from people & ideas which may free you from the cult.
Fuckers.
Latest profile re-add request screen shot:
[...probably not appearing there anytime soon. But the cult can't stop freedom on the the Internet!]
It's not surprising really, to have Mormons frantically searching, searching, and searching for evidence. And then, they pull it right out of their collective asses.
On Facebook I found a post by a current Mormon who lives in Oregon. Below I've drafted her questions & my responses. The text next to the Q for question items is her text. And my responses are next to the A for answers.
---
Howdy.
Your profile doesn't look like a one-off troll type account, and so I'm going to respond in more detail:
Q. Why is it so important for non LDS people to tear down the LDS religion?
A. Normally when people act in this regard it's for reasons they feel are good & valuable.
There is a substantial difference between the Evangelical protestors outside of the Great & Spacious Building & Temple Square during Mo. Conference, and why we wish to "tear down the LDS religion."
I also don't put much stock in people who're unhappy with Mormonism because the Mormon Jesus is different from the Baptist or Protestant or Catholic Jesuses. I could care less about such differences.
However there are many valuable, good, reasonable, valid, cogent, evidence-based, experience-based, fact-based reasons we can give as to why we express concerns, and why we use the tonalities we use as we express our concerns.
Do you REALLY want to know the answer, or are you just claiming there CAN BE NO answer which contradicts the validity of Mormonism? If your approach is the latter, then there's not much use in proceeding further. However if you really want to know the answer, here's where to find out more:
A. Abusive controlling brain washing iron fisted destructive religions should be for no one, ideally.
Q. should remain a personal choice.
A. Children cannot choose. Most children are sucked into the religion of their parents. They don't have the ability to choose. Even adults can be sucked in though.
"On March 2, 1982, Kip Eliason, age 16, distraught and filled with self-hate over his inability to stop masturbating, committed suicide..."
Good job there, Mrs. Mormon. Good job, Spencer Kimball, Boyd Packer, and parents like you (presumably). You helped Kip stop playing with his "little factory" such that he felt it necessary to kill himself.
Yes, they couldn't keep their Jesus off my penis. But, there's many other abuses that happen.
Abuses of power. Telling members they cannot question the leaders, and if they do they'll be kicked out. Being kicked out may also be turned out onto the street from your family. Complete exclusion from your own family. And even for more "nice" Mormons it will still mean exclusion from temple marriage ceremonies & other things.
PART-Member family. PART, part, part, part, member family. Which "part" is the good part and which part is the evil part? Which part is the good wing, and which part is the damaged wing that one would be better off cutting off? Member. Non-member. Apostate. Enemy of the Church. And so on.
These are ALL expressions of OUT GROUP morality. Not nice. Not good. Yes fully natural. But best worth discouraging where possible.
Thank goodness for the Internet for increasing all the scope of all of our in-group morality. The 'net is hurting Mormonism & other expressions of destructive out-group morality - and that's a good thing.
Q. If you are an inactive member due to some wrong you think you suffered then that is also your choice.
A. When a church leader acts as as an instrument of abuse (which they do by default), is that their choice?
When Joseph Smith slept with a 14 year old & with the wives of other men, was it his choice? Or is it only an even-choice when someone decides they don't like the abuse? A choice that can be easily discounted?
Yes, people use their brains to make decisions. To get away from the abusers, the cult, the brain washing, the control, and to be more free. And that's a good thing.
Q. It doesn't make the religion wrong
A. Yes it does. What else would? History, or revisionist-history? Facts, or just faith-promoting-pseudo-facts? The real life experiences of people, or just those interpreted in a way to never criticize the Mormon Church or it's leaders?
Q. It just makes it wrong for you as an individual.
A. No, not everything is equal. Not everything is relative. Not all churches are of equal value. Not all churches help and/or hurt their followers in the same way.
Q. I am an active member and devout in my beliefs
A. Which is exactly why you're saying what you're saying. Meme set defense mechanisms. Amazing, but very sad. Mormon Brain Software. Yes, I had similar software running in my brain, and I'm quite familiar with how it works. The Church is always right, everything else be damned. Joseph the charismatic charlatan has shown you the way.
Q. It was the right choice for me and my children
A. You are actively abusing your children by allowing them to remain within Mormonism.
Q. and we are happy.
A. Happy in the gilded cage?
Happy in the black & white world of Pleasantville, or the color version? Happy in the dream world of all-encompassing all-encircling Mormonism, or in the real world of reality? Is ignorance bliss? It can be for a time. But in the long term being forcibly ignorant keeps a person's brain & soul in a type of prison.
A. We know it isn't. 8 year olds at fast & testimony meeting, and their brain washed parents, know it is.
Q. No one really knows if there is an afterlife.
A. There isn't.
Q. My chosen religion has made me a better person
A. You don't sound like a better person so far.
Q. and has given me a standard in which to live my life.
A. Your standard for living should not come from old farts who want to get your money & keep you down. Humans have built-in morality, instilled by evolution by natural selection, and by the "neck-top" apps given by culture.
A. The peace that comes from ignorance. The peace that comes from ignoring the pain of others. The peace the comes from putting your head in the sand. The peace that comes from letting your children be grilled about masturbation, and putting your children's genitals into the hands of fucking old abusive farts. The peace that comes from forcibly excluding others. The peace that comes from being a cult follower.
Q. Just because you have chosen not to believe doesn't mean the religion is wrong,
A. Are your beliefs falsifiable? If not your brain might be in a box. You need to let it out. Science shows us the way: Criticism & skepticism in the first instance. And then later truth & fact finding after cogent theory development, testing, peer review, and so on. But being willing to trash the ideas of your fellows, in good faith, all in an attempt to find out where the actual truth lies. Are you doing that now? No. Yes your religion is wrong.
Q. or that Joseph Smith (my ancestor) was a bad man.
A. OMG. Were I still a Mormon, I would now be in awe of you.
The progeny of JS has spoken, and is here before us. If you were a man you might be a G.A. today. But because you don't have a penis you're pretty much excluded from any real leadership roles. Damn. If you have some male children maybe they've got a chance.
Does a bad man sleep with a 14 year old and with the wives of other men?
A. I don't really know why you keep saying choice. Choice this. Choice that.
You don't seem to understand the subtleties or realities of how the human brain works. A brain can be sucked in and held down. When a brain is in Mormonism it engages in meme-set defense & maintenance activities. There's a lot less choice in this process.
While I do believe & maintain we have free will, I can see where Sam Harris is coming from:
In any case we have more free will that a petunia or a carrot. Our neural networks are incredibly complex computers which has far more decision-making power than other animals. But we are animals, and built-in traits & proclivities have far more of an influence than many would like to admit.
Humans can be sucked into cults. They are sucked into cults. Children are sucked into the religions of their parents. If a child's parents believe in an abusive religion, then they will probably grow up and become an abuser themselves - unless they come to their senses as they become more psychologically adult, or if they're exposed to enough evidence (personal or otherwise) which finally dislodges them from the abusive-religion meme set.
Q. The ones who feel damaged and destroyed can go their own way and figure out what is best for them.
A. What's best for us is to do exactly what we're doing now.
Trying to help educate people like you about the problems with the cult you're in. Your brain & body have been hijacked, as have the brains & bodies of your children.
Recently I discovered that Miracle of Forgiveness is available at the mobot distribution centers, in several different languages. In each language section they have the BOM, maybe a bible, but always this POS book. http://www.lds.org/braille/The Miracle of Forgiveness.txt
Since the Mormon Church apparently considers this book to still be highly relevant, then every despicable thing Spencer Kimball & Boyd Packer have done relative to negative portrayals of human sexuality to the youth & adults in the church is relevant also.
Also Spencer really is concerned about "petting" and "heavy petting." Oh my, that f-ing old fart must really have been hyperventilating when he wrote his Miracle of Forgiveness book. Necking. Petting. Heavy Petting. Tell us more Spencer, about all the things you dream about at night but also hate yourself for thinking of.
But people say he was such a nice man. My father has said this, as did my mother who worked as a nurse in the COB. But the guy was really not so nice after all, after you read all hateful the trash he put out.
Anyway, with my new wife seeing the pretty white shirts and the pretty buildings, and with my more recent research into the issue of Kimball's trash book being widely promoted in different languages by the mobot church, I decided to put on youtube a reprise of a song I created some time ago:
And, with Joseph Smith's nutty view of heaven in the form of Kolob, and "Kobol" entering the common consciousness in the form of the much less campy newer Battlestar Galatica version, the following newer song came out of a recent morning shower singing session:
But, Spencer & Boyd really were/are obsessed with that you and your children are up to at home, at night, in the privacy of your bedrooms. What's up with that? And since Spencer's piece of trash book is *very* relevant for the Mormon Church, as per their having it readily available in many different languages at their distribution centers, (and reportedly since it's required reading for new missionaries) it's clear that they are still very interested in transmitting this human spirit destroying set of memes onto everyone they can.
What is up with the Mormon Church & sex? Their horn dog founder created a religion whose god, apparently, has to have an orgasm every 4.6 minutes to create 107 billion people in one million years.
...and yet, now they want to very much control even the mere thought of sex in their members. Why? Because once a person actually allows themselves to be open to the possibility of sex being fun, normal, natural, empowering, and liberating, they can more easily find they have no use for the Mormon God or for the supposedly good feelings you get during Mormon Church meetings or from reading the lies of Joseph in the form of the Mormon scriptures.
The Mormon Church tries to hijack people's basic emotions, and to subvert & control & misinterpret them for their own nefarious ends. Other conservative religions do this also.
In any case I get much better feelings of validation from the love of my wife & new son than I ever got in mostly boring Mormon Church meetings, and from the occasional good feelings they claimed "proved" their church was correct. There's a price to be paid for pretty white shirts and pretty buildings.
If feelings can be used as a form of validation, then that means the much better feelings I've had since leaving mean their lies were incorrect.
----------end of quote
Q. That doesn't mean it isn't good for those of us the religion is working for.
A. It's bad for you even if you think it's good.
Life in Oregon is rather substantially different than life in Provo (unless you live too close to the Portland Temple).
Q. I was a Catholic before I converted to LDS and I wasn't happy but I refuse to bash that religion.
A. Bash away. They need some bashing. Child raping priests? Sounds like a good reason to bash. Have at it!
Q. I have seen no evidence worth my time
A. It was worth your time to write. Is it worth your time to read the responses? If it's not, don't bother complaining in the first place.
Q. I do believe in the church and our prophets, the apostles and the corum of the 70.
A. It's spelled quorum.
Your post is a prime example of why you're not really a happy nor healthy person while being Mormon. Blind ignorance to the life experiences of others. Forcible ignorance to evidence, truth, fact, real history, and so on. You have been abused. You are being abused. And if your children are in the church, they are being abused, for many reasons.
Q. I believe in its teachings and how the church was restored by Joseph Smith.
A. More examples of your abused-status.
Q. All that evidence you talk about is made up and false.
A. More evidence of your being in a cult.
Q. This is a life style for active members, not a hobby or just something we do on Sundays.
A. We know damn well what life is like in the Mormon Church.
Q. We cannot be swayed by false propaganda and 'evidence' written by angry inactives or non-members.
A. More evidence that you're not a nice, happy, or healthy person.
If you want to have a dialogue with people who've left, you can have one, you can have a conversation. But NO we won't shut up at your request. We WON'T stop speaking. We WON'T stop calling out problems with the church of our youth. We WON'T stop trying to free people from the abuse - and that includes trying to free YOU from it.
Sincerely,
Jonathan
April 22, 2014
p.s. Regarding the process of science & how it works:
"Trashing"
& "tear down" might imply that everything's up for grabs when it
isn't. Yes it's the goal of all reasonable honest scientists to try to
"tear down" existing theories. To disprove them. To show where they're
wrong. But more often than not one theory builds upon another.
Einstein's theories didn't destroy Newton's. It simply built upon the
previous theory, showed where Newton's claims remain valid (for most of
human experience & speeds & viewpoints), and where they fall
apart (eg: close to the speed of light or when next to very massive
objects). Same goes for other new theories, usually. But when a bigger
part of a theory is overturned, we view that with joy, not concern.
Cha-ching - we've now learned MORE about the Universe. Super!
The truth finding method of science is far more powerful because of this. Far more accurate results than other methods.
In science you get ahead by disproving or finding flaws with previous theories - and that is it's power.
OMG, I think Spencer Kimball & Mark E. Petersen's heads must have just exploded, after seeing what those Japanese people do to celibate spring & hopeful fertility.
Much more interesting than Jesus getting a boner. Jesus is a fucking bore. Lame. Pretentious. Pious. Angry under a thin mask of false pretense of being nice. Nice on the surface, but an asshole when you get to know him. An excellent model & mirror for most Mormons. Thanks Jesus, for BYU, the Church Office Building, and all your little nazi followers.
So, let's forget that and instead consider proper fertility festivals of other religions.
Oh my, now they had some good fertility dances on that island... And they toasted the guy who wanted to impose his pious iron fisted prudishness onto everyone. Sounds good to me.
Report of visit to the Hilton on Friday 4-18-2014: Having not paid the requisite $300, we didn't have badges on. We walked around the cocktail hour socializers on the 2nd floor for about 5 minutes. Didn't see anyone we knew, except one person who didn't recognize us.
Didn't see any youtube celebrities.
Didn't see the bible beating protestors outside - they must have arrived later.
We also walked quickly through Comic Con down the street. No one checked for a pass, perhaps because I had my son in arm. We breezed through quickly and only spent about 1 minute inside a hall just seeing the overall layout. Overall it looked like a fun affair.
We thought the atheists would have even more fun it they visited the Salt Palace & Comic Con.
I imagine that attending national atheist conventions is an interesting experience. You get to see a few youtube celebs who you'd never otherwise see. You'll never see them again, and they'll never see you again. You'll also probably never see again 99% of the other people.
Not many kids present, if any, but we were only there for 5 minutes though that's also true.
In any case secular groups need to become more welcoming to having kids present at their meetings, if they expect more religious people to join up. I for one resent the Unitarian Universalist model of sending your kids away to some basement room while the adults stay behind, and that model should not be mirrored by secular / humanist / atheist groups, especially not in Utah.
"American Atheists fights to protect the absolute separation of religion from government and raise the profile of atheism in the public discourse."
"...unless you post a link to your own blog on our FB page - then you've gone too far. You're engaging in 'self promotion' by posting a link to your own blog, and we here at American Atheists cannot tolerate having speech present from others - speech which detracts from US!" ...reasonable paraphrasing & interpretation of their response.
Whatever. Just goes to know Groucho Marx said it best: I don't wish to belong to any group that would have me as a member.
p.s. The policy at http://www.atheists.org/convention2014/code-of-conduct
where they state "...This convention welcomes families with children and expects all participants to treat these families with courtesy and respect..."
Damn. That's a better statement than what the Exmormon Foundation stated on their website for their convention this year:
"...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..."
Hmmm. At least American Atheists states that their convention is supposed to be family friendly. That's a lot better stance than what the Exmormon Foundation does!
Why would a foundation meant to support former Mormons actively exclude those with children from attending? Strange, especially since in Mormon meetings they don't send their children away to some back room - during the main meeting, unlike some religions.
But, American Atheists is still too controlling on their own FB page. So no one's perfect.
