Makin Money With/For/By God

With regards to the LDS church leaders, they are often made to the members to look as if they live modest lives for no financial gain as leaders of the church.  This fits right along with the no paid clergy claim often tossed about in church meetings.  Being unpaid definitely is true of the lower level leadership, but there have been many reasons found to believe higher up positions do come with compensation. 

Before you read this, don’t think I’m a person who cares if they are paid.  Of course they are.  It only makes sense.  Why shouldn’t they be paid.  Any head of any corporation is well paid.  What bothers me though is how they put on a show of modest living, and act as if they aren’t getting rich off the church.  But are they really getting rich?  We may never know for sure.  Yet, I see things that make me wonder. 

I’ve read things about them receiving some sort of stipend for living, paid for housing via special loans from the church, free education for their kids, medical, bodyguards, paid for cars, and of course travel.  If any of this is true, none of it bothers me.  Sure if you add it all up, it probably makes for a very comfortable living with little fear for providing for the future.  If one could put a dollar amount on it, it’s probably quite high.  But this all makes sense, and even still seems modest for the size of the corporation they run.

Where things may change a little is in their having positions on boards of many private companies, both owned by the church and privately all because of their being heads of the church.  At my last job we had a board made up partly of local business owners as well, and they were all compensated for being on that board.  I doubt these church leaders aren’t also compensated for this.  But how many boards?  Again, who knows.  I've heard some work with a large bank board, and others have sat on insurance company boards.  Even if the insurance company failed, it seems natural to assume they also sit on many other boards for the many private companies ran by the church.  This could all add up to quite a bit of money, that isn’t normally even considered when trying to know if they make a lot of money as church leaders, but all is a direct result of being church leaders.  Check out this video of them being introduced as members of the board for a large company that was owned by the church.  I found it interesting to learn that a past bishop of mine worked for this company as well, made a very good living there, and went on to become a member of a stake presidency.  It seems like the businesses and the higher callings might have some connection.  Guess I shouldn’t have thought I’d ever be a bishop.  Yes this is all crazy speculation.  Go ahead and give me a tin foil hat and call me crazy.

Anyhow, back to the apostles.  It’s hard enough to know about the church’s finances.  But what of how the apostles make a living beyond the church’s providing for them.  People often like to point out the modesty of one of their homes as a defense.  But this job requires one to fill a role, which includes not flaunting your wealth, so that’s just what you do.  It’s part of the job.  Yesterday something new caught my attention.  My wife was thumbing through the latest mail catalog from Deseret Book.  In addition to wonderful books like the Not even once club (bleh), and stuff for my kids that says “I belong to the church…”  almost every page had a book written by a member of the 15.  It got me thinking.  This could be quite a money maker.  So I started looking for books listed as written by the leaders.  I wanted books that while they may be about church content, were not part of the church curriculum.  This would make them likely to be personal ventures for personal gain rather than church ventures.  I found 118 books by the top 15.  I’m guessing there’s more, and this doesn’t include many books I found they were listed in that were from “general authorities” and also the books written by their family members.  Some of them have written a lot of books.  No not all books are profitable, but if you’ve done 118 of them, and you have a loyal customer base that even tunes in to your mid conference infomercial for your books twice a year, you probably are making some very good money on this.  Not to mention you probably have some pretty good sway with a certain bookstore and tv station to help sell your books.  This could also just be the tip of the merchandising they may get in on.  Of course, this is all speculation, but it kinda walks like a duck doesn’t it?

Again, I really don’t care if they make millions even.  I just get bothered by how the members view them as modestly living, not paid, and even giving without getting.  It’s a bogus image.  It’s a mirage.

Hot news! Or is it? Have you heard? It can't be!

In case you haven’t heard, Thomas Monson, President of the LDS church, has received a summons to appear in court to defend some of the church’s claims in England.  With the “big” news of the day being a hot topic in the mirco world of unofficial Mormon online forums and groups, watching some of the discussions in various forums had me thinking.

 

I know many of us are a bit jaded even if in different ways.  Jaded at feeling misled.  Jaded at misinformed criticisms.  Jaded that no efforts seem real or will ever make a difference.  Cautious about being misled again.  Being generally cynical about things as a first response.  And tired of hoping for something that will crack through the church’s shell to make a difference.  But while this latest lawsuit needs time to be verified, time to show if it has any affect, and no one should be celebrating as if any victory has been has been had on either side, the amount of condescending dismissals (not necessarily from a specific forum, though certainly from some I’m in) gave me pause about the way we discuss so many issues regarding the LDS church in forums.

 

Why are people so quick to dismiss and criticize the summons on Monson in some forums?  Will it go anywhere?  Probably not.  However, the conversation from believers, to middle way, to exmos, on many topics sounds so much like everyone would love answers and accountability from the church, but no one believes it’s really ever going to happen.  Is this possibly the one hope we all have in common?  Maybe people are right, maybe it is a waste of time or silly idea.  But maybe, if we all want the same thing, we should be more supportive of efforts to make it happen even if they seem like a long shot, or aren't in the favor of how we view the church.  For each of these efforts, it really took someone some guts.  For each of these ideas, even if they seem crazy to us, maybe we should pause and be cautiously supportive as a first response.  Maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss peoples efforts.  Seems instead like so many conversations on forums sound like this:

 

-          Why can’t we get straight answers and accountability?

-          You can’t expect men to be perfect, of course mistakes were made.

-          But good people still admit when they make mistakes, apologize and attempt to make things right.

-          I wish there was a way to make them be accountable and honest.

-          It’s silly to expect an apology, it will never happen. 

-          All we get is poor apologetics and ignored.

-          In light of what I’ve learned I see the lack of answers doing nothing to clarify the criticisms so I’ll wait for clarity and choose to believe because I still find spiritual value in it.

-          In light of what I’ve learned I see the lack of answers as further evidence that the criticisms are more likely correct.  The silence is deafening to me and I choose to no longer believe.

-          Someone organized a mass resignation?  That outta get their attention.

-          Few people attended, it means little in the scope of things.  These angry exmos didn’t make a difference.

-          Delhin met with some important people, I can’t wait to hear the results of his visit.  Maybe now they a finally starting to listen.

-          Well they didn’t ex him or put him in discipline…I suppose that’s progress.

-          Did you hear about the General Authority who left…did you hear about the temple president that left…did you hear about the institute teacher who left?  They must be freaking out at the COB now!

-          I still believe in something.

-          Women are wearing pants.  This’ll get their attention for sure, right?

-          How will wearing pants change anything?  Empty pews will do more to change things.

-          Hey did you see FAIR finally wrote an article that wasn’t complete BS?  It was even kinda nice to exmos.  Does this mark a change?

-          Did someone just get called in by their bishopric for being a part of ordain women?  When will they ever listen?

-          Did you guys hear Uchtdorf say nice things about people who leave in conference?

-          Did you ignore the standard BS in the rest of his talk?

-          I heard they just purchased another 380k acres of Florida for like $569 million?  I wish they’d be transparent.  These guys are making crazy money.

-          You can’t prove it was from tithing.

-          I wish someone could figure out a way to make them be honest.

-          Hey did you hear they’re releasing official answers to some of the biggest questions causing people to leave?  I can’t wait!

-          Did they really just blame the whole thing on Brigham and say look at how diverse we are?  Are the average members even aware of these articles?

-          Looks like it’s more of the same.

-          Hey here’s your October surprise Monson has been summoned for lying in England!

-          This is silly and will go nowhere.

-          When will we get accountability?

-          When will we get answers?

-          When will they change?

-          That’ll never work…

 

Personally I doubt this goes anywhere.  The church has deep pockets.  Individually the same could be said for many attempts to get the church to answer and change.  Such as women wearing pants to church, Mormons in the gay pride parade, everyone writing letters resignation, blogging, arguing with people who can’t do anything in forums, and so on.  Many people have tried many things.  Separately they all seem futile or crazy to some.  But even if this attempt is as useful as spitting in the wind.  I’m glad they did it.  I’m glad they all did it.  In every case, for every reason.  I’m glad for all the efforts from everyone.  Screw the people who say you’re wasting your time.  Even if you are!  Good on ya.  And thanks.

 

 

To see what the hell I'm talking about visit mormonthink at this link.  http://www.mormonthink.com/monson-summons.htm

 

And if his is in any way a hoax.  Please watch the following VIDEO.

 

 

 

Review of Alone: The Impact of Anti-Mormonism

It's been a while since I've posted, but I think I'll be back from time to time when something gets on my nerves.  Such as this video. 

Alone: The Impact of Anit-Mormonism

Before you continue reading this, consider this.  Every person who has studied their way out of Mormonism, was a MORMON first. In having discussions with apologetic people there is an attempt to classify critics of the church as if they haven't bothered to consider the pro church arguments.  When in fact they at some point believed and cared deeply for the faith, and in many cases it was in trying to be a better Mormon and learn more about their faith that they lost their belief in the church.  Any attempt to dismiss them or mischaracterize them or to imply negative stereotypes about them is dishonest, hurtful, and wrong.  And most importantly requires a dismissal of the fact that for many if not most they were students and believers of Mormonism far longer than not.  They have seen both sides to the argument, weighed them, an found the church lacking.  And yes this video does attempt to paint such people with just such an ignorant stereotype on several occasions. 

 They way the wife treated the husband for confessing his problem was interestingly accurate, and incredibly unfortunate.  He's a victim, but treated as a terrible person.  He came to her when he realized it was a problem, but it's not a problem that you know you have until you've been doing some reading and doubting.  This happened in my relationship.  There is no intent to deceive at all.  This is a gross misrepresentation of how this happens.  It mentions that it was hard for him to talk to his spouse at least, but then she asks if it's porn and treats him as if he said yes, when he said no.  (Ryan, left the church got kicked out of BYU ya!) Don't think the comparison of looking at critical sites of the church to porn wasn't noticed.  Seriously?  So condescending.  So honest research and consideration of counter information is like a crime against our spouse?  "And you didn't tell me for six months?"  Luckily my wife wasn't such a bitch like the one in the video.  You do realize she doesn't look like a victim.  She looks like a person who takes a judgmental and condescending approach that blames the victim, her own spouse, with no consideration or even recognition that he came to talk to her about the church's problems.  Good job keeping the context of guilt on the victim, and never once stating the church might be at fault.   My hell the church is even finally releasing statements that admit to such. (Check out the church essays)

 

In the video they say to take an intellectually honest look at both sides?  Now, I've done some looking at fair.   In my opinion it was a train wreck.  Of course I didn't read everything there, but for what I did read, most pieces that I read were either attack pieces with nothing more than the intent to try to discredit an author or person without really going into the subject matter, or worse they did a glossing over of information and even provided dishonest representations of known scientific information, such as the DNA piece I read.  Even worse is to simply look the church's manuals.  I don't ever remember a criticism of mention of any troubling issue even in a church manual.  I mention this since I'd always been taught to only reference church approved materials (remember the earlier question from the dad "Did these videos come from the church?")  Trying to trivialize many of the issues people have as less important seems snobbishly arrogant, since they are significant enough to thousands of people that they decide to leave when they learn them.  So why are they never taught in church manuals, or even approached?

 It's great how they so simply paint and dismiss the person with troubling issues as unwilling to look at the issues other than from an "anti" stand point.  From my experience, and there have been many, any time I bring up an issue it's the believer who says leave me alone I don't want to hear it.  From my experience, not too many people who are doing in depth study are unwilling to discuss apologetic responses.  In fact these as I've met people who are studying harder issues they are usually excited to find anyone else who knows about them and will talk about them. It does grow tiresome when the same failed answers and dismissive comments from believers keep getting repeated over and over. 

 The Dad - "I don't think anyone's intentionally trying to hide anything from us.  It's boring."  Really?  It's boring?  Not to people invested in the faith.  And have you seen the recent news articles about the church coming clean because of the internet.  (UPDATE - The KUTV link is dead.  Here's some new references - one, two, three.  It's not hard to find more with a simple google search.  Once on the internet, always on the internet.)

Or comments like the following from Elder Steven E Snow the church's historian. 

"My view is that being open about our history solves a whole lot more problems than it creates. We might not have all the answers, but if we are open (and we now have pretty remarkable transparency), then I think in the long run that will serve us well. I think in the past there was a tendency to keep a lot of the records closed or at least not give access to information. But the world has changed in the last generation—with the access to information on the Internet, we can’t continue that pattern; I think we need to continue to be more open." Religious Educator 14, no. 3 (2013): 1-11

"9,502?"   Scoffing remarks follow about boring content by the father, after his silly guess at how many people are studying the troubling issues. I can reference the web traffic of some sites that cover tough topics from a non church approved/white washed perspective with traffic in the hundreds of thousands even on simple blogs, and for one site in the millions.

Don't worry, it's not just Mormons having troubles with the internet.

"You kinda feel like a traitor...like you've crossed over to the dark side."  This is nothing but a manipulative characterization made to keep believers from questioning.

 This if followed by a nice plug for John Dehlin.  At least he's an active member who has tried to foster an environment for open discussion, unlike fair and the church.

 In the video he asked them to watch a video where he types "Who should I listen to on the book of Abraham"  The very way he approaches this even in question is troubling, and is more troubling after watching the video.  The guy in the video says you have to be both an Egyptologist and church historian.  In fact all that is needed is for members to do a simple study of the church's representation of the history of the book, the book itself, and for the members to apply the overwhelming academic majorities translation of the papyri to the stories they've been taught.  It's not nearly as hard as this guy wants the lay person to believe it is to come to a conclusion of the church's honesty based on readily accessible information.  These constant types of defense amount for what seems normal to Mormon apologetics, but doesn't really provide any apologetic answer other than you aren't smart enough and neither are the critics.  It does nothing to address the church's representation of the papyri and what they say.  As a matter of fact here's how simple it really is.  First listen to Muhlesteins explanation, compare it to this rebuttle, then read this link where a teenager wrote to over 60 professors in Egyptology regarding the book of Abraham papyri, and compare their responses to the pictures in our scriptures of the same papyri and what they claim it says on them.  In addition to these links there's so much more available that this guy has no answers for on this one issue, but I'd bet you won't need much more than this simple comparison.  These responses represent the majority of Egyptologists opinions regarding the issue with the exception of a few believers.  It's in writing the opinions of both sides and the church itself even in scripture.  Trust me you're not too stupid to make a comparison of this information.  If a=b, and b does not = c, a does not = c.  My guess is you'll find it a little disturbing if you look that they even tried to suggest that you, or the critics aren't smart enough to make the comparison.  It'll be even more troubling the comparison itself.

 

Thanks you mormoninfograpics.

 

"I'm beginning to understand but it's complex...well it's not really that complex....too you..."  Yup don't read anything else, you're too dumb and we've done the work already, here's the answer.  Don't look behind our curtain to see if it's real.

If you've looked at the links, you'll see his idea that the "demonstrably wrong assumptions" is way off base, and he fails to answer any troubling issues regarding the book of Abe.  But as a commenter below the video has stated, if you're only problem is the book of A, you haven't looked at much.  In fact, the list of troubling issues for the church is very long.

 Zelph, Kinderhook Plates, Multiple versions of first Vision, Racism, Misogyny, Anachronisms, Archeology, Plagiarisms, Mistranslations, Polygamy, Polyandry, Use of Tithe (Search LDS Financial Investments), Population issues, Membership claims, Lying for the Lord, Paid clergy claims, Sept 6, Hoffman and the Salamander letters, Gold Plate translations with peep stone and head in hat, Convicted con man for treasure digging, Mtn Meadows, The Mormon Militia, Joseph Smith made a king, Didn't wear garments, drank and smoked after WofW, and had a gun that he used in his "lamb to the slaughter" martyrdom, Hid marriages from Emma, Polygamy is still in scripture, Some wives were young teens married to old mean (al la Warren Jeffs), Continued polygamy even with apostles after first declaration to stop, Took two declarations and federal pressure, Adam God Theory, Failed prophecies, DNA, Linguistics, Literal teaching of proven false Bible myths, Temple ordinances are barrowed Masonic ordinances, Edits to talks and scriptures and even the temple ceremony such as removing certain oaths, What happened in Navoo - the whole story leading up to his death, Can't find Mormonism in the book of Mormon, Widdeling deacons, Danites, And the persecution and excommunication of people who talk about this stuff....just to hint to some of them.

No matter how much ignorance is encouraged, ignorance never was faith.  And the excuse of "we don't know" doesn't excuse ignoring what we do in fact know. 

They then get a couple things right.  You do have to figure it out for yourself, and keep studying.  But the next statement is so incredibly wrong, let me know if you can't find the problem in it.  "Study it out intellectually until you come to a point you think it's true.  And then put it to a spiritual test.  While doing this you're going to have to set aside your false assumptions."  OMFG  I'm beside myself hearing this.  This probably marks the primary difference between apologetics and other scholars who do research with regards to the church.  What they are implying is that you have to first set aside the critics as false, and come to a conclusions the church is true, then find your confirmation of such.  This lacks intellectual honesty so deeply it hurts to hear it.  And this is the difference.  Apologetics starts with the conclusion (the church is true) and all efforts are to support it.  Honest research DOES NOT start with a preconceived conclusion.  You may start with a hypothesis, or even believe something to be the answer, but then you test the hypothesis or belief by considering ALL information, not by ignoring the data that disproves it.  This type of "intellectual" dishonesty should be very disturbing when you realize it.

 As for the last part in the video about God and "he quit searching too soon." Maybe he (the person being discussed in the video) weighed even more evidence and came to the conclusion that there is a serious lack of evidence for God.  That in fact the reason you likely believe in your God is predicted primarily by the faith of your parents.  That if you can say why you dismiss the many hundreds of other gods believed in by the many billions of people of different faiths, you will realize why he may dismiss yours.  Maybe when you realize why you don't believe in unicorns or santa claus....

This piece turns into little more than an emotion based propaganda piece when the points are looked at, and consideration is given to the speech used to describe people.  For example, the mother at the end praying with her child, and praying for daddy and his "problems."  What if he found out the church isn't' true, and he was right?  Maybe you just know your church is correct.  But try to imagine this characterization of the father if it's false.  However, he does have a problem.  His problem is that his discovery, even if true, isn't considered by the believing spouse, and he is viewed as having a problem for making such a discovery.  His problem is that his wife has decided he is broken and needs fixed with no thought that it may be her belief that in fact needs fixed.  His problem is that people around him he cares about most are unwilling to listen to him, and have no problem blaming him as a way of forcing him and his new beliefs to fit into their worldview.  If what he knows is true, whether she realizes it or not, she and the church are the ones with the real problem. 

 Holy crap this video is disturbing.  Even when he talks to his wife at the end about the problems with the book of Abraham, he uses NOTHING but GENERALIZATIONS and a NARRATED description of the conversation!  As if that represents the issues.  Seriously?  Not even a mention of funeral texts or Horus?  Not even a mention of how the papyri were recovered and the history of their existence.  No comparison of the pictures shown right inside YOUR OWN SCRIPTURES with the labeled descriptions and scriptural references vs the actual translations?  He might as well have said "EH STUFF."  Then he says "they say it proves he's a false prophet."  Well yes, if you study all of the details it does mean just that.  But they don't hesitate to tell you the conclusion.... "That's poisonous." and "It makes me feel sick inside."  Let me explain something.  When I made the same discoveries, it made me feel sick too.  But Feeling offended by a criticism of your faith doesn't mean the critical statement is false.  This entire video presents a conversation that happens within the context of having predefined that the criticisms of the church are false, and the church is true.  Any video trying to honestly address any issue from the standpoint of learning, should not approach the issue with a dialog so strongly biased towards a predetermined conclusion.  Before you say that a critic or even I sound predetermined, remember I was a believer first, and wanted it to be true more than anything.  Don't insult me by pretending I wasn't a veracious defender of my faith.  I did however recognize, after a long time of searching and studying that it was intellectually dishonest to only consider one side.  Watching this video reinforces the correctness of that conclusion.

 In the end they decide to separate the issues and try to learn them without considering their intertwined affect, and resulted to prayer, and choosing to believe.  In the end they decide that God doesn't show himself, but to believe in a God that isn't there.  (Insert reference to the guy who was "published a tone" and "oh wow") They admit they can't prove things (they say one way or the other, but I would say their way, because the other does have proof), but then say they can "intellectually" freed up enough to test things spiritually in his life.  Um.  Intellectually spiritually test things?  I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

Oh hey hunny here's that link to this smart published "oh wow" guy.  Joseph Smith worship, kind words, nice music unlike the evil music for the first half the video, add testimony, and CHOOSE to believe.  Period.  Yup.  And this is why fail you already have.

 

For a good look at both sides, not just an apologetic side to many issues, I'd suggest visiting mormonthink.  If you don't think they are fair, compare them to FAIR.  Hell, compare them to LDS.org.  Mormonthink doesn't cover all issues to the limit of information available, but it does give a very good and fairly deep discussion on many tough topics.

Since I had a lot to say I decided to do a write up.  I know I this review is a harshly worded, but for f#$% sake, this video made my stomach hurt. At the end of the video they said to share our comments.  I'm going to post a link to this write up.  So I hope this means you don't lack intellectual honesty, and will allow differing opinions to remain posted.  UPDATE - perhaps my comment just didn't post.   Hmmm.  (I think my cousin also posted the link in the comments...)

But Seriously? This video makes me laugh to think that the same problems have been plaguing the church for decades and longer.  They still in all that time haven't figured it out?  No wonder the church has so many talks and ensign articles warning members about anti information on the internet.  Information is as it turns out the church's cancer. 

Better Arguments Are Needed

 

           I'm an exmormon living in Utah.  Some would ask why I don't leave it alone, but in truth, it never leaves me alone.  I'm surrounded by it, from the ward, to family, friends, and coworkers.  I can't go to work one day without hearing a church related conversation.  Even in the middle of a meeting I'm conducting, someone will go off the rails and just launch into the latest news they feel is important for all to know that is church related.  I'm also currently married to a believing member, and in our split faith home, things of course come up.  So as a result I still enjoy being informed about the church and what's it's up to.  One day my kids may choose to be baptized or serve a mission in it.  Also, from time to time I find myself involved in discussions regarding the church, and why I don't believe any more.  There's a huge list of reasons, but I just had a conversation with a coworker that not only summarizes the issues well, but also to me gives a good summary for why magical/religious beliefs are giving way more and more to secular ideas.

 

           It's not the first and won't be the last time I've heard it, but in having a conversation with a guy at work about the church, he lobbed the "anti" and "angry" terms at me. I wasn't even a little angry in our conversation, I was enjoying it. And for the most part I feel like I'm over the anger towards the church. To hold on to that anger would be to let the church get the best of me. So I pointed out how those terms are used in such a loaded way and that they are a very dismissive oversimplification of people's criticisms. I then gave him examples of the assumptions Mormons make when those terms are used, vs the reasoning and sources behind the criticisms and even resentment. He then shifted to the I respect your beliefs you respect mine. To this I said he's wrong in demanding respect for a belief. I respect him as a person and his right to believe what he wants, but I don't have to respect his belief if I feel it is wrong. Claims of supernatural deserve scrutiny to see if they have merit, not a fake protective shield of misplaced respect. If I were to tell him I believed an invisible pink unicorn wanted me to commit evil acts that harm people he wouldn't respect such a belief, and he shouldn't. Then came the just have faith argument. And he tried to tell me I'm practicing faith by not believing an accepting sciences answer to the Book of Mormon. To this I pointed to the many people who make faith claims for the many other religions of the world. I also don't feel accepting verifiable data requires any faith. The church defined faith as believing in things that are unseen but true. I generally try to avoid these conversations because they are such a waste. But it seems every time I find myself in one, the same tired reasons get used every time. No wonder religion is losing ground to secularism. They simply must come up with better arguments. The only one that makes any sense is the community argument. But for me I decided personal longing for community was selfish if in order to find such community I had to support an organization that has most definitely harmed and caused a lot of pain via physical, mental, and financial means to so many.

 

           If you're a believer of Mormonism you may think I'm just wrong.  After all the church is said to be growing and there's proof in the numbers based on the reporting done in General Conference, which now claim the church has over 14 million members. However, they are counting based on baptisms in that number, and that doesn't account for people who were once baptized but no longer consider themselves Mormon.  I know this is just hearsay, but I can tell you a previous Presiding Bishop of the LDS church was quoted from a private event as saying that the average activity rate of the entire church is only about 36%.  Pew survey results tend to verify this as well, and many suspect that actual practicing and believing members of the church worldwide are only just over 5 million.  Not a very good retention rate.  Why is that?  I believe it's because of the poor arguments available for the criticisms.  The same is also happening in developed countries to many religions using the same arguments.  Until religions come up with better responses for the general membership to troubling questions than the broken record responses I've become accustom to hearing, they will continue to lose ground to secularism.  The only real growth for religion today seems to be to have lots of babies and brainwash them into the faith of their parents. 

 

Today was a good day.

I have some posts in the making, but life's been busy.  So to my one or two readers, I'm still here.  But in light of the supreme courts rulings regarding Prop 8 and Doma today I have to say it's a good day, and I'm so happy for the gay community.  There's just no good argument for intolerance.  I've already heard a bit of the Christian persecution complex on the radio, and I thought this video was worth sharing. Enjoy the day, and the video should give you a chuckle.

God the Ladies Man

                 I was watching a video from Ted Talks by Sam Harris, and he discussed women veiling their faces because of religion.  In the photos it was showing Muslim women.  In my memory I thought there was a scripture in the Bible that said women should cover their faces.  There is.  This led me to look at more of the misogynistic things in the Bible.  I referenced the skeptics annotated bible website for help.  There is a lot more than I'm going to touch on but here is some of what I found.  While reading this I have a question.  In Mormonism, in the temple women are made to veil their faces during some of the rituals, but not the men.  I asked women in a forum how they felt about this, and many said it really bothered them or they even hated it.  So to any women who may read this I would ask, how do you feel knowing these scriptures are how God sees you.  You can say I am selectively reading the scriptures and focusing on the bad ones, but so is ignoring these scriptures and only reading the good ones.  The fact is these scriptures are in the book.  You can't claim to live by the bible selectively and really claim to believe in it.  To ignore these scriptures and only focus on the ones you like would be to admit the bible is full of crap you can't live by.  For that matter, I don't think I've ever met a Christian woman who lives and believes as if any of these scriptures I'm going to list matter to her.  So have I ever met a Christian woman who really believes in the bible? 

Genesis

                 To protect Angels from a mob Lot gives them his two virgin daughters.  Any father who would seriously surrender his daughters to be taken advantage of is sick.  But what God sends to worthless "Angels" and doesn't protect them without requiring or prohibiting such a terrible thing.

19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

 Exodus

                 First don't tell me selling daughters is old hat, and "we don't do that anymore."  The argument that we've abandoned old practices only supports my point that the bible is a book loaded with terrible crap that people who claim to live by it don't really follow.  But yes, in the bible, God's word, women are property and can be sold.

21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

                 But what happens if she fails to please her new master.  Note is says master and not husband.

21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

21:9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
21:11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

                But what if a man gets a girl to have sex with him.  Surely she should become his wife right?  She may want to or not want to but what matters is what her father decides.   If the father says no you can't have her, then you have to pay him the going price for virgins.

22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.

22:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

Deuteronomy

                 When conquering other people, kill all the men, but keep the women.  God has given them to you.

 20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: 

20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof,  shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. 

                 Again if you want a women, just go have her, but if you decide she doesn't "delight" you, just let her go, but you can't sell her because you have "humbled" her with your manly manliness. Holy crap.

 21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;

21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

                Rules for having two wives.

21:15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

                 Hey, all you women wearing pants.  Knock it off!

22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

                 Yup this barbaric old book is certainly what the modern world needs to know how to live. For example, here's what to do if the man takes a wife but decides he hates her. 

22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
22:16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

                 What should we do in the event some guy rapes a virgin? Simple. If it happens in a city, stone her. If it happens in a field, let her live and kill the guy. It wasn't her fault, because no one would hear her if she cried out, like they should obviously be able to do in a city. What if it happens in a field in a city? Oh shit. God help I'm confused. And if a guy gets caught having sex with a virgin who isn't wed? No problem, just give her dad fifty bucks and she's yours.

22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
22:26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
22:27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

                If two guys are fighting and one of their wives reaches in and takes him by the "secrets" you should cut off her hand.  And don't feel bad about it.

25:11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

25:12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

                Ok I'm not going to pretend I can even begin to set up this next one, but eating your kids?  WTF?

28:56 The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,

28:57 And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.
28:58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD; 

Judges

                For every man a damsel or two!  Hurrah!

5:30 Have they not sped? have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two; to Sisera a prey of divers colours, a prey of divers colours of needlework, of divers colours of needlework on both sides, meet for the necks of them that take the spoil?

                When you guys are done conquering that city, kill everyone....accept for the virgin girls.  Give girls to Benjamin and the gang. And yet 400 virgins sufficed them not. 

21:11 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.

21:12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan.
21:13 And the whole congregation sent some to speak to the children of Benjamin that were in the rock Rimmon, and to call peaceably unto them.
21:14 And Benjamin came again at that time; and they gave them wives which they had saved alive of the women of Jabeshgilead: and yet so they sufficed them not.

1 Samuel

                What better price for a wife than to go kill 200 of her father's enemies, cut off their foreskins, and present the foreskins as a generous offer.  Even when the dad only requested 100.  What the hell was he going to do with them anyhow. Make a soup? And who the hell slays 20 0men. Did they just line up and let him lop of their heads one by one? Was he some sort of mythological super being....oh wait.

18:25 And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry, but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king's enemies. But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines.

18:26 And when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to be the king's son in law: and the days were not expired.
18:27 Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.

2 Samuel

                God hates race mixing but loves polygamy.

5:13 And David took him more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David.

1 Kings

                Naughty old Solomon loved the ladies.  But he couldn't help himself and took some foreign women as well...which God didn't like. Remember, every sperm is sacred. Keep it in your hood.

11:1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites:

11:2 Of the nations concerning which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
11:3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

2 Chronicles

                So....polygamy....God was ok with it, but sometimes he isn't, but most the time he is...and he's the same yesterday, today and forever?

11:21 And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daughters.)

13:21 But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives, and begat twenty and two sons, and sixteen daughters.
24:3 And Jehoiada took for him two wives; and he begat sons and daughters.

Ezra

                Man you guys are dumb...God doesn't want the race mixing thing to happen.  Remember!

9:2 For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.

                So what do we do now then to be right by God? Well you abandon those wives and kids or feel his wrath of course!

10:2 And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said unto Ezra, We have trespassed against our God, and have taken strange wives of the people of the land: yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.

10:3 Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.
10:10 And Ezra the priest stood up, and said unto them, Ye have transgressed, and have taken strange wives, to increase the trespass of Israel.
10:11 Now therefore make confession unto the LORD God of your fathers, and do his pleasure: and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from the strange wives.
10:12 Then all the congregation answered and said with a loud voice, As thou hast said, so must we do.

Nehemiah

                Seriously...our sperm is so righteous, that using it in a foreign woman really pisses of God.

13:25 And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves.

13:26 Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin.
13:27 Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives?

NEW TESTAMENT!!!

                Sweet, since old testament God is such an ass...lets be happy we have new testament God to be nice. Good cop bad cop right? Wait...Bad cop bad cop?  WTF?

Romans 1 (PAUL)

                The natural use of a woman is for sex.  And man with man sex, that is sooooo wrong fellas!

1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

1 Corinthians (PAUL)

                It's better to not marry, but to avoid fornication, take one wife.

7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband

                Women are under men. I can't help it babe, it's Gods rules, I didn't make em....aw come on babe! I'm just trying to be a good Christian!

11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

                Women cover your heads and you are for the man, not the other way around. I love this one a little big also because it's so common for Christians to ignore the misogyny in their religion, and point the burke in Islam.

11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Epheisans

                Again with the subjugation of women to men. At this point I feel like as a man I should be breaking out into song "Our God is an awesome God, He reigns over heaven above.  With wisdom power and love our God is an awesome God!"  Accept this kind of attitude makes me sick. Makes God seem so human, and points to the humanity and masculinity of the probably authors of this bullshit.  And please spare me the contrived dribble about men and women are equals in the sight of your God.

5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Colossians 3

                Again with the submitting. (yes it does keep telling the husbands to be nice to them also)

3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

 

1 Timothy

                Whats with all the fancy jewelry and such.  God says girls should be plain.

2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

 

                Women be quiet, and don't let them teach.

2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

                Poor Adam.  Stupid Eve.  Babies are your punishment.

2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Titus 2

                Teach the women to obey their men. Someone forgot to tell my wife about this. She just doesn't listen like her God wants her to.

2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children,

2:5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

1 Peter

                In case it isn't clear yet.

3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;

 

                Stop dressing so pretty

3:3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

                Oh, and you are weak...er

3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

                So in summary.  Women, God says you belong to us, you create all the problems, you shouldn't dress like a man or in jewelry, we can have as many of you as we want, married or not, if you're not a virgin you have no value, we are your masters and God made you for us, you should not speak, you should veil your heads if you want to talk to God, you should not be allowed to teach, babies are you punishment because Eve ate a piece of fruit, if you are in a country we conquer we should be killing everyone but the virgins, because God gives them to us as reward, if we take women who are different race as wives it sometimes bothers God, the new testament didn't exactly improve things for you, either, clearly.  I barely scratched the surface on these types of scriptures, but I think I made my point.

               For God so loved 50% of the world that he gave you to us.  Also he basically he had some sadistic side to him that required mass murder and rape and women were property.  Thank you Bible. I now know how to view women in the 21st century. Give me a fucking break. Can we dismiss the old book as barbaric and crazy already? If this book really is the word of God, do you want him as your neighbor? Some people may believe some of this, but no one really believes all of this, and they certainly don't live by it. Get your bible out of here. You don't even live or believe in it. And if you did, we'd be screwed.

 

                Let me finish on a more serious note. Scriptures like these, whether you choose to abide by them, interpret them the same, or live by this book in a different manner, are and have been used to do awful things to women. Don't tell me about the "good book" in ignorance of what it contains, and pretend these verses haven't caused some real pain and suffering.