DEAREST MORMONS, DON'T BELIEVE IT - LDS Hymn Parody #10

Here is another hymn parody.  This is the other one in response to the request I received from the great great granddaughter of John Menzies Macfarland (1833-1892) to parody hymns written by him.

This hymn parody highlights the fact that after completing my independent research, I came to the conclusion that Mormonism was simply created by Joseph Smith, and that none of it is actually true.  It was all made up by Joseph Smith from his imagination, plagiarization, and input from some others (like Sydney Ridgon).  I think it's possible that he saw it as a good way to make money and gain power over people.

Indeed, as the picture states, he was two-faced - presenting himself one way to the "Saints," and yet he was an entirely different person privately, and in reality.  Since history shows that Joseph Smith was a shyster, charlatan, swindler and con artist, with a history of treasure-seeking and at least 7 arrests, it isn't hard to imagine him as such. Of course, my opinion of his character is backed up by what I discovered about the origins of Mormonism, including the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, the practice of Polygamy and Polyandry, the truth behind the supposed martyrdom since Joseph Smith was actually a criminal and not a martyr at all, etc. (more on all of this in other places on this blog and in my book, also posted on this blog).  And unlike many Mormons, I do not buy the explanation ala Rough Stone Rolling that Joseph Smith as a Prophet but also a flawed man.  To me, these concepts are mutually exclusive.

My point in writing this hymn parody is my firm belief that it is completely inadvisable for people to believe things without doing their own independent research.  Simply believing what others tell you to believe is relegating all of your power to someone else, and giving up your own power completely.  I mean, would you buy a car without researching its history?  Without examine its tires, interior and body?  Without having a mechanic look under the hood?  Without having the engine checked out and analyzed?  No, you would carefully consider such an important purchase.  So why is the acceptance of a religion given less thought than the purchase of an automobile?  Blind faith.  It's one thing if there is no actual evidence for or against a religion, but when there is a mountain of evidence against its validity, then it's not faith anymore but rather denial.

DEAREST MORMONS, DON'T BELIEVE IT

Sung to the tune Dearest Children, God is Near You, #96

Dearest Mormons, don’t believe it,
Mormon doctrine is a myth.
Mormon scriptures were invented,
By a man named Joseph Smith.
He’s a shyster, he’s a shyster,
Please don’t put your trust in him.

Dearest Mormons, it’s malarkey,
None of it makes any sense.
It’s not true, that is apparent,
Deceptive swindle so immense.
It’s a rip-off, it’s a rip-off,
Don’t believe a word they say.

All the Mormons, true believers,
Just believe, don’t question it.
Just believe because they say so,
But that just isn’t wise, a bit.
Simply question, simply question,
Blind acceptance makes no sense.

Mormons, don’t you know it’s drivel?
What they tell you to accept.
Tell them reason and your judgment
In the background can’t be swept.
Please do research, please do research,
For the truth, just Google it.

© Diane Tingen, 6/7/2011

TIME OUT!!!

I've been on TIME OUT from the Mormon Church for over 7 years now, but my fascination with "all things Mormon" is still very strong.  Mainly, though, what fascinates me is trying to answer the question of why people believe in it when it is so obvious to me that it is a pile of crap.  Believing in something by faith when there is nothing to actually substantiate it is one thing - but when there is so much evidence against Mormonism being true, it is not faith anymore, but rather denial.

My main question at this point, though, is why can I see the validity of that differentiation between blind faith and actual reason, but others who remain escounced in Mormonism can't... or won't.  But then, as I've heard said, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."  (Per a Google search, that idiom is paraphrased from the Old Testament of the Bible, Jeremiah 5:21 - "Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not.").  As far as I am concerned, this scripture includes all those who accept things at face value and dig no deeper.  Those who do not think for themselves.  Those who accept what they are told, blindly and without any real thought.

I don't see any indications that my interest is going to wane any time soon, but perhaps at some point, all of this won't be quite so fascinating to me.  Seeing younger people who have left the church being able to move on quicker than I have makes me yearn for that, but perhaps the reason I haven't "shed the skin" so quickly is because I spent 52 years in the Mormon Church and therefore it was very deeply engrained into my life and psyche.  Even though I began to question some things when I was a teenager, I still stuck with it for many more years until I (finally) began to research church history (prior to going on a Mormon Church History tour in July 2001).  That was the beginning of the end for me because I began to see how many lies are laced throughout Mormonism, and much of it I simply couldn't rationalize out.  As I studied more and more, I began to feel almost physically ill because I had based my entire life on what they told me I was supposed to believe - and how I was supposed to live. 

Of course, the Mormon Church uses a great deal of guilt to control the masses.  Are you praying enough?  Are you reading the scriptures enough?  Are you doing enough service?  Are you striving for perfection?  And, of course, since the answers to those questions is often No or Maybe Not, the guilt ends up pouring over a person to the point of saturation.  While I was Mormon, for those 52 years, I never felt like I was good enough... and the quandary of whether or not I was going to make it to the Celestial Kingdom was a constant struggle for me.  If I didn't make it there, then I would be denying myself an eternity of blessings, of being with my parents, of having a forever family.  And whose fault would that be?  Mine per Mormonism.  And I found it very debilitating to constantly feel that way.

For instance, I never liked (or understood) the temple ceremonies.  But of course, since I was basically given the message that if that was the case, it was my own fault, that source of guilt pervaded my consciousness.  And of course, when that sense of guilt invades your being, it can cause not only feelings of inadequacy but also deep depression.  During my years in Mormonism, there were many times when I struggled with depression.  But interestingly, since being on my TIME OUT, that has not been an issue for me at all.
 

Back to the temple.  For many years, I just figured that I wasn't worthy enough to understand the temple ceremonies.  Apparently, like "they" inferred, I wasn't righteous enough - but as I was told, if I prayed more, read the scriptures more, studied more, and just plain did more, then I would come to understand it.  But that never happened.  Of course, now I realize that the reason that never happened is because it never had anything to do with me.  The Mormon temple ceremonies were lifted from the Masons.  From what I've been able to discern, Joseph Smith apparently needed something seemingly awe-inspiring to take place with the temple walls, so he joined the Masons - and 7 weeks later introduced the very same ceremonies in the Nauvoo Temple.  How convenient.  Of course, since I am convinced that all of Mormonism is "made up," it's apparent that Joseph Smith was just doing more of what he had already done... and lots of people bought it, hook, line and sinker.

And of course, there are many other aspects to Mormonism that disturbed me for many years.  Like the Book of Abraham.  It has been proven not to be translated correctly per modern-day Egyptologists.  The papyri that Joseph Smith purportedly translated has been shown to simply be Egyptian funeral papers, and not the writings of Abraham from ancient times.  And yet Mormons continue to cling to its validity, continuing to hold it up as canonized scripture.  They rationalize it out by saying that scriptural things can't be reasoned or examined with earthly eyes, that only God knows the truth.  And God, they say, has revealed to them that not only is the Book of Abraham the word of God, but so is the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants - and of course, the Bible, but only as far as it is translated correctly.  To me, it is now clear that Mormonism in its entirety was made up by Joseph Smith.  But TBMs still hold on to the ridiculous notion that it is all "true."


So why didn't I turn on my critical thinking skills prior to the Summer of 2001?  That question still haunts me, and probably will continue to do so for many more years to come.  It all is very clear to me now.  I have no doubt but that the Mormon Church is not true.  I have no doubt but that Mormonism was entirely made up by Joseph Smith and was perpetuated by others.  I have no doubt but that there are so many lies and deceptions laced through Mormonism that it is actually a pile of garbage.  What it came down to for me was that in order to continue to be a "good Mormon woman," I would have had to turn my back on all I had discovered against its validity, and simply buy the whole Mormon Party Line by faith.  And I simply couldn't do that.

Naturally, it took me a couple of years to actually leave the Mormon Church after discovering what I did about church history and the lies laced throughout Mormonism.  I kept thinking that perhaps I was missing something.  Perhaps (as they would have me think), I wasn't worthy enough to understand the whole thing.  I'm sure that's what TBMs all think of me now (including many of my TBM family members).  But that's okay.  I found the truth - the real truth.  Not the white-washed version of the truth as touted by Mormonism.  My discoveries about Mormonism are not a passing phase or a changeable opinion, but rather a fact.  And knowing that for certainty has made all the difference in my life.


So the TIME OUT from Mormonism I called for myself a little over 7 years ago still stands. 

I'm still on TIME OUT, and will be in that state for the rest of my life... and if there is an Afterlife, then to infinity and beyond...

FAITH vs. REASON

I've noticed the "vanity cards" that Chuck Lorre has put at the end of his TV shows over the years, but I recently became fascinated by them (during the time when 2-1/2 Men was cancelled for the rest of the 2010-2011 season, and the multiple interviews with Charlie Sheen).  Reading an article about Chuck Lorre in which it was stated that on 2/28/2011, a vanity card appeared at the end of the Mike & Molly episode, addressing rather esoterically the drama surrounding the "situation" led me to actually go to his website (http://www.chucklorre.com/) and read many of these vanity cards.  There's some very interesting thoughts on there, going back to 1999 when he first began writing them during the production of Dharma & Greg.  Most are humorous to a certain degree, and many are filled with some very thought-provoking statements.

On 11/2/1999, the following vanity card (#42) appeared after that evening's episode of Dharma & Greg.  It talks about faith, and in reading it, I began to consider the topic of faith in a broader sense.  Here's the wording from that vanity card:

Thirty thousand feet in the air. Strapped into a seat that doubles as a flotation device. Thinking about faith. Faith in airplanes. In jet engines. In pilots. Faith that the sullen, unshaven guy across the aisle isn't the mindless pawn of a master terrorist with a deep hatred for America, the Great Satan. Then, assuming a safe landing, faith that the cabbie didn't have a fight with his adulterous wife who hides her deceit behind sly jokes about his unremarkable sexual prowess forcing him to soothe his anguish with that fifth of Jim Beam he keeps stashed beneath the seat. And, of course, faith that the doorknob leading out of the public bathroom isn't tainted with a flesh-eating bacteria that came to Earth imbedded in a small, flat meteorite that some unsuspecting child picked up to skip across the surface of a lake. Yes, faith is a wonderful thing. Without it, this world would surely be a fearful place. Once again, thanks for reading my vanity card. Have a nice day.

Faith is a fascinating subject.  At first when I read Chuck Lorre's vanity card, I thought that what he was talking about wasn't really faith.  But actually, the word faith has a much broader meaning than I realized.

Here below is the definition for FAITH from Dictionary.com:

FAITH
- noun
1.  Confidence or trust in a person or thing; faith in another's ability.
2.  Belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.  Belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.  Belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.; to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.  A system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6.  The obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:  Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7.  The observation of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8.  Christian Theology.  The trust in God and His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Interesting.  So in Chuck Lorre's vanity card, where he talks about having faith in airplanes, jet engines, and pilots, as well as his talk about cabbie's dispositions or issues related to terrorism, are all a form of faith.  The word faith actually has a much broader definition that I realized.

Of course, the reason for my confusion probably has to do with the fact that my main connection with the word FAITH always had to do with Mormonism.  But of course, Mormons are are essentially told to have "blind faith" since they are to follow everything without question -- suspending all reason in the process.  To me, having "blind faith" is not wise in any sense of the word.

I believe that when facts are shown to contradict what you are being told to believe, it is not faith anymore, but rather denial.  That is where I found myself in relation to Mormonism.  Once I discovered the truth about Mormonism, having faith in it anymore became an impossibility.

The following quote by Patrick Overton denotes a form of blind faith:

“When you have come to the edge of all light that you know and are about to drop off into the darkness of the unknown, faith is knowing one of two things will happen: There will be something solid to stand on or you will be taught to fly.”
 

That type of faith is baseless, having no foundation in any kind of reality.  To me, it is unreasonable to have faith in that form.

On the other hand, the following quote by Galileo Galilei makes a lot more sense to me: 

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use."

This is  exactly how I feel about Faith vs. Reason.  Why would God give us a brain if he didn't intend for us to use it?  It simply does not compute for me.  Why does the Mormon Church even have any educational institutions (like BYU) if they don't want people to learn to use their brains?  What a paradox.

The following is an excerpt from an article entitled "Is Blind Faith Immoral?  On Faith vs. Reason" by Robert Kaiser, which is contained on the Religious Tolerance website, http://www.religioustolerance.org/: 

Many people, like this author, require a firmer basis for their beliefs than a blind appeal to authority. In fact, one can go further, and point out that it may well be immoral to have beliefs without a logical basis. Theodore Schick, Jr. and Lewis Vaughn discuss why this is so:

'Everybody's entitled to their own opinion' goes the platitude, meaning that everybody has the right to believe whatever they want. But is that really true? Are there no limits on what is permissible to believe? Or, as in the case of actions, are some beliefs immoral? Surprisingly, perhaps, many have argued that just as we have a moral duty not to perform certain sorts of actions, so we have a moral duty not to have certain sorts of beliefs. No one has expressed this point of view more forcefully than the distinguished mathematician W. K. Clifford: 'It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.'

Others of similar stature have echoed this sentiment. Biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, for example, declared, 'It is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.' And Brand Blanshard has proclaimed that where great human goods and ills are involved, the distortion of belief from any sort of avoidable cause is immoral, and the more immoral the greater the stakes.

These men think it wrong for belief to outstrip the evidence because our actions are guided by our beliefs, and if our beliefs are mistaken, our actions may be misguided, As Blanshard indicated, the more important the decision, the greater our duty to align our beliefs with the evidence, and the greater the crime if we don't. Where not much hangs on the belief, it might be thought that what one believes has little importance. But Clifford claims that even in trivial matters we have a duty to proportion our belief to the evidence:

'Every time we let ourselves believe for unworthy reasons, we weaken our powers of self-control, of doubting, of judicially and fairly weighing evidence. We all suffer severely enough from the maintenance and support of false beliefs and the fatally wrong actions which they lead to.... But a greater and wider evil arises when the credulous character is maintained and supported, when a habit of believing for unworthy reasons is fostered and made permanent.'

According to Clifford, responsible believing is a skill that can be maintained only through constant practice. And since responsible believing is a prerequisite for responsible acting, we have a duty to foster this skill.

["How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age (second edition)", p.102, Theodore Schick, Jr. and Lewis Vaughn, Mayfield Publishing Co., 1999]

While this line of reasoning goes against what most religious people believe, I am firmly persuaded by the logic. Thus, we should not believe in God without reason. It seems, then, that we would be obligated to search for reasonable arguments to believe in God. Finding such reason we would be obliged to believe in God; lacking such reason we would be obliged to dismiss God's existence as a unproven hypothesis.

What Mr. Kaiser states here makes a lot of sense to me.  Finding a basis for belief through the use of such means as thought, research and analysis is a very reasonable approach for any person in arriving at a conclusion.  Simply believing because you are told to believe something is not reasonable to me.  It defies all logic. 

_________________________________

Naturally, in the end, my mind always turns to humor -- my defense mechanism, I suppose.  Can't be totally serious for too long.  So in a humorous vein, I also have to share these other great quotes about faith:

"Faith is what you have in things that don't exist."  Homer Simpson

"It ain't supposed to make sense; it's faith.  Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe."  Archie Bunker