Life under FAIR Boards time out....I'm sure I'll get over it

Recently I was put on the "queue" at the FAIR boards for getting a little personal with one of the more dramatic posters there. "Charity" is her name, and she is one of those multi-thousands of posts, emotional debaters.

The whole issue came about when I told her that "Satan = Santa Clause...honey." The honey part was meant to be condescending, but not sexist. She took it as such and went and a big boo hoo feminists rant.

Which side do you think the FAIR moderators took? Ya...pretty much.

So now I can't post anything until the body of my post is read and approved of by an admin. Frankly I'm thinking of just re-rolling a new ID and keeping a low profile. The responses I've gotten from the Moderators so far has been total bullshit.

I PM'd Dunamis and wrote:

Hi, I've been queued for almost a couple of days now and was wondering if any of the subsequent posts I've made will get posted, and how long my probation will last.

Frankly, I think I was put on the queue quite prematurely, but what is done is done.

Hopefully I'm not coming off as too impatient, I just wanted to know some more details about how my punishment plays out.

Thanks,

BYU AE

Dunamis returned:

I don't see any posts from you on the queue. [Note I'd put up three or four at this point]We generally queue a poster until s/he provides proof that they can publish acceptable posts. Are you going to be nice? If you are put back on the queue for over the top behavior it will be permanent.

Oh my God, this is not fucking kindergarten! After that I wrote one last message to Dunamis:

I had at least three posts that went to the queue. Where they went at this point, I guess we'll never know.

After re-reviewing the exchange I had with Charity I completely concede that using the word honey was a mistake. I never meant it as sexist, I meant it to be condescending.

Condescention, from all that I gather is completely in-bounds. After being scolded for having a arrogant male ego, I clarified what I meant and explained I wasn't inferring sexism.

Charity was obviously still pissed. Based on her subsequent posts she wanted to get back at me.

Look, I know Charity is a big wig around here, posts all the time, and is probably beloved by the admins.

But my retorts were in no one's reality so off base as to be queued. Also, the noise/signal ratio was quite low in all my posts, and always has been.

Look, FAIR has a total rep for babying the faithful, and maybe that doesn't bother you. But how can expect to keep the debate balanced unless you at least try to see the amount of bombs lobbed my way?

Take me off the queue if you want, but I'm not going to beg. The more I've thought about this whole deal the more I think it's BS.

Up to you...

I'd be curious to see what people thought about this. Am I smoking something, or are these people just crazy?

Opinions welcome... :)

Counting up the Jackmormons at work...

The question of how strong the Church really is always seems to come up. Often the Church talks about it's total number of baptisms and implies it's the best indicator of the Church's growth.

The notion that "we're 12 million members strong" is laughable.

I work in Salt Lake City. However, the evironment at my work is very, very diverse, especially for Utah. As such the mix is 50/50 on average of member vs. non-member. Out of that 50% member pool, I have first hand knowledge of 17 people who have been baptised in the Church and by all indications have their names still on the rolls.

Out of those 17, there are 7 who have not indicated a strong opposition and/or dismissal of Mormanism.

Of those 7, I know of 4 that are endowed and that talk of attending their meetings. The other three might be active, but I can't confirm or deny it. My suspicion is that those three are not the most active of members.

So from my first hand observation, 58% of those still on the rolls make an effort to distance themselves from the Church. At most, 41% are active, but more likely that number is lower, perhaps as low as 24%.

Of course with a sample size of 17 my results are not incredibly signifigant. But these people come from the category "well educated, middle class." Supposedly the core sociotype for the Church.

However you look at it, this is bad news for the Church. These are the people they count as strong. Nevermind the tens of thousands each year that are either excommunicated or resign.

I for one, plan to make my statement this March on the twentieth anniversary of my baptism and make the total 12 million minus one... :)

Religious Fundamentalism...God save us

I can hardly seem to express how threatened I feel by the rise of religious fundamentalism. The corrosively myopic expression of dogmatic certitude that it's adherents wear on their faces is an affront.

Whether it's Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, Global Warming, Morning after pill, age of the earth, Stem cell research, or just the age old moral conservatism, this whole way of thinking is a handicap to humanity.

Fundamentalism acquires it's ethos not from merit, or science, or self reliance. It's values are based in dependence on God, mysticism and plain old "just believing." Regardless of ideology, they all think they are "right." There is no debate, there is no compromise, no objectivity. Just that foolish, stubborn mental entrenchment where the blind lead the blind. Fall into the ditch on your own time you selfish bastards.

Humans are notoriously territorial. Who we refer to when we say "us" is very important. We draw distinction at the level of family, friends, corporation, state, sports team, nation, race, and worst of all, religion.

I say worst because it is the most divisive, with the least reason for it. It would be one thing if believing in Jesus Christ really did cure palsy, but it doesn't. I would be hopeful if my patriarchal blessing had any real bearing on my life, but it doesn't.

Because I think there's obvious reason ignore religion for small personal issues, you can imagine how frightened I would be of someone trying to use religion to form national policy. Intelligent Design, disdain for environmental protection, ignoring Global Warming, putting off stem cell research are all rooted deeply in fundamentalist beliefs.

The hope on the horizon is that President Bush's second term is showing us in technicolor what having a fundamentalist in power will do for us. A person who is so self assured that he has no problem by-passing the law, lying, intimidating, and "going it alone" if needs be. Never mind that anyone who is against us is evil. It's dragging our country down so fast that we'll probably get a woman president next term. Yes, it's that serious.

Wait just a second, let's put that template over the soon to be official Mormon Deity, Joseph Smith. Did he circumvent the law? Check. Did he lie? Check. Did he use intimidation to get his way? Check. Did he isolate himself and his people from those who disapproved? Check. Did he think all his prosecution was spawned of the devil? Check...at least that's what he preached. He probably knew with vivid detail why people were really after him.

I can only hope that things getting worse will wake us up. I hope that there's enough backlash to religious fundamentalism in our country to send the suckers packing for a decade or so.

Long time no post...

I realized just how long it's been since I've posted, shame on me. I comment tons on the mormanity blog all the time, but I shouldn't neglect to write what I think in my own forum.

First off, no one bring up Daniel Peterson to me for a least 14 days. I'm going on a fast. The guy is like saturated fat in your precious arteries. Lately he tried to give me a lesson in civility...Jesus!! I seriously doubletake at how blind and narcissistic people can be.

So about my latest thoughts, let's put them into the "what are the things I don't want for Christmas list."

1. Smithmas- Poor Jesus, he had a good run, now it's Smith's turn. Just examine the December Ensign to see what I mean.

2. Daniel Peterson- We've discussed him already, but that doesn't preclude him from being on the list.

3. Bill O'Reilly/Christmas vs. Holiday bullshit- Dear God, can't common decency win out? I want to be polite 99% of the time, doesn't saying holiday over Christmas to a Jew just come naturally?

4. People who don't apologize- been on my list for a while actually major pet peave of mine.

5. President Bush- Mass wiretaps? You fucking moron! Not sure yet if it will be a good thing, but learn to say "Madame President" by 2008.

6. Recovery from Mormonism Elitists- This may surprise some, but lately there's been a vibe at RfM. Some of it comes from Tal Bachman, a good chunk comes from Steve Bensen, and there are others. But a little unrighteous exmo dominion has seemed to take root. I've been on the end of some unwanted advice a few times now. You know, the off topic kind. I guess people are people.

7. The flu- too late! :(

8. My son to have another surgery- he's okay, it's routine, but being a dad has made me soooo protective.

9. Family intrigue- tis the season indeed! Since my parents are divorced and I'm married we get pulled from three different directions every year. What's sad is that all the siblings would rather be together sans parents...sigh.

10.Last but not least....cheap "stocking stuffer" cologne..hehe :P


Happy Holidays! :)

Spirituality after Mormonism

The other night while pushing through about 5 hours straight of tedious bench work. I was thawing some reagents in my hands and started to think back about all the times I would feel what at the time I believed to be the spirit. I began to notice that thinking about it made me feel that “burning” that so many of us were taught about. All of the sudden I felt really hopeful about life and felt really optimistic. I also noticed that I had on some very soothing Celtic music.

What’s amazing to me is that now that I know the truth about Mormonism and its tenets, I can better reproduce those “spiritual” feelings with the proper ambience. For me, Beethoven in particular seems to be able to lock in all of my brain’s attention and causes me to feel this mild euphoria when I listen to it. Most importantly, listening to Church hymns, particularly the borrowed ones that didn’t originate with the LDS Church often has the same affect.

There have been many times in my immediate recall where I remember feeling peaceful at church. I used to sing in choir, (an extremely long time ago …hehe) so singing the hymns had an even stronger effect. Of course, singing along to “Alice in Chains” has done the same thing for me so I believe it has more to do with singing.

I love Grant Palmer’s assertion that the “spirit is an unreliable source of truth.” If we don’t know the true nature of the spirit in the first place, how could we ever believe it could teach us truth?

I believe that spiritual feelings are wholly a cerebral phenomenon. Environmental stimulus convinces the brain it should feel a certain way. The sheer ubiquity and diversity of spiritual belief in the world gives credence to this. This is why it’s actually not just the Mormons feeling spiritual feelings and seemingly finding truth from it. Buddhists seek, and hopefully, find enlightenment. Many would just say that Satan has influence and that he tricks people. But by that same logic, how is it you “know” you aren’t going down the same path?

Well Mormons have an answer to that, as well as a reason that all people express spirituality. Moroni 7: 16 states:

16 For behold, the ^aSpirit of Christ is given to every ^bman, that he may ^cknow^• good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

Every man has access to spirit, this is how we know good from evil. Of course the truth will only lead to Christ and persuade you to believe in him. That’s a problem. But first lets continue, Moroni 7: 17 further says:

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do ^aevil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him

So according to the Book of Mormon, if a feeling or an idea leads me to not believe in Christ, then it’s evil. Not to mention untrue. So about that problem I mentioned— I don’t believe in Christ. He wasn’t who he says he was, and neither was Joseph Smith who he professed to be.

I believe that to be the truth and yet I still feel, well….good. I also continue to be “[persuaded] to do good.” So is a man who feels propelled to follow Buddhism evil or no?

Many LDS of this generation will emphatically say yes, of course he’s good, he just lacks all the truth. But the scriptures declare that if he isn’t lead to believe in Christ, which in case you didn’t realize Buddhists do not, then idea he is following is of the devil.

Moroni 7: 19 states:

Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the ^alight^• of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a ^bchild^• of Christ.

I can honestly say that I have searched diligently for truth, but I have been steered farther and farther from Christ as I’ve gone along.

I categorically reject the notion that leaving Mormonism decreases your happiness. Mormonism offers nothing to build people up that didn’t exist before Joseph’s time. Charity, music, family, civic virtue and yes, even spirituality were and are going strong.

For me, good things have abounded in my life even more since I left the Church. The experiences in life are far sweeter than they’ve ever been.

The only example of unhappiness and depression I’ve witnessed in former Mormons comes from guilt they harbor because deep down they really do believe in the Church still.

A man who posts on Jeff Lindsay’s “Mormanity” blog who (link) goes by “Book of Mormon Indy” said the following to me recently:

BYU Alter Ego:
You mentioned a while back that you were considering requesting name-removal.

If you're open to advice from someone who has gone through that, read on. What happens is that your conscience will stop bothering you with guilty feelings for a while.

However, there is a spiritual cord that is cut, and then you start slipping down-hill spiritually, morally, and probably emotionally.

When that cord is cut, you will then probably hit bottom before looking back up.

When that cord is cut, you'll feel a little "freer" at first, but it's merely freedom to sink lower.

When I went inactive (but before requesting name-removal) I told myself I was going to keep all the major commandments, but little by little, I crossed line after line. First of course was Sabbath breaking, then coffee and tea (but not liquor), then "just ONE cig", then "well, why not just break all the word of wisdom if I'm going to break most of it" so I started drinking again. Then just little more, just a little more, then a just little more, until finally I asked myself why be a member at all if I wasn't going to live _any_ of the commandments?

Book of Mormon Indy left the Church for the wrong reasons. Obviously he believed it was still true and that he had to answer to someone else for “just ONE cig.” I would feel guilty for smoking because it would probably take me away from my children prematurely, and my wife would seriously kick my ass. But what is telling the bishop going to do for me? It does nothing more, and probably less, for me than talking to counselor.

I hope anyone reading this who feels that they can’t live without the Church realizes that the Church offers them nothing they don’t already have. Once you see it for what it really is, a man made, sloppy, fantasy with a dirty history you’ll only have yourself to account to.

Perhaps that’s what many like Indy are afraid of.

My question to Daniel Peterson about Secular Exmormons

I said:

Dan,

I've been working over in my head your notion of non-believers being part of your "laboratory," and I can't fathom why you would think that way. Don't you ever reflect on how someone like myself might react to you refering to me as a "specimen?"

Don't you think that sets the wrong tone? I mean, I did call him an idiot, he did a dumb thing, and that fits.

But I'm not telling him I'm the kid, and he's one of the ants in my farm.

If what you're measuring are emotional arguments and unprofessional dialog I wouldn't start throwing stones.

I read (completely) your "Reflections on Secular Anti-Mormonism" essay on the FAIR boards.

Referring to what has to be the Recovery board describe it as, "a kind of wildlife preserve for secular anti-Mormons." You also said, "If this is what liberation from the Mormon 'myth' makes you--a vulgar and sometimes duplicitous crank, cackling with malice and spite--then I would prefer to spend the few brief years left to me... with people who haven't been liberated."

I think "cackling with malice and spite" was one of my favorites. Doesn't using this type of language strike you as unChristian, let alone unprofessional?

I know that although you and I have had much back and forth on this blog, never have I sought to "harm others or to see others suffer; extreme ill will or spite" nor have I held "Malicious ill will prompting an urge to hurt or humiliate." Neither do the vast majority of those who post on the RfM board fit your description.

It's true that there are a select few, like Cory for example, who are foolish and say inflammitory things. But that is no license depict those who dissent from the Church as the very damned themselves.

Besides, they're on their own "turf" as it were. They call it the "Recovery" board for a reason, people feel like they need a forum for no-holds-barred venting.

If they came to BYU campus and started protesting by chanting prayers to Satan then you might have something...lol.

What you described I'm sure was said at somepoint by someone, but you are only showing the highlight reel. The typical poster deals with issues like, "My wife wants a divorce, what should I do?"

Indeed most of "us" as it were still have very close connections to the Church. My own wife for example is still quite faithful, and I do not denigrate her beliefs. Much to her credit, she does not belittle mine.

It shouldn't be "us versus them." If you really believe in Free Agency, then why not just let the dissenters have it and move on?

I know you've been around the world and have many colleagues who do not share your religious views, and I think its quite easy to assume that a signifigant portion of them are secular minded.

You must get along with them without referring to them as a "specimen" right?

At 10:44 PM, September 24, 2005, Daniel Peterson said...

BYU Gestapo: "I've been working over in my head your notion of non-believers being part of your 'laboratory,' and I can't fathom why you would think that way."

Perhaps that's because I don't. I've referred in that fashion specifically to the "Recovery" board, which is, thankfully, a quite unusual place, and, most recently, to "Cory," who, while his sneaky and dishonest behavior is not altogether rare, is also, mercifully, atypical.

BYU Gestapo: "Don't you ever reflect on how someone like myself might react to you refering to me as a 'specimen?'

Somehow, I think the highly sensitive, tender, and gentle souls over at the "Recovery" board, and poor innocent "Cory," will survive the horror.

BYU Gestapo: "Don't you think that sets the wrong tone? I mean, I did call him an idiot, he did a dumb thing, and that fits.
But I'm not telling him I'm the kid, and he's one of the ants in my farm.

I think that flatly calling someone an "idiot" is considerably worse than ironically chiding a group of aggressive critics for their often uncivil and sometimes obscene zealotry.

BYU Gestapo: "Doesn't using this type of language strike you as unChristian, let alone unprofessional?"

No. I think it precisely accurate.

BYU Gestapo: "Neither do the vast majority of those who post on the RfM board fit your description."

Many don't. But a distressing number do -- more than enough to contribute to a palpable tone there that I'm scarcely the first to have noticed.

BYU Gestapo: It's true that there are a select few, like Cory for example, who are foolish and say inflammitory things. But that is no license depict those who dissent from the Church as the very damned themselves.

I had in mind the specific (and sizeable) subset of the posters on the "Recovery" board whose hostility to Mormonism and to Mormons seems to me pathological, not those, wherever they are, who simply "dissent from the Church."

BYU Gestapo: "Besides, they're on their own 'turf' as it were. They call it the 'Recovery' board for a reason, people feel like they need a forum for no-holds-barred venting."

Sorry. I don't buy the pop psychobabble about "recovery." I see very little "recovering" going on, but a great deal of venom and contempt being spewed. It's much like some of the people I've known who've gone through bitter, ugly divorces: When they obsessively and tiresomely badmouth their former spouses to neighbors, relatives, friends, children, parents, and virtually any randomly selected semi-stranger who will listen, that's not recovery. Recovery is moving on. Obsessing delays recovery.

BYU Gestapo: "If you really believe in Free Agency, then why not just let the dissenters have it and move on?"

I've never said anything to suggest that dissenters should not have their agency, I've never done anything to take their agency away, and I've never moved a muscle to repress anybody nor suggested that anyone else ought to do so. For what it's worth, I tend toward libertarianism, politically. I really, really believe in agency.

BYU Gestapo: "I know you've been around the world and have many colleagues who do not share your religious views, and I think its quite easy to assume that a signifigant portion of them are secular minded. You must get along with them without referring to them as a 'specimen' right?"

I get along with them really well. And I never refer to them, or think of them, as "specimens."

I have, however, once or twice used terms like laboratory and specimen to refer, lightheartedly, to people who treat me with contempt, describe me (and, on occasion, even my wife) in obscene and grossly offensive ways, spit upon things I hold sacred and people whom I respect, and/or behave duplicitously, obscenely, and with appalling lack of charity out of their hatred for Mormonism and for particular Latter-day Saints. I find such behavior fascinating because it is so bizarre.

You're taking a rather gentle bit of irony much too seriously, in one sense, but, in another, not at all seriously enough.

(Incidentally, in a few hours I'll be heading out of town for eight days, and will probably not be checking my computer.)

end quote:



To me Daniel strikes me as the kind of personality that's impervious to apology. Ironic isn't it?