DNA and the Book of Mormon

[teeth!]

Indeed.

What's more, they're "true believers" in the sense that they really and truly believe the moderate version of modern Mormonism, the version people no crazier than your average Christian believe. Which means that apart from believing some constantly-evolving toned-down version of all the crazy-pants stuff about Joseph Smith and Jewish Indians, (much more importantly) they believe all the stuff about "families are forever".

People don't become Mormon and stay Mormon because of golden plates and Jewish Indians, the part outsiders view as loony-toons. People join and stay because of the Mormons' teaching about eternal families. That's the part that tugs at people's heartstrings and gives their life meaning.

To many people it is the most appealing concept they've ever heard. It goes right to the heart of our deepest fears surrounding death. For many people a fear as great or greater than dying is the fear of being alone, separated from family forever in the afterlife.

For my parents and brothers, having me leave the Mormon church was even worse than having me die. If I had died, we'd still be together in the eternities. So their preaching comes not just as a force of habit (which it is that, too) but from a place of concern. Since they truly believe, they want to save me and bring me back.

I understand where they're coming from. I think I would have to be a real asshole to let something like that bother me.

The problem, in other words, is that you've got this situation where there's a mythology which is used to support theology which is used to justify a church hierarchy.

If you want to be successful here (and I think honestly this is important for liberalization of mormonism in general) these three things need to be disentangled.

Theology doesn't need to hinge on scientific fact, and many people have pointed out that trying to do so is actually demeaning to belief. The reality is that belief in an eternal family or anything else doesn't really require the existence of gold plates or lost Israelite tribes. It also does not justify the Mormon hierarchy. It should be a thing that simply is, and obviously, if there is a God and God is good and just, then I'm sure God isn't going to be kicking you out of the family just because you have different beliefs.

So now you don't really need the hierarchy and you don't really need the mythology. The mythology is itself kinda shitty because it exists to justify oppression of the native americans (i.e. they rejected Jesus, so punishment is warranted). It also pushes Mormons to try to erase REAL early Jewish presence in North America and the full impact of the inquisition on migration patterns. This is kind of a major negative social impact of mormonism right now and hinders interfaith dialogue, because the rest of us see Mormons as trying to erase our heritage.

Same goes with the hierarchy. Why should someone allow the hierarchy to tell them that their family is acceptable or not acceptable? The idea that one person is an appropriate "prophet" who can tell you that your understanding of religion is wrong and therefore your family sucks....that's really harmful to a lot of Mormons.

Dunno....just seems like there's a lot to be gained from liberalization.

[SkepticTank]

Rabbit Hole indeed. From Doobie Keebler's links, I found this. which is apparently the official LDS apologetic for why Native American DNA doesn't match Hebrew DNA.

[SkepticTank]

I'll also note, there are basically two factions of apologists working with two different models. Some, IMHO, rightly stick to the plain claims of Smith and the BoM that the "Lamanites" that left the middle east after the whole tower of babble thing are the direct ancestors of the Native Americans. In other words, the land was empty and the BoM refers to the land as being held aside by god for them to populate in the future. The sticking point came when anthropology, archaeology, and genetic studies were knocking that nonsense in the dirt, so the church altered the introduction to the BoM. The BoM introduction now says that the Laminites were among the ancestors of the Native Americans and apologists of the the North American model go as far as to say the genetic markers were lost due to mixing in the native population. I think they refer to this apologist tactic as "diffusionist" and the model as "limited geographic". The other model holds that all the events in the BoM actually happened south of America, even as far as South America, which is convenient as the state of our knowledge is somewhat sparser on that front.

From my link above:

The Book of Mormon itself, however, does not claim that the peoples it describes were either the predominant or the exclusive inhabitants of the lands they occupied. In fact, cultural and demographic clues in its text hint at the presence of other groups.6 At the April 1929 general conference, President Anthony W. Ivins of the First Presidency cautioned: “We must be careful in the conclusions that we reach. The Book of Mormon … does not tell us that there was no one here before them [the peoples it describes]. It does not tell us that people did not come after.”7

[Doobie Keebler]

Thank you VERY, VERY MUCH for all that good info.

You're quite welcome. I'm just glad to actually be able to give something back around here having enjoyed the efforts of everyone else.

Just to sort of expand or correct a couple of points. I put a lot of emphasis on the CES Letter as being the main source of discontent and noise that's been making it's way up the chain until it can no longer be ignored. While it's true it's been and continues to be a major factor, especially with the younger Millennials who are technology/internet proficient, there have been other events and people who have contributed to a lot of the resignations that are going on now. Since the whole Prop8 debacle (and the latest anti-gay policy to be placed in the Bishops handbooks that was leaked and had to be responded to by the church) and then Romney who the church thought was going to help Mormonism get accepted as more mainstream, just like they thought the Olympics would do, they've had pretty spectacularly bad PR the last couple of decades. Not only has there been the CES Letter* recently but there were a few high profile excommunications. Not anybody high in the church but of people that were becoming popular with lay people that were directly addressing the problems within the community and the church itself. John Dehlin who was an active Mormon and a recently credentialed psychologist runs MormonStories.org and for quite some time has been making fantastic video/podcast interviews with people from the entire spectrum of belief in the church (exmo's, Nom's, Jack Mormons, TBM's) and small panels of people to discuss problems with doctrine and church policy. He got ex'd. There was also recently a woman (Kate something?) who ran a popular blog site centered around feminism for Mormon wives that was pushing back on the patriarchy who got ex'd too. These people were better known and more popular with the slightly older generations with families of their own rather than just the kids. The church can't be having all that noise going on and they've been practically tripping over their dick propaganda and PR-wise trying to deal with it. These events too influenced the arrival of the LDS essays.

(* a 2.0 version is coming and note that there is a "debunking the CES Letter" article posted by FairMormon and of course there exists a "debunking of the debunking" response to them on the CES Letter website. The links to both can be found at the very end of the .pdf or on the website)


With all that said, the way you describe your family I think an exmo (and possibly a TBM) would refer to them as NOM or New Order Mormon, essentially a Mormon version of a liberal Christian as you've said. (quicklist of acronym/nomenclature here, helps with social media) You nailed it when you spoke of the theology/afterlife as being the strongest factor and the mythology side not so much. They have the afterlife/fear of death thing covered and as far as the here and now Mormonism for all it's flaws provides it's members pretty well with community interaction and support. It can be a comforting bubble to be in I imagine.

I think it's great you are reconnecting and wish you all the best in that regard. Mormonism may not be quite as bad as say the JW's when it comes to disconnection and shunning (mostly because it is prevalent in the social aspect rather than fleshed out in the doctrine and related punishments) but it's still a serious source of fucking up families. Not to mention in the face of the church's we're all about the family outward face. It certainly sounds to me like your heads in the right place on this and I wish you all the best.

(For the record I realize that some or none of what I've said may be relevant or new to you, but thought it worth fleshing out for everyone here.)

[OHSU]

You're quite welcome. I'm just glad to actually be able to give something back around here having enjoyed the efforts of everyone else.

Just to sort of expand or correct a couple of points. I put a lot of emphasis on the CES Letter as being the main source of discontent and noise that's been making it's way up the chain until it can no longer be ignored. While it's true it's been and continues to be a major factor, especially with the younger Millennials who are technology/internet proficient, there have been other events and people who have contributed to a lot of the resignations that are going on now. Since the whole Prop8 debacle (and the latest anti-gay policy to be placed in the Bishops handbooks that was leaked and had to be responded to by the church) and then Romney who the church thought was going to help Mormonism get accepted as more mainstream, just like they thought the Olympics would do, they've had pretty spectacularly bad PR the last couple of decades. Not only has there been the CES Letter* recently but there were a few high profile excommunications. Not anybody high in the church but of people that were becoming popular with lay people that were directly addressing the problems within the community and the church itself. John Dehlin who was an active Mormon and a recently credentialed psychologist runs MormonStories.org and has been making fantastic video/podcast interviews with people from the entire spectrum of belief in the church (exmo's, Nom's, Jack Mormons, TBM's) and small panels of people to discuss problems with doctrine and church policy. There was also recently a woman (Kate something?) who ran a popular blog site centered around feminism for Mormon wives that was pushing back on the patriarchy who got ex'd too. These people were better known and more popular with the slightly older generations with families of their own rather than just the kids. The church can't be having all that noise going on and they've been practically tripping over their dick propaganda and PR-wise trying to deal with it. These events too influenced the arrival of the LDS essays.

(* a 2.0 version is coming and note that there is a "debunking the CES Letter" article posted by FairMormon and of course there exists a "debunking of the debunking" response to them on the CES Letter website. The links to both can be found at the very end of the .pdf or on the website)


With all that said, the way you describe your family I think an exmo (and possibly a TBM) would refer to them as NOM or New Order Mormon, essentially a Mormon version of a liberal Christian as you've said. (quicklist of acronym/nomenclature here, helps with social media) You nailed it when you spoke of the theology/afterlife as being the strongest factor and the mythology side not so much. They have the afterlife/fear of death thing covered and as far as the here and now Mormonism for all it's flaws provides it's members pretty well with community interaction and support. It can be a comforting bubble to be in I imagine.

I think it's great you are reconnecting and wish you all the best in that regard. Mormonism may not be quite as bad as say the JW's when it comes to disconnection and shunning (mostly because it is prevalent in the social aspect rather than fleshed out in the doctrine and related punishments) but it's still a serious source of fucking up families. Not to mention in the face of the church's we're all about the family outward face. It certainly sounds to me like your heads in the right place on this and I wish you all the best.

(For the record I realize that some or none of what I've said may be relevant or new to you, but thought it worth fleshing out for everyone here.)

Once again, thank you very much for your excellent contributions.

A little background on me, just so you know who you're helping out. I was born into a Mormon family. My dad was a lawyer, but he was also a Mormon seminary and institute teacher. So Mormon doctrine was a major topic of discussion in our home. I formally resigned from the church over a decade ago, after years of declining belief. So, it's been a quite a long time since I had anything to do with it.

I didn't leave the church because I became disaffected with Mormonism, specifically. Instead I moved rather quickly from Mormonism, to some kind of deism, to atheism. Unlike many ex-Mormons I never delved into all the lies, inconsistencies, cover-ups, and whatnot of the Mormon church. I never needed to or wanted to, because I arrived at the conclusion that the Mormon church was false as part and parcel of my loss of belief in gods generally. I saw no need to zero in on the Mormon church for special criticism.

So, while I am reasonably well versed in Mormon culture and the version of the ever-changing Mormon doctrine that was prevalent during my younger years, I'm not particularly well-versed in either "anti-Mormon" writing or Mormon apologetics.

Professionally I'm a dentist, and as such I have more than sufficient background in basic science to debunk any Mormon doctrine. A few years ago I did a fair amount of reading in population genetics, and I'm well aware that the real science doesn't support any Mormon claim. I'm just not aware of the current status of "anti-Mormon" critique and Mormon apologetics.

[OHSU]

The problem, in other words, is that you've got this situation where there's a mythology which is used to support theology which is used to justify a church hierarchy.

If you want to be successful here (and I think honestly this is important for liberalization of mormonism in general) these three things need to be disentangled.

Theology doesn't need to hinge on scientific fact, and many people have pointed out that trying to do so is actually demeaning to belief. The reality is that belief in an eternal family or anything else doesn't really require the existence of gold plates or lost Israelite tribes. It also does not justify the Mormon hierarchy. It should be a thing that simply is, and obviously, if there is a God and God is good and just, then I'm sure God isn't going to be kicking you out of the family just because you have different beliefs.

So now you don't really need the hierarchy and you don't really need the mythology. The mythology is itself kinda shitty because it exists to justify oppression of the native americans (i.e. they rejected Jesus, so punishment is warranted). It also pushes Mormons to try to erase REAL early Jewish presence in North America and the full impact of the inquisition on migration patterns. This is kind of a major negative social impact of mormonism right now and hinders interfaith dialogue, because the rest of us see Mormons as trying to erase our heritage.

Same goes with the hierarchy. Why should someone allow the hierarchy to tell them that their family is acceptable or not acceptable? The idea that one person is an appropriate "prophet" who can tell you that your understanding of religion is wrong and therefore your family sucks....that's really harmful to a lot of Mormons.

Dunno....just seems like there's a lot to be gained from liberalization.

This is a great post.

[OHSU]

Rabbit Hole indeed. From Doobie Keebler's links, I found this. which is apparently the official LDS apologetic for why Native American DNA doesn't match Hebrew DNA.

Thanks for the link.

[SkepticTank]

Here's a Mormon discussion board discussing that video.

[Doobie Keebler]

From my link above:

Yeah, I hesitate to get into detail because I rank myself low on the educated scale and potentially will screw up details or nuance. But the problem is that while Joe was alive he spontaneously spun a few stories on the spot that got recorded through diaries and/or letters. For example, Zelph

Zelph (/zɛlf/) is a figure of interest in Mormon studies. In May and June 1834 Joseph Smith led an expedition known as Zion's Camp (a paramilitary Latter Day Saint group) on a march from Kirtland, Ohio to Jackson County, Missouri. On June 3, while passing through west-central Illinois near Griggsville, some bones were unearthed from a mound. These bones were identified by Smith as belonging to a Lamanite chieftain-warrior named Zelph. The mound in question is now known as Naples-Russell Mound 8.

Then you have the whole thing about Smith returning every year for four years to a hill in New York state known as Hill Cumorah as commanded by an angel who told him when he was finally worthy he would eventually receive the Golden Plates. This is without question part and parcel of doctrine. The problem here is that the plates are supposed to be the history recorded by the Lamanites themselves and why would they be buried in NY if that wasn't where their civilization was, or at the least, where some or all of the events happened ? Why would the Lamanite chieftain-warrior Zelph be buried in Illinois ? I'm fuzzier on this, but apparently the Hill Cumorah is also mentioned in the supposed ancient history in the golden plates as well and Smith told stories of the ancient battles that occurred nearby. This has lead to the claim by some apologists that the Hill Cumorah in the BoM is not the same Hill Cumorah where the angel gave Joe the golden plates.

IIRC there's a problem too, arguing that the breadth of civilization and the territory they occupied in the BoM stories is limited because of statements or things that only make sense if it was continent or near continent-wide. I think one example is a king/chieftain/whatever that was "known from the ocean to ocean" or "known from ocean to the western mountains. Along those lines, I'm really low on the specifics but that's the idea.


These things kinda toss a wrench in the apologetics that tries to explain away why we don't find DNA or artifacts (etc) by claiming the Lamanite and Nephite civilizations were limited in scope (recall hundreds of thousands in combat, millions dying) or even where geographically it all supposedly took place.


This brings up a really interesting thing in Mormonism that fascinates me. They quite literally have formalized a way to deal with cognitive dissonance. When a member has a problem understanding a particular doctrine or something in the BoM, a contradiction, etc. they are counseled by their Bishops or other authorities to imagine that they have a shelf in their mind. They are told that if there is anything that doesn't make sense or seems contradictory or distressing that it is ok that they don't understand, that their salvation doesn't depend on their understanding, that they will get all the answers later in the afterlife, so they should put that "item" on their shelf and come back to later when they are better educated or maybe never worry about it again. This is a lot like William Lane Craig's I don't worry about contradictory or refuting evidence because I assume I don't have all the answers therefore I rely on the witness of the Holy Spirit approach. If you ever visit an exmo community online you will hear a lot of "that put a crack in my shelf" for something they couldn't reconcile and couldn't put aside or "that's what finally broke my shelf" when it all came crashing down and realized it was all bullshit. For some people is a relief when it finally happens, for others it's an all out full blown existential crisis. And every shade in between.

[Doobie Keebler]

And another thing. Even as an institution they have some strange stances that reflect that willingness to "put on the shelf" some irreconcilable issues. Take evolution for example. Like a lot of things they don't have an "official stance" on it but there's a problem there. Brigham Young Universities are accredited and by all accounts I've ever heard they do a fantastic job educating biology students, no problem with evolution and an old earth. However it is plainly stated in their Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) that the earth is young as in YEC.

[anthrosciguy]

It's great here when you run into people who are just crazy enough to delve into things like this, without the misfortune of being actually insane. (I'd count myself in that category on at least one subject.) People like that can provide you with a lot of interesting info.

As other people have said over the years, one of the problems for Mormonism, as for Scientology, is being formed well after scientific thought had gotten a foothold and while history that wouldn't easily go missing was being recorded. So you see the sausage being made. This is unlike the biggest religions, which had their formation comfortably back in the mists so people can more easily conveniently forget how they just don't fit actual facts. Makes it easy to think of these newer religions as uniquely nutty. And I guess a case could be made for that, if not for the fact that it's not just the long ago founders of those religions who engaged in believing the extra nutty bits.

[Doobie Keebler]

Once again, thank you very much for your excellent contributions.

A little background on me, just so you know who you're helping out. I was born into a Mormon family. My dad was a lawyer, but he was also a Mormon seminary and institute teacher. So Mormon doctrine was a major topic of discussion in our home. I formally resigned from the church over a decade ago, after years of declining belief. So, it's been a quite a long time since I had anything to do with it.

Thank you very much for sharing. I was curious about your story for it's own sake and it crossed my mind several times as I was composing my replies and thinking I might be going into unnecessary detail.

I didn't leave the church because I became disaffected with Mormonism, specifically. Instead I moved rather quickly from Mormonism, to some kind of deism, to atheism. Unlike many ex-Mormons I never delved into all the lies, inconsistencies, cover-ups, and whatnot of the Mormon church. I never needed to or wanted to, because I arrived at the conclusion that the Mormon church was false as part and parcel of my loss of belief in gods generally. I saw no need to zero in on the Mormon church for special criticism.

It's anecdotal, but a number of the folks whose stories I have read feature that kind of transition. I think part of that is because in the wider audience of the internet the arguments revolve around the more basic form of Christianity and like you mentioned, the greater question of are there gods any at all. The folks in that category who do get involved in evaluating the truth claims and apologetics of Mormonism seem do so because they are trying to get family members, wives, or husbands to wake up and smell sample the coffee.

So, while I am reasonably well versed in Mormon culture and the version of the ever-changing Mormon doctrine that was prevalent during my younger years, I'm not particularly well-versed in either "anti-Mormon" writing or Mormon apologetics.

Professionally I'm a dentist, and as such I have more than sufficient background in basic science to debunk any Mormon doctrine. A few years ago I did a fair amount of reading in population genetics, and I'm well aware that the real science doesn't support any Mormon claim. I'm just not aware of the current status of "anti-Mormon" critique and Mormon apologetics.

That reminds me, thanks for helping to smack Dave around a bit with that Hawkins & Price Magical Diet of Dentistry Medicine Show. What a hoot!

In all seriousness, I'm very glad you had much better things to do. However that makes me realize that I do not, apparently.

Just kidding. I love rabbit holes.

[Doobie Keebler]

Here's a Mormon discussion board discussing that video.

Yeah, that's good stuff right there. I don't do enough observing of the TBM's in their natural environment with the full thought process on display.

[Doobie Keebler]

As other people have said over the years, one of the problems for Mormonism, as for Scientology, is being formed well after scientific thought had gotten a foothold and while history that wouldn't easily go missing was being recorded. So you see the sausage being made. This is unlike the biggest religions, which had their formation comfortably back in the mists so people can more easily conveniently forget how they just don't fit actual facts. Makes it easy to think of these newer religions as uniquely nutty. And I guess a case could be made for that, if not for the fact that it's not just the long ago founders of those religions who engaged in believing the extra nutty bits.

You just basically nailed part of a thought I had, drafted, and finally deleted from my last reply to OHSU. This, to my mind, explains why it seems that so few ExMo's make a successful transition from Mormonism to a more mainstream form of Christianity unless they previously practiced one. When it comes to their own belief they've finally seen the grinder, the tube, and the crap that got pushed through and know there's no finding that to evaluate in a baser, foundational form of the belief. It's pretty hard to turn off that chunk of critical thinking/skepticism you just learned and which justifiably killed a healthy share of your faith.

[OHSU]

That reminds me, thanks for helping to smack Dave around a bit with that Hawkins & Price Magical Diet of Dentistry Medicine Show. What a hoot!

Absolutely. Good times.

In all seriousness, I'm very glad you had much better things to do. However that makes me realize that I do not, apparently. Just kidding. I love rabbit holes.

Oh, I love rabbit holes, too. You're aware of the dentistry debate with Dave, but are you aware of the Aquatic Ape debate with Algis? It started on RDF and then moved here. That debate spanned 6-7 years. Of course, I can't take credit for it. I was only one of many interested participants. But I was there for the whole thing.

[Peez]

OHSU:
You're aware of the dentistry debate with Dave, but are you aware of the Aquatic Ape debate with Algis? It started on RDF and then moved here. That debate spanned 6-7 years. Of course, I can't take credit for it. I was only one of many interested participants. But I was there for the whole thing.

The stuff of legends. An epic tale worthy of Homer.

Peez

[OHSU]

The stuff of legends. An epic tale worthy of Homer.

Peez

I'm half proud and half ashamed of having spent 6-7 years debating a single topic on the internet.

[gib]

I still have my doubts. Maybe there is a reason apes hate water and humans love it.

[OHSU]

I know that was tongue in cheek, but I can barely, just barely resist the urge to post a photo of apes enjoying water.

Am I sick?

[rmacfarl]

[Peez]

Don't listen to him, he's a DAG member!

Peez

[anthrosciguy]

Sorry about contributing to the derail here (but it's all your fault, guys!) but I've been spending some leisure time looking through various posts in those threads. It was interesting how Algis deflated, despite his best ("best") attempts, after trying to excuse the Mirceta findings. And an interesting tidbit is that Marc Verhaegen has been using that study as a ref to "support" his claims that human ancestors dove a lot (pretending that saying "probably short periods" or "shallow dives" saves it: "there’s no doubt erectus-like people (probably during short period(s) see Mirceta cs 2013 Science) frequently dived for sessile littoral foods (shellfish etc.).". Classic.

EDIT: to segue from the derail back to religion, perhaps this latest from Ruben Bolling:

[Doobie Keebler]

Oh, I love rabbit holes, too. You're aware of the dentistry debate with Dave, but are you aware of the Aquatic Ape debate with Algis? It started on RDF and then moved here. That debate spanned 6-7 years. Of course, I can't take credit for it. I was only one of many interested participants. But I was there for the whole thing.

Apologies for the late reply. I work as a mechanical installation specialist and service tech in medical imaging and being on call has me on the road within four states more often than I am at home. That's why I don't often commit to lengthy exchanges that might require replying in a timely manner. Because of the sensitive nature of the documentation I work with I can only use company devices (laptop/phone) while working unless I want to bring my own along and that got tiresome pretty quickly.

Yeah, I had seen AA thread in the past and now that you mention it I recall your posting in it, however since I'm always playing catch up in threads I didn't see much of it. Maybe reading a couple of pages back each visit to see what was what and not enough to remember much. (I think I had only visited RDF a few times before what's his name took a hatchet to it.) By the time I could pay better attention Algis disappeared and it fell off the first page and fell by the wayside for me. It's on my "to read in the future from the beginning" list. I pick one to dive into once in a while and my last was that ~350 page "expanding earth" thread over on ratskep. I think I hit about page 224 before I said fuck it.

Another I was planning on running through was the DWFTTW thread here, but after getting quite my fill of Hummer and Hambone (or whoever) and the math was over my head so I abandoned those plans. The AA thread definitely holds some interest for me so I'm gonna bookmark that for future entertainment. With Socky gone and me being sick to fucking death of Dave after the last decade it will be a nice change of scenery.

[Doobie Keebler]

Oh, and it was announced today that the church has called Runnels (author of the CES Letter) to appear before a disciplinary council. Nearly everyone is saying it's another kangaroo court and his excommunication is already a done deal as it was with John Dehlin and the aforementioned woman running that blogsite.

For context, Runnels was and is still an active Mormon, the letter started as a sincere request for resolution of the issues he found, was never replied to by the CES Director nor anyone else, and never once has he presented it as or implied that the information meant that the church false or a fraud. The only response has been the "unofficial" FairMormon "debunking" articles.

Mormon social media is pretty much lighting up with it at the moment. Everyone (exmo's) has their own take on it and a lot of them think that the church is acting stupidly and unaware that they are creating a Streisand moment, but I agree with others who think they are fully aware that will happen. Just as with Dehlin and the feminist blogger, the longer they leave it alone it will fester and continue to bleed off members so it's better to rip the band-aid off quickly in an attempt to plug the hole in the boat. After a while, in the Mormon bubble, anytime Runnels name comes up the TBM's will be all handwavy like "oh, you mean that letter by that excommunicated apostate guy?, yeah I heard about that" and go on about their business.

Oh! And fun fact. I believe they call it a "court of love" ? (laughable phrase really, IIRC it's 15 older dudes sitting behind fancy wood furniture grilling you while pretending they haven't already decided your fate. and there are no hugs, or kisses, or reach-arounds)...

The "court of love" is to be held on February 14th. Happy Valentines Jeremy !

[OHSU]

Interesting.

I haven't been able to muster the energy to care about anything related to the Mormon church. I know virtually nothing about it since the day I left.

I am aware of the gay marriage stuff in Cali, and the change in the title page of the BoM, but that'sabout it.