Talking to God

I spent time as needed on this blog and it has done me a world of good. I have kept it mostly free of IRL(in-real-life) detail of many of certain family details. Now I get the word second hand that I need to quit mentioning them. Odd that I have gone back to March of last year in the archives and can find no IRL information at all of the ones who seem hurt/bothered/upset.

If you have an issue on a specific post then address me and not send messages to me by courier. It is called a cellphone for a reason.

Labels: family

I don't hate the sin and love the sinner. Want to know why. Two reasons. One is that it is a wishy washy way of hating someone and at the same time feeling morally superior to them. The other is that I now take the time to figure out if it really is a sin.

Love the sinner but hate the sin is most often used in the church when talking about gays. Well a simple statement. Since I don't want you to involve yourself in what I do in my bed.....on the livingroom floor, or in the car at the boat dock on a cool night with my lover, then why should it be okay for me to involve myself in what you do? I mainly don't give a damn. You're proposed and banned marriage will not hurt mine, so why should I not let you suffer the joys of marriage also?

The other is who defined sin? Most people would say God. Of course God only spoke through the bronze age equivalent of the white shirted brethren, so consider me skeptical on a lack of manipulation of the masses for power. Sort of like when God spoke on how big to make Joseph Smith's house. No manipulation there, just keep moving people.

I also cannot sit and watch the hatred of gays without saying "Go get fucked you hate mongering bastards". The stories of members throwing children out, disowning, shunning and church courts that would make the Marguee de Sade look like a girl scout cannot be over looked. I read online one time of a member telling how she was disowned because she was gay and it brought tears to my eyes.

I now stand here and say openly. Being gay is not a sin, the people who are gay are my brothers and sisters more then anyone I ever called brother and sister in any ward. The crime of being gay is not a crime, or a sin and we should allow them to suffer marriage as much as we do.

I consider the Proclamation on the family to be a soft happy way to express hate. I don't love the sinner and hate the sin. Calling them a sinner is an evil act of self righteousness. I love them man and women and am happy they have found love in this messed up world.

I cannot be part of this world view that being gay is bad. I simply cannot. Being gay means happy and I am in a gay mood.

Labels: family, Hatred, Joseph Smith, Mormon, Offended, postmo, PROCLAMATION ON THE FAMILY, religious leaders

My family enjoys something that I started about 2 years ago. I call it "Craft night". It happens every Friday unless someone is ill. We get together at Mom's house and we eat, talk, eat, talk, and sometimes even do crafts.

Tonight my wife got irritated with herself as she forgot her crotchet needles. She and my mom talked about Mom's work this week, her back, and whatever else came to mind. My brother and I sat there near them and filed on a new stock, forgrip, pistol grip as we rebuilt an assault rifle and talked about his work.

After the rifle was finished we drove in mom's car to Sonic and ate unhealthy food and gained a pound or two. Then after a retreat to home we listened to an hour of the audio book World War Z.

My wife and I are now at home, my rifle is up and she found the needles in the living room.

I get more uplifting from a weird craft night, and most are, then anything planned by the church to strengthen families. Families have become a product to deliver to the members, when it reality the family is something that grows independently of any plan, project, or church.

My side of our families is totally inactive and proud of it, and my wife's side is mostly active. My family would "help each other bury a body if need be" while my wife's family's regular sunday evening eat is only for the ones who go to church....That's not me.

Somehow I feel my family is stronger then hers by far. I wonder why.. Not really.

I prayed a few nights ago on the request of my lover (wife). she was sick and asked me to say a prayer for her. I laughed and said "okay...so Zues or Mithras? I'll need a chicken to do a proper one for Mithras." she chuckled and I held her sick flu ridden hand and said a small prayer. It fit no proper form laid out by the church so God likely did not hear it. I think it might have gone into his spam/bulk folder.

I started by simply saying "God. Normally poeple only come to you when in need or in joy" and said a few words asking for my wife to be looed after and comforted then ended it by simply saying "Amen".. Not "In the name of jesus Christ" because my knowledge of him is questionable.

It is the first time I have prayed in a long time and it was not to bad. I did not burst into flame, or have the happy fuzzy feeling of Moroni in my chest...or lower bowels.

It was odd. I prayed on her faith instead of mine.

just an odd moment.

Hypothetical question of course, but hear me out.

About two months ago I got a envelope in the mail from the local ward. My wife handed it to me and said "it's from the church and it's for you" I laughed and said I likely was going to be called as the first redneck apostate GA. I opened it and it was really for my wife...sort of.

It was the tithing statement for the year. My wife is no way a full tithe payer, and I have no trouble for the times that she does tithe..but what if I did?

The church sent it to me because I have a penis and am in charge of the house. What if I was an anti and a violent person and found out my wife was tithing my good beer money away against my wishes, or using household fund to tithe? That letter could have opened a can of woop-ass on her if I was a bad person..all becuase I have a penis.

Even though my name was on it, and first as a matter of fact, I simply gave it to her as it was for her and went back to reading, but does the church have any idea the possible dangers this can have? I know she only puts her name on the tithing slip as I saw her fill one out, but I should not be privy to this info unless she tells me.

I likely am over analyzing the whole letter. It just seems dangerous to send one person's personal info to another because of genitalia.

Labels: LDS, Mormon, tithe, Tithing

While it may seem that I have passed through the veil into the netherworld of one of the three levels of HALO three the afterlife as seen by the great stone viewer, the truth is that life is busy and I'm finding things in my head, thoughts and turmoils, that are making what should be a great time, only good.

I'm working on an epic longish work on what is in my head and will share it after I am more comfortable with what i am trying to say.

In what echoes like a Helen Mar Kimbell story.

"[He explained] the principle of Celestial marrage...After which he said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.[‘] This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.

A good old boy preacher from Atlanta promised that holding to his "rod" would give... well this is what the story says.

Former church employee Mona Brewer is suing Paulk, his brother and the church on allegations that Paulk manipulated her into an affair from 1989 to 2003 by telling her it was her only path to salvation. In a 2006 deposition stemming from the lawsuit, the archbishop said under oath that the only woman he had ever had sex with outside of his marriage was Brewer.

Of course it turns out that he also fathered his brothers son, so there was a lot of "holding to the rod" work going on there.

J. smith would have been so proud.

Labels: horny dog, Joseph Smith, religious leaders. hold to the rod

I have never quite understood the doctrinal issues the church has with this song. I asked a bishop why it was not in a hymnal, and he simply said that there was doctrinal issues. A lovely song with a history you can wrap yourself in, and feel a depth to the words that other songs do not have. I feel the church is missing out on much when they do not allow this song to be added to the hymnal.

"Amazing Grace" is a well-known Christian hymn. The words were written late in 1772 by Englishman John Newton. They first appeared in print in Newton's Olney Hymns (1779), which he worked on with William Cowper
......
Newton's lyrics have become a favorite for Christians, largely because the hymn vividly and briefly sums up the doctrine of divine grace. The lyrics are based on I Chronicles 17:16-17, a prayer of King David in which he marvels at God's choosing him and his house. Newton apparently wrote this for use in a sermon he preached on this passage on New Year's Day 1773, and for which he left his sermon notes, which correspond to the flow of the lyrics[2]. (He entitled the piece "Faith's review and expectation.")

The song has also become known as a favorite with supporters of freedom and human rights, both Christian and non-Christian, in part because many assume it to be his testimony about his slave trading past. The song has been sung by many notable musical performers, including iconic folk singer Judy Collins.

Of course Judy Collins version is the best ever.

Labels: church, LDS, Mormon, New Order Mormons, nomo's, postmo, transition

Postmormon.org is a truly great site to visit, and I love some of the wisdom tidbits you can gain there. This one put an enlightened smile on my face a few minutes ago.

Periodically, we have Family Home Evening with our neighbors and fellow Post-mo's, the TJohnson family. Monday night, we were sitting around the kitchen table and they were talking about a Carl Sagan book (the title of which I didn't catch), and they shared with us one of Sagan's observations. It was one of those moments where you sit there slack-jawed for a moment, because you can't believe you never thought of that before...sort of like when someone first suggested that in geologic strata, the layers on the bottom are older than those on the top (most of the time--I'm a geologist, I know the exceptions...).

Sagan's observation, which I assume he must have called something like "The Law of Religious Proximity" is simply this: Whenever anyone throughout history and across the world has a moving, spiritual experience confirming the truthfullness of a religious paradigm or practice, it is ALWAYS a PROXIMATE religion...either predominant where they live, or the one they happened to be studying, and NEVER one with which they are not familiar.

Nobody ever sat down to pray about Mormonism, rose to their feet having had a vision of Vishnu and wandered off to become a hindu holy man. Nobody ever prayed for confirmation that Muhammed got it right, and instead got the message that Joseph Smith was the one who got it right. Nobody seeking enlightenment in Japan in a meditative pose got up from their zafu having seen a vision of Jesus. Nobody praying to the Virgin de Guadalupe for loving guidance ever left the shrine with a devotion to the Tao.

And yet, there is fundamentally no difference in the power or resultant conviction in any of those spiritual confirmations that people, all over the world, in their respective spiritual traditins, receive.

How obvious can it be, and yet, how profound are the implications?

"I have seen the light, and it just happens to be the same one I was looking at." How meaningful is THAT?

All I can say is "Hail Vishnu" and enjoy gaining knowledge like this.

Labels: church, LDS, love, Mormon, postmo, postmormon.org

I have a tattoo on my right arm. I got it for my birthday earlier this year. Now I'm one who works things out in my head a longtime, so this tattoo was not spur of the moment, or dumb. It represents a part of me and my view of the world, and my place in it.

At first glance it looks simple. Four squares, each a bit over an inch and a half. Three colored in and one empty. The outline is black and the three colors are red, blue, and green.

They each symbolize a statement. Not just political, but about my individualistic view of the world.

Box one is reddish wood colored. It represents a wooden box. Specifically a soap box. A term used throughout time to mean free speech. The ability to stand on a box and say "I am a free person", and "you will not control my free speech". A fundamental basis of freedom through time.

The second box is blue. Ballot boxes were traditionally blue. The ability to vote. It symbolizes my right to choose who represents me and the ability to vote for our leaders. Also a fundamental right.

The third box is green. If you have ever seen an ammo box you know they are green. The right to protect myself, and if needed to remove tyrants if they attempt to usurp your other rights. The right to keep and bear arms was the second one mentioned in the bill of rights.

Now the fourth one is different. It's empty. When asked by people what it represents I make a bold, yet simple statement.

"It's the empty box I'll put the dead body in and bury in the woods of any fucker who tries to take the first three boxes away from me"

I'm a libertarian, and have been for a long time. On my shoulder I have had added for time and eternity a sign that I will never believe in "being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" when those laws are wrong and evil.

My tattoo says a lot about me, and where I am in this world.

Labels: me