MORONS WITHOUT BORDERS

It’s not every day that I find myself shouting obscenities into the ether as I drive home from work. Not every day. Most of the time it’s because of some perturbing incident that occurred at work. Sometimes it’s because of a guest on a podcast I listened to who said something unconscionably stupid. Rarely is it because of something so mundane as a statistical political podcast. Rarely… 

The offending podcast is the 538 Politics Podcast. Ordinarily I find the program to be informative and refreshingly neutral on controversial topics. Occasionally they say something critical of twice-impeached shitbag Donald Trump. But can you blame them? The episode which seems to have glued itself to my craw was about the decline of religion in America and how that is affecting politics. I often listen to atheist podcasts which discuss similar topics, but since 538 is a political podcast first and foremost, I hoped they would have a different perspective on the matter. In a way, I was right.

Their guest was a man named Ryan Burge who had conducted a number of polls about religiosity and had written a book about the results. The results were consistent with similar kinds of polls and surveys from many other groups which all indicate that Americans are becoming less religious with each generation. This does not necessarily mean that everyone is becoming an atheist, Mr. Burge is quick to point out. But rather, they are unaffiliated with an organized religion. This has led to the creation of a new demographic: the Nones.

All of this is fine. All of this is consistent with other sources I have seen, heard or read over the past decade. So what did I find so objectionable that I screamed “fucking idiots” at my car radio over and over? You see, in addition to being a published pollster, Mr. Burge is also a pastor. And he just couldn’t help but pontificate on the implications of these most dire trends. And the hosts didn’t just lap it up, they piled on.

The main focus of their collective criticism of declining religiosity in the US is the effect it will have on charity and social safety nets. Mr. Burge strongly implied that the only charitable organizations out there doing any meaningful work for the less fortunate are all religious. I guess he’s never heard of Doctors Without Borders or Planned Parenthood or the Red Cross or the countless homeless shelters and soup kitchens run by local governments. So let’s crunch some numbers.

One of the reasons churches were initially granted de facto tax-free status (as opposed to 501c3 charities who have to apply for tax-free status) is that churches were presumed to be the social safety net of our society. The government in its infancy had no real welfare system, so any aid had to come from elsewhere. To encourage churches to fill that gap the federal government granted churches tax-exempt status. Since then, other charities have risen without any religious affiliation. These charities have to apply for tax-exempt status and release their financial records to the public AND there is an expectation (I’m not sure if it’s mandatory or not) that they will use at least 5% of their funds on their charitable work. Churches don’t have to do any of that.

Let’s look at the Mormon Church as an example, in part because I am the most familiar with them but also because they are widely known as one of the richest churches in the world despite their relatively small membership. They claim over 16 million members on their roles. They pull in at least $4-5 billion a year in tithing (likely much more than that) and several newspapers have estimated their assets at over 40 billion dollars. Some insiders have claimed the existence of a rainy day fund of over $121 billion. Yes, you read that right. $121,000,000,000. Which makes the total assets of the Red Cross (about $3 million) look paltry in comparison. This small church with astronomical coffers boasts $40 million per year of humanitarian aid worldwide. And while $40 million is hardly chump change, it makes up approximately 0.8% of their tithing budget. Compared to their rainy day fund it is 0.03%. Either way you want to count it, the Mormon church spends a fraction of the expected 5% that secular charities spend.

Let’s put a couple of things in perspective. In 2012 the Mormon church put nearly $2 billion in on a local mall (ostensibly so they could clean up downtown Salt Lake City (by displacing the growing homeless population)), which is roughly equal to 50 years of humanitarian aid by the church ($40 million x 50 years = $2 billion.)

In recent years Utah has put a tax on alcohol sales in state run liquor stores, the funds of which go towards the state school lunch program. Each year the amount of money raised from this tax is between $40-$50 million, approximately 10% of the $500 million in alcohol sales per year (well above the standard 5%). Utah has a population of 3 million. About half of the population in Utah is Mormon but about half of them are actually active Mormons. For the ease of numbers, let’s say 2 million people in the state are either not Mormon or are otherwise not opposed to buying alcohol. Let's say about half of them are underage. This leaves us around 1 million people who might possibly buy alcohol in the state. $50 million split 1 million ways comes out to about $50 per person per year going towards school lunches. Compare that to the 16 million Mormons worldwide who contribute roughly the same amount (again, worldwide), which comes to about $2.50 per Mormon per year. I’m sorry, but the alcohol drinkers of Utah do as much or more for charity just in their state of 3 million people as the Mormon church does worldwide! That doesn’t sound like it supports Mr. Burges’ argument at all.

The last time I paid tithing in the Mormon church I was a college student and paid a meager $1000 for the year (it was a bumper year, no doubt). If we use the more generous percentage of 0.8% going towards humanitarian causes this means approximately $8 of my tithing went to actual charity. Whereas, if I spend $50 per month on alcohol $5 will go to Utah schools, which amounts to $60 per year. And if I did my math right, I’m pretty sure $60 is significantly more than $8.

So, if such a small amount of the money one gives to churches actually goes to charitable causes, where does the rest of that money go? The church keeps it. They might put it into the building and utilities. They might pay their clergy (which even Mormons do, although many believe their clergy is unpaid). Or they might invest in stocks, land, malls and insurance firms (which is what the Mormon church has been doing for 50 years). But the problem is, one can never know how exactly a church uses their donations, because they are not obligated to disclose their financial information. Donating to a church you attend seems self-serving at best. But the truth is, many members who donate to churches are not able to get aid from their own church. I have heard countless stories of people who are told by their bishop that in order to receive welfare from the church they must first pay their tithing. And after they pay their tithing they still don’t get any assistance. And their children go hungry...

A Mormon once told me that they don’t want state run welfare because charity should come from religious communities. Well, are there not religious communities now? Are there still countless people being forced out of their homes right now? Utah has had a growing housing crisis for a few decades and more and more people are displaced from their homes each year. What is their religious community doing about that? What is the Mormon church doing about that? Are they going to build another billion dollar mall and displace more homeless people? Think of the housing they could build with that kind of money! They could literally end the housing crisis in their own backyard if they wanted to. Why don’t they? Clearly the existing religions are failing to keep up with demand. And they aren’t even meeting the bottom threshold of 5% that secular charities are expected to maintain. So, what good is your tithing actually doing?

DUMB IT DOWN

"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."
--Dilbert

Some of the more convoluted religious discussions I have participated in have been on the topic of salvation for the mentally disabled. Many religions claim that entrance into heaven is conditional upon certain acts of contrition and ritual manifestations of belief. Arbitrary acts of compliance, such as baptism, confession, communion, sacraments, endowments, and so on, are meant to show an all-knowing god that you really mean it--that you really do super-duper believe.

The question becomes, "since many mentally disabled people do not fully understand the meaning behind religious ceremonies, or are incapable of understanding what a god even is, are they required to go through these rites of passage in order to make it into heaven?"

I first encountered this question while on my mission, when a middle aged woman requested that her mentally retarded 20 year old son be baptized. As missionaries, we looked forward to any baptism. Even so, it seemed unnecessary to baptize a grown man with the mind of a five year old. Surely god would allow him into heaven based on his condition, which surely god had imposed on him in the first place.

A few years ago autism was reclassified and broadened to a spectrum disorder, which allows for gradation of symptoms and severity of the condition. Still, there are many things which are in common of autistics as a whole. For instance, autistics tend to be analytically minded, and black and white in their thinking. This makes nuanced social and moral situations difficult for them to process. Because of these attributes, autism is especially interesting when discussing the salvation of the mentally challenged.

A Mormon associate of mine has an 11 year old autistic son (let's call him Peter) who told his mother that he doesn't want to go to church anymore because he hasn't seen any evidence for Jesus. In contrast, a Mormon relative of mine also has an 11 year old autistic son (let's call him John) who loves going to church and often makes decisions concerning social interactions based on lessons he has learned at church. Peter is very independent—almost to a fault—and John depends greatly on his parents and younger brother for guidance.

When Peter's mother told me about his decision to stop going to church, several people in our group reassured her that "he will come around." In Mormonism this means that at some point Peter will have a spiritual experience, or a "burning in his bosom," which Mormons believe is a sign that god is talking to them.

This burning sensation, as far as my ex-Mormon mind can understand, is no different than a "burning" desire for a proposition to be true. Meaning, Mormons believe that because they "have a good feeling" about Mormonism, this means that Mormonism is true. But to me, this is hardly a sound reason to assume the supernatural.

Based on other encounters Peter's mother has shared with me, I don't see Peter "coming around" to Mormonism solely based on feelings. Mormons will likely dismiss his unbelief as a symptom of his mental state, and claim that god will (probably) forgive him accordingly. This makes heaven a consolation prize for those inconvenienced by god's extra-strength cruelty in this life, leaving those who only experience god's regular-strength cruelty to fend for themselves.

If god can so easily forgive a mentally disabled person predisposed to unbelief, why can't he do the same for the rest of us unbelievers? Why is belief in something for which there is no evidence so important for our eternal salvation? What kind of plan is this?

John, on the other hand, has come to rely on church lessons for moral context and pro-social behavior. Mormonism has become his “Rosetta Stone” into social interactions. He is one of the few people I have met who really values and thinks about phrases like "What Would Jesus Do?"

John will likely remain in Mormonism as an adult because he has developed a comfortable routine out of it--another attribute of many autistics. Mormonism helps him understand right and wrong. I have discussed in other posts how difficult it is for many people who have based their moral standard on a belief in god to reconsider their morality after realizing god doesn't exist. For an autistic person who has made religion a social barometer and a routine, this becomes exponentially more challenging.

It will be interesting to see how John turns out, especially considering his affinity for science and space exploration. I wonder how his mind will process a potential faith crisis after, say, praying for someone to get well and waiting in vain for a response from god. After all, the scriptures are clear in the chain of events: pray in faith for something righteous and god will grant it. Will he so easily accept the inconsistent ad hoc rationalizations offered by believers for god's apparent negligence? I can't say. I hope that if that day comes, he finds a secular worldview to be just as useful in determining his morals and social behavior.

BONUS MATERIAL:





South Park weighing in on the subject:

BLANK SLATE

"The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain."

"Isn’t this statement encouraging news for parents whose children are sealed to them?"

--Richard H. Winkel, 2006 General Conference

I'm not really into weddings. I understand their purpose, and I support marriage in general. But weddings? Gag me twice with a crusty plunger...

Part of my disdain for weddings comes from my Mormon upbringing. Because of Mormonism's strict rules about weddings (they must be held in an exclusive Mormon temple, and only adults who hold a "temple recommend" may attend), I have only attended two real Mormon weddings, despite coming from a large Mormon family.

The consolation prize for any poor uninvited saps (i.e. heathens and children) who want to wish the happy couple well is a monotone reception, usually held in a local church's gymnasium. I can only handle so much sparkling apple cider, chalky dinner mints and white cake back-dropped with recycled plastic lilies draped over white wire arches. Oh yes. Mormons have a type. If you're lucky, they might have a slide show of engagement pictures, a chocolate fondue fountain or a third-cousin playing contemporary piano music for the low price of a future favor of equal or lesser value.

With such a bland template to go off of, you can imagine the challenge my wife and I had in planning a purely secular ceremony, which would not only celebrate our relationship and reflect our personalities, but would actually be enjoyable.

First and foremost, we didn't put arbitrary religious restrictions on who could attend. I was tempted to say that anyone whose wedding I would not be allowed to attend would likewise not be allowed at my wedding, but this seemed just as petty as when Mormons do it. Besides, our wedding was a celebration--not merely a stamp of worthiness.

Because Mormonism had left a bad taste in both our mouths, we decided to use a non-denominational minister who promised to accommodate our secular views. Naturally, some family members encouraged us to use a Mormon bishop who would happily officiate our ceremony free of charge. But this would undoubtedly mean our ceremony would be neck deep in references to god and heartfelt pleas for us to recommit to Mormonism so we can be married in the temple for "realsies" (after giving 10% of our money to the church for a year, of course...).

The minister was great. Well worth the money. We met with him several weeks prior and went over the itinerary. He was very professional and made a point to go over our religious views so the ceremony would reflect our beliefs. When we said we wanted a secular ceremony, he said he could easily take out all religious references from his service and focus instead on our relationship, loyalty and love. Ya know, the stuff that a marriage should be based upon. We were not disappointed.

The ceremony itself was outdoors at a quaint local farm, rather than a stuffy windowless room in the blandest of mini mansions. We stood under an ivy-covered gazebo, surrounded by close family and friends--and not just the ones who agree with us philosophically. We were even able to personalize aspects of our ceremony in a way a Mormon couldn't even dream of doing, such as pre-writing funny notes to each other which the minister incorporated into the service and playing Star Wars music as the bride walked down the isle.

Even the reception was personalized. We had catered food and Italian sodas--far more substantial than any reception I have ever attended. The cake was an homage to a video game (Portal) which we both enjoy playing and which served as a catalyst for one of our first long conversations. Not to mention it had several flavors, so everyone would enjoy it.

Throughout the reception area we had candles with inside jokes carved into them, and several pieces of art which we had made. The purpose was to celebrate our relationship visually in fun and creative ways. It wasn't about an invisible omniscient third-party who would watch us have sex (think about that, believers). It was about us. Not in a selfish way. But a in a celebratory way.

I mentioned that I have only attended two real Mormon weddings, only one of which was immediate family: my younger sister. My family is huge. I am the fourth of 8 kids. I was too young to go to either of my two oldest siblings' weddings. Instead, I waited in the temple lobby. My second older brother was married while I was on my mission, and a wedding is not an approved reason to leave the "work of the lord."

My younger sister was married while I was attending BYU, and it is basically part of the admission process to have a temple recommend. So I was able to attend her temple wedding. The officiant was an older gentleman who repeatedly praised my sister and her new husband for choosing to follow god's commandments, and admonished them that if they continue to be worthy to go to the temple (meaning, continue to give the church 10% of their money), then they would have a successful marriage which will totally continue in the eternities. The speech was all about their marriage in the context of obedience to Mormonism. Bleh. Gross. Double gross. "Yank-out-my-fingernails-with-your-gingivitis-teeth" gross.

My younger brother married a convert to the Mormon church. I wrote about their wedding in another post. Long story short, there was a bit of a feud between the parents of both families: my parents wanted a temple ceremony at the exclusion of non-Mormons and her non-Mormon parents wanted a civil ceremony so they could attend (no duh).

My brother made the difficult decision--and it was difficult--to have a civil wedding on a beach outside of Seattle, accessible to both families. My mother was heartbroken, even though she knew full well that my brother and his wife would still be married in the temple later. Yup. Mormons can do both.

As a way of discouraging a reasonable and inclusive wedding, the church usually makes more ecumenical couples wait several months before allowing them to be married in the temple (for "realsies"). The church had my brother wait about 3-4 months, which is quite short compared to the usual year long probation. I recall him saying once that he felt like he was being punished for doing the right thing. I replied, "you are."

The moral of the story, and of this post, is that secular weddings are better than religious weddings. They are more inclusive. They focus on the couple and celebrate their marriage. They bring people together, rather than divide. Because of the Mormon church's ridiculous policies to exclude certain people from weddings, I have only been present for two of my siblings' weddings.

I don't know that I have ever considered what my ideal wedding would be. But if I had, I think our inclusive secular wedding, which brought my family together for the first time in 15 years, is it.

BONUS MATERIAL:

Tide commercial (wait for it):

ONWARD CHRISTIAN A--HOLES

Because "atheism" simply means that one lacks a belief in god, many people are quick to point out that an atheist does not have to be liberal on social issues, such as gay rights and women's reproductive rights. While technically true, many atheists find themselves leaning left, as it were, in politics. In many ways, the justifications used by conservatives for their political positions are rooted in religious values. When a person loses their faith, often times their conservatism is next to go.

This is one reason the "culture wars" in America appear to be religious. I suppose to a certain extent it is, but there is nothing about atheism which would necessarily drive a person to liberalism. Progressive politics seem to be a byproduct of an absence of religious conservatism.

At present, we are staring down the barrel of two social collisions. First, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriage--which many conservatives are calling an illegal overreach of a few agenda-driven judges--we have the self-made martyr Kim Davis, who continues to defy a federal judge by refusing to do her job as a county clerk in Kentucky. As she sees it, she should not be forced by the Supreme Court to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because doing so would be against her deeply held religious beliefs.

I suppose she would also have no problem if a Muslim who worked at a grocery store refused to sell her pork, or a Mormon who worked at a liquor store refused to sell her alcohol, or a Jehovah's Witness doctor refused to give her a life-saving blood transfusion. Surely, she would respect their religious beliefs...

I can respect her decision to not want to sign marriage licenses for gay couples. I am pro-freedom and choice. She should not be forced to do it. But, given that it is now a part of her job as mandated by the Supreme Court, if she cannot perform this part of her job as a public servant then she should resign. This is exactly what I would do if I felt that my boss required me to do something immoral or contrary to my belief system. I would quit.

The reason Ms. Davis refuses to quit is because she wants to be made a martyr. Unfortunately for her, the fate of most martyrs usually ends very, very badly. Her fate, somewhat surprisingly to me, is that she is being held in contempt of court and on Thursday of last week she went to prison.

After sending Kim to prison, the court ordered her immediate subordinates to sign the marriage licenses. Because they followed the court order, presumably out of fear of also being sent to prison, the court released Davis yesterday (Tuesday). So, she basically missed a holiday weekend in defense of her religious beliefs (just like Jesus!). Davis has yet to say whether she intends to comply with court orders, but the court made it clear that should she continue her defiance, she will return to prison.

After a paltry five days in prison (small potatoes for a truly committed martyr), Davis has milked some old fashioned self-righteous sympathy from conservatives. Some have speculated that Davis will resign only to be picked up by one of the frontrunner GOP presidential candidates and go on a speaking circuit to defend religious liberty. A likely candidate is Mike Huckabee, himself a narrow minded preacher eager to play the victim card, who stood by Kim's side during a rally immediately after her release. During this tour de farce, Davis, who is now on her fourth "traditional marriage," will make some money by pandering to the homophobia of the poor oppressed Christian majority. This is a similar plot to Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber in 2008.

The second social collision is much less comical than a butt-hurt bigot sending herself to prison in order to make money off of other bigots. This issue has more dire consequences, and in some cases, it is a matter of life and death.

For years, conservatives have claimed that 50 million babies have been aborted in America since Roe v Wade. This statistic, the accuracy of which is suspect, is meant to draw up emotion against abortion. It is true that abortion can be emotionally taxing, but this has nothing to do with the legality of it. Besides, the vast majority of women who have had an abortion maintain that it was the right choice for them, even years later.

Abortions will continue to happen because women will always seek bodily autonomy, no matter what fallacious arguments narrow minded politicians and theocrats use to try to strip women of that right. Legalized abortion means that women who seek it will have better healthcare during the procedure.

The most effective way to reduce the number of abortions in America is through comprehensive sex education and access to contraception. Fewer unwanted pregnancies will occur if people can control with greater accuracy when they get pregnant. This "no brainer," however, seems lost among the more fundamentalist religious sects, many of whom have been stirred into a frenzy by a recent "exposé" on Planned Parenthood, a non-profit whose primary purpose is comprehensive sex education and access to contraception and healthcare.

In this "leaked" video, an undercover Christian Soldier talks to a leader of Planned Parenthood on how they, too, can make money selling aborted baby parts. At first glance, this is horrific. It's mad scientist stuff. But, scratching beneath the shallowest of surfaces one comes to find that what is actually being discussed is giving an aborted fetus to a science lab for study. The only money Planned Parenthood gets during such a transaction is reimbursement for transportation costs, which is on the order of about $75.

The ripple effect of this video has caused several politicians--including governors--to push for the revocation of government funding of Planned Parenthood. Several states have effectively done so already. Here is the problem: only 3% of Planned Parenthood's dealings involve abortion. This means that the other 97% of their services will be crippled because of a political knee-jerking.

Some of their other services include free healthcare to the poor, educational materials on reproductive health, and free screenings for STDs. Much of what they do helps poor people who can't afford these services any other way and young people who are too scared to seek these services through their parents because of religious judgments. When one goes through Planned Parenthood for a given service, one is told how much the subsidized service costs (which is usually much cheaper than comparable sources), and one is informed that should the cost be too high, they can pay as much as they want. This means that people can get these services FOR FREE.

I can't see how anyone could oppose this system. Even those who want abortion to be illegal should be in favor of such accessible healthcare services and education, access to which has been shown time and time again to reduce abortions in a given area. Seriously, education trumps ignorance every time. When women have control of their own bodies, STDs and abortions drop and poverty levels improve. Abstinence only sex education is not education--it is religiously motivated ignorance. And when has that tactic ever benefitted society?

And to think that self-righteous Christian a--holes want to take this beneficial program away from those in need because of a misrepresentative, highly edited propaganda video from a group of ignorant sycophantic idealists with no concept of pluralism, freedom or education, who wish to lasso the rest of civilized society into the sand trap of outdated Christian morals. To these self-righteous opportunists, I have one last thing to say: it is a pity there isn't a hell for you to go to, you sanctimonious cunts.

BONUS MATERIAL:





The Young Turks on the Planned Parenthood video:

MAGIC ERASER

"Given this overwhelming tendency to stupidity and selfishness in myself and among our species, it is somewhat surprising to find the light of reason penetrating at all. The brilliant Schiller was wrong in his Joan of Arc when he said that "against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." It is actually by means of the gods that we make our stupidity and gullibility into something ineffable. 

--Christopher Hitchens, god is Not Great

In recent weeks I have been overwhelmed by the stupidity which surrounds me. Sure, I am often surrounded by ever-dimming light bulbs in the cluttered shelf that is my job. I expect this; I can manage this. What I am referring to is an influx of stupidity from people who should really know better.

Those who have read my posts from the last few weeks will note my struggle on Facebook in dealing with Mormon friends and family who oppose gay marriage. It has been exhausting.

One of the more distressing annoyances has been people throwing clever-sounding one-liners at me, as if it should automatically shut me down. Inane lines such as "hate the sin, not the sinner," or "doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith," or "I find more and more that I am not allowed to criticize those who oppose traditional values," or "The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center," or “I know that [God] loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.”

My blood boils further when I address their comment intelligently, or simply ask them to explain their position in more detail (i.e. The Socratic Method), and they drop out of the conversation all together. What does it say about a person's argument if they turn tail and run when asked to explain themselves?

Having thought a while longer about the phrase "doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith," which was popularized in Mormon culture a couple of General Conferences ago, I realize that many people do not really understand what is being said by it. "Doubt your doubts" implies a level of investigation.

For instance, if I hear that the Book of Mormon contains archaeological inconsistencies which fly in the face of what scientists say about ancient America, I might begin to have doubts about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as an accurate historical record. To "doubt my doubts" in this instance would mean that I would look at the research on the subject and then draw a conclusion. It may be that such anachronisms are not really in conflict with known history; but if they are, research should reveal this. If a conflict exists, I would want to know.

Many believers reject such troublesome inquisitions out of hand. They have a knee jerk reaction to opposition. I think this is where the sound-bite arguments come in to play. They build up a superficial wall around their pet beliefs. When their shallow wall starts to crumble, they cower.

One underhanded argument which is occasionally presented to me is that "one can leave the church, but one cannot leave the church alone." This is meant to be insulting. This is meant to get under the skin of the doubter. In this way, it attempts to validate the believer's scripture-based assumption that non-believers do not exist--they are merely rebelling against god's commandments, which are written on the hearts of men.

This is childish. This is no better than non-believers claiming that believers only believe to make themselves feel better. This is no way to live in a civilized society.

The accusation that people who leave religion, such as myself, continue to criticize it because they are trying to convince themselves that they don't believe, when, in fact, they really do, is nonsensical. In a strange way, it reminds me of a trend I have noticed at my work. I have worked in social services for many years, and every so often troubled teens admit to me that when they grow up they also want to work in social services.

Many of them are victims of physical, emotional, verbal or sexual abuse, usually some combination of all of them. As the kids understand how therapeutic practices can help abuse victims find peace and methods of coping, they feel the need to assist other victims in the process. Their desire to be a therapist or psychologist or counselor is motivated by their empathy.

This is analogous to people who leave religion with a bad taste in their mouths. I do not continue to criticize Mormonism because deep down I believe it is true. I criticize Mormonism because I believe it is a harmful ideology. I have seen the harm of Mormonism in my own life and in the lives of those close to me, many of whom are still entrapped by it.

The harm of Mormonism may not be as overt as the psychological trauma caused by abuse. But the way such a life-encompassing theology warps a believer's perception of reality and confuses sound methods of attaining knowledge with subjective feelings attributed to god, thereby fooling believers to accept as true ridiculous claims for which they have no evidence, suggests a pervasive corruption of the mind every bit as deep as abuse. And it will take more than clever soundbites to expunge this smiley-faced evil from society.

BONUS MATERIAL:




Christopher Hitchens on the harm of religion:

Christopher Hitchens responds to a stupid question:

THOUGHT PROVOCATEUR

My direct supervisor, inspired by her need to be optimistic, just told a rather down-and-out patient that "hope is eternal." I assume she meant for this to inspire the patient. Perhaps it did. But upon hearing my light snicker in the background, my supervisor directed her attention towards me: "Matt, I'm serious."

I replied, "It's just a silly thing to say, is all. You see, if hope is eternal then it will never end, which means that the thing you hope will happen, will never actually happen. This means that 'eternal hope' is useless."

She turned around and went to a meeting. I, on the other hand, got to thinking. This phrase, "hope is eternal," is common in Mormon circles. And like my supervisor, many Mormons only think superficially about the over-the-pulpit drivel many share in faith-inspiring optimism.

If, per chance, a proposed warm and fuzzy saying is only inspiring on the surface (meaning, it inspires only inasmuch as you don't think about it too much), then the over-thinker is labeled a pessimist.

Forgive me if I only find inspiration in things truly inspiring and thought-provoking. Telling me that I am "thinking too much" or "taking it too far" only serves to undermine any superficial meaning which may have been left.

May I propose a counter argument? You think too little. If you decide to withhold "thinking" in order to shield a pet belief or favorite saying from criticism, then perhaps it isn't worth defending. This type of willful ignorance has only ever stood in the way of real progress. Let it go and be done with it.

PRUDE JUICE

"The homicidal lunatics—rehearsing to be genocidal lunatics—of 9/11 were perhaps tempted by virgins, but it is far more revolting to contemplate that, like so many of their fellow jihadists, they were virgins."

--Christopher Hitchens, god Is Not Great.





While on my Mormon mission to Bulgaria I met a fascinating older gentleman. Let's call him Evgenni. He was a retired local sports reporter of moderate fame. Small-framed, cultured, polite and charismatic, we missionaries sometimes wondered why he was so interested in Mormons, yet never was baptized. He came to church weekly and attended other church functions often. He especially loved talking to us in English. After all, speaking with native English speakers from America is a rare privilege in Bulgaria, even for well-connected men like Evgenni.

From time to time, missionaries would attempt to "convert" Evgenni to Mormonism. His reply was always the same, "I love being with you boys. I enjoy your church and most of what you teach. But I do not believe in the church the same way you do. I could be baptized, but I would not really mean it. I would be a hypocrite."

At the time this seemed like a poor excuse. Why would he risk going to hell just to stand by his principles? I now understand that intellectual integrity is valuable in its own way and a god that would punish someone eternally because they feel that it would be immoral and hypocritical to go through the motions in order to save face, should not be worshipped, but despised.

In my conversations with Evgenni, I recall a very interesting, yet at the time very controversial point he made dealing with premarital sex. According to him, although respectable and to some extent admirable, waiting until marriage to have sex for the first time is impractical. He advised us to wait until just before our wedding night and have sex with our fiancé to see if we are sexually compatible. If so, then great! Get married and be happy together. If not, then the wedding can be avoided with minimal losses.

To such morally sterile young Mormon boys, this concept seemed outlandish. God has explicitly told us not to engage in premarital sex. If we find a soul mate (whatever that means), which has been inspired and orchestrated by god--predestined before birth, even--surely we would be sexually compatible with our girlfriends. Right?

We had no idea. How could we? Most of us had never had sex, and therefore, had no context for the idea of sexual compatibility. How many different sexual preferences and tastes and kinks could there be? Ten?

The fact is, Evgenni, although falling on deaf and ignorant ears, was right. There is no shame in premarital sexual activity. It seems that the only advocates for abstinence before marriage are those who wish to control young people by locking them into a theology for life.

Religions have used sexuality to control the masses for centuries. In Mormon culture, so much emphasis is placed on abstinence (including masturbation), that many Mormons marry at a young age just so they can have sex. Add to this a nearly ubiquitous condemnation of contraception (although, to be fair, younger Mormons tend to look down less on family planning than older generations) and passive bad-mouthing of couples who wait a few years to have kids--or worse, couples who decide they don't want kids at all--and you get a recipe for young couples marrying into a religion and raising lots of kids in Mormonism.

This method, also exploited by the Catholic Church and Islam, is so effective that despite Mormonism's excessive and much talked about door-to-door missionary efforts, children born into the church and baptized at the age of eight is the primary source for increasing church membership. They call it "multiplying and replenishing the earth" (a reference to that one time in "history" when god drowned everyone on earth except for 8 people and two of every animal because the humans god created did exactly what he designed them to do...). God wants his people to take over the world through sheer breeding force.

To some extent, I realized this viscous trend of "get 'em while they're young" marriages and the pernicious cycle of perpetual pregnancies while still in college. Many of my fellow Mormon friends and family have slipped effortlessly into this lifestyle-snare. After all, if they base their decision to marry young and have lots of Mormon babies for Jesus upon the same feelings they base their belief in Mormonism, how could they go wrong? Surely god is inspiring them on both counts.

The fact is, I know people who have gone down this road of hasty matrimony (one couple got engaged after four days of courtship...) and found themselves divorced, jaded and in messy custody battles in less than a few years. One young woman admitted to me that her first marriage was built in large part on her desire to experience sex for the first time. Marriage is the only church-approved sexual outlet for sexually repressed (and sexually ignorant) young Mormons.

Furthermore, statistics show a clear trend that those who marry a little older tend to have more successful marriages. Of course, such marriages are not guaranteed to succeed. But, it seems ill advised to marry young and have so many kids that you are too distracted by the busyness of life to even begin to formulate doubts about your faith-based worldview. Could this be by design?

On a more practical note, sex before marriage builds trust and an emotional connection unmatched by other aspects of dating--even more than laser tag or sharing an ice cream sundae. Not to mention it is great fun.

Religious troops often tout the scary aspects of sex in an effort discourage young people from premarital sex. I suppose the tenuous threat that "fornicators will go to hell" only gets you so far among the current decreasingly religious younger generation. If teen pregnancy doesn't scare you, maybe a detailed description of chlamydia and genital warts will to the trick.

But contraception, such as a cheap latex condom, removes most of the risk of most STDs, including the scariest of all: AIDS. This leaves theocrats still seeking control over the genitals of young people stranded with a baseless (i.e. Faith-based) notion that god hates contraception just as much as unwed pregnant teens and porn.

Add to all of this the promise to Mormons that should they make it to the highest kingdom in heaven (the Celestial Kingdom), not only will they be reunited with their families (assuming, of course, that other family members also make it to the highest kingdom), they will also get to create their own universes with trillions of "spirit children." This in turn means lots and lots of spirit sex. No joke. Mormons teach their sexually repressed children that they can have sex forever and ever if they remain abstinent until marriage. If they succumb to this most basic bodily function, then no eternal family and no heavenly sex.

The fact that religions, such as Mormonism, continue to exploit the libidos of young men and women so unabashedly, so blatantly, with such coercion, manipulation and guilt-inducing rhetoric in the name of a god they have yet to demonstrate even exists, to me is deplorable and unforgivable. You can keep your snake oil.

SEIZURE SALAD

"It is best to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain."
--Mark Twain 

The first time I witnessed a seizure I was on a Mormon mission in Bulgaria. I had been in the country for about a year and I was living in the Capitol, Sophia. The man who had the seizure was a quirky and likable thirty-something with epilepsy. Aside from a sometimes overpowering body odor, which was common in the economically distressed post-communist country, I can't think of anything bad to say about him. With an ear to ear smile and an eagerness to please anyone willing to look passed his embarrassing stutter, he had found an accepting community in Mormonism. Everyone liked Pepe.

As you might expect, when Pepe fell to the floor in a convulsive fit during a church function (Family Home Evening), everyone present went on high alert. Save Pepe! A small army of young Mormon missionaries surrounded Pepe, frantically trying to decide what to do. None of us knew whether Bulgaria had an emergency system set up like America's "911" program. The only thing we could think to do was to pray.

One missionary put his hands on Pepe's head and commanded Pepe to be healed and made whole. In a matter of seconds, Pepe stopped shaking and after a couple of minutes he was on his feet apologizing for the inconvenience. We were amazed.

If this was all the information I had about the situation, I might still wonder if I had witnessed a miracle. But, education has a tendency to thwart the miraculous and the supernatural. As I came to find out, seizures rarely last longer than a few minutes. Whether we prayed for Pepe, called for medical help, or sprayed cheese whiz on our faces and tickled each other, Pepe would have snapped out of it on his own in about the same amount of time. It was my ignorance which kept my faith alive.

A few years later, after I had learned a thing or two in college about the human body and seizures, I found myself at a get together with some fellow young adult Mormons (BYU students). We were staying at a ranch in Blackfoot, Idaho (Utah junior). While one of the girls was riding a horse in the corral, the horse spooked and began galloping. The fenced-off area was only about a quarter acre--not much room for a horse running at full speed. When the horse was about fifteen feet from the fence, it abruptly stopped, causing the girl to fly over the horse's head and roll--ribs first--in to a large wooden fence post. She was unconscious.

As with Pepe, a swarm of young true-believing Mormons rushed to aide her. Seeing her convulsing to and fro and gargling bloody foaming spit from her mouth, I gently held her head out of the thick mud and kept her airway clear. I knew that her seizure would only last a few moments, but my concern grew when she did not regain consciousness after her convulsions ended.

One of boys, also a returned missionary, handed me a small viol of consecrated oil. This extra special magic healing oil is very important to Mormons, who bless the oil in advance and keep it in a viol on a key chain for just such an occasion. I didn't feel comfortable asking god for a blessing (this was around the time I started to quietly acknowledge my doubts about Mormonism, and for all I knew, god had spooked the horse in the first place), and I told him to do the blessing himself. Besides, I was focused on not letting her suffocate on her own spit.

His prayer was typical of Mormon blessings: "Please, god, heal her, don't let her die, etc." Hardly inspired. Hardly helpful.

I held her head for 10 minutes or so until EMTs arrived (it was an isolated area), all the while keeping her airway clear and her neck and spine straight (she tried to roll around a few times), and talking to her positively about the situation in case she could hear me, despite her inability to respond. Once the EMTs arrived, they put her on a stretcher and airlifted her to a hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah. There, she stayed in a coma for a few days. After awaking, she had a few cracked ribs, some amnesia and loss of some motor skills.

Expectedly, everyone left the ranch somber and worried for their friend. They "kept her in their prayers" and rushed to visit her when she regained consciousness. In the minds of many, god had responded to the young man's blessing with oil in a positive way. Even the injured girl was grateful to god for "healing" her.

As I pointed out, this second incident occurred around the time I first acknowledged my doubts about Mormonism. I was still attending BYU--surrounded by Mormon culture--and I had an inner struggle with the situation. Part of me wanted to chalk up the whole thing as yet another example of superstitious religious folk reading into situations and assigning divine intervention to make them feel better (my current position). But being on the cusp of a faith crisis, I was truly worried that the real reason I refused to offer the blessing was because deep down I felt unworthy to do so.

Mormons have several "rites of passage" for youth and young adults, the most well-known of which is the mission. Before one can go on a mission, however, one must first complete another rite called a "patriarchal blessing." I received my blessing a couple days before I left on my mission. The Mormon Patriarch assigned to my area was an elderly man, who had been a bishop, a stake president and a mission president--all highly respected positions in the Mormon community. As I recall, he and his wife had recently returned from Haiti on a mission trip.

He brought me into his study and explained the process to me: he would put his hands on my head, say whatever words he felt god tell him about my future life in Mormonism, and he would mail me a transcript. It would be my life's horoscope. This sounds like a great deal--direct revelation from god concerning my entire life. However, like most things which sound too good to be true, this life-changing blessing comes with a catch.

Should I disobey god, the deal is off. Should I leave the church, the deal is off. Should anything specified in my blessing not happen, it is because I sinned or did something wrong. You see where this is going.

The reason I bring this up is because in my patriarchal blessing is a clause, which I later found to be rather common in these sorts of blessings, where I was promised that I would be allowed to heal sick and infirmed people through god's power. During my faith crisis, this really messed with my head. Had I simply been unworthy at the time this girl needed a blessing to save her? Would god really make her suffer more because of my sins, stubbornness, or disbelief?

I know now that no matter what the outcome had been for this poor girl, Mormons would find a way to call god merciful. Even if she had died, some would have said "Well, it was her time to go. She is now in a better place. God needed another angel in heaven to help people come to Christ. He allowed her to die as a mercy. Had she lived she would be in pain." And so on. God cannot lose. And because he cannot lose, he cannot be supported through reason and logic. If he cannot be supported through reason and logic, how can I believe he exists and base important life decisions on this belief?

When I realized that I had no good reason to believe that god exists, my faith crisis became less of a crisis and more of an intellectual adventure. My decisions mattered on a more intimate scale. The world became infinitely more fascinating and complex. Natural explanations for creation, to me, are more satisfying and honest than "god did it." Magic doesn't explain anything. It only raises more questions. I would rather admit my ignorance and say "I don't know" than accept an unsupported answer as true because it makes me feel good.

These days, my conscience is not clouded with concerns about my "worthiness" when I help someone in need. I no longer feel bad about refusing to ask god to save that girl. I feel that focusing on first aid and helping her breath was far and away the right and moral choice. 

DR. FEELGOOD

The following is a video of Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, on "
Why It's So Hard for Scientists to Believe in God":

This video was posted by a sibling of mine on a communal family blog. Rather than picking bones and potentially starting an argument where one is not needed and would not be productive, I decided to respond to the video here. There will be less collateral damage this way.

Dr. Collins is defending faith. He claims that science and religion are Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA), or that they are unrelated responses to different types of questions, and as such they do not conflict with each other. Before I get to how this is an excuse educated people often employ in order to preserve their pet beliefs, I want to point out a few things about Dr. Collins' position and his own sincere, deeply-held beliefs.

First, Dr. Collins is defending a comforting belief he came to accept for irrational reasons. While on a hike, Dr. Collins came across a waterfall which split into three parts. This reminded him of the Trinity and he became an evangelical Christian on the spot. There was no rational reason for his conversion. He did not come to his belief through "sound" arguments, like those he touts in the video. He became a Christian because a common natural phenomenon reminded him of a supernatural claim he was taught as a child. Who, but the Trinitarian god of evangelical Christianity, could do this?

Second, none of Dr. Collins' arguments defend his specific Christian beliefs anymore than competing Jewish or Hindu or Muslim or pagan beliefs (or, for that matter, other Christian beliefs, such as the non-Trinitarian Mormon view of god). He is using deistic arguments for a generic god, which may or may not care about its handiwork after setting the universe in motion.

Ultimately, his arguments (the argument from design, the anthropic principle, NOMA, etc.) are logical fallacies which fall neatly under the massive umbrella of "arguments from ignorance." Dr. Collins doesn't know what caused the universe, he doesn't know why there is a specific order to things, therefore god did it. This is a classic "god of the gaps" mentality. Coincidentally, "god of the gaps" arguments crumble with each scientific advancement, thus slowly squeezing out the breath of these fatuous claims.

The intellectually honest thing for someone to say when they don't know how something came to be is not to insert the unfounded superstitions of their youth, but to admit their ignorance. Why does the universe exist? I don't know. Why do the cosmological constants exist? I don't know. Could life exist if the cosmological constants were slightly different? I don't know. See? It's easy.

Asserting supernatural explanations without evidential support does not help the discussion and it does not get us any closer to an answer. It serves only to muddy the waters and build complacency with a wrong answer. In turn, this causes people to stop looking for the correct answer. It is an attempt to solve the biggest mysteries in life by appealing to an even bigger mystery: god.

Dr. Collins would have you believe that religion does not make testable claims, and, therefore, cannot be confirmed or discounted through evidence or a lack thereof. This is simply not true.

In as much as science and religion do overlap (i.e. Asserting the existence of divine beings which interact with people; The efficacy of intercessory prayer; The creation of the universe and the order of events; A supreme being "tinkering" with cosmology, biology, and physics in order to ensure our existence; The age of the earth/universe/man; The earth being a flat disc in the center of the universe and being created before the sun, moon and stars, which all revolve around the earth; The star/planet "Kolob" being both where god lives and being the source for our sun's energy and light), the two seem to be at perpetual odds.

In most serious studies of prayer, for instance, prayer offers no benefit to the infirmed. The only exception to this seems to be when people are aware of such supplications made on their behalf. These slight morale boosts, however impressive they may seem to believers, can easily be chalked up to the placebo effect.

In as much as science and religion do not overlap (i.e. questions like: "Why are we here?"; "What happens after death?"; "From whence cometh evil?"; "How many angels can fit upon the head of a needle"; "What is the airspeed velocity of a swallow carrying a coconut?"; OK, maybe not that last one...), science defers to philosophy. In fact, I cannot think of a single question to which religion offers an unsubstantiated answer which cannot be answered, at least in part, by either science or philosophy. But, if such questions are presented, "I don't know" is always a more tenable response than claiming to know a supernatural answer is true by faith.

Dr. Collins criticizes the ability of the scientific method to answer certain questions and claims that faith is an alternative methodology to finding answers. How could one possibly hope to demonstrate that their faith-derived answer is correct if not by supporting it with evidence? Faith does not explain anything. The very definition of faith indicates that beliefs are held without--in some cases despite--evidence.

To answer the question which Dr. Collins attempted to answer in the video, scientists generally don't subscribe to a higher power to explain the mysteries of the universe because the insertion of "god" as a de facto answer does not actually answer anything. Anything that we know to be true has been demonstrated through the scientific method--not religion. As Aron Ra puts it, "Science can't answer everything, but religion can't answer anything!"

Bald assertions of the ilk Dr. Collins advocates do not require evidence. This is the whole point! And without evidence you cannot demonstrate accuracy or efficacy or consistency or any ability to explain the heretofore unexplained. Faith is an excuse--a cop out. Faith is an attempt to shirk accountability in order to spare precious and weak beliefs from critique and ridicule. It is nothing to be admired. It is not worth defending.

BONUS MATERIAL:


Christopher Hitchens responds to NOMA:

Astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson rebutting the "God of the Gaps" argument:

MEET THE MORONS

"I give money for church organs in the hope that the organ music will distract the congregation's attention from the rest of the service."

--Andrew Carnegie

A few months ago the Mormon church produced a film called "Meet The Mormons." This propaganda piece, which focuses on the stories of six carefully selected camera-friendly Mormons, came with an interesting catch: all proceeds will go to the American Red Cross. Earlier this week, the church made good on this promise to the order of 1.8 million dollars. Interesting.

Although the film itself contains no useful information about the church's teachings or history, I do know a jaw-dropping thing or two about how the film came to be.

First, the film was funded entirely by tithing money offered by church members. Second, the church told members to pay to see the movie (which explains why it was so well-received...), effectively coercing members to pay twice. Third, the movie grossed over 7.8 million dollars (there is some discrepancy between sources, 7.8 million is the highest estimation). After expenses (paying back the church the tithing money spent to produce the film and to distribute the film to theaters and on media, about 6 million dollars in total), the church gave what was left to the Red Cross, 1.8 million dollars.

So, the church spent 6 million dollars of members' money in order to raise 1.8 million for the Red Cross? The return on this investment seems minuscule, unless you're the Mormon church, of course.

The church got a free propaganda film, which was designed to show the positive face of Mormonism without addressing any real or meaningful issues, while giving a fraction of the costs of that film to a true charity. They poured more money into the movie industry to promote themselves than they gave to people in need of life-saving blood.

Keep in mind, while 1.8 million dollars is not chump change, if the church really wanted to help the Red Cross they could have just given them the money they spent on the film. After all, the members paid for it anyway.

What is 6 million dollars to a multi-billion dollar religious corporation with an annual revenue of about 8 billion dollars a year from tithing alone--tax free? After all, they recently threw over 10 times the 1.8 million given to the Red Cross at a for-profit shopping mall in Salt Lake City. That's right. The church spent 1.8 billion (with a "B") on a shopping mall and they gave a tenth of that to a charity that saves lives.

Maybe they just payed their tithing...

THE TREE OF AWESOME-POSSUM: 1 NEPHI 8

I have decided to continue my textual analysis of the Book of Mormon on a new site which offers better cataloging capabilities of the chapter-by-chapter format I am using. You will find it by clicking on this link or by following the tab at the top of the page "Textual Analysis of the BoM". I may still post the occasional chapter analysis here, but I don't want it to get too cluttered on this site with those posts. At any rate, enjoy!

1 Nephi 8: "The Tree of Awesome-Possum"

This chapter continues the theme that Lehi's dreams are visions from god. Furthermore, Lehi uses the phrase "I have reason to suppose" that X will happen in the future. And what "reason" does he offer for knowing future events? Why, it was revealed in his dream, of course. This is just one more example of the Book of Mormon lending substantial weight to one's seemingly prophetic dreams, without once offering a way to verify the veracity of the claim aside from the similarly tenuous proposition that god answers prayers in what appears to be the same way he inspires dreams. To me, this is not a good reason. 

The bulk of the chapter spells out the dream itself. There is a slue of symbols and characters and analogies, which Lehi uses (for no reason, apparent or otherwise) to extrapolate and predict future events. One of the grandest claims in this dream is the very thesis of the Book of Mormon, which is that his son Nephi's genealogical line will be righteous and saved from damnation, while his son Laman's line will not be saved due to wickedness.

Before we get into the specifics of the dream itself, it should be noted that within Mormon culture it is proposed that a sufficiently righteous person can be allowed to witness Lehi's dream. I was taught this while on my mission and other missionaries claimed to know people who had experienced this phenomenon. Such an occurrence is seen as a mark of true discipleship and favor in the eyes of god. 

It should also be noted that Joseph Smith's father claimed to have seen a vision quite similar to Lehi's. However, this happened during Joseph's youth--years before the Book of Mormon came to fruition. Now this coincidence does not necessarily mean that Joseph wrote this into the Book of Mormon (as opposed to the view that an angel gave him the book and he translated it through a divine process (i.e. looking at a stone in a hat)), but it certainly offers a possible natural explanation for this section of the book. And if it were shown that there are natural explanations for other parts of the book, why would anyone jump to the supernatural explanation of the book's origin? Natural explanations are always more plausible than unsubstantiated supernatural explanations. 

In the vision Lehi sees a tree with fruit which is "desirable to make one happy" (whatever that means). Lehi is led by a man in a white robe to the tree and eats the fruit, which he describes as being "most sweet, above all that I ever before tasted. Yea, and I beheld that the fruit thereof was white, to exceed all the whiteness that I had ever seen." Quite the sell. And it should be since it represents heaven or god's glory or whatever. 

After seeing how awesome-possum the fruit is, Lehi tries to find his family so that they too can taste of its awesomeness. As you might have guessed, Lehi first finds Nephi, Sam, and their mother, Sariah. He calls to them; they come and eat the awesome fruit; everything is awesome. 

Lehi tries to find his less obedient sons, Laman and Lemuel, but despite his pleas for them to eat some awesome fruit, they do not. It is not specified what happens to Laman and Lemuel, but there are lots of other people in the dream who do not eat of the awesome fruit and various heinous things happen to them, implying that something similarly heinous happens to Laman and Lemuel for not following their father's advice to eat the awesome fruit.

Some people who do not follow the "iron rod" (i.e. the gospel) to Lehi and the tree of awesome fruit fall into a river and drown (nice...), while others wander endlessly in an open field with mist and "forbidden paths". Others fondle their way to a great and spacious building floating in the air with lots of sarcastic people in nice clothes who scoff at any one who eats the awesome fruit. This shames some who have eaten the fruit of awesomeness and they wander off to the misty fields (hmmm, maybe the fruit of awesomeness isn't as awesome and desirable to make one happy as first reported by Lehi...). 

In the end, the analogy is fairly straightforward and a bit predictable as it is read. Heaven is better than hell. Obedience is better than defiance. Fruit is more awesomer than... vegetables? Ok maybe it isn't that obvious. But vague and ambiguous statements are common in prophecies. After all, if a prediction falls short it is easier to avoid accountability if it is sufficiently wishy-washy. Then again, we are talking about a prophecy concerning characters in a book, so there isn't much accountability to begin with. 

Lehi rounds out the chapter with yet another admonition to his rebellious and doubting sons, Laman and Lemuel. He tells them to follow god's commandments and makes a few unspecified prophecies. As with all the previous chapters containing extraordinary claims and prophecies with deadly consequences, no reliable method of verification is offered. It is expected that readers, just as Nephi, take everything Lehi says at face value for fear of damnation.