I hated the Mormon church. In turn, it changed my life for the better

Back when I was an Evvie, it took me a year and a half to have a firm grasp of Mormonism. Its history, its belief system; how it's supported, why that it doesn't work. I was at my prime in a year and a half, and it was time. I sent a Facebook msg to a Mormon friend who was on a mission.

You know the Evvie drill: time to save a soul. Which was bullshit, I wanted revenge against the institution.

Who hasn't? There's no pretending that the main reason embittered people (read: mostly those with a big conflict with the church) like Mormonism is because we're virtuous and just "find it fascinating." I find psychology fascinating because it sometimes evidences that beliefs err on the delusional side. Not afraid to admit it.

What I am afraid to admit is that because of the church, I've become a better person.

Why? Because I shared my bitterness in the form of hatred for over two years?

Yes. That is entirely why I'm a better person.

Because from my bitterness, from my hatred for every logical delusion buried in the mind of a Mormon and because of what it meant for my life, I found my own logic to be delusional.

What makes the Bible any better than the BoM? And I don't mean qualitatively better. I mean what puts the Bible above the BoM in any logical sense?

I became a Universalist. I questioned my beliefs on Hell. I questioned my beliefs on gay marriage. I questioned the value of religion itself.

And not in a sense that religion is without value. I questioned it in a sense that Christianity is the only religion with "True" value, and everything else is "an abomination unto the Lord" (a founding Mormon concept that, honestly, Evvies like I once was believe just as wholeheartedly).

One year ago today, I sent that missionary my "I'd like to discuss some questions I have" message. And just yesterday,I had my discussion with that Mormon friend of mine. Met him at the local Mormon Institute, the only place I can currently see the girl who loves me (and I, her; for the past three years of god-dammmit-why-the-hell-is-there-a-temple-sealing pain).

I shared with him my experiences with Mormonism. An Evvie upbringing, a dance with Mormon criticism, a sudden insight from personal reflection, my Universalist upheaval...

and how I visited him today to share that I no longer think his religion is something I wish to deprive him of.

I was honest with him. I still disagree with some of the Mormon moral beliefs.

But I was also honest with myself:

Though I find Mormonism entirely false, with unjustifiable moral issues strengthened by (come on, guys) "spiritual" methods of fact-finding, I find that I can't still devote my time to defaming his beliefs.

I've found other things to do in my godless life that are meaningful and filled with a grand purpose. And they involve finding a way to get a long with the group of people I hold more contention for than any. other. group.

Throwing away my Christian beliefs--throwing away my selfish, Christian beliefs--I find that I can finally do as Christ commanded.

The most simple, remorseless command of all: to love thy neighbor.

And even, after all the pain and tears from a needlessly ended, Shakespearean of a three-year relationship...

to love my greatest enemy.

And that's how--after years of bitterness, hatred, and anger--I can say what, for years, I have found unthinkable:

Mormonism has changed my life.

And it has changed it for the better.

Israeli Research and Deutero-Isaiah

The header for an article published earlier today reads: "An Israeli algorithm sheds light on the Bible"; and yes, it's about the great author-attribution debate of the Bible. The researchers have had quite some success matching today's traditional scholars' views on who wrote what parts of the Bible using a computer-run algorithm of sorts, "'effectively recreating years of work by multiple scholars in minute,' said Moshe Koppel of Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv, the computer science professor who headed the research team."

But what's weird and annoying and frustrating and WRONG is that it makes NO MENTION of Deutero-Isaiah. None!!

Ha, just kidding. The research supported Deutero-Isaiah:
"Similarly, the book of Isaiah is largely thought to have been written by two distinct authors, with the second author taking over after Chapter 39. The software's results agreed that the book might have two authors, but suggested the second author's section actually began six chapters earlier, in Chapter 33."

Google search "Deutero-Isaiah USU Shaft" if you're unfamiliar with the Mormon-critical implications.

But how credible is this method?

"Before applying the software to the Pentateuch and other books of the Bible, the researchers first needed a more objective test to prove the algorithm could correctly distinguish one author from another.

So they randomly jumbled the Hebrew Bible's books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah into one text and ran the software. It sorted the mixed-up text into its component parts "almost perfectly," the researchers announced."

Also, it's an extremely solid match with current scholars:
"When the new software was run on the Pentateuch, it found the same division, separating the "priestly" and "non-priestly" [authors]. It matched up with the traditional academic division at a rate of 90 percent...said Moshe Koppel of Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv, the computer science professor who headed the research team."

I wait in somewhat-indifferent patience for Maxwell's response. Indifference, because seriously. If you are this far in the Mormon debate, you've either lost faith already or shelved half the information out there.

And patience, because who gives a damn? I'd rather hear a Maxwell statement that says something along the lines of "Mormon church changes morals concerning gay marriage, and here's why that's just goddamn fine," or any of the other outdated values they have (definitely not all of them are).

But if you're still pissed off at the church for violating you into a living Hell, and knowing how false they are isn't much help: just say hasa diga Eebowai! (from The Book of Mormon musical). But only in an ironic/satirical way. If that's not possible, then in your head.

Or on the rooftops.

I'd understand (unlike your neighbors).

Also, the Church could be true. But only if God's on their side.
Standard Mormon/non-Mormon caveats apply.

Have fun. I promise not to get this off-topic from the original post again.

And Paul Revere rang the bell to...warn the British!

Sarah Palin.

Did I say enough by stating her name? No more context than the title, her name, nothing more, and you know exactly what just happened in the world of Momma Grizzly?

Someone, tell me you can piece those two things together and have this wonderful 20/20 vision into what this article about Sarah Palin and Paul Revere is about: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/06/sarah-palin-paul-revere-midnight-ride-/1.

This one is deserving of kuri's "The stupid, it burns!" posts. beat ya to it, mate!

Coffee helps prevent prostate cancer

If you haven't heard, then check out the article covering the study: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/17/coffee.prostate.cancer/index.html.

So why is this a post and not a cool Stumbledupon link at the side of my blog?

Because, accd. to the article, "drinking six or more cups of coffee per day can lower a man's risk of fatal prostate cancer by up to 60 percent."

Sure, it's just an association. I'm no sucker for correlations.

But I like coffee anyways, so I'm at least going to psych myself into thinking this works (for a combined coffee + quasi-placebo effect).

Thank you, coffee.

And finally, Word of Wisdom correlated to prostate cancer? just saying.

That is all.

(Also, now that I have time, I'll get started on the NT challenge soon. But not too soon, because vacation is coming up. And I'm suffering from what I call Agnostic Apathy, though I'm still really interested in breaking down the BoM into separate parts through a program and etc.)

The "Deep South" Response to Obama's speech

"I don't know why he's taking any credit, Obama was wanting to take troops out of Afghanistan! We never would've found him."

Ahhh...

"How much did he meet with the Joint Chief of Staff? And the commander in Afghanistan? Only once, and a long time ago. He deserves no credit."

Dear Jesus...

"Obama sure can pronounce those Muslim words pretty well. Hmmm."

Mmmm......

And then, a birther showed up.

She said: "I'm going to do what I always do when presented with facts: deny them."

Oops, misquoted a bit there.


Anyways. GO AMERICA!!! (and did anyone else catch how Adolph Hitler's death was announced in 1945 on the same day too? Wow.)

The Book of Mormon's New Testament plagiarism challenge!

When I first started this blog, I felt like most of the posts would be from comments I've left on other blogs.

Ironically, I think this is the first one.

Anyways, I'm sure you're familiar with the claim that the BoM plagiarizes from the Bible. More importantly, it contains KJV-styled NT verses in the BoM's OT times.

I brought this up in a debate against someone in Mormanity (viewable here; started with the post's topic being "Amlicites = Amalekites and Joseph = Translator, Not Author" and me presenting evidences that challenge the claim that Smith was a translator and not an author (where do we even begin on that one, I know)).

So aside from the other evidences of authorship I mentioned, I definitely included NT plagiarism in OT times. For support, I gave three quick and thorough citations of plagiarism.

In response, I was given a challenge:
CF:"You discovered a total of three verses in the BoM out of 6,604 which you claim were plagarized and you make the ridiculous assertion that your argument holds weight.

If you can show me a meager 10 percent of pre-3 Nephi text was copied, I'll admit you have a point. That's just 660 verses. If you cannot even do that, we'll call your claim debunked. Sound fair?"

Oh buddy. It was time to flex my critical thinking skills a bit, and I'm kinda proud of myself.

My reply:
"To be specific, I showed three verses that were repeated almost word-for-word from a KJV New Testament that appeared in pre-NT times in the BoM, and significantly so.

I'm going to call you out on the cop-out here. This is an obvious attempt to avoid having to answer why almost exact copies of NT verses appear in OT times in the BoM.

But you're right on one point: if Smith plagiarized, he surely did it more than just three times.

I can find you more plagiarized verses, no prob. but 10%? Let's fix something first: there are significant portions of Isaiah included in your number that needs to be subtracted.

There are also verses that just carry on the story and don't need to be plagiarized from the NT (we'll call them storyline verses. Ex: nearly all of Omni and Words of Mormon, and verses that go along the styles in there).

Why not storyline verses? Because they don't hold much (if any) theological substance. NT verses do, however. And we could agree that the majority of NT verses do, because aside from some parts the Gospels and Acts, the topics these books cover are almost purely theological (and correct me if I'm wrong). And considering that Smith wouldn't want to copy the storyline of the NT into the BoM (save for the visitation of Christ), it's safe to assume that he would only plagiarize from the NT when a line about theology was needed.

I think the best places to find NT verses will be in expositions of what God is saying, what Nephi says to himself, and really anything involving dialogue/monologue or interpretations of spiritual experiences (dreams, for instance).

Also, I would subtract any verses that are copied from the OT. That's mostly Isaiah, but I'm sure there are others.

And really, those are the only places we should expect NT verses in the OT times of the BoM to be in.

So in regards to your challenge, how bout we do this: agree on the number of verses that contain theological substance rather than just pure storyline, subtract verses that already come from the OT, and I'll bump the number of verses I need to find to 15% of the new number.

Then I think we could both properly see how much weight this argument holds.

If I lose, I'll shut up about NT plagiarism in OT times. If I win, then my argument holds substance. I'll be honorable and mention when I think a verse is somewhat disputable.

Agreed?"


I'll let you know the results. I'm really eager to do this.

EDIT: to add to the utility of this challenge, I'm going to try and catch the theological points being made as well. It'd be interesting to see what the BoM is trying to say from a theological standpoint and how much it agrees or disagrees with the NT (ha, maybe I should leave out disagreement in case the Evvies attack..).

Brief moment of insight

Quick thought on why people discount atheists on the spot.

I mean, I'm sure people like me, who are debating a theist in some random blog somewhere, worry about mentioning this in an argument because, all of a sudden, the other side will think you're starting out with these preconceptions that all religion is false (and then you build all of your opinions from there).

But what about those of us who reached that conclusion rather than started out with it? Atheism was an end, not a means to an end. And still isn't (for me, at least).

I have no idea how to counter this, but after reading a comment on facebook to someone's irreligious status, I began to think.

Do people judge atheists this way because they, themselves, start out with a preconception about their religion and form opinions from there?*



(*disclaimer: probably happens everywhere.)