Dan Brooks's Blog

Here are some quotes from the Deseret News article where the LDS Church addressed the LDS LGBT suicides reported since November 5th. I will be commenting in between the italic quotes.

"We mourn with their families and friends when they feel life no longer offers hope," senior church leaders said through a spokesman."

To me that is like saying this: "We also disavow the fact that our policy or revelation or whatever we are calling it today, as having absolutely anything to do with driving these youths to suicide. We are certain it's all just a coincidence."

"For example, Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once was asked how he would respond if his 17-year-old son said he was gay. "You’re my son," Elder Oaks said. "You will always be my son, and I'll always be there to help you."

What I hear is this: And when I say I'll always be there to help you I mean I will help you to not be gay as being gay is an abomination to the way God made you. The other thought that occurs to me is that if you consider the proclamation of the family and this policy turned revelation as help, just stop it!

The other problem I'm sensing is that the everyday policies and doctrines of the LDS Church are harsh and yet all the good well financed PR about how loving, inclusive, and accepting of LGBT people are until you set foot in your local ward or watch General Conference because then you get a completely non-inclusive and very much conditional love theology at that point.

It seems as though The LDS Church wants to be seen as being unconditionally loving, inclusive, modern, and transparent without actually being unconditionally loving, inclusive, modern, or transparent.

"Senior LDS leaders reiterated through a spokesman on Thursday that they expect church members to actively reach out to and care for young Mormon lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people."
My view is that you can't reach out and support people you view as lesser, sinful, as abominations, inherently wicked, or failing to be righteous. You can't love those you judge for one. And you can't support those you can't or won't accept.
The Dalai Lama said "Love is the absence of judgment." Since he has devoted his life to spiritual pursuits I'd say he knows. Unlike some religious officials he actually has to know a thing or two about religious doctrine rather than the business world or reading into his own confirmation bias for example.

"John Gustav-Wrathall, a gay man who regularly attends an LDS ward in Minnesota and is on the board of Affirmation, an LGBT support group for Mormons, said he supports church leaders and understands the reasoning behind the announcements, but he said many felt heartache."

Finding one gay man who supports the LDS Church is a way of invalidating those who object or the faithful dissidents. It's like in the '60's and '70's, during the civil rights era,(which church leaders at the time said was a communist conspiracy to ruin Anerica) The Church paraded out black folks who said The Church's racist policies weren't racist policies. 

Being gay and being black are two completely different things, bringing different struggles with them. They are not the same thing. But one thing they both share is that you are born the way you are born. Being gay isn't anymore of a choice than your race.

"Church leaders have said that they do not reject LGBT members but love them, and that all should extend love and encouragement to them. They also have said repeatedly that members who experience same-sex attraction can live full, productive lives and participate fully in the church by following the laws provided by God."

The Church does not reject LGBT people. Except they do. In terms of allowing males or trans men to serve as priesthood holders. Even in the few wards where LGBT young men were allowed to pass the sacrament members who were aware of their LGBT status have refused the sacrament. But that's because the church accepts LGBT members huh?

“If your life is in harmony with the commandments,” said Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve, “then you are worthy to serve in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with the members, attend the temple, and receive all the blessings of the Savior’s Atonement.”

On the condition that you maintain a lifelong vow of celibacy our unconditional love for you will abound. Only then will you be worthy of Christ's Atonement.

Okay, couple of things: 1) Everyone and I mean EVERYONE is worthy of the Atonement. That what it is all about. Jesus suffered for ALL of us not only those deemed by the religious elite/authorities as worthy.

2) "Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:39 KJV

This speaks to what mainstream Christians refer to as Grace. Meaning Christ's love is unconditional and unmerited. Which is His motivation for gifting us with The Atonement. It is also the exact opposite of Russel M. Nelson's 2003 General Conference talk where he stated that God's love is completely conditional. Thinking one does not contradict the other is another example of cognitive dissonance.

“There are so many behaviors that pertain to risk. As behaviors increase, so does the risk. As they decrease, so does the risk. There are simple things one can do even if you don’t agree.” Researchers from the Family Acceptance Project have created some audience-targeted brochures for different groups, including LDS families, that explain why it’s important to love and accept LGBT youth. They contain suggestions for doing that while “staying true to their own beliefs and values.”

While staying true to their own beliefs and values? You mean the beliefs that being gay is an abomination? That giving in to your sexuality only happens if you fail to live righteously? That you are not worthy of God's acceptance, love, and approval if you're LGBT?

To put this in perspective to "love and accept" LGBT people while excluding them from priesthood ordinances, baptisms, and demanding their own children(who were likely born because of a culturally forced mixed orientation marriage that inevitably failed) disavow their own family to support a church is lying not only to others, like your family, but to yourself. There is a term for those who hold fast to two diametrically opposed ideas at the same time, it's called Cognitive Dissonance.

It is defined as follows from Merriam Webster: "psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously."

The idea that one can accept, love, and respect those they disavow, judge, and are disgusted by, is a classic example of cognitive dissonance. Either your love is unconditional or your "love's" conditions are unloving.

"Bullying is a big problem for many LGBT youths. Ryan said research finds LGBT young people who have been bullied don’t thrive and may fail academically, even dropping out. Still, bullying is not a direct line to suicide: “Almost all people who die are suffering from a mental illness.” And lots of people are bullied and don’t attempt suicide."

So these kids are just crazy no normal kid would kill themselves over these issues. When your community, your whole world tells you, but more to the point shows you, day after day and year after year you are not loved, accepted, or approved of because you're LGBT, then how can you be blamed for hating yourself as much as everyone else in your world hates you?

Dismissing these suicides, by saying they are all just mentally ill, is sickening to me. 

"Family acceptance of a youth — regardless of whether the parents and other relatives embrace the individual’s sexual identity — lowers risk, while rejection increases it, said Rachel Peterson, Utah Pride Center director of programs."

Family acceptance of an LGBT youth-regardless of actual acceptance-lowers risk while rejection increases it. How can you accept without accepting? Is this a riddle from Confucius or something?

I find the article from The Church's PR department(arguably propaganda network) the Deseret News is deeply disturbing. It would be laughable if it weren't so tragic, if lives were not on the line. The church as a culture and as an institution along with its leaders have blood on their hands. 

Sorry Elder Nelson but God's love, according to scripture, is unconditional. And no 600+ pharisaical regulations/policies turned revelation are going to make that otherwise.

There are many who claim that the crumbs from the table of Church leadership, in the form of the mormonsandgays website and this Deseret News article, are causes to hope. That these crumbs are in fact a feast for those who feel stranded along the roadside. There is no feast for the LGBT community. These are crumbs, scraps we are expected to be grateful for.

I am not grateful. I am resentful that this church has blood on its hands and yet tells its victims it loves them. Like an abusive husband who hits his wife because he loves her. It's wrong. It's old. It's tired. And it's time to hold these old men accountable.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:16-20 KJV

So often in churches, specifically LDS Churches, people speak of sharing and spreading the Gospel message. But the loudest proponents of sharing the Gospel think it means converting others to their beliefs. 

That is not what sharing the Gospel is about. That's not what it means.

The word Gospel originally meant "Good News." So the idea was to share this good news about Christ. But I don't see that it solely or otherwise ever meant merely convincing others to think and believe as we do.

Often in scripture when Christ is mentioned He and His message are interchangeable. Because His power was not simply a birthright, it was the result of living His own message. So, in scripture, when we are told to believe on His name what was meant, it seems to me, is that believing and living His message is what saves us. Simply believing He is our Savior in a literal sense does nothing for us in and of itself.

So then all we have to do is define what His message is. Now at the risk of cherry picking and/or over simplifying His message I'll quote a few passages that for me are the essence and undying principles of that message:

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matthew 22:36-40 KJV

How can we claim to love our God if we hate His children fashioned in His likeness and created by His very hand?

Next we have examples provided by Christ as to how we can live out His Gospel(pardon the length of the quote, I wouldn't include it were it not necessary):

  31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. Matthew 25:31-46 KJV

By their fruits shall we know them. If the fruits of our lives are feeding the hungry, supporting the widow and the orphan, or even supporting the veterans we know, helping the poor even if we also are poor, loving the hateful who likely have never known love but who need it the most, extending God's grace to those who the world or even ourselves say do not deserve it are classic examples of what it really means to share the good news of Christ.

If with our lives we produce abundant fruits of love, laughter, smiles, hard hearts softened, smiles, bearing one another's burden so as to make it easier to bear, then our lives testify to what words can never do proper justice. Our lives will be the proof that we shared the good news of Jesus.

If, on the other hand, our lives bear abundant fruits of hate, neglect, abuse, violence, mockeries, selfishness beyond self preservation, then our lives testify that we have squandered God's good news. And we have spread misery rather than love. We have borne rotten fruit. And that fruit can not be mistaken for good fruits from the good news of the Gospel.

To bear rotten fruit is the result of sins.

Here's what makes a sin a sin to me; it's not that we are punished for our sins as much as we are punished by them. And all too often others face the negative, unhealthy, and abusive consequences of our sins.

A sin is a sin because it robs us of health and provides us instead with toxicity. A sin is a sin because of its toxic effects on ourselves and others.

Sin is not a matter of arbitrary rule breaking.

The fruit we bear will prove whether or not we have truly shared the good news of Christ's Gospel.

And remember that though we can not change who we were, and we can not change who we are, we can still change who we become. So as long as we are better today than we were yesterday then we are making progress.

The difference between bearing good fruit and bearing evil fruit is a choice. So let us choose the right.

Can the Prophet ever lead The Church astray?No. 
Why not?
Because he's the Prophet.
How do we know that to be true?
Because the Lord will never let that happen.
Who Says so? 
The Prophet says so.
Why should we believe him?  
Because the Prophet will never lead the church astray. 
Why not?
Because he's the Prophet. 
The above is an example courtesy of Rock Waterman at Puremormonism.blogspot.com
It succinctly epitomizes the biggest lie in the LDS Church, which is that we can never be led astray by a prophet. Which is ironic because the Book of Mormon warns against such idolatrous beliefs throughout its epic volumes of text. The Bible both Old and New Testaments also do but not to the repetitious fervor that The Book of Mormon does.
To believe we could never be led astray is to believe that the men Jesus hand picked to build up His church were capable of leading His church astray but somehow these modern prophets are magical and are totes better than the Apostles who personally walked with Jesus and learned at His feet.
The "logic" baffles me. But then those who profess such idolatrous beliefs never seem to be the ones known for critical inquiry or for thinking for themselves. But who needs to think for oneself when we have prophets to do it for us? You know I heard they can never lead us astray?
The LDS Church, in terms of the leadership, are not focused on what Christ said or did. They are focused on their interpretation of what He said or did. Meaning that they hold the lens through which we must look to access Christ.
For example; in church I would make a statement or share a thought about something Jesus said or did and the first question asked was "Well, but what do the prophets say about that?" 
There is no direct communication between us and Christ. The Brethren are standing in between us and Jesus. They "facilitate" our faith. As if it were their faith to give or administer. And therein lies the problem; so many members now see their faith as in need of administering from the Brethren rather than through Christ directly.
How Modern Pharisees Are Hindering The Saints

“But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering.” Matthew 23:13

"Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.” Luke 11:52

"4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." Matthew 23:4 KJV

"The Scribes, often referred to as lawyers, were the learned class who copied, edited, and taught the scriptures. They were known for their knowledge of the Law of Moses, which was Israel’s sole civil and religious authority. Their official interpretations of the meaning of the Law eventually became more important than the Law itself. Following the Law and the traditions that had grown up around it became the measure of one’s devotion and spirituality." (Taken from Hindering the Saints by Phil McClemore.)

Jesus’s condemnation of the Pharisees, scribes or lawyers, and the rest of the religious elite of His time were as follows:

1. That they were hypocrites.

2. That they did not understand the inner meaning of the Law and the scriptures.

3. That they had set up a system to measure spiritual status and worthiness that emphasized external religious practices, thus neglecting the inner path of spiritual rebirth, which is “the key of knowledge.”

"28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." Matthew 11:28-30 KJV

Jesus says here that His yoke is easy and His burden is light. Yet the religious elite according to Biblical scholars added over 600 regulations to Biblical laws. Their interpretation of the law was more important than the law itself. It was used as a weapon against the people and weighed down on them like an insurmountable burden. The people lived out their entire lives struggling with this burden. It was their primary concern. They were judged by how well they kept the regulations their entire lives. 

These 600+ regulations were more than just a crushing burden, theses regulations were a thing to be worshipped in and of themselves by the elite and everyday people alike.

Sound familiar?

"26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." Matthew 23:26-27 KJV

The people, as those oppressed often do, thought they needed the religious elite to set these regulations because how else would they know how to fulfill God's word without them? 

In scripture the term "The Church" referred to the body of its members as a whole. Now it refers mostly to the leaders or religious elite of "The Church." That speaks volumes I think.

The reason external and outward signs of piety are never a good litmus test of purity or of piety is because to shave, get a haircut, and wear a white shirt with a tie anybody can do. But does everyone feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit with the sick or imprisoned? How many of us do the right thing when no one is looking?

Obedience is doing what you're told regardless of what is right. Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you're told. And a moral person is the enemy of every tyrant while an obedient one is their enforcer.

Jesus said we can have living water well up within us and we will never thirst. He said the kingdom of God is within us not here or there but within.

Christ's goal was not to transcend or escape the world but to transform Himself and thereby transform the world. As He has called us to follow that path.

Our goal is not to suffer temporally to live it up eternally but to transform ourselves, our families, and our communities and thereby change the trajectory of not just our spirits but everyone else's too.

We aren't supposed to rescue ourselves from our humanity, we are suppose to live our humanity so fully it rescues us.

Elder Russel M. Nelson is a hypocrite. He had this to say about God's love: "While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional."

Excuse me while I call Bullshit. Flat out bullshit!

I've talked to Biblical scholars well versed in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. The 3 languages needed for a Christian to study the Bible in the original text. To know the original meaning, implications, and nuances. They all said that the Greek word for love used by Jesus to describe His love for His Apostles, Diciples, and for all people was Agape. In Greek culture this was the highest form of the many different form of love like platonic that the Greeks had. One of the things it means IS UNCONDITIONAL LOVE!

The word Agape was specifically chosen because of that connotation. But I wouldn't expect Russel M. Nelson to know that, I mean he's not a Biblical scholar after all, he's just an Apostle.

But if God's love is conditional who defines the 600+ regulations of those conditions? Oh, that's right, Russel M. Nelson and the rest of the Apostles and General Authorities.

If I didn't know any better I'd say that's a rather convenient fact.

The LDS church has doubled down on it's bigotry. Apostle Russel M. Nelson, who insists God's love is completely conditional, said today that the policy that LGBT church members are apostates and that their children are to be excluded from baptisms, ordinances, and sacred rites is in fact a revelation. But let's listen to what Elder Christofferson said when the church was questioned about this policy days after it's addition to the church handbook was inittially leaked:

Michael Otterson: So in the last couple of years there’s been a tone from the Church of understanding and acceptance of those people who experience same-sex attraction, and this policy seemed to be rather abrupt. What actually prompted this handbook change?Elder Christofferson: "To some degree it came from questions that have surfaced in different parts of the world and the United States. With the Supreme Court’s decision in the United States, there was a need for a distinction to be made between what may be legal and what may be the law of the Church and the law of the Lord and how we respond to that. So it’s a matter of being clear; it’s a matter of understanding right and wrong; it’s a matter of a firm policy that doesn’t allow for question or doubt. We think it’s possible and mandatory, incumbent upon us as disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, to yield no ground in the matter of love and sympathy and help and brotherhood and serving in doing all we can for anybody; at the same time maintaining the standards He maintained. That was the Savior’s pattern. He always was firm in what was right and wrong. He never excused or winked at sin. He never redefined it. He never changed His mind. It was what it was and is what it is and that’s where we are, but His compassion, of course, was unexcelled and His desire and willingness and proactive efforts to minister, to heal, to bless, to lift and to bring people toward the path that leads to happiness never ceased. That’s where we are. We’re not going to stop that. We’re not going to yield on our efforts to help people find what brings happiness, but we know sin does not. And so we’re going to stand firm there because we don’t want to mislead people. There’s no kindness in misdirecting people and leading them into any misunderstanding about what is true, what is right, what is wrong, what leads to Christ and what leads away from Christ."Elder Christofferson refers to this policy as policy and describes the thinking behind church leaders made this policy. In an article by the Salt Lake Tribune I found this: "Christofferson said the church made the shift largely as a reaction to the Supreme Court's decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. The faith acknowledges the law but "not as a right that exists in the church. That is the clarification."So it seems as if this policy as it has been refered to up until today was just that, a policy. Nowhere until today was it refered to as a revelation from God.  But let's discuss the procedure as laid out in scripture for how a policy is to be revealed as brought before the body or membership of the church; (The following explination and description of revelation is taken from Zomarah.wordpress.com) "The definition of revelation in Webster’s 1828 dictionary is:

Revelation n. [L. revelatus, revelo. See Reveal.] 1. The act of disclosing or discovering to others what was before unknown to them; appropriately, the disclosure or communication of truth to men by God himself, or by his authorized a gents, the prophets and apostles. How that by revelation he made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words. Eph. 3. 2Cor. 12. 2. That which is revealed; appropriately, the sacred truths which God has communicated to man for his instruction and direction. The revelations of God are contained in the Old and New Testament. 3. The Apocalypse; the last book of the sacred canon, containing the prophecies of St. John.

So already we can see that the word revelation has many different meanings. On lds.org:

Revelation is communication from God to His children.

–  Spirit of Revelation comes when the Holy Spirit speaks to our hearts and our minds. (D&C 8:2,3) – Revelation can only come by one who has been appointed by the person who held this power to reveal, starting with Joseph Smith.(I think this includes revelations who come through others but have the approval of this person.) (D&C 43:1-4) – Revelations are distinct from   general teachings. (D&C 43:5) – Revelations must be published. (D&C 1:6; 72:21; 104:58; 118:2; 124:89) This is from referencing the Doctrine and Covenants . Some additional qualifications can be known by observing how revelation was given at the time of Joseph Smith. – About 90% of the sections in Doctrine and Covenants are given as if the Lord was speaking in the first person. From this we can assume that most revelations will be given in the first person, i.e. “I the Lord speak unto you…” – Joseph Smith wrote his revelations down, or had them written down. – Joseph Smith received revelations sometimes with and sometimes without a seer stone. So from this we can deduce some rules that will almost always apply to institutional revelations. Granted there may be sometimes when some of these rules do not apply. A revelation: – is communication from God. – reveals previously unknown information. – comes from the Spirit. – is given directly to the mind or through another object such as a stone. – comes through one appointed. – is given in the first person as the Lord. – is written down and published. – will not contradict a previous revelation. We can use these criteria to examine any revelation that comes from anyone."
This comes from LDS.org https://www.lds.org/manual/scripture-... is how the process of canonizing scripture is supposed to work within the LDS church:4. 

Scripture becomes part of the standard works through the process of canonization.

■ 

Explain the meaning of canon, and describe the process by which scripture is canonized.

“A word of Greek origin, originally meaning ‘a rod for testing straightness,’ now used to denote the authoritative collection of the sacred books used by the true believers in Christ” (Bible Dictionary, “canon,” 630–31).

In the Church, canon refers to the authoritative collection of sacred books of scripture, known as the standard works, formally adopted and accepted by the Church and considered binding upon members in matters of faith and doctrine.

The process is illustrated by the action taken in the April 1976 general conference under the direction of President N. Eldon Tanner, in which two revelations were added to the Pearl of Great Price. Conducting the business of the conference, President Tanner said:

“President Kimball has asked me to read a very important resolution for your sustaining vote.

“‘At a meeting of the Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve held in the Salt Lake Temple on March 25, 1976, approval was given to add to the Pearl of Great Price the following two revelations:

“‘First, a vision of the celestial kingdom given to Joseph Smith … ; and second, a vision given to President Joseph F. Smith … showing the visit of the Lord Jesus Christ in the spirit world. …’

“It is proposed that we sustain and approve this action and adopt these revelations as part of the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

“All those in favor manifest it. Those opposed, if any, by the same sign” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1976, 29; or Ensign, May 1976, 19). In 1979 these two revelations were moved to the Doctrine and Covenants and became sections 137 and 138."

Note that Elder Tanner said "It is proposed that we sustain and approve this action and adopt these revelations as part of the standard works of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

The sustaining vote is proposed because in the LDS church all things are to be done according to common consent.

And he then asked for a sustaining vote. And asked for opposing votes but that's a matter for another post....

I am now a member of the Community of Christ, a restoration church which is formerly the RLDS church. We share much but not all of the Doctrine and Covenants. In the Community of Christ additions to the Doctrine and Covenants I found these relevant and poignant passages:
"3.c. There are subtle, yet powerful, influences in the world, some even claiming to represent Christ, that seek to divide people and nations to accomplish their destructive aims. That which seeks to harden one human heart against another by constructing walls of fear and prejudice is not of God. Be especially alert to these influences, lest they divide you or divert you from the mission to which you are called."
"7.b. Scripture is not to be worshiped or idolized. Only God, the Eternal One of whom scripture testifies, is worthy of worship. God’s nature, as revealed in Jesus Christ and affirmed by the Holy Spirit, provides the ultimate standard by which any portion of scripture should be interpreted and applied."I feel it's important to recognize the worth of each child of God. It's of the utmost importance that we use scripture as an instrument of further light and knowledge, peace, understanding, and love as I believe is its true purpose.I found the idea that that which seeks to harden one human heart against another to be striking and feels like an alternate way of saying that the hate you spread is actually not God's will or even worse, God's love.According to the scriptures revelations will never contradict any other revelation.  Revelations are messages to us from God, so they actually do need to be read and published as such rather than saying "Yeah, God totally told me what He wants me to do and you'll just have to take my word for it since I can never lead you astray 'n' junk."
Or worse yet, "This is a new policy and this is how we came to a decision on this matter."[2 months later.....]"Oh, wait, did I say policy? I totally like, meant it was a revelation or something..."This "revelation' does not fit the bill for a revelation.You don't get to say "This is a poicy, this is why we made it. No, wait, I totally meant it was a revelation." Russel M. Nelson may have meant this when he said "Each of us during that sacred moment felt a confirmation [bias]."The LDS church released an essay a few years ago stating that the policy of banning black people from priesthood and Temple rites was simpy the opinions of church leaders as opposed to being God's will as those leaders has said. So what if in 50 years the church turns around and says this was simply the opinions of church leaders? Well, now it's a revelation so now God is getting the blame for a "revelation" that just so happens to uplift and support the leaders confirmation bias and white male religious leadership priviallage.The section above from LDS.org wherein Elder Tanner brought a sustaining vote to canonize a revelation is how, according to LDS practices and scripture, revelations are to be brought forth and canonized. If there is a revelation from The Lord it is crucial to canonize.This policy, let us remember, was leaked to the press after being quietly inserted into a church handbook. Then it was discussed as and referred to as a policy. Now after much push back from members the church plays their only card they have left, the trump card of revelation from God. This isn't looking good to anyone who pays attention to how revelations are supposed to be handled.This policy turned revelation is not the revelation you are looking for Elder Nelson.

A King once came to a remote and poor village. The villagers were weary and had treated their children as slave labor. These children had nothing more than work to look forward to day after day.
When the King gathered the people of his village, he told them he replaced one of their children with one of his own and that one day he would return to check on his royal child.
The people were petrified that when the King came back he would find his child's living conditions lacking. They were in a panic that he may lash out at his child's inept guardians.
So they built schools for the first time. They greatly improved medical care such as it was. They treated each child as though they were of Royal blood not knowing which child actually was.
They did not spoil the children but instead raised them as if they had the rich potential that royals were so infamous for(or at least the better angels of their nature)like leading, planning, and serving their community. 
By investing in their children as if their future, or even their lives depended on it, their community flourished. 
And then as those children grew to raise children of their own, the old King returned to the village.
The old King gathered the people together and praised not just their efforts but their successes. He said we was grateful and proud to have a child of his own raised with such love, consideration, and compassion.
As the old King walked through the village admiring the improvements and community, an old woman approached him. She asked "Who was your child? It was my little girl wasn't it? I have somehow always known. Which was your child o' King?"
The old King turned and said "All of them. They were all my children."
We are all of us, every last one of us, children of God. If the villagers could not have persecuted their children and claim to love their King then how can any of us persecute one another and claim to love God? How can we hate, mutilate, persecute, rape, murder, ostracize, disown or otherwise perpetrate evil against any of God's children and at the same time claim to love Him?

"21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing."

Jesus here is comparing hate to murder because if you do not first dehumanized your victim then they may become a martyr and soon you go from one enemy to thousands. Hate is the first step to murder. And if enough hate is spread murder leads more murder and the it leads to slaughters and it can even lead to genocide.

But none of that is possible without hate.

Jesus compares lust to adultery and hate to murder but how does he insist we should treat one another?

"43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

Jesus is saying that if you are only good to those who are good to you then you are no better than common criminals who live by that same ethos. To truly be righteous you are asked to be loving to those who are hateful to you just as Christ Himself was in His life.

We are to do more than love our neighbors, we are to love our enemies, those who hate us and/or want to kill us.

But here's where Christ really drives this point home when asked to choose the greatest of all commandments Jesus selected two:

"30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these."

When asked to pick the single greatest commandment Jesus selects two. Why? Because you cannot fulfill one without the other. How can one truly love God if one hates even one of God's children? How can one hate what God has created and claim to love their creator?

People tend to behave in the manner in which they are treated. Those who kill easily can only do so because they themselves have been dehumanized. Those who have compassion are usually those who have been treated compassionately. 

Think of the roughest parts of town near you. When people are treated like animals they tend to act like animals. And people in the poorest parts of town usually are not treated as royalty. Usually the treatment they face is inhumane, barbaric, and abusive.

These people then act out and reflect the treatment they themselves have received.

Whereas the children of the village in my story were treated as royalty and grew up to reflect that treatment.

Before we begin let's define what it means to bash a person or an institution. 
Bashingnoun1.the act of beating, whipping, or thrashing:a series of unsolved bashings and robberies.2.a decisive defeat:We gave the visiting team a good bashing.
3:  to attack physically or verbally <media bashing> <celebrity bashing>
Attacking the LDS church, being overly critical, finding fault where there is none, and being contentious for the sake of contention is a thing. But it is a thing that is a matter of perspective and opinion.
However when my wife and I made our way from the LDS church the Community of Christ any negative observation of the LDS church was seen as us bashing the church.
Those negative facts were brushed aside and mental gymnastics ensued to make negative facts either benign or positive.
For example the new policy making gay members apostates and denying their children blessings, sacraments, and ordinances is totes legit. It in no way is hurtful or morally reprehensible. Or maybe it's flawed but the Brethren are lead by God so it's not really the mistake it appears to some to be. Or policy is flawed but the doctrine on which policy is based is sound and true.
It's not at all ragingly homophobic, it just looks that way to the church's enemies.
Furthermore, anyone who criticizes the church, no matter how valid the facts presented may seem, is attacking and bashing the church.
It reminds me of the following quote from Apostle Dahlin H. Oaks: "It is wrong to criticize the leaders of the church even if that criticism is true."And here's the link https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JxyiHLg...
The excerpt is from the PBS documentary The Mormons.
And there's the rub, it's an all or nothing proposition; either you accept everything the brethren say or you accept none of it and you just need to pray more. Meaning you're not praying right unless and until you completely agree with the Brethren or at the least acquiesce and become completely obedient. But if you dare to bring up the negatives of LDS history or of church leaders past and present then you are attacking the church even if those critiques are factual.
Many people like myself and my wife have gone through or are still going through a faith transition/faith crisis because we have found many of the "antiMormon lies" to be verifiably factual.
The idea that the Brethren are doing the thinking for the majority of LDS members has been bolstered by a recent study. Here's a link to the CNN article detailing the study http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/15/living/...
A group called Mormon Gender Issues Survey Group polled 48, 984 active Mormons. When asked if those respondents approved of female ordination 10% said yes. When asked if they would approve of female ordination of church leaders received a revelation declaring female ordination to be The Lord's will, 77% said they too would approve.
All that changed was whether or not church leaders approved. Keep in mind when the church was being petitioned by both members and non members to allow black men the priesthood church leaders said it was God's will to deny black men the priesthood and black families Temple rites and ordinances.
Except when the church itself released an essay on LDS.org that stated it was in fact not God's will but the "opinions" of church leaders. So maybe in 140 years the assertion that gays are apostates and women will never recieve the priesthood were in fact the opinions of church leaders rather than the will of God.
What would be comical if it weren't so tragic is the fact that I have mentioned this study to LDS family and they assert that it is a matter of faith to respond to the survey in such a way as to merely appear that members are farming out their thinking to church leaders and simply following the leader.
Were it a study about anything else it would be accepted as fact but when it demonstrates the age old adage that "Once the leaders have spoken, the thinking has been done" it is doubted. 
Unpleasant facts simply cannot be true it seems.
It is appalling to me that all of these negative facts about the LDS church are not dealt with except by mental gymnastics and the fault for these toxic facts and features of Mormonism are laid squarely at the feet of those whose only crime is observing them. That fact alone is an indictment of church members as well as church leaders. It plays a massive role as to why so many assert that the LDS church is a cult.
When my wife simply stated on Facebook that "I'm so grateful to be a part of a church that welcomes all, even gay and transgendered members. A welcomed difference from my last church." She was attacked personally in a very abusive fashion for "bashing" the LDS church. Any negative fact brought to light, any unfavorable contrast or comparison was viewed as bashing the LDS church.
Furthermore, nothing stated was untrue. None of it. Everything my wife said is verifiably factual and rather straight forward. There were no rants or tirades, no vicious over blown attacks. Simply stating that there are many things about our new church that are exceptionally refreshing especially when compared to our former one. That's it. But because what was stated made the LDS church look bad, it was described as bashing, attacking, and promoting "Anti-Mormon lies" and my wife and I both were attacked for it.
 Defensive much?
I'm struggling to understand why there is such an over sensitivity to any critique or criticism. Why is there a complex that arises when any fact casts the LDS church, past or present, in an unfavorable light?
I have always been suspicious of any person or institution that is fearful of intellectuals, scholars, and feminists.
I also find it quite telling that once these negatives are brought up about modesty and purity shaming, as an example, get brought up all the sudden church members are saying "Everybody makes mistakes, we shouldn't judge. We should just love one another."
Thing is if loving one another rather than judging and condemning were the message being presented there wouldn't be an issue.
Which seems to prove the point that when church leaders make mistakes, like this new policy about gay members and their children, mistakes that cost lives by murder or suicide, they need to be loved and forgiven rather than judged and condemned.
But if it's a rank and file member like you or I then they need to be judged, condemned, disciplined, shunned, and cut off from the community they grew up in. After suffering the loss of family and the community they grew up in can we in any way act surprised that these members take their own lives as a result? Do we really have that right?
These issues need to be addressed, they need to be delved into if we are to have any hope of saving lives. And we can't do that if we are silenced by cries of Anti-Mormon lies and propaganda, of attacking the sacred, of bashing the church.
This policy about LGBT members is not a matter of semantics, it is not a matter of ideals, it is not a matter of viewing the world as it should be rather than how it actually is. It's a matter of saving lives we are currently pushing away. Lives we are stripping of value, community, family, and most incredibly of all-God's love.
We can't improve the LDS church if we refuse to admit there are any problems at all. We can't save lives if we refuse to acknowledge that this policy and others like them are taking lives. We cannot deal with problems if we refuse to admit that there are any.
God's love is unconditional. Those who say it is are giving it away and those who say it isn't are selling something.

A question posed in a Facebook group asked "Do you believe drugs can help you access the divine?"
A vision quest is the name given to a rite of passage of several Native American tribes. A drug, like peyote, is ingested for the purpose of receiving guidance from spirits or relatives who have passed. This vision quest represents the transition from childhood to adulthood.
In almost every ancient and indigenous culture drugs were regarded as sacramental. They were, as in a vision quest, used to connect with the divine, seek guidance from spirits and departed relatives, and to find oneself.
But in modern society, and in my personal experience, people don't use drugs to find God or themselves, or even to feel good. They use drugs to feel less bad.
The intention going into drug use defines the experience of that drug.
Jesus was rebuked as a drunk in scripture by the Pharisees. But He was not, His intention made all the difference.
Hippocrates said that we should make our food our medicine and our medicine our food. Food is a drug. At a hospital my wife worked at food was monitored and restricted by doctors as its effects were every bit as positive or detrimental as a dose of medication.
And when Prozac was released it became known in SLC as "Sandy candy" because so many people were on it. Strange that those who are so Mormon they think having a coffee table is against the word of wisdom think pharmaceutical grade narcotics and mood stabilizers are totes legit.
I've heard people say "I only take what my doctor prescribes rather than anything illicit because I don't want to compromise my health, sanity, or sobriety."
A drug is a drug. Whether prescribed by a doctor or bought on State Street, a drug is a drug.
The idea that most Americans have about drugs is that once exposed to something like heroin, one becomes an addict. 
There was a famous test done on rats where they were put into a cage with one bottle of pure water and another with cocaine laced water. The rats inevitably became addicted and eventually overdosed.
But this test does not mean what you think it means. The test is flawed. Because the rat is in a cage. It has no freedom. It's life is that of a prisoner and is not indicative of a true life experience.
Another test was recently done. Wherein a bunch of rats were put in a park of sorts with toys, other rats, all manner of food and drink and also with cocaine laced water.
The rats being able to eat whatever they wanted, to play with toys, to play with each other, to socialize, to have sex, had no use for the cocaine laced water. It went largely untouched in this experiment. Why?
Maybe because they had connections. They had a rich and fiddling life. They had no need for addiction. Because maybe the opposite of addiction is not sobriety. Maybe the opposite of addiction is connection.
These experiments may explain why drug use is rampant among veterans, the mentally ill, and the poor.
Or even the average Anerican given what modern society does to the average person.
My wife has lupus and is in and out of hospitals routinely. She has been given drugs that are several times as potent as heroin. And so have many of our elderly relatives after a knee or hip replacement. But few of those people have ever come home a raging junkie. Why?
In my experience with drugs and alcohol I can tell you drugs like marijuana or magic mushrooms amplify a feeling of connectedness or oneness. And in our modern society we have the best technology in human history with instant global communication. And yet we seem to be less connected than ever. As a result drug use and addiction has skyrocketed.
In Portugal all drugs have been made legal for years now. And drug addiction is treated as a health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. As a result, addiction is at an all time low. It's nearly nonexistent. Why?
Maybe because those who do become addicts are treated by doctors and recieve counseling, they get connected to job programs, and social programs to reinstate them back into society in a healthy and stable way. They are reconnected rather than isolated as in the American "justice" system.
Intention is everything. In modern society we have the idea that true happiness awaits us in the next job, partner, city, or achievement. But until we find happiness wherever we're at, we will never find it anywhere else.
With that attitude toward drug use we then find happiness only during the high. So then, to be happy we must always be drunk or high.
With the attitude of drugs being sacramental we look for guidance, we look for connectedness, we look deeper within ourselves, we look deeper into one another, and we experience nature and the universe as it is. 
We become self aware in ways we would not have otherwise. We become connected to one another in ways that last long after the high has faded away. We have used the gifts of nature to become connected or to feel and sense the connections that have been there all along. We lose the distractions that have blurred our vision.
Drugs are like technology. They are everywhere. They are not inherently good or evil. They are inanimate. They are only as good or as bad as the one who wields them. They are only as good or bad as the intention behind their use.
Drugs are everywhere. We all have a relationship with drugs. The question is, do we have a healthy relationship with drugs?

So I have been having a really hard time with the new policy change. I have many gay friends, family, and children that are affected by it. I have a hard time with it and I have a hard time supporting those who support it.
So I haven't been writing much. I really just don't feel like writing. My inspiration has been deflated. 
And I don't feel like writing tonight. But I have to. I have to because what I have to say might make a difference even if only to one other person.
I served in the Army about ten years ago. John who I served with in Hawaii died today. And it looks like suicide.
I attempted suicide myself in 2002 when I was serving with him. He didn't reach out to any of his closest friends so I'm not sure why I have the nagging feeling I should have reached out to him when I hadn't heard from him in years. I'm not sure why I keep thinking he would have talked to me.
He was in the special forces so he didn't use social media. So I had no way of finding him on Facebook. 
I have only gotten in contact with a handful of the guys I served with so I have no way of knowing if John is the only one of the 22 veterans and service members who commit suicide every single day. Day after day these people add up to a body count higher than that of those killed in action. Suicide is a bigger killer than ISIS and Al Qaeda combined.
The pastor at my local CofC church served in the Army and as a chaplain in the Navy. We have been talking about setting up a veterans group for a few weeks now. John's death, whether suicide or not, has made me realize that there are vets out there that we could help that may not be with us much longer. 
They may not be able to wait.
John wasn't doing well after his last deployment. I can't understand war like John did which may have been a big part of what drove him to that place of wanting to die but I can't relate to being in that state of mind. It's a dark place I wouldn't wish on anyone.
The night I attempted suicide I was drinking with friends I served with in the barracks and at a bar in Waikiki. I put up a good front. Everyone thought I was fine. I wouldn't let them think otherwise.
Because for one, showing pain is a sign of weakness. And I didn't want to be labeled as I undeployable or sent home. I was struggling and I couldn't really reach out for help in a safe or effective way.
Once I decided to kill myself I refused to call anyone else. I didn't want to be talked out of it whereas before I didn't reach out because I didn't think anyone would understand.
After John's death I understand better about how the guys I served with reacted to my attempt. They were mad I didn't talk to them. They had my back and I obviously didn't trust them enough to reach out and speak up. 
Sharing your successes is easy, sharing your failures is hard. Sharing your happiness is easier than sharing your pain. At least it has been for me. 
I'm not sure what John's reasons were for not reaching out. But I wish he had.
I don't think it was on John's case a matter of him being weak. I think it was likely a matter of him being strong for too long. Just stomaching the horrors of war, the loss of friends, and everything else that the average soldier sees much less what he saw in the special forces.
The only silver lining I've seen is that I've reconnected to several of the guys in my platoon over Facebook. It's been bitter sweet catching up with them. There's a funeral soon and I'm not sure I could go. I'm not sure I was close enough to him to warrant me going. But then I do want to be close to the rest of the guys I served with. And being there for them is all I can do now. And maybe showing support to John's family.
So I'm starting a support group for vets because I want to be there for the next guy like I could've been there for John.
If you need to reach out to anyone please do, reach out to me or someone but reach out. Don't hold it in until you implode.
If you or anyone you know in Salt Lake City is interested in joining a support group for vets let me know either on Facebook or in the comments section and I will give you the details. We're still looking for a place to hold the meetings but we should have things up in running in the next few weeks of not sooner.

My wife shared Rock Waterman's post "The hidden reason for the policy change on baptism." And some very orthodox LDS friends predictably argued with the facts presented. However, in so doing they failed to present facts of their own. What they succeeded in doing however, was committing a host of logical fallacies.
When debating, arguing, or otherwise trying to open minds on an issue there are things one should do and things one should not do. I have noticed those who defend the brethren's every word or move tend to justify themselves and the brethren with heaping piles of festering logical fallacies.
Here are a sample of the Facebook thread:
Regarding Rock Waterman's writing and the claim that the LDS church is legally registered in the United States as a corporation "Tyler" said this: "I'm familiar with his arguments. I've been studying anti-Mormon propaganda (which is what his blog posts amount to) for most of my life.
And you'd be hard—pressed to find a church that is not a corporation. In fact, CoC is set up legally as a "fictitious name" for the corporation that is known as RLDS."
So the first logical fallacy is an ad hominem attack. Tyler attacked Rock Waterman instead of his argument. He then attacked the Community of Christ church ad hominem style, by stating they are the same type of legal entity as the LDS church, rather than acknowledging the point that the LDS church is registered as a corporation sole. He is intending to mislead and deceive people into thinking there is no difference and yet there is a difference and it is quite striking.
"A corporation sole is a legal entity consisting of a single ("sole") incorporated office, occupied by a single ("sole") person. A corporation sole is one of two types of corporation, the other being a corporationaggregate."

The LDS church registered as a corporation sole in order to protect its assets both financial and property and buildings following the government possession of all its assets in the early 20th century. It registered as such in order to protect its assets.
"A nonprofit corporation is a corporation formed to carry out a charitable, educational, religious, literary, or scientific purpose. A nonprofit corporation doesn't pay federal or state income taxes on profits it makes from activities in which it engages to carry out its objectives."
The Community Of Christ on the other hand is registered as a nonprofit meaning its mission is one of a church. It is operated as a church in the service of all people rather than just its own, or in the mission of business investments and acquisitions of financial and property assets for example.
Tyler then went on to link to an article at LDS.org stating "It is not my interpretation, it is the church's interpretation."
This comment, and his others like it, are a two fold logical fallacy; one is an appeal to authority and the other is a bandwagon fallacy.
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true.
So in other words, if the prophet, Apostle, or another General Authority makes a claim about gay people for example then since his every utterance is the word of God, ya know because he is scripture, then those claims are of God and true. Regardless of any lack of evidence or plentiful evidence to the contrary. 
The argument is based on a persons authority rather than being based on facts or any actual argument. One must take their word for it. There is no logical argument.
The second logical fallacy is the bandwagon fallacy. The Bandwagon Fallacy is committed whenever one argues for an idea based upon an irrelevant appeal to its popularity.
So Tyler is saying that since the new handbook policy about children of gay members is approved and therefore popular among the leadership and General Authorities of the LDS church that that proves its validity. Which it does not. The argument is basically since they think this idea is great it must be because they can't be wrong they are God's mouthpieces. Which circles back to the appeal to authority fallacy.
There is another logical fallacy that Tyler uses, the circular logic fallacy. I think at this point it is just the way his mind works as it is a rampant fallacy among LDS members. It is culturally popular and accepted to the point that many of those who are guilty of it refuse to see that it is fraudulent logic. 
"Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true."
Here's an example we have all heard at one point;
"Can the Prophet ever lead the church astray?No. 
Why not?
Because he's the Prophet.
How do we know that to be true?
Because the Lord will never let that happen.
Who Says so? 
The Prophet says so.
Why should we believe him?  
Because the Prophet will never lead the church astray. 
Why not?
Because he's the Prophet."
It's technically both an appeal to authority fallacy AND a circular logic fallacy.
I called out Tyler on his logical fallacies and he denied those claims. Even though, as I did here, I can prove my claims logically, he refused to admit that and refused to make solid arguments based on reason and logic.
He insisted that the Prophet and Apostles were correct in their new policy (because of their authority)and in pretty much everything they've ever said or done. You would think he writes for FAIR.
At ldsmag.org there is an article titled "The Brethren Are Not Bigots." Now I've traveled a lot. I've met many, many people. Many of them were in fact bigots. And yet none of them have identified themselves as racist, or homophobic, or otherwise bigoted. I find that when people make the claim that they are not bigots, it's usually because they have been saying or doing things bigoted people do and say.
What killed me about that article is that the author pushes the reader to dismiss conventional wisdom and not listen to antiMormon lies. AntiMormon is now defined as anything, opinion or fact, that makes the brethren or institutional church look bad. 
If things like facts make you, your politics, or theology look bad then you may want to revisit your politics, your theology, or take a good long look in the mirror. I would be very weary of trusting people who want you to dismiss inconvenient facts or history.
The thing is that Tyler and the ldsmag.org article rely on authority for truth whereas I rely on truth for authority. The truth has nothing to fear from criticism, critiques, or the white hot spot light of investigation.Lies on the other hand crimble in the face of criticism, critiques, and inconvenient facts.
The following quote from Galileo describes my ethos towards questioning everything and accepting nothing at face value. It is why I could no longer support the LDS church. Because I felt that I was being forced to forgo my reason, my logic, my intellect, and my agency to continue being a member.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
But the LDS church and members like Tyler and the author of the ldsmag.org article I mentioned demand us to forgo our agency and our God given ability of reason and logic as well as our agency and rely on theirs. We are being asked to give up or trade our reason for theology, doctrine, and policies that are so often only backed up only by logical fallacies. 
If it feels wrong, it's usually because it is. If it doesn't feel right trust your feelings. If it doesn't make sense don't doubt facts doubts the lies but don't doubt logic, reason, and facts. If someone makes a claim make them prove their claim without the crutches of logical fallacies. Argue the facts, not the authority, not the person but the facts.
Above all trust yourself.
If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's usually because....IT'S A DUCK!!
Someone on Facebook reported my wife's blog as being pornographic and now she cannot share it so I'm sharing it here. http://memoirsmormonhousewife.blogspo... the post she wrote tonight is called "Finding Acceptance" and though some consider it antimormon or pornographic, it's only because she discusses the dark side of Mormonism. It makes the leadership look bad and any fact, historical aspect, or doctrine that makes the church look bad is taken as antimormon because that label deflects inconvenient facts and uncomfortable truths.
When you can't refute facts you can always report a post or blog and get them banned from sharing. It's the last refuge of an intellectual coward. Banning books is a bad as burning books. The only people that hate the truth are those who love and cherish lies.

In the United States, the percentage of terror attacks committed by Muslims is almost as miniscule as in Europe. An FBI study looking at terrorism committed on U.S. soil between 1980 and 2005 found that 94 percent of the terror attacks were committed by non-Muslims.
There are 1.57 billion Muslims in the world. It is mind bendingly stupid to blame over a billion people for the actions of a select few. It is not only inaccurate, it is morally reprehensible and wrong. 
To some this may be an analytical argument they're making but I go to a Mosque by Trolley Square and I know some of the people there by name. They are good people. And these people are just that-people. They are every bit as human as you or I. But like all people, there are the good and the evil. The real problem arises when you think that any one group of people is either one or the other.
So though I understand the need to hold those responsible for the Paris attacks accountable I feel that we should hold only those individuals who carried out the attacks responsible, or the organization of ISIS itself. Because now is not the time for vengeance that will lead us into yet another war. We cannot afford in anyway yet another war. We cannot, apparently, afford to care for the millions of mentally and physically wounded service members who fought it or are still fighting it. We cannot afford to feed the hungry, care for the sick without inflicting crushing debt, and we are in trillions of dollars in debt to China. We can in no way afford another war.
If we could bomb our way into peace we would be living in a utopia by now. Killing leads to more killing, leads to more killing, because those who live by the sword die by the sword.
America is a nation that is 239 years old and we have been at war for 222 of them or about 93% of the time. If war leads to peace then where oh where is our peace?
 Where is our Pax Americana?
For those who are lost at that reference the Pax Romana, or Roman Peace, is a Latin term referring to the Empire in its glorified prime. From the end of the Republican civil wars, beginning with the accession of Augustus in 27 BC, this era in Roman history lasted until 180 AD and the death of Marcus Aurelius. So 207 years of relative peace.
The Roman Empire's rise is debatable but many feel that it wasn't an empire until after the second Punic war in about 201BC. And Rome, arguably, fell in 476AD. Though many claim a portion of it survived as the Byzantine Empire which lasted from 330AD when Constantine established a "New Rome" at the site of an Ancient Greek colony at Byzantium. It fell in 1453.
So how one defines Roman Empire dictates the answer. Let's say it lasted from 201 BC to 476AD. Then 207 of its 677 year history was lived in peace.
So why is it that one of the most bloodthirsty and warlike empires in human history knew more peace than we have? 
Here's my belief; "Because it's always the same. When you fire that first shot no matter how you feel, you have no idea who's going to die! You don't know whose children are going to scream and burn! Or how many Hearts will be broken. Or how many lives will be shattered! Or how much blood will spill until everybody does what they were always going to have to do from the beginning...sit down and talk."
If we go to war now all that will change is the number of people, men, women, children who will burn, die, or be to tortured until we sit down and talk. How many lives are worth our refusal to do the inevitable? 
Many would argue that you can't reason with or negotiate with terrorists but had we done so before invading Iraq, ISIS likely would not have formed. It's not a matter of dealing with a servant who must be decapitated because we are dealing with a hydra. The more we kill, the more enemies we make.
These terrorists have no armies comparable to that of even the smallest nations. They can't ever win tactically or win the hearts and mind unless we fall on ourselves and rob ourselves of our precious liberties in the name of preserving our safety and those sold off liberties. 
"Those who would surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."  -Benjamin Franklin
And once we give up our liberties piece by piece, then we will be living under tyranny every bit as evil as the countries that harbor these terrorists. We can only destroy ourselves and only we can rob ourselves of our liberties.
And the more bigotry and hate we fill Islamic communities in our countries with, the more those who sympathize with ISIS and groups like them, get to say I told you so. This is what they are truly like. And it continues to feed into the narrative of ISIS and groups like them. If we fall we will have rotted ourselves from the inside out. This puny little band of sociopaths will not have victory over us in any other way.
We need to scrutinize the plans for war with the same intensity as congress did to planned parenthood, or Hillary Clinton's emails, or Benghazi. Maybe then we wouldn't rush into yet another war with no exit strategy or specific enemy. Just the vague war on terror. Which could mean anything and anyone. The beauty of that logic is that because it could apply to so many people and groups it's flat out designed to be perpetual, to live forever.
How many lives must be lost, how much killing is worth it, to feel justified?
Peace may not succeed, but as a veteran who has seen so many bear the brunt and burden of war, I say it is better to fail at peace than win in war. War may be a necessary evil, but make no mistake it is always evil. These are attacks, there is no invading army on our shores, an army of Syrian refugees perhaps who are looking to escape from the very people who launched this attack, but we are not facing an enemy capable of butchering millions of people. They can't tactically pull that off or they would have. I am not saying the attacks was insignificant. I'm saying we need to think before we let our grief or anger drive us into yet another war. 
Governments in terms of leadership are rarely affected by war. War is a burden borne by young kids who looked for a way to pay for college, or a good job with healthcare, or to do something more important with their lives than the jobs out there offered.
War isn't Hell. War is war and Hell is Hell. And of the two war is worse. How so? Easy, who goes to Hell? Sinners? Exactly my point. In Hell there are no innocent bystanders. War is full of them unarmed men, women, children, the disabled and the elderly. In fact, with the exception of some of the brass, everyone involved in war is an innocent bystander.
The Syrian refugees are a perfect example of this. They are fleeing ISIS and no one cared because it didn't affect them. Now ISIS affects them and now it's a problem.
War is a tragedy that is at the core of the human condition. Wars have shaped history. So this is yet another turning point. And the only variable is how many people have to die before we suck it up and do what we were always going to have to do. Negotiate with, perhaps even love, our enemies.
Why do we need yet another war? Because not enough people have died yet?
When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. Jimi Hendrix
Hate has cause a lot of problems but has not solved one yet. -Maya Angelou