Outer Lightness » Lair of the Sinister Porpoise

Expand blog entries with this slider:

Lair of the Sinister Porpoise (10 unread)

Just Finished the rough draft of All is Well

Posted: August 22nd, 2008, 12:35pm EDT

Tags: [edit]

Now, I started this idea a while back and the initial plans for it to be a web comic have been put on hold until I find the motivation to acquire a new artist. (If anyone *wants* to be a web comic artists and deal with sticky Mormon issues, they may feel free to contact me. The only real requirement is that you must be able to draw better than I can. This is not hard.)

But, as I hated to lose all the work that had been put into it, I decided to do a novelization of the story line that had already been worked on. I do not know if there will be any interest in it, and the work is far from perfect in its current form, but if any of my readers would like to read it, they need only to ask me for it via e-mail and I will send them an archived version of the rough draft. This also coincides with an earlier promise to make it available in some form.

The book, which I am calling All is Well is far from pleasant and it is far harder on the church than I intended it to be, but I felt the stories of people often ignored by the church or worse, actively encouraged to change into something other than what they are needed to be told.

Oh yeah, it'll also tell you something about Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania, but the book just happens to take place there. It's not really going to be all that useful to someone with a different interest in the place that bills itself as the state's only town.sinisterporpoise@yahoo.com
"It Takes a Lot of Faith to be an Athiest"

Posted: August 21st, 2008, 6:05am EDT

Tags: [edit]

I've seen this quote elsewhere. While the religious statement often implies that it takes more faith not to believe in God than it does to believe in him, the typical atheist response I've seen seems to not understand the meaning of the word faith.

Now, I'm not saying atheists are religious, although some do follow their lack of religion devoutly. Saying that it does not take faith to be an atheist or insisting that definitions are being redefined to make that statement is a falsehood. While Creationists often make huge scientific errors in describing the problems of evolution, it seems that the athiest writers of today rely on their own redefinition of terms to make their cases.

It takes no more faith to believe in God than it does not to believe him, but either position is a matter of faith. Both are taking a definite position on a religious viewpoint and declaring a position about something that is at the current time unknowable. Agnosticism is the position that takes no faith. (I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but not being sure that God exists is not making a definitive statement about him.)

Atheists need to not be so afraid of terms normally associated with religion being used to describe their viewpoint, nor get up in arms about it. Having faith that God does not exist is not necessarily a bad thing.sinisterporpoise@yahoo.com
The Problem With the God Delusion

Posted: July 13th, 2008, 9:07pm EDT

Tags: [edit]

Richard Dawkins may have written a popular book, but it seems that he should be quite obvious he has failed in his goal to convert anyone who was not an Atheist already to convert to his position.

I may be skeptical about the existence of God or Gods, simply because such a thing has not been scientifically proven, so my point will not be made with the problems that stem from religious arguments, but rather the same problem that always boils down to any debate between someone who believes in God and someone who doesn't.

The basic argument boils down to, "If there isn't a God who created the Universe?" The counter response is typically, "Who created God?" Neither question can be answered with our current level of understanding, and the models Dawkins proposes seem just as ludicrous as the creator, if we are looking at it from an objective perspective.

The God Delusion, along with Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World, have been on my reading list for a long time. I've finally managed to check them out a local library. The ideas presented are interesting, but they will not convert me to his position of hard atheism, but then I am more likely to believe scientific explanations than a sheer religious one for elements that have already been proven -- evolution for example. The origin of life, as of yet, remains a mystery. It is possible that life DID come about by chance, but we need more evidence of this, rather than assuming that a *lack* of evidence of a designer is proof.

Now, Dawkins relies on some inaccurate definitions in The God Delusion, particularly misinterpreting the meaning of pantheism. He also places Mormon, on page 36 of his book, as not being a Christian religion. I can only assume this is ignorance based on lack of research. It can be forgiven because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints features very little into any points of The God Delusion, but there is one area of particular concern when ex-Mormons quote from this book.

I have seen the line, "The problem with religion is that it makes people comfortable with not having the answers" quoted by many former Mormons. These are people who should really know better as part of breaking with the faith is coming to understand that you *no longer* have the answers to everything. The Mormon faith, does after all, provide ready answers to many of life's question. These often follow some kind of internal logic, but most claims that the religion makes can be easily disproven scientifically.

We don't need DNA evidence to prove the Book of Mormon is a product of the nineteenth century. Writing analysis is enough, and only a BYU study has shown that the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants were not a product of the same author. (One was conducted by the UTLM, whose motives I am just as suspicious of as BYU. The secular analysis is harder to ignore.) In fact, what Dawkins meant to say was that religion makes people comfortable with having the wrong answers. It even makes them defend the wrong answers vehemently in light of better evidence. (Science is just as guilty of this, but change happens much faster. Many Creationists who attack Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection do not realize that much of Darwin's notions about the evolution of different species were wrong, but instead of looking into the science, they are more comfortable attacking him as a religious figure, a staus which Darwin himself would not have wanted.

The fact is, The God Delusion won't win any converts. It is a book who appeal to people who are already Atheists, or Agnostic theists like myself who merely want to see what the man has to say. Former Mormons should be a little more leary of quotes like the one above and not include them in their signatures as they had to learn to become comfortable with no longer having all the answers.sinisterporpoise@yahoo.com
Children Will Suffer in Same Sex Marriages

Posted: July 5th, 2008, 1:01pm EDT

Tags: [edit]

As human beings we often make poorly conceived arguments on issues we feel strongly on. The commenter from the Vanessa Honda pohotography blog is one such example when she claims that children will suffer as a result of same-sex marriages. She also makes a historically inaccurate statement that the idea of viewing marriages as a social contract is a new one.

I do not nomrally single a commenter out as I can comment on my own blog just as easily as someone else can, but this sweet and special spirit needs to examine her arguments and re-evaluate them.

Now, Vanessa is entitled to her opinion. I would also not be unjustified in deleting her comment because this blog is my playground. However, she has violated none of my rule about comments. Simply but, I do not allow advertising in comments. Vanessa's argument is worded well, although it looks like Blogger stripped the paragraphs from her posts, but she failed to demonstrate exactly how children will suffer as a result of same-sex marriages.

I realize that America's educational system is sadly lacking when it comes to teaching legitimate science, but I'm pretty sure that Vanessa realizes that same-sex marriages will not produce children. It is a biological impossibility for humans. Her arguments might be valid if a gay couple adopts children, but there is no evidence to support that adoptive gay parents are worse than straight parents. Recent studies indicate that in fact, they make slightly better caregivers than straight couples.

All of this, however, is irrelevant to the argument I made in my last post, which is, that if the Mormon church wants polygamy to return, which they do, supporting initiatives that support a broader definition of marriage would help them achieve that goal.

But, it may surprise her to find I do not have strong opinions on this issue. The best argument I can conjure up for allowing it is that it is not a bad idea to encourage monogamy in a segment of the populatoin that has a high rate of sexually transmitted diseases. Encourgaing monogamy and making people pledge faithfulness will serve to bring the rate of STDs among gay couples down.sinisterporpoise@yahoo.com
Someone Explain the Mormon Argument Against Same Sex Marriage to me, Please

Posted: June 29th, 2008, 11:05am EDT

Tags: [edit]

If there is one thing I do not understand, it is Mormons using the argument that gay marriage might open the door for polygamists to practice their lifestyle freely. Now, I know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see, I even have it hyphenated correctly) has not practiced polygamy openly since the 1890 manifesto, even though it took a little bit longer for this rule to be strictly enforced, but anyone who has attended a Mormon church for long enough knows that the men at least are hoping for the return of polygamy.

I now stating this on the blog of an Ex-Mormon is literally preaching to the choir The few readers I have left after my long hiatus know that Doctrine and Covenants Section 132 commands faithful members to practice celestial marriage and informs Emma Hale Smith that if she does not accept it, she will be destroyed.

If we leave the study of scripture aside for the moment, we can go back to Mormon history. The recent raid on the Yearning for Zion ranch in Texas brought the problem of polygam to light again, and while the church put press statements out to establish the lack of connection between the two groups, they are both Restorationist movements and claim the same history up to the year 1890. The polygamy of Brigham Young's time may have been slightly kinder, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never repudiated the doctrine of polygamy and still allows a spiritual form to take place. Many members are simply waiting until the time is right again when they will be allowed to take multiple wives.

If polygamy will be practiced in the celestial kingdom and will be practiced on the Earth again when the time is right, the church should not oppose any movement that will allow this lifestyle to return among its members, unless it intends to repudiate its own doctrine. (The prophet *can* do this at any time. There is no standard like the Council of Trent and Vatican II where official Roman Catholic doctrine was established.)

The opposition to gay marriage from the church has nothing to do with allowing the practice of polygamy, but is rather rooted in the growing conservative trends among the general authorities than in looking at what might be in the long-term goals of the church. Of course, maybe I'm being too cynical. It just might be about the coupling of a man and a woman being necessary to create new spirit children or to bring new potential Mormons into this world.sinisterporpoise@yahoo.com
Installing Linux Drivers: More fun than a Root Canal

Posted: June 5th, 2008, 12:28pm EDT

Tags: [edit]

If you are a technical person who has never experienced the thrill of trying to get a wireless networking card that is not supported by Linux working on an aging laptop which more or less chokes on the more operating systems, I cannot begin to describe the kind of treat you are missing. I'd might consider moving up a root canal should I ever schedule one to have to avoid going through this process again, although the easiest thing to do would have been to buy a networking card that had native Linux support.

The true tech geek knows that there is no fun in this process, because at least in theory it should be a matter of finding the correct package manager, using synaptic or typing in sudo apt-get install . In practice, what often happens is that the source code of these modules are given, they do not compile correctly, and the person involved has to be a master C programmer and a master hacker to get the drivers compiled from the source code.

Now, at least you have a picture of why Windows is still the number one desktop operating system for the PC, although to be fair, Ubuntu takes most of the common frustrations encountered when using Linux out of the process. Assuming your hardware is supported, all you have to do is pop the CD and you should be up and running.

Belkin does not feel the same way about the necessity to provide drivers for common operating systems that I do. Belkin only wants to provide drivers for commercially backed operating systems. This caused a problem, but it is not insurmountable, assuming the user can load Ndiswrapper correctly. Well, I did, but wanting the computer to run faster, I tried installing the newer version from the CD. This did not work as well as I had hoped.

Now I'm back to the original starting point, installing the older version of Ubuntu and getting ready to make sure I have the Windows drivers to use with the operating system. Gods, how I miss the days when I found frustrating things like this fun.

Notes: I know have the network card and Debian Etch on the sytem. It's working as I'd like it to for the most part.sinisterporpoise@yahoo.com
How Often Do you Cater to Your Audience?

Posted: May 27th, 2008, 7:53pm EDT

Tags: [edit]

I tend to think a certain kind of mental voyeurism is involved in blogging. As bloggers, we want to show the innermost aspects of our souls to complete strangers for some bizarre reason. Some of us do this through fiction while others simply explore why we do what we do and we are guilty of mental masturbation.

While I know that the use of that phrase is going to cause some interesting searches to come my way when this gets indexed by Google, assuming the site that indexes my blog does not steal my traffic, it still fits, although I warn you if you were looking for a post that is about sex, you will be sadly disappointed. (There are posts on the site where I've explored my fear of this common institution and its possible sources. Sadly, these are interest only to a therapist who might want to know why I don't have an intimate relationship with anyone.)

Although I do have a hard time getting along with people, I seem to be willing to let people come here and comment on my life for good or ill. I do not expect everyone to agree with my viewpoint on the Mormon church or why it is the way it is, nor do I expect a reader to understand that everything I say.

But after a time I learned who was reading my blog and decided to cater posts to those people. I guess we all do it someway, because I never expected anyone to read something I wrote simply because I wrote it. This, more than anything else speaks to some fundamental need of the blogger that causes them to flash others with their naked souls, so to speak. I do not know whether this is good or bad. It simply is. How many of us would read C.L. Hansen's blog if she did not openly talk about things that would normally remain hidden or Arizona Awakening's blog if we were not interested in seeing where his spiritual journey leads.

I have been lax in updating. I will not tell you that I intend to stop the infrequent updates because I'm not sure that is true.. I have been busy writing for online sites and trying to reach my goal of seeing my name in print. I still have quite a long way to go before the print dream becomes a reality, although writing online has improved my writing and specifically how I write online content when the intent is to bring in visitors. (This is a whole different ball game.)

For those who want to know who I've been writing for, I will e-mail you the names I write under, but I do not want this blog linked with my real name for reasons that should be obvious.sinisterporpoise@yahoo.com
The Mormon Ending to Dr. Strangelove

Posted: April 26th, 2008, 7:11pm EDT

Tags: [edit]

Stanley Kubrick's film Dr. Strangelove is not one that most people would associate with the Mormons in anyway. In fact, it is more of a commentary of the United State cold war policies of the late 1950s, but there are Mormon ties in with the film, although you do have to stretch a little to get them.

The first and most obvious connection is the number of women that appear in the film. As anyone who has read the Book of Mormon all the way through knows, only three people of the fairer sex appear in the text, which is odd for a book that purports to be the one thousand year history of a people. While Dr. Strangelove covers only the few hours before a nuclear holocaust, but there is only one women in Dr. Strangelove and three women in the Book of Mormon. The difference is one woman appearing in only a few hours is far more likely than the names of three women being mentioned over a period of over one thousand years.

But the connection between the Mormon faith and Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove goes a little better deeper. With the FLDS in the news again, the church is trying to distance itself desperately from the actions of the polygamists, but whether or not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints still practice polygamy is irrelevant for the purposes of this article. One caveat must be given, Dr. Strangelove is not intended to be a Mormon movie.

It is not until we get to the end of Stanley Kubrick's classic black comedy that we can find any real connection between the classic cold war inspired flick and the early Mormons. When it becomes apparent that the Doomsday device that the Russians possess will be set off, it is the former German rocket scientist who proposes a radical plan that will save all of humanity. He suggests saving a small segment of humanity. His ideal community would be 20,000 people with a ration of ten women to one men.

Naturally, to get the human race back on its feet again, the remaining men will be required to do a lot of breeding to help repopulate the human race. Furthering the cause of saving humanity will require prodigious breeding on the part of the males who surive. The males chosen will be the elect in strength and intelligence or their position in government.

Now this situation alone is not enough to connect Dr. Strangelove to the Mormon faith, but anyone who observes the smile on Peter Seller's face when he delivers this line can recognize the same tone and leer of men standing around the foyer of a Mormon congregation after church discussing polygamy. Often there is the tone in the voice that suggests a longing for the good old days which are now past us.

Now the look of the wife is often one of “I'll kill you if you ever try it,” but this never seems to deter these conversations. I'm sure Stanley Kubrick did not intend this film to mirror what one can easily imagine were the attitudes of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith when they started the principal of plural marriage, but it is hard not to think that there thought processes were similar to those going through the mind of the the German mad scientist when he proposed his plan to save humanity.

Some people may feel that the comparison between the mind of Brigham Young and Stanley Kubrick is at least a little irrelevant, but until there is historical proof that the practice of polygamy was not based on Joseph Smith's desire to have more sex, speculations like this will abound. A person saying that the lord told him to do so is not proof. A stronger case can be made the Brigham Young believed this, as he was told to practice the principal, but it seems that even if he did struggle with it, as a KUED documentary on the man suggests, that he had no problem practicing the doctrine of plural marriage later in his life.sinisterporpoise@yahoo.com
Where The Sinister Porpoise Has Been

Posted: April 7th, 2008, 8:27pm EDT

Tags: [edit]

I have not posted on this blog for over a year now. It was not my intention to let this blog die, but the move to Wordpress, due to circumstances beyond my control was not entirely successful.

If you are wondering what The Sinister Porpoise has been doing for the last year or so, I have been writing and learning how to write better. At least I think this is the case. I am sure some easily avoided error will make the reader think otherwise somewhere in this post.

Like many bloggers, I've wondered if I have what it takes to be a professional writer. Like Eric, of A New Eric, I experimented with sites like Helium and Associated Content. I've made the mistake of trying GetaFreelancer and finding people from India who want a lot of work for little pay and have had to add at least one of these people to my Yahoo block list.

I've had success and failures and a lot of things I wish I could go back and edit now. I've also learn a great deal about how to write searchable web engine content. Of course, I worry that this might ruin me for print media.

By the way, if there are any artists out there who want to do a Mormon themed web-comic, I need an Artist for All is Well. The only requirement is that you must draw better than I do. This is not hard.sinisterporpoise@yahoo.com
Word Press Link

Posted: September 16th, 2007, 12:44pm EDT

Tags: [edit]

I could not continue with the Moveable Type blog for technical reasons and had to move it over to a Wordpress format. You can find the new link at sinisterporpoise.evilporpoise.us.

To my friends in Outer Blogness who need to be linked to, please e-mail me so I can make sure you are listed.sinisterporpoise@yahoo.com

← Lair of the Demon Letters from a broad... →

Outer Lightness » Lair of the Sinister Porpoise

Feeds

Lair of the Sinister Porpoise (10 unread)

Posted: August 22nd, 2008, 12:35pm EDT

Tags: [edit]

Posted: August 21st, 2008, 6:05am EDT

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 13th, 2008, 9:07pm EDT

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 5th, 2008, 1:01pm EDT

Tags: [edit]

Posted: June 29th, 2008, 11:05am EDT

Tags: [edit]

Posted: June 5th, 2008, 12:28pm EDT

Tags: [edit]

Posted: May 27th, 2008, 7:53pm EDT

Tags: [edit]

Posted: April 26th, 2008, 7:11pm EDT

Tags: [edit]

Posted: April 7th, 2008, 8:27pm EDT

Tags: [edit]

Posted: September 16th, 2007, 12:44pm EDT

Tags: [edit]