Atheists are the whore of the earth

Thank you, Elder Oaks, for telling my friends and family in your recent article in the March 2015 Ensign, that I belong to the great and abominable church, whose founder is the devil, the whore of all the Earth. Over the last six months, my faith in God has waned thin, and I have come to believe that he probably does not exist. Losing my faith has not been an easy transition. I know it's been sad for many of my family members as they worry about the welfare of my and my family members' souls. I am sorry for that. I didn’t plan for this to happen. It's also hard for me to know people think I am "fallen". I also apologize if this post will cause further distress. Since Elder Oaks is directly painting my newfound beliefs in association with the devil, I feel compelled to respond and bring to light the implications of his article. His article will directly affect my life by encouraging my family and friends to associate me with the devil. I want to draw attention to what Elder Oaks is doing and let his words and name calling stand in the open.

It upsets me that Elder oaks is driving a wedge into me and my family's wounds by associating me with the devil, the great and abominable church, and the whore of the Earth. As I lean towards de facto atheism, Elder Oaks also says that I belong to an organization seeking to bring the saints into captivity. I used to hope that the church was distancing itself from such abusive and harmful rhetoric, but I don’t know if it ever will. I’ve always remembered how Neil Anderson compared Ex Mormons to Judas Iscariot, and now Elder Oaks is saying my new beliefs are from the devil, the mother of abominations and great whore of the Earth. It seems to me like he is sort of playing the nazi card. It really bugs me because many people who leave Mormonism lean towards atheism. I understand that members of the church will be encouraged to disagree with atheism, but I don't see how it's helpful to encourage members to think that their atheist friends, family, or acquaintances are part of the devil's great and abominable church. All of the nasty baggage associated with the devil is passed along to atheists when an association between the two is made. I don’t see any charity in creating this association, especially any charity worthy of someone who declares themselves to be an apostle of Jesus Christ.

Somebody asked me why an atheist would be upset that someone says they are following the devil, since atheists don't even believe in the devil. Simply put, this is because the devil represents evil, even if he isn't real. Imagine the most evil, villainous characters from books or movies. Then, imagine somebody says you are a follower of this villain. That you're a follower of Lord Voldemort, of Count Dracula, of Hannibal Lector, etc. Does the fact that you don't believe this villain is real alter the reality of the insult itself? Furthermore, imagine that this villain is widely believed by millions of people, including your friends and family, to be real. Not only do they believe he is real, but they believe he has real power to influence people to do evil things. They believe that this villain has influenced real people like Hitler and other liars and cheats and murderers to do evil. They believe that all that is good comes from God and all that is evil comes from the devil (Moroni 7:12). Now, imagine that your family and friends are told that you are a follower of this villain. One need not read between the lines to grasp the direct implication that you will be influenced by this villain to do evil. This imaginary scenario is not imaginary; it's what is happening with Elder Oak's article.

I almost find it comical that he uses this language in the same article where he encourages Mormons to contend for the free exercise of religion. On the one hand, Elder Oaks vilifies atheists, saying that their philosophy is of the devil and is the mother of abominations, but on the other hand he tries to cover his tail by saying, “we should not seem to deny that our nations include and are blessed by citizens of Jewish, Muslim, and other non-Christian persuasions, as well as by atheists.” I don’t think you can very successfully argue and advocate for tolerance when you are also telling people that they are of the devil. It seems counter productive to say that atheists can bless our country while also saying that they are following the devil.

If a religion or philosophy causes or is believed to cause harm, then I fully support a dialogue that explores this. It's important to me that we as a society move towards peace and happiness and do away with anything hurtful or harmful, if at all possible. If Elder Oaks thinks atheism is harmful, I welcome an explanation of why it is harmful. I don't think proclaiming that atheism is the devil's church contributes to this dialogue or explains why atheism is harmful; rather, this in itself seems like harmful name calling.

A little background and some more specifics of Elder Oak’s article:

The Book of Mormon speaks of a great and abominable church in 1 Nephi 13: 4-26

In those verses, the Book of Mormon seems to describe the great and abominable church in a historical setting, in a timeline that specifically precedes Christopher Columbus but comes after Jesus and his 12 apostles died. It also describes this church altering the Bible. Thus, the great and abominable church has often been associated with Catholicism. This isn’t very politically correct, so the church has moved away from this interpretation over the last 30-40 years.

1 Nephi 14:10 (a scripture that Elder Oak's references in his article) adds some more imagery, and also a bit of leeway when describing who exactly this church is:

 10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth."  (Emphasis added)

Elder Oaks references this scripture and expounds on it, saying:

“Book of Mormon prophecies describe the “great and abominable church of all the earth, whose founder is the devil” (1 Nephi 14:17). This “church” is prophesied to have “dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people” (1 Nephi 14:11). Called “most abominable above all other churches,” this church is also said to act “for the praise of the world” in bringing “the saints of God … down into captivity” (1 Nephi 13:5, 9).

Because no religious denomination—Christian or non-Christian—has ever had “dominion” over all nations of the earth or the potential to bring all the saints of God down into “captivity,” this great and abominable church must be something far more pervasive and widespread than a single “church,” as we understand that term today. It must be any philosophy or organization that opposes belief in God. And the “captivity” into which this “church” seeks to bring the saints will not be so much physical confinement as the captivity of false ideas.

Nephi was told by revelation that there were only “two churches”: “the church of the Lamb of God” and “the church of the devil” (1 Nephi 14:10; see also 13:4–6). This description suggests the contrast between those who believe in God and seek to serve Him according to their best understanding and those who reject the existence of God (see 1 Nephi 14:10).” (Emphasis added)

It’s not politically correct to call Catholics the whore of the earth anymore, but Elder Oaks has no problem giving this title to atheists in the same article where he laments religion not being more politically acceptable. A cynical point of view is that Elder Oaks is lamenting losing the battle on social issues and is trying to garner support from other churches. To try and gain this support, perhaps he is trying to change historical interpretations of the Book of Mormon and find common cause with other churches. If he can't take the abusive language out of the Book of Mormon, maybe he can change the direction of it and then use it to rally other churches to his cause against a common enemy (atheists?).

Keep in mind this wasn't Elder Oaks shooting from the hip. This is a well-crafted essay that got through the correlation committee and was published in the Ensign. It's not doctrine, of course, but it sure seems like the church itself thinks it's politically acceptable to label atheists as being of the great and abominable church, and linking to a scripture that describes it as the whore of the earth. I hope the days are ending when a church can say stuff like this and get away with it. I also wonder if this name calling is not producing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Declaring atheists as the great and abominable church that will seek to bring the church into captivity seems like one of many unnecessary jabs at a hornet’s nest.


EDIT:

I don't want this to imply that the love family and friends have for me is shallow and/or easily influenced. In fact, I believe Elder Oaks could single me out by name and call me evil, and those who I love who love me back would not be swayed. Regardless, I regret that the family and friends I love dear are being encouraged to think of me as part of the devil's abominable church. I hope that this vilification does not continue, and will not force my family and friends to choose between viewing me as a good, not evil person, and choosing to believe whole heartedly in the words of their religious leader.

Ward Mission Plan

I was released from being an Elder's Quorum instructor and called to first be a ward missionary, then as the assistant ward mission leader. I'm not the most social person by nature but I can still be engaging if necessary, especially one on one. I can also be very organized. I think this means I have the tools to do a good job, and this calling is forcing me out of my shell. I think it's a good thing. It's nice to have a more active calling where I'm actually doing stuff and going out with the missionaries and coordinating things to get done, not just teaching theory on Sundays. It's a change of pace.

We've been working on a new ward mission plan. We fasted and prayed as a ward council to come up with it, and this is what we got:

I think we were all pleased with the result. Hopefully it helps the ward.

FHE with young kids #21 -- Missionary pictures

I'm the assistant ward mission leader now. Yesterday I did a third hour presentation on the new ward mission plan. For FHE we encouraged the ward to go over the plan and set some personal goals. We really ended up mostly just talking to the kids about missionaries, showing them pictures, singing the i hope they call me on a mission song, talking about how old you have to be to go on a mission, and then showing them some of my mission pictures. They thought that was cool.

Found these missionary coloring sheets

FHE with young kids #20 -- Follow Jesus Maze

The kids love mazes, and I found this maze about Jesus in one of the friends.

We talked about why we're supposed to follow Jesus. Then we played follow the leader, which was actually really fun. Then they did the maze and we talked more about following Jesus. Success.

Some thoughts on ordain women

I responded with a comment to an article that was posted on facebook about the Ordain Women Movement. Since the comment turned out to be quite lengthy, and since I haven't ever taken the time to write down my thoughts on this issue prior to now, I wanted to post my comment here as well so I can easily find and reflect on what I've written and thought in the future. I am sure my thoughts will evolve on the issue. I reserve the right to change my mind!

Here is the article from The Style of Being:

http://thestyleofbeing.blogspot.ca/2014/06/mormonism-feminism-and-being-snarky.html?m=1

And here's my thoughts about it:

I thought she had some great points. I also thought she seemed to have a tendency to diminish or dismiss the thoughts and feelings of other women. Men too, for that matter. I understand snark is the name of her game, but I think it’s an insulting way to approach an issue that means so much to many people. I believe her post failed to bring the requisite level of compassion that is necessary for this topic. Some examples of things I had problems with:

She accuses some feminists of "telling us what to think," slyly marginalizing anyone who doesn't think similar to her, then proceeds with the rest of her post to tell women what to think about the priesthood. “I also believe we need to be true to ourselves…” that’s a loaded statement just begging to come across as insulting. She says “It’s the other women who are scrutinizing and patronizing…” and then rants about feminists seeking a brass nameplate and comparing this issue which is genuinely important to these women as a mosquito bite, using her personal incredulity as evidence that it’s not really an issue worth fighting for. She uses her status as part of the in group to generalize and make sweeping claims about women, that the “priesthood responsibilities teach men to develop and use skills that women are already darn good at”, when in fact many women do not feel that is the case. She says “And God's plan for our progression would be thwarted, because if this was something we needed to be doing right now, we'd already be doing it…” which seems to go entirely contrary to the idea of being anxiously engaged and not gliding along saying all is well in Zion, with a fatal appeal to nature saying that just because things are the way they are it’s the way they should be. Then she says “Only God knows how to become like God. So perhaps we should all pay closer attention….” What does this even mean? It’s a straw man combined with an unfinished appeal to authority. “The world knows how it feels to have God tell them no and ask them to follow a better way…” I’m not sure I could think of a better way to blatantly call those feminists sinners and persuade my audience to dismiss anything they have to say. And then, after an entire post of accusations and mockery, she tries to come across empathetic with a few lines about sorely missing anyone who leaves. I’m not convinced.

I’m not sure whether or not I personally feel that women should be ordained. I’ve heard many arguments from many different directions, and I still feel like I don’t know enough facts to really make an opinion. I’m sure there would be many wonderful consequences if woman had the priesthood, and there would of course be trade-offs. But I can say I am not comfortable with some of the inequalities in the church between men and women, and it bugs me when I hear women use their own anecdotal experience of not feeling unequal to dismiss others who do.

I do believe that there has been a change in rhetoric about woman in the priesthood. In October general conference last year, Elder Anderson admitted that we don’t know why women don’t have the priesthood. Elder Oaks recently gave a confusing talk about how women have priesthood authority, but not the priesthood. This seems to be a shift in how the general authorities approach this issue, which seems to imply to me that there really hasn’t been a final revelation on the topic. I am certainly glad for all the agitation that people in and out of the church did to end both racial discrimination and the priesthood ban for blacks, and I can’t help but think that the agitation back then helped nudge the apostles and prophets to get a revelation – a revelation which put the church more on par with the civil rights movement that it had lagged behind. How am I to not consider the similarities between now and then, to not consider that our canon is not closed, and to not wonder if maybe the time is now right for women to have the priesthood? So I’m personally glad that people like Kate Kelly are doing what they are doing. We need more conversations like this.

People sometimes say to the OW movement “what if the prophet met with you and told you no?” I think it’s telling that this hasn’t happened. I believe they have requested to meet with church leadership 4-5 times and never got an answer. Part of me wonders if this might be intentional, because church leadership isn’t entirely convinced that the answer should be no, but they sure as heck aren’t ready to say yes.

FHE with young kids #19 -- The Temple Maze

Our oldest loves mazes. He always breezes through them. I spent some time looking for the hardest maze I could find, and then I took it and made it fun by adding pictures into it and added a temple at the end. Enjoy!

For the lesson we talked about temples, how you need to keep the commandments to go to the temple, you need to be nice, sometimes we mess up but it's OK we can keep going, eventually you'll find your way there, etc.

It was a surprising and fun moment when our 4 year old son asked what we do in the temple. So we got to talk about that, too.

FHE with young kids #18 -- Honesty and lies, getting all tied up

Honesty is always a good lesson for toddlers and preschoolers. We've found that our 4 year old has lied to us a few times recently. We're not sure he understands why that's bad, despite our best efforts. Usually it's just simple stuff, like telling us he pooped in the toilet when he really didn't.

We played a game where I had a cup of water and some food. I had mom ask me if I finished my water. I said I did. Our kids realized there was still water in my cup, and I told them that I lied. Mom started wrapping twine around my hands and tying me up. Then mom asked if I finished my food, and I said yes. The kids saw the banana wasn't finished, and I admitted I lied. She tied me up more. Mom asked me if I pooped, and I said I did. The kids ran to the bathroom and saw the toilet was empty, and I admitted I lied.

I explained that lying hurts people and it makes people not trust you. We lose our power and it's like being tied up. The way to get untied is to start telling the truth.

Then mom asked me a bunch of questions and I told the truth to all of them, and I got untied.

Our oldest thought it looked pretty fun to get tied up and tell lies. Uh oh!

I told him it's not fun and it really hurt. He didn't believe me, so I tied him up really really tight and made sure it hurt.

That convinced him!




Got this idea from here:

http://thatgoodpart.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/fhe-honesty/