Jesus on marriage

Mormons believe that beginning with the union of Adam and Eve marriage done God's way is for eternity. Eternal marriage has become Mormonism's favorite doctrine: FAMILIES CAN BE TOGETHER FOREVER!

Imagine the frustration of all the Mormons who try to learn of ancient marriage practices from the Old Testament, where "eternal" never enters the equation,

or the Book of Mormon,

or the New Testament, where three of the four gospel writers manage to relate the same marriage lesson without significantly contradicting each other. It's the story of the Sadducees asking Jesus about couples being together in the next life. Their question is facetious, but Jesus' response is shocking (if you're a Mormon who believes in eternal marriage).

"The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Matt. 22:23-30)

"Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven." (Mark 12:18-25)

"Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man’s brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage" (Luke 20:27-35)

Jesus makes it clear: the question is ridiculous because RESURRECTED PEOPLE DO NOT HAVE SPOUSES, they're like the angels. Once again, of the seven women the man married in life, Jesus says the man will have none of them in the resurrection. Zero. No eternal marriage, according to JC.

Other translations of the New Testament might help point out that "in the resurrection, they do not take wives, neither do men have wives," but probably the most important translation is the Joseph Smith Translation. Let's take a look.

"For in the resurrection, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angel of God in heaven." (JST Matt. 22:29)

"For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels of God who are in heaven." (JST Mark 12:29)

"But they who shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, through resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage." (JST Luke 20:35)

Shit. Looks like Joseph wasn't inspired to have Jesus say something about how the man would only keep his first legitimate wife (take a look at 21-8 in the New Testament Institute Manual), or any of the others. For whatever reason, God wouldn't let his prophet foresee eternal matrimony in the early 1830s.

How disappointed will faithful Mormons be when they're resurrected as angels instead of their earthly families?

Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (Smith) Young - wife #9

Mary Rollins (April 9, 1818 - December 17, 1913) first met Joseph Smith in Kirtland in 1831 when she was a 12-year-old girl. He made quite an impression on her. She claimed year later that, in addition to receiving a blessing from Joseph on that first encounter, the prophet took her aside and told her that God had commanded him to take her as his first plural wife.

I can't say I believe Mary, though. Joseph testing the plural marriage waters in 1831? That seems a little premature. If we are to believe her, all I can say is HOLY SHIT! A 12-YEAR-OLD? God must have a seriously sick sense of humor.

Mary also claimed that in 1834 in Missouri Joseph was commanded to take her as a plural wife but he chickened out. She would have just turned sixteen.

The next year Mary married the non-Mormon Adam Lightner. By 1840 they were living in Nauvoo with two children: Miles Henry and Caroline (it seems). A third child, George Algernon, would soon follow.

Joseph approached Mary about plural marriage again in early 1842, this time with the whole "an angel's gonna kill me if we don't!" bit (that's right, I don't buy the angel story). This time he added more shit about how "all the Devils in hell" could never get the angel off his back and how God promised he'd be saved thanks to the practice of plural marriage and God can't lie so obviously Joseph will practice plural marriage (which he already was in fact practicing).

Mary said no amazingly enough. She even had the guts to ask if Emma knew about her, to which Joseph dodged with an "Emma thinks the world of you." She still wanted to pray about it real hard first, which she did and got the spiritual confirmation she wanted. It was a beautiful wedding. Very secretive and mysterious. Brigham performed it while Adam was out of town. She, like Joseph's other plural wives, stayed with her husband as Joseph instructed and kept a tight lip about their union. When Adam needed to move his family fifteen miles away for work, Joseph bawled his terrible tears and gnashed his terrible teeth and made sure to prophesy hard times for the Lightners. Their new home was struck by lightening and Mary became deathly ill.

Joseph was killed in June, 1844. Mary was endowed and sealed to Brigham in 1845. She never had a child with either of them. Her long life ended in Utah.

There are a lot of issues with this marriage - the proposal to a preteen, the angel threats, the devil talk, the challenge to challenge God's promise - but if we want to believe all of that we still have to go by the book, don't we? In that case, the thing is that Brigham had no right marrying Mary because she was already sealed to Joseph, who had no right marrying her either because she was not a virgin and consequently "belonged" to Adam, who fathered various children with her. Mary had no rights because she was a woman and considered property of her legal husband.

P.S. There is a possibility that Mary's third child, George Algernon, born in Nauvoo, was Joseph's.

Libido

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Agnes Moulton Coolbrith Smith (Smith Smith) Pickett - wife #7

Agnes Coolbrith joined the Church in 1832 and, after staying with the Smiths in Kirtland for a time, married Joseph's younger brother Don Carlos in 1835. They had three daughters together, the youngest of which was Josephine Anna Smith, who later became known as Ina Donna Coolbrith. Don Carlos and one of the two older daughters died in Nauvoo of malaria.

 DH#1

Five months after her husband's death, Agnes married her brother-in-law Joseph. (This marriage is not mentioned on the Church's website.) The marriage warranted a cryptic note in Masonic code by Brigham Young, an enthusiastic journal entry by Joseph, and a rumor against the prophet that sent Emma into a tizzy.

Cousin George, DH#3

After Joseph was killed Agnes ended up marrying George Albert Smith, a cousin of her first two husbands, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, and husband to another woman, but ultimately left George during his preparations to move to Utah. Instead, Agnes left the Church and went to Saint Louis, where she married printer and lawyer William Pickett, with whom she had twin boys. They soon moved to California where Ina would gain fame as poet laureate.

(Joseph)Ina

Agnes hid her Mormon, polygamist past for the remainder of her life, though a letter to her nephew Joseph F. Smith reveals a deeply felt tie to Joseph and Don Carlos' family.

Why did Joseph take Agnes on as another wife? Was it simply a Levirate thing? It definitely doesn't meet God's requirements for the New and Everlasting Covenant. For starters, Don Carlos and Agnes had probably been sealed - I find it difficult to imagine that someone as inner-circle as the prophet's brother would have been left out of the sealing game. Secondly, she was most definitely not a virgin. Third, it's doubtful that Emma gave her permission otherwise she probably wouldn't have initiated an investigation of rumors about Joseph's licentious dealings (or she could have been trying to cover them up). And finally, where are the Joseph-Agnes babies? They raised no "seed." So why should anyone believe this marriage was sanctioned by God?

The temple - boredom

The discomfort I felt my first time through the temple didn't deter me from going again, instead it spurred me on. I knew the temple was holy and that I needed to get comfortable with the ways of the Lord. 

I expected the temple ordinances to slowly come into focus for me, but by about the third or fourth session I started falling asleep. The endowment, as it turns out, is simply boring. You do the same things every time and watch the same shitty movie (yes, there are/were a couple different versions) and it takes an hour and a half minimum. What shitty full length film would you like to sit through over and over? How badly do you want to go play Pat-a-cake with total strangers over and over. Go to the temple enough and it starts to feel like the movie Groundhog Day with Bill Murray. 

A couple months into weekly attendance it was a miracle if I could keep awake through an entire session. I did get more comfortable with the clothing, hand gestures, bowing my head and saying yes to covenants, whispering formulas through a curtain, all of that. Maybe even too comfortable. It also became easier and easier to be critical and/or suspicious of the whole thing. 

But I still believed it wholeheartedly for years afterward. I told myself to focus more on the content, not the format. Something marvelous was right before my eyes, I just had to learn to see it.

Heavenly fatherliness #39 - Protection

According to popular wisdom, a good father protects his family at all costs.

As the story goes, God cursed us with pain and disease and death. That's the opposite of protection. But that's because Heavenly Father's concerned mostly about protecting our ability to make choices and less concerned about protecting us physically. That's why he was willing to permanently exile a third of his spirit children - because they were anti-choice. That's why God placed us in a crazy, mixed up world, so we can try to navigate it by making righteous choices. Righteousness will then protect us from sin and pain.

OK, that's not really true. No mortal man can be righteous enough to avoid sin, and even the most righteous are still vulnerable to the all sorts of painful experiences, like accidents, sicknesses, natural disasters, deaths of loved ones, ugly breakups, disappointment, and all the rest. All righteous choices can do is make you a prime candidate for the Celestial Kingdom. It's the kind of protection you might expect from a shady insurance company, but with even foggier details.

When it comes to the cost of all of this, apparently it was enormous: the blood sacrifice of one perfectly righteous demi-god. Never mind that that God got a full return on his investment within a few hours. Which one of your children would you give up to die horribly if you knew you could get him or her right back?

*These attributes represent the popular thoughts of Ask Men’s Jullian Marcus, examiner.com’s Tanya Tringali, and Open Talk Magazine’s Glenn Silvestre as per their respective articles on what makes a good father.

Christmas confusion: the star

Mormons believe that there really, truly was a star that appeared at Jesus' birth. They believe this partly because the Gospel of Matthew mentions some astrologers reading his sign in the sky but also because The Book of Mormon treats the star as a real thing.

It all starts out with the sun going down and "great lights in heaven" (Helaman 14:3) keeping things as bright as day. Then we get the Star of Bethlehem showing up sometime later.

The story makes wonderful sense until you stop to think about it. Why does the Bible not mention a night as bright as day? Were the "great lights" Samuel the Lamanite spoke of, like, angels acting as nightlights or something? Third Nephi doesn't say. Why would Herod's astrologers be the only assholes able to see and understand the significance of a mega-bright star showing up in the sky? Why should we believe that star-reading, horoscoping assholes had any valuable insight about the future at all, ever? Why would said astronomers need a star to travel ten miles down the road, anyway? Why doesn't Samuel the Lamanite give any instructions on how to read the "many signs and wonders in heaven" (Helaman 14:6)? Is a new savior being born every time a supernova pops or a meteor shower hits? Does God really relay messages of truth through the stars? If so, it would seem that modern-day astronomers and modern-day prophets are both having a hell of a time making heads or tails of what God's trying to tell us via astroscript.

What if it's all just a fun story? What if The Book of Mormon is just another fun story based off of a fun story or two?

Delcena Johnson Sherman (Smith) Babbitt - wife #14

With Delcena Johnson (Novermber 19, 1806 - October 21, 1854) we have yet another widow. She was first married to Lyman R. Sherman, with whom she had six children, so right off the bat we can see that Joseph Smith wasn't following the virginal bride requirement. The couple joined the Church together in 1831 in New York. They moved Kirtland, then to Far West, and, following Lyman's death, Nauvoo. Delcena's brother Benjamin took her and her children in.

Then Benjamin was sent on a mission to Canada and before he returned in 1842 Delcena was married to Joseph. Benjamin accepted the marriage without question. Delcena was living with her sister wife, Louisa Beaman. The three of them - Benjamin, Delcena, and Louisa - would eventually all pitch in to convince Almera Johnson, Benjamin and Delcena's younger sister, to marry Joseph as well.

Delcena married a third time after Joseph's assassination, this time to Almon Babbitt. In 1850 he left for Utah without her. She made the trip four years later, eager to no longer be left lonely, only to die within a couple of months of arriving in Utah.

Sex changes - The Family Is of God

General authorities have a lot to say about the innate qualities of women and their divinely appointed role here on earth. What happens if we flip the sexes in what they have to say about the topic? Do we have a nonsensical statement because the logic is gender dependent, or do we end up with a statement that still agrees with LDS thought because gender is irrelevant?

Let's look at the special musical number from last night's General Women's Conference that opened up the session. It's called "The Family Is of God" and it came out in 2008 as an anti-Proposition 8 propaganda tool to be applied in LDS primaries across the United States (and now the world). It picks up on the gender assignments found in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World", so predictably switching the gender references in the song will look a bit like my previous post. Here it is:

1. Our Mother has a family. It’s me!

It’s you, all others too: we are Her children.

She sent each one of us to earth, through birth,

To live and learn here in fam’lies.

[Chorus]

God gave us families to help us become what She wants us to be—

This is how She shares Her love, for the fam’ly is of God.

2. A mother’s place is to preside, provide,

To love and teach the gospel to her children.

A mother leads in fam’ly prayer to share

Their love for Mother in Heaven.

[Chorus]

3. A father’s purpose is to care, prepare,

To nurture and to strengthen all his children.

He teaches children to obey, to pray,

To love and serve in the fam’ly.

[Chorus]

4. I’ll love and serve my family and be

A good example to each fam’ly member.

And when I am a dad or mom, so glad,

I’ll help my fam’ly remember:

[Chorus]

First off, changing "Our Father" to "Our Mother" gives LDS Mormons a big headache because the Church teaches next to nothing about Her. In fact, we don't know if it's a "Her" or a "Them" (every orthodox Mormon has to admit that Heavenly Father might be a polygamist). This possibility - that God has at one or more wives who are banished from showing their faces around their children - already screams sexism. On the positive side, changing "Our Father" to "Our Mother" somehow renders the song just that much more poignant and pleasing. I honestly prefer it.

As for the second verse, I say why the fuck not? Mothers can be just as good as managing people and earning money as father can. If that's where a mother's skill set lies, why not let her use and develop those skills? Denying women that opportunity based on their having a vagina is sexist and culturally damaging.

The third verse makes just as much sense as it did when it addressed mothers. What does that mean? That the gender reference is poorly conceived. There is no truth to be learned from it. What is should say instead is that the purpose of a "parent" is to care, etc. Then again, aren't we all supposed to be caring about and strengthening each other?

The only problem with the fourth verse is that it assumes every child will become a parent one day. That's not how it works. Some people never find a partner, some couples are infertile, other couples don't want children and other couples are simply too irresponsible to properly look after children (I have several relatives who fit this last category). The amazing thing about all of this is that the rest of the session was spent pointing out many of these very exceptions.

Where is the wisdom in memorizing and singing this song? Why should we bother teaching it to children when it's sexist and not logically sound? Why be part of the Church's knee-jerk reaction to homosexual marriage being legalized in California? We can think for ourselves.

Martha McBride Knight (Smith) Kimball - wife #17

Martha Knight (March 17, 1805 - November 20, 1901), wife of Vinson Knight, joined the Church with her husband in 1835, the year after meeting Joseph Smith. They moved with the saints to Ohio, Missouri, and in 1841 Nauvoo, where Vinson was appointed as one of the city's three bishops.

Joseph taught Vinson about plural marriage, and in 1842 Martha had gained a sister wife, a woman named Philinda Merrick. That same year Vinson took ill and died, and within a month Martha was married to Joseph.

Before Vinson's death he and Martha would have seven children together: Almira, Rizpah, Adaline, James, Nathaniel, Martha, and Rodolphus.

Joseph tried to set up Almira with his brother Hyrum, but Almira refused. Adaline, on the other hand, would end up in a polygamous marriage. Seeing Adaline's marriage troubles, Almira was always grateful to have avoided polygamy, not knowing that her mother had participated in three polygamous marriages.

Martha's third polygamous marriage was with Heber Kimball a few short months after Joseph's death. She had a child with him and moved to Utah with his harem, but lived most of her life there with relatives. Toward the end of her life she spoke of feeling homeless and lonesomeness.

I'm sure she had some say about what she wanted, but I get the feeling that Martha was a woman who was passed around as decisions were made for her. I hope she enjoys the eternities somehow despite being sealed to three questionable men.

Admissions

So the LDS Church has finally admitted that:

"None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham [...]. Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived [...]."

But the brethren really want you to doubt your doubts on this one and believe that the words really are magically from Abraham and not from Joseph Smith's ass.

We should all definitely pray about it.

Almera Woodward Johnson (Smith) Barton - wife #23

Almera Johnson (October 12, 1812 - March 4, 1896), Delcena's younger sister. Joseph Smith approached Benjamin Johnson, Almera and Delcena's brother, about plural marriage and marrying Almera at the beginning of April, 1843 during a stay with them in Macedonia, Illinois. Benjamin was shocked (apparently he had not yet found out about Delcena) but came around after hearing Joseph preach that same night about the parable of the talents.

Almera did not buy Benjamin's explanation when he nervously approached her, so Joseph had Benjamin bring her to Nauvoo, where Almera got a talking to from Joseph's brother and right hand man, Hyrum. Hyrum's endorsement tipped Almera over the edge. William Clayton married her to Joseph that same April.

Almera stayed at the Mansion House for three weeks before going back to Macedonia with Benjamin. Joseph would visit and sleep with her again there.

After Joseph's assassination Almera married Reuben Barton. They had five daughters, the third of which, Lois, was mentally impaired and cause of deep guilt for Almera, who felt she was being punished by God for marrying again.

Almera separated from Reuben in 1860. She died in Parawan, Utah.

Flora Ann Woodworth (Smith) Grove - wife #20

Joseph Smith's third teenaged bride was Flora Woodworth (November 14, 1826 - ca. 1850). The two met through Flora's father, Lucien, who was the architect of the Nauvoo House hotel. She was all of sixteen years old (and likely a virgin) when she married the prophet early in 1843.

William Clayton

Joseph seems to have been very excited about Flora and, according to William Clayton, met with her fairly regularly. He even gave her some bling: a gold watch.

The marriage complicated life for at least a few people. Emma found out about the relationship (no, she hadn't given her permission) and the gold watch, found Flora, bitched her out, and demanded the watch back. Joseph tried to reprimand her and got hell in return. Upon returning from a mission, Orange Wight, Flora's would be suitor, found out about the marriage and stopped his pursuit. He was nineteen.

Still not used to it, Emma?

After Joseph's assassination Flora married a non-member named Carlos Grove, with whom she had three children (but none with Joseph). She confessed to Helen Mar Kimball that marrying a non-member had caused regrettable ostracization in the Mormon community. The Groves tried to move out to Utah, but Flora died en route. She was in her mid-twenties.

Self-censorship

The third family of groupthink symptoms covers "Pressures toward uniformity". One of those pressures is the impulse to self-censor. "Ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus" are kept to oneself.

In the Mormon world fear of expressing a dissenting opinion comes from a few places, I'm sure. A few might fear the wrath of God, some might fear Church discipline, most seem to fear confrontation within the ward or branch, and all probably fear disapproval from family members.

Mormons don't want to appear to be out of touch with the Spirit, they don't want to be contentious, and they don't want to take heat for stepping out of line. So what do we do? We keep our iffy thoughts to ourselves and toe the line. At least when people are watching.

Polygamy - difficult tasks

The LDS Church's recent explanation of polygamy in Nauvoo makes it clear that God's pretty much a horrible communicator and very much a dick.

Although the Lord commanded the adoption—and later the cessation—of plural marriage in the latter days, He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment. [...] When God commands a difficult task, He sometimes sends additional messengers to encourage His people to obey. Consistent with this pattern, Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully.

Did you catch that? God couldn't be bothered to tell Joseph Smith what he was supposed to do exactly or why, but he was insistent enough that his prophet get with other women that he sent an angelic hit man to lean on him.

"Goddammit, Joe, you faithless fuckface, I'm gonna count the three!"

What kind of loving being would act like that? Why is that God's more than willing to lay out explicit instructions for communicating with him, ship building, tabernacle design, temple building, temple dealings and just about all aspects of our daily lives (including diet), but not for plural marriage and temple sealings?

Wait, what? He did give explicit instructions to Joseph on how to practice polygamy in 1843? Hm...

Elizabeth Davis Goldsmith Brackenbury Durfee (Smith) Lott - wife #12

Elizabeth Durfee (March 11, 1791 - December 16, 1876), Joseph Smith's twelfth wife, gives us yet another case of Joseph marrying a woman who "belonged" to another man. At the time of her marriage to Joseph she was still Jabez Durfee, her third husband following the death of her previous two.

The Durfee's moved to Nauvoo with their ten children (she had had children with both of her previous husbands and Jabez had a few of his own as well) in 1839. She married Joseph Smith in 1842. She was 51 and, like the Patty Sessions, who was also older than Joseph, became a polygamy recruiter. Elizabeth was not a virgin and did not bear Joseph any children. Emma didn't know about this marriage either.

Elizabeth and Jabez separated shortly after Joseph's death. She married again, this time to Cornelius Lott. In addition to finding a fifth husband, she got a sister wife through Cornelius' daughter Melissa, who was also married to Joseph.

Elizabeth never made it out to Utah. Instead she grew tired of the Brighamites and went back to Nauvoo, where she joined Emma and Joseph Smith III in the Reformed LDS Church (Community of Christ).

Marry the prophet! Marry the prophet! Don't disobey!

What, pray tell, is holy about Joseph Smith recruiting older women to help convince young women to marry him? How awful is it to have pressure from both the prophet and a few select older women of the community? Did Elizabeth know that Joseph was having sex with some of his wives or did she think this was all a spiritual thing?

Graven images

 As a missionary I loved accusing Catholics of worshiping idols. It made me feel so superior. Hadn't they read the Bible, or God's sake? It's very clear:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 

I think that means no statues of birds, or calves, or fish, or Satan, or prophets, or God, etc. Let's keep reading:

Yes.

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

I find it odd that God would feel so insecure about statues of stuff. Keep in mind he's not saying he feels self-conscious about how big a sculptor might make his nose or how small of a penis an artist might give him - he seriously just can't stand people using statues of any kind in worship. It doesn't seem to matter if the statue is nothing more than a vehicle to get people focused on God and his works. GOD FORBIDS ALL STATUES. 

Of course.

God's so touchy about this shit that he's totally willing to accuse users of statues of hating him and threatening their children. Yes, I know, he sounds like a asshole, but what I really want to point out here is that Mormons love their religious statues. 

Oh, that'd be perfect for the living room!

I reached a point where I had to doubt LDS adherence to Number Two of the Big Ten. That really sucked because it made criticizing Catholics so much harder.

 

Oh, my! Satan has such a strong hold on the World!

Heavenly fatherliness #1 - Sticking around

According to popular wisdom, a good father does not abandon his children.

Mormons like to think that God is always there watching and listening to you. He's never far away even though you might feel alone.

I say bullshit. We can make lists all day of people who claim to have seen god or to have been heard by God but let's be real here: there are no confirmed sightings in the history of humanity, just stories we have to accept on one's word.

Isn't it a little contradictory for us to say that God sent us here alone to test our faith and then claim that God's here too? We might not be banished eternally from Heaven like the evil third, but we are, according to the official story, not allowed back whenever we want. Is being banished all that different from being abandoned? God is very much out of the picture.

The evidence of abandonment is all too obvious if we look at the rampant suffering and chaotic nature of existence. Blame it on Satan if you want, but don't turn around and say God's in control. God's children suffer mercilessly and he is nowhere to be seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled.

If you were to walk onto some guys property and see his children starving, dying of sickness, naked, and killing each other, you'd think "holy shit, this jerk's the worst dad in the universe" and immediately call child services. 

*These attributes represent the popular thoughts of Ask Men’s Jullian Marcus, examiner.com’s Tanya Tringali, and Open Talk Magazine’s Glenn Silvestre as per their respective articles on what makes a good father.

Heavenly fatherliness #7 - Got your back

According to popular wisdom, a good father stands up for his children when needed.

Supposedly God's the Ultimate Sky Warrior and he can decimate anyone or anything he wants like, say, Egyptians or the Red Sea. He's the Ultimate Backup. Even if God isn't killing all your Egyptians with the most horrific tortures imaginable (like turning all water into blood, plaguing your enemies with boils, or killing their first born), believers will tell you that you had better side with God because in the end God will prevail against Satan and his evil hosts. So run and hide under God's warrior wing. It's your only chance at survival, or eternal life, or something like that. 

It will be so awesome and gratifying to see God destroy everyone who disagreed with you (and didn't repent), and you'll totally feel important and loved. Not only will you feel vindicated, you'll feel powerful!

Or not. Let's think about how this would play out in real life. How gratifying could it possibly be to have your dad stomp on over to that one person's house who, when you were in third grade and he was in fifth, called you and your friends insulting names, beat the crap out of you, and pissed in your lunchbox? What good is it going to do anyone at this point? After all these years, the only thing your dad should probably do about that injustice is sincerely apologize to you for not having gone to have a talk with the bully's parents the same day you came home with a black eye. What's the point in God waiting until the very end to exact justice? Is that a good disciplining tactic?

I sincerely hope that when we get to Heaven God takes some quality time with each of us to apologize for not being there when we needed Him. "Hey, um, remember that time you totally felt like shit and you had no one to turn to at all so you prayed to me and I didn't answer or anything? I'm sorry about that. And you know that time you prayed that I would protect you as you walked home late at night and you ended up getting mugged? That was my bad. I'm sorry."

"Now hang on," you might be thinking, "this is about God helping us keep the stuff we have, not protect our feelings or even our bones." That would be less appreciated by most, in my opinion, but at least it would be something. Unfortunately God's not so great at watching over our stuff either, not even the stuff we think he has explicitly given us.

Essentially every Sky Father religion out there has its persecution sob story. Why is that? Why hasn't God protected His children?

Heavenly Father is probably the worse dad in the universe when it comes to getting our backs, especially because he could turn on you at any moment either because you did something that offends him (e.g. wearing a cotton-poly blend) or because he just feels like you need a good old fashioned test (think of poor Job). Instead of getting your back, he might stab you in the back. It's pretty fucked up of Him.

*These attributes represent the popularized and popularizing thoughts of Ask Men’s Jullian Marcus, examiner.com’s Tanya Tringali, and Open Talk Magazine’s Glenn Silvestre as per their respective articles on what makes a good father.