What Hath God Roth?

A Mormon President

2012-01-08T12:18:00.000-08:00

Being of Mormon pioneer stock, the prospect of a Mormon president does not frighten me. Having lived in the state of Utah, under a supposed theocracy, Jon Huntsman was a pretty, great governor. Worse things could happen than have him be the President of the United States. The folks in Massachusetts don’t seem overly traumatized by the Romney governance — they came out of it with gay marriage and universal health care. Here in Utah after a little bribery scandal, the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake went off smoothly under Romney.

Familiarity may breed contempt, but it can also breed complacency, comfort and community, which is how my feelings have evolved towards the two Mormon candidates for President. The neighbor’s dog doesn’t scare us, but the stray Santorum dog does. Yet we still make sure we don’t get bit. So it is with interest that I have read Christopher Hitchens and Harold Bloom’s recent writing on Mormonism and the Presidency. For two such brilliant minds, they are acting awfully scared of the stray Mormon dog.

Hitchens goes after Mormonism with the same zeal that he went after Mother Teresa and religion in general. I would expect nothing less from him and it is why I enjoy reading him. Yet, instead of attacking Mother Teresa, in a round about way, he attacks my Mother. If Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman got half of the compassion, love, and understanding from Mormonism that my Mom did, then Mormonism as an issue would be off the table. Now if you don’t know my Mother, then the strength of the argument may be lost on you, but let me assure you, my Mom annihilates Hitchen’s rhetoric on the fearfulness of the Mormon “cult.”

Hitchens argument is further diminished by his use of tired arguments that steal from the evangelical crowd he also criticizes in his article. Anti-Mormon writings are as old as the religion and Hitchens co-opts a few of them in an unoriginal attack. His arguments in order:

A. Mormonism is a cult or at least acts like one sometimes.

B. Joseph Smith was a con-man

C. Joseph Smith encouraged rebellion against the federal government.

D. Mormon religious doctrine is/was racist.

E. Mormon’s baptize dead people against their will (an ironic argument for atheist Hitchens).

F. Mormons are really, really right wing, ala Glenn Beck.

Mr. Hitchens barely scratched the surface, leaving out some All-Star anti-Mormon claims, like polygamy. For someone ostensibly compelled by logic, Hitchens’ article exposes a conflict in his criticisms. He criticizes the Southern Baptists for condemning non-believers to damnation, right after criticizing Mormons for trying to make sure everyone is saved by baptizing the dead. Mormonism, for all its faults, has a strong undercurrent of doctrinal inclusion. How does a doctrine of inclusion impact your decision on a Presidential candidate? Is it better to have a President who sees every human being as a brother or sister or a President who sees the majority of the world condemned to eternal damnation? You can’t apply the atheist mindset to the believer and have it make sense.

My intent here is not to be a Mormon apologist, but the criticism by Hitchens, Bill Maher’s New Rules or on Alter-Net are not new, not persuasive and miss the mark. Hitchens and Maher are preaching to the choir (if atheists can preach to a choir). Yet, the atheists are acting just like the believers. It is easy to attack the weakness and avoid strengths. An argument that calls into question not just Mormons, but all religious people is too broad and too simplistic. The problem isn’t with belief or non-belief, the problem is with certainty. The problem isn’t with faith or its lack, the problem is fundamentalism.

Hitchens closes his article by calling Mormons “one of the most egregious groups operating on American soil.” Hitchens plays word games, but I doubt this is one he intended. “Egregious” has two definitional meanings, although the later definition as fallen out of use: 1)Extraordinary in some bad way and 2) Distinguished or eminent. The contradiction in the definition calls to mind my favorite quote of Joseph Smith: “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest.” Hitchens was right in his last sentence, even if he didn’t mean it — Mormonism is extraordinary in some bad ways, but also distinguished and eminent.

Harold Bloom’s criticism is more nuanced, but he seems to be unable to separate out religion and politics. He praises Mormonism and Joseph Smith for creating a religious tradition, much as Muhammad initiated Islam and Rabbi Akiva ben Joseph was to Judaism. He points out differences in Mormon theology in a way that differentiates Mormonism from mainstream Protestant religions, but acknowledges that the current incarnation of the Mormon Church has been deliberately dwindled into just another Protestant sect.

Bloom, more than anyone, should now that differing religious beliefs are often attacked through economics. So it is odd that Bloom makes a cabal-istic argument, reminiscent of right wing ideologues against Jews about the “Salt Lake City empire of corporate greed.” Obviously the confusion with Jewry and Mormonism has got the best of him, since he brings out the Mormon peccadillo of calling Jews “Gentiles” and mentioning that they are both now equally numerous. So in the New York Times, a famous Jewish intellectual is calling out the Mormons for being too much like Jews?

Now, I agree with Bloom, that the moneyed interests represented by the Mormon candidates are a potential political threat, but Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman will not turn the United States of America into a theocracy. Financial and corporate oligarchy, not religious oligarchy, should be the concern. Religion just obscures the important argument.

Bloom closes his article by recounting Joseph Smith’s doctrine about the importance of acquiring knowledge and makes an argument that is off base as well, ending with the ominous threat that an educated zealot is worse than an uneducated zealot. Yet, Bloom also recognizes in Huntsman, the only seemingly secularist in the Republican presidential pack. Bloom is wrong and he, of all people, should know better. You can’t be truly educated and a zealot.

Why Mormonism is Antithetical to Homosexuality

2010-10-18T04:51:00.000-07:00

I was reading the memoir of Thurston Calder and thinking about the Boyd K. Packer flap and reading a post by Seth Payne on Mormonism and Homosexuality. I commented on Seth's blog and have refined my comment further.

The problem in current Mormon theology that prevents homosexuals from being accepted is not a "radical departure" from Joseph Smith's teachings about the nature of God. The current state of affairs is a logical outgrowth of the ideas of God being man in embryo. If God is like you, then you must be like God. (All that needs to be said about Boyd K. Packer.) The progression to Families are Forever was simply a natural outgrowth of that dogma in the rural agrarian economy of the Mountain West. God was ultimately patterned to reflect the agrarian pioneer social pattern and later institutionalized around the nuclear family of the 1950s.

The real departure from Joseph Smith's teachings wasn't in the realm of the nature of God, but rather in the nature of the new and everlasting covenant (both marriage and consecration). Men, women and children were sealed to church leaders. Women were sealed to more than one husband. On at least one level, Joseph Smith was creating a theological Zion in the after life where all were of one heart, one mind, one society and sealed into one. If this idea is de-sexualized and re-mystified, then the more primitive Mormon Theology has plenty of room for homosexuality.

Metaphorical Mormonism

2010-08-12T06:38:00.000-07:00

"Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck to its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.

~ Joseph Campbell quotes from The Power of Myth

I am a Metaphorical Mormon. Given the Mormon on-line world's preference for acronyms, I guess that makes me a Meta-Mo. I first read Joseph Campbell in 1980 in the Freshman Honor's Colloquium at BYU which was lead by Eugene England. I was taught that The Brothers Karamazov belonged on the shelf with my scriptures. Those were heady days of academic freedom at BYU. I left before the hammer started to fall and the exodus began.

Even before I was 8 years old, I knew that the stories in the Bible did not mesh with the hard cold facts on the ground. All 8 year olds now this in the realm of Santa Claus (and most, truth be told know it in the realm of religion to some extent -- Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark, 969 year old Methuselah). I suspected that the words in the prayers did not fly up, but remained below and were often directed to those sitting or kneeling around the kitchen table. Knowing that didn't decrease the prayer's power, I still felt the social pressure of expectation, the verbal compassion, the unending gratitude and even the aching fear of mortality.

Books of all kinds became my Bible. I went from a triple combination to kilo-combinations. Literature became my religion. Good literature is about empathy, just like good religion. It is easier to walk in someone else's shoes when you are in their head too.

Metaphors are everywhere and inclusive. A metaphor can wrap itself around facts in an all encompassing sexual embrace. Facts have edges, concrete and are easy to use bludgeons. Metaphors are an unlimited supply of plastic shrink rap around the facts, eternal if you will.

The Prop 8 Testimony Meeting

2010-08-09T18:45:00.000-07:00

I want to bear my testimony to you. My name is Blankenhorn. My testimony is below. It is the one with the "A" for answer before it.

Everyone is saying that the Judge in this case was a biased homosexual. Well, I want to come to you today and tell you that I know that my testimony is true. I think you can study this out in your own mind, use your own logic and you can Judge for yourself, just how biased the trial court judge was when he didn't believe me.

I put my hand on a Bible and swore that I'd tell the truth for heaven's sake. How can you doubt me? Just listen to my wisdom.

Q. The question I want you to answer is whether in your
view there are any instances in societies, prior to the last
50 years, of marriages that are inconsistent with your rule
of opposites? [rule that "marriage" has to be between opposite sex]
A. Okay. So it’s the former. I will not seek to answer
the question, is there any marriages that could be considered
same-sex marriages.
(Laughter.)
A. It’s not — it’s actually not a laughing matter to me,
Mr. Boies, because I’ll tell you, this is a very important
topic and your — it’s two different questions. And you can
take your pick, I will answer either one.

Q. I had tried to take my pick, Mr. Blankenhorn. That’s
what I was trying to do when I asked you the question.
A. Okay. Let’s go.
Q. My question is whether in your view in societies, prior
to the last 50 years, there are marriages that have been
inconsistent with your rule of opposites?
A. Okay. If you will just give me maybe 10 seconds to
compose my thoughts on this.
(Brief pause.)
My answer is that I can think of one instance of — in a
human group that has been studied where some scholars believe
and others disagree, but it is a hard case and there are
arguments on both sides; but there has been one case where
there is some dispute or some scholarly argumentation over
whether or not there is an exception to this rule. . . .
Q. Let me ask you some questions about that.
What societies are you aware of that prior to the
last hundred years had polygamy as a regular course?
A. The best scholarly estimate I have seen on that is
83 percent.
Q. Eighty-three percent of the countries?
A. Eighty-three percent of societies.
Q. Eighty-three percent of societies had polygamy as a
regular course?
A. No, sir.
Q. My question is –
A. I’m trying to be precise here.
Q. My question is: Prior to the last hundred years –
A. If you wish, we could just say in human history, because
the scholarship I’m citing that says 83 percent, he’s just
trying to –
Q. Eighty-three percent of what? What is the numerator?
What’s the –
A. Societies, societies. Eighty-three percent of societies
permit polygamy. . . .
Even in instances of a man engaging in polygamous
marriage, each marriage is separate. He — one man marries
one woman. That’s the way it works. . .
Q. Okay. Now, let me go on to your third essential
structure of the institution of marriage. And that is sex.
A. That’s a good subject.
Q. It is. And I don’t want to fall into the trap of making
sex boring.
(Laughter)
A. Maybe together we can do that.
(Laughter)
No insinuation.
(Laughter)
Q. My question was going to be, and is now, whether you are
aware of instances in which marriage — marriages are in –
they are inconsistent with your rule of sex?
A. I’m sorry. You were saying the couple is married and
they do not have sexual intercourse, am I aware of such
marriages?
Q. That actually wasn’t my question, but why don’t you
answer that question. That’s really easy, right? The answer
to that is yes, correct?
A. I — I was going to answer no. But maybe I’m
misunderstanding the nature of your question.
[I then gives several 'hypothetical examples' of a marriage without sex. One of those being an incarcerated inmate marrying while in jail and when he can't have conjugal visits. The questioning resumes . . .]
Q. Well, because it is my understanding that you have
previously recognized that — this very specific example of
where the United States Supreme Court held that you could not
deprive somebody of the right to marry merely because they
were incarcerated and could not have sex.
And I thought that you had talked about that. And
if you tell me that that’s not so, and I can’t find –
A. To the best of my ability — I mean, to the best of my
recollection, I’m telling you that that is not so.
Q. So you are not aware of that case, at all?
A. No, sir. Not — no. . . .
Q Would you turn to page 258 of your deposition. And
beginning at line 13:
“But in any society, if a man and woman
want to marry and not have sex at all, and
neither one seek divorce, they’re free to do
that, right?
“ANSWER: Well, you know, the law on
this has changed in recent decades. And now,
in recent years, there has been a growing
permission on the part of courts to accept
married couples who cannot have sexual
intercourse. For example, when one spouse is
in prison.”
Do you see that, sir?
A. That’s exactly what I told you in my answer.

And I say this in the name of inequality.

Amen.

The Compassion of Satire

2010-08-09T06:44:00.000-07:00

Over on MormonMatters.org, I got into it a little discussion with Stephen M.(Ethesis) on the whole Prop 8 fiasco (Comments 82-90 reprinted here). I found myself in an ethical dilemma about how to engage in the discussion.

In my original post, I admittedly hyperbole-ed out of the gate to make a point about the state sanctioned marriage license -- an acceptable rhetorical devise, which actually ended up serving my purposes nicely later on, but hyperbole. Stephen called me on the hyperbole. He also school marmed me on the spelling of my nom de plume, Ulysseus (the U. in U.S.).

Now, I enjoy heated discussions (why I was on MormomMatters, I don't know because they usually just ignore me), but it doesn't stop me from occasionally trying. I also want to avoid troll-ism, but I also feel it is imperative to not contribute to an unthinking echo chamber of ideas. Heated discussions can burn away the nonsense, but also create the distinct likelihood that somebody's feelings are going to get hurt.

Which brings me to the ethical dilemma: How do you engage in a heated discussion about what is possibly someone's cherished beliefs ethically? Mr. Marsh would say that it is a matter of Ethesis, his coined word for combining aesthetics and ethics.

Now, my aesthetic tastes run to the satiric (ok, and satyric) and my ethical tastes run towards the compassionate, so I think I'm going to resolve my conflict with "Satassion", satire motivated by compassion. So don't take me so fucking seriously and realize that satire, while biting, may also be redemptive and for those hurt by the institutions and beliefs being satirized, the most compassionate thing anyone can say.

Gender Roles In The Church

2010-07-30T07:41:00.000-07:00

Fact 1: Mormon women are not ordained to the priesthood. See one example of the tap dancing here.

Fact 2: Mormon women have always been ordained as priestesses, since the inception of the church and will be priestesses in the hereafter according to Mormon Doctrine. Linda K Newell wrote an excellent article on this topic in that stepping stone to apostasy,Sunstone

The connection with the washing and anointing ordinance is that women perform that ordinance currently every day in the temple, I am assuming with priesthood authority, since that is God’s power on earth in the ordinances is practiced through priesthood power. The Newell article has the whole historical perspective, which was much more favorable to women in the earlier church, just as blacks were ordained in the early church.

My Premise: Women are treated as second class citizens in Mormon Culture and Doctrine.

TBM’s Premise: Women have a separate, but equal treatment in Mormon Culture and Doctrine.
Evidence:
1. Women aren’t allowed in the current religion to hold the priesthood and give priesthood blessings.
2. This is a policy decision, not a doctrinal decision.
3. Women do not have any authority to create change within the organization in a leadership position.
4. Religious doctrine requires (or at the very least, strongly suggests) that women should hold priesthood (or priestesshood, if you must).
Once upon a time, there was another “separate, but equal” line drawing done. It was done in the late 1800s in Plessey v. Ferguson, a US Supreme Court case that held that laws (society’s line drawing) allowing separate, but equal treatment for blacks was constitutional. It came thirty years after the Civil War, when the freed slaves were starting to gain political and societal power. It effectively caused the Civil War to be fought again over school segregation in the 1950s. Separate can never be equal.

The current Church participates in a “backhanded patriarchy analysis” The Church’s "women on a pedestal" defense rings hollow. Women have no power to make organizational change. Women have no power within the organizational structure to demand change.
The Church equivocates on Gender. Equal, but separate. Straight, but not gay. Gender scientifically is much more amorphous in this mortal realm than you elude. Gender is not clear cut. Societal roles assigned by gender have changed repeatedly throughout human history, let alone across infinite boundaries. Did boys have pre-mortal genitalia dangling in the pre-existence? (And we know what happens to the male member of the Church in the Celestial Kingdom.) I can see why Mormon men would hang on to that idea. The promise of heavenly rewards of women, have long been used to entice men into religious enclaves. Many a suicide bomber has gone to his death reciting the Koran:
“Verily, for the Muttaqun [righteous], there will be a success (paradise); gardens and grapeyards; and young full-breasted (mature) maidens of equal age; and a full cup (of wine)”.
Ah, kind of makes you want to go strap on some dynamite.
Remind you of this Canon:?
[I]f a man amarry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it iscsealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths— . . .
20 Then shall they be gods, . . .
And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified;
These are eternal gender roles. Eternity with virgins has been a compelling argument across the ages for maintaining the suppression and subjugation of women.

Resolving the Conflict between the TBM and the ExMo

2010-07-24T07:59:00.000-07:00

To take a line from Shakespeare -- a pox upon both your houses. The Ex-Mos and TBMs continue to argue past each other and never the twain shall meet. While the thought of a kind, loving heavenly being comforts and then closes the ears of the believer, the list of inconsistencies, logical disconnects and "anti-Mormon" cliches assuages and then closes the ears of the non-believer.

Unless you frame your debate, it will continue to be unproductive, each side creating their own echo chamber of reinforcement until the cacophony makes it impossible for anyone to hear what is going on.

Here is where I would propose to take the discussion: How do you reconcile the conflicts? To quote this guy I once read, "By proving contraries, truth is made manifest." Bonus points if you can tell me who said that. The discussion then moves from cliche and rote response to a value and factual discussion in an attempt to find common ground.

For example: Blacks and the priesthood. The Word of God is for all of God's children. You are punished for our own sins, not Adam's transgressions (or Cain's.) Racism is a rampant cultural and historical phenomenon which prompted violent conflict between those who thought racism violated God's law and those who believed their race was chosen by God to rule over the lesser beings (both sides used religion as the basis for their beliefs -- one of those contraries Joe was talking about.).

The argument came to a head in the spring of 1820 (bonus points if you know what else happened in the spring of 1820) in the United States with a Missouri Compromise. The Compromise held the Union together for about forty more years until war broke out, but the entire time temperatures were broiling on the race issue in the United States. Northern (upper state New York) abolitionist leaning religions moving south into Missouri and southern Illinois were not well received.

Not surprising that depending on your viewpoint the ban on blacks holding the priesthood came from:
a) false doctrine;
b) the human capacity for self-deception while striving for self-preservation;
c) individual racism of some church leaders;
d) conforming to the current societal norms; or
e) some other reason arising out of the factual scenario.

The anti- and the pro- both believe that the whole racism thing was a bad idea, they just get there different ways. Conflict resolved, sort of.

So who is right? How should we define, the capital T, "Truth"? I'm going to come clean right now -- I'm in the Joseph Smith camp on this one, at least for how to determine Truth. The reason I'm in the Joseph Smith camp is that he is also in the historical philosophical tradition of the American Enlightenment and the scientific method and he made one of the first attempts to apply that philosophy to religious thought. Joseph Smith also had a strong sense of American individualism -- study it out and figure it out for yourself. How he succeeded can be argued, but I love the empirical, scientific approach to religion. (To avoid numerous digressions into atheism, geology, cosmology and science, I'm only talking in this post about applying an empirical, scientific approach to internal subjective experience.)

The scientific method gives us a mechanism for creating hierarchal judgments on different hypothesis -- the hypothesis that is the most consistent with all the data is the most correct, the most true hypothesis.

Another way of saying this is Truth is inclusive. If you draw lines that exclude, you don't have the Truth, you've left something out.

Joseph Smith believed this and it shows in his theology, for example eternal progression and baptism for the dead. He wanted everything included and this is a huge comfort point for believers. It leads to a Mormon mother's common belief that a non-believing child can eventually end up in the temple and end up included, despite the past. What a comfort that must be to her, based on her own world view.

So I am looking at TBM's hypothesis which says "my view is right because it is more inclusive, God's plan provides eternal salvation for all mankind, even Ex-Mos."

The conflicting Ex-Mo hypothesis is "my view is right because the reality and data coming out of the religion is that the religion does exactly the opposite of include all mankind, it excludes everyone except the elect."

So there are the two contraries, how do we manifest Truth. In the spirit of Johnathan Swift, let me make a modest proposal: Eat the children to stop the famine (sorry literary joke that I couldn't resist).

Seriously, the TBM's hypothesis fails because despite the efforts of the Church at inclusion theologically, the reality is countless people feel excluded and some are even forced to be excluded by a process known as excommunication. Just makes the whole "one heart, one mind" thing seem a little narrow and false.

The counter hypothesis and its proponents equally fail because it fails to include the large group who devoutly believes. This makes it equally weak and equally vulnerable to attack by those believers.

My proposed hypothesis, neither of you are correct. I've studied it out. Thought about it. Prayed about it. I came up with the answer that neither of you were true. (Told you I was in the Joseph Smith camp).

Moral Gymnastic Equipment

2010-05-13T15:18:00.000-07:00

Don't use other human beings as moral gymnastic equipment.
A paraphrase of David Foster Wallace

This is the problem with the self-righteous. The wicked are not the jungle gym where you train for your salvation.

The Morality of Inclusion

2010-05-08T08:23:00.000-07:00

I'm constantly attempting to formulate a concept of morality that appeals to my sensibilities. I look at Jesus with the publicans and the sinners and something seems right, always seemed right as I grew up in a culture that was so quick to exclude. I was as guilty (probably still am) of excluding people, as my culture was -- self-righteous, pompous ass would be one way to describe me.

I also have an empiricist bent -- the whole Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions thing. We evolve scientifically when we test out our theories. Conflicting evidence is simply evidence that the theory is wrong. A better theory includes more of the evidence. The next step is to look for conflicts in the new theory, a new paradigm.

I am also aware that this is probably a completely futile effort -- the whole Zeno's turtle thing -- always getting closer but never arriving. Yet, I have yet to find anything better. The more you can include, the better your theory. The more you exclude, the worse.

Which brings me to my favorite moral sensibility -- the more your actions include, the better the action. It is a process that requires constant refinement and attention, but it is flexible enough to provide for a whole lot of rationalizations.

Haru no Asa

2010-04-29T06:50:00.000-07:00

The title is Japanese for "one spring morning."

I was fourteen, alone in the woods. Birds were humming, sweet birds singing.
I felt a tingling in my body.
I saw God.
It was a body of flesh and bones -- and tangible.

Still is.

And I wasn't even imagining it.

Fucking Thoughts on a Monday Morning

2010-04-19T06:47:00.000-07:00

I like Alter-Net. I like it because it gives me -- as advertised -- an alternate view on the news.

But it suffers from the same myopia as regular news. It has the progressive party line and that is what it publishes. Nuanced thinking seems to be completely lost.

Great thinking should be like great fucking. Sensitive to conflict and contradiction and responsive in appeasement of that conflict. Sometimes it should be fucking rough, when something needs to be pounded on particularly hard. Sometimes it should be delicate butterfly licks on sensitive parts. Just try and know your partner and fuck them silly.

Great thought is as rare as great fuck -- and equally desired.

A Porn Rant

2010-04-18T08:10:00.000-07:00

What follows is a re-post of my comments on a rather self-righteous post on Porn (disguised as humor) over on MormonMatters, slightly modified to be more slutty -- Under 18? Stop reading now, I'm going to use four letter words:

I think you've all missed the most pressing problem with porn -- some have hinted at it, but the bottom line is that the biggest problem with porn is the attitude towards porn and that there isn't enough quality porn.

For the Porn is bad and you'd be better off spending your time doing something, I mean anything, else camp -- you negate the individual's subjective arousal to the pictures or images, imbue them with shame and guilt and there is a cognitive disconnect in the porn user's mind -- this feels awfully wonderful and it is awfully bad. The brain short circuits and one of two things happens -- the porn user completely rebels or becomes a Puritan and both versions possess a messed up sexuality. Take Joseph Smith's injunction -- prove contraries and the truth is made manifest. In this case, the extreme legs of profligacy and celibacy are both bad choices and the truth is in between in the cunt.

From the Porn is bad because it subjugates women/women in third world countries camp -- how do you explain gay male porn. Whoops. Exploitation does not have to equate to porn, it is a common logical fallacy. If this is your only beef with porn (assuming that by beef, I mean complaint rather than the colloquial reference to the cock and gay porn), then full on consensual porn would be A-OK. Maybe porn needs a little trailer at the beginning saying, no performer was traffic-ed in the making of this movie and all performers were well paid and compensated and derived the maximum amount of physical pleasure from the performance. Then you can watch the fucking with a sated conscience.

From the porn is great as a sexual appetizer camp, at least you recognize that porn can arouse and by definition fondle your prurient interests, but then what do you do with the relationship damage that it causes? Some people get really fucked up by their partner's use of porn. While I don't perceive it as something that should be defined as addiction (or a-dick-shun in the female vernacular), feeling like you are unwanted over digital images pixelating and fellating on the screen hurts like a thousand little digital ones and zeros pricking the skin. I know this may come as a shock to those that think sex is primarily tied up in the reptilian portion of the brain, but a little evolution-evolved conversation could go a fucking long ways towards long fucking.

The most painful thing about porn is that it seems to cast a bright light on an inadequate sex life for both men and women -- Does anyone think that the wives described by the husbands as sexless so they turn to porn are happy campers? Does anyone think that the husbands devouring hours of porn in secret and shame want that kind of sex life? Most alleged discussions of porn (which isn't really much of a discussion, but a regurgitation of calcified ideas about porn -- as boring as porn itself can be at times) is a symptom of that pain, where because of cultural morays and constraints and historical baggage (polygamy and multiple wives in heaven) Mormons can rarely talk about sex with any clarity or rationality.

The number one reason to vote yes for Mormon Porn is to create an environment where sex can be discussed without guilt and shame, the exquisite physical pleasure can be acknowledged and the pain and despair that accompanies the poor sex lives of so many can be acknowledged as a hard task that needs to be sympathetically stroked and sucked towards bliss.

Sun, Moon and Scars

2010-04-16T06:58:00.000-07:00

For those who are not informed (unlike Rachel Woods, whose picture I borrowed), the Mormon theology has three degrees of glory --

The Celestial
The Telestial
The Terrestial

Of course I always get Telestial and Terrestial mixed up, because in Mormon dogma, Telestial is the "Star" version of heaven, but equates with life here on Earth ("terra firma" in the Latin), so I always want to make the lower kingdom the Terrestial for its linguistic similarity to this world, not its dogma-tological meaning.

The biggest beef I have with Mormon theology is the denial of eternal progression. I love the idea of progression, evolution, growth and learning. Now, eternal progression is given lip service in the religion, but they also need to give it a cut-off point and the point they pick -- Death.

You can progress as long as you want to until you die. Now, I don't particularly have a problem with this concept, since it has a strong likelihood of being completely correct. My complaint is that if you are going to believe in an afterlife, at least make it one that allows progression like this life.

Let me work my way up from the stars to the sun if I want to. What is the harm? Other than you lose all ecclesiastical control if you can't control the afterlife -- which doesn't sound like such a bad idea. No one would be in a rush to get to the afterlife it was simply going to be a continuation of the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to -- just ask Hamlet. Death would be just another step on a long, long path of healing the scars of our incompetence and error. Suicide bombing? Nonsensical if the progression is continual and eternal.

So bring back progression that is eternal. Spread the idea across religious genres. Whether we improve until we die or continue after we die, let us at least encourage improvement, not derangement.

Aftermath

2010-04-11T07:20:00.000-07:00

I am not a social person. I don't usually enjoy an evening "out with friends." I usually come back feeling alienated, alone and disconnected from the group.

Last night, I spent the evening having dinner with some people -- many who I hadn't had much contact with for over thirty years.

I walked away with one impression -- suffering is universal and call me morbid, sick, twisted, but in allowing myself to feel and sense the underlying pain being experienced, I felt connected.

I've read a lot about how to eliminate or alleviate suffering, but what about suffering's ability to join us?

On display last night:

1. Divorce (at least eight instances)
2. Struggles with children
3. Religious alienation, judgment and doubt
4. Loneliness --
5. Dysfunctional Relationships
6. Addiction and alcoholism
7. Care/Mourning for the Elderly/Deceased
8. Career doubts and concern
9. Body image issues
10. Racism and Sexism

Should have been a big downer from what it sounds like, but in the end it was edifying and comforting. This is the true meaning of a society or a group, a place where we can try and protect, understand or simply commiserate over the suffering that life deals to everyone.

Some find comfort in escape. I find comfort in wallowing in the aftermath of life.

Under Further Review

2010-04-02T06:33:00.000-07:00

My thoughts have been raging recently about tribalism and the effect of the culture on the individual. America and Mormonism have this concept of the independent, self-reliant soul, raging against the status quo -- George Washington, Joseph Smith, Henry David Thoreau, Mark Twain, Tom Paine. Yet, more often than not, these icons are invoked to keep us complacent and to refrain from acting like these men. Yes, that was sexist -- so for the women -- Emma Smith (to whom we have to thank for the Word of Wisdom and anti-polygamy sentiment), Susan B. Anthony, Helen Keller (read about her socialist pedigree after she learned to communicate) -- so now I'm politically correct.

The problem is that the individual is tethered to the culture. You can't escape where you are and who you are. Culture and society limit the amount of rebellion you can commit. You have to remember the game you are playing.

You can reflect, ruminate and rage against something, subject it to slow motion review and rant and rave and you'll be as effective as I was in all my rants about Michael Jordan pushing off on Brian Russell. (I could have a great cross over dribble if I could push my defender like that in case you were wondering.)

The problem is that you have to know which game you are playing.

For example, take this statement: Wal-Mart is an evil, amoral corporation because all it is concerned with is shareholder return and attracting customers at prices so low that it drives out local business and encourages sweat shops in third world countries.

Well, under further review, Wal-Mart is behaving exactly as a corporation was set up to do -- turn a profit for shareholders and provide something the customer wants (low prices and moderate quality). You want to change what is happening with Wal-Mart trying to work within the confines of Wal-Mart's corporate society or change how the corporation operates will never work. Why? Because the law (and thus the guns) of society says it must behave that way. Rail against Wal-Mart all you want, but if Wal-Mart officials didn't act the way they do, they would be arrested at worst and ousted at best.

The only way to change the way Wal-Mart behaves is to change how all corporations must behave. We do that with things called laws and regulations. To say that laws and regulations are anti-capitalism is like saying sperm and eggs are anti-human. Capitalism was born out of laws and regulations that created personal property rights and the very corporate structure itself. We are not Frankenstein. We have every ability politically to control our corporate monster, we just have to have the will as a people.

I'm not so sure that the same applies to non-political enterprises such as religion. The rules of the religious game historically have been to create cohesive tribes that exclude non-believers. The only power wielded by these groups (and it is a strong one) is social acceptance (or rejection). As a result, I posted the following comment on Mormon Matters on a nice post on how to change the Church from within:

I’d say I’m leaning towards libertarian paternalism, rather than straight libertarian socialism, since it seems more in keeping with American political ideals. As long as we keep using socialism, the nutty right will continue to raise the Red Scare in the patriarchal line of Skousen who begat Beck. Yet even legislation that is libertarian and paternalistic is rejected by the right. An example is legislation that the Utah State Legislature passed this session that would have enrolled everyone in Rocky Mountain Power’s Energy Saver program with the ability for anyone to opt out. It would have saved enormous amounts of energy, reduced the state’s energy consumption and kept utility prices low (especially important for the poor). So what does Governor Herbert do? He vetoes the bill. Unconscionable and immoral doesn’t even begin to cover it.

I’m not as optimistic as you, Jason, in the ability to shift Mormon Culture from within. You make at least a passing reference to sociological/legal work that has been somewhat popularized by Cass Sunstein in his books when you wrote “becomes a positive feedback loop: the more conservative the church culture becomes, the less tolerable it is for liberals and radicals”, but you don’t go far enough. What happens is that as the culture becomes more intolerant of opposing views, the shift is exponential. Any group can create an echo chamber of ideas. This is effective if you are trying to inculcate a belief in an invisible supreme being, but disastrous when political ideology enters the field. Politics is given the imprimatur of God and the politics are polarized to the prevailing viewpoint. This gives rise to Christian militias in Michigan and Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. You see the same mechanism at work in Mormonism — from the most radical (FLDS) to the seemingly mindless shift towards conservatism and away from compassion in the mainstream Mormon Culture.

Also the Bloggernacle is frankly more of the same. It quickly becomes an isolated group that at best — as her on Mormon Matters and based on my experience — simply ignores contrasting viewpoints and at its worst filters out and removes any competing ideas — just try and post comments on an ultra-conservative (or liberal) site that effectively and articulately challenges their viewpoint.

As long as religious belief is tied to political ideology you will not be able to attack the one without threatening the other, so you are facing the uphill battle of telling people that you need to abandon eternity to save the present. Easier to say to the homeless that it is their own fault and give them the inevitable boot strap to the face.

You leave out the most depressing aspect of the immorality of the current Mormon religion and that is the seemingly silence acquiescence to murder and killing in the form of war. As long as killing is OK outside the tribe,then not feeding the sinners is a piece of Marie Antoinette cake. Apparently everyone forgot what the prophet said about the MX missile back in the 70s. Pacific-ism should be our mantra, not millennialism — Hey folks, 3000 is 990 years away.

So, the point of all this? Before you rail against the results, look at the game you are playing and the rules. The only way to do something different is play a different game or learn to play within the rules. You just have to decide where you want to spend your energy and time. Pragmatic and utilitarian, I suppose. Defeatist and pessimistic, maybe. Rational -- I hope so.

Seth Godin on Tithing

2010-04-01T04:01:00.000-07:00

For those of you who don't know who Seth Godin is, he is a marketer who is extremely good at marketing himself, Purple Cows and Tribes.

On a recent blog post, Seth wrote about the problem with philanthropy and how without limits, people are overwhelmed by giving. As an example, Seth writes about the Mormons:

The Mormon Church says, "tithe". Loosely paraphrased, they say, "10% is a lot, and 10% is enough." This is actually very smart, because they've created a difficult but achievable standard, a way to be a member of good standing in their tribe.

I found his quote intriguing because Mr. Godin is a marketer who trumpets the use of "Tribes" in selling. (Even so good as to get me to write about him on my blog, that sly devil.) The idea is that the Tribe provides a basis for the marketing strategy. A big part of tribal thinking is feeling that you belong. We all want to belong, but at what cost? Godin suggests that the price of belonging has to be difficult, but achievable.

Here is the difficulty with Godin's thought processes -- he picks and chooses what he wants to believe or what illustrates his point, which may make him more like Mormons (or other religions) than he probably would care to admit.

Where is the analysis of the opposition? Sure tithing is great at raising capital among the faithful, but at what cost? Tribes are as much about exclusion as inclusion. Is tithing good when it makes it so a parent can't see their child wed? Is tithing good when it becomes a matter of coercion or financial disaster? I can't tell you how many times I've been told by people on church welfare that the bishop told them, "Pay your tithing and come to church or you don't get welfare assistance." Maybe we should just give the poor 90% of what they need and we can tithe for them.

See, Seth is talking about modern marketed Mormonism, not communal, law of consecration Mormonism. The effort should be towards community and belonging, not extraction of tithes to purchase and belonging.

The Clarity of Ambiguity

2010-03-11T07:11:00.000-08:00

Much has been said about National Security and terrorism. In the interview with Jon Stewart and Bush speech writer, Marc Thiessen, Jon Stewart asks the question why there is such a gap between the right wing anti-terrorist crowd and the left's anti-torture crowd.

The gap is ambiguous since the right doesn't want people hurt, albeit a select group (us), while the left doesn't want people hurt, albeit a larger group (everyone). Where is the clarity?

As a Mormon guy pointed out many years ago, by proving contraries truth is made manifest.

The clarity is in the space between, in the ambiguous.

The answer is that the left and the right are afraid, just of different things.

The right finds safety in its tribal group. Anything outside the group is frightening. Anything inside the group is to be revered.

The left finds safety in rules restricting power. Unrestrained power is frightening to the left. Anything that restrains power and the use of power is to be revered.

Where do you find security? We have "Social Security" which is money for the poorest in our society. Security is money? Security is being safe in our homes, being safe in our property. Security is being safe.
Both sides, left and right, want us safe.

What both want is security and the answer has the clarity of a bright summer day.

Just a few questions:

Guns in your neighborhood -- more secure or less?
Vast differences in wealth -- more secure or less?
Access to medical care -- more secure or less?
Ongoing wars -- more secure or less?
Peace, prosperity and needs of all met -- more secure or less?

Franklin Roosevelt stated "Necessitous men are not free men."

Who should we fear Al-Qaeda or Wall Street? Who causes more death and more suffering?

Security is an illusion, a chimera we chase but can never catch. We are all going to die at that moment the ephemeral security will escape through our clutching fingers. With that understanding, the clarity requires asking a different question -- how can security be increased in the short time we have?

Porn Addiction

2010-02-14T17:03:00.000-08:00

After reading a post on Masturbation on Mormon Matters I realized that my long going debate with my dearest and closest friend (and lover) over porn addiction really is all about causality.

I don't think porn is the cause of the addiction. The destructive, compulsive behavior relating to porn use is caused by societal mores, not graphic depictions of sexual acts. Religion certainly plays a role in perpetrating guilt and disgust towards sexuality, but cultural and gender roles are equally to blame.

I picked up a book, The Porn Trap, by Wendy Maltz, as a result of the masturbation discussion and began to read the preface -- Ms. Matlz wrote, "And if one parent is regularly using porn and the other feels demeaned by it, a child can grow up with a confused sense of what is sexually appropriate and healthy." (emphasis added) As I continued to read, it became quickly apparent that the problem with porn, wasn't porn, but how everyone, user and non-user, responded to the use of the porn.

In the book, Maltz posits the question, what has changed that porn related problems are now so prevalent and they weren't ten or twenty years ago today. Certainly, porn's inaccessibility played a role, but twenty years ago, I -- and every teenage boy -- were raving porn aficionados. It isn't porn's allure or accessibility that is the problem, but the determination that porn use, itself, is the problem. Cultural currents, such as the right wing moralists and the more anti-male, anti-sex feminists converged, creating a flood of guilt and recrimination for feeling aroused. My position in this debate is that the guilt and recrimination are responsible, not the porn. Guilt and recrimination are porn's nicotine.

Maltz wrote, "As sex and relationship therapists, we know that pornography use is a relationship issue. Porn affects the user's inner life . . . as well as the interactions he has with his partner and other family members." Besides the inherent sexism in the statement (the user is a he), I agree that porn is a relationship issue, but only because we have made it one in the past ten years. Women have been told over and over again that if the man is looking at naked pictures that it reflects negatively on his desire towards her or his desire to be with her. They've been told this so often and with such vehemence that looking at porn does negatively impact relationships, but again, the blames is placed on the picture, not the attitude that gave rise to the problem.

The attitude is a problem for the man looking at pornography as well. Pictures can be tantalizing and enticing, yet leave the man feeling as though his desire for his spouse or lover is untouched and untainted. But he has heard the societal voices denouncing his male sexuality as unenlightened, reptilian loathsome behavior, so he hides it from his spouse or lover, which leads to the inevitable relationship explosion and the rush to the therapist or religious leader. The religion or the "porn addiction" therapy becomes the club of one party to use against the other. The club left to the non-compliant spouse is to keep looking at the porn. And as with most wars, leads to pain and destruction. The culture has created the crisis, not the porn.

Contrast Maltz with Esther Perel, another sex therapist, who wrote the book, Mating in Captivity. Perel writes, "The truth is sex and relationships are nowhere near as easy as we're led to believe they should be. . . Too often we are asked to split apart our sexual selves apart from the rest of us, to separate what we desire sexually from what we desire in other areas of our lives. This false separation has led to much confusion, guilt and shame around sexuality, for men and women." I think I want Perel, not Maltz as my therapist. I want integration of sexuality into life, not a separation from life. I want to be able to desire and not have it ruin my life or hurt those I love. It may not be easy, but it is right.

Porn addiction is pat of the anti-intellectual addiction in our society, an addiction for simplistic answers to complex problems and an addiction for scapegoats for our own failings.

Why Roth?

2010-02-03T05:52:00.000-08:00

I know how to spell. I also know my cliches. While it is debatable that God has wrought anything (see Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens), I am most interested in the impact religion plays in people's lives and in society's cultures.

Philip Roth as a novelist has been accused of Antisemitism and misogyny in his work and then has spent a good chunk of his writing life, jumping up and down and trying to proclaim that he really loves Jews and women. The net effect is that Roth is considered Antisemitic by Jews and pro-Jewish by non-Jews, anti-feminist by women and well, anti-feminist by women.

Continuing the Mormon affinity with aligning ourselves with Jews (Jews are the real Gentiles), I wanted to align myself with Roth. Hubris, undoubtedly, but I also relate to Roth. I am anti-Mormon by the Mormon standard and the ex-Mo crowd usually perceives me as an apologist. The religious affinity/disassociation is just one aspect however. Sex, sarcasm, irony,and metafiction (and what is Mormonism, if not Joseph Smith's great metafictional experiment) permeate Roth's work.

Roth is a writer and it will be a writer like Roth that elevates Mormon letters to the realm of true and lasting literature. Faith based literature lacks what all great literature needs -- conflict that is more nuanced than black and white, good versus evil.

A People's History of the United States

2010-01-31T17:08:00.000-08:00

I just had a strange experience. I was thinking about Howard Zinn who passed away last week and I typed an "a" into the title bar of the post and "A People's History of the United States" just popped into the title screen. I'm not sure why, but I ran with it and decided the Google gods have inspired me to write this post.

I started reading "A People's History of the United States" at the start of the month and found myself half way through the book when he passed away. I also found myself watching the documentary on Zinn, "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train." I cried at the end, because the man's life had been so beautiful -- not because he hadn't had atrocities done to him and not because he hadn't committed atrocities against others, because he had, but because he tried to do the right thing. You may disagree with him, but I think any criticism of Zinn that he wasn't trying to do the right thing falls flat.

In Mormon days, this could have been manifestations of the Spirit as I was influenced to immerse myself in his words at the time of his death. (Mormonism could use a lot more of Zinn-like criticism of its history, but that is probably another post.) In my current Zinn days, I'd say I what I have been experiencing was a manifestation of the human spirit, not a mystical revelation, but a humanistic revelation, that despite my misanthropic tendencies, each human being is struggling to simply survive. Compassion, empathy and the ability to see the story from someone else's viewpoint changes everything.

I'll end with some words of Zinn's:

You know, should we tell kids that Columbus, whom they have been told was a great hero, that Columbus mutilated Indians and kidnapped them and killed them in pursuit of gold? Should we tell people that Theodore Roosevelt, who is held up as one of our great presidents, was really a warmonger who loved military exploits and who congratulated an American general who committed a massacre in the Philippines? Should we tell young people that?

And I think the answer is: we should be honest with young people; we should not deceive them. We should be honest about the history of our country. And we should be not only taking down the traditional heroes like Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt, but we should be giving young people an alternate set of heroes.

Like Howard Zinn.

Once Upon A Time (TT)

2009-12-11T18:14:00.000-08:00

I had the opportunity to be interviewed for a movie about Mormonism and I was surprised at what came out. I began blabbing about the importance of stories, the stories we tell ourselves to form meaning and structure in our lives. I was talking about how the story of Joseph Smith, questioning all religions, challenging all religions and then striking out on his own was one of the stories that informed my own life and still informs my life.

I once had a professor in college who told all the students that The Brother's Karamazov should be treated like scripture. He was right, much to the chagrin of religious fundamentalists. Dostoyevsky was inspired in every spiritual sense and his story of redemption, temptation, fratricide and sensuality is richer, more instructive and more human than most of the stories we are told in church. The fact that Karamazov is entirely a fiction has no impact on its strength as a text to inform our existence. The Mormon Church or any religious organization that can take its scriptures and say, The Bible or the Koran or The Book of Mormon's fictionality has no impact on its strength as a text to inform our existence, then the religion has taken a key step away from fundamentalism and towards relevance.

This blog has begun to take a shape and the shape is examining our mythologies, our stories and how they interact with the way we live our lives.

I'm a huge fan of Jewish American novelists, because they do what no one has been able to do with the Mormon experience (with the possible exception of Norman Mailer in The Executioner's Song and he isn't part of the Mormon culture, but an outsider), which is to use the Mormon experience as a back drop to a truthful human story. I think the reason is that the religion, as it is currently translated, forces a writer within the culture to lie and the fiction ends up lacking truth. The best Mormon fiction will come from the apostate -- Neil LaBute, Brian Evenson, Walter Kirn -- are three that come to mind right now.

One of my favorite depictions of Mormon culture in fiction came from Julie Ann Henneman in her novel, Always Listen to the Ravings of a Mad Woman, in which the two devout and sincere visiting teachers visit a strip club in a mission of mercy. The juxtaposition of the theology and the reality give rise to the truth.

We need to tell our stories. We need to say "Once upon a time." You can start your story with whatever words you want -- even holly berry --, but is the story one of quality? Believing in a fiction may not be a bad idea if the fiction teaches you the truth.

The New Testament isn't All Bad -- Ecclesiates 12:7 (TT)

2009-12-04T07:07:00.000-08:00

“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was.”

The mythology of our carbon based life form obtaining animation from a spiritual force is prevalent across religious boundaries. Somehow the dust of the ground learns to walk and talk.

The walking talking dust is blasted with the heat and life of experience and occasionally the temperature becomes high enough to melt. The body dust is liquified and becomes susceptible to air and pressure, changing the shape permanently.

As the situation cools, the body hardens and becomes more transparent or more clouded. Sometimes the process tempers the body into seemingly unbreakable strength and others render the body more brittle.

When held in relationship to each other, melted and hardened bodies reflect off each other or they can focus and amplify the heat on someone else. Other people look at a scarred body and can see right through.

The melted body can be stained by religion, altering perception permanently as we see through the glass darkly and our focus is thrown off in rose and violet colored hues.

All the while, the body is plummeting down the chasm of time, until the end comes as we strike the earth shattering back into the original dust.

Exodus: You Can Run, But You Can't Hide

2009-11-30T21:35:00.000-08:00

The convergence of pop culture and mythology has always fascinated me. The stories the religious cling to often have their counterparts in pop culture as I outlined in my post on Fight Club and vampires and zombies. Turn on your Bob Marley "Exodus" at this point in the post.

The mental exercise of connecting the dots and the parallels intrigues me, especially when the same pattern repeats itself over and over. Complex, multi-faceted historical experiences get transformed into narratives that resonate on a mythological level.

From a Mormon perspective, the trek west to Utah is Moses and the Jews' Exodus re-done on an American scale, complete with a Dead Sea and the River Jordan. Yet, the Puritans had their exodus across the water and the tales of persecution and escape to a promised land are nothing new. Not to mention the multiple exodus tales of the Book of Mormon.

The problem with exiting is you are still going to exit life -- no matter what. Running, trying to find paradise is a fruitless effort. The manna comes to you, you don't go to the milk and honey. It is human to want to escape pain and return to pleasure and the exodus stories are to give hope that it is possible. Whole automobile advertising campaigns are built around this desire -- escape to pleasure, box yourself up in your little tin can and speed away.

When you escape, the problems just follow you (polygamy, persecution, Pharohs, pennilessness and plenty of others) to be resolved later.

Vampires and Cannibal Zombies -- Drink My Blood and Eat My Flesh

2009-11-27T08:02:00.000-08:00

The line between religion and fiction is a fine one, some would argue, a non-existent one. Over on MormonMatters a recent post got everyone started on Vamps and Tramps (Stephanie Meyer's being the ostensible Tramp with her fictional Vamps.)

The desire for eternal life in body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s but not subject to the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to. (Shakespeare ended that quote in a preposition, so I can too.) Some have argued that Vampires in modern Pop Culture resemble the gay buddies on Sex and the City. Vampires are more sexually riveting. Vampires are tortured by the entire Madonna/Whore dichotomy. They want to sink their teeth into anything that moves, but there is always the Madonna, the virgin, the one girl who he just can’t bring himself to penetrate. Modern women writer’s have dressed up the Vampire as a gay buddy to hide how frightful they find aggressive male sexuality. Vampire mythology is so rich that it accomodates all of these types. The Madonna respectful Vampire plays particularly well into Mormon theology, since it is indicative of most sincere adolescent Mormon boys who want to penetrate everything, but pick one shining light out of the Laurels to hang on to for their pure fantasies. I don’t disagree that the recent spate of effiminate vampires from Lestat to Edward has some of those elements, but there is more going on here.

Vampires are the shadow version of Christ. Through the drinking of blood, they obtain eternal life. Through the drinking of His symbolic blood, we are to obtain eternal life. Cannibal Zombies are the shadow version of Christ. Throught he eating of flesh, they have eternal life. Through the eating of His symbolic flesh, we are able to obtain eternal life. Vampires, Zombies and Christ -- three versions of the same myth on how to obtain eternal life.

What is the lesson from these myths? The depth of the myths help them defy easy categorization as evidenced by the Vampire and Zombie in pop culture and the numerous Christian sects. There is something for everyone, so I'm just going to pick one solitary aspect of these myths and how they speak to the human condition.

All three mythologies relate a harsh fact of human existence -- life feeds on life. For life to thrive it must kill. Don't believe me? What did you eat for dinner yesterday? Was any of it ever alive? You are a blood sucking, flesh eating fiend and you didn't even realize it. This isn't about eternal life at all, simply life -- the death and birth cycle that we all must experience.

We all must kill to survive and we've developed an effective system to hide the killing, but the myths of death, blood sucking and flesh eating relate that fundamental aspect of being human. It is a hard concept to face head on, but that is why we mythologize it.

The Insidiousness of Rhymes All the Time In All Seriousness (TT)

2009-11-26T08:07:00.000-08:00

A common theme in Mormondom is conformity. The robotic students at BYU. The bicycle helmeted, tie wearing, scripture toting missionaries. The Mormon housewife. The religion seems to not be so much about becoming a Zion that incorporates disparate individuals as it is about becoming the same individual repeated numerous times. Not one heart, one mind, but lots of the same heart and same mind run through the copy machine of the religion.

The religion is like a rap song -- Take these lyrics by Tech 9 for example

Stormin. In Salt Lake City performin for Mormons

Out of they garments before the mornin, I'm charmin

Leavin em torn, mess with the bull you get the horns

Now, I've been known to throw down a rhyme or two myself, but simply losing the "g" on your gerunds, active verbs and participles to rhyme with Mormon isn't particularly difficult and it isn't really a rhyme. It is forced conformity by chopping the uneven ends off. This is the rhyme scheme of the religion.

I appreciate and validate all that the religion communicates, but I feel like on Thanksgiving it was too much I ate.

See, I hate forced rhyme.

Bob Bennett's Letter on Health Care -- With Commentary

2009-11-24T05:53:00.000-08:00

Bob's letter is in italics -- My comments are in bold and big font. I received this letter via email in a list of about one hundred names. I was vaguely irritated and felt it deserved a response, so I am responding and sending it back to everyone on the list.

Dear Friend,

Tonight, in a rare Saturday session of the Senate, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid What the Mormons are infighting? Come on Bob, show some respect for your Bretheren. Where have all the righteous gone? has scheduled a vote That passed to proceed with discussion Not actual health care reform, just a discussion of health care reform and we sure as hell don't want to discuss health care, because you follow the Word of Wisdom and never get sick of his health care reform legislation. His bill is an unmitigated disaster For the Republican Party because in the end the more socialized medicine we have, the harder it will be for the Republicans. We can't touch that sacred cow of socialized medicine, Medicare, or socialized retirement, Social Security or socialized welfare, Social Security disability, because the public outcry would be so great that we would never elect anyone to office. that will increase taxes, raise insurance premiums, and gut Medicare. So to trick all the mindless masses in Utah, I will threaten their pocket book, despite the fact that my insurance premiums go up every day and just try and get coverage if you have a pre-existing condition or if you lose your job and can't afford COBRA and the fact that I'm totally against anything like Medicare, I'll scare you into thinking the very people who created it originally -- the Democrats are going to gut their sacred cow. You people are so dumb to believe this crap. This is just step one on a very long road before final passage, and I will oppose it at every turn. I only have the corporate best interest at heart and they pay my bills, so don't count on any help from me if you are one of the uninsured, one of the unemployed, one of the tired, poor and huddled masses.

Here’s what’s happening.

Tonight’s vote is an attempt to shut off initial debate. This is a a lie. Don't believe me? Read the next sentence. If it fails, that means the bill won’t even be allowed to come up. All forty Republicans have committed to vote “no!” A single Democrat defection to our side would be enough to deal a powerful blow to the Democrats’ dreams of government-run health care. This wasn't an attempt to shut off initial debate, it was an attempt to shut off all debate. This isn't democracy, this is a desperate attempt to not lose power.

But what happens if the Democrats hold together and win tonight’s vote? Good things? They did win, by the way.

All they will have won is the authority to proceed with debate about Senator Reid’s health care bill. They will not have won final passage of the bill itself. In order to do that, they will have to hold another vote requiring 60 supporters. Yes, this isn't majority rules, this is we refuse to allow government to address serious problems. Not once in this letter does he tell you what he is going to do to get your jobs back, help you if you have a chronic illness, help you if you can't afford your insurance premiums. What has Bob Bennett done for you? That vote will take place at a time when it will be more difficult for Democrats to avoid the consequences of voting against the will of their constituents, the majority of whom do not agree with the principles and practices in this legislation. What majority is he talking about, apparently the super majority. It also shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of basic civics. The Senate -- where Bennett resides -- isn't even a body representative of the nation's population as a whole -- that would be the House, which Republicans can do nothing about because the majority of Americans want decent health care and jobs, not corporate welfare and war that the Republicans gave us for the last eight years.

We will fight this bill with every weapon we have, because even with the Republicans’ diminished numbers, there is still a chance that we will succeed. Let us hope that Mr. Bennett is wrong. Maybe if his constituency woke up and took a position more in keeping with their beliefs and self-interest he would change, because believe it or not, you have the power to vote him out of office and he is scared of you. He thinks you are dumb, but he is afraid you'll get smart.

It’s imperative that we do, because this bill is perhaps the worst piece of legislation I’ve ever seen. I'll bet any of you $1,000 that he hasn't read or understood all 2047 pages. And what about all the historically bad legislation you have voted for in the past without ever reading?

Here’s what’s at stake.

This bill would create a huge expansion of government in our lives. It will raise premiums for those who have private coverage. It will raise taxes for many individuals and most small businesses. It will reduce payments to Medicare providers. Orwellian doublespeak (George Orwell, for those who forgot their English class). It is going to expand government by decreasing Government (Medicare is our socialized medicine that our seniors don't want to give up because it is so damn good. Why don't we just get it for everyone and eliminate the billion dollar health insurance industry that provides no health care for anyone and just death profits for its shareholders? Oh wait, I think I just answered my own question.)

And it’s ridiculously expensive. Actually doing nothing -- which you propose -- is more expensive according to the Congressional Budget Office.

At a time when we’ve added 10% to our entire national debt in under a year, the Democrats want to add an additional $2.5 trillion dollars in new spending over a decade. Adding to the national debt is OK if you are going to use it to kill people in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was all for that. Adding to the debt to help heal sick people and improve the quality of life -- now that is messed up. They insist that number is wrong, but the bill’s accounting is dishonest. In order to give it a smaller price tag, the Administration starts collecting money four years before they provide any services. That way, they maintain the illusion of lower costs by taking money without paying for anything. Help me, I'm lost. What was the accounting on the two wars your Party and President began? How is that getting paid back? Oh yeah, complete financial meltdown and we owe China a crap load of money. Maybe we should go back to nation building, our own and spend some of that money on ourselves and invest it in our children and families and watch what America can do economically it its healthy and happy -- we will sing as we go.

I’m on the front lines on this battle. And stabbing you in the back. You can help by signing my healthcare petition. Because the more mindless drones I can get to sign this, the more of you I can convince. Counting Bodies Like Sheep. You can also comment on this issue at my blog and let me know where you stand. Everybody give him my link. http://mormonroth.blogspot.com/2009/11/bob-bennets-letter-on-health-care-with.html

The Democrats are trying to obscure what’s really happening here with smoke and mirrors. It’s true what they say - where there’s smoke, there’s fire. In this case, it’s the taxpayers who will end up getting burned. By Mr. Bennett in the Back.

Sincerely,

Senator Bob Bennett

Bennett for U.S. Senate

P.S.- If you haven't done so already, be sure to go to our Team Bennett web page to commit to become a delegate or to attend your local caucus. And vote for his opponent. Project Mayhem in the Republican Party. Also, make sure you sign up to be a supporter on Facebook Yes, because all Republicans like Facebook, sign up with Sarah Palin while you are at it. or follow me on Twitter Because I'm a twit to stay up to date with the latest in my campaign. You can comment on this message by visiting my campaign blog. Let him have it.

Email this To All Your Republican Acquaintances in Utah and Around the Globe.

The Politics of Religion

2009-11-22T11:38:00.000-08:00

I am baffled at the proclivity of the ostensibly religious to flock to the political agenda of the American Right.

The teachings of Jesus Christ certainly lend themselves better to a more left of center political view. The "morals" crowd is selective in their issues going after abortion and gay marriage, rather than true and comprehensive political issues.

Immigration: The isolationists seem to think it is "love your neighbor" only if your neighbor is north of the border.

Tort Reform: Mathew 5:40 Why would believers try to limit damages?

War and National Defense: Blessed are the peacemakers or if Joseph Smith kept reading, James 3:18: "And those who are peace makers will plant seeds of peace and reap a harvest of goodness." You sow what your reap, hawks.

Taxation: Tea baggers, don't you remember "render unto Ceaser" ?

Welfare: Charity suffereth long, especially if you are trying to do it as a society through the government. What happened to sell all you have and follow me?

Banking and financial regulation: Easier for a rich man to get through the eye of a needle (all those archway references included to at least make it possible) than for a poor man to get a break on his credit card interest rate or Goldman Sachs to get less than a billion in bailouts.

These are the issues that really affect people's lives and have significance. Don't believe me? Real values stem from compassion, sacrifice and empathy for your fellow beings, not tribal thinking and warfare. I challenge anyone reading this, to explain how concern for the least of the American Citizens is served in any way by current right wing ideology.

Fight Club As Old Testament Myth

2009-11-21T08:10:00.000-08:00

I was on Joseph Campbell's website this morning and Ed Norton was quoted from a New York
Time's article on how Fight Club is a myth.

Now it has been awhile since I read both the Old Testament and Fight Club, although I did just buy and have perused Robert Crumb's excellent graphic version of the Book of Genesis. After reading Norton's comments, I realized that Fight Club is the Old Testament in modern garb.

The similarties are striking or pummeling.

1. Tribes fighting against the evil status quo.

2. A set of rules for the believers. Thou shalts and shalt nots and The first rule of Fight Club . . .

3. Degenerate civilizations being destroyed by the believers. Genesis 34 compares to Project Mayhem

4. There is even an Abraham/Issac sacrifice moment as Tyler Durden attempts to kill himself, but lives to see his religion continue.

The point is that myths resonate with people because the myth speaks to the fundamental aspects of the human condition.

Great pop culture can still be great mythology. Maybe 2500 years from now, the prophet Palahniuk will be studied in Sunday School -- it happened for the guy who wrote the Old Testament.

Utah the Happiest State

2009-11-15T09:27:00.000-08:00

I saw a news article last week on how Utah is the happiest State in the Union. I think it was actually in one of the local papers, but I couldn't find the link, so I cribbed the link from the discussion going on over at Mormon Matters.

I've read several books on happiness, including Greg Weiner's The Geography of Bliss which contains an excellent discussion on the whole business of happiness research.

Causation in happiness research is always the difficulty in this discussion. The MSN article sites the studies criteria which were emotional health, physical health, healthy behaviors and job satisfaction. Certainly the Mormon religion contributes on the health issues with the Word of Wisdom, but there is the sugar overload obeisity downside that is also present -- Jello anyone? Utah's economy has faired somewhat better than the rest of the country, so that is another plus. Utah also happens to be in the West, which tends to be happier than the South, Mid-West and East. This is a study on general overall well-being couched in terms of happiness -- so what is the point?

When the studies on anti-depressant use came out and Utah was three times New York and New Jersey and twice California the FAIR bretheren were quick to post there analysis on causation: http://en.fairmormon.org/LDS_use_of_antidepressants . Fortunately for them, there will be no post on why Mormons, uh, excuse me, Utahans are the happiest.

Other studies in Weiner's book have shown that those leaning right in their political thinking are a bit happier in their beliefs. Conservatives are satisfied or wish to maintain the status quo (that is the definition of conservative.) Liberals tend towards wanting to change the status quo, dare I say, are anxiously engaged in a good cause and therefore don’t need the anti-depressants as much as those who are turning inward.

One commenter over on Mormon Matters, began to throw around self-congratulation about how John 14:27 is indicative of why Utah is the happiest state in the Union because we all pray to God and have lots of temples. I want to see him use John 14:27 to explain why Denmark is the happiest nation on the earth with only one Mormon temple and a bunch of Muslims, socialists and athiests.

Or answer the evil Salt Lake Tribune blogger on why our recent happiness can’t be attributed to undefeated football seaons for the U, Huntsman’s endorsement of civil unions — move over Mitt (John’s right behind you and he is in China), and Utah’s top subscriptions to porn sites. I guess you can never have too many porn sites.

Bottom line, I'm happy because I have a gorgeous wife, lovely children, a great house, the ability to write and publish my thoughts at will and I've emerged out of the shadow of the valley of death of my personal millenial apocalypse into a world where I can help people survive the difficult travails this life throws at them -- at least in a small way. I'm not so sure whether the religion helped me or hindered me in that quest, because it did a little bit of both.

The Resolution of the Same Sex Marriage Mess

2009-11-11T08:56:00.000-08:00

Some subversive thoughts.

Given that the Mormon Church (and Catholic and other Churches) are very concerned about how they appear and political power, especially after all the bad press on fighting gay marriage.

Given that the Constitution requires separation of church and state.

Given that marriage between a man and woman is considered a bedrock, dare I say cornerstone, for the religion.

The subversive and potentially most effective solution is obvious. Take the government out of the marriage game, let the religions squabble over it all they want, but don't let the government license or sanction it. Everybody has a civil union if they want to partner up, but no one is recognized as married by the State. I have to give credit to Cass Sunstein for the idea, but it is a great one.

Especially after the Church has just come out with a statement supporting equality -- we need an ordinance or statute now for equality of inheritance rights, child custodial arrangements, tax benefits, etc.

The demanding rhetoric and critical attacks of the GBLT community against the churches won't win any friends or any new rights. While certainly I can empathize with someone who is GLBT and religious, my inclination is that most don't believe in a fundamentalist God. The institution to attack isn't the religion, it is the institution of government licensing of a religious ordinance -- marriage.

The ramifications of such a successful campaign seem obvious to me, but the greatest is a more secular and humanistic society in which my children can grow up in and can easily see the contrast between tolerance and intolerance.

The Mormon Double Bind

2009-11-09T20:01:00.000-08:00

Of all the communications, internal honesty seems to be extremely difficult, yet we blithely go on believing that we are true to ourselves and true about ourselves. Self-deception in the realm of working out a relationship with a divine being seems particularly fraught with potential pitfalls. This site has a ton of information on self-deception and is a decent starting point on avoiding self-deception.

Now, I, as any male, understand the double bind of the “Am I fat?” question, but the classic double bind of Mormonism is Moroni 10:4-5. Study it out, pray about it and you will get the answer. What happens when the answer doesn’t conform to the societal group? Just like your spurned woman who has packed on a few pounds, the person getting the wrong answer doesn’t feel loved and accepted by the community.

Mormonism, by focusing on the fundamentalistic, has eliminated the ability to come to a different conclusion than the group in working out and honest relationship with yourself or God. This leads to group think as described by Cass Sunstein in his numerous books, because by eliminating dissent and discussion it creates an echo chamber and cascade effect of “I know this Church is True” by those who are not being honest with themselves, don’t feel the freedom to be honest with themselves and have to conform to maintain societal and cultural acceptance. They have to say, “No honey you look absolutely fantastic in those pants” even if she looks like a cow. How is that freedom to be honest?

Mormons and Sex and Prop 8

2009-01-08T07:29:00.000-08:00

A Salt Lake Tribune Article quoted a Washington Times religion writer in a little blog post today on the Mormon's highly sexed version of the afterlife and how that might have played into their rabid opposition to Proposition 8.

I don't have a lot of time this morning, but the religion's clearly anthropomorphic ideas of godliness says more about the insecure male sexual psyche in the church than about its doctrine, whether it be scriptural or "pop doctrine." A Celestial orgy with blurred lines of gender would not be all that hostile to Mormon doctrine -- Zion is where we all become of one heart and one mind, so why not one body?

Unlike the Washington Times writer, I'd say the concerted opposition in the Mormon culture stems from its indoctrination of young men with an extreme version of homophobia, in which self-love is a gateway drug to circle jerks which leads to ass fucking. Similarly, young Mormon women are indoctrinated that meaning is derived from which priesthood holder they latch on to. If your priesthood holder starts holding someone else's peter priesthood, then you are in trouble and your entire meaning in the society is attacked. Both the Mormon man and woman have every cultural reason to oppose disrupting the cultural order to which they have grown accustomed. The concern isn't after death, but what is going to happen to them tomorrow.

Culture and the Ex-Mo

2008-12-28T10:16:00.000-08:00

I just got through reading Malcom Gladwell’s new book, Outliers: The Story of Success. Briefly, the book is about the story of success and an attempt to debunk the myth of the solitary genius and the self-made man/woman/person. Gladwell’s premise is that circumstance, societal support, hard work and culture account for success as much as any Seven Habits.

Now Gladwell has made a fortune writing books that are provocative and challenge conventional wisdom: The Tipping Point and Blink are his two previous efforts. He challenges traditional thought, but as is often the case with provocateurs he can go overboard in his attempts, winning him as many critics as fans, but take him for what he is – someone who makes us reconsider our world view. From that standpoint, Gladwell succeeds.

As I was reading his book, I realized how much my Mormon culture influences me in my life. I’ve had the opportunity in the past few years to watch how it shows up in the behavior of people who have left the church and people who remain in the church.

I went back one hundred and seventy eight years ago to 1830. The fledgling church was persecuted from its outset. I grew up with the stories of Hauns Mill and Brigham’s miraculous flight across the frozen Mississippi and then the trek west to escape persecution. I remember the stories of my ancestors tricking the federal government’s army as they marched on Utah. Our culture was one of rejection and persecution.

What a wonderful irony that the most profound and frequent sentiment in the Ex-Mormon community is directly from their own culture: they feel rejected and persecuted by the predominant culture. Ex-Mormon’s are being their best cultural Mormon selves when they talk like this.

If you don’t believe that Mormons still feel this way, just listen to the constant dialogue about Mitt Romney on KSL radio. Mormons still feel rejected by the American mainstream. "They say we aren’t Christians." I daresay that Utah’s devout allegiance to the status quo in government over the past eight years is yet another indication of our cultural past as the Mormons try and prove at the ballot box that they belong and are the most patriotic of patriots.

Mormons are a peculiar cultural mix. We have our religious culture. We have the culture of the West. We have the American culture as well. These collective cultural forces converge on us as individuals today and I think we are foolish, as Malcom Gladwell suggests, to ignore the cultural forces that are shaping our successes and failures.

Mormon religion is as Harold Bloom described it: "The American Religion." Now, Bloom has much more extended thesis, but observing American cultural trends manifest in the Mormon religion is a fascinating exercise. Joseph Smith’s story is all about rugged individualism, challenging authority and finding the truth for oneself. (Again, Ex-Mormons are showing their true cultural heritage in defying authority and trying to assert the truth for themselves.) What could be more American? Joseph Smith is the American version of a religious leader, declaring his independence from all the sects of his day. Does this story resonate with us because we are Mormon? Because we are American? Both?

We waste too much of our time arguing about religious detritus and end up ignoring the profound and important impact belief, culture and heritage have on us, whether we profess belief in a religion or not.

The Prosperity Myth and Moral Thought

2008-12-21T08:22:00.000-08:00

One of the consistent and predominant themes in the post-mormon culture are quips and quibbles about tithing. The temporal economic strength of the Mormon Church is disconcerting to the non-believer. The unease comes in part from the knowledge that in many circles money is power and an institution that has power economically as well as socially and spiritually (intended to include the ability to influence thought and action in its believers) is a formidable and daunting foe. Proposition 8 is just the most recent tantrums about the Church’s economic clout, but the convergence of Church economics and politics is nothing new to residents of Utah.

My training at BYU is responsible for my extended bout of heresy – a long and different story. My Mormon-Marxist training began however with one of my religion teachers, an eccentric, tennis shoe wearing and unfortunately much maligned in the post- ex- non-believers community, Hugh Nibley. Hugh Nibley was constantly ranting at the Church for selling its economic soul. It has probably been more than a decade since I read what Professor Nibley wrote, but I did a quick Google search and his direct condemnation of American and Mormon society spilled out onto my computer screen. I’ll give you a few of the more relevant quotes for the present:

[F]inally the law of consecration is equally uncompromising—everything the Lord has given one is to be consecrated. . . . The first objection to the law of consecration is that it runs counter to the spirit of the times. Our people are so conditioned as to view any substantive sharing of the wealth with great suspicion.. . . . Even in our yearning to escape to nature, business takes over, as at Bear Lake and Park City—condominiums bumper to bumper, the wilderness partitioned into small, expensive tracts so that each can have his private wilderness. . .—the rich, the powerful, the manipulators, to make us all the same. Make sure that we watch a lot of television. Make sure that we all have credit cards and cars and houses that are all kind of sleazy.". . We must go out to the parking lot to assert our individuality in Mercedes, Cadillacs, and so forth. And which is the more depressing picture? The gaudy display of vanity fair is an attempt to cover up the spiritual and intellectual barrenness of the present world we live in. . . .“Why does it always come," asks Senator Abourzek, "that two hundred million people sacrifice and fifty-thousand at the top are never called upon to sacrifice?" Karl Hess, the busiest Republican speech writer of our time, and the principal formulator of the National Party Platform of 1960, has protested: "I don't know why in the world West Virginia miners should put up with people in Palm Beach owning the stuff they work on. Why? It doesn't make sense. I understand that it's legal, but legal does not necessarily mean right." It is not fair. In any sacrament meeting, you can hear young people get up and tell what a struggle they are having living on practically nothing, and yet the Lord has seen them through, and they are joyful and happy in it. That is a good thing. We say, Well, we can't give up anything or we'll have to suffer. Could we suffer any more, or even that much under the law of consecration?. . . But we get the idea that the only virtues are business virtues. Consider the qualities you need to be a successful businessman. . . . The virtue is the virtue of getting ahead. Of course that's the virtue in any field. We make it seem as if that fact obliges a person to go into business—because this is where it counts, because then you possess these qualities. Anyone knows that cheating pays off very well in this country. . . .One often hears the argument "If all the wealth in the world were divided up equally, nobody would have very much." True, but the average person would be much richer than today, and no one would be hard up. Ah, but there would be no big capital to invest, no giant industry to supply the wants of the world. This is a cultural argument: if the present order of things passed away, what would happen? It was the plea of the medieval barons that if the lord of the manor didn't own everything and keep all in strict subjection, there would be no great lords to fight the other great lords who were trying to subject their people.

Now I understand that Professor Nibley was arguing from a believer’s standpoint, but you won’t read the ringing condemnation of American Captialism in the Ensign. Nibley was also arguing something that I tend to believe in – the present economic imbalance is not a good thing socially. Professor Nibley is somewhat a voice in the Mormon wilderness, crying out against economic injustice, while the Church continues to buy more real estate and promote white collar men to positions of authority. I haven’t checked – and if I’m wrong, please let me know – but I don’t think there as been a blue collar member of the 12 within recent memory. Ok, I checked.

Successful business professionals predominate the top 15 Mormon leaders. All are white collar, most are business people, although a few are educators and a doctor and lawyer for good measure. This is the current ethos of the leadership of the Church and probably a good reason why the Church carries such economic power and strength.

Irony is obviously prevalent, since the Church hasn’t eradicated pesky doctrines like the law of consecration. A law (unlike say gravity) that is honored more in its breach than in its practice. In fact, it is the main law that all garment wearing, temple going Mormons covenant to when the go to the temple. I’ve seen the Church do a lot of good in the human welfare department. I’ve spoken to many people who have directly benefitted from the largesse of the local ward or branch. Like the humans that comprise the institution, the institution is full of contradiction and paradox.

The problem – and it is a problem that is not limited to Mormon culture – is that very little discussion takes place on the concept of economic morality. The discussion that does take place is superficial, ignoring the underlying complexities and troubling issues that almost immediately arise. The current pop culture responses to economic evil is two fold: People who don’t pay their debts are bad and Greedy corporate executives that take big bonuses while their companies falter are bad (and the corollary corporate crooks are bad). Economic good is simply described as lots of money. Has “money is the root of all evil” been cliched into none existence? Sometimes it feels like it.

I like having money. I like not having the worry and the concern that the power is going to get shut off. I like being able to buy my children Christmas presents. I like traveling – although I haven’t done nearly enough. I like having the mortgage payment made and buying books. I enjoy material comforts. I also am in a constant struggle to determine how much is enough?

Sometimes the right story comes along for the right time and I recently came across Leo Tolstoy’s short story, “How Much Land Does a Man Need?” and it has been haunting me ever since. Tolstoy tells the story of Pahom, who becomes a land addict, always needing bigger acreage for his next fix. Finally, he finds a nomadic tribe that has a huge amount of land and for only a thousand rubles, he can have all the land that he can traverse by foot in a single day in a circular rout. The only catch is that he has to get back to the point of beginning by the end of the day. He takes off and makes the giant circuit only to die of exhaustion at the end. The moral of the story is that the only land a man really needs is the six foot plot when they bury him.

In today’s modern American capitalistic society, the question is more “How Much Money Does a Man Need?” I think $6000 or so can get you an economical funeral. Yet, we race around the circuit every day, hoping to capture our part of the American Nightmare/Dream. I’m writing this, because I’m as guilty as anyone of wanting economic security and money. The question is how do you acquire money morally? I had the work ethic pounded into my skull as I grew up. You work hard and you prosper.

The problem is that the agrarian work ethic isn’t very accurate. Hard work can equate to survival and maybe even a comfortable survival, but it doesn’t equate to prosperity. Prosperity comes from living off of interest. Interest comes from banks or stocks making a profit. The profit comes from hard work and effort of the manufacturers and retailers of economic goods that people need to survive and thrive. Once a certain sum of money is acquired, you can literally live off the back of the economic system that is providing you the creature comforts. Is that moral? What debt do you owe to the people who earned the money to pay the stock dividend? Legally – none – in fact, the company is legally obligated to try and make you a profit, even at the expense of the workers who make the profit possible. Morally, should you pay them for making you a profit? The capitalist’s argument back is that letting them use your money was your payment. In a more pure Atlas Shrugged/Ayn Rand-ian capitalism that requires active participation in contributing to the economic system, I would agree, but theory is not the reality.

The reality is colored by the current and prevalent immoral belief that one is entitled to prosperity. Mormon’s recognize this doctrine as pay your tithing and be blessed – the windows of heaven will open up and rain prosperity on your head. The more secular, new-age crowd will see this doctrine in The Secret. If you want money, it will come. The cynical will find it in the $50 billion dollar Ponzi scheme of Bernard Madoff and the idea of the country club elite that they were entitled to solid economic returns of their investments. The belief that all humans are individually entitled to prosperity is evil for one big reason – it is selfish.
Our current economic crisis deserves and is receiving a substantial examination, but there is a common thread of Enron, subprime loans, Wall Street Bailouts and ponzi schemes – greed, gluttony, sloth, envy and pride – five out of the seven deadly sins (I think a case should be made for removing lust and reducing it to six deadly sins.) And when the money that often didn’t exist in the first place disappears, the last deadly sin appears – wrath. With such solid representation from God’s top seven no-no’s you’d think that there would be more outcry against the evils of the business “virtues.” Yet we still pray to our economic pantheon of Gods – Gates, Buffett and Walton – that we to may become like them. As Sam Walton or Bill Gates once was, I can become. O Warren, who art in Wall Street, Hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done in New York and on Main Street. Give us this day our daily dividend. Eliminate our interest so we can raise rates on our debtors. And lead us not into losses, but deliver us from that solitary evil. For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

So have I cashed out my 401(k) because interest is evil? Have I stopped trying to figure out how to be economically secure? No. Call me a hypocrite, if you must, but I think the difference is that I don’t believe I’m entitled to what I have. I am fortunate. I am grateful. I work hard and try to give good value for what I am paid. I continue to try and figure out how to get paid more for what I do. I also try and calculate the value of the product I sell to the end consumer. I probably ought to take a little bit more time and make sure my investments are in socially responsible companies. I also remember the lessons that I was taught in Church that this life is a stewardship, help the poor and the less fortunate and you can’t take it with you – because you can’t

The Subversive Manifesto

2008-12-21T08:20:00.001-08:00

I want to be subversive. I want to undermine. I want to transform. I want to lead.

Maybe it was all the stories of my youth about the prophets that were to rise up in the last days and bring about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Maybe it was the prospect of becoming one of the missionaries that brought religion to the God-less Commies. Maybe it was the belief that there would be “one, mighty and strong” in the last days, besides Joseph Smith that has subsequently given rise to countless fundamentalist sects. Maybe it was all those days tracting in a foreign land and in a foreign tongue. Maybe it was the belief in personal revelation. Maybe I shouldn’t have read Machiavelli. Maybe it was the belief that the Glory of God was Intelligence, or in other words, light and truth.

So I’m sitting here on a Sunday morning wanting to proselytize and subvert, but I have no congregation and no following. I have only words, so I’m writing to who?

Why is it that the crazy’s always have a Manifesto? Am I a Ted Kazinsky (Unabomber) or a Brian David Mitchell (Elizabeth Smart’s kidnapper)? Or do the sane have Manifestos, too? Were Marx and Engels sane when they put forth the Communist Manifesto? How about Andre Breton’s Surrealist Manifestos? The whole idea of a Manifesto seems to suggest at least a bit of un-hingedness – like standing on the chair and jumping up and down and saying “Damn It Everyone! Listen to ME!”

The Manifesto’s Thirteen Articles of Manifestment

1. We believe we have no clue about God.

2. We believe that we aren’t quite sure how to define sin.

3. We believe in the metaphoric, but not the literal, significance of the Atonement, i.e. death and resurrection; life and crucifixion.

4. We believe all is trumped by compassion and empathy, regardless of what you believe.

5. We believe in personal freedom and expression.

6. We believe that the organization of the Internet – chaotic and shattered – is a simulacrum of life and we believe we should do our part to put as much of Humpty Dumpty back together again as is humanely possible.

7. We believe that in proving contraries truth is made manifest or in more modern digital terms, organizing the digital 1's and 0's of binary code, we can create everything, pro- and anti-, yes and no, black and white and it is all still 1's and 0's.

8. We believe in the power of ongoing discussion to refine, change and improve things.
No Manifesto.
No Constitution.
No Bible.
No Book.
No pronouncement.
No punctuation or sentence structure requirement.
No word.
Nothing is written in stone.

9. We believe that everything can and should be questioned.

10. We believe that only on rare occasions can a belief be attacked head on. We believe that if you want to change a person’s belief structure you must start from the fundamental contradiction of that belief and patiently attack that point, arguing from the familiar and foundational to be truly effective and prod along the differentiation.

11. We believe that belief structures can be ranked in a hierarchy, based on the extent of the belief structures ability to be inclusive.

12. We believe that we should be active politically and in our communities to bring about the changes required by abiding by the Manifestments.

13. We believe in being honest, true, benevolent, and in doing good to all people; indeed we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul ( for the most part) – We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

The Conclusion

Growth means adding, becoming more inclusive. Rigid belief structures are rife with contradictions on the most fundamental levels. Exploring the contradictions in one’s own belief structure opens new horizons and understanding. Humility insures an openness to change of belief. Arrogant certitude insures a steadiness of belief. In the middle of the humble and the arrogant, resides the transformative truth.

We are to be our own Savior. We bask in the paradise of our ignorance. We agonize in the Gethsemane of our contradictions. We crucify ourselves over our mistakes. We are resurrected to an improved more integrated existence in which the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life have intertwined a few more of their roots.

And we start the process all over again.

X the Ex- Prefix -- Some Thoughts on Ex-Mormons

2008-12-21T08:14:00.000-08:00

I'm here, but I'm here under protest. I'm here because I think I have an audience here, more so than within the confines of the religion of my youth.

Most of what I see discussed on Exmormon sites, blogs, conferences, forums and discussions, I find boring, counterproductive and a waste of time. I don't see much point in say, dissecting point by point Conference talks, discussing whether or not polygamy is a good thing, discussing Adam/God theory, Book of Mormon historicity, and you name the discussion -- I'm not really interested.

Probably most blasphemously of for an exmormon -- I'm as sick of "exit stories" as I am of "testimonies." I know, I know, we are trying to create a sense of community, but a community of what? Whiners?

I'm actually more fond of the "Post" prefix, since it seems to signal moving past or beyond a previous location. At some point, almost everybody posting about their experiences with leaving Mormonism has had their butt sitting on a wooden pew in a Mormon chapel. At some point, those same people found enough redeeming aspects to the religion to be a participant.

The problem with religion is that on the whole it tries to be something that it is not. Religion is not physics. Religion is not history. Religion is not chemistry. Religion is not archaeology. Religion is usually more culture and race, than it is choice, Mormonism's missionary efforts aside.

Religion is not literal. The second you take religion literally you have wars, contention and strife. Thus the constant battles between the Mo’s and the Ex’s. Most of the Ex vs. Mo arguments are solved with one sentence:

“If you’ve taken anything in the Mormon religious doctrine (temple, priesthood, resurrection, atonement, the fall, etc.) as a literal fact, you were wrong.”

If I have a philosophy, it tends towards an atheistic humanism, colored by a rich metaphoric Mormonism that provides the mythological backdrop for my existence. I'm no more "ex"-Mormon, than someone could be "ex"-Jewish -- I am what I am – and I’m certainly not a believer and I’m certainly not an “ex”.