Correcting Errors or Resisting Continued Abuse?

I've been incredibly stressed this week as I've exchanged emails with my father. Given how fruitless it has been in the past, why did I bother? Why did I feel compelled to respond? I've been asking this question a lot.

Part of me wants to believe that it is because I wanted to make a stand for religious tolerance and reason. But on further reflection, I don't think that was really it. If the email had come from anyone else, then I would have just said, "What a moron," and deleted it.

I'm something of a know-it-all and have a bad habit of correcting people. I think part of it is because I was raised in a know-it-all religion that believes that it is right and everyone else is wrong and that anyone who disagrees is wicked and under the influence of Satan. Over the last 42 years I've slowly realized that this tends to piss people off and cause them avoid me so I've tried to learn to just bite my tongue. But for some reason I feel compelled to respond to my father's stupidities.

With my father I think that several things are going on. The first is that his beliefs dramatically influenced me and I think our beliefs were pretty well aligned into my early adulthood. As I've realized the errors in my beliefs and corrected them, I think it has naturally led me to want to correct the source of those errors too. He is in some ways a part of me and now it's a part of me I don't like and don't respect and want to change.

I think another thing is that I blame him for using flawed thinking to teach me incorrect things. When he tries to do the same thing now I feel a strong need to fight back. Maybe it's not so much a desire to correct him, but to assert my new found beliefs and reject the flawed thinking that my father uses to reach incorrect beliefs. I think that I feel violated by the strong influence he had as an involved parent and that he misused and abused that influence to teach me flawed beliefs based on extremely flawed evidence and reasoning. As an adult, I think I feel a need to fight back against what I willingly accepted as a child.

Perhaps part of it is a desire for payback and a need for revenge. I resent the fallacies I was taught and perhaps I feel a need to show up and embarrass the source of many of those fallacies.

And lastly, perhaps I'd like for him to admit, for once, that he was wrong in what he taught me and continues to try to force on my and the rest of the world around him. It took him years to tentatively and weakly admit to some members of my family, but not me, that he was physically and emotionally abusive throughout our childhood. But, I think I'm feeling that I was also abused when I realize the very thorough and extensive brainwashing that I suffered growing up in my household. In much the same way that he couldn't admit to himself or my family the severe physical and emotional abuse he inflicted, I don't think he can admit that he also was guilty of filling our heads with false teaching based on just about every logical fallacy known to man. So, for me, the last remaining type of abuse I experienced growing up continues into adulthood and I feel a need to fight back in much the same way that if he took a swing at me today I would fight back. In much the same way he justified or failed to recognize the physical and emotional abuse, he continues to resist the notion he might have been guilty of spiritual and intellectual abuse.

It's a difficult dynamic and it leaves me feeling a need to cut off contact from him in the same way I would cut off any other abusive relationship. In the most recent exchanges he has failed to respond directly to the points I raised, side tracked the dialogue to my issues with the church, and dismissed my points as being "lame". He further accuses me of not listening to anything he says, of failing to engage, to refusing to consider the evidence, and to never, not even once, directly responding to a direct question from him. All the while the attached email chain shows exactly the opposite: him refusing to answer direct questions, him attacking me, and him failing to respond to the questions I originally sent to him in response to his anti-Muslim email. In the end, he reposed his question, I answered it with the exact same answer I gave in my original response, and resposed the original two questions I asked and the reason those questions were relevant and important. I also forwarded an email I sent him from a couple of years ago that showed me directly answering questions he asked me. Just, you know, as evidence that he's full of shit and a liar and wrong about me.

Why bother? Right now, I don't care if I ever talk to or see my father again and I'm reliving the memories of the hatred I had for him as a teenager.

Why Am I Up at 1:00 am?

I just wasted more than an hour replying to a couple of emails from my dad and ultimately threw them away. It started out last weekend when he sent out another one of his brilliant political commentaries based on an anti-Islamic web site called www.prophetofdoom.com. You'd think that a Mormon would be sensitive to such things, but apparently he fails to see the irony of it all. After a couple of short emails back and forth it finally culminated in a long accusatory email in which he basically accused me of being closed minded and completely unwilling to consider any evidence for the church. He simply refuses to understand that I read it, considered it, considered the alternative explanations and found the evidence against the church to be compelling and the evidence for it to be entirely lacking.

I'm not sure, but I think that I've been very open minded. I tried to believe for 40 years. I immersed myself in the Mormon church and tried to be as knowledgeable as I could be. And then I discovered that it was all lies. Literally. I've documented it in other places, but it really infuriated me to discover how dishonest the church was. I was completely disillusioned by the realization that the church did exactly what it accused its detractors of; it lied and misrepresented its history and doctrines on a grand scale and then had the gall to attack and defame those that dared expose the truth.

My father simply refuses to consider the facts. He accuses me of being close minded, but consider the following typical response (his response in [] and underlined).

For example, DNA evidence clearly shows that the scientists got it right [not it doesn't - you only read the wild assertions of those who are not rigorous in their rantings. ] and Joseph Smith got it wrong: the Indians are from Mongolia, not Israel. [You are ignorant of many facts. Would you like me to give you specifics about the Hebrew origins of some of the Indians and recent findings of Hebrew writings of the Ten Commandments in Indian burial mounds? ]

Yes, Simon Southerton's book is nothing but wild assertions and sloppy rantings. From the language, I'm guessing he reached that conclusion by reading the FARMS articles, not from reading Southerton's book. Unlike him, however, I read the FARMS articles. I actually read them first. Then I read Southerton's book. And I've read his responses to the FARMS articles. The only lack of rigor or ranting was in the FARMS articles and the church's subsequent excommunication of Southerton. So, even though I've sent him a copy of the book and I'm pretty sure he hasn't read it, I'm the one who's only considered one side and apparently a very flawed one. OK.

He offered to send me evidence of the 10 Commandments written in Hebrew found in Indian burial grounds. Maybe I should take him up on that since I'm pretty sure I know what he's referring to and it has been conclusively proven to be a fraud.

You see, unlike him, I have actually read both sides of each issue.

So I found myself at 1:00 am over on Jeff Lindsay's web site trying to make sure I hadn't overlooked something. I read a brilliant article on why circumstantial evidence and the Book of Mormon witnesses can't be ignored any longer and we should just all stop fighting the obvious and accept Joseph Smith and the divinity of the Book of Mormon. My goodness. I've had two migraines today and that didn't help any.

It also had the most compelling evidence found to date (his and other apologists words, not mine): the letters NHM found in the middle of the Arabian desert that MIGHT be the land of Nahom. Of course, the earliest find dates to 900 A.D. They recently found an altar dating to the Book of Mormon period, but it refers to a "Nihmite." Based on this he conjectures that it would be reasonable that the would have also been a land of Nihm named after this person. Not Nahom, mind you, but I don't think they wrote out their vowels so you can pretty much fill in whatever ones you want. Convenient. The obvious question is, what does it prove? It shows that there might have been a land in Arabia with a name that is similar to a Book of Mormon name which, frankly, isn't that shocking and really doesn't prove anything except point out an interesting parallel or coincidence.

You see the work "consistent" a lot on his web site. This is the sort of "evidence" that my dad and other Mormons swoon over. The Book of Mormon mentions big cities and America has ruins of big cities. The Indians have a legend of a great white god that is consistent with the story of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon has chiasmus and so does hebrew writing. It's all very interesting and my father fails to understand that that is all it is. It's not evidence. Given three continents and several thousand years to play with, I'm sure you can find all kinds of interesting parallels and correlations. It's still not proof. The goal is to make Mormonism plausible. Again, that isn't proof.

Here's what I consider proof. Contradictions and counterexamples. Logic stipulates that a contradiction is evidence of something being false. A counterexample is a concrete example that counters or contradicts a statement and proves it to be false. It's often much easier to prove something false than it is to prove something true because all it takes is a contradiction or a counterexample. The Book of Mormon and the history of the church is full of those.

In the end, this is why I wound up reading so much about the church. The church and it's apologists do an outstanding job of muddying the water and trying to make the church look at least plausible to the uninformed. Then they apply very effective brainwashing techniques that prevent many members from being able to even consider the possibility that they are being misled. I knew people like my father would attack and I had to feel like I had the bases covered and could respond. I had to make sure I didn't have any doubts. And I guess it worked, because I don't. But, I still keep my mind open. One apologist claimed that the anti-Mormons wouldn't believe in the Book of Mormon even if the gold plates were presented to them. They are wrong. I'm willing to consider any evidence and I'm willing to keep an open mind. If my father or the church could answer my questions and provide convincing evidence then I'd be willing to be persuaded. But they don't. Instead they dabble in interesting coincidences and ignore the really thorny contradictions and other errors.

You know what. The other reason I'm still up even though I've had a long day is that it really just pisses me off that my father accused me of being close-minded and blindly rejecting any evidence for the church without even considering it. It really hurts me because it is so far from the truth. This whole journey out of Mormonism has been extremely painful and I resent the claim that it is somehow my fault that I was defrauded and refuse to continue to submit to the lies and deception. It's the spiritual equivalent of blaming the rape victim. I blog because I'm alone in this and the isolation is intentional. Leaving the church has meant severing attachments that were once an important part of my life including but not limited to friend and social activities. I'm now looked down on by my father and others that once respected me. People like my father have to explain my disbelief and the only explanations that they seem to have are pride, close-mindedness, and wickedness. The possibility that it is due to facts, reason, and conscience don't seem to occur to them because those things would obviously bring me back into the bosom of the church.

I'm going to bed. Hopefully I can sleep because I have to get up early and my head hurts. Sorry it's been so long between posts.

42

Happy Birthday to me!

Birthdays just aren't exciting any more. I guess you could consider the decades as significant milestones, but I don't really buy that. Thirty wasn't really so black. In fact, I still felt pretty twenty something well into my mid-thirties. Around the middle of that decade I'd definitely moved on and felt solidly like an adult, as opposed to a young adult.

Forty wasn't really that big of a deal either with the exception that with adulthood came more stress and a more sedentary lifestyle and evidence that my adult lifestyle was creating problems. It was around 39 that my weight and blood pressure peaked and sounded an alarm that my lifestyle wasn't sustainable. Come to think about it, that was also when I finally resolved my doubts about the church and moved on from the teachings of my childhood. I stopped racing motorcycles, took up running, lost 35 pounds, and quit going to church. I take it back. Forty was a pretty significant milestone in my life although I didn't think about it at that time.

Who knows what major changes may come, but the next big age milestone I foresee is retirement. I suspect that with the emerging demographic trends that is likely to push out to 70 by the time I get there.

In the meanwhile my doctor gave me a pretty stern lecture about taking care of myself when I went in for a physical. After running some tests I found out that my blood sugar is fine, my cholesterol is excellent, my blood pressure is now under control and good, and a heart CT showed that I have zero hardening in my coronary arteries. Like it or not, I'll probably be around for a while.

Life in My New Job

My unscheduled vacation was rudely interrupted by a new job last week. I have to say that I was enjoying my lack of responsibilities. I wasn't completely idle, but I did enjoy sleeping in, exercising, catching up with my Tivo backlog, and spending time with my family. Now I have to work all of that stuff in around a regular job again.

So far work has consisted of reading hundreds of pages of documentation. If that sounds boring, it's because it is. But it's what I do for a living. I read specifications and then try to figure out whether or not the chip designers correctly implemented them. In other words, I try to get the chips to do things that they aren't supposed to do. I break them. I haven't broken anything yet, but I'm getting the feeling that I'll be able to pretty quickly as soon as I get oriented and up to speed.

I'm also making good progress on my marathon training. I ran a little over 15 miles on Sunday. Unfortunately, I slept in again so I once again ran it in 90+ degree heat. I felt pretty good, but for the first time ever my German Shepherd Dog declared, "No mas!" and laid down while we were taking a walk break. His paws looked okay so I was worried that he was suffering from heat exhaustion even though I was giving him regular breaks in the lake. After a little break he got back up but he was still a little unsteady so we mostly walked the last couple of miles. We took yesterday off as a rest day but he was still a little stiff this morning so we kept the pace slow and only ran a few miles.

If you've never run a marathon, the most important part of the training is the long run. Once a week you do an extended run at an easy pace that is farther than the runs you normally do. Before you consider running a marathon you should first be able to run 10 miles on your long run. For the marathon you extend your long run by a mile every week until you work up to long runs of about 20 miles. If you can complete a 20 mile long run during training then you should be able to complete the marathon. Once you get up to 14 or 15 miles on your long run then you give your a body a break every other week and cut the distance of the long run in half. That's the basic idea although races, injuries, and other things have a way of rearranging the best of plans.

Last year, every time I increased the distance of my long run it represented a personal milestone because it meant that I was running further than I'd ever run before. My body had never had to deal with moving continuously for several hours and by the end of the run I was usually physically drained. By the time I'd driven home I could barely move and I'd hobble upstairs where I'd ease into a tub of cold water and then dump 5 gallons of ice around my aching legs. After that I'd usually fall into bed and sleep for several hours.

So far, this year has been very different. I feel remarkably good! I haven't felt the need for any ice baths. I haven't been very stiff immediately after the runs. I've had little soreness during the week. And most importantly I haven't had any injuries. Part of this could be that the heat has kept me running slowly and walking quite a bit. But I think the biggest part is that I've done it before and my body isn't as shocked by the experience as it was last year. Even though I hadn't done any really long runs since February's marathon, it's all coming back pretty easily this year.

My first race is a 10k (6.2 miles) on October 1 and then I'll have another race about every 3 weeks until the Austin Marathon in February. It probably sounds strange, but I'm really looking forward to the experience again this year. Improving my times will be nice, but the biggest reward is setting a challenging goal and completing it.

You Know What Really Bugs Me?

Well, lots of things. I'm an irritable, cranky person so it often doesn't take much. But I was just getting ready to eat an apple and had to remove the mandatory sticker. Why can't they use a sticker that comes off without leaving residue on my fruit? Over the last few years I've noticed a growing trend that the stickers either can't be removed without removing a piece of the produce along with it or else they come off and leave adhesive on my fruit. How healthy is that?! I'm dieting, dammit, which means that I'm even crankier than usual and I'm eating tons of apples because they don't have many calories and are a whole lot healthier than the peanut M&Ms that I really want and I have to deal with stickers and sticker adhesive on top of it all! It's just the straw....

Diet and exercise suck...

But, I promise I'll post before and after photos after I lose the 30 pounds I'm trying to drop by February, 2007. You know, the 30 pounds I've been planning on losing since I lost the last 30 pounds.

Audioslave's New Album

I really like Napster. I got an email this morning announcing the new Audioslave album that I've been eagerly awaiting and I immediately started downloading it and playing it on my laptop. So far, so good. This is one of my favorite bands to run to. The only thing more eagerly awaited is the next Linkin' Park album or another Fort Minor album. Having Napster and a 30Gb MP3 player has allowed me to explore a lot more music than I've ever listened to in the rest of my life and I really enjoy expanding my horizons.

Signs of My Future Apostasy

Looking back, I suppose it was almost inevitable that I'd reject Mormonism and move on. People that knew me growing up would probably not be surprised. Perhaps my steadfast belief was really a sign of my deep seated discomfort. Here's my confession of apostate practices.

• I always hated to go to primary. For a while I used to hide in the bathroom after opening exercises so I didn't have to go to class; I knew the female teachers and primary presidency couldn't get me. I'd sit on the toilet tank so no one could see my feet in the stall. That all ended when they got tired of looking for me and came in anyway.
• I was apparently extremely disruptive in primary. I remember standing on my head in my chair during class until my best friend kicked the metal folding chair over. At that point it folded up on my head and gave me a bloody nose. My mother was so proud and my teacher asked for a new class.
• I didn't want to be an Eagle scout. I loved camping and scout camp and being outdoors, but the merit badges didn't interest me and I didn't believe all the crap I heard about how important an Eagle is. Even then I knew that future employers would be more impressed with straight A's than with an Eagle.
• I didn't want to go to early morning seminary. My mom pleaded with me and promised me that if I tried it and didn't like it then I could stop. I tried it and I kept going because that was where I got to see all of my friends. I didn't really have any friends outside of the church even though I lived in Des Moines, Iowa and there weren't many Mormons around and only a couple in my school. But I really didn't like Seminary although I learned a lot about the church there.
  
• I used to skip Sunday School to go get food.
• I didn't read the whole Book of Mormon until I was 17 even though I started trying when I was about 11. From that time my sister and I were having a contest to see who could finish first. The fact that it took 6 years for me to win should tell you a lot about both of us. Or perhaps it tells you a lot about the Book of Mormon when it takes two prolific readers that long to slog through it.
• I thought about sex a lot. I really, really wanted to get laid. I liked to look at girls, fantasized about them, and was perpetually preoccupied with them even though I knew that to do anything would be almost bad as murdering someone. I didn't have very many girlfriends and didn't do anything serious with any of them, and was a 22 year old virgin when I got married. But it was the thought that counted.
  
• I hardly went to church at all during my first year at BYU and I didn't feel bad about it at all. In fact, I felt much more spiritual and at peace back in my dorm room than I ever did at church. This was despite that church in the BYU university wards was generally more interesting than any of the other wards I ever went to.
• I insisted on thinking for myself. I went along with the church because it made sense to me. I didn't believe in blind obedience.
• I turned down a couple of church callings. One was because I was swamped at school. The other was because it was a stupid calling that was made up so that I would have a calling.
  
• I never thought that the decision not to translate the lost 116 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript made sense. It's not like they had photoshop back then or liquid paper or any good way of modifying it that wouldn't be obvious. So, the explanation that he would retranslate it and that it wouldn't match because the original was modified by evil people is just stupid. And I always thought so but kept it to myself.
• I wondered why Nephi had to murder Laban. It's not that Laban was a good guy; he wasn't. But, he was falling over, passed out drunk. Couldn't Nephi have tied him up? Wouldn't beheading him have covered his clothes with blood? How did Nephi learn to impersonate his voice so well? The story had so many holes and was so repugnant that I chose instead to shelve it and not worry about it.
  
• I always wondered why the church never taught any lessons or talked about polygamy in church. When people find out you are a Mormon it almost immediately leads to the topic of polygamy. After more than 100 years, polygamy is still a defining belief of Mormons and yet within the church it isn't officially discussed other than to say that they no longer practice it. I always thought the silence indicated a discomfort with the topic and perhaps fear. If it was divinely inspired then I didn't understand why they weren't proud of it and why they didn't discuss it. Instead, complete silence. I later found out why; the facts ARE embarrassing.
• I never felt comfortable with the 1978 decision to give blacks the priesthood. There was no revelation, just a policy change. If it was wrong before, what cosmic event happened in 1978 to make it okay. Again, no discussion about it other than that it was time for a change. I felt that the policy was either wrong before 1978 or else the church caved in to cultural pressures. Either way was bad.
• I never thought it made sense that God had sex with Mary like church prophets claimed. The church denies this now, but it was unequivocally stated by at least one prophet. Wouldn't that be adultery or fornication? If not, then was God secretly married to Mary? If so, then how could Joseph marry her and have other kids like the church teaches? Or does it mean that God can do anything he wants? It just never made sense to me.
• I hated the entire temple endowment ceremony. It's not just that it was mind numbingly boring; it was creepy. If it wasn't for the fact that I'd resigned from school to go on a mission I would have stood up and left the room after the initial ominous threat at the beginning of the ceremony: "...for God will not be mocked!" The sense of dread increased as I ritually acted out various ways that I promised to be killed rather than reveal secret handshakes and passwords that the Book of Mormon teaches are a sign of secret combinations that were revealed to Cain by Satan in order to hide murderous works. Weren't they available in anti-Mormon books and films like the Godmakers? Why would I be killed for something that was freely available at your friendly local evangelical Christian church? I was both relieved and confused when those things were removed from the temple ceremony in 1990. That told me that those things were not revealed since they were removed. Unfortunately, it left me in limbo, not knowing how much of the rest of it was also just temporary and not revealed. Maybe garments were just a mistake too. After all, the garments had been shortened, made two piece, and constructed from modern fabrics. Maybe they'd come in black mesh bikinis and tank tops eventually.
  
• I raced motorcycles on Sunday. This was a clear violation of the sabbath day. Heck, I also watched football on Sunday and sometimes used Sunday as a travel day on vacation.
  
• I almost never fasted. It made me hungry. I don't like being hungry.
• I fasted and prayed about problems, but wondered if I was just figuring out things for myself or if I was actually getting any divine inspiration. I don't think the answers I got through that process were any better than anything I could have come up with on my own. In fact, I believed that the answers I got were my own. If they were wrong I didn't hold God accountable. I always believed that evidence and reason were a more sure way to find truth that the Spirit, which always seem pretty tentative and uncertain since it was so difficult to distinguish from your own feelings.
  

So there you go. The signs were all there. Everything else I did was just appearances of being faithful Mormon. It was just a facade hiding the apostate lurking underneath, ready to break out.

BTW, if you miss the game today, I'll wonder about you. If you live in the U.S. and have to ask, "What game?" then something is really wrong with you. Hook 'em Horns!

Twisted Thinking

I was looking for Mormon symbols that could be twisted into an interesting exmo tatoo or patch or logo or something and stumbled across Jeff Lindsay's apologetic web site. I amused myself by reading through his FAQ and was especially entertained by his defense of Joseph Smith's polygamy despite his own dislike for polygamy. Many of his answers were pretty reasonable (mostly because he didn't tackle any substantial questions) but on polygamy he was clearly grasping at straws. He refers to Todd Compton's "claims" that Joseph practiced polyandry despite the fact that those unions are well documented and not contested by even faithful historians such as Bushman.

His defense, like many apologists, seems to be that many of the marriages (or "sealings" as he refers to them) were not marriages in the sense that they involved sex. He repeats the completely non-doctrinal theory that perhaps many of these marriages were dynastic in nature. I understand why this explanation seems appealing since any explanation that involves sex would make Joseph Smith a very unsavory character since it would mean that he was nailing his maids, his wife's best friends, his closest friends' and associates' wives and daughters, his foster daughters, etc.

The problem is that there is no official statement by any church authority or church canon to support. It's only basis is the desire to remove sex as a motivation for the institution of plural marriage and to put a more noble and spiritual in place of the more common and carnal explanation. But, read D&C 132 which is the official revelation on plural marriage. It's all about sex. Read the Book of Mormon where polygamy is prohibited unless God needs to raise up seed. It all involves sex. The whole scriptural justification is sex and having children. Frankly, given the ample scriptural and doctrinal foundation that the plural marriages were based on sex along with the legal affidavits from some of the wives that the marriages were sexual in nature, the burden rests on the apologists to provide comparable evidence from primary sources that ANY of the marriages were NOT consumated. To my knowledge there is no evidence that Joseph Smith didn't have sex. If the marriages were dynastic, non-sexual unions, then there would have been no need for secrecy, no need to for public denials, and no need to go down the road to Carthage.

It just doesn't add up and it is troubling that Mormons that know the facts still choose to defend what should be indefensible.

But in the end, if you believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that he spoke for God, then anything that God revealed to him was, by definition, right and correct.

But that thinking brought honorable men to surrender their wives and daughters to a sexual predator.

It compelled otherwise good men to murder and rob innocent men, women, and children.

It led to blatant disobedience of the laws of the land and the continued illegal practice of polygamy for 14 years after the practice officially ceased.

It leads to an organization that continues to lie and deceive in order to preserve its existence.

It leads to good people devoting their lives to a collection of pretty lies that provide a facade of happiness.

Good Redneck Fun

Saturday afternoon I hopped over to the shooting range with the wife and two boys and shot every gun we have in the house. We started out on the skeet range with the 12 and 20 gauge shotguns and killed a box of clay pigeons. This was the wife's first time ever shooting a shotgun, but she did well for a first timer and even hit a couple. It's been over 3 years since we've shot clays, but all of us boys did a pretty good job and by the end were shooting doubles (two at once).

Then we went over to the rifle range and shot the 30-06 and the 22 rifles. The -06 is my dad's army surplus 1903 Springfield rifle, just like you see in WWI movies and it is a tack driver. With iron sights (no scope) it was easily hitting bullseyes at 50 yards and did many one-hole groups (multiple bullets with all of the holes overlapping). The 22 was less stellar at that range, but it is cheap to shoot (about $0.01 per shot versus $1.25 per shot for the 30-06). The wife didn't shoot the big gun, but us boys shot a box of ammo through the big gun and have the bruises to show for it. It kicks good and the muzzle blast makes everyone in the vicinity jump.

We finally headed over and shot a bunch of ammo through the 45s, 357, and 380 pistols. With the exception of my little KelTec 380, the pistol shooting went well and everyone did a competent job. The 380 is just a piece of crap, cheap pocket gun. It's light and can be carried in a pocket but I'm not sure it could reliably hit anything more than 3 yards away. Its sights are terrible, its accuracy is worse, and it must have the worst trigger every put on a pistol. I regret wasting the small amount of money I spent on it.

Anyway, I'm out of ammo now so I have to surf the web so I can restock for the next outing.

BTW, rules of gun safety:

1) All guns are loaded.
2) Never let the gun point at something unless you are willing to destroy it.
3) Finger off the trigger until the sights are on the target and you are ready to shoot.
4) Be sure of your target and what's behind it.

Blessed for Prior Good Acts

My sister had another funny story. Her hometeacher, a member of the bishopric, recently visited her with his teenage son. He asked her if she was attending church in a different ward because she hadn't been to church in a while. She told him she hadn't been to church in at least a couple of years. He asked how this made her feel and she said that she couldn't be happier and that her life was going really well. He responded that she was being blessed for all of the good things that she'd done earlier in her life, apparently despite her current disobedience. My sister responded and told him that she was offended that he was judging her as being unrighteous and unworthy of blessings. He then proceeded to ask her if she was praying and reading the scriptures and she basically told him that that was personal and none of his business. But, having been there, I'm sure he took this as a no. This probably confirmed to him the dangers of not rigorously following the commandments. If even a righteous returned missionary can lose their testimony through lack of obedience, then how important for every member to faithfully feed and strengthen their testimony.

My sister and I now realize what is really going on. If you don't constantly reinforce the brain-washing it eventually wears off. If you stop going to church and feel better and happier then you realize that going to church is a burden and not a blessing. If you aren't submersed in Mormon culture and experiences then you quickly see through the facade and see TSCC for what it is.

Anyway, I think it is funny that a faithful member can't accept that a person is happy without the church and has to chalk it up to former activity. The church can't lose. If you're active and unhappy then you need to repent or you are being tried. If you're active and happy then you are being blessed. If you're inactive and happy then it's a sign of God's mercy that he continues to bless you for your former activity. If you're inactive and unhappy then it's because God has withdrawn his Spirit and protection and you are being delivered to the buffetings of Satan in order to humble you and bring you back into activity.

Isn't it wonderful! To a Mormon it's all logical and internally consistent and no matter what happens it reinforces their faith and belief. It's a circular system of reasoning that can't be contradicted.

Mormon Milestones

I was talking to my sister the other night and she brought up a topic that can cause ex-Mormons grief. She is in the process of adopting a child and my parents have provided some assistance in the process. My father is already enquiring about when the child will be blessed in the Mormon church. Mormons have rituals or ordinances that start shortly after childbirth and continue throughout life. The first is the blessing of the child. Normally, I would think that this is a beautiful thing and wouldn't have any problem with it. The problem is that as soon as you bless a child in the Mormon church, that child becomes a "Member of Record." That means that TSCC creates a membership record for the child and that child will forever be in the church's membership database, even if they never set foot in a church again or if they later resign from the church to stop unwanted contact and harassment. Note that even after you resign, you are still in the church database, just as a former member. I guess that this is so they can detect former members who later repent and want to be re-baptized (I wonder how often that happens?) or so they can reject your application to a church school like BYU.

I'll have a similar situation in about a year when my daughter turns eight and is ready for Mormon baptism. I suspect that since she has been endoctrinated and her mother still supports the church that she will want to be baptized. One problem is that I don't think I'll be able to do the baptism since I haven't attended church for several years. The other problem is that I don't think that 8-year-old children has sufficient knowledge and experience to choose a church. My biggest problem is that I think that the church is a mind-controlling cult and I don't want my children joining. This is one that I'll have to discuss with my wife. If it happens I'll attend and celebrate it as a milestone that my child has chosen to be a Christian and to live a Christ-like life. That IS a good thing and praiseworthy as long as it isn't coerced into cult-like worship of TSCC.

Anyway, milestones like this force apostates like me into the open. Even before I was willing to really accept the truth about TSCC I stopped attending the temple. This became apparent to my family when I didn't go through the temple with my little brother before his mission. At that point I simply didn't believe in the divinity of the temple ordinance or its necessity. I also didn't go to his temple wedding. So, while these ordinances strengthen the bonds of the cult, they also serve to drive a wedge of separation between church members and non-members and cultivates an us vs. them mentality.

So, what would I do if it were my sister? I suggested that she tell my dad that the child can be blessed in the church as soon as the church allows the parent (my sister) to do the blessing. After all, she was blessed as a priestess in the temple, so why shouldn't she be allowed to act as such?

Barring that, I think that it would be beautiful to bless the child at home as long as it was clear that it wasn't a Mormon blessing and that no record of it should ever be made in TSCC. After all, I don't think that God would object to a blessing given by a loving mother just because she isn't male.

Tatoos

I caught an episode of Miami Ink on TLC and it got me curious so I spent some time looking at their tatoo galleries on their web site. They have some pretty impressive tatoos on there. They really don't compare with any tatoos that I've ever seen. For example, I've mostly seen the dark green tatoos, but not many with color. I didn't know it was even possible to do the things that they do. But despite the quality of the artwork, some of the tatoos are pretty extreme and I can't imagine wanting to turn my body into a gallery like some of these people have done. I also can't imagine anything that I'd want permanently imprinted on my body. Besides, the prophet says it defiles the temple which is our body.

When No Means Yes

This post by over on Letters From a Broad reminded me of something. She noted the following,

I agree with most feminists that getting out the message that "No means no" is of vital importance for preventing sexual assault. And that's is why it's critical that both options exist -- yes as well as no -- in a meaningful way.

In a repressive society, some women want sex. Yet no women are allowed to want sex. So you get a situation where the women who really mean no say no and the women who don't mean no also say no.

The problem of not being able to say yes when you want to leads to other problems. For example, Utah has a high rate of teen pregnancies. This isn't terribly surprising to me. The urge to have sex is just too strong to resist for some people. But in a religious culture where extra-marital sex is a sin only slightly less severe than murder it isn't really an option to consciously prepare to have sex. For example, why would a good Mormon boy go out and buy condoms? That would be admitting that you are not only willing to fall, but you're also prepared. How's that going to look to your Bishop, Stake President, and General Authority that are going to have to interview you before you go out on your mission? The very fact that you had condoms is an admission that it wasn't just that things got out of hand and you slipped; it's an admission that you started making out with the premeditated intention of going all the way. It's the Mormon equivalent to the difference between premeditated, first-degree murder and manslaughter. The same thing would apply, I guess, to a good Mormon girl who went on the pill. In the end, safe sex winds up being dangerous to your soul if you are a Mormon because it's the moral equivalent to being a cold-blooded killer instead of just a reckless youth. So, even though good Mormon kids really, really want to have sex, they have to say that they don't and act accordingly right up to the moment when they do. Then they have to deal with the shameful consequences and humiliation and guilt that their culture inflicts on them.

Note, I still think no means no and should be respected. I'm just pointing out why in some cultures people may say no when they really mean yes or at least wouldn't mind saying yes.

Most People That Know Me Would Disagree

You Are 70% Normal

Otherwise known as the normal amount of normal You're like most people most of the time But you've got those quirks that make you endearing You're unique, yes... but not frighteningly so!

How Normal Are You?

Trail Running

Word to the wise: don't run when it's 103 F. If you are lacking in wisdom, like me, then at least make sure it's on a beautiful trail with lots of shade and streams for the dogs to plop down in and cool off.

One of the things that attracted us to our neighborhood was that it has extensive greenspace. We are on the edge of the Texas hill country right by the dam that creates Lake Travis. So we are on the hills that overlook the Lake Travis and Lake Austin which is below the dam. The hill tops are separated by steep valleys that can't be developed so our neighborhood has a lot of beautiful, wooded trails that will never be developed. Most of the valleys have small, spring fed streams that run year round, even in drought years like this where Lake Travis is over 30 feet below full and dropping at a rate of one foot per week.

Running in Texas from June to September is always hot. At night it sometimes doesn't break into the 70s. Returning from a late show last night around 11:30 pm the temperature was still 90. So even if you run in the early morning, you have to deal with the heat and for big fatties like me the heat just really saps energy. You have to be careful because the heat is quite literally life threatening and not just for people. I always run with my dogs and I'm sure that they would quite willingly run until they collapsed of heat stroke. The heat is particularly bad for dogs because they are stuck wearing a fur coat and they can't sweat. They only dissipate heat by panting.

The heat holds another danger to dogs. A couple of years ago I woke up one morning and my German Shepherd Dog was stumbling around the house like a drunken sailor. I was worried that he had an ear infection or something worse that was affecting his balance so we rushed him off to the vet. Several hundred dollars of tests and examination later the vet told us that he couldn't find anything wrong. The next day I noticed him constantly licking the bottoms of both of his front paws and when I looked at them I saw with horror that the thick layer of skin was peeled off and raw. No wonder he was stumbling around; he had blisters that covered the entire bottom of his paws that weren't noticeable until the skin started coming off. Now, when the sun is up in the summer we never run on pavement.

Yesterday I got busy cleaning house and balancing financial accounts, paying bills, etc. and didn't get ready to run until 5:00 pm. I'd taken Thursday off as a rest day so I didn't want to miss another day of running so we went running on the trails around our house. For some reason I don't do it very often, but after yesterday I'll do it more. We ran for over an hour and a half and even though it was still 101 (high was 103) it felt a lot better running under the trees. You have to pick your way carefully as you go up hill and down, across steep hillsides, over sharp rocks and ledges, and through patches of round rolling rocks near the streams. I found a new trail that follows the contours of the cliffs over Lake Austin and the trees break to open up beautiful views of the lake and its surrounding cliffs and hills. I have a lot of reasons to run, but runs like that make you feel alive and happy to be able to move and be a part of the world.

Found a Job

Well, it looks like my unscheduled vacation is nearing an end. I had an interview yesterday that went really well so I should be starting a new contract the day after Labor Day. My company pulled kind of a bait and switch. They were looking for something pretty basic, but when they got me in and started looking at my resume and talking to me their eyes kind of lit up and you could see the wheels start turning. They suddenly realized, "Hey, this guy could do all kinds of things and he could help us solve some problems that we are struggling with." It doesn't hurt that everywhere I go in town I'm known by reputation, even if not always by name, for the work that I did at IBM in the 90s.

Anyone for Terrorist Profiling?

My father forwarded an article from The Patriot Post which I dutifully linked so that you could read it on your own. I won't dignify it by making a copy. It includes a list of crimes committed by Islamic radicals and a call to profile Muslim males to fight terrorism. This makes a certain amount of sense and I don't deny that such things should be considered when deciding how to focus limited anti-crime resources. But, it seems to imply that we should focus on male Muslims and stop bothering innocent, law-abiding white Christian folks.

I know this seems to make sense. But consider what what it means if you are a law-abiding, Middle-eastern immigrant Muslim male who is singled out every time you travel or are stopped by law enforcement. I know many such people and work with them. They resent being singled out for this unwanted attention due to the actions of a very, very small percentage of people.

The last two times I've gone to South Padre Island we were stopped briefly at the INS checkpoint on the way home (along with everyone else) and after a glance showed we were white we were waved through. A friend of mine who is Indian and other than having dark skin and being short doesn't look even remotely hispanic spent over two hours in a hot interrogation room at the same checkpoint on his way home from vacation with his wife. Based on what? Profiling? If anything he's even more law-abiding than me. He speaks with a British accent. Why was he subjected to such extended attention with absolutely no, zero, nada grounds for suspicion beyond the color of his skin?

The other problem with this argument is that it seems to ignore that two of the worst incidents of terrorism in the U.S were perpetrated by white, working class male U.S. citizens. Prior to 9/11 the largest mass murder in the history of the U.S. was perpetrated by the Mormons at Mountain Meadows (on September 11, no less). I personally witnessed the damage done by Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City.

So, I'll augment the list in the Patriot Post with my own list that hopefully gives some historical perspective.

1) The attempted assassination of Andrew Jackson was carried out by: a) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40, b) a white, male?

2) President Abraham Lincoln was murdered by: a) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40, b) a white, male U.S. citizen?

3) President James A. Garfield was assassinated by: a) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40, b) a white, male U.S. citizen?

4) President William McKinley was assassinated by: a) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40, b) a white, male U.S. citizen?

5) President Theodore Roosevelt was shot by: a) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40, b) a white, male U.S. citizen?

6) The attempted assassination of President Franklin D. Roosevelt was carried out by: a) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40, b) a white, male U.S. citizen?

7) The attempted assassination of President Harry Truman was carried out by: a) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40, b) a white, male U.S. citizen, c) Puerto Rican nationalists?

8) President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by: a) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40, b) a white, male U.S. citizen?

9) The attempted assassination of President Richard Nixon by flying an airliner into the White House was carried out by: a) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40, b) a white, male U.S. citizen?

10) The attempted assassination of President Gerald Ford was carried out by: a) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40, b) a white, female U.S. citizen?

11) The attempted assassination of President Jimmy Carter was carried out by: a) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40, b) a white, male U.S. citizen?

12) President Ronald Reagan was shot by: a) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40, b) a white, male U.S. citizen?

13) The assassination of former president George H. W. Bush was carried out by: a) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40, b) a white, male U.S. citizen, c) agents of Iraq?

14) The attempted assassination of President George W. Bush was carried out by: a) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40, b) a white, male U.S. citizen, c) an ethnic armenian citizen of Georgian (former U.S.S.R.)?

15) The largest mass murder in the U.S. prior to 9/11/2001 was committed on 9/11/1857 by: a) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40, b) white, male U.S. citizens?

16) The federal building in Oklahoma City was blow up with a fertilizer bomb by: a) Islamist males between the ages of 17 and 40, b) a white, male U.S. citizen?

While militant Islam is certainly a very dangerous threat, it is not the only one. But the bigger problem is that our Constitution guarantees protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Simply being male and Muslim is not justification for a search any more than being black or Jew or any other arbitrary criteria. I'm a firm believer that the test of our constitutional form of government is best defined by whether we are willing to uphold the law of the land even when it may be more convenient not to.

Reference:

Wikipedia's list of presidential assassination attempts.

Ruth Simon and Communication

Ruth Simon was not only my freshman advisor, she was also my communications teacher. I think I took communications in my sophomore year of high school. I think it has proven to be the most influential class I have ever taken. I've taken a lot of classes over the years so I think it says a lot that this one class stands out in my mind above the rest for the values it contributed to my life.

I have no idea why a distinguished, intelligent woman like Ms. Simon was teaching at a middle-sized suburban high school in Iowa. I had a garden tilling business and Ms. Simon hired me to till her garden one spring. She lived in a beautiful, large, stately home on a large estate property in a wealthy section of Des Moines. So, I don't think that she did it for the money. She never talked about her own life so I really only know about her through the lense of young student. But it was clear to me that she cared about us and that she cared about the subject that she was teaching.

Our class covered many different modes of communication. She taught us that much of communication is non-verbal. She taught us about the roles played in effective communication and the how complex it was and how easily it could go wrong. She taught us about how to become better listeners, how to try to truly understand the other person, and how to reflect what you've understood back to the person so that you could make sure you didn't misunderstand. We learned about one on one communication, small group communication, and large group communication. We learned about different types of speeches such as how to communicate a process or how to try to persuade people to your opinion. We also learned the basics of Robert's Rules of Order and how the parliamentary process works to produce orderly debate. Throughout all of this we had the opportunity to practice what we had learned.

As valuable as the course was, Ms. Simon put her own stamp on it and made the class much more than the sum of the curriculum. Some how it came up that my father belonged to the John Birch Society. She replied that she didn't subscribe to their beliefs due to anti-semitism and racism. That shook me. I was still at an age where I trusted my parents beliefs and shared them without a lot of critical thought. It had never occurred to me that there could be a dark side to my father's political beliefs, a dark side that obviously troubled a teacher that I had grown to trust. It was just a comment, a simple reply, a single sentence that I still remember. But it camed from a sincere, dedicated, intelligent, thoughtful woman who projected love and concern for everyone in her class. She respected us and demanded that we, in turn, also respect each other. Everyone that has ever been in high school realizes how hard a thing it is to demand such a thing. But I remember having increased appreciation and respect for my classmates at the end of the class.

The most important lesson I learned in that class may not mean much to you. It meant a lot to me and is a lesson that I have taken to heart and allowed to guide my life. We were talking about making hard decisions and how to overcome indecisiveness. She said that you should always ask two questions. First ask yourself, "What is the worst thing that could happen?" Then ask yourself, "What is the best thing that could happen?" If you can live with the worst thing that could happen and something good could come of it, then go for it. For example, if you want to ask a girl out, what's the worst thing that could happen? She says no? She makes fun of you to her friends? Everyone is school finds out? Could you live with that? If so, what's the best thing that could happen? She says yes and you have a great date? That would be good. The questions help you explore rationally your fears and hopes and put them in perspective. By using this process you can help face the fears that keep you from taking advantage of opportunties that come your way. Often, you face those fears and decide that they're not really so scary after all. Other times you realize that you really couldn't deal with the worst case outcome and that the potential upside could never justify taking the risk. Either way, you can make a decision and feel comfortable with it.

Ruth Simon was short, a little overweight, well wrinkled and seemed close to retirement age. She was not physically impressive, but there was a smile in the corners of her eyes and as soon as you talked to her you couldn't help but like her and feel like she liked you. Maybe it was just me, but I don't think so. She was a great woman that touched me at an important time of my life. For that I'll be forever grateful.

Divorce

My first seminary teacher was a geeky guy who was nice enough but had no control over the class. I don't remember much about that year other than the spectacular fights and arguments between some of the students and this teacher's complete inability to maintain any semblance of discipline.

Things changed for my second year. My teacher was an FBI agent and had what I believe they call "command presence." You didn't mess with this guy. He wasn't very big but he was tough. One of the wrestlers in the class tried to grab him one day and instantly hit the ground howling in pain and clutching his arms around his lower legs. It seems that the teacher had instantly responded by taking the heel of his dress shoes and scraping it down the guy's shin ending with a stomp on the arch of his foot. Ouch.

But this guy was also very charismatic and a good teacher. Not only was the class under control, but it was also interesting. But the only lesson he taught that I remember wasn't from a manual. For whatever reason the topic of adultery came up and I think that several students made several comments on what a terrible sin it was and how a person would have to be pretty awful person to cheat on their spouse. At that point he cautioned us. He told a story of a man who was excommunicated for adultery. This man was branded and ostracized by the members and judged very harshly while his wife received much sympathy and support. But the teacher related that we shouldn't be so quick to judge. He knew this man and the details of his home life and he felt that if everyone knew the whole story that they'd feel compassion for the man and would feel little or no sympathy for the wife. He didn't give any more details, but I trusted his character and his judgment of the situation. It taught me that things are not always as they seem and that we should be careful about judging without knowing the details. It also hit a personal note with me since life inside my home often had little resemblance to the public image presented by our church-going, devout family.

I suppose that there can be a lot of reasons for infidelity and divorce, but they aren't all selfish ones. Some marriages are just unsuccessful and disfunctional and the divorce is just the ultimate, outward manifestation that the marriage was broken. Outsiders and sometimes even family members may have had little knowledge about the marriage relationship and how well it was working.

Sorry if that didn't make much sense. I wrote it because of a post on another blog where a child lost all respect for a father after he divorced her mother. The comments seemed to be quite ready to judge the father harshly and blame it on selfishness. I don't know the details, so maybe she was right to feel that way. But I wonder what was going on in his life to cause him to end a long relationship and take such a drastic step. I wonder how long the parents lived in an unhappy or unfulfilling marriage. I wonder how long it is good to continue a marriage for the kids. It's such a complex subject and there can be so many circumstances and issues. It's not always about selfishness and I don't think it's always wrong to get a divorce.

Mormons Aren't Christian? WTF Does That Mean?

Over on another blog I replied to a post and asked why Christians think Mormons are going to hell and received the stock answer that it is because Mormons aren't Christian.

I attended an evangelical Christian private school from 1st grade through 6th grade. I had daily Bible study, daily scripture memorization, and was by all accounts a good Christian. These fine Christians taught me that to be saved you needed to believe that Jesus Christ is your personal savior and accept him into your heart. That's it. I'm pretty sure that they were talking about the Jesus that is described in the New Testament. You know, the one that was born in Bethlehem, was baptized by John the Baptist, chose disciples in Galilee, taught the Gospel of love, was betrayed by a disciple with a kiss, and was executed in Jerusalem by the Romans at the instigation of the Jews. I'm pretty sure that that was the one they were talking about. I had no problem meeting their requirements. I confessed Jesus as my savior, tried to understand his life and his example, and tried to pattern my life after that example. I considered myself a Christian through and through.

The only problem I had with their teachings was the un-Biblical teaching that salvation was by grace only and that works don't matter. I also had a problem that they didn't require baptism when even Jesus, who was perfect, required baptism. This didn't bother me because I knew that other Christian sects did place an emphasis on works and baptism by immersion. In other words, I considered that they had a portion of the truth, but not the whole truth. But I still considered them Christian and never would have considered questioning their faith in Christ or their dedication to his teachings. I understood that there were hundreds of different Christian sects that all accepted the Bible, all worshipped the same Jesus, but interpreted the Bible in different ways. I considered Mormonism another one of those sects, and I accepted their interpretation as most correct.

So, I must confess I don't get it. Several years after attending that school my parents tried to enroll my brother. Unfortunately, they wouldn't allow him in because their policy required that at least one parent be Christian and their ministers didn't consider Mormons to be Christian. It seems that their theologians had studied Mormonism and decided that Mormons aren't Christian. My mother was in tears. She was deeply, deeply offended that someone would call her lifelong belief in Christ and her discipleship a fraud. It was such a patently absurd and offensive thing to say that she just couldn't comprehend how one Christian could insult another Christian's faith in such a way. It seemed and seems, well, un-Christian.

The rather trite explanation I've heard since then is that Mormons don't believe in the same Jesus Christ. I've never heard anyone explain to my satisfaction exactly what that is supposed to mean because they'll admit that both believe in the same Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Both agree on all of the Bibilical facts surrounding Jesus. The points of disagreement seem to be completely non-Biblical and revolve around different interpretations of the Bible. They believe in a Trinity whose attributes aren't defined in the Bible in the way that they describe. Mormons believe in a Trinity whose attributes are different than theirs, but is as compatible with the Bible as theirs is. Maybe there is more to it but it doesn't really matter. Rather than be inclusive they have decided to create an arbitrary definition of Christianity that excludes Mormons and perhaps other Christians. In the end, I think it is because Mormons believe in false prophets and in false doctrines. I'll concede those points. but I don't see how that makes them not Christian. If they want to be that way, they could claim that Catholics, Eastern Othodox, Coptics, and everyone else who doesn't accept their radical gracer version of Christianity is not really Christian. Who knows. Maybe they do.

Anyway, good luck to them trying to convince Mormons of the errors of their ways by trying to insult the one point of commonality that they share with them.