Out of Mormonism

I'm reading a book of a real life tale of a woman's struggle with Mormonism. She was initially sucked in by the kind gestures and well mannered nature of the faithful.
Then, she was suddenly thrown into the hellish interpretive aspect that is Mormonism, and suddenly felt that something was missing in her life.
She explains the passage through the endowment procedure and the events that take place behind the veil and celestial room. The little mock play that made her want to get out of her seat but couldn't because she was somehow glued.
Her life didn't turn out all honky dory, but she continued with a false face and a fake determination to live the word of the church.
Suddenly one day through studying the bible, she came upon a passage that said pretty much that genealogy was a waste of time... she took that, then ran with it to the point where she realized Mormonism isn't teaching Jesus, they were teaching things of man!
Later she confided with her husband about the entire ordeal, and said she was filled with the love of Christ.
As she went through her deconversion from Mormonism, she searched through the book of Mormon with a fine tooth comb, she searched everything that contradicted with the bible. And formed a support group for those who were having trouble with deconversion of Mormonism.
During the deconversion story one particular line jumped out... She wanted to shake every Mormon she saw and unbind their eyes.
.....
.....
.....
I wanted to shake her and unbind her eyes even more.

Ok... First off Mormonism appeals to her because she wants that happy go lucky family idea that Mormons are supposed to show... even if their family really sucks. Secondly, the more you dive into Mormonism, the more and more you have to account for the inconsistency. To account for this.. more and more is weaved in. Unfortunately it doesn't always mesh in well with the base belief of the bible. This is why the bible is only held as a supplemental book, because it can not be fully trusted to be "correct".
For her to say that the the teachings of Christ was wrong in the church means she believed that the bible was true, and the book of Mormon a supplement, and not vice versa as Mormonism is actually held.
Secondly, she was miserable performing the duties assigned to her by her church. There's 2 reasons why they assign work to new people, and to people in general.
1. To give them a sense of propriety, there's less chance that people will leave, not attend, ignore, or dismiss if they have a stake in their stake.... They will not want to skip out on their duty, so they stay.
2. To give them something to do. To give them purpose. To give them an occupation that will keep them busy in a desirable direction. If someone was questioning their belief, what better way to avoid thinking about it than to keep yourself busy. In that process of keeping yourself busy, why don't you do the work that has been assigned to you anyways. And with that, you avoid counter thought and enforce a belief at the same time.
So she sounded pretty bitter about being assigned presidency of the primary within weeks of joining.... well.. yeah.. that's the trap...
Later of course she talks about how they didn't put her on the spotlight in a Christian church... Lol... big surprise... you like to reap the rewards but not work for it... I understand, but the Mormon church is about community and togetherness... it's always been about banding together in spite of all oppositions. AND sadly enough.. if you're no longer in that group, you are cast out.

Now... what really really irritates me, is she doesn't take that same inquisitive nature and apply it to the religion she is endorsing... A form of Protestant church. She speaks of "no bones has ever been excavated from hill Camorah"... No Arc has ever been found... What's your point?
Then they speak of Spiritual Alcohol Anonymous.... WTF?!?! I mean seriously... so all the exMormons can gather together for support.... I wonder if there's any exMormons that walk in, hear their Jesus speak and told them off.
Jump from one shit pile of lies to another doesn't make the 2nd any more valid because you didn't like the smell of the first one.

The Mormon religion is as structured as it is for a very very good reason. It is to ensure that the followers not think. Everything is thought up, and all they have to do is follow the books, the texts, and repeat what has been said. Of course, in their real lives outside of their church, you have to make decisions, but those too are regulated. The idea is you need to be told what you can or can't do. As I said earlier, this is to fill in the details as they come along. Many christian churches are personal interpretive. They are open ended interpretations and carry less structure or standard of interpretation. So... those who want structure would love the Mormon church because it clearly lines it out. Those that want to think about what they are looking into, would hate it. No wonder she hates it. She likes to think... but it's too bad because she hasn't thought enough.

Mormonism is an attempt at an intellectual's religion. It attempts to fill in as many gaps as they can. It attempts to weave a full proof story.

MAKE NO MISTAKE, Mormonism is a sect of Christianity.

The book makes it seem as though the focus was about glorifying Joseph Smith and modern day "prophets". The book also makes it seem as though they are switching the devil and God around... They are not... they are interpreting the bible through he scope of the Book of Mormon. They assume the Bible incomplete or inaccurate. The fundamental teachings of the Mormon church remains... Jesus died for the sins of the world, Jesus is thought of as the son of god and he himself is a god.

Though this is not the same interpretation as other Christians, this is Christianity. They no more "worship" Joseph Smith no more than Muslims worship Mohammad. Glorified, yes... worshiped... no.

And yes.. in the bible... if you read in Genesis, god said.... if they partake of the fruit of knowledge, "they will be one of us" if they eat of the fruit of life also. Please use only the authorized version or New King James version. New international version is interpretive and another translation of a translation. I would suggest Greek version including the apocrypha. But I don't speak Greek.
I digress... Who was god speaking to.. and who are the "us" it speaks of?
Fortunately, god kicked them out of the garden only after they ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge and not the fruit of the tree of life. So... even in the Old testament, God speaks to another God... there is 2 gods at least. Mormonism attempts to fill this gap by call him God the father, Elohiem, and God the son, Yahweh.
Stupid bitch... if you actually studied the bible, you'd notice that and wonder... hmm.. what is wrong with this picture?
Mormon's has done just that and attempt to story book it into acceptable terms.

---
I haven't finished reading the book yet, but I will continue to read it... I want to puke sometimes though at the stupidity this book exudes. Ohes wells... /end rant.

-----------

Edit: I've finished reading the book, and it went on to the story of some mysterious benefactor who sent them money to start up their recovery program and teach the true christian faith..... After of course they moved out of Mormon infested towns. They then continued to expand the church and now she's an old hag still fighting a good fight, happy with her life with Jesus, and happy her husband is following her like a lost puppy.
She made amends with her family, friends, and everyone she left behind because her blind faith lead her astray.... funny how her previous faith was never thought of as blind either.
Their tripe of a pamphlet is still being circulated and designed to "help" Mormons realize they are wrong. The entire time spouting out straw-man arguments to the highest degree, getting them kicked from adds of many many papers for defamation. And yes.. they are all straw-man arguments.
I'm not a fan of Mormons like I'm not a fan of spiders... but if I see a spider intentionally being torn limb by limb for the sole purpose of sadistic enjoyment, I'm going to say something about it. If Mormons get the cheap end of the stick, I'm not going to defend they are right, but I am going to defend the fact they are being misrepresented.... besides, they don't need much to be shown for the charlatans they are.... Only problem is, slander and libel is the only way you can effectively argue against Mormons without defaming the Christian religion in the same sweep.

My evaluation... if you want a example of partitioning and bad reasoning... this book is for you.

The Case for Christ

I was going to write a chapter by chapter rebuttal for every point made in the Case for Christ by Lee Strobel....
After reading 2 chapters... I've realized if I did that, I'd be writing a book on it's own.
I am simply appalled at the amount of intellectual dishonesty that's being spewed from the book. Part 1 was tormenting as every point was literally rubbish in the actual realm of academia. First by establishing the authenticity of the iconic gospels, in standard academia, anonymous authorship means just that.... anonymous. NO one knows who actually wrote the books in question. No solid evidence can truly point them that the people who actually wrote them are tied to the people they've been attributed to. To argue that it's a historically a first hand account when the authorship has not been established is absurd. In fact, it is even mentioned in the book, the authorship is not confirmed.
Then... it goes to say... well... here's some historic evidence outside the bible. Sadly, he mentions Josephus.... And of course the passage he mentions that is most beneficial to the case, is an "interpolation"... Ie... it has interpretive translation inserts, or additional inserts from other copiers that are not part of the original.... But duly asserts "the passage as a whole is authentic"....
HOW THE FUCK is it authentic when he blatantly says that they're interpolations in every other line?
The passage as a whole paints the picture of Jesus as a the messiah. The passage without interpolation paints him as an adored Jewish preacher. How intellectually dishonest do you have to be?
If this was evidence used in a modern court case, it'd be tossed out so fast, it wouldn't even be given a evidence number.

Scientific evidence: I found a single line that shuts down the entire chapter.... And it comes up in the first 2 pages of the chapter.
"Spiritual truths cannot be proved or disproved by archaeological discoveries"
I agree and enough said... yet the book tries to prove it anyways.

Bethlehem and the Census with the infanticide. He states that who would notice a few infant deaths around a small town of Bethlehem... such a small town wouldn't have that big of infant population... let alone male infant population of 2 years or younger.
See.. this is where they conveniently forgot the previous first 2 pages. In all of the land, EVERY person was supposed to be in the land of their house... So... As with Joseph and Mary, those who were of the House of David, HAD to be in Bethlehem. And according to Jewish traditions, all seeds of David, well.. that's the house of Judah.... That's a lot of people that migrated there for the Census. That's not just a small town anymore.

And then... no census ever occurred in that magnitude. But the historical quote claiming anyone of a different province must go to their house to take a census, well.. that's just saying, if there's a census, go to your home if you're from a different province. NOT your linage house.

I finished part one today... such intellectual dishonesty, I can't stomach too much more... I hated the faux skeptic from the start... but this just adds too it. I suppose he's not a faux skeptic, but a skeptic with really low standard for evidence. Hell... with the level of skepticism he's got, he might as well believe aliens really do abduct people. Unlike the case from antiquity, there's first hand accounts from independent sources and well documented events and descriptions unrivaled by anything from antiquity.

I've finished "Under the Banner of Heaven" today, interesting book about fundi Mormonism. Got me thinking about the social construct of marriage and plural marriage and why it's being frowned upon. To be honest, I don't think it's a bad thing, it wouldn't hurt if all parties were in agreement, though I would have to say it's less plausible in application than in theory. Crazy people will be crazy.

I've started to read, "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" By Thomas S Kuhn... First portion he sounds like a kid who has been rejected by the cool kid's club and is whining that they're just a bunch of elitist pricks. NEWS FLASH... crap ideas are crap. I want my elitists to be pricks, I want my best of the best to be the best. I will not settle for a pool of knowledge to be tainted by ideas that can not stand the scrutiny of intellectual gauntlet known as the peer review process. If someone can find a mistake in the ideas and theory I present, I want to know about it, both so I can correct it, and so I can improve upon it. Unlike the soft touch of society, knowledge has no qualms about how someone would feel if they have their ideas shat on because it's not fully justified.
Kuhn at one point states that every paradigm shift is completely opposite of existing paradigm and then continues to replaces it once it meets the approval of the majority.... then later in the essay states the Newtonian paradigm is the basis and essentially improved upon by the Einsteinian paradigm.... wait... Wat?

I don't know exactly where to place Kuhn... I wouldn't say he's an idiot, I think he's just speaking out of place... Though I do not claim to be an expert, I can call bullshit when I see it.

Lee Strobel is still an idiot.