Boyd Packer criticized

I have to admit, Boyd was committed. He spent 45 years as an apostle of the LDS Church, and don't think that the majority of the other 45 weren't spent serving the Church. He fought hard for the absurd. He probably even believed it.

Unfortunately for Boyd and his family, what he will be remembered for is all the bullshit he said. No, I'm not talking about all the times he bore his testimony of Jesus as the Savior or Satan as the Enemy, but we should careful not to give too much credit to that drivel either. What I'm talking about are his tirades against masturbation, homosexuality, feminism, objective history and intellectual pursuits.

The man wanted to suppress sexuality, women, historical facts and knowledge of the real world. What kind of deranged man claims to stand for truth and then discourages anyone from making  hard, honest inquiries into the motivations behind human behavior, ways to advance social justice, gaining a clearer understanding of our past, and trying to better understand how the world works in general?

He was a very loud Mormon voice on the wrong side of just about everything, and neither memory or history is kind to voices like that.

I believe the world is a slightly better place without Boyd K. Packer. I know that's not an especially kind thing to say. I know his family will miss him dearly. But while the vast majority of the world's population won't even realize he's gone, a whole lot of us - believers and non - will be crossing our fingers that the apostle who takes his place will not be so arrogant and dogmatic as Boyd was.

"United to persecute me"

 

"Soun's like bullshit, son. I'm gonna go excite the public mind agains' ya!"

Why, oh why did Joseph not say anything about being persecuted until many years after his First Vision? Why, oh why did no one in Joseph Smith's family (or anyone else, for that matter) talk about Joseph suffering persecution at the hand of the community?

It looks to me like Joseph, in an effort to turn himself into a new Paul, concocted a narrative of persecution for his followers to latch onto. A little pathos goes a long way. (Maybe he was persecuted but it wasn't quite as bad as he later made it out to be.)

But why worry about the early persecution at all? How does persecution logically indicate you're right about anything? Answer: because Satan.

Polygamy - unscrupulous seduction

The recent explanation of how the LDS Church got involved in polygamy mentions that:

A few men unscrupulously used these rumors [of Joseph Smith marrying multiple women] to seduce women to join them in an unauthorized practice sometimes referred to as “spiritual wifery.” When this was discovered, the men were cut off from the Church.

Couldn't this also apply to Joseph? His version might look something like this:

Joseph Smith unscrupulously used his prophetic authority and a story about being threatened by an angel to seduce women to join him in an unauthorized practice sometimes called "celestial marriage." When this was discovered, he was cut down by critics and eventually a violent mob.

History is written by the winners.

Neil Andersen criticized

For any of you who have ever doubted Joseph Smith because of something you've read online or from uncorrelated material, please read or listen to Neil Andersen's recent Conference talk. His strategy of quoting Joseph Smith about himself, reading a crazy-ass quote from John Taylor and offering up brainwashy methods of "gaining a testimony" should be enough to make you wonder if he's sincerely illogical or carefully hiding something. I can't help but think that his talk will ultimately do more harm to members' testimonies than he could possibly imagine. (And he's showing much love when he categorizes dissenters as Judases.)

Why will it harm members' testimonies? Because, as in the case of the Church's anti-science stance, Neil's argument requires that you reject study (as least anything you study that the Church won't like) and favor ignorance instead. In this case instead of repeating "I don't know" to ourselves we're supposed to repeat Joseph's false history to ourselves until we believe it. A testimony like that can only be protected by plugging your ears and shutting off your critical thinking.

The "M" word

I have to admit I get annoyed whenever I see Mormons become defensive over the use of the word "Mormon". You see comments pop up like "That's not the name of the Church!" "Why don't you do your research!" or "It's just a nickname btw!" Getting the name of the Church wrong or referring to its members incorrectly means everything that uninformed individual said is incorrect and probably anti-Mormon. Never mind that latter-day saints do in fact refer to the Church as the "Mormon Church" and don't colloquially refer to members of the Church as saints. They only very rarely refer to members as saints and when they do it's typically heard in the expression "the early saints" which is kind of weird considering that those "early" folks were pretty sure they were all latter-day and shit.

Members of the LDS Church call themselves Mormons, I promise. We can say "Mormon" but everyone else had better mind the "M" word! But I have to admit that as an active member I definitely thought it was a smart move when the LDS Church started insisting more and more that people use its official name. (Although I also thought it would have made more sense had they  emphasized that they had wanted to be called the Church of Jesus Christ, not the LDS Church, but whatever.)

Who cares? What's the big deal? All groups have insider-outsider language, right?

Probably, yes. What I found (and still find) disturbing, however, is the way in which Mormons look for tiny mistakes in the things outsiders say in order to dismiss their arguments while going to great lengths to dismiss or ignore mistakes and inconsistencies made by their leaders. The tradition goes all the way back to Joseph Smith (but I don't believe Tom's had the same kind of slip ups as Gordon).

Jesus warned against this scenario (if you're into Jesus).

Why is this OK? Why do the prophets get a free pass on bad information while everyone else gets hosed for simple and often superficial mistakes?

It's not hero worship, Fiona!

It seems Henry had some words for the Fiona Givens this past Sunday.

Our white knights serving and protecting.

Don’t take lightly the feeling you get of love for the prophet of God. Wherever I go in the Church, whoever the prophet is at the time, members will ask, “When you get back to Church headquarters, will you please tell the prophet how much we love him?” That is far more than hero worship or the feelings we sometimes have of admiring heroic figures. It is a gift from God.

I don't understand what Henry's saying here. I don't. What I think is happening hear is Henry's trying to correct the Church's best selling authors Terryl and Fiona Givens. He doesn't explain at all how he understands hero worship, what he thinks it means, what examples of it might be, whether or not it has a place in the LDS Church, etc., but, as you may know, Fiona is very concerned about the way Mormons revere their leaders. It doesn't seem Henry has any idea what she means by the term "hero worship". But who cares? Since when did prophets and apostles have to understand the lowly member? All they have to understand are the ways of God and all we have to understand is that love for the them is a gift from God (probably because the vast majority of Church members have never met them and never heard them speak outside of the context of the Church and they have no basis for their affection of these leaders), which must be good because God only gives really awesome gifts. 

Tom Monson criticized

The first teachings that come to mind when I reflect on the messages of the current LDS prophet, Thomas Monson, have to do with being present in others' times of need and carefully attending to the duties of service. I don't find much fault in any of that. I think it would be wonderful if we all tried to pay more attention to others and offer whatever assistance we are capable of.

But Tommy's also said plenty of bullshit. Here's an example that fits nicely within the general scope of this blog:

Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other.

Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: “I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it.”

May you ever frame your life with faith.

Did you catch all of that? The appeal to tribalism? The denigration of agnosticism? The plea to stop thinking critically about natural history, scripture and Church history? The encouraged distrust in science? This is God's message to us today? This is what he wants to tell the world? Not a fucking chance.

Take the time to doubt brother Tommy, dear brothers and sisters, if only for a day or two.

Henry Eyring criticized

I like Henry. He seems like a pretty nice guy, and not because he's the most teary-eyed of the GAs. I only have one criticism specific to him - I wish he'd shut the hell up about his father the Mormon badass chemist.

Note to Henry B:

Henry, listen, you're dad was quite a guy, but here's your problem: you conflate your father's authority in science with his lack of authority with regards to spiritual realities. In other words, just because you're dad was a good scientist and a devout believer doesn't give his belief the same weight of his scientific research. No more of this "Hey, my dad was smart and still believed, so it must be true" bullshit. Listen, you've got a BS in physics and you're a fucking apostle of the big JC. Put it all together for us. Show us how it works in more than a mere 100 pages that essentially say "Embrace the mystery!"

Thank you.
Be well.
Abe

Direct pressure

 
When it comes to "direct pressure to conform", Mormons have an arsenal of pressures and a wide range of pressure points to work with. Members who question the Church will certainly feel it from believing family and they might get called in to talk with the bishop, who will likely send out a request that home and visiting teachers make a greater effort. Every word and every action gets evaluated constantly in order to understand one's strength of loyalty to the Work.

Nowadays every minute spend in church, every lesson-oriented visit, every Ensign article, every second of General Conference feels like direct pressure. 

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.

Stereotyping

 
The other half of "Closed-mindedness" takes the form of "stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid".

This sounds a lot like the top 5 myths that circulate when someone leaves the LDS Church.

All of the standard assumptions about why someone would leave Mormonism denigrate the doubter's character. Being easily offended shows weakness of character. Desiring to sin means you're evil, or weak when faced with temptation. Accusing someone of never having a real testimony is like calling him a tenderfoot or a faker. Calling someone lazy is just another way of calling them weak. Pinning everything on anti-Mormon arguments suggests the person who decided to listen to those arguments was being stupid and succumbing to those arguments is evidence of one's powerlessness when it comes to controlling his or her thoughts. The general approach within Mormonism tends towards belittling the doubter.

Thank goodness John Dehlin and people like him have been making extensive efforts to dispel these styrotypes.

Rationalizing warnings

The second set of groupthink symptoms fall under "Closed-mindedness". This involves "rationalizing warnings that might challenge the group's assumptions". 

This entire blog is about how I and others rationalized warnings. For a time I rationalized every problem I encountered with LDS doctrine and tried to keep confrontation at bay for as long as possible. The Church just had to be true. Had to. 

The message was, and still is: don't worry about it now! All questions will be answered after death. All problems solved. All doubts resolved. Believe on.

Jeff Holland criticized

I'm no fan of Jeffrey R. Holland. I don't like him at all. When he first became an apostle I thought he was the shit, but I've changed my mind. I think he's a big boob. A big mean boob.

Why would I think such a horrible thing of such a wonderful man? Because I've finally seen his dirty, heartless ways.

A couple of excellent examples of Jeff's misbehavior have actually been caught on tape. Take a look at his horrible (but impassioned and blubberly) defense of The Book of Mormon he gave in General Conference a few years ago. He weaves, dodges, deflects, assumes, accuses, and cries. It just doesn't feel right to me.

What's even more obviously ugly is his behavior in this interview:

My favorite part comes at the end when Jeff gets so flustered and defensive he reverts to the logic of "Hey, hey, hey! I'm smart, I went to Yale, therefore I'm smart, therefore my belief is smart! I win!"

The part where he plays dumb about the Strengthening Church Members Committee is also pretty good.

If it seems like he has a hard time being open and honest, you're probably right. He had the same problem when his good friend Tom Phillips sought him out for help regarding the sticky issues of Mormonism.

Is this the type of man we want teaching us about right and wrong and making decisions for us? I doubt it.

10 Bible Facts by Robert Price

Here's a fairly decent podcast featuring Bible scholar Robert Price debunking ten common misunderstandings about the Bible. Enjoy.

Heavenly fatherliness #19 - Criticism

According to popular wisdom, a good father restrains criticism.

Does God restrain his criticism? Totally. Just ponder for one moment how many criticisms a Perfect Being could slam us with if he wanted. 

Not that he doesn't tell us we're total shit from time to time. We are base and fallen, prone to disobey. We are, in effect, naughty by nature. Unworthy. What harsher criticism can you possibly imagine? 

"Kids, you're all total nasty fuck-faced shits who can't do anything I tell you to do right, but I love you like hell."

Thanks, Dad! We love you, too!

*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.