On Friday the 13, I attended a two-hour information session at Utah State University hosted by the Secular Student Alliance on campus. The speaker of the night was Lucien Greaves, spokesperson and co-founder of the Satanic Temple, who explained that his organization is always on the frontlines to push for religious equality and/or the separation of church and state as outlined in the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Some of these examples that Greaves spoke about are just as controversial as the organization itself.
For example, when a school board in Orange County, Florida, decided to allow religious materials to be distributed at a school function, the Satanic Temple decided to introduce their own children’s coloring book with activities about Satanism. Ultimately the entire event was cancelled and no religion infiltrated the public education system that day. Another time TST was in the news was when the Good News Club, an evangelical after-school club, began promoting its religion to children, the Satanic Temple created their own club called After School Satan. Although a religious pamphlet or an evangelical afterschool club may not seem like a big deal, the Satanic Temple explains that they are there to make sure all religions are fairly represented or none. The Satanic Temple’s more well-known activism has been in reaction to government-sanctioned religious monuments of the 10 Commandments. Greaves explained in his lecture that the Oklahoma House and Senate approved the placement of a privately donated 10 Commandments monument on capitol grounds. The Satanic Temple then pushed for the installation of a monument to Baphomet, a satanic deity. “We made it very clear that we only wanted our monument to be on those grounds because the 10 Commandments were there,” Greaves said. The Satanic Temple doesn’t believe in a god or Satan and they don’t even believe in any supernatural forces. Instead, they use satanic iconography like Baphomet to challenge the those who wish to inflict religious undertones into democracy without allowing other’s voices. Greaves said people who grow up in religious environments often feel oppressed. They do not believe that any one religion should have any benefits over any other system of beliefs. During a Q&A session of the event, one attendee, confirmed to be Amias Shipley by the Herald Journal, asked Greaves about a local issue- LDS high school students who could sign up for classes taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Greaves responded by saying that he was looking for information on how to challenge the released-time classes, but he isn’t familiar with “Mormon” culture, although he found Utah to be very interesting. By the end of the event it seemed as if the attendees were supportive of the information Greaves had presented. I for one enjoyed the differing opinion and how open-minded the audience was. In this blog, I speak about a variety of topics that may make others uncomfortable and I challenge myself to attend events that I may not feel are aligned with my viewpoints. Greaves, a proclaimed atheist and pessimist, spoke on a lot of political issues that I feel are very important to me, an ex-Mormon. However, as this blog is called “Will I Be Bitter in Heaven,” it can be noted that I am an optimistic agnostic and that our core beliefs would probably not be complimentary. At the end of the event attendees posed for a picture raising “devil horn” fists. Before the event, a sizzle reel of news stories was playing and one spoke about the group’s efforts to go against protesters at Planned Parenthood. They were dressed in baby masks and it seemed outlandish and (for lack of a better word) Satanic. These were the only two moments in the entire event that made me cringe. I don’t believe it’s because these things were wrong or evil. That would just be giving power to something that really has none. I believe because of my religious pre-conditioning I was unable to listen to this talk without some sort of backfire effect. It’s the same when I attended my first Catholic Mass because I was taught that these people were wrong. They aren’t. I hope to do more blogs that follow other’s beliefs like this one. Especially if their founders are as gorgeous as Lucien Greaves. (Sorry for dropping my journalistic integrity to anyone who made it to the end of this article. Just look at him though. Dreamy.) Truly, I think if there is an afterlife, it is up to me to see what everyone thinks, not just my own beliefs.
0 Comments
A recent onslaught of “thoughts and prayers” traveled through the universe to the victims of last week’s mass shooting in Las Vegas from devout followers of Christ. Much like every other tragedy since the rise of social media these good graces and well-intended messages often appear in masses and then slowly start to dissipate as time goes on and people all over the nation return to their day-to-day lives. The victims and their families are often left unchanged and unhealed. This lack of action isn’t a bad thing on its own, but eventually a second trend begins to appear; fighting in support or disfavor of gun control. Sometimes I see both trends appear in the same individuals and it has always baffled me how anyone who declares themselves a follower of Christ can switch from offering a prayer for victims to defending the very means that killed those individuals in the first place. One must ask, can Christians ethically support the second amendment?
So far, politicians, theologians, and simple minds have all debated the issue of gun control and religious leaders have offered support of change and kindness in the past but unlike other political debates the religious aspect has been taken out of the conversation. This may be because the bible doesn’t have any information on guns as it was written long before any such invention. However, the bible does speak about wars, weapons and battle as all part of the consequences of living in a fallen world. In Luke 10:30 it speaks about robbers being common in Israel and that many people do carry weapons in self-defense. However, Christians are also told to submit to governing authorities which would apply to gun laws too. Freedom and morality are two topics that often come up in religious debates and both are important to the debate of gun laws as well. The freedom to have a gun is protected by the second amendment, though it was written when guns were very different, and to this day people still cite the constitution as their ultimatum in the debate, however, there is also the concern of safety that, although is not a constitutional right, is a concept that most civilized societies would agree is important. The morality of the situation is begged when questioning whether another person’s “right” is putting others at risk. Both “freedom” and “morality” are things I would like to consider. First, many quotes are often attributed to Christians. Quotes like, “turn the other cheek,” “live by the sword, die by the sword,” and “god’s will be done.” Many gun owners say that they keep their guns for self-defense which is a response I would expect from a non-Christian. For Christians to use this excuse, they are openly defying some the basic teachings of their religion. If someone was to threaten a Christian with a gun, they should be willing to turn away and forgive their attacker. To be so fearful of death that one must carry a weapon at all times is proof that one does not believe in god’s will. Returning to God when he chooses, how he chooses, is the greatest thing a Christian can do, especially knowing that they didn’t openly harm one of God’s children in the process. So, other than self-defense, why else does one need a gun? Hunting? Entertainment? Committing crimes? Compensating for a small dick? The question remains. Yes, hunting and entertainment are reasons that I feel are valid. I don’t believe we should take away guns but we should limit the ways that people can use the guns. By allowing individuals to only have so many guns and so much ammunition are ways that could prevent stockpiling and harming multiple people. There will never be a way to stop people from killing but we can limit the amount of people killed and the effectiveness. There are a lot of ideas about how this can be affected and that debate is for professionals at another time, but any effort to get rid of military style weapons and ways to convert legal weapons into assault rifles is a step forward. At what point do we put our own wants, the want to have a gun, aside for the betterment of the world. Yes, criminals may be able to get weapons but god doesn’t fight the same way as the devil. For his followers to be so blindly influenced by worldly possessions, by weapons, truly shows how far we have come from God’s graces. On Saturday Sept 30, 2017, Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints spoke on behalf of the LDS church and their God during a morning session of a broadcasted conference. In his speech Oaks reiterated the LDS church’s stance on marriage and family as stated in LDS doctrine given by their living prophets.
“We have witnessed a rapid and increasing public acceptance of cohabitation without marriage and same-sex marriage. The corresponding media advocacy, education, and even occupational requirements pose difficult challenges for Latter-Day Saints,” Oaks said. “We must try to balance the competing demands of following the gospel law in our personal lives and teachings even as we seek to show love for all.” Oaks then went on to cite the religion’s 1995 document – “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” – and explained that it will not be changed. Despite Oaks statement many still have hope that the LDS church will receive what leaders call “new revelation” on such matters that the document discusses. Many famously known revelations to be announced at General Conference include news about the afterlife added to the Doctrine and Covenants, secluding Monday nights for the family, the first organization of the Quorum of the Seventy, allowing African-Americans to hold the priesthood, the revision of the Book of Mormon in 1982, a lowered missionary age in 2012, multiple revisions of “For the Strength of Youth” and smaller temple sizes despite the previous standard of 60 cubits. Throughout the years many other things have changed in the LDS church, one of the few religions to adapt throughout the years. (Despite being less than 200 years old.) Some of these changes include polygamy, women’s issues, modesty, youth programs, caffeine, birth control, the 3-hour block, imminence of the second coming, dating, piercings, faith healing, evolution, the closing of church farms, and even garments. It isn’t a strange belief to think that the LDS church will change again however, Oaks’ statements leads us to believe that the “family proclamation” is concrete. So, what’s in it? In this blog, I will go through the document one paragraph at a time to see what is and isn’t stated and offer commentary and speculation based on my own beliefs. As an agnostic ex-Mormon, my views are shaped by the belief that neither I or any church leader is correct in what we say because the afterlife and God are unprovable and that’s why religion works. I love religion for the good that it can do in this world but when talking about specifics my commentary is purely speculative. Let’s begin: “WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.” The first paragraph quickly states that the only marriage God recognizes is between a man and a woman. This is doctrine that has long been taught in the LDS church and I fully believe that anyone who supports same-sex marriage should not be aligned with the church. Separation of church and state is something that LDS leaders continuously overstep on by supporting or fighting laws such as Proposition 8. Men and women are said to belong together because of the ability to procreate and give souls the chance to have bodies. Being part of a family is a bond that will remain after death, which makes sense when God is also referred to as “father.” I fully believe this is PART of God’s plan but it is evident that humans can only interpret so much of what God tells them and God constantly uses humans as examples. (See: the flood, Martin Harris, Adam and Eve) President Gordon B. Hinkley was non-negotiable on the words he wrote If family is so important, it’s very likely that we will recognize our lineage in Heaven, but we all will be a heavenly family. I believe that the plan has always been to streamline as many children onto the earth as possible so that we each have a chance to sin and return to God. I also believe that when God says, “man and woman” he is referring the part of the plan that we can understand right now, like teaching a primary child something complicated in simple terms. It is being scientifically disproven that we need a man and a woman to create children and as we unlock the secrets of stem cell research, artificial wombs, and chromosomes, the human body will continue to evolve. (An evolution and science which was created by God and is understood by God, even if humans in the 21st century haven’t unlocked these understandings.) We may one day understand that sexual organs were a primitive way to classify gender and that the contents of the soul are shrouded by the veil. I would also like to point out that the blessings of eternal family are only applicable if the marriage is done in God’s temple. This leads me to further believe that “family” is a much bigger element than the divisions we have here on Earth. We are all family in heaven. “ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” This is the only paragraph that mentions gender. The entire document otherwise refers to man/woman and sons/daughters. Transgender individuals do usually identify as male or female so even if one is transitioning, they STILL are a child of god and they STILL have a divine destiny because they chose are one of the two options being offered by the church. No other mention of trans issues have been discussed by church leaders. If by these margins being non-gender conforming is a sin, state it. For now, I don’t see any issue with gender in society because no other cosmetic surgery, hormone -altering drugs, or mental states are condemned by the church. If “giants among men” are saved for the last days maybe these individuals are going through trials and reaching higher understandings than we are currently. (For more on trans issues see my blog post on 09.24.17.) God is either Homo Sapien or Homo Sapien Sapien due to the fact that man is made in his image, however, my guess is that it’s the first or an even more prehistoric version of man. I guarantee that God looks different than modern man. “IN THE PREMORTAL REALM, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.” Again, it says families will be together forever if you make covenants in the temple. “THE FIRST COMMANDMENT that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.” I’ve always found it funny that some church-goers really believe that it was a literal piece of fruit that Eve ate. Eve had premarital sex with Lucifer and Adam in the garden and this lead to a new knowledge of life. The LDS church can believe whatever it wants and chastity is one of these things. Anyone who had sex before marriage, has a child out of wedlock, cheats on their spouse, gets divorced, or masturbates should be considered apostates though. Repentance is given to single mothers but gay couples with children go against what is defined as a “family.” (Note I believe there are chances to be admitted in heaven for everyone, including gay people, so my bashing of divorcees and single mothers is strictly to highlight the religious hypocrisy not Gods.) “WE DECLARE the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan. HUSBAND AND WIFE have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.” Despite the reiteration, this paragraph is reasonable and I have no problems with what is said. “THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.” Divorce is wrong. Premarital sex is wrong. Children should be aborted in these situations because their birth is not “entitled.” That’s what this paragraph says. Single women can’t raise a child. Two men can’t raise a child. Happiness comes from religion. Men should protect and provide. Women should nurture. This seems like it was written in the 60’s and I’m not going to complain about any of it. Everyone should do what they need to make their family work and that’s that. If Mormons want it this way, all power to them. “WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.” Reminder, chastity refers to sex out of marriage. You can be an agnostic, gay, transsexual, sinner in this church but don’t have sex and you’re fine. In fact, you are considered “brave” for giving yourself to god rather than the world. WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society. Finally, the worst sentence in this entire proclamation from a man who is supposed to speak for god, in a religion that says we should be subjects to kinds and magistrates. “Responsible citizens and officers of government” should promote our beliefs because we think it’s what makes a family the best. Okay, sure. Whatever. Overall, the intent is good and supports every Mormon married in the temple, keeping the law of chastity, raising their children in the 60’s and devoting themselves to the religion. Any other variance of what “family” could be must check themselves. Most LDS member has no issue with this proclamation and they usually hand up these words in their household. I support the freedom of religion no matter their believes but I do have to ask anyone who may not fit into this family model, why are you pretending that you will be “together forever?” |
Erick L. Graham Wood
|