Voices from the Dust: November 1996
previous: Voices from the Dust: October 1996
from David (d████@f██████.net)
4 Nov 96, 3:23 p.m.
In one of your responses you said: "Listen, once I had realized that rock songs and cool movies give me the same 'burning in the bosom' that I used to mistake for the Holy Ghost, that ol' testimony started to set itself aside. If Led Zeppelin, Quentin Tarantino, and Joseph Smith were all affecting me in the same way, what did that say about Joseph Smith?" I know where you are coming from, except with me it was the Moody Blues instead of Quentin Tarantino. Distinguishing the two "burnings in the bosom" was as difficult as distinguishing a sunrise from a sunset (setting aside the fact that one is in the East and the other in the West). There are differences, but to the untrained eye it's hard to tell the difference. But slowly over time as I have acquainted my self with these feelings and have learned how to refine my discernment techniques, the feelings I get from rock songs and Joseph Smith are as discernible as night and day. Both are great feelings, but their sources are very different.
I can tell sunrise from sunset with little trouble -- it's in the quality of the light. I had many years to look for differences between the rightness chills I got from books, movies, music, and church -- and there were none. Maybe there are for you, but how long must I spend contemplating my navel before I admit that those warm fuzzies are coming from inside me, not outside?
from David (d████@f██████.net)
4 Nov 96, 3:43 p.m.
In explaining your views about the Golden Rule you said: "Here's an example. Imagine, if you will, that you're the sort of manly man who likes to joke around with his friends -- to tease them with good-humored insults and receive the same treatment in return. Let's say that such treatment makes you feel accepted and liked. Now let's say that you meet someone new who doesn't particularly enjoy being teased and jokingly insulted -- such treatment makes him feel bad about himself, even if the intent is friendly. Should you treat him the way you would want to be treated, and insult him anyway? Or should you take the time to understand that he doesn't like being teased, and adjust your behavior toward him accordingly? If you took the second choice -- as most people probably would -- then you'll see that the Golden Rule falls flat on its face." I think your understanding of the Golden Rule is a bit shallow. One who fully understands this rule will realize it fits perfectly with the scenario you mentioned. One who truly lives by this rule would "take the time to understand" as you said, and rise above petty personality traits and not interact with this person in a teasing or joking manner; not in contradiction to the Golden Rule, but in harmony with Golden Rule because you care about him just as you would want others to care about you.
David, you're talking about a Meta-Golden Rule. Of the people who trumpet the Golden Rule as the be-all and end-all of morality, I think few read it your way and even fewer practice it like that. I'd suggest that we call your interpretation THE PLATINUM RULE™, but Dr. Tony Alessandra points out to me that he holds a federal trademark on that phrase (someone wrote a whole book for him on the subject!) and that I can use it only with proper attribution. So we'll call your interpretation the Iridium Rule instead.
from an anonymous reader (/dust/1996/11/voices-from-the-dust-november-1996.html)
4 Nov 96, 5:02 p.m.
I just read "From Our Point of View..." Very good!
Thank you very much. Though I'm curious as to why you felt you needed to say that anonymously ...
from Lindsay Ann Kleinman (l███████@a█████.█████.edu)
4 Nov 96, 6:13 p.m.
Hello, I'd just like to say that your pages made entertating reading and that reading the responces to the mormon stuff in particular was what moved me to respond, (in addition to the fact that I am a procrastinator par exellance, with a history paper to write), and reading the more negative replies really worries me. It seems that a lot of people have trouble differentiating between a personal attack and a clearly written account of someone's personal experience. It makes me very glad that I was raised with little to no religious pressure, as a reform reform jew, (which is a term of my own invention, meaning one who likes bagels and lox on saturday mornings). I feel that even in reading the letters people have written to you, the converts tend to be much more open to the idea of some one choosing for him/herself what they want to belive, probably because that's what they did. Unfortunatly, my mother is rethinking her method of raising my sister and myself, mainly when we've severly agitated her, saying that we should have been raised with religion, though I don't think she knows which she'd like since she was raised catholic, but converted officially to judaism to make things easier for us, ironic, that. My announcing that I was now agnostic didn't help much. Comparitively, however, I've had a great experience, looking at what others have had to go through. The attitude I've arrived at is typical of my personality, (I have a bit of a self-esteem problem), I have no right to dictate anyone else's beliefs, because I have no proof that my conclusions are any more true than anyone else's. If someone believes that the Great White Hankerchief is coming, (HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy reference), that's fine with me. When they start trying to convince me, or involve me that I have a problem. That would be the doctrine of seperation of church and Lindsay. Oh, my fave bumper sticter, (really and truly relevent), reads -- Militant Agnostic -- I don't know and you don't know either.
That's it, respond if you've got the time, I don't get much mail, mind if I link your page to mine? If you say yes I will, cool stuff & set up here. my page is at:
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~lakleinm/
Thank you for your clear eyes and clear head, Lindsay.
from an anonymous reader (/dust/1996/11/voices-from-the-dust-november-1996.html)
5 Nov 96, 1:29 p.m.
as an ex-mormon, now mostly agnostic, i find these to be very good
Hey, as I always say, by their fruits ye shall know them.
from Steve (s██████@a██.com)
6 Nov 96, 10:38 a.m.
I work with two mormons and I would just like to say I would believe that cows fly around the earth instead of the moon before I would believe the stuff they try to get me to believe! This page is great. I would, however, like you to include something about the marriage and sealing ceremony in the temple and how the priest gets the bride first. (You know like as in bedding her before the groom gets to have her?) Kepp writing and exposing!
Thanks for your comments, Steve, and I'm glad you enjoy my page. I'm curious to know where you heard this thing about the priest sleeping with the bride before the groom, though. While Mormons believe and do a lot of strange things, I can tell you with certainty that they don't follow any such abominable practice.
from David Petersen (/dust/1996/11/voices-from-the-dust-november-1996.html)
6 Nov 96, 6:06 p.m.
Just a small rebuttal on your "when is a sacrafice not a sacrafice" thesis. Yes I believe there is a necessity for opposition in all things but I don't believe Satan was/is necessary for that to occur, otherwise there would not have been the wrong choice to make in the war in heaven. Therefore opposition was there to be taken and Satan chose to take it for his own self-aggrandizing purpose. (I love big words). Satan was/is not necessary for Gods plan to work, Satan just pushes and advertizes and the wrong choices to make others fall as he did. As you stated, God is just and a Just God would never require someone to take the evil route to make his plan work. People would still have to make choices for good and evil but it may have been a little easier for us to get along without Satan messing up the works. However, because there is "evil" and God knows that we cannot pass up all temptations, he had to provide a way for us to return to Him. Thus, Jesus' sacrafice is necessary. That brings us to Judas. Again, I do not believe Judas was/is necessary to God's plans, he just facilitated them. After all, the pharises knew who Jesus was, they didn't need Judas to point him out. I believe Judas was a good man who didn't really know who Christ was as described in the novel "I Judas" (I can't remember the authors name off hand). in the Novel, Judas thought Christ was there to destroy the Romans and got tired of waiting for it to happen so he decided to push Jesus a little but of course it didn't work the way he expected. The Pharises would have eventually brought Christ before Pilot with or without Judas. God is Just.
Well those are my thoughts on your thesis which I think is really a poorly thought out attempt to discredit all Christians not Just the Mormons.
I at first enjoyed your site even though I think you are wrong but you seem to be getting more vicious in your attacks on the Church and that is sad. I wondor why the tone of your site is becoming more strident and Mormon-bashing which you deny at the start of the Mormon pages?
But whatever, good luck on your writing career.
Hmm. I thought it was made pretty clear in the Temple ceremony that Satan was necessary to the Plan of Salvation. (What's also made very clear there is that God pulled a fast one on Satan -- "Hey, God, why are you changing the rules on me? I'm only doing what I've done on other worlds!" More on that some other day.) I also thought that current Mormon doctrine makes it pretty clear that apostles are "special witnesses of Jesus Christ," which would mean that Judas damn well knew who and what Christ was.
Oh, sorry, did I sink your battleship?
(By the way, my fondest hope is that one of these days folks will learn how to spell "Pilate" correctly. He was an ancient Roman -- he didn't fly a friggin' airplane, people!)
from Tracy (/dust/1996/11/voices-from-the-dust-november-1996.html)
7 Nov 96, 12:16 p.m.
Um, I just wanted to ask something about the Mormon Mythology Sacrifice page and eternal suffering. You mentioned that the Mormon religion needed a fall guy, ie. Jehovah, or Lucifer and that Lucifer would be the truer sacrificer because he is eternally suffering while Jehovah gets to sit up by God eating Bon-bons, or whatever. However, I just thought that Jehovah could still be the eternal sufferer because every time anyone sees the guy lately he's always got holes in his sides, hands, and feet, and he keeps inviting people to poke their hands in there. Gross :P Just a thought. Anyway, thanks for the page, I enjoyed it.
Okay, I'll bite. Who's seen Jehovah lately?
from Sam Klein (/dust/1996/11/voices-from-the-dust-november-1996.html)
10 Nov 96, 5:57 p.m.
I respect your opinion and choices in life, i do find the "victim" mentality, dull and comical. I'm sorry so many members gave up their right to think, or believe they did. Growing up, everyone I knew went to their respective churches, had expectations, etc. Many left the belief systems of their parents, but never acted like this. You call it support, i call it whinning, sorry it sucked, get over it, move on. If everyone with a beef started a web page, we'd be overun with them. You are talented, use your talents to build your community, not encourage pissed off people, who are bound by a common enemy. I read this anti literature, and to me it is comical, I can't believe people take no responsibility for their lives, but have to blame others, institutions, religions, governments, ethnic groups, for their bad trip, why are you so bound to the past that you can't just move on and shut up and shut up about it. For those who cant, I find humor in reading about the lives of the victims, and nonthinkers youve given me inspiration to start victim therapy groups for survivors of mormonism. Hope one day you can find validation, from something other than an Anti-Mormon web page.
Your thesis sentence is a blatant lie, totally unsupported by the rest of your hateful diatribe. You don't respect my choices and opinions one whit. The ugliness you see in my pages is a reflection of your own bigotry.
from Truman Lackey (l████████@u██.███.com)
20 Nov 96, 1:57 p.m.
Bill, you sure are screwed up but I forgive you!
Funny, I thought only God could forgive me. Unless you're ... oh, wow!
from DeAnna Toten Beard (d███████@i██████.edu)
26 Nov 96, 8:24 p.m.
Gee ... I don't know what to say to you, Bill. Having lingered on your site for more than a week, I feel like I know you. I believe if I ran in to you, maybe in that airport lobby, I would know you immediately. The power of this medium -- pretty cool, huh.
I spent almost all of my time at your site poring over the Mormon pages. I have a sick fascination with the Mormon church and am always looking for stories to feed my obsession. I am not now and never have been a member of the Mormon Party ... but I am married to a really swell guy who's a recovering Mormon. Or, as we like to say, is in the Mormon Relocation Program. Reading stories of apostate (and active) Saints gives me insight into his darker past. In fact, I once read most of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Church History just to help me understand the weird allusions in the Ensign magazines at my in-laws' house.
My husband and I are both currently studying Buddhism and trying to apply the doctrine of help all you can and at least do now harm. It's a struggle to project positive feelings out into the world; some days its harder than others. But Karma works, and what we put out there does come back in one way of another. Some interesting dogma shifts for a former Catholic and Mormon!
I thoroughly enjoyed the memoirs of your stint as an international terrorist; you are a gifted storyteller. Although, I think I'll skip the reinactment of your strip search if we do meet in an airport! I eagerly await the updates to your Road to Apostasy. I'm hooked by what you have already offered.
That's all I have to say, Bill. Thanks for the look into your head and all the fun stuff you have to share. I'm glad I met you -- you have a kind face and good spirit.
Best of luck to you.
Funny how some people look at me and see a kind face, while others look at me and see . . . could it be . . . SATAN?!
I'd nominate the Buddhist doctrine you cite as a replacement for the incumbent Golden Rule. Best of luck in your continuing spiritual journey.
from an anonymous reader (/dust/1996/11/voices-from-the-dust-november-1996.html)
29 Nov 96, 2:40 a.m.
In these "mormon" letters the term "free agency" pops up often. If we rely on Atheism, what authority has the right to convict murderers who "exercise" their free agency? I'm not attacking you with this question, I'm actually curious myself and thought you might have some insight.
I'm your age, a programmer, a binge drinker, in-active (excuse me, LESS active), and a returned missionary.
Oh, and we heard about your escapade all the way down in the Ft. Lauderdale mission, except in our word-of-mouth version you spent 30 days in jail. Personally I always thought it was a dead-cat-under-the-old-lady's-couch-for-a-week story.
The murder question has nothing to do with either religion or atheism. What it has to do with is survival of the species. We lock up people who kill other people (sometimes, not often enough) so they don't kill more people. It's simple and rational self-preservation.
I feel kind of silly asking this, but ... what's the story about the old lady? Never heard it.
