goodbye for now

i had a post on lds church history written and several various posts in queue, however i am going to put them all on hold for the time being. things have escalated even further and i have very good reasons to believe that it might now be going beyond my posts on mkh. until i know things have settled this will probably be my last post.


i know that this probably sounds paranoid to most of you. if i haven't been going through this, i wouldn't believe it either.


anyone feel free to chat with me via messenger.

aim: onehellameanguy
yahoo: loydo38
msn: loydo3 @ hotmail . com <---this is not my e-mail, so don't e-mail me here.

i give up

"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men [and women], as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

i give up. i was planning on keeping my MKH posts up on principles of honesty and free speech. i did not want to give in to others who wanted to tell me what i could and could not say. however, some people in power feel it is their right to track me down and use their positions to threaten me. i did not want to give in to this either. however, friends of mine who i care about may also be caught in the crossfires of their vengeance, and i do not want others to be potentially hurt because of me.

this has gotten too big and way beyond the scope of a mere satirical post made in jest. i don't want to deal with it anymore.

you win.

sweet cheeses!! what the hell is that? (censored version)

i was at the gym tonight pedaling away on a stationary bike and watching the colbert report, when during a commercial break, i looked up and saw this staring at me.

my first impression was that somebody snuck in and changed the television channel to some horror movie or x-files episode. for the love of all that is good, i wish it was. unfortunately, i was quick to realize that such was not the case. this wasn't some alien being. not a frankenstein monster composed of rotting parts of different diseased humans. this was not some b-movie bride of the toxic avenger. this was the XXXX XXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX.


i'm not exactly sure what she was doing on television, but i'm sure that whoever let it happen (no matter how late in the night it was) will soon be fired. granted, this was cable and not broadcast television, but for heavens sake, there could be children watching! forget the children, i was watching!


once the shock faded, i found myself in a hazy state between total bafflement and nausea. believe it or not, the above photos i found of her online are her good photos, perhaps the only in existence. what i saw on the television screen still gives me the shivers as i am writing about it. was she born this way, or did her parents literally beat her with the ugly stick... repeatedly? to make it even worse, it looed like she applied her makeup on with a spackling knife to cover up her ugliness. imagine hitting someone in the face with a banana cream pie. now imagine that person is really ugly, but instead of using a cream pie, you use a pie filled with base, eyeliner, mascara, and some kind of pudding. maybe there is a reason why she is called SHERMAN WILLIAMS.

you are probably thinking: "dude, you are such a superficial ass." i'm not. i understand that beauty is more than skin deep. i'm not going to make some rash judgement on her ugliness by mere looks alone. not only did i see the XXXX XXXXX toxic lady, i listened to her speak. now i may not be some great orator, but i'm not corky from life goes on either. lady spackle face on the otherhand, makes corky sound like john f. kennedy. she may have perhaps struggled to speak with the weight of half the world's makeup bearing down on her face. i'll give her credit where credit is due. but that still does not explain the derpy derps and doobie dahs that came out of her mouth. to make it even worse, it was obvious she was reading from some cue cards or something, but her blank stare gave the impression that she wrote the cue cards herself with crayola crayons and fruity-smelling colored markers.

i'm tired now and forgot whatever else i had to say. i only pray now that my dreams tonight are not haunted by this horrendous image. i'm sorry XXX XXXXXXXX (her husband). i'm sorry. may god have mercy on your soul.

thoughts on things taught in church last sunday - part 4 - a custom fit universe

"god especially created the universe to best fit our individual lives"

compare this with moses' realization.

moses 1:8-10 "And it came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and wondered. . . . and he said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed."

for a long time i had trouble with what this meant. however, recently i got some help from d.z. phillips (whom i hope to be studying under next year). in phillips' book, the problem of evil and the problem of god, after discussing the struggles of job and the world, he says

"there is a deep tendency in us to resist what it says, namely, that we are not people to whom the cosmos owes anything. we refuse to believe that. we believe, rather, in system of checks and balances that will make everything alright for us in the end."

he continues...

"to recognize that one is nothing, is to recognize that one is not the center of the universe. the 'i' is not sacrosant, immune from harm. the world can reach out and touch it at any moment. nor is the 'i' the possessor of a comsic right that will guarantee that things go in its favour...
...in recognizing that life itself is a gift, and that the ways things go in it are a grace, the believer dies to the 'i' that sees itself at the centre of the universe... in the religious response i am talking of, there is no requirement to love the fact that god has given life with its contingencies to human beings. this love is gratitude for existence."

what moses realized with his vision of the cosmos, was that he was nothing. the universe does not revolve around him and was not custom made for him. however, this did not lead moses to despair. moses also learned that though his life was only one of a great many, that his life was his nonetheless. he was a son of god. his very existence was a gift that great all in itself, despite his nothingness compared to the vast universe.

thoughts on things taught in church last sunday - part 3 - god won't let our trials be more than we can handle

"god won't allow our trials to exceed our abilities to handle them."

during my sophomore year in highschool, my friend chris went home after church, got into his running car, and waited for the carbon monoxide to fill the garage and suffocate him. whatever his trials were, if they were not too much for him, he might be alive today.

of the several funerals i have attended in my life, this was by far the hardest. it wasn't so much the sadness of not having chris around, but the pain of imagining what he had been going through that crushed him to the point where he decided it was better to just not live anymore.

suicide happens because for some people, their trials are just too much.

even without suicide, the idea that trials never exceed our abilties to handle them fails when we realize that for all too many people there is nothing for them to handle their trials to. by this i mean that there is either no end to their extreme suffering, or that the suffering eventually kills them.

in indonesia an eleven year old sex-slave is kept in a cage, only to be taken out to be repeatedly and violently raped. her starving and frail body is kicked and beaten to abort her occasional pregnancies. eventually her body can no longer survive the abuse and she dies. tell her that her trials were never more than she could handle.

thoughts on things taught in church last sunday - part 2 - lehi has great logic

2 Nephi 2:13 "And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."

"this is perfect logic. my religion teacher at byu told me so."

a quick tangent - a rule of thumb at byu should be if a religion teacher is confident about something, it should be greatly questioned. there is a major problem going on when a professor of theology, religion, and ancient scripture doesn't have any training in theology, religion, nor ancient languages. - ok, back to the point, i'm not trying to diss lehi or his words, i think they are fine in their context. but to say that lehi is offering a perfectly logical arguement for the existence of god is, well, something a religion professor at byu might say.

thoughts on things taught in church last sunday - part 1 - the gift of free agency

(i was originally planning on writing this on sunday, but it had to be post-poned due to the whole mkh ordeal)


during my elders quorum meeting on sunday, the teacher got up and began his lesson saying that he wanted to have a deep discussion without the standard answers. as everything i said was quickly ignored, i soon realized that what he meant was that he wanted deeper standard answers as opposed to shallow standard answers. this will be the first of a few short things i wanted to say, but was kept from saying.

"our greatest gift from god is the gift of free agency"

free agency is as much of a gift to humans as being able to blow air is a gift to fans. by this i mean that free agency is not a gift to humans... it is part of what it means to be humans. just as being able to blow air is part of what it means to be a fan. you just can't seperate the two. satan wasn't trying to remove free agency. he isn't that stupid.

"laws are required for us to have free agency"

laws are not requisite for free agency. when i wake up in the morning and get dressed, i get to freely choose whether or not i'm going to wear a blue, green, or black shirt. no laws about what color shirt i should wear are needed for me to have this choice. the distinction that needs to be made is between free agency and moral agency. while the former is just about choices in general, the latter deals with the type of choices which can be made.

"free agency doesn't exist because the phrase 'free agency' is not in the scriptures"

that's just stupid. if i have to explain why, then you won't get it anyways.

"free agency doesn't exist because it means that we can do whatever we want without consequences"

no it doesn't. i can freely shoot myself in the head if i want. that does not mean that i can choose to do it without dying.

"free agency (moral agency) requires consequences - without the commandment's of god there is complete hedonism"

ok, nobody said hedonism - i doubt they even know what it means. i believe teacher used the ol' "eat, drink, and be merry." either way, you'd be surprised by how many times people acceptingly said contradictory things... or maybe that isn't too surprising. as slightly discussed in steve m.'s blog, there is a false dichotomy that's often expressed that a person must either fear punishment from god or live in sin. believe it or not, there are many athiests out there that are very moral - that do things because they believe it is right, even without the iron fist of god hanging over them.

disclaimer

All posts are solely the views, opinions, and facts expressed by the author of Project Mayhem and do not necessarily represent the opinions and views of Blogger, Google, the city of Orem, the city of Provo, Utah County, the state of Utah, The United States of America, any governmental organizations or leaders, Utah Valley State College (or any of its centers, departments, or faculty), Don Knotts, Brigham Young University, any ancient, medieval, modern, late-modern, or post-modern philosopher, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Gordon B. Hinckley (or any other member of the LDS Hierarchy), God, Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, Krishna, Mohammed (peace be upon him), Brahmann, Vishnu, Baal, Satan, Asheroth (or any other deity), the Ericson family, the Kool-aid man, or any past or future version of myself.

me and my (not so little?) blog

one of the debates in utilitarianism is the question on how to measure suffering in respect to happiness. does hurt and pain count as negative values in the equation determining the greatest amount of happiness? or is absolute suffering and misery a zero value, with any lesser degree being a positive push toward an infinite level of joy?

this question didn't cross my mind as i typed up my last post.

instead the question that crossed my mind was of how many people i could get to laugh. a funny idea crossed my mind that night and i wanted to put it out there before it had left. unfortunately, late at night i don't always make the best judgements (perhaps there is some truth to the whole holy-ghost-has-a-bedtime-thing).

as i was writing, i didn't really care about mary kaye's feelings. now i'm not that cold and shallow. i knew that what i was writing was rude and potentially hurtful. i just didn't think that there was any actual potential for it to cause any hurt. i didn't think that she (or anyone close to her) would ever read it. instead i thought about what others would think of me after reading it. i figured that some would think i was an ass, but decided the potential laughter of others would outweigh the potential disdain.

the post drew the laughs i was expecting, but it also raised some valid criticisms. i still didn't give any thought of the what if she read it idea, because that wasn't going to happen. however, it gave me much thought about the person i was and the effect such an attitude has on the people around me. the problem is not about what i think of mrs. huntsman - the chance that my path will ever cross with her's is slim to none. the problem was that my post reflected my attitude toward humanity as a whole. it showed that i was a hypocrit; that i didn't live up to my own proclamations of realizing and upholding the value, rights, and worth that every person has. furthermore, like 'harmless' racist and sexist remarks, comments that jokingly demean others too often act like a communicable disease that spreads and silently inflicts and ultimately hurts others.

to be honest, i don't think mary kaye huntsman is ugly. if she was i wouldn't have written about it. is she an aging barbie doll who perhaps wears too much makeup? yes, but so are most women today. she was probably gorgeous in her prime and how she looks now is not so much a reflection of her, but a reflection of our patriarchal society and the pressure we put on women to look a certain way. it's a reflection of me. everytime i say someone is ugly or fat or whatever, i'm adding that much more to a culture that preys on emotions and self-esteem of others - even if i'm saying it in satirical jest.


i was planning on writing much of this as a comment on the previous post in response to some of the anonymous comments i recieved. however, as i was stewing over the best way to put it, i recieved a swift kick in the balls (also known as nards, testicles, huevos, nuts, buddies, and family jewels) from the first lady of utah (or an imposter). the idea that didn't cross my mind quickly did. an anonymous commentor's prediction of karmic retribution proved true. my attempt to point out the ugly outward appearance of another proved to point out my own inner ugliness.

while i have been poking fun and creating a culture which can cause pain and suffering, mary kaye huntsman has been out doing the very opposite. for the last couple years she has been heading an organization called power in you that has been seeking out to alleviate the pain and suffering that all too many youth struggle with on a daily basis - struggles often resulting from the very kind of attitudes and disregard reflected in my previous post.

this post may seem like a pathetic attempt at rectifying my own stupidity - judge it however you like. i do encourage you, however, to take a quick look at powerinyou.org to see how wrong i actually was.

sweet cheeses!! what the hell is that?

upon further reflection, i have decided to remove this post and replace it with a version that still reflects the reasons for keeping it that i gave in a comment on the other post:

-This blog is a reflection and record of me. Though I may not want to be remembered by this, it's a part of my history.
-Though I haven't written like this lately, this blog has been a way for me to try out different writing styles. This was like many of my posts of old as I try to figure out how many different ways I could say the same thing.
-Spite.

but without using a specific person as the prop.

the new version will be appearing shortly.

lds bibliolatry

"i know that the book of mormon is true and that by reading it you will have the power to..."

in some christian circles they call the near worship of the bible bibliolatry.

do latter-day saints hold up the scriptures as idols of worship, or instructions from god? every fast and testimony meeting people get up and tell everyone that "the book of mormon is true." latter-day saints post scriptures on their walls, doors, and refrigerators. scriptures are read ritualistically on a daily basis. some treat the material paper, ink, and binding as if there was power contained in the very objects. interpretations of scripture are used as the measuring stick of others' faith. the believing in, the reading of, the memorizing of, and the orthodox interpretation of the scriptures have replaces the living of the scriptures. scripture has become more important than scripture living. the standard for righteousness is measured less by how one lives the scriptures and more by how often one reads the scriptures.

today, if a latter-day saint came upon a beggar on the street, would she be more willing to tell the beggar her testimony of the book of mormon, or follow its teachings, open her wallet, and "administer of [her] substance unto him that standeth in need; and ... not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to [her] in vain, and turn him out to perish"?

i'm placing my bets on the former.

sunstone symposium august 9-12

this year's sunstone symposium is less than two months away. it will be held august 9th-12th at the sheraton hotel in salt lake city. as in the past couple years, students will be able to participate for free.

i have thoroughly enjoyed attending the last couple years even though i am at least half the age of most of the attendees. this year i want things to be different and want to get a large number of college students to attend (lds, non-lds, active, inactive, conservative, and progressive). the preliminary schedule is pretty incomplete right now, so i'll post a link to a full program schedule as soon as it becomes available. (for those interested, joe vogel to me that he will be speaking on the 10th about "the Michael Moore experience, Mormonism, and diversity.")

let me know if any of you are interested in attending or have any questions about the event.

attempt #2 on classics

a couple years ago i made an attempt at reading a tale of two cities. i managed to trudge through the book, but did not enjoy the trip. while the story itself was good, it was too wordy, too descriptive, and way too slow. i swore off the classics and decided to never try again (by classics i mean anything pre-20th century).


well. i'm ready to try again. several friends have recommended fyodor dostoevsky's the brothers karamazov ( i also found out that it was one of wittgenstein's favorite novels). wish me luck.

byu fires dissenter

well, it was bound to happen. byu fired jeffrey neilsen for openly disagreeing with the brethren's support of the pathetic federal marriage amendment.

you can read about it here.

*UPDATE*
here is the new sltrib article on the firing.

LDS authority and gay marriage

here is another editorial from the salt lake tribune. this is by jeffrey nielsen, a (soon to be former?) instructor of philosophy at byu. once again, i am posting it here without permission.

----------------------------------

The leaders of my church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, recently spoke out against gay marriage and asked members to encourage their U.S. senators to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage.
    As a member, I sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as LDS general authorities; however, I reject the premise that they are thereby immune from thoughtful questioning or benevolent criticism. A perfect God does not require blind obedience, nor does He need unthinking loyalty. Freedom of conscience is a divine blessing, and our privilege to express it is a moral imperative.
    When the church hierarchy speaks on a public issue and requests that members follow, it is difficult indeed if an individual feels the content of their message would make bad law and is unethical as well. I believe opposing gay marriage and seeking a constitutional amendment against it is immoral.
    Currently the preponderance of scientific research strongly suggests that same-sex attraction is biologically based. Therefore, it is as natural as a heterosexual orientation, even if rare. It seems it might be caused by environmental conditions in the mother's womb, before birth, triggering the DNA to give the fetus a homosexual orientation. Neither the mother nor the child has any choice in the matter; it is a completely natural process.
    Truly, God would be unjust if He were the creator of a biological process that produced such uncommon, yet perfectly natural results, and then condemned the innocent person to a life of guilt, while denying him or her the ordinary privileges and fulfillment of the deep longing in all of us for family and a committed, loving relationship.
    Even if the scientific evidence does not yet establish this beyond reasonable doubt, it seems that virtuous moderation and loving kindness require us to exercise caution before making constitutionally binding discrimination against a whole class of people based only on fear and superstition. In fact, when we examine the statements opposing gay marriage, we find few reasonable arguments. It is not enough to claim that we should oppose gay marriage because historically it has never been recognized. This is the fallacy of appealing to tradition, which was also used to fight against civil rights and equal treatment of women.
    Further, to say that gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage and the family without giving any reasons why is the fallacy of appealing to fear. Indeed, once you get past the emotion, it is quite an unfounded claim. How could the union of two committed and loving people negatively affect my marriage? I believe that quite the contrary is true; namely, legalizing gay marriage reinforces the importance of committed relationships and would strengthen the institution of marriage.
    Ultimately, any appeal to religious authority to create law is misplaced. Our Founding Fathers were inspired by their study of history to separate constitutional authority from religious belief, recognizing as they did the potential for tyranny in unchecked religious influence. In our pluralistic democracy, attempting to restrict an individual's rights and privileges based upon a religious claim is a dangerous rejection of our Founding Fathers' wise insight, and it should be unacceptable to all Americans.
    As for the statement by church leaders that God has ordained marriage to be a union between a man and a woman, I find it quite troubling. It sidesteps the role of polygamy in past and future church teachings. It seems to me that if church leaders at one point in time, not very long ago, told members that the union of one man with several women was important for eternal salvation, but now leads them to believe that God only recognizes the union of one man to one woman, then some explanation is required. (I am not endorsing polygamy.)
    God is not the author of incoherence or injustice, but we humans often are. We in the LDS Church must be more honest about our history, including the past and future practice of polygamy in our official doctrine. This will be difficult, for it will reveal that we have been less than truthful in our public relations, and it will show our inconsistency with current statements opposing gay marriage.
    We can no longer afford to teach only what is useful and hope people won't discover what is true. In this day of easy Internet access, a person can find more real history of the LDS Church in 30 minutes online than the same person would in a lifetime studying approved church materials.
    This is not right. Too many individuals have suffered a loss of faith when they were forced to choose between the truth or their family after innocently discovering the discrepancy between genuine history and the official story of the church.
    We need to trust the membership of the church and treat them as adults, as equals. We are a church of brothers and sisters, not one of the few privileged leaders and the many subordinate followers. There might be a diversity of roles and responsibilities from prophet to Sunday School teacher, but we are all peers with one another and equally irreplaceable in God's thoughts and affections.

proof positive that satan has begun establishing hell in utah county

"'I like George Bush because he is God fearing,' said Delia Randall, 22, of Provo, Utah, with her son, Owen."

satan has won. god has forsaken utah county.

happy b-day to me

my friends at work found out that i had a birthday over the weekend and threw me a party today. they went out and bought cake and invited everyone over and stufs. it was the nicest thing anyone has done for me. i wanted to cry.