I AM A CHILD OF GOD - LDS Hymn Parody #28

Such a nice picture.  Although I consider myself an Agnostic now, I still acknowledge the fact that pictures like this one give people a sense of comfort.  After all, believing in God or a higher power of some sort is very reassuring.  The idea that God is watching over you, and that He is there to answer your prayers, is a very comforting thought.

Unfortunately, though, there is the possibility that whatever comfort is received from believing in God or a higher power may be coming from a false sense of security - because although there are a lot of Christians in the world, as well as many other religions who have a belief in a higher power, that doesn't mean that what they believe is absolutely true. 

After leaving Mormonism, I began to consider the possibility that there may not be a God at all.  Of course, I want there to be a God, someone watching over me, the promise of an Afterlife where I will see and be with my loved ones.  But my wanting that to be the case doesn't make it so.  The reality is that there is a possibility that God does not exist.  It may be that when we die, that is it.  But does that make any difference in the long run?  In some ways, thinking this way has helped me to live life more fully, to consider the fact that since this life may be all there is, I should be doing all I can every day to make my life more fulfilling and this world a better place.

And with those thoughts in mind, I wrote this hymn parody. 

I AM A CHILD OF GOD

LDS Hymn Book, #301

I am a child of God,
Or so the Christians say.
But I don’t know if God exists,
They say I’ve gone astray.

(Chorus)

Reasoning has got me thinking,
Questioning it all.
Blindly just accepting it,
For that, I will not fall.

Am I a child of God?
The query gives me pause.
There’s nothing wrong with questioning
Religion and its flaws.

(Chorus)

Reasoning, not just accepting
Everything that’s said.
Going down the garden path,
I’ll use my brain instead.

So if there’s not a God,
No higher power there.
Would knowing that destroy your life
And fill you with despair?

(Chorus)

Reasoning and analyzing,
Thinking on my own.
Not believing what I’m told,
I will not be a clone.

I am a woman first,
On me I can rely.
So whether there’s a God or not,
Myself I can’t deny.

(Chorus)

Reasoning, no blind acceptance,
Not belief by force.
Using my free agency,
The best and safest course.

© Diane Tingen, 7/8/2011

OFFENDED???

It never ceases to amaze me that so many Mormons think that the "primary reason" for people leaving the Mormon Church is because they have been "offended."  Of course, what they are talking about is someone hurting another person's feelings, as though that would cause a large number of people to toss off the promise of "eternal salvation" and create a mass apostasy.  Perhaps some people do leave because they were offended by something another member said or did, or something that a Bishop or Stake President said or did, but automatically lumping everyone into the same pile diminshes and minimizes the real reasons behind why people leave the Mormon Church.

Recently, I found a link to a very interesting website: http://www.exmormonchallenge.com

On the home page of this website, it says:

People leave the Mormon Church (and become ‘ExMormons’ or former Mormons) for lots of reasons:

• Some get offended by the words or actions of other Mormon Church members
• Some succumb to temptations and find themselves entangled in sin
• Some have doctrinal or historical concerns or questions
• And many other reasons

For each individual who has left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and become an ExMormon, there is an equally unique story.  Some join other Christian churches, some become agnostic, and many leave God and all religion completely behind.  While I certainly don’t claim to understand each of these paths, I know there is one who does–the Savior Jesus Christ.  The scriptures talk about how Jesus suffered each of our pains and afflictions, so that he could understood our personal situations, be filled with mercy and comfort us (Alma 7).  Through Him, we can learn to forgive those who may have offended us, we can seek and receive forgiveness of our sins, and find answers to even the most difficult questions of life.

And thus my invitation, my “challenge” if you will, to each and every ExMormon.  Take the path less traveled.  Come back.  We love you, we need you, we miss you.  There will be members of the Church there to welcome you back.  And more importantly, the Savior is waiting with open arms.
____________________________________

I find it interesting that this website lists being "offended" as the first reason in its list of explanations for people leaving the Mormon Church.  This website goes so far as to say, "Through Him, we can learn to forgive those who may have offended us, we can seek and receive forgiveness of our sins, and find answers to even the most difficult questions of life."

I agree with what this says.  If someone has truly offended us, we can learn to forgive them.  But the fact is that when the offense comes from being lied to and deceived about the very origins of a religion, as well as its history and doctrine, there is no overcoming the "offense."  The "offended" explanation for apostasy simply seeks to whitewash and minimize the realities behind why people become ExMormons.


For instance, it offends me that as a Mormon, I could not voice an independent thought or opposing opinion without being worried that someone would ridicule or shun me - or worse yet that I would be accused of verging on APOSTASY, like when my very TBM father told me that my "liberal thinking was going to get me into trouble some day."

It offends me that I was basically taught to keep my opinions to myself (while being given the not-very-subtle message that they really didn't matter or mean that much).

It offends me that as a Mormon, I was told that "When the prophet speaks, the debate is over."  As if whatever thoughts and ideas I have are not important. Someone else more important needs to do my thinking for me.

It offends me that Boyd K. Packer thinks it's okay to say things like, "Some things that are true are not useful." Since when is truth not useful? In essence, he is telling everyone that lying is perfectly fine. But then, in essence that's what the Mormon Church tells everyone.

It offends me that I was relegated to a subservient role by a male-dominted, male-oriented religion that treats women as second class citizens and has a very definite double-standard.

It offends me that as a 22 year old girl, I went to the temple to receive my "endowments," and was subjected to such a ridiculous barage of Masonic images and rituals.

It offends me that I was told that the temple ceremonies were so "sacred" that they could not be discussed outside the walls of the temple, but when I tried to talk to anyone about them in the Celestial Room, I was shushed and rushed out by the temple workers.

It offends me when I read the Journal of Discourses and see what the early prophets in the church really thought of certain groups, like women and Blacks. 

It offends me that when I questioned as to why the Blacks were denied the priesthood, I was given such ridiculous explanations as their being "less valiant" in the pre-existent and/or that they were descendants of Cain who was cursed with a dark skin after killing Able (especially since that philosophy clearly contradicts the 2nd Article of Faith which says that men shall be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression).

It offends me that Blacks could not hold the priesthood until 1978 and that when they were finally given that right, it was said that the Lord had revealed this change, not that the Mormon Church had been threatened by the IRS with losing its tax-exempt status for discriminatory practices.

And I could go on and on...

Point-blank, Mormonism in its entirety offends me.

These are only a few of the things that offended me when I was a Mormon.  And I worked through them.  But I would have to be extremely shallow to leave the church over such a "personal offense."  And I'm a lot of things, but I'm not shallow.

IMO, the following post hits the nail on the head.

"You left because you were offended"
Post on ExMormon Forums by InsanaD, 1/20/2011

Oh how often we've heard this tired excuse. How often it's used to marginalize the one who finds credible fault with the inconsistencies and untruths in the LDS church and doctrine, and yet how far off the mark it often is. It's a low class tactic meant to suggest that the person that left just couldn't handle normal human relationships. It suggests that they misinterpret, are playing victim, and lack the courage to work things out in civil manners. It negates their core argument and turns the discussion to their personal weakness, percieved or real.

We hear these games taught from the pulpit from leaders at the very top of the LDS church. We hear the subsequent message given in a sort of whisper campaign like the ones Karl Rove instigated on Bush's rivals. The cumulative effect is to draw attention from the hard questions being asked and to zero in on the disaffected. A bandaid for a gushing head wound.

I've fallen prey to this game numerous times and I suspect my mother graduated Suma Cum Laude from the school of Passive Agressiveness. The twisted gyrations to turn attention away from the many difficult questions was frustrating and I always came out the bully, the loser, the negative nelly and nay sayer. But in the end regardless of how they saw me, I still had hard questions that weren't answered or were outright lied about.

If someone asks me why I left the LDS church I now say "YES, I left because I was offended!"

I left because I was offended. Really, my feelings were hurt.

One thing that genuinely offends me is when some arrogant entitled LDS person thinks that by lumping all those who leave the church into the "Offended/Sinner" category it absolves them from having to examine the vast wasteland of horrific offenses that the church has done to so many and permeates the culture and history of the church. If they can marginalize those that leave with such a blanket accusation it may offer them some comfort for their own ignorance and naive perspective but it does nothing to help bridge the chasm that exists between the disaffected and the devout.

I left because I was offended. I was offended at the doctrine, the leadership, the history, the culture, the oppression, the lies, the lies, the lies and more lies. I was offended at the corruption, the graft, the good ol' boys games, the misogynist sexual discrimination, the cruel way the culture extorts silence from dissenters, the ostricization, the manipulation and backward indoctrination of children, the group think mindset that dominates any sort of honest intellectual integrity. I was offended by the grey dull tedious repressive leaders. I was offended by so much that it would take volumes to write it all out. I left because I was offended. Lies offend me. I must be a big baby.

I will continue to be offended at the lies the church continues to tell and forces their devotees to swallow. If it comforts those who give their loyalty to such a corrupt organization as the LDS church to think that folks like me left because we were offended, then by all means, placate the passive aggressive game with such silliness. They sure as hell won't win friends and influence people but they can sit comfortably in their little home teaching room and congratulate themselves that they stayed loyal to a corrupt lying organization and are among folks who think just like them. They belong there.

Comment to this post - by Rainfather, 1/22/2011

I'm free to study anything I want to, without someone commenting, "You shouldn't be reading that stuff." Life is suddenly an exciting mystery. It's so much happier now without the dogma of any religious organization. I study so many different faiths now. When you do that, it really highlights how many different beliefs there are out there and how many there have been throughout history.

You live in such a tiny box when you live within Mormonism. Unfortunately, you don't see that until you're on the outside, looking back. That's when you see the box and everyone running around in it. You feel sorry for them and wish you could rescue them all. But at some point, you finally realize that they're happy in their little box and that they don't want to be rescued.

You simply rejoice for those who have made their way out, and many will.  Some of them find their way here, where we try to help them to heal their wounds (for those who are wounded). I'm at the point where I feel no need to work through the issues of the church anymore. I don't care about debating the issues. I have healed and moved on. I remain only to help those who are at the beginning of their journey out or are struggling.

As for being offended? Sure there are those who offended me. I'm lucky. There were only a few. But I never would have left because of them. I simply put them down as jerks and went about my business. The only reason I left was because I'd made the discovery that the church wasn't what it claimed to be, and I knew that with a 100% surety after a lot of study and research.
_____________________________________________

Ditto to what both InsanaD and Rainfather said in the above post and comment.  And the bolded part above is exactly why I left.  But when it comes down to it, yes, I was offended, very offended.  Not by any one person per se, but by lies, deception, cover-ups and contradictions perpetuated by the Mormon Church that are laced throughout both its history and doctrine.

Joseph Smith lied.  Period.  End of story.  Subsequent leaders have perpetuated those lies, and in many ways have enhanced them.  Latching on to the explanation for Joseph Smith's behavior as touted in the book "Rough Stone Rolling" is also perpetuating those lies.  And those members who ignore what is blatantly clear about the Mormon Church's history and doctrine are continuing to perpetuate those lies.  Really, since when is lying okay?  That quote by Boyd K. Packer really irritates me - "Some things that are true are not very useful."  Just ridiculous.

 

I can put up with a lot.  I'm a trooper, and I tend to "hang in there" until I'm holding on by nothing but a fingernail.  But one thing I can't tolerate is deceit and dishonesty.  Being lied to.  Especially by a religious organization that purports to value truth and honesty.  Just tell me the truth.  Is that too much to ask?

So when I am asked if the reason I left the Mormon Church was because I was offended, I will answer... "Yes, I was offended, and I am still offended by the lies, deceit, cover-ups and contradictions embodied within Mormonism and perpetuated by its 'prophet' and leaders.  Very offended."

RELIGIOUS DELUSIONS

As if religion (and particularly Mormonism) is the only path to being a good person or finding goodness in the world...

Of course, the Mormon Church takes it one step further, and says that only certain "righteous" Mormons will make it to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom... and anyone who isn't Mormon will go to either the Terrestrial Kingdom or the Telestial Kingdom.  But wait... there is baptism for the dead, so if someone dies without becoming Mormon, they can rectify that problem in the Afterlife.  Isn't that convenient (as the Church lady would say).

But Mormons take it even further by believing that they can eventually become Gods themselves. Yes, I know President Gordon B. Hinckley told a reporter in 1997 when being interviewed for the Time magazine article entitled Mormons, Inc., "I don't know that we teach that," but they do and have all along.  The statement "As man is now, God once was; as God now is, man may become" is a Mormon belief, which I heard repeatedly when I was growing up, and it always bothered me.

The reporter said, "God the Father was once a man as we are.  This is something that Christian writers are always addressing."  Then the reporter asked President Hinckley, "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?" And his reply was: "I don't know that we teach that. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."

Oh, really?  He seriously didn't know if the Mormon Church teaches that?  The reality of the situation, though, is that President Hinckley knew that the Mormon Church teaches that, but he didn't feel comfortable discussing it so he went into a song-and-dance routine.  What a cop-out.

Moral of the story (ala Mormonism):

When cornered, make something up... and certainly don't tell the truth.

CIRCULAR REASONING

I've been doing some research about this topic lately, and I find it to be a very interesting subject.  Of course, since beginning my journey away from Mormonism, the process of reasoning, thinking, analyzing, evaluating and arriving at my own conclusion has become much more vivid in my mind.  For so many years, I just went along - and I was sadly caught in the never-ending cycle of Circular Reasoning.  Breaking away from that vicious cycle was difficult, as was leaving the Mormon mindset behind, but the benefits have been numerous.  Knowing that I am thinking for myself now, and that I am living an authentic life, is a huge reward.

When looking at the FAIR and FARMS websites, I can now see just how deeply Mormon apologists are caught in a cycle of Circular Reasoning.  Since their initial premise which underlies everything they say or think is that "the Mormon Church is the only true church on the face of the earth," they bend each fact to that end.  And when they seem caught, they simply bear their testimony.  Now that solves everything, doesn't it?

Independent, unbiased deliberation requires abandoning all preconceived notions, but since they do not leave anything on the table before beginning their studies, it is not possible for them to reach an unbiased opinion.  They close their minds before even beginning the process of "studying" the question - and they have arrived at their conclusion before beginning the "analysis" as well. 

A classic example of Circular Reasoning was apparent to me when I told my very TBM brother that I was no longer going to church.  Of course, his first response was that "it's never too late" to return to the fold.  When I told him that I didn't want to "return," he said, "Well, it all boils down to whether or not you believe that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.  If you believe he was a Prophet of God, then the church is true.  But if you believe that he wasn't a Prophet of God, then the church is not true.  That being said, I believe that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, and therefore the Church is true."  Circular Reasoning in a capsule.

On the Logical Fallacies website, the following is said about Circular Reasoning:

Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning

Explanation

An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.

Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion), and so should reject the argument as a whole. Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already accepts the argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.

Example:

(1) The Bible affirms that it is inerrant.

(2) Whatever the Bible says is true.

Therefore:

(3) The Bible is inerrant.

This argument is circular because its conclusion—The Bible is inerrant—is the same as its second premise—Whatever the Bible says is true. Anyone who would reject the argument’s conclusion should also reject its second premise, and, along with it, the argument as a whole.

Real-World Examples

The above argument is a straightforward, real-world example of a circular argument. Other examples can be a little more subtle.

Typical examples of circular arguments include rights-claims: e.g., “I have a right to say what I want, therefore you shouldn’t try to silence me”; “Women have a right to choose whether to have an abortion or not, therefore abortion should be allowed”; “The unborn has a right to life, therefore abortion is immoral.”

Having a right to X is the same as other people having an obligation to allow you to have X, so each of these arguments begs the question, assuming exactly what it is trying to prove.

Of course, religion is an area in which Circular Reasoning is used to try to explain much of its rhetoric.  The statement that the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible tells us so, and since the Bible is infallible it is obviously the Word of God is a great example of Circular Reasoning. 

Naturally, though, when caught in the web of Circular Reasoning, particularly in a religious discussion, it is very difficult to make the other person see the errors in his/her line of thinking.  Knowing that the Bible is the Word of God simply because the Bible tells us so, and since the Bible is infalliable, it is therefore true is a mind-boggling statement.  Of course, many Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is true because they have been told it is true by their leaders, and since they believe their leaders are lead by God, they assume that nothing those leaders say or do could possibly be wrong.  Getting in these types of discussions can be very frustrating for a thinking human being.

On Yahoo Answers, the following question was asked:  "Is it circular reasoning to quote the Bible as proof of God?"

Here was the answer:  "If they could quote a verse of the Bible that describes an occurrence or a phenomena (that mere mortals could not have known) that was only later confirmed by an extra-biblical source, then the Bible may serve as evidence. But to date, I've only heard outrageous interpretations ("See this verse that says rivers don't fill up, that's clearly a reference to the complicated water cycle we only now understand") or blatant ignorance ("See this verse written a few years after this war, it predicted that war")."

Here's a few very good examples of Circular Reasoning, which I found on a discussion board on http://www.camaroz28.com/forums:

We're doing 10 minute presentations in English and I'm doing mine on fallacy number 21: Circular Reasoning.  For those who don't know what circular reasoning means, here's an example:

And one of the responses:

Is there a God?  Yes.
How do you know?  Because the Bible says so.
How do you know the Bible is correct?  Because it was inspired by God.

In other words - God is because God is.

And here's one of the responses:

Why don't atheists believe in God?
Because they have no faith.

Why do they have no faith?
Because they don't believe in God.

Hence, atheists don't believe in God because they have no faith, or they don't have faith because they have no belief.

Okay, here's another less inflammatory example.

I am rude and discourteous to women.
Why?  Because women are evil.

Why are women evil?
Because men are rude and discourteous to women.

Or how about this?

Did your significant other cheat on you?  When you ask them if they cheated, they said they didn't.  But you knew they were lying because all cheaters lie.

Basically assumption or conjecture is the mother of circular logic.

Interesting statement.  "Basically assumption or conjecture is the mother of circular logic."  Without any type of "proof," some religious people try to argue that God exists through circular logic.  It's one thing to say that they believe in God because they have faith in his existence, but it is another thing entirely to try to "prove" his existence through use of the Bible or other religious-based "evidence."  But Mormon apologists go several steps further in trying to "prove" that Mormonism is true.

While I overlooked the circular arguments for a very long time, and bought into Mormonism lock, stock and barrel, eventually I realized that the whole thing makes no sense.  And after doing extensive research, I finally realized that everything I had been taught since childhood was filled with lies and deception, as well as contradictions and cover-ups.  At that point, it felt as though my head was going to explode.  Since I had never really thought about it all before, I came to realize that those feelings were simply mind opening up to real thinking, examination, evaluation, interpretation and analysis.  Deciding for myself - not relying on what others had told me to believe.  At this point, I consider myself to be an Agnostic because I do not know one way or the other whether God exists, and I don't feel comfortable taking the leap to atheism because it may very well be that God does exist.  But whether he exists or not, I know for certain that the Mormon Church is NOT his "only true church on the face of the earth."

While I was doing research on Circular Reasoning, I came across some interesting information on http://www.urbandictionary.com/, which gives examples of Circular Reasoning as:

"I'm right because I'm right."

"There isn't a problem with the rule, because if everyone obeyed it there wouldn't be a problem."

"Piracy is wrong because it's against the law, and it's against the law because it's wrong."

"X is stupid because he's an idiot."

The Urban Dictionary website also gives a definition for "Circular Logic," reiterating the religious argument of:

Atheist: How do you know God exists?Believer: The Bible says so. Atheist: How do you know the Bible is the absolute truth?Believer: Because it came from God.Atheist: How do you know God exists?

and so on...

Some closing thoughts:  

It may have been better to say, "Circular reasoning"; circular logic strikes me as oxymoronic.

 

I don't use circular reasoning in my arguments. I know this because my arguments are never circular.

(Both of the above quotes were by "Wandering Soul," posted on http://www.religiousforums.com/, 1-23-2011, 2:30 pm).

And just remember:

Circular reasoning is not logically valid because it isn't.

BUT THAT'S UNAUTHORIZED!!!

Unauthorized questions.
Unauthorized curiosity.
Unauthorized thinking.
Unauthorized reasoning. 
Unauthorized research.
Unauthorized analysis. 
Unauthorized interpretation.

When our leaders speak,
the thinking has been done.

When the prophet speaks,
the debate is over.  Period.

It is so incredibly bizarre to me that all of the above is actually the Mormon mindset.  Of course, what is more bizarre is that I went along with it for so many years.  Looking back, though, I realize that I was struggling for a very long time, not content to simply accept what I was told.  After all, I have a brain, and I like to use it.  It's very useful is figuring out what to do in any given situation.  Except Mormonism.  Being a Mormon doesn't require a brain.

The following is an article written by N. Eldon Tanner entitled “The Debate Is Over” from the Ensign, August 1979 (as the First Presidency Message that month).

Recently, at the Churchwide fireside meeting held for the women of the Church, Young Women President Elaine Cannon made the following statement:  "When the Prophet speaks, … the debate is over" (Ensign, Nov. 1978, p. 108).

I was impressed by that simple statement, which carries such deep spiritual meaning for all of us. Wherever I go, my message to the people is: Follow the prophet. Why else has the Lord placed prophets on the earth throughout the dispensations of time? In his infinite wisdom, and as part of the plan of life and salvation for his children, God has given us the blueprint to follow, the leadership to direct us and keep us on course, and the Church organization to help us lay the foundation and develop the skills, or make the preparation necessary, to lead us back to our eternal home.

It is foolish to suppose that men can be left to their own devices and accomplish what God intended for them. That is just as unreasonable as it would be to leave a newborn babe on its own and expect it to learn to walk and talk and feed and clothe itself without assistance from those responsible for its care and training. A child so neglected and left alone would soon perish.

So it is with us. Without a knowledge and understanding of the gospel, or God’s plan for his children, we cannot live according to the law which is necessary for our salvation; and therefore, those who neglect their spiritual training or fail to heed the warning voice of the prophets will suffer a spiritual death.

It is difficult to understand why there are so many people who fight against the counsel of the prophet and for the preservation of the very things that will bring them misery and even death. As one example, let us consider the Word of Wisdom. Soon after the restoration of the gospel and organization of the Church, the Lord gave a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith which we call the Word of Wisdom. It warned that tea, coffee, alcohol, and tobacco, among other things, were not good for man, and should not be used by the Saints.

Now this was quite revolutionary at that time, for the use of these things was not considered detrimental to health. For many years after the revelation was given, people thought the Mormons peculiar because they abstained from these seemingly harmless substances. Then scientists began to discover many harmful effects of tobacco, and today we are made increasingly aware of the health hazards caused by the use of tobacco, tea, coffee, and alcohol, with additional warnings about the risks involved for the unborn children of pregnant women.

Latter-day Saints should be able to accept the words of the prophets without having to wait for science to prove the validity of their words. We are most fortunate to have a living prophet at the head of the Church to guide us, and all who heed his counsel will be partakers of the promised blessings which will not be enjoyed by those who fail to accept his messages.

Today there are many issues under debate as controversies rage all around us. It should be evident to all that we need divine direction, as men and women who argue their causes seem to be unable to come to workable or peaceable solutions. It is sad indeed that the world does not know or accept the fact that in our midst is a prophet through whom God can direct the solution of world problems.

True Latter-day Saints have no such dilemma. They know that the messages of the prophet have come from the Lord and have the concurrence of all the General Authorities, who are men of vision and integrity, and who themselves try to keep in tune with deity. They are not, as some would suggest, following blindly and acting without their own agency to speak and think for themselves. Through prayer to our Heavenly Father each of us can have the assurance that the course we choose has his divine approval.

Why should there be any debate over the moral issues which are confounding the world today? From the beginning God has made his position very clear in regard to marriage, divorce, family life and love of children, immorality, chastity, virtue, and the high and holy role of women. Through his prophet today he reiterates the Old and New Testament teachings which are clear on these matters.

History and experience have proven that whenever and wherever there is departure from following the word of the Lord, calamity occurs. Civilizations have fallen; there has been general and individual destruction; there have been weeping and wailing and great sorrow; there have been famine and pestilence. Only Satan and his cohorts have been left to rejoice. He is the author of the debates on moral issues. He has sworn to thwart the purposes of God. He it is who deceives and lays in wait to promote his cunning schemes, promising the riches of this world as a reward to those who follow him.

To gain these riches many engage in the debates on moral issues. The alcohol and tobacco industries and dealers in pornography are accumulating great wealth at the expense of the people and to the detriment of their health. With all the evidence of child pornography, it is deplorable that any parent would allow any child to be so exploited. Some children are being neglected and abused because their mothers are seeking worldly pleasures and careers outside the home. Many fathers are more concerned with their financial success than with the welfare of their wives and children.

We must turn all this about. We cannot serve God and mammon. Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks, the debate is over.

________________________________

Really?  When I read that article, it absolutely blew my mind that I ever bought into such narrow-minded, dogmatic drivel.  Not thinking, but rather just accepting everything that is said by a supposed Propet of God of a religion that is built on lies, deception, cover-ups and contradictions.  Not me.  Not now.  Not ever.

IS THERE AN AFTERLIFE?

After realizing that Mormonism is a sham, I began wondering about an "Afterlife."  Not believing that those types of beliefs are exclusively Mormon anymore (as I was programmed to believe), I have sometimes wondered whether Christian beliefs are even plausible.  I've gone back and forth, sometimes calling myself Agnostic because I have not been sure whether God really exists, and if there is a God, I am uncertain as to what his/her form really is - and simply calling myself Spiritual but not Religious since I am very much against organized religion now because I believe it's all about money and power. 

My questions about an Afterlife came to a head the night before my father passed away in May 2006.  He was 92 years old, but had been in relatively good health up until a month before his death when he had a stroke and began to decline.  In mid-May, after hearing how he was deteriorating, my brother Jim, his wife Daisy, and I decided to go to Utah to see him.  I had just moved from California to Georgia that January (to live near my brother, his wife and several of their children and grandchildren) so I was living relatively close to them at the time.  My father had remarried a year or so after my mother passed away in 1977, and he had lived with his new wife Bonnie in American Fork, Utah since 1978.

When we arrived in Utah, we went to the hospital to see him - and I was immediately struck by how frail he looked.  He was paralyzed on his left side and his speech was so bad that it was very difficult to understand what he would say.  Of course, his wife Bonnie was there and was very distressed by the situation.  While Jim, Daisy and I were at the hospital, my father's doctor asked if he could speak with us.  He proceeded to tell us that our father's condition was very tentative, that his prognosis was not good, and that there was very little they could do for him.  It was at that point that the doctor recommended that my father be taken home and that hospice care should be instituted.  At first, hearing the doctor talk about hospice care was difficult for me, probably because I realized that meant the end was very near for him.  But then, I knew that if my father was relegated to living the way he was right then, and was indeed permanently paralyzed on his left side and unable to speak well enough to make himself understood, it would be tortuous for him.  He had always been a very active, vital man.  He had golfed from the age of 55 until 82 when he was forced to stop because of problems with his knees.  Laying in bed day-after-day, unable to take care of himself or even make himself understood did not seem to me to be a life my father would want to continue to live.  So after discussing the realities of the situation, we all decided that taking him home and beginning hospice care was best under the circumstances.  When we told him that we were going to take him home, he was very happy.

On Saturday afternoon, my father was transported to his home in American Fork.  But once he was home, it began to seem that he was improving.  His demeanor became much more upbeat, and although he still wasn't easily understood, he just seemed better.  Not long after he arrived at his house, his Mormon Bishop and some other men from his Mormon Ward came to the house.  After going in to his room and visiting with him for a while, the Bishop took me aside and began talking to me about how much better my father seemed and that it was obvious he was improving - and then he proceeded to tell me that we should not be doing hospice care on him but rather life-sustaining measures should be taken to keep him alive.  I remember looking at this Bishop and thinking that he was spouting the Mormon rhetoric as well as the official Mormon position, but he wasn't taking into account the reality of the situation or the quality of life that my father would be subjected to if "life-sustaining measures" were taken. 

At the time, I had not been to a Mormon Church for over a year and a half, so I had not had to deal with the rhetoric typically spouted by Bishops and other Mormon leaders.  After leaving the church, I had stopped being intimidated by these men and so decided to tell him my opinion - which was that quality of life was extremely important, and that if my father was forced to live the remainder of his life in a semi-paralyzed state and unable to speak coherently that it would be tantamount to holding him prisoner.  Naturally, the Bishop didn't respond well, and told me that it was obviously the Lord's will that my father live, so whatever I had to say on the subject really didn't matter.  Shut me down quick.  Of course, I felt like asking him why he was even talking to me about this since he didn't really want to hear what I had to say, but I decided to end the conversation rather than take it into those avenues.

Finally, the bishop and his entourage left, and just family was left in the house.  A short time later, two of my nephews arrived and visited with their grandfather.  One of my nephews, Todd, was visibly shaken up by how frail his grandfather seemed, and I was very touched when I saw him in the hallway crying.  Not long after that, Jim and Daisy decided to leave to go stay at one of their son's houses for the night, and my two nephews left as well.  But I decided that I wanted to stay there with my father and Bonnie, so I asked Bonnie if I could spend the night on their couch, and of course, she said yes.  Because of what happened later that night, I am very glad I stayed.

The first event of the night was the arrival of my step-mother's son, Jay Paul.  He's a very nice man, and I like him very much.  My father had always spoken highly of Jay Paul, and I knew that they had become very close over the years.  After arriving, Jay Paul immediately went into my father's room to visit with him, and Bonnie accompanied him.  I stayed in the living room while they were in there because I wanted to give them some privacy.  They were in there for quite a while, and after they came out, they both seemed very distressed.  They sat down on the couch and began discussing whether the right decision had been made, questioning if hospice was the right route.  Of course, my step-mother sounded just like the Bishop, almost quoting him verbatim, so I knew that he had confronted her with his opinion as well and made her feel that hospice care was not the right route.  I could feel their distress, and I empathized with them totally.  After all, this was not an easy decision.

Deciding to stay out of the discussion at that point, I decided to go back into my father's room and sit with him again.  I tried carrying on a conversation with him, but it was very difficult since he couldn't communicate very well.  So I just sat there, talking to him, nodding my head a lot, and holding his hand for quite a while.  Finally, I told him that I needed to go to the bathroom, and I left the room for a few minutes.

When I returned to my father's room, it was as if I was walking into an entirely different world.  My father was looking at an area just above his bed, was holding his right arm out as if he was touching people, and was speaking (albeit incoherently) to what seemed to be spirits hovering above his bed.  When I entered the room, I went over and sat down in the chair by his bed again, although he seemed to be unaware of my reappearance in the room.  As I sat there watching this for quite a while, I was convinced that there really were spirits visiting him.  As he spoke to these spirits, he would smile and laugh - his signature very robust laugh that I remember so well growing up.  He seemed so much like his old self again, and it was very endearing.

After sitting there observing this for what seemed like a very long time, I got up and went to find Bonnie.  Jay Paul had left, so now it was just me, Bonnie and my father in the house.  I told Bonnie what I had been observing and asked her to go to my father's room with me.  So we both walked back there, sat down and watched what my father was doing.  After 10-15 minutes, I reached out and touched my father on the arm, startling him.  In fact, he was so startled that he seemed perturbed with me that I had interrupted something so important.  Then Bonnie spoke to him, asking him what was happening - and he just stared at the two of us for a minute or so.  It was very evident to me that we had brought him back from another place, perhaps from the threshold of the spirit world. 

Finally, Bonnie began asking my father to whom he had been talking.  Of course, since it was very hard to understand him, we couldn't make out what he was saying.  So Bonnie asked him whether he had seen my brother Bobby (who had passed away in 1961 when he was 14 years old) - and he nodded yes.  Then she asked him if he had seen my mother - and he nodded No, looking a little bewildered.  Then Bonnie asked him whether he had seen Bonnie's mother (who had passed away a few years earlier), and he again nodded yes. 

After that, Bonnie and I walked out into the hallway and talked for a little bit.  We were both awestruck by what was happening and didn't quite know what to make of it.  I told her that it was obvious to me that my father was at the brink of the spirit world, and that people he knew who had passed away were coming to visit with him, possibly as a precursor to his passing away.  Of course, she didn't want to believe that he was being drawn that close to the spirit world because that would seem to mean that his death was imminent.  At 92 years of age, though, and particularly after a month of struggling physically following a severe stroke, it was apparent to me that his death was most likely very close.  Bonnie is a very dear person, and she was a wonderful wife to my father, always taking care of him very well, but she is also 20 years younger than him, so there was always the possibility that he was going to pass away long before her life is over.  But she always seemed unwilling to accept that fact.

After we finished talking in the hallway, I walked back into my father's room and sat down beside him again.  As I sat back down, it became more and more apparent to me that he was disappearing further and further into this other world, seeming not to even notice my presence again.  But regardless of that, I spent the next two hours sitting there, watching what was going on.  It was 1:30 am before he finally wound down and fell asleep.  And he never woke up.  The following afternoon, he passed away.

When I relayed this experience to my brother and his wife, I found their reaction to be very interesting.  They immediately started telling me that this experience was confirmation that Mormonism was true and that I needed to go back to church.  Basically, they asked me how I could continue to turn my back on the Mormon Church when I had witnessed such a miraculous event.  Of course, this is a typical Mormon response since according to "them," any type of spiritual experience is inherently Mormon in nature.
 
At first, my Mormon programming began to kick in.  Hearing them talk about this experience that way made me almost begin to believe them, and I began to ask myself the same questions they had posed.  But then, almost like an epiphany, it struck me that this experience doesn't mean that Mormonism is true - it simply means that after this life, we will go to another place, whether you want to call it an Afterlife... or the Spirit World... or Heaven... or whatever... and a person doesn't have to be Mormon to either recognize those facts or go there.

Looking back at this experience now, I am still struck by the feeling that there is indeed an Afterlife of some sort.  Of course, since I know that Mormonism is not true, the Mormon view of an Afterlife or Spirit World or Heaven cannot be accurate - and perhaps Christian views in general aren't accurate either.  After all, those who die aren't coming back to talk about it (even though some people would disagree with me on that, believing in mediums and seances).  Also, people do occasionally speak of Near-Death Experiences and seeing a bright light that they feel drawn to walk toward.  While I do not claim to understand what exactly it is they have seen, I do find the details of these types of experiences to be very interesting. 

But regardless of what Mormons, Catholics, Episcopalians, Buddhists, Muslims or any other type of religion may teach, and putting all "religion" aside, I still believe that our spirits continue to live after we leave our mortal states even though I cannot claim to know the form or nature of that Afterlife.  Atheists, of course, disagree with me on this -- and claim that this life is IT.  Nothing more.  When we die, we go into the ground, and cease to exist.  I guess that conclusion is simply too sad for me.  It seems to me that the implications of that conclusion are that our lives here have no purpose, no meaning, no reason for being.  So futile and moot.  Not a mindset in which I feel comfortable. 

For me, it all boils down to watching my father the night before he died.  And since I don't believe that he was hallucinating, I have to believe that he was indeed conversing with people on the other side.  That experience answered a lot of questions for me.  And no, it did not make me realize that Mormonism is true. 

Death is one of two things. Either it is annihilation, and the dead have no consciousness of anything; or, as we are told, it is really a change: a migration of the soul from one place to another. ~Socrates

I believe that when death closes our eyes we shall awaken to a light, of which our sunlight is but the shadow. ~Arthur Schopenhauer

Death is not extinguishing the light; it is putting out the lamp because dawn has come. ~Rabindranath Tagore