I don't want to believe in a god

I don't want to believe in a god who would give us brains and then ask us to disregard logical conclusions because he wants to test our faith with illogical commandments.

I don't want to believe in a god who would allow us the capability to think but then tell us that his thoughts are higher than ours and that there are some things that we just can't understand--because he made us that way.

I don't want to believe in a god who infantilizes me and wants me to behave with child-like unquestioning of authority.

I don't want to believe in a god who ignores his wife and tells us nothing about her in favor of patriarchal "protection."

I don't want to believe in a god who is a self-proclaimed "jealous god."

I don't want to believe in a god who would only give men governing authority.

I don't want to believe in a god who is male, chose a savior who is male, appoints only males to the priesthood, and then expects me to feel represented and content as a woman.

I don't want to believe in a god who sends cryptic messages through his spirit that defy logic and precedent (e.g. telling Nephi to kill Laban even though murder is obviously a sin).

I don't want to believe in a god who wants me to depend completely on him instead of depending on myself.

I don't want to believe in a god who lets his servants say horrible, damaging things under the guise of authority without apologizing or allowing themselves to be corrected.

Will aspartame kill us? We want to know!

Two talks I heard last week in a branch I was visiting are today’s topic.  One was given by the branch president, and the other was given by his wife.

Sister Branch President (SBP) opened with a quote that at first sounded hopeful but which eventually filled my heart with despair.  By the way, SBP—poor dear—is headed for a nervous breakdown: I recognize so many qualities that I had that lead to my unraveling. 

I've searched in vain for the exact quote, but it started out by asking why we should be ashamed to be ignorant of the gospel of Christ?  Then it told us why we should be ashamed and asked why we would devote more time to reading the fantasies of men than the word of God.

At first I thought the quote was going to be about how it’s OK to ask questions, which would be reassuring to me, since I seem to ask them possibly annoyingly frequently.  But no: it was about how there is no excuse to not know the answer to a question because you should devote a massive amount of time to studying the scriptures.  This could be extrapolated to be saying that you shouldn’t read anything for pleasure other than the scriptures because it would just be a waste of time (I know that’s an extreme, but it’s also an implication).  The part about the fantasies of men particularly seems to imply this.

I have an answer: because the "fantasies of men" are entertaining to read.  Also, I believe you can get as much out of a novel as you can from out of the scriptures—really.  You can observe human nature and true principles.  You can learn about yourself by reading about others, even if those others aren’t prophets.  Books can take you on an emotional journey and touch your heart.  (Also, novels can include many more women as characters!) 

Anyway, the talk that followed was earnest and well meaning, but ultimately more of the you-should-be-doing-better stuff I hate.  It was about how we’re lacking and how we’re wrong.  She mentioned a missionary experience where she shared with a friend that the church has a living prophet through whom god speaks.  Luckily, she said, the friend didn’t ask her for any specific examples of what the prophet had said recently because she wouldn’t have known!  (This is the second time I’ve heard of this situation in a sacrament-meeting talk: not knowing the contents of the Ensign in the context of a missionary experience.)  She said that after this ‘chastisement’ from the lord (ugh) that she was sure to go home and read the church magazine.

Well, maybe if the prophet had something that was really interesting or groundbreaking to say then she would have remembered it.  If there had been a conference talk about how we have to evacuate Mississippi or how aspartame definitely causes cancer for example, then she could have shared that with her friend because it would have actually been memorable.  I’m pretty sure the basic gospel principles are the subject of most talks, so she could have shared  those with her friend had the question come up.  I say this not to chide her, but to point out that she was being too hard on herself for not remembering the sparkling wisdom that had recently been shared.

A bright spot in the talk was when she mentioned the counsel to slow down and not over-schedule.  She mentioned that when she hears the moms of her son’s class mates talk about what extracurricular activities their children are involved in, she feels that she needs to provide all of those opportunities to her one child.  At least she realized that this was unrealistic...I think.  (That kind of thinking though is an indication that a nervous breakdown might come sooner or later.)

Brother Branch President gave a talk summarizing Joseph Smith’s King Follet discourse, definitely a meaty subject.  I was actually pleased that the sermon was being talked about and that BBP quoted extensively from it.  It made me think about how I wish that certain beliefs were talked about more and not ignored. 

The King Follet discourse talks about how god was once a man and how man’s destiny is to become like god.  It asserts that god was a savior for another world before becoming our father.  As you can see, it’s pretty significant stuff (and the source of the ‘Mormons gets their own planets’ hearsay).  I thought it was great that BBP was sharing it—the church has for whatever reason dropped the discussion about these topics.  In fact, in an interview in 1997 with Time, Gordon B. Hinckley, when asked, "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?" he responded, “I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.”  (By the way, I got the quote from FAIR, which I mentioned in this post.)


BBP taught Sunday School too, and it was apparently customary to open the hour with a call for questions of any kind on any topic.  Inspired by his talk, I asked , “If god had a father god, and that god had a father, and so on, then where did it all begin?”  There wasn’t a satisfactory answer for that question (I didn’t really expect one).  I also asked for clarification about whether the discourse indeed said that god was a savior for another world, and when BBP said that it indeed suggested that, I asked if that meant that Jesus would next become a Father?  The answer was that probably yes.

What stuff!  What deep, significant ideas!  Why don’t we talk about this more?  Because it’s all hearsay, philosophizing, speculation.  But I feel that it’s important.  I feel that you could find an answer to these questions and that discussion would help.  A better question than ‘Why don’t we talk about this more?’ is: Why don’t general authorities clear up doctrines like this in General Conference?  Surely these are important things to know.  Maybe the beginning of time is a difficult concept to grasp, but surely the principle that Jesus will next become God for another world is worth knowing and talking about!   It regards the nature of God!   (And Jesus!)

The lesson was on chapters in Alma, but we did get into a discussion about the pre-existence because of a verse about being foreordained to a calling.  We talked about the meaning of foreordination and it was a great discussion.  We talked about what kind of decisions you could have made in the pre-existence and if you could have had the ability to sin.  I was worried that it might veer into the “some people were less righteous in the pre-existence and they are punished for it by their situation on earth,” but the fear was unwarranted.  I’m just wary of that explanation because it was used to justify blacks not having the priesthood and, more innocuously (?), why some people are killed en masse by god (think the flood). We could have gotten into determinism, fate, etc.  I think it was a good example of what Sunday School should be like.

A car miracle

Sometime my devil’s advocate thinking is going to get me in trouble with someone.  Someone will be offended that I contradicted them or that I diminished the importance of their story.  I hope this doesn’t happen, but it might.  I would never intentionally hurt someone's feelings, and I've been contradicted before and it was fine—it didn't hurt me at all: I mentioned how I in the past had thought that I had received a prompting, which was apparently nonsensical, but I ‘trusted’ that it was indeed a prompting because, after all, god’s thoughts are not my thoughts and his ways not my ways (i.e. his logic is incomprehensible to me).  But, after later reflection, I realized that it wasn’t a prompting but rather my brain being crazy; it used to be common that when I had to make a decision, I actually assumed that I would get a prompting that would either confirm the decision or, more often, tell me to do something else.  This extended to stupid little decisions, about which I nevertheless expected promptings , thinking that somehow a small and simple occurrence would have far-reaching (eternal) consequences.  

 

Anyway, my point with this comment was that if a prompting doesn’t make sense, it may not actually be a prompting—in other words, use your head and don’t just assume that you don’t understand the prompting yet.  Right after I said that, a guy raised his hand and shared a mission story that I’ve already described in this post.  Even today, I still think that the prompting that he received on his mission was not a prompting at all, but I of course can’t really know that, and I know it’s presumptive to think that I can.

When I criticize people, or at least contradict them, I do believe that I’m more criticizing the idea and not the person as a whole.  It really is the idea I’m attacking—not the person.  So when I share stories that include comments I don’t like, please keep in mind that I’m not just dismissing anything this person could say.  With that said, this Sunday during fast and testimony meeting, a lady shared a story about a recent miracle.  Her car had been shaking, and she was worried that it was going to break down.  She couldn’t afford at this time to buy a new one and being without a car would be a hardship for her.  She did admit that really, she could make do without it—but it would of course really complicate things.  Well, she got an email from the bishop telling her about a couple several hundred miles away who was going to move out of the country and needed to give their car to someone; this couple was going to visit family in this particular lady’s town as a last stop and so would have to drop it off in that town.  She got in touch and agreed to take their car.  She was extremely grateful and couldn’t believe how well it was going to turn out. 

The lady ended by saying that she was especially thankful because, really, the car was a want and not a need.  She said that when we try hard and obey god will provide us with what we need, but this case was special because she also got what she wanted.

I couldn’t help but wonder if this car situation was as perfect as the lady thought it was: what if there was someone else in the area/ward who actually needed the car more?  Who had a real need of it?  Hopefully, the bishop would know who in the ward was in need, but I can imagine it’d be very easy to not know that someone was in want of a car if that person didn’t mention it, perhaps out of embarrassment.  I just couldn’t help but think that maybe there was a family in that congregation wishing that it was they who had gotten the car; but in what context would that be appropriate to speak up and say something to the lady afterwards?  I guess if the other person was really in need, they could talk to the lady about possibly buying the car from her?  It just seems like such an imposition to make. 

Maybe that lady was the one who was most in need for the car—but what if she really wasn’t?  How does the person who deserved it more feel—like god doesn’t love them, or perhaps they weren’t obedient enough?  The lady just made it sound like god knew exactly who needed the car and it worked out perfectly in her favor.

This is all speculation on my part.  If there is some accuracy in it though, there is someone out there who is confused that they didn't receive the blessing they needed.  But, from what I've observed, if that's the case they'll find something positive from the experience and eventually find a solution, for which they will be grateful and praise god.

Second Only to Murder

I have puzzled over the question of sin: Is an action inherently sinful, or is it ascribed that meaning by God?  It seems to be the latter, because the same action can be either laudable or a sin depending on the circumstance (e.g. Nephi was justified in killing Laban because God told him to, yet God told Moses that killing is a sin; sex outside of marriage is wicked and filthy but in marriage is beautiful; polygamy was once a commandment but now you can be excommunicated for it).  If that is the case, why does God ascribe that meaning to it?  It seems that the consequences (either feeling happy or sad) of either abstaining from or committing the sin only come because of the value God ascribes to the action (e.g., Nephi didn't feel enormous guilt and spiritual darkness after killing Laban).  So why ascribe negative values to these actions in the first place?  Are they just arbitrary and used as a test?  Is sex not inherently bad outside of marriage but God created the confines of marriage to create separate circumstances to test us?  This larger issue is a topic for another day; right now I want to focus on the Law of Chastity in all of its glory.

quit playing games with my heart

I am surprised and troubled by how often people endorse the fact that God, in a way, plays games with us by giving us cryptic, confusing messages from the spirit. 

Before, I would get a "prompting" to do something which either was 1) stupidly useless 2) an alternative to a task I'd made my mind up to do.  When I questioned this prompting because it didn't seem to make sense, then I'd think (or get a "prompting") of Isaiah 55:  " For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."   Since we're taught that often our will is contrary to God's, I'd assume that was the case and that I needed to be humble and listen to this prompting.

FALSE!

This prompting was not from the spirit.  I believed in it because I expected to receive promptings, promptings to do something contrary to what I wanted to do.  I received a prompting because I expected one, if that makes sense.  What I mean is, if someone tells me that if I chew bubblegum then I will get a headache (which is untrue), I may very well get one because I expect to; the body is tricky that way.

The anecdote that brought this subject up:
A fellow ward member brought up a story in Sunday School where, on his mission, he was prompted to hitchhike at a certain area.  It was a spot off of a highway, where cars where both going 70+ miles per hour and could not stop to pick him and his companion up.  He didn't think this made sense, since it seemed illogical and futile, but he did it anyway because it was a prompting.  After a half an hour standing there, a security card on the other side of the highway called them over and asked if they needed money for a bus.  They declined, but gave him a pass-along card!  Just then, I family walked by, and the missionaries started talking to them.  Two weeks later, that family was baptized; and if they hadn't stood out there and hitchhiked, that never would have happened!

That just doesn't make sense to me any more.  It seems like a roundabout way to make something happen.  If they hadn't hitchhiked there and picked a better spot, the person who picked them up could have eventually gotten baptized, or the person could have dropped them off in an area where they hadn't been where they would have found some golden investigators.  I just don't think that God would give such an illogical prompting and make them jump through hoops to accomplish what he wanted rather than just telling them to cross the street and wait for the family?  Stories like this just confirm the idea that we should obey wacky promptings that don't make sense, because somehow, they'll be for our good.

Love is all you need.

God, Love of

1 Ne. 11: 17 God loveth his children.

1 Ne. 11: 22, 25 tree of life represents love of God.

1 Ne. 11: 25 waters are representation of love of God.
1 Ne. 17: 40 the Lord loveth those who will have him to be their God.
2 Ne. 1: 15 Lehi1 is encircled eternally in arms of God’s love.
2 Ne. 4: 21 God hath filled me with his love.
2 Ne. 26: 24 the Lord loveth the world, layeth down life.
Jacob 3: 2 feast upon God’s love.
Mosiah 4: 11-12 if ye retain in remembrance the greatness of God ye shall be filled with his love.
Alma 14: 14 God has made gospel known to Lamanites because he loves them.
Hel. 15: 3 the Lord has chastened Nephites because he loves them.
Ether 12: 34 the Lord’s love is charity.
Moro. 7: 47 charity is pure love of Christ.
D&C 6: 20 be diligent and I will encircle thee in arms of my love.
D&C 18: 10 worth of souls is great in sight of God.
D&C 20: 19 God commanded men to love and serve him.
D&C 34: 3 Christ so loved world that he gave life.
D&C 41: 1 God delights to bless his people.
D&C 76: 25 Father loves Only Begotten Son.
D&C 76: 116 God bestows Holy Spirit on those who love him.
D&C 95: 1 whom the Lord loves he chastens.
D&C 133: 53 in his love the Lord redeemed men.
D&C 138: 3 love made manifest by Father and Son in coming of Redeemer.
Deut. 5: 10 shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me. 
Deut. 6: 5 (Matt. 22: 37; D&C 59: 5) shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart. 
Deut. 7: 8 (Deut. 23: 5) because the Lord loved you. 
Deut. 7: 13 he will love thee. 
Deut. 10: 15 Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them. 
Deut. 10: 18 He doth . . . loveth the stranger, in giving him food. 
Ps. 31: 23 love the Lord, all ye his saints. 
Isa. 63: 7 mention the lovingkindnesses of the Lord. 
Jer. 31: 3 I have loved thee with an everlasting love. 
Hosea 11: 1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him. 
Mal. 1: 2 I have loved you, saith the Lord. 
John 3: 16 God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten. 
John 5: 42 ye have not the love of God in you. 
John 10: 17 doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life. 
John 13: 1 he loved them unto the end. 
John 13: 35 ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. 
John 14: 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments. 
John 14: 21 he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father. 
John 14: 23 my Father will love him, and we will come unto him. 
John 15: 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you. 
John 16: 27 Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved. 
John 17: 23 world may know that thou . . . hast loved them. 
John 17: 26 love wherewith thou hast loved me. 
Rom. 5: 8 God commendeth his love toward us. 
2 Cor. 13: 11 live in peace, and the God of love and peace shall be with you. 
Eph. 3: 19 love of Christ, which passeth knowledge.