Letter to Republican Electoral College members

I thought I would share my email to the Republican U.S Electoral College electors. I sent a similar letter to 68 of the GOP electors from Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin and sent an email to as many electors as possible.

Use this link to send your own letter. It's not too late to have your voice heard!


Dear Elector,

My name is Jeff Udall and I reside in Portland OR. I know your time is valuable and you must be overwhelmed with letters from voters from every part of the country but I felt I must add my voice to those pleading for action on your part.

I won’t waste your time asking you to vote for Hilary Clinton next week, however, I do plead for you to consider the future and stability of our nation and democracy and not vote for Donald Trump for president on Monday, December 19th.Appointing a candidate to the office of President of the United States who has not won the popular vote could be damaging to our democracy and the legitimacy of the U.S. Presidency itself.

Even if you personally believe in Donald Trump and what he stands for, it would be much better to allow elected members of Congress have the final say in this contentious and controversial election. Please allow vote for President to go before the United States Congress in January.

To stand up for democracy and the good of the nation and go against your pledge to vote for the Republican candidate is a difficult task. I know it is a great sacrifice to ask of you. You risk not only the anger of your fellow Republicans but possibly legal action and fines. It is no small thing to ask you to go against years of tradition and at great personal risk to stand up for principals that are often thought to have been won ages ago with the Revolutionary War.

Unfortunately we find ourselves in a national crisis unique in our history, and you and your peers are uniquely qualified to do something about it. The Electoral College was created by the Founding Fathers for the very situation we find ourselves in: to prevent the election of an unqualified candidate to President. Donald Trump is not just unqualified but also failed to win the popular vote from American voters. Further, there are serious questions about the role foreign hackers had in swaying the election. Never has a candidates disqualifications and illegitimacy been so clear, and yet you still have a momentous decision to make.
 
However clear the case for Donald Trump to not be president, you are still in a position where you must justify your choice to yourself, your peers, and to the rest of the country. There are a multitude of reasons that electing Donald Trump would be the wrong decision and I’m sure you have heard many of them. However I will list them in what I would consider to be the order of most importance to you:

• You are free to vote your conscience. The Constitution upholds your right to vote as you choose, and asks you to align your vote with what you believe. Regardless of any pledges you have made. Regardless of intimidation and peer pressure you face. You are not required to vote for a candidate you don’t believe in. You may not be comfortable voting for Hillary Clinton, but regardless of whom you give your vote to, if you agree Trump is not qualified for office you must not vote for him.
• You can vote for some other candidate (Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, John McCain, etc) who won electoral votes in the past. You can vote for a historical person you believe in such as George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Ronald Reagan, etc. You could even vote for a fictional character that represents characteristics you value in a leader.
• Any alternate vote will serve the same purpose but should be a person you believe in with a clear conscience.

• Standing up for what is right in the face of overwhelming opposition is what this country was built on. If you change your vote you may face consequences. Although there is little risk you could face serious legal action, the threat is still there. Bravery is not the absence of fear, it is doing what is right in spite of it. Our heroes are people who stood up to injustice despite the law. Think of the Tea Party, Gandhi, and Rosa Parks. It may take a small amount of civil disobedience to fix the system. Too many tragedies in history have happened because people said they “had no choice.”
• There are many high-profile lawyers who will defend you and offer free council if you are feeling intimidated by legal threats. Also, many have pledged to pay any fines you are issued.
• The opposite is also the case – if you don’t take a stand you bear some responsibility for the damage Trump may do.
• You have the power to stop this. It is a heavy burden you are tasked with but there are many who will support your decision to stand up for democracy.

• The American people voted for someone else. Many people are using this point to ask you to should change your vote to Hillary Clinton. I know that is most likely not something you can do. Rather, I ask you to think of the serious problem the Electoral College will create if it appoints a candidate as President who was not democratically elected. Never in the history of America has there been such an overwhelming majority of votes for the candidate who was appointed fewer electors
• If you believe in democracy you must consider making a stand for your values and not vote for a candidate who was not democratically elected.
• Even if you consider yourself “only” a state representative, you must now know that the popular vote was not won by Donald Trump. You should not vote for someone to such an important office as President of the United States because of a technicality.

• Interference from foreign hackers and FBI Director Comey's letter influenced the November election. Regardless of the extent, it is clear these issues had some sway in the results. The narrow margin of election results in some areas, within a percentage point in many “swing” states, mean these small effects had a huge impact. The thought that Russia was able to influence the U.S. elections is disturbing to say the least. All the more reason to send the election to Congress in January when more information will be available.

• Elected members of Congress should decide such a contentious election. The Electoral College was designed to send contentious elections to Congress if they find issue with the candidates. The huge and historic discord between one candidate having the majority of votes from the American people and the majority of Electoral College electors asked to vote for the another candidate means this election’s final outcome, over every other election in our nation’s history, should be passed to the Congress of the United States. The Electoral College was never meant to stand in the way of the will of the nations voters.
• Sending the vote to Congress will help the legitimacy of the appointment, regardless of the candidate appointed.
• Most Americans don’t know who the Electoral College members are, and many feel the college simply acts as inference to democracy. It will go a long way to calm civil unrest if the vote for president was made by elected officials.

• This will be the last Electoral College. If the Electoral College elects a candidate without the support of the American electorate, let alone an unqualified and dangerous one such as Donald Trump, it will be the final straw for many voters. If the Electoral College cannot fulfill its sole purpose to prevent unqualified candidates from obtaining the Presidency then it will become simply an obstruction in the way of a democratic election process.
• The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be easily ratified with the passion such an unjust action will provoke.
• This will quickly lead to a Constitutional amendment soon after.

There are also many other reasons to not vote for Trump, however I believe the above reasons to be the most important. Even if you personally want Donald Trump as President, I would still ask you to stand up for our democracy and not allow an unelected candidate be appointed by the Electoral College. If you personally want him to be president then take comfort in the thought that most likely a Republican Congress will appoint Trump.

This brings me to my final point: If Congress will likely just appoint Trump anyway, why should you go through all the pain and sacrifice it would take to stand up to your peers and make a historic vote against your pledged candidate? The reason is again the one repeated above: if the Electoral College goes against the will of the American voters it sets a dangerous precedent and causes damage our democracy. It will also damage the belief of the nation in the election process and the legitimacy of the office of President.

Sending the Presidential election to Congress allows the decision can be made by publicly elected representatives and also gives more time to look into concerns about Russian interference. This will be the best way to deal with the controversy of this election, restore faith in our democracy, and allow for the continued existence of the Electoral College.

Thank you for your time to read my letter and the letters of many Americans concerned for the future of our nation. I know your decision is not a simple one for you personally and would be a great sacrifice to go against your peers and the status quo. Thank you for your service to this country and for thoughtfully considering your choice before you cast your vote on Monday.

Sincerely,

Jeffrey Udall

Proving God Should Be Easy

It is often said that science or atheism can't PROVE that god doesn't exist. What is less often said is that the reason this is the case is because of the weakness of the definition of god, not that there is any issue with proving or dis-proving god. Anything that has any basis in reality has properties which make it real (color, mass, location, size, etc) and these properties also can be used to verify or deny things about it.

The reason god cannot be proven to be false is that god doesn't have any definitive properties - god is anything you want him/her to be.

It could also be argued that it is not up to atheism to prove or disprove God. If theism says there is a god, it is up to them to prove it. If god is so important to believe in that it determines the state of our eternal existence after this life then why wouldn't that be something you would be able to prove?

Why is talking about god in definitive terms shunned by theists? Many religions have some sort of dogma saying that it is impossible to prove that god exists or that it is a sin to try.

From a non-believer point of view the answer is obvious - you can't prove something exists that doesn't exist. For many years I was a very adamant believer for a long time and yet for most of my time as a Mormon christian I didn't think it was important at all to prove god's existence.

What if god DID exist and theism wasn't afraid of giving evidence for god? What would that look like? Let's pretend that a lot of the stereo-typical properties that the judeo-christian-muslim god is often said to have was ACTUALLY REAL. What would a real god be like?

1 - Human male with long white beard

The stereo-typical appearance of god, in who's image we are created, would mean quite a lot. It would indicate that if we ever did come across this god that he would take up a similar amount of space as a person. That would limit the places he could be, but not by much. Human's are pretty small when compared to the rest of the universe. When it was thought that god lived in the sky that was a pretty big place, but not so big of a place where he is thought of to live now - in the rest of outer space (of course this change in god's living space was directly caused by scientific advancements in the understanding of our planet and it's place in the universe - not because god revealed anything about the Earth being a planet like other planets orbiting the sun).

Limiting god to this appearance seems to be too much for modern religions as most say that he can appear as anyone or anything, but if he DID have a specific face with features it would be a good start. What color are his eyes? What size is his nose? Does he wear a white robe or blue-jeans? In some stories in the bible god is not able to be looked at, but you would think that if god was truly all-powerful he could make some sort of god-power filter so that normal humans - or at least cameras - could see what he looked like.

In other words we could have a photo of him.

Wouldn't that be interesting to have a photo of God? I mean we all know what many of the worlds leaders throughout history looked like but we really have no idea of what god's features are. Christians at least have some idea of what ethnicity Jesus was (at least half of his ethnicity - we don't know what his father looks like at all).

There are many many excuses religions make for not knowing what god looks like. Back in the days before photography most of them could be accepted, after all most people didn't know what most people looked like. Wanted posters were either sketches or descriptions through most of history. But these days where a photo of god would be such a common thing it seems a bit more difficult to think that it would be a big deal.

One big excuse is that people would worship the "image" of god rather than actually worship the personality and principals of god. This is a silly argument as most theistic religions either have plenty of fetishized images of god or Jesus or they worship the holy books like the bible, torah, or quran as a god and use the borders of it's pages to limit what their "all powerful" god can do or say.

If god had a face we could have a photo of him/her. Would that "prove" that god existed? Not really, but IF god DID exist and if he had a face then that would be something that we could use to judge things in the future. If someone else was talking and they didn't look like god we would be able to say, "Hey! You aren't god. Go home, man!"

God having a body would also mean he would have a voice. What would that voice sound like? Would he have a deep voice or a high voice? Would he have an accent? Even if he spoke every language "perfectly" some group of people would say he had some sort of accent when speaking that language.

The idea that god can look anyway he wants and sound any way he wants (or perhaps speak in some magical language that everyone could immediately understand) that even as an atheist it is a bit odd to think of what god would look and sound like.

Of course if he had a body he would also have other qualities like smell, warmth, strength, etc. What would it smell like if he whispered in your ear? How warm is his hand? How tightly would he hug you?

He might even have finger prints, blood-type, genes, brain-patterns, etc. So many measurable qualities from one small property like having a body.

2 - God's House - Where is Heaven?

If heaven really exists, then it would make sense that it was a real place. Some religions put heaven on Earth in the future or in another dimension, but most have no real idea where it would be. (Mormon's say that God lives on a planet near a star called Kolob.) Even narrowing down where Heaven was to a star or portion of the galaxy would be a great start.

What sort of properties would heaven have? What would it look like if we saw it through the Hubble telescope?

There seems to be very few reasons given by religion for why we can't see heaven other than because we also can't see dead people and that is where we hope our dead loved ones live. The truth of the matter is that if religion is saying that all of the treasures promised us by following god are in heaven then it is a pretty big deal if it exists or not.

If we never get to see our families or get rewarded for devoting our lives to god then that would be a huge bummer. As a non-believer that is my best guess for why there is not much said about the location of heaven by religion. It's pretty easy to check on the existence of a place anywhere in the universe and science is getting better at finding far off places every day.

Another good reason for not describing heaven in too much detail is because, unlike god supposedly, religious people can't read your mind to tell you what you would most like to have in your own version of heaven. If heaven had concrete properties then maybe those properties wouldn't be much to your liking. What if you hated white marble buildings and cities of gold? Maybe  you like warm dark places with flowing lava better?

If heaven is a real place then it shouldn't be too difficult for theism to give some details about it. But the danger in giving details is that they are easy to prove or disprove. And so far all of the details about Heaven being in the sky or some sort of crystal sphere have proven to be false so theism pretty much sticks to a generalized "it's pretty awesome."

3 - Miracles that are Miraculous

If miracles are actually possible (miracles in the sense of some sort of violation of the scientific laws of the universe) then it should be pretty easy to prove this. The fact that miracles don't happen regularly is a problem.

But don't they happen? Don't people get miraculously healed and helped all the time? Don't prayers get answered every day? Here's the problem - there are very specific ways that prayers are answered and specific ways that they are never answered.

You often hear about prayers that where answered regarding someone getting over an illness but less about prays about someone who was dead coming back to life. People may have their prayers answered regarding their broken arm healing but nobody has their prayers for their lost limb to grow back answered.

Here are a few things that miracles SHOULD be able to do if god could do miracles:

• Regrow limbs - The stereotypical atheist objection to miracles is the lack of limbs growing back in response to prayers. If god heals people why are there restrictions to the healing if they are miracles?
• Regrow lost organs (eyes, lungs, kidneys, etc) - Similar to the above.
• Alchemy in any form - turning water to wine (Kool-Aid doesn't count), lead to gold, coal to diamonds. All of this should be just as easy for an all-powerful god as any other miracle
• Predicting the future. This is one that is so stereotypical it is almost unbelievable that it is still a trope. It should be relatively easy to make some sort of highly specific prediction about the future and then place it in location that can be monitored independently to make sure it is not disturbed and then accessed after the event and compare it to the predicted event. 
• Anti-gravity should be something pretty simple for a god who can control the laws of the universe and also pretty easy to verify by independent means.  
• Teleportation
• Mind reading - this is something that has been demonstrated to be possible by computers. Subjects can picture something in their minds and it can be (very hazily) pictured by a computer. This should be childs play for god. It's a trick that is often used by sham tv evangelists but should be pretty easy to verify scientifically if it existed. The fact that it hasn't means that it doesn't exist, not that there is some sort of problem with science actually figuring out how to disprove it.

Putting it all together

So to sum it all up, it should be really easy to PROVE god exists. Just have him show up somewhere in front of cameras and perform some miracles. Have scientists (and religious leaders) there to verify everything is on the up and up. There shouldn't be anything to fear by god. If he's legit he's legit.

I think the idea of god actually appearing in front of a TV camera and subjecting himself to blood tests and showing off his miracles actually terrifies most religious leaders. If god actually exists then at least somebody is going to be wrong about what he looks like, acts like, sounds like, etc.

The fact is that most people just want god to be their ideal god is. They don't want a god who actually exists because then maybe he wouldn't be who they pictured. Maybe he would be a jerk. Maybe he would say something dumb or say something embarrassing.

As an atheist I can honestly say that if god did show up some day and pose for the cameras and show us how powerful he is that I would love that. I would not be sad or angry that I was "proven wrong." Because I don't believe that god doesn't exist because I don't want him/her to be real. I don't believe in god because that is what everything in the real world points to.

The universe isn't some test by some all-powerful sadist who is trying to trick us (or allow us to be tricked) into seeing it some other way. The universe is a real thing that exists whether we are here or not. Whether we believe in it or not. If there is a god, he or she doesn't care if I believe in them or not. They don't need me to worship them or sing songs about them. If they actually care about goodness or mercy or happiness they would want me to show goodness or mercy and spread happiness.

Regardless of what you believe I think most people believe that goodness, mercy, love, and happiness do exist. Those are things that are not able to be touched but can be felt powerfully. I think those things are behind the idea of god, and it is those ideas that should be cherished and idolized.

Even if you can't prove or disprove god, go out and prove goodness and spread happiness. This is what makes life worth living, not dreams about promised treasures in another life. The universe is vast and life as we know it is only given to a few. If you are reading this then you are one of the privileged few who gets to experience it. Don't waste it on defending fiction.

The Problem Of Evil

 

I thought I would start doing a few articles about the basic tenets of atheism starting with one of the most significant: the Problem of Evil.

The Problem of Evil is a discussion about the problems that the existence of evil poses for the concept of a theistic god. If we really think about what the existence of evil means for the concept of god it becomes clear (despite the reliance of much of the religious pressure on labeling things as evil) that if there are acts and things in this world which are truly evil this reveals a lot about the character and attributes of god and ultimately calls the existence of god into question.

What is evil?

The first question we need to tackle when we talk about evil is what is it? The "evil" we are talking about here is the meaning of "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked" (see evil at Dictionary.com). Not only does evil mean "bad" but also something that is judged by the majority of people (or god if you are religious) to be bad in a moral sense.

Is it real?

Second we need to ask, does evil really exist? Are there things that are inherently bad? Most people, including myself, would say, "Yes. There are things or acts that are evil." Most would say that things like murder, rape, incest, torture are generally evil. Specifically things like the Holocaust and organizations like Natzis the Ku Klux Klan could easily be labeled "evil".

So far so good. Most people, especially religious people, are all in agreement at this point. The next part is where things start to get interesting.

What does the existence of evil mean?

If evil really exists, what does that mean? When it comes to religion, the existence of evil indicates that one of three possibilities must be true about god:
    - God ALLOWS evil to exist.
    - God is UNABLE to destroy evil.
    - God does not exist.

 

Let's look at these three possibilities in detail:

• God does not exist - If there is no god then it is up to us as a collective society to decide what things and acts are evil and to what degree of action to take to combat evil. There is no one to defer judgement to. It is up to us to define what constitutes evil and take action to overcome it so we all have the greatest chance at our pursuit of happiness. Obviously this is not the possibility most religious people would agree with.

• God is UNABLE to destroy evil - This possibility poses a slightly less serious issue for religion, namely that this means that god is NOT all mighty and omnipotent. For most religious people this may actually make sense - after all in popular culture evil is often depicted as being part of an eternal struggle between light and dark. For organized religion this poses a more serious problem in that this means that much of the dogma concerning the character of god, in religious texts and creeds, must be wrong. For most serious religious people, this is a serious problem. If a part of their texts are false, then the texts are at least partially false - not just about something minor, but about the character of god - something vital to most monotheistic religions.

• God ALLOWS evil to exist. - If there is some sort of god which created everything and is all powerful over things in this universe, then this means that being also knows there is evil and yet chooses to not to destroy it. Oddly even though this is the official stance most religions take, it is actually the most problematic for religion. Before we go into more about why God allowing evil to exist, we need to take a step back to examine what sort of acts would be considered evil.  

Are there acts of omission that are evil?

If someone walks by and notices someone being raped or murdered and they do nothing is this evil? If someone working in a gun store knows that a customer is buying a gun to murder their wife, but does nothing to stop it, is that evil? Most of us would consider these, and many other similar acts of omission, to be evil. 

What if you had the power to stop ALL evil acts in the world from happening? Does great power come with great responsibility? How evil would you be if  had the power to stop all forms of evil, and yet did nothing? I think you can see where I'm going. 

 

Is god evil?

If god has the power to stop any and all evil acts and yet decides to do nothing this means that god himself (or herself) commits evil every time any evil is committed on earth. How can a god be worthy of worship if they are constantly committing evil? Does this mean that god and the devil are the same being?

This is the main thesis of the Problem of Evil: If evil does exist, then an almighty and all powerful god commits evil acts of omission with every evil act they allow to happen and every evil thing's existence they abide.

How does religion usually deal with this SERIOUS problem? Simple: they don't. Most religions take the stance that god cannot be judged as evil - even if we are applying judgements towards god which god is supposed to have made towards others. This explanation always bothers me. It's like a parent making the excuse, "You can do whatever you want when you grow up" when their child catches them violating the rules the parents have set down - except here we are talking about the most seriously evil acts that can be committed, not just your dad sneaking a cigarette behind the garage. 

Many religions say that evil is just tests from god trying our faith. That this life is just a test and that evil acts that happen to us are not inherently hurting us because this world is but a blink in the eye compared to our time in heaven for the rest of eternity. But they can't having it both ways - either life is a test and evil acts really don't mean anything so we shouldn't be judged for the evil we do OR evil acts truly ARE evil and if god does the same acts he becomes equally as guilty.

To me the idea that an all powerful god committing evil all of the time is inherently wrong. The only way for god to remain blameless, and retain the characteristic of "good" or "pure" associated with god, would be if he/she did NOT have the power to stop all evil acts. Unfortunately for religion the character of god is deeply tied to the idea that he/she IS all powerful. What is the point of praying to a god that is not all powerful? Why would we be devoted to a god who is NOT all powerful? How could we be sure such a god could save us from evil if he is not only powerless but also evil himself?

By this argument the only remaining answer to the problem of evil is just that there is no god. There is no one sitting idly by while awful atrocities are being committed every day and being able to stop them yet doing nothing. Evil things happen to us because sometimes bad things happen and some days evil wins.

Atheism is partially that there is nobody to save us, but also there is nobody to fear - except ourselves. Evil is a human invention, but so is good. We can't deal with true evil if we are wasting our time, effort, and treasure on a deeply flawed fiction. It is up to us to fight against evil and we must not stand idly by and allow evil to hinder our pursuit of happiness. 

Paul said it best when he wrote:

Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. 
- Romans 12:21


Further reading:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - The Problem of Evil
Philosophy of Religion - The Problem of Evil
Wikipedia - Problem of evil

Would Jesus Really Do THIS?

I've seen a lot of posts talking about the LDS church's position and how emotionally devastating it is - and that is the big takeaway from this shocking policy change, but I thought I would do a little bit different post exploring exactly how hollow the argument is even from the perspective of their own dogma.

First let's look at the actual policy changes from their manual.

1 - The addition of a new heading under the term "Apostasy" (defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief") of

"Are in a same-gender marriage."

That is pretty severe considering the only other definitions of apostasy are
- "Repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders."
- "Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or a higher authority."
- "Continue to follow the teachings of apostate sects (such as those that advocate plural marriage) after being corrected by their bishop or higher authority." (We'll come back to this one later.)
- "Formally join another church and advocate its teachings."

Notice how none of those are "murder" "rape" "molestation" etc. (All of which can result in excommunication, but are not considered crimes against the church as an organization.) Neither is "homosexual sex" on the list - only "same-gender marriage." So the church is not considering the sin of homosexuality here - they are considering gay marriage as an attack on the church in a technical organizational sense. As if gays who are getting married have some sort of agenda against the church. The "gay agenda" perhaps? 

In the video response from the church (which you can watch here) a church leader (an apostle!) says, "We regard same-sex marriage as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline. It means the discipline is mandatory — doesn’t dictate outcomes but it dictates that discipline is needed in those cases."

Apostasy is pretty much the highest level of sin you can commit against a religion (to the church itself, not necessarily god) so when Mr. Christofferson says that punishment isn't dictated, he doesn't just mean that it doesn't HAVE to be excommunication, but this also means that it can pretty much be as severe as they would like it to be up to, and including, excommunication.


2 - This is the doozie: A whole section was added specifically about children of gay families (this one applies to gay people LIVING in a relationship - not just to married gay couples):

Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:

A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

2. The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.


Oh boy.

Okay, here we go: This new policy basically treats children of gay parents as children who are being raised in and being indoctrinated by a religious sect which is in open opposition to the Mormon church - such as those sects who advocate plural marriage (as in one of the other definitions of apostasy from before).

You can see the similarity in the section about children of parents in plural marriages from the 1998 Church Handbook of Instructions - Handbook 1:

Children Whose Parents Have Been Excommunicated for Practicing Plural Marriage

Children of parents who have been excommunicated for practicing plural marriage must receive approval from the First Presidency to be baptized. The bishop may request this approval through the stake president when he is satisfied that the children

1. accept the teachings and doctrines of the Church and

2. repudiate the teachings that caused their parents' excommunication.

Mr Christiensen makes it clear that this was their inspiration for the new policy when he states, "The situation with polygamist families, for example, and same-sex marriage couples and families really has a parallel. For generations we've had these same kinds of policies that relate to children in polygamist families that we wouldn't go forward with these ordinances while they're in that circumstance and before they reach their majority[sic]. That's the same sort of situation we're dealing with here, so it's something we have had a history with. It's a practice that really is analogous that's been the case over many generations."

"...Anyone coming out of a polygamous setting who wants to serve a mission, it has to be clear that they understand that is wrong and is sin and cannot be followed. They disavow the practice of plural marriage. And that would be the same case here. They would disavow, or assent I guess would be a better way to say it, to the doctrines and practices of the Church with regards to same-sex marriage. So they would be saying, as you said, not disavowing their parents, but disavowing the practice."

You can kind of see the church's position on this. They are feeling attacked by the "organization" of gay marriage and so they decide to deal with it on the same level that they have dealt with plural marriage.

There are many reasons why it is a false analogy for the church to compare children living in polygamist households with children living with gay parents but here are some of the major ones:

1 - Polygamy in the western U.S. has primarily been related to splinter religious groups who have doctrinal differences with the main branch of the Mormon church.

These sects literally ARE teaching their children that not only is the main Mormon church wrong, but are setting up an alternative theology often with their own "prophet" and general authorities.

Despite what the church leadership may think, there is no "gay agenda" that is trying specifically to go against the Mormon church. Yes, the gay members of the church are "living in sin" by being in a homosexual relationship, but not anymore in sin than members who are co-habitating and/or committing fornication.

I'm sure many straight couples are having anal sex without the church considering those couples to be some sort of organized group with a specific agenda against the church for anal sex and blow jobs to be an accepted sexual practice.

In other words, this policy sets up people in gay marriage as part of some organization with specific anti-Mormon policies when this couldn't be any farther from the case. If you want to consider gay sex as a sin, then they is your own business but to elevate gay marriage to some sort of organized group who give two cents about what old white dude is considered a "prophet of the lord" then they are seriously mistaken.

2 - Polygamy is illegal - gay marriage is not.

In a way it makes sense that they Mormon church would want to distance themselves from polygamous sects who are illegally practicing something for which the Mormon church has gotten into a lot of legal trouble over in the 19th century and something they would rather put behind them. Ask any Mormon if they have multiple spouses and you will receive a groan and a roll of the eyes that is reflected in the attitude of "please forget about that polygamy stuff" that the church as an organization desperately wants.

On the other hand nobody is confused about the Mormon church conducting gay marriages. There have not been multiple Mormon leaders thrown in jail for practicing gay marriage. No body asks their Mormon friends how many gay marriages they have performed. There is no precedent for the Mormon church to take this sort of legal hard nosed stance against children with parents who are gay. No body needs to get special permission from the upper church management to baptize the child of parents who are not married but live together. There is no special need for a child to disavow adultery if on of their parents committed adultery.

3 - Polygamy happens in compounds in the mountains or deserts - gay couples and their families are part of the community.

It makes sense that the church wouldn't want to have anything to do with children of polygamist sects because that may involve them going out to the home and sending church members to give lessons in the homes of people who actively dislike the Mormon church. It could even be dangerous to send some over zealous home teacher to a child's house if they are on some polygamous compound in the middle of the desert.

The only reason for the church not wanting to send home teachers to the homes of gay parents is that they might realize how silly the church is about the whole thing. They might get to know gay couples and see how much they love their children despite being rejected by their own religion. This way the suffering of gay families can be completely swept under the rug and no church member with any authority is under any obligation to deal with them at all.


Overall the response of the church to the legalization of gay marriage is overblown and looks threatens to burn the entire religion to the ground. To be a church who claims to be all about family and then issue a policy that exploits and harms children smacks of hypocrisy and illustrates clearly that the leadership of the Mormon church is completely out of touch not only with modern society but with human decency. In it's blind flailing to re-establish the power dynamic against homosexual couples it has over-extended it's reach and not only hurt gay couples and their children but every member who believed


At the end of the video response from the church Mr Christofferson made what is quite possibly the most insulting statement of all. When asked if children of gay couples could still be blessed if they are sick he said, "When we are talking about blessings, priesthood blessings, given to those who are ill or want a blessing of comfort or guidance, that's open to all."

Mormons give blessings to anyone who wants one. Every person, every animal, every building, every tree. So basically Mr Christofferson is saying that at least the church still considers children of gay parents to be as worthy of a blessing as LITERALLY everything. I'm sure that is very comforting to everyone in emotional anguish over your recent policy decision.



References:

Changes to LDS Policy Regarding Same-Gender Relationships and Children
http://mormonstories.org/same-gender-relationships-and-children/

Church video response to outcry over new policy
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson

1999 Church Handbook 1
http://www.provocation.net/chi/chi99.htm

Leaving Mormonism - for Realsies (Updated)

I said my last prayer to God in August of 2003. Now nine years later I'm finally taking the last step. I just sent a letter to the LDS Church formally requesting they take my name off their records.

I have been meaning to do this for quite some time. I'm not sure why I have put it off. Partially it has been out of laziness, partially it is because I had hopped to do a better job writing about leaving the church, but right now I just need to get it done.

(Click here to jump to the UPDATE with the Church's response.)

One reason for taking my name off the church records is I don't want them to count me in the numbers they quote of their membership. Their membership numbers directly correlate with how much political power the church has, especially outside of Utah. Lately, with Prop 8 for example, the church has become more political. I do not want to support any organization trying to manipulate the law to infringe on the rights of others who they disagree with.

Another reason is that by talking critically about the church, on my blog for example, I could technically be "charged" with apostasy and be excommunicated. As of today I am no longer subject to any church disciplinary actions, nor do they have assumed permission to contact me. I would rather quit than be fired.

Mostly though, I want to leave the church behind me. The church will always be a part of my upbringing, but it will never again be part of my future. It is time to let it go completely.

Below is my letter to Member Records. They will most likely forward it to the bishop in my area who will then send it to the steak president. After 30 days (or sooner if they are nice) they will send it back to Salt Lake City and then I will get a short form letter, supposedly two sentences long, telling me that I am no longer a member. (This is kind of ironic as the Church Handbook of Instruction says that my resignation can "not [be] a form letter" - which, legally, it actually can be.)

I was disappointed to hear the church doesn't actually respond personally to people's letters when they leave the church.  I was hoping to get a response to some of my reasons for leaving, contained in my letter. I would have liked to post their reply here, in the interest of fairness.

My letter (it's a long one):

September 15, 2012

Member Records
50 E North Temple, Rm 1372
Salt Lake City, UT 84150-5310

This letter is my formal resignation from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, effective immediately. I hereby withdraw my consent to being treated as a member and being subject to church rules, policies, beliefs, and discipline. I want my name permanently and completely removed from the membership rolls of the church.

I have given this matter considerable thought. I understand what you may consider the "seriousness" and the "consequences" of my actions. I am aware that the Church Handbook of Instructions says that my resignation "cancels the effects of baptism and confirmation, withdraws the priesthood held by a male member and revokes temple blessings" and that I will be "readmitted to the church by baptism only after a thorough interview".  (Church Handbook of Instructions 2006 edition pg.148 -  see also Church Handbook of Instruction 2010 edition pg.21&72) (You can download the Church Handbook of Instructions 2010 here It's mostly boring, but has some interesting info in it.)

My resignation should be processed immediately, without any waiting period. I will not be dissuaded or change my mind. I expect this matter to be handled promptly, with and respect.

After today, the only contact with church representatives I authorize is a letter of confirmation letting me know I am no longer listed as a member of the church as well as a letter addressing my concerns below if you choose to do so.  

I have posted this letter publicly on my blog, http://thegospelofatheism.blogspot.com/  In the interest of fairness I would be happy to post any response you would like to send me there as well. 

One of the core disagreements I have with the LDS church is that it does not acknowledge the universe we live in as real. The church believes that our lives, and this world, is all just a "test;" that pre-existence and after-life are more "real" than what we experience every day. When the church teaches that everything that we see and hear could be potentially a "test" from God (or a "trick" of the devil) they insult the intelligence of it's members and deny the sanctity of human life. The "test" the LDS church would have us believe God has put us in, is actually a deception. If a true god wanted to test us, he would not test us with lies and illusions. 

Unfortunately even the promises of God in scriptures cannot be counted on as reliable. For instance, Jesus said "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. . . If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" (Matthew 7:7-11)  

I am not the only one who has prayed in faith, believing, and yet not received an answer.  The fact that the few promises in the scriptures which are verifiable are verifiably false strongly indicates the other things which must only be taken on faith are also not true.   

The lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon is undeniable. Even simple evidence which should exist does not. For instance, the stone box containing the gold plates in the Hill Cumorah does not exist. This that means God intentionally removed it (or allowed someone to remove it). This is simple evidence that would not necessarily "prove" the BoM is true but could back up Joseph Smith's claim. What reason would someone have for digging that up? What reason would God have to deceive us by removing evidence? The most likely answer is that there was no box there in the first place. 

There are many other examples like this, where simple evidence just isn't there. The fact that Native Americans's DNA indicates they came from Asia, not the Middle East. The fact that there is no evidence of wheels, iron, or horses in America in the time period the Book of Mormon is alleged to have taken place. Things such as the discovery of the papyri Joseph Smith claimed was scripture about Abraham, but which is a common Egyptian funerary text. I could go on and on. Although it can be hard to understand why Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, it simply does not correspond with observable world and cannot be a true record of a people living in ancient Americas. 

When faced with questions about the church, or embarrassing details of the church's history, the response by church leaders is to ignore the questions or embarrass the inquirer. Instead members are asked to just "have faith." Although I agree that faith is an important component to any system of beliefs, if this faith is not based on an underlying truth it is merely self-deception.

Scientific principals are also taken on faith by many of us today, but they can, if we choose, be questioned, studied, and understood. This questioning is expected and addressed by explanations which become more and more clear the more we inquire. The ability of scientific principals to withstand scrutiny adds to faith in science.   

It is very troubling that the church not only discourages questioning and criticism, but also takes disciplinary action against people who question. This would indicate the church knows it has something to hide. If questions make church leaders afraid, they must not have enough knowledge of the principles in which members are supposed to have faith. If the leaders, who supposedly talk to God about these principles, do not have a firm enough grasp of them to stand up to scrutiny without fear, then this is another strong indication that the principles themselves are flawed. 

Too much of the church happens in secret. Working in secret and darkness is not ethical or right. An invisible god appearing in secret rooms, in a private and restricted temple, to impart a secret version of information vital to our salvation to a small group of old white men is not how a true and just god would operate. Truth does not exist in darkness, behind closed doors, fighting against any scrutiny or questions of any sort.   

Finally, I am saddened by the false promises, of wealth and happiness in an afterlife, which are given in order to extort the sacrifice and money of millions of members. When they find out they have been lied to, it is too late for them to take their lives back, too late to recover the lost time and wealth they could have used for themselves, or the advancement of society, or solving our many real problems such as hunger, disease, energy, and climate change. 

When I said a final prayer I said I would be open to God showing me where I may have been wrong about him. In the nine years since then, nothing has led me to question my conclusions, even though they are neither comfortable nor convenient. I cannot continue to pretend he exists. If God is hiding his face from me, it's not because I did not look for him. 

It is impossible to "disprove" God completely, but I know that the theistic Mormon god does not exist. If there is some sort of a god and I do stand before him one day I know I can tell him, with all honesty and sincerity, I followed the truth as it was revealed to me. If God is true, and just, and loving he will know my heart and know this is true.

Sincerely,


Jeffrey  Udall

If I do hear back from anyone in the church (would probably be the bishop if it is anyone) I will update this post with their response.

If you are a member of the church and want to also leave the church as well I would suggest checking out the website Mormon No More  I got much of the wording of the first portion of this letter, as well as a lot of good advice on the procedure for leaving the Mormon Church, from them.


UPDATE - 9/26/12 - I received my (automated?) response from Member Services today stating that they consider this a "ecclesiastical issue" and will have the bishop of the ward I live in contact me. Hopefully he is smart enough to read my letter and not contact me unless he would actually like to discuss the issues I brought up in my letter.

Just to clarify for everyone, I am legally no longer a member of the church at this point. The letter insinuates that I am still a member until the bishop contacts me and he and the stake president have settled this "matter." This is dishonest and slightly threatening. It is interesting that the clerk who entered my information didn't bother signing their name.

Here is the actual letter (I'm sure it is the same form letter anyone who leaves the church will get):

Here is the "enclosure" they included:

It is a nice sentiment expressed in this pamphlet, but it also indicates they must receive many letters like mine every day.

I will update this post again once I have heard from the bishop and/or gotten my final confirmation letter from the church saying they have taken my name from the records.


FINAL UPDATE - 12/05/12
I finally received my official reply from the church, and I must say, I'm pretty disappointed. It's even more impersonal than the first response. Not even a "Wish you well." Here it is:

One final thought: Would Jesus have only sent me back these two impersonal form letters (I never heard from my local bishop) if I had asked him the questions I did in my letter and told him I was going to leave his church?

Couldn't they have a human being write me a response when I'm (supposedly) leaving the only church that has the true gospel and the only way into the highest heaven? People who call the church's phone lines to order a free bible talk to a live person (I was one of them in the missionary training center). I gave two years of my life fully to this church, and much of the rest of my first 23 years of life. And I get a couple of form letters and a pamphlet.

I hope even the most optimistic member of the church can see that there is a problem with that.

What the God Particle Says About God

Yesterday scientists finally announced the discovery of a new particle with a mass near that predicted for the Higgs boson. Why has this been called the "God particle" and what does it say about God?

What is the "God particle"?

The Higgs field is a theoretical(not for long?) force which permeates all of the universe (much like the Force from Star Wars) and which gives certain particles that interact with it, such as protons and neutrons, mass. Other particles, which don't interact with it, such as photons and neutrinos, remain massless and move at light speed. The Higgs boson is the force carrying particle of the Higgs field, like how a photon carries the force of electromagnetic fields.

In effect this is what creates all matter in the universe by wrapping a bunch of energy (inertial and gravitational mass) into one point. It also has the effect of slowing down massive particles (like the proton and neutron) to everyday speeds (a particle with mass can never reach light speed). If the new particle discovered turns out to be the Higgs, boson this would indicate that empty space has a inherent energy in it. I suspect this will be a big step to understanding dark energy and a more coherent understanding of quantum gravity.

Here's a great cartoon about the Large Hadron Collider and what the Higgs boson below.* The audio sounds like it was mostly recorded at the LHC cafeteria (and the video starts off with cafeteria footage for the first 40 seconds so you might want to skip ahead a bit) but it is a really good explanation about why everyone is so excited about the Higgs boson.

What does this have to do with God?

Many scientists dislike the term "God particle" because they feel it has nothing to do with religion. Scientists in general like to stay away from religion so this is understandable, but because the particle is what creates all the mass, really the substance of matter, in the universe it has has a decent claim to the title the "God particle" and actually says a lot about theism.

First, it is further evidence that religions of the world had no more insight into the true working of nature than any illiterate caveman did. Although it was early science which developed many of the earth centered astronomic models, it was religion which froze them in mystical importance based on the "perfection" of the heavens. It is only when we can question old ideas that we are able to find more accurate and complete models for how our universe works.

Second, it indicates that important and consequential knowledge about how the universe works does not come from prayer or supplication to any deity. Perhaps God was not aware of this particle, but if so, that would hardly make him all knowing. Maybe he purposefully never mentioned it to and prophet or preacher he communed with. If he is trying to keep the knowledge from us, then why couldn't he stop the scientists at the LHC from discovering it?  In the end, God is either a fool or powerless, or both.

What does the God particle's discovery mean for reason, logic, and empirical evidence? That with a focused application of accumulated knowledge, engineering, and commitment humanity can peer farther into the mysteries of the universe without God than we ever could with him.



*One thing they didn't really go over in the cartoon above is the gauge bosons in the Standard Model particle "periodic table." Here is a more complete version with the force bosons - photon (electromagnetic force), gluon (strong force), and Z and W bosons (weak force).

image source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson

Why Choose Atheism?

There seems to be a lot of misconception about why people choose to be atheists. I worry some people may feel like it is an attempt to escape accountability for some sort of sinful act, or that its just a euphemism for a wanting a hedonistic lifestyle.

This has not been true in my experience. I chose atheism in order to resolve the internal conflict between the theistic philosophy I was raised in with the truths I have found for myself in life. The shadow theism has left on me from the first twenty years of my life is something I may always be saddled with. Atheism is a way to help make sense of the real world by contrasting theism with the pragmatic truths of modern science and philosophy.

Many people are raised in a secular household or a home or community where religion is not emphasized, but this is not the case for most in America. An overwhelming majority of people in The U?S. consider themselves to belong some sort of Christian religion - at around 78%.* - so leaving theism usually involves a choice, often a difficult choice that can feel like jumping off a cliff.

I only made the difficult decision to leave the Mormon church after the flaws in theism became so overwhelming that I could no longer deny them. This came after many years of prayerful and thoughtful study. Ultimately after weighing all the the evidence the "problem of evil" convinced me that all theist churches are seriously flawed and insufficient to provide a true picture of reality.

So what do we get in return for all our tears and being ostracized from our former social groups? Why are so many people willing to give up so much for their belief in atheism? After all, if it's all just a myth why not just go to church and not upset people?

Truth

A devotion to a sincere understanding of the truth was essential when I chose atheism. A frustrating thing about theism (or any other organizational structure based on absolute obedience) is that doubt and questioning are often met with admonition or ridicule. The problem with this is that truth can never come without questions. Often the key to understanding is knowing what question to ask. Being unafraid to ask questions about God and people who supposedly speak for God allow a greater understanding of human society and history.

When I chose atheism, my understanding and wonderment at the beauty and complexity of the universe increased immensely.

Peace of Mind

The ideas of an afterlife or a watchful God seem to provide a peace of mind to theistic people. This can be true to many, but often that peace is actually willful ignorance reality. A true understanding of positive situations allows greater joy, and a more honest understanding of negative situations allows the discovery of better solutions. An ability to understand and rely on concrete things allows a greater sense of well being and peace. No longer are you afraid of monsters, devils, or ghosts when you understand how human expectations, dreams, and fears can alter our perceptions.

When I chose atheism, I was no longer afraid of the dark.

Appreciation of Life

The hope for a life after death is shared by almost everyone, but unfortunately there is no compelling evidence that this is true. Theism unfortunately uses promises of riches and/or rewards in the afterlife to pay for actual work and riches of it's members in this life. Without reliance on the promise of an afterlife, the true value of our lives becomes much more clear. No longer can wars and murder be justified by a "kill them all and let God sort them out" philosophy. With an increased value on life, death becomes a much more devastating loss, as it should be. The uniqueness and beauty of a human personality is the most valuable thing we have ever discovered in the universe.

When I chose atheism I gained a greater appreciation of life and the short time we all spend in this world.


Regardless that atheism is a doctrine of belief that there is no god, it still represents a positive change for those who have discovered that theism is an unsatisfactory theory of reality which simply does not account for much of the knowledge and discovery humanity has accumulated over the last two millennia.

Despite it's relatively recent schism with religion, science represents the best and most solid knowledge about life, humanity, and the universe. There is no ancient knowledge that religion possesses that is not also included in science. Religion has forfeited the ability to tell humanity about our origin, our character, or our path to happiness. I look forward to the day where people do not rely on ancient stories or simple "God did it" explanations for how the world works.

Science, knowledge, and the freedom to choose our own pursuit of happiness is important for the our selves, our loved ones, and the continued advancement of humanity.



*Atheists make up less than 2% of Americans (similar in number to Mormons and Jews). 12% of "unaffiliated" people chose "nothing in particular" - although I would argue that many of them (including many of the 2.5% of Agnostics) only avoid the term "atheist" because of the negative connotations, but could at least be considered "non-theist". (http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations)