Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Mormon Mitt: "I Heart Guantanamo This Much"

NOTE: I wrote this blog entry with Bryan. It was basically an expansion of my old blog post.

If any of you have watched the news at all in the last few months, it might not be a surprise to you that Mitt Romney is a Mormon. In fact, it's pretty much the only thing a lot of people now about him and his candidacy. It's practically what he stands for. What may actually surprise a number of you though, is that during the second GOP debate, we watched Mitt Romney apostatize himself from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Moderator Brit Hume (of FOX News fame) laid out a "24"esque hypothetical terrorist scenario about ticking time bombs and mass death in American supermarkets. He then asked, and we're paraphrasing here, "If a group of terrorists connected with the bombings, are captured in Florida and then sent to Guantanamo Bay for interrogation, should we torture them if they have information about future attacks?"

John McCain answered (again, paraphrasing): "I was tortured in Vietnam and it was grossly inhumane. If those roles were reversed, and we as Americans were the ones torturing, we would lose all respect and dignity. We don't torture people. And besides, the people you torture would just end up telling you what you wanted to hear and not necessarily the truth."

His response was answered with stone cold silence from the audience.

Next was Rudy Giuliani: "Yes! Do whatever you have to do to those people to get them to talk! Whatever necessary! 9/11! 9/11! 9/11! Remember when I was there, in New York, on 9/11?"

The audience erupted into applause.

Then it was Mitt Romney's turn. This is his exact quote:

"You said they're at Guantanamo? I'm glad they're at Guantanamo. I don't want them on our soil. I want them at Guantanamo where they don't get the access to lawyers that they'd get when they're on our soil. I don't want them in our prisons, I want them there. Some people say that we should close Guatanamo, my view is: We outta double Guantanamo."

The audience burst into thunderous applause.

He then finished: "Enhanced interrogation techniques need to be used."

So Mitt Romney has it out for habeas corpus? He's against due process of law? He's all about torturing human beings? We'd bet his excommunication letter is coming in the mail faster than those sent out to all those Mormon feminists who supported the Equal Rights Ammendment in the 1970s. I mean if the church excommunicates women for wanting equal rights, then a pro-torture, anti-Constitution church member is totally fucked.

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, there is something called the Articles of Faith. It's sort of like a Mormon version of the Ten Commandments. The 12th article discusses the need to obey, honor and sustain the law (the Constitution). Advocating the denial of basic constitutional rights (which Americans deeply believe are unalienable and God-given) is in direct contradiction to this article. The 13th article also calls for members to be benevolent, virtuous and good to all men (emphasis added).

I fail to see where torture (whoops, sorry, we mean "enhanced interrogation techniques") fits into benevolence, virtuosity or being good to anyone.

In "The Book Of Mormon", which is another book of scripture used by Mormons, it is claimed that Christ came to America following the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection and preached to the people here. According to the Book of Mormon, Jesus is said to have taught the following:

"And behold it is written also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thy enemy, but I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you.

That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven."

And then in an alleged revelation to Joseph Smith, Christ said:

"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me."

Despite George Bush and Alberto Gonzales' recent best efforts, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the constitutional right of people to seek writs of habeas corpus even when declared enemy combatants.

Mitt Romney's statements and political standings fly in the face of so many teachings of the church he claims active allegiance to.

We've also noticed that every pundit, analyst and news maker in the world wonders whether or not his Mormonism is going to affect his candidacy.

Personally, we really don't care if he's a Mormon. Ok, well maybe Steve does. But, we know plenty of Mormons (hell one of us (Steve) is Mormon and went on a mission) and they run the gamut of scholars and saints to zealots and morons so the "Mormon" issue really isn't a big deal. They consist of good and bad people just like any other organization, religious or otherwise.

The problem with Mitt Romney, in our minds, is his willingness to say anything to get elected. Including renouncing the teachings of the church he's become such a national role model for.

(You can watch McCain, Giuliani and Romney's responses for yourself at Crooks and Liars. Steve and Bryan blog daily at "This Divided State ".)

30 comments:

Darcy said...

Steven,

I read your post then watched the clip and I'm a little confused.

Romney said specifically that he WOULD NOT CONDONE TORTURE.

It's real cute the way you misrepresented what Romney said.

You seem to have quite the history of doing that don't you.

Oh well, have a great day Steven.

Steven said...

I'll answer your complaint by saying that I don't think "you're wrong".

I just think "you're incorrect".

STEVEN

Bryce said...

You wrote: "But, yes, Romney's church taught (teaches) that black people wear the curse of Cain, etc. In the early days of the church, it was taught that if you married inter-racially, the punishment was "death on the spot", as Brigham Young put it."

Unfortunately neither of these are true. There has never been official Church doctrine about the "curse of Cain" as it concerns those of African heritage. And the idea that the Church "teaches" that now is absurd. The Church banned those of African heritage from holding the Priesthood. Why? I don't know. Was it racism? I don't know, you don't know.

And the Brigham Young quote is laughable. It comes from the Journal of Discourses, a historically problematic text, but let's assume he did say the thing about "death on the spot" - he was talking about men who were already married (in the temple) having a mixed race affair. And the "death on the spot" penalty would apply only to the man. You are trying very hard to paint the Mormons as racist, but consider this: in the very same entry, Brigham Young says the following: "For their abuse of [the Black African] race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent."

Do some research. The Church does not "teach" the Curse of Cain and the strange death on the spot statement had nothing to do with mixed race marriages. Was it weird? Yes. And I don't know what he meant exactly, but your representation of it was wrong.

Washed-up 4th grader said...

Booyah!!!

And I'm not a Rebublican!

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."

- 19th-century philosopher Soren Kierkegaard

Steven said...

You said: "There has never been official Church doctrine about the "curse of Cain" as it concerns those of African heritage."

Brigham Young in 1852 speaking in the name of Jesus Christ:

"[A]ny man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ..."

Brigham Young also in 1852:

"What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see.... I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain."

And then again in 1859:

"Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the 'servant of servants"

And then church President John Taylor in 1881:

"And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God."

Elder Bruce McConkie in the book titled MORMON DOCTRINE of all things said:

"As a result of his rebellion, CAIN WAS CURSED WITH A DARK SKIN; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who ARE NOT WORTHY to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage. He became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition."

And then later:

“NEGROES ARE NOT EQUAL WITH OTHER RACES WHERE THE RECEIPT OF CERTAIN SPIRITUAL BLESSINGS ARE CONCERNED...”

Elder Mark Peterson teaching at a BYU symposium:

“Think of the Negro, CURSED AS TO THE PRIESTHOOD.... This negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with a BLACK SKIN, and possibly being born in darkest Africa—if that negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. IN SPITE OF ALL HE DID IN THE PRE-EXISTENT LIFE, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there AS A SERVANT (slave), but he will get celestial glory.”

I could go on and on and on... but whatever. Please retort.

riley said...

Oh boy Steven, You're quoting "Brotha Brig"?

Over a hundred years ago Brotha Brig also said that front buttoning trousers were evil.

Is there any CURRENT OFFICIAL doctrine that Romney has publically denounced or will you continue with your Brotha Brig quotes that have nothing to do with Romney's personal beliefs or his politics?

This little chip on your shoulder has nothing to do with Romney and has everything to do with YOUR religious bigotry.

Riley

PS

If you are interested in more current outrageous quotes from Mormons, I know of some pretty outrageous statements from a Mormon of a particularly sexually harassing nature. Just say the word and I'll get those quotes posted for you.

Bryce said...

Yes, I said "There has never been official Church doctrine about the "curse of Cain" as it concerns those of African heritage." And I stand by that.

Going back to your original charge that the Church “taught (teaches) that black people wear the curse of Cain” my objection was that “the Church” has not taught that and does not now teach that. Various Church leaders in the past have made statements along those lines, but they do not qualify as official Church doctrine.

What is official Church doctrine? The LDS version of "nihil obstat"?

B.H. Roberts: “The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.”
“It is not sufficient to quote sayings purported to come from Joseph Smith or Brigham Young upon matters of doctrine. Our own people also need instruction and correction in respect of this. It is common to hear some of our older brethren say, "But I heard Brother Joseph myself say so," or "Brother Brigham preached it; I heard him." But that is not the question. The question is has God said it? Was the prophet speaking officially? . . .
As to the printed discourses of even leading brethren, the same principle holds. They do not constitute the court of ultimate appeal on doctrine. They may be very useful in the way of elucidation and are very generally good and sound in doctrine, but they are not the ultimate sources of the doctrines of the Church, and are not binding upon the Church. The rule in that respect is--What God has spoken, and what has been accepted by the Church as the word of God, by that, and that only, are we bound in doctrine.”
I am a Mormon. I am not racist. I don’t know any racists. I do not believe in the curse of Cain. I don’t know anyone who believes in it. I have never heard it taught in Church. It is not now, nor has it ever been official Church doctrine. Your technique of listing past controversial statements is one usually employed by anti-Mormon outlets. I am confused as to why you are so determined to show Mormons as racist. Didn’t you say you are a Mormon? Have you had different experiences than me? Have you heard it taught? I believe all of your statements are more than 30 years old. Why did you write that the Church “teaches” this?

Steven said...

Riley,

When you say "current official" doctrine, are you implying that the doctrine of the church has changed? I thought God was unchanging and constant?

I don't have anything against Mormonism. I just have quite a few problems with Mormons.

It's like Ghandi said:

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."

Steven said...

Bryce,

So what God was Brigham Young talking to?

Was it a different God than Spencer W. Kimball who, after worldwide protests and accusations of racism (not to mention the need to baptize new members in Africa), suddenly has a "revelation" to let blacks have equal rights?

And don't pull the "Well, sometimes a prophet of God will say and teach things AS A MAN and not AS A PROPHET and thus it is not doctrine."

I hear that all the time and it's such a cop-out.

And what about Bruce R. McConkie? Was he just bonkers or what?

STEVEN

Bryan said...

I wish I had inspired this level of outrage with my review of "Lucky You."

Jesus Christ that movie sucked.

riley said...

Steven,

Again, Is there any CURRENT OFFICIAL doctrine that Romney has publically denounced?

If so what was it?

BTW

Romney belongs to a church which teaches that in days of old, God commanded priests to offer animal sacrifices to the Lord. That for example would not be considered "current".

Washed-up 4th grader said...

Steven you're all over the place with your logic it's ridiculous. What you're concluding is not only largely untrue, but you cannot even make it valid. Just so you know, truth and validity aren't the same thing. I can't tell if you would be smart enough to know this or not.

You're going to have to scream louder for attention Steven. No one's knocking down your door for an interview yet. Here's hoping that there will always be flaws by the Right so Steven can have something to complain about. Just as Kierkegaard implied, there are people like you who abuse freedom of speech because they simply don't know how to think.

Steven said...

Washed-up Everything,

How is my logic ridiculous?

STEVEN

Steven said...

Riley,

Romney has renounced The Word of Wisdom with his " I love hunting animals" bullshit:

Word of Wisdom:

"Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; NEVERTHELESS they are to be used sparingly;

And it is pleasing unto me that they should NOT BE USED, only times of winter, or of cold, or famine"


Romney renounced the 12th and 13th Article of Faith with his whole "I don't want some people to have constitutional rights" thing and with his "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (which includes Waterboarding which = torture duh).

Answer me this: Does Romney's response AT ALL contradict the teachings and doctrines of Jesus Christ? If not, prove it.

STEVEN

Washed-up 4th grader said...

I'll give you one example because I can't believe I'm taking you so serious. You made an argument that debunked our claim that we believe in an unchanging God. You have no clue what non-changing even means in this sense. For example, we don't believe in plural marriage right now...but we believed in it at a certain time, as it was revealed by God. That constitutes change. We say we beleive in an unchanging God but there obviously is change. Their was plural marriage in the old testament but not when Christ came to earth. That's also a change. Just because there are things that have to change ON THIS EARTH, IN THIS LIFE, doesn't mean that God himself changes.

Aren't you missing a protest?

Bryce said...

Steven – are you a member? You seem to have a lot of hostility toward the Church. And what I wrote is not a cop out. It is the truth. If you can’t face it, and need to hold on to these controversial statements as official Church doctrine, then you are on your own.

As to what God Brigham Young was talking to, I imagine it was the same God who gave Moses certain laws and then changed them when Christ came. I suppose it was the same God who forbade Christ’s followers from ever preaching the gospel to Samaritans, but then removed that ban later.

How many times do you think Moses said something that wasn’t doctrine, but his own speculation? We don’t know because we only have official doctrine from him. But Moses did make mistakes, so did other Old and New Testament prophets, does that invalidate the Bible?

Bruce R. McConkie was a good man, but he was censured by the Church and had portions of his books expunged for speculation. It is amazing to me that I express to you the idea that there is a standard for what constitutes official Church doctrine, and you see that as a cop out. Huh? Again, what do Mormons believe? What is taught? Not these statements you trot out, but the doctrines of the Church. If you really are a Mormon, then you know that.

Or maybe you really believe this because by your account, these obscure statements are all official Church doctrine and Mormons are racist for believing them.

Joe Vogel said...

In regards to the church and its policies towards Black people:

Let's try to just be honest with ourselves, and recognize when we have made a mistake. It does no good for the church, Black members (present and future), or any of the rest of us to continue to rationalize what was clearly wrong and perpetuate destructive myths.

It's clear from the historical record that many of our leaders have been racist. It's unfortunate, but it's true. The Church was way behind even a racist America in correcting its ways. Some apostles like Hugh B Brown pushed for racial equality, but he was drowned out by the majority leadership which was either racist or too neutral or moderate to do anything.

As a result, it wasn't that Black people weren't "worthy" or ready to be embraced as full human beings and our brothers and sisters, it was that God was unable to work through racist white people. For this and other mistakes, I think people will be held accountable.

As for Romney, it's unfortunate that he has gone from a seemingly rational moderate, to an "I'll do anything to get elected" right-wing zealot. This disease has unfortunately spread through much of Mormonism, which is pandering and identifying more and more with evangelical fundamentalism.

I say let's get back to some of our roots (minus polygamy). Let's allow for more honesty, humility, and inclusiveness. Instead of telling everyone we are the true church, let's try to be true to ourselves, our neighbors, and God and let our actions speak for themselves.

cowboy said...

From the early days in Utah 1847 to 1978 (which is a significant portion of Mormon history!) the LDS Church practices were discriminatory and racist. You are delusional if you cannot accept that fact. Many of you acknowledge this practice was racism…and some of you know vestiges of racism still remain in the actions and in the ebb within the membership. Ask most African-American people in Salt Lake City if they do not feel disenfranchised with living amongst the “white and delightsome” people.

There was no official canonized reason for LDS members with African lineage to withhold the keys to their Priesthood…so, why did the General Authorities need to discriminate? It’s clearly racism without ideology to support discrimination except for foolish religious-doctrinal speculation by a large segment of the membership.

There are a couple of questions I have: How do you explain this inconsistency with African members today? Even with a new “revelation” why has there never been an official apology, much less an explanation, from the LDS Church for their past racist practices?

Bryce said...

The lack of an explanation or apology has troubled me for a long time. There is a great book "Black and Mormon" that explores all of this and I found it very helpful. Yes, there was racism in the Church - there still may be. I grew up in the Boston area, so my experiences with that might be different - I didn't see it.

If the Church hadn't removed the ban on men of African heritage holding the priesthood (and women not being able to go through the temple) my faith would not be what it is now. I am very thankful that that has happened. I think the Church has reached out. But consider this: Even if I accept that the Church's policy was divinely inspired, why not an apology? I mean the policy hurt people. I think there would be a way to express regret for that...but I think that the idea that the Mormon Church is racist today is false.

cowboy said...

Mind you, I’m not trying to be disrespectful…I appreciate your candor too, bryce.

I think there is some uneasiness on both sides of this issue: Mormons not feeling too good about a change in doctrine that MIGHT have resulted from public pressure. And then, the good intentions by the Mormons to correct this particular glaring mistake is viewed with some skepticism by non-members.

Then, from 1978 until the present there hasn’t been much headway with integration of African-Americans…and that has been nearly 3 decades! Was there too little done to actively (not just with words) to welcome African-Americans into their fold? You know what I mean: by actions and deeds shall you know their true feelings.

I feel a little tinge of uneasiness when I see the token diversity displayed in LDS Church public announcements…particularly on KBYU. It seems like a professional Public Relations stunt. I think the LDS Church recognizes this (in their “corporation” capacity). You would think 30 years has past and by now the Church of Jesus Christ should be all-inclusive with no segregation…but then…I see the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and it’s a sea of white and then on the local news you view the political rallies with Mitt Romney and family/friends and AGAIN it’s a sea of white people. I know…I know…it’s the nature of the decades of racism. That beast (racism) has taken a toll on the LDS Church and now the brethren need to be truly contrite and plead forgiveness.

Humble contriteness. It’s a good thing. I need to incorporate it in my life too.

Viewed from the outside, this African-lineage discrimination thing is akin to what some country clubs had to endure since after the wars. The LDS Church did nothing different than what thousands of country club board of directors did when public policies (civil rights) were used to persuade them or there would be legal/monetary consequences.

It’s not just the LDS Church… You still see racism has effects on sports: particularly tennis (Arthur Ashe) and golf (Tiger Woods). It hasn’t been that long when it would have been ludicrous to even think African-Americans would be seen on a professional tennis or golf tour.

I think the LDS Church was affected by this cultural mentality. That was in that era. It’s not to excuse the General Authorities for discrimination but this, perhaps, explains why this Priesthood thing took so long to be reconciled.

I have some African-American associates that would sooner go to Europe and work than be transferred to live in Utah or Northern Idaho. The perception needs to change if the LDS Church wants to rid itself of its racism past. It’s not going to be easy. Mitt Romney might be the catalyst for some change but changing attitudes to suit political expediency is NOT the way. This is bigger than Mitt Romney.

Cat Woman said...

Washed Up 4th Grader,

You said
"You're going to have to scream louder for attention Steven. No one's knocking down your door for an interview yet."
ACtually, I know from personal experiance that people ARE constantly calling Steve for interviews! So, don't cry...

And Bryce -

Did you hurry and "google" books about Blacks and Mormons? Seems so. You failed to mention it when you should have in the beginning!

Bryce said...

Uh, cat woman - I'm holding in my hand my copy of the book "Black and Mormon" edited by Bringhurst and Smith and have over 20 books on LDS church history on my book shelf, including the Journal and Discourses with the Brigham Young quotes. I'm not sure why you feel I googled something. I've seen this move before, instead of taking on the points, you try and discreidt the source as if I'm not a serious person, or my beliefs are hurriedly generated from a web search. What exactly did you want me to mention in the beginning? I've spent many hours researching LDS history and the black issue. Believe me, I stand by everything I wrote and truly believe it. If you have a problem with my opinions, take them on, but you're - oh you just googled it argument is weak.

Bryce said...

Cowboy - I don't feel you're being disrespectful, your opinions seems sincere. I wonder how much of this is a Utah issue? I've lived in Southern Utah now for 3 years after living the previous 30 of my life in the Boston area. The issues of race in the Church are different in UT than in MA. Of course, Utah, at least SLC and the Church are closely linked. I think there has been a move by the Church that one might call a PR campaign to reach out. Without going too inside baseball, I have a close relative who works high up in the BYU system and it is a concern. My personal view is it seems like an issue that is at least compunded by Utah and Idaho's own issues and if you look at the Church outside of Utah and Idaho - at least in my experience - members are more liberal in accepting different types of backgrounds - this is not to say I totally want to throw SLC members under the bus, I think it is improving, but I can certainly see where you are coming from...

Bryce said...

My sources in my own home: Black and Mormon, Rough Stone Rolling, Are Mormons Christian? The Journal of Discourses, Church History Volumes 1-7, Joseph Smith bios by Hill, Madsen, and Lucy Mack Smith, plus others...are these LDS sources? Mostly, yes. I felt a need to show that hey, look the Mormon guy actually reads! I don't need a Google search to form my opinions and I take people on based on what they write, not trying to slight them personally.

cowboy said...

Careful, bryce, you’re becoming too edukated. Reading that stuff might lead you astray, dislodge your testimony off some shaky perch or get a visit from your Bishop. Hide all the Sunstone magazines if they come knocking at your door.

You’re a good seed and a tip-of-the-hat from me.

Cat Woman said...

Bryce - you seem to be defending yourself quite a bit on this blog. Hm... I wonder why...

So, you've spent MANY hours researching LDS History. Good for you!

Keep it up! And keep believing it! It seems to work for you.

I on the other hand, ned some proof. Angels and fairies and great and all, but I have yet to see one.

Bryce said...

You know, I am defending not only what I believe but myself and why I believe it. I don't mind anyone taking on what my religion actually believes or teaches, or what I believe or write. I don't like the snide stuff.

I might be defensive. When I was 12 the Mormon chapel in my home town, Belmont, MA was burned to the ground. I had a driving instructor refuse to teach me because I was a Mormon and because I worked in Cambridge and Boston for a large chunk of my life, I've heard all the anti-Mormon stuff you can imagine. I began reading about the charges and the history. I ended up writing a book and a screenplay about it. So, I have spent quite some time with it. I just wrote what I believe and was attacked as somehow not being sincere.

I don't mock anyone for their beliefs; angels, fairies, atheism whatever. I don't care for the kinds of attacks you utilized - no they are not vicious, I'd actually prefer that! - just condescending.

As for the need to have proof - I am sympathetic. In the LDS church it is a custom to say "I know" the church is true, and while there are those who say that and I believe them, I have to rely on faith at this point. I don't think that makes me irrational - but you're right on one thing: it does work for me and I'll defend what I believe.

Cat Woman said...

Sorry Bryce. I guess I can be a bit rude. I just act too fast.

I'm sorry that your driving instructor did not teach you. That is absurd! I would NEVER do such a thing. I may not believe what you do, but that's no reason to completely disregard a person.

I was baptized as a Mormon. It was MY choice. My parents NEVER forced me to go to church. But – I never really felt “the spirit” as they say. Nothing… Believe me I tried. I prayed a lot when I was younger. Not about stupid petty things either. I used to always ask “God” to show me some kind of sign to let me know that my beliefs were valid. Never got any proof or even a “sense”. As I said, I’m a person who needs proof and feel that living off of FAITH can be VERY dangerous and disappointing.

Again, sorry for being rude.

Thanks also for being sympathetic of my need for proof.

Bryce said...

I'm not writing this because it is me you addressed it to, or based on my ego, but I feel like your last post shows true character. We disagree about things, that is OK, we can still be cordial and have a dialogue.

The truth is that I was inactive for about 5 years (did not serve a mission) and had people in the Church treat me like I had Ebola, so I can guess where some of your feelings come from.

I think I've had little "proofs" but nothing that rises to the level of a sign, I don't even know if that's what people mean when they say "I know", maybe they feel the same way I do.

I wonder if I'm asking too much to seek that "knowledge" - perhaps faith is as far as I can take it. If so, it's enough for me. But I don't think less of you for your take - It's taking me a lot of work to get past that "I know" barrier and it has been a deliberate choice on my part. At any rate, I appreciate your post and wish you the best...

Anonymous said...

Y'all ever met a hyperbole you didn't like? And hell, how 'bout y'all start being *good* apostates and punctuating/capitalizing Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints correctly? Or is that your "final revenge" (against, let me guess, your parents?).