All my failings exposed
Constantly on auto pilot
Mind numbingly droll
It's not my job to make people happy then again I should be at least some what entertaining
Constantly on auto pilot
Memory shot
So forgetful I forget to care
Constantly on auto pilot
Self destructive
Mouth open dumb expression fighting for air well I lite I cigarette
Constantly on auto pilot
Waiting for death
Sinking in slowly that the form im on substantial deterioration of self to be treated in the community isn't some cruel joke
Death isn't as frightening as the other fears that I will just be a body unable to do so much as communicate is
I hate the auto pilot now but once that's gone I maybe left simply mouth breathing on some bed at the hospital
It's weird when you are on auto pilot you blame the auto pilot for you not being aware really you no longer exist and that's just your body staying alive
My mind so gone I wonder sometimes if I'm even the one controlling myself
Time still exists but when my mind shuts down I can't even pay attention to what I'm reading or writing
It's as if everything leaves my mind and theirs this void
I don't remember what this poem I'm writing was even about or why I wrote it in the first place
if you asked me what the first word of this poem is I wouldn't be able to answer but I remember writing auto pilot a few times
Man I wish I could thank that auto pilot just for keeping me alive
Constantly on auto pilot
I still have a life worth living
It's like watching a movie and it's a very interesting one to say the least where I hallucinate amazing things both beautiful and terrifying
Constantly on auto pilot
Auto pilot is polite and considerate for how forgetful I am
I don't do anything good but I also don't do anything bad I guess I'm kinda a neutral person
Constantly on auto pilot
Feel emotion sometimes
Sometimes I get moments of excitement or even extreme sadness man it feels good to feel something even just sadness
Constantly on auto pilot
I wish I could meet myself
Thank them for ever ounce of my being in the fact that they allow me a life where Im able to at least breath but warn them
It says in the Mormon religion that one third of the angels lost their abilities tricked by Satan into making the people pass the test and the heavens weeped
I hope an angel doesn't lose its wings for me

As a child, I remember my mom reading me poems from a little yellow book that she had grown up reading when she was young. It would have been from the 1940s-1970s. She grew up Mormon in Colorado, Utah, and California.
There was a poem about a washing machine, and the noises it made (clickety clack, etc.). The book was paperback, bound like a pamphlet, and had ink drawings accompanying the poems. I remember some of them being “scary,” maybe about witches? I think there was one poem with a spooky illustration of a tree?
Similar books that I read around the same time were “Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark” and “Sam the Fire Cat” (and other Little Golden Books).
If anyone remembers this book, from sometime between the 1940s and 1990s (definitely a couple decades old in the 90s when I was reading it as a kid), please comment! I’d love to find it.

hello everyone!
i hope this type post is allowed, mods please delete if not, but i am currently studying music composition in uni and i am participating in a program where i am writing an art song for voice and piano. i recently have been deconstructing my faith after being inactive for a little under a decade, and i would like to explore themes relating to leaving the lds church/problems with doctrine in the lds church/life after mormonism. i've been able to find many poems by currently living poets, but per the rules of the project, the text must be in public domain, or i must have written permission by the author of the text. i was curious if anyone here had any ideas as to any poetry or letters or some sort of text that may work well for an art song, or if any exmo writers out there would be willing to let a lowly music student use their text. i initially had the idea of taking excerpts from the salamander letter, but i'm not sure how copyright laws apply to forged documents owned by the church.
thank you in advance!

https://www.reddit.com/exmormon/comments/sh9ulm/im_having_a_minor_breakdown_so_heres_some_poetry/
https://www.reddit.com/exmormon/comments/sg5yas/poetry_by_me_my_teacher_says_that_we_need_to/
https://www.reddit.com/exmormon/comments/vovxmy/couple_of_poems_i_did_whilst_dying_of_mormonism/
I might write a new one about where I'm at now, if I'm able to later... it'll be neat to see the contrast!

Hello Ex-Mormon community,
I am a non-Mormon researcher with a strong background in textual criticism and theology. I have written a book on the many problems contained in Mormon scripture and doctrine. I am here today to share with this community some of my findings.
I have noticed that there seems to be this lingering idea that the Book of Mormon has not been definitively disproven. This sentiment has been particularly strong in the “scholarly” circles of Mormon apologetics. Unlike the Book of Abraham, which has been thoroughly discredited because the primary document it originates from has been deciphered, the Book of Mormon (and general Mormon doctrine) has evaded being totally disqualified as a hoax. From my vantage point, the excellent research the ex-Mormon community and ex-Mormon scholars have done towards disproving the Book of Mormon (and the rest of Mormon scripture/doctrine) is more than adequate to discredit it entirely. However, one does not go on the Wikipedia entry for the Book of Mormon and see the following: “ The book of Mormon is a 19th century hoax perpetrated by Joseph Smith and his associates.” I think the reason for this is that the church hires an army of apologists who work tirelessly to substantiate the idea that the Book of Mormon is a genuine document from antiquity. Since the original document Smith allegedly translated his work from is absent, all apologists have to do to defend it is prove that no modern influences are present in the work. This is how they get away with explaining anachronisms like horses and steel – without the original work, they can just claim Smith was mistaken or translated the original word as something familiar to him (or the anachronism is yet to be discovered). In other words, apologists have maintained the validity of The Book of Mormon based on a technicality.
I believe, though, that the work I have done may make a dent in the poorly fortified castle of lies that apologists have built for themselves. I don't think my take is the final say on the matter, nor do I believe that the issues are limited to what I have brought up (as you know, there are many problems with Mormonism). However, much of the information that I am going to present may be new to you. From my research, the Book of Mormon is undoubtedly a forgery. I have gone through hundreds of manuscripts, commentaries and primary sources spanning the first century to the 19th century, and the conclusion I have come to is that many of the textual and theological errors in the Book of Mormon originate from the late 16th century to the early 19th century. Many of these errors actually contradict the later theology of the church, so even in the unlikely event that I have made an oversight, it would not be in their interest to prove it. In other words, The Book of Mormon is what causes Mormon theology to be hoisted by its own petard. Here is a short list of errors I will be touching on in this post: 1. Adam Clarke in the Book of Mormon

1. John Calvin in the Book of Mormon

3.The Johannine comma
4.The doxology
5.Openly in Matthew 6
6.John 10:16
7.A philosophical contradiction in Mormonism
I sincerely hope my work benefits the community in some way. With that, let's begin.
Before I begin though, I want to quickly reestablish that God cannot lie. God's inability to deceive has been mentioned numerous places in The Book of Mormon as well as the Bible. Don't let apologists trick you into believing that the textual errors in The Book of Mormon are the “mistakes of men”, “language of the day” or any other such nonsense. An all-knowing God would be incapable of allowing a bad transcription of his words to make it to print. God and his angels would be the ultimate editorial team, so don't allow apologists to use this desperate tactic with you.
Adam Clarke's influence on The Book of Mormon
In recent years, there has been much discussion among Mormon apologists as to whether Joseph Smith used a “Tight” or “Loose” translation when copying parts of the book of Mormon that are identical to the KJV of the Bible. For those that don't know, a loose translation supposes that Smith pulled out a Bible and simply copied from there when he came across sections of the Book of Mormon that were identical to it (a controversial position even among apologists). A tight translation suggests that Smith relied on God to do the translation and nothing else (the orthodox position). However, my research has indicated that he used neither methods. Smith simply made a mess of things by incorporating and amending the text based on various sources that were available to him.
One source that Smith seems to have pulled quite extensively from is Adam Clarke's Bible commentary. BYU scholars Wayment and Wilson have done an excellent job highlighting the influence of Adam Clarke on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. However, I have found that Adam Clarke's work has also influenced The Book of Mormon. Now, before I continue, I just want to address the baying apologists that might be lurking in the background. “Show us proof Joseph Smith owned Adam Clarke's work when he was working on The Book of Mormon! Show us the receipt of purchase. Prove he even read it or that he was literate enough to be able to read it” they might say. During the 1820s, Adam Clarke had almost celebrity level status as a Bible commentator, especially in Methodist circles. As well, most of what was incorporated of Adam Clarke into the Book of Mormon is in relation to the Sermon on the Mount and the Isaiah chapters of the work- the most widely read and popular parts of the Bible. Considering that Joseph Smith attended a Methodist church for sometime in his youth and that his wife came from a family of practising Methodists, I would say that it would have been impossible for Smith NOT to have come across the exegeses of Adam Clarke in relation to those passages. What Adam Clarke remarked on would have been common knowledge and widely discussed in Methodist church circles. Therefore, it is absolutely in the realm of possibility that Smith would be familiar with Methodist textual criticism and theology in a way that would have enabled him to incorporate it into his work.
Smith was not as careless as some would imagine in crafting the Book of Mormon. I noticed that whenever scholarship was available to him on a specific verse, he would amend it, and whenever it was absent in the Protestant literature he perused (such as in his interpretation of Matthew 6:7), it was also left unchanged in the Book of Mormon. He definitely did his homework. But what all this does demonstrate is that God was not involved in the “translation” of his work. Below are two exclusions of Biblical text from the Book of Mormon based on his reading of Adam Clarke that disprove both loose and tight translation models.
Without Cause
Apologists get very excited about the omission of “without a cause” in 3 Nephi 12 :22. In the KJV, the text of Matthew 5:22 reads “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother...” and the book of Mormon omits the clarification. The reason that most modern Bible translations omit the addition of “without a cause” is because a number of Greek and Latin manuscripts from antiquity omit the addition. Apologists have used this as proof that Joseph Smith was not purely copying from the KJV and must have had some divine guidance in order to know the correct version of the verse. As one apologists states: “No scholar in the world of Joseph Smith seemed to have been even remotely aware of this apparently late insertion in the Greek.” However, this is not true because Adam Clarke writes :”Whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause— ο οργιζομενος - εικη,who is vainly incensed. "This translation is literal; and the very objectionable phrase, without a cause, is left out, εικη being more properly translated by that above." εικη,vainly, or, as in the common translation, without a cause, is wanting in the famous Vatican MS. and two others.”(1825 Clarke)
In my opinion, the assertion that “without a cause” is a late addition to the text is probable but definitely not certain. This is because Jesus used the phrase elsewhere in the New Testament (John 15:25) However, Smith's omission of the phrase demonstrates that a “loose” translation is out of the question and that other textual errors are fair game because the BOM demonstrates that it can correct the KJV when it wants to.
Epiousion
In Matthew 6:11, there is this part in the Lord's prayer that reads, “Give us this day our daily bread”. The word for daily bread is “epiousion” in Koine Greek, and the meaning of the term was uncertain even to early Christian writers. Adam Clarke relates “The word επιουσιαν has greatly perplexed critics and commentators. I find upwards of thirty different explanations of it. It is found in no Greek writer before the evangelists” It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith omits this verse in the Nephite version of the sermon on the mount. This is obviously a very important and certain part of the prayer as it is in both Matthew and Luke. To me, it is far too much of a coincidence that Smith omitted the verse when the definition of daily bread is uncertain (keep in mind that Smith kept the overwhelming majority of the Sermon on the Mount the same). He clearly wanted to ensure his work would withstand some scrutiny in case the true meaning of the word was discovered (it likely means "give us today tomorrow's bread" based on recent evidence). This piece of evidence proves two points: Firstly, that a “tight” translation is out of the question since God should have revealed the meaning. And secondly, Adam Clarke was not “divinely inspired” as some apologists might claim as a last resort. Adam Clarke's entry scared Joseph Smith away from attempting to interpret the meaning of the word.
Those are verses Joseph Smith excluded upon reading Clarke, but what about what he included from Clarke's commentary. Below are three places Smith grafted Clarke's opinion into The Book of Mormon.
Ships of the Sea and Ships of Tarshish
This next error is one I see apologists trying to use to prove that the Book of Mormon is correct. In the Masoretic text of Isaiah 2:16, it reads “Of all the ships of Tarshish”. In the Septuagint, it reads “Of all the ships of the sea”. In the book of Mormon, it reads “Upon all the ships of the sea, and upon all the ships of Tarshish”. Smith most likely got the idea to smash the two together from Adam Clarke's work. Adam Clarke writes in his commentary that “Tarshish is a metonymy for ships in general”. This is likely the origin of Smith's erroneous addition because as Clarke rightly pointed out, Tarshish and "ships of the sea" mean the same thing. Either Smith didn't know what a metonymy was or he knew anyways and threw that it in to make the BOM look more authentic without realizing his own error. His error is consistent with a person who attempts to use scholarship without the care and attention needed to produce quality work.
Filled with the Holy Ghost
In 3 Nephi 12:6, it reads “And blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled with the Holy Ghost.” The “filled with the holy ghost” at the end is Smith's unique addition to the verse from Matthew 5 in the BOM. If you understand Greek, the addition is quite unlikely for a number of reasons that I won't get into here. Strangely, Adam Clarke seems to advocate this particular interpretation (probably based on a harmonization with Romans 4:17): “When the soul is awakened to a tense of its wants, and begins to hunger and thirst after righteousness or holiness, which is its proper food, we know that it must be purified by the Holy Spirit, and be made a partaker of that living bread”. The original verse says nothing of the Holy Ghost, so Adam Clarke is giving his own opinion here. It is unlikely Jesus had read Adam Clarke, so we must assume Smith did.
An eye single to his glory
There is a passage so difficult in the Sermon on The Mount that scholars of the 19th century had put a moratorium on discussing it. In Matthew 6:22 it reads “If your eye is single, your body is full of light”. The word single (haplous) in this verse has caused a lot of controversy since it could mean many things in the ancient Greek. In my book, I argue for an interpretation based on Plato's works (particularly 1st Alcibiades 134 c and d) as well as Origen's Luke and Matthew fragments. The book of Mormon seems to give an exegesis of this verse in Moroni 8:15 with the line “An eye single to his glory”. This is the standard Methodist interpretation of the verse. In Thomas Exley's Methodist defense of Adam Clarke's work, he also backs up this interpretation in the precise way Moroni does: “I said within myself in the fear of the Lord and with a single eye to His glory.” Adam Clarke also reflects a similar interpretation in his work. However, this interpretation is found nowhere in the KJV of the Bible. You can search it cover to cover, including the apocrypha, and the line is nowhere. From my research, it is also not reflected in the Septuagint anywhere. The interpretation is likely incorrect for a number of reasons that I talk about in my book. It is not a coincidence that a difficult passage in the Bible was interpreted in the precise way a Methodist would in the Book of Mormon considering that Joseph Smith had a relatively deep involvement with them.
There are quite a few examples of Clarke's work influencing The Book of Mormon. This merely a sample of them. He doesn't copy him in every instance, but you can see that Smith was familiar with Methodist literature when you review the Book Of Mormon after getting acquainted with Methodist works like Clarke's.
John Calvin in the Book of Mormon
The KJV of the Bible often reflects the Protestant environment it originated from in a number of places. In all translations of the New Testament from the 2nd century to 1560, Matthew 6:7 read as follows in early translations of the Bible (Latin, Gothic, old English etc.): "Speak not much as the heathen do, for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking. In the first translations of the Bible into modern English and German (Tyndale(1520s),Luther(1520s), Coverdale(1540s) etc), the Bible read: “Babble not much as the heathen do.....” It was only in the 1550s, with the publishing of the Geneva Bible and Calvin's commentary on the verse, that the definition change to: “Use not vain repetition as the heathen do for they think they shall be heard for their much speaking.” The reason it was changed is that the Geneva Bible was translated by close associates of John Calvin. John Calvin changed the definition because he disliked Catholic prayer rites that involved a lot of repetition. He justified changing it based on a twisting of the words of Suidas in his Greek to Latin dictionary from the 10th century that translated Battalogesete (a word that was seldom used in the ancient world, which is the Greek word for babble/vain repetition in the Bible) as simply: “Many words or babbling, from the poet Battus, who made grandiloquent poems dedicated to pagan deities that were often very long and contained tautologies.” John Calvin used the tautologies part of the definition to craft a whole new meaning from the word. The erroneous translation then made its way into the KJV and finally into Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon (it should be noted that modern translations of the Bible have corrected this error). This error appeared so late in the record that the last Nephite was already 1100 years in his grave when it was inserted into the Bible. It was unknown even in Luther's time, yet Jesus somehow confirmed Calvin's translation as correct.
However, the problems for Mormonism don't end there. Mormon temple worship and prayer is filled with repetition. In fact, as you know, Mormonism is quite possibly the most repetitive religion in the world. If Jesus was using the definition that John Calvin used for this word, wouldn't he be condemning the repetitive and rote kind of prayer used in temple worship? This is especially so since Joseph Smith amends his JST to conform to Adam Clarke's commentary. Adam Clarke indicates that the correct translation of the verse should read hypocrites (the pious Jews) instead of gentiles based on the codex Vaticanus (which, although very old, is erroneous here). This means that Jesus would, in fact, be criticizing the use of repetition in temple worship. Regardless of the definition, Mormonism can't win here. God is either a protestant textual critic who would disdain temple worship, or he believes in repetitive temple prayers and gave an erroneous translation in the Book of Mormon.
The Johannine Comma
Talk to anyone familiar with even the basics of textual criticism, and they will tell you that 1 John 5:7 (There are three that bear record in heaven, the father, the word and the holy ghost, and these three are one) is a spurious trinitarian addition to the Bible. Although it was added to the Vetus Latina as a marginal gloss at the end of the 5th century, it was absent from the Greek Bible until the 16th century (Erasmus's later Textus Receptus additions). This verse is, of course, in the KJV , but even English Bible's contemporary with it reduced the font of the addition or omitted it entirely. Now, there are many times in the Book of Mormon where the trinitarian formula is present in the form of, “the father, son and holy ghost, and these three are one”. However, what I find interesting is Jesus quotes the exact Johannine comma (three bearing record and those three being one) in 3 Nephi 11: “And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto Him of the father and me; For the Father and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.” This construction of the verse is identical to the Johannine comma. In other words, if Jesus actually did quote these words, then the Johannine comma is authentic. Interestingly, Fair Mormon highlights the spurious nature of the Johannine comma to prove how the Bible was corrupted but fails to mention that Christ quotes it in the book of Mormon (so much for academic honesty). However, this verse is undoubtedly a trinitarian verse, and this would conflict with Mormon theology in a huge way. The Mormon church has gotten around this by stating that it is “one in purpose” , but this is wrong for the following four reasons:
1) It is impossible for Christ to have quoted the Johannine comma in the way it was rendered in 3 Nephi 11 because it wasn't in the Bible until many centuries later.

1. In Mormon 7:7, we actually get an expanded interpretation of the comma: “Unto the father and unto the Son and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God.” This would mean that it would be “One God in purpose”, which is impossible because every God in Mormonism is a unique and independent God, including Jesus (it would be rendered "three Gods with one purpose" if the more recent Mormon interpretation is correct).

3)We have the Johannine comma as it was first rendered in a commentary in the late 4th century by Priscillian of Avila. This rendition was backed up by other sources. Originally, it was an interpretation of 1 John 5:7 that harmonized with Galatians 3:28. It originally read “..and these three are one in Christ Jesus”, which would be an obvious trinitarian interpretation. It never read “one in purpose” in the various versions of the comma (I believe Talmage came up with this in Jesus the Christ, but it could be earlier in Mormon theological writings).
4) In purpose is found nowhere in the book of Mormon in relation to the oneness of Christ and the other members of the trinity.
Once again, the last Nephite was in his grave when this was just starting to be a marginal gloss in the Bible, yet God went out of his way to insert a trinitarian verse from an apostate church in the future to justify a doctrine the church would later repudiate.
The Doxology of the Lord's Prayer
The doxology in 3 Nephi 13 has been cited by many scholars (critical of the Book of Mormon) as a textual error that invalidates the work. Mormon apologists have brought up the fact that there are documents from antiquity that lend credence to the doxology appearing in the Lord's prayer. However, this position that they have taken is false. The Lord's prayer at the end of 3 Nephi 13:13 appears as follows “For thine is the kingdom the power and the glory forever. Amen” Although this textual error doesn't conflict with Mormon theology, it is still an impossible addition to the prayer as told by Jesus to the Nephites. This is because this form of the doxology doesn't appear in the record until many centuries later. The Didache of the first century has a doxology that differs in a number of ways from the Mormon account as does the Diatessaron version of the 2nd century(omitting the amen at the end). I have checked numerous manuscripts and most omit the verse entirely or have a variation of the doxology that is different from the Nephite account. The only manuscript of some weight that matches the KJV exactly is the codex Washintonianus of the 5th century. It is clear here that Joseph Smith was just copying the KJV in this part, and no amount of apologetics can change that reality here.
Openly in Matthew 6:18
In the KJV of Matthew 6:18, Jesus says “That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.” In the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts (as well as the many ancient translations of the Bible before the Textus Receptus), the word openly was omitted throughout Matthew 6. Even the most hardcore believers and commentators on the KJV admit the verse is a later addition. This addition distorts the teaching as it makes it seem like God will give you a public reward for a private and personal act of religious devotion. It is no surprise that Joseph Smith includes it in the Book of Mormon as it is in the KJV (Clarke indicates that the addition is incorrect but did so in a way that may not have been clear to Smith). I talk extensively about this verse and its problems in my work.
There are numerous problematic KJV errors in the Book Of Mormon. I could highlight many more. I focused mainly on the Sermon on the Mount and the Greek new testament, but there are many errors also in the Isaiah chapters that numerous scholars have pointed out.
A faulty interpretation of John 10:16
This is by far the Most important verse in the Bible to the Mormon church. If they could, they would probably throw out the whole Bible and keep just this one verse. For those that don't know, they believe that Jesus's cryptic message in explaining a parable in John 10 is about the Nephites in America, and that Jesus was deliberately withholding the information from his ill-infomed, iniquitous disciples in Jerusalem (as the Book of Mormon indicated, literally saying he couldn't reveal it because of their iniquity). Jesus quotes the passage in 3 Nephi: And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
Jesus quotes the passage incorrectly here. The word fold in the above passage is actually a faulty translation in both parts because, even though the word “fold” was used, each fold is actually a different word in Greek. In the first part (Other sheep I have which are not of this fold), the word in Greek is Aules, and it generally means house, palace, or, in most instances, a front courtyard which may often contain animals. In the second part (and there shall be one fold one shepherd), the word in Greek is Poimne, and that means sheep flock. “Other sheep I have, which are not of this house, them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.” Now that we have a proper rendering of the verse, I can now explain why the Mormon Jesus's interpretation of it is faulty in the Book of Mormon:
1) The verse indicates that there is a single house/fold for the sheep. Not two or more courts as the Book of Mormon/KJV puts it. There is one fold originating in the Holy land to which the sheep may be herded towards. If there were multiple folds (as the KJV suggests), then it would probably read “There are many folds of sheep in the world, and I must bring them together as one” or something like that.
2) The verse seems to be indicating that Jesus will call his sheep outside his Jerusalem house and will bring them to his fold. It literally says “them also I must bring” (lead as a connected and integrated front, one flock with one shepherd). However, the Nephite church died out long before Europeans or Middle easterners ever came to the Americas. “One flock” would indicate a unity of those other sheep he called and the ones already in his house, yet how could this be if the two churches never met? The prophecy does an accurate job of foretelling how the New Testament church grew in its early years but doesn't match the situation of the Nephites at all.
3) Even in a metaphorical sense, how would it be one flock and one shepherd if Jesus wouldn't tell his disciples in Jerusalem about the New world church? How are they united if Jesus won't even trust them with the information in the very fold the Nephites are supposed to be joining?
4) This one is important. Smith seems to be focusing on the “they shall hear my voice” part of the prophecy. However, the verse in John 10:16 says that they “shall” hear his voice. Numerous people in the Book of Mormon talk directly with Jesus. The author of 3 Nephi even talks with Jesus live while he is being born in 3 Nephi 1. So how would this prophecy be talking about the Nephites when many of them have heard his voice (even being within the same generation as Christ)? As well, many of the Nephites believed in Jesus and understood his theology in the same way a 19th century Protestant would, so how have they not already “heard his voice” in a metaphorical sense? Now, the Mormon church may counter that Jesus was not heard by enough of the Nephites for this to count, but remember that Jesus did not appear in person to speak to all the Jews in the Roman Empire, nor did he have to in order for them to convert. Yet no one in their right mind would deny that Jesus was heard by his sheep in Judea or the wider Roman Empire.
The Mormon interpretation of this verse is complete nonsense, and it conflicts with both the Bible and the narrative as told in the Book of Mormon. In my opinion, the most important part of the verse is “them also I must bring” since it is directly referring to those other sheep that will “hear” Jesus's voice. If you define it as a matter of the other sheep believing in Christ, then the Nephites do not qualify since they are already believers and members of Christ's church (they were baptizing many centuries before him). They even seem to have access to scripture the New Testament church is yet to write. If, on the other hand, we define “not of this fold” as a matter of geography (as it suggests in the book of Mormon) then this definition completely disqualifies the Nephites as being the other sheep because they were never in contact physically or spiritually with the church in Jerusalem.
The problems with Christ's arrival to the America's doesn't end with this verse. For instance, the Book of Mormon is very clear that the three days of complete darkness following his death would affect the isles of the sea (continents), be a sign to the house of Israel of Christ's death, and would affect “the face of the whole Earth”. In 1st Nephi, it says that “The Lord God surely shall visit all the house of Israel at that day, some with his voice, because of their righteousness, unto their great joy and salvation, and others with the thunderings and the lightnings of his power, by tempest, by fire, and by smoke, and vapor of darkness, and by the opening of the earth, and by mountains which shall be carried up.” All the house of Israel would surely suggest a worldwide event. Because of the Jewish diaspora, there were communities of Jews living on “islands of the sea” in the Mediterranean in the 1st century (such as the Island of Rhodes), yet this supposed “sign” to the house of Israel is recorded nowhere else in the world.
Bonus: A Philosophical Problem in Mormonism
There is a very big philosophical problem in Mormon doctrine that I talk about extensively in my work. There are a lot of complexities to this argument, so I should mention the fact that there is a lot unsaid about this particular contradiction here.
There is a massive contradiction in Mormonism in that children who die before the age of accountability are forced into becoming Gods in the celestial kingdom. The point of this world in Mormonism is to test our ability to resist sin and to provide an arena where we can utilize our free will to freely choose the church. The Mormon God guarantees free will for all time, yet no child under 8 who dies is asked whether they want to be Mormon Gods nor are they tested or tempted with sin because they haven't reached the age of accountability. Now, a Mormon apologist might say that they earned their stripes in premortality, but that is impossible because the point of our world is to provide us with bodies that can test our ability to follow the gospel or sin, and it also says in Moses 6:57 that sin cannot occur in gods presence and that is where we were tested in premortality (those who followed Lucifer were excluded). Some apologists might also say that children are sinless and therefore they must be admitted to the celestial kingdom. However, admittance to the celestial kingdom has nothing to do with being sinless and has everything to do with your obedience to the church. An 8 year-old has just emerged from a sinless state but would still need baptism as an initiation. A baptized and sinless member of the church could be denied celestial glory if they never made it to the temple. This is a double standard that makes no sense whatsoever. Also, there is nothing meritorious about being sinless as a child because even a serial killer would have died sinless had they been predestined to die before the age of accountability.
Furthermore, God would have to foreordain the death of worthy infants/children (Joseph F. Smith), and this would violate freewill because the child has the inability to reject their calling because they die before they are able to. It can also be proven that children are not automatic members of the church because many 7 year-olds around the world believe in religions other than Mormonism, yet if they were to die before their 8th birthday, they would be forced to become a Mormon in the afterlife or God would be a liar. Still furthermore, all the adult spirits that died during the great apostasy are proxy baptized because the Mormon church needs their consent in order to become Gods, yet that same courtesy is not extended to children who die under 8 (even though the adults born prior the the 19th century could not have been Mormon even if they wanted to and therefore should qualify for exaltation automatically if we are to apply the logic that being born on Earth is automatic consent to Mormonism).
Since the Book of Mormon rebukes infant baptism(and the theology rejects proxy baptism of children), there is no way that Mormon theology can account for the fact that dead children have not 1) Been tested in Mortality 2) Submitted to the initiation of Baptism or any other ordinances to become a God 3) Given their consent to become a Mormon. These are all necessary things to become a God in the heavily works based theology of Mormonism, yet infants are somehow deterministically chosen to become Gods either through some cosmic lottery or because God foreordains it. I do a much better of job of elaborating on this argument in my work.
Conclusion
The Book of Mormon is a literary forgery because it shows an extremely strong dependence on works and errors that occurred in the Christian church many years after the alleged Great Apostasy. In my opinion, The Book of Mormon is just as problematic as everything else in the Mormon canon of religious texts and decrees. The Book of Mormon is simply a poorly conceived 19th century hoax, and it is time both scholars and the general populace acknowledge this clear and noble truth.
If you have any questions, please feel free to AMA. Mythos

This seasons are so long! Commentary broken up into 2 parts
Mykelti’s Engagement Everyone is preparing for Maddie’s wedding. The adults talk about how polygamous weddings are usually small and sad. This is a reoccurring theme that annoys me. All the wives will share sad stories about how what is “normal” in polygamy. But they want us to like polygamy. The excuse is that secrecy breeds abuse and problems. That’s true, but it’s not the only problem. You can’t blame everything on bigamy laws.
Like Christine, Kody is unenthusiastic about Tony and Mykelti marrying. I guess everyone just really loved Caleb. They view Mykelti as childish. (Did Maddie also drop out of college?)
The parents say that doing Maddie’s wedding is like their full time job. Are any of them working right now? We’ve seen Janelle do some real estate. No one has talked about My Sisterwife’s Closet in a year or two. But in a later episode, the TV shows doesn’t really communicate what a big deal it is for the five parents to pack up and fly(?) to Bozeman, MT for a weekend to taste food and wedding cakes. No wonder they say they’re busy.
Kody wonders why Mykelti and Tony are getting engaged so soon. This is so odd, because Kody married all his wives quickly. He didn’t even court Christine. I wonder if they’re abstaining from sex? Tony is a devout Mormon boy, so maybe he wants to get married soon for sex. Maddie has also emphasized that she and Caleb aren’t living together before marriage. In Hawaii, the adults strongly implied that Logan and his girlfriend Michelle are living in siiiiin! “Why not just get married?” they ask. “You’ve been together a whole year!” …so, this seems confusingly inconsistent.
Mykelti’s marriage blessing talk is bogged down with logistics. Mykelti attends the mainstream Mormon church, even though she’s been denied baptism. They will not be allowed to have a Temple marriage. (Which, I think, is what seals you for the afterlife?) Tony and Mykelti hope the church will change its mind later. Optimistic! Kody asks that they don’t discourage their kids from plural marriage. Tony says, fine, I’m a convert too, my kids get to pick their faith. Then Kody asks for a long engagement. Tony says we want to marry in August. (I have no idea what month it is right now.) Maddie will marry in June.
I’m not sure if it’s just Mykelti, but the parents seem like they really want to control their kids. Don’t get me wrong, I think marrying at 19 is unwise, but trying to control your adult kids is a good way to push them away. (Are Maddie and Mykelti in their 20s yet? I wish the narrator would let me know. Fine, I’ll look it up! …Google tells me they both married at 20.) Tony says August would be a year of dating. I don’t know why this reality tv show wants me to do math. Hawaii must have been in January.
Kody says two months between weddings would clobber him. Mykelti says that’s silly. Then Tony talks about taking out a loan for a wedding- yikes, bad financial planning! (Was it a joke?) Kody and Christine argue. I see why Kody feels clobbered when this family has to make everything exhausting. There must be something behind the scenes here. Christine does not trust Mykelti’s choices.
“Utah Mom and Dad” (Mykelti’s boss and landlord) are also surprised about the engagement. But, they tell Kody: it’s better to marry quick, and it’s not about you.
Kody looks at his past and says getting married quick is the dumbest thing you can do. (I appreciate him saying this to the camera, but say it to your kids. And your wives. Explore that thought a little more.)
Christine says Mykelti is “spontaneous and flighty.” “A ditsy girl.” Robyn says “Impulsive” and “firework.” I’m starting to feel really bad for her. The longer this storyline goes on, the more it’s clear the parents do NOT respect Mykelti. They had back to back babies, but they don’t want back-to-back weddings. If I were her, and I watched this, I would elope.
Kody is doing his best to be persuasive about pushing Mykelti’s wedding date. I would normally be on his side- marrying when you’ve known each other less than a year seems unwise - but no one is listening to Mykelti. She wants an outdoor wedding. She doesn’t want a “big” wedding. (Obviously there will be a lot of people there, but maybe she means fancy, lots of work and money put into it.) Yes, they’re rushing, but they’re also obeying their families’ values and religions.
Kody acts like making a special wedding and having Mykelti be a grand bride is the most important thing. Meh. Weddings are overdone in our culture. Kody also argues that “negotiation” before marriage is the most important. There’s truth to this: couples need to be on the same page before they commit. But, in a young marriage, you can’t depend on consistency with those agreements. People change. In your 20s, you may change your mind about so many things: religion, having kids, jobs, politics, where you want to live, your connection to your family… if you’re lucky, your partner and you still end up on the same page. But you just don’t know that beforehand.
The parents are aggravating me because they’re forcing the issue. Yes, this may be a big mistake, but it’s Tony and Mykelti’s mistake to make. You don’t get to control them. Kody acting like a know-it-all is annoying. I wish he’d been honest and shared his personal experience as advice, then let them decide. (“I married women I barely knew when we were barely adults, and now we hate each other! Think about it!”)
Kody also talks a lot about having a good marriage contract. I wish the show explored this more: since most pylg weddings aren’t legal, what is the contract? Does the church write something down specific? Is he just talking about wedding vows? (I’m also open to the idea that he just thinks this makes him sound smart.)
Tony formally proposes to Mykelti. He has a terrible, wonderful poem. (“He rhymed ‘dove’ with ‘love’ and ‘moon’ with ‘June,’ and devoutly believed that they had never so been rhymed before.” -Rudyard Kipling)
I wonder if being on a reality TV show is causing problems with these wedding “storylines.” Like, having a wedding doesn’t have to be a big deal. It wasn’t a big deal for some of the moms. But having a Reality TV Show Wedding and all the associated storylines is a big deal! Let’s drag it out!
Robyn is almost the voice of reason. She stops Kody (who is basically calling the kids dumb and horny) and tries to redirect the conversation. But, she too focuses on “having a grand celebration.” Mykelti finally agrees to December, which is kind of her. Then she starts negotiating how much money she can get from the family, which I don’t think is very nice, but is hard to complain about considering how much they are pushing her for a “big shindig.”
Mykelti starts wedding planning: She will have eight bridesmaids and is making complex homemade bouquets. I may have to eat my words about her wanting a simple wedding. (Maybe the August version would have been simple!) It’s going to be three times the size of Maddie’s.
While on another family vacation (I assume the show pays for these?) Christine is still trying to get to know Tony. She decides he’s good enough for Mykelti when they cook together for the whole family. That’s a relief.
Maddie’s Wedding It’s very pretty. They say “Bohemian G***y” exactly too many times. I should confess at this point that I’ve really been shipping Madison and Caleb. They seem like a super cute couple. BUT in general, I don’t think it’s wise for 20 year olds to date/marry 30 year olds. (25 to 35 feels very different.) It does work out for some people, and I’m glad it seems to have worked out for them. I think I’m falling prey to the same issues as the parents who think Maddie is mature but don’t trust Mykelti with her own life.
Kody is super annoying. Everyone goes out of their way to honor and respect him. But he seems like a huge hindrance to everything. He’s officiating the wedding, and even ten minutes before hasn’t decided what he’s going to say. I realize that Kody’s general disorder isn’t the worst thing about him, but I would never trust someone like this with anything important. (I certainly couldn’t marry someone like that.) All his contributions are weird; Caleb gets “knighted” and “kinged” (I guess.) It was awkward- something that may have been fun for 12 year old Logan, but is really odd for adult man getting married. Of course, Caleb and Maddie are responsible for giving Kody carte blanche to say and do whatever he wanted. But weird ideas like this should have been presented during the rehearsal. (Also, the ring ceremony is supposed to be practiced during rehearsal. There’s a technique to putting a ring on someone else’s finger smoothly!)
Also… Kody gave Logan a bar mitzah? That’s weird and culturally appropriative, but also, it makes me think that you probably could have converted young Kody to almost any religion if you’d just caught him at the right time.
Side note on why it’s weird to ask someone of a different religion to officiate your wedding: nondenominational Christians don’t believe marriage is for eternity.
Janelle gives a wedding speech that depressing in retrospect, about sticking together through tough times, and the tough times make the good times better, and it’s really worth it to stay together even if times are tough…
The next episode is entitled “Guide to Wedded Bliss.” It begins with flashbacks to Robyn’s wedding. Everyone is dressed worse, worse hair choices, younger…. and 100% happier. Kody flirts with Meri all the time. I know there were problems then, but uh… things have degraded. (I didn’t finish the episode.)
Polygamy Work #12: Constantly apologizing for and justifying polygamy. Polygamy Work #13: You have umpteen kids and they start getting engaged/married at the same time. Polygamy Work #14: The lingering cognitive dissonance that you didn’t make good life choices, and you want your kids to make better life choices, but if you admit your choices weren’t great, the whole house of cards falls down.
Polygamy Perk #11: Janelle is going to Wyoming early to help with the wedding. Her sister-wives will keep an eye on her other kids. (Even though someone was certainly watching them when all five parents went out a wedding planning trip.)

I believe ex-Mormon community that these decade is a huge blessing for you folks. The church is shrinking - people are getting out of dogmatic rules and rigid lifestyles. Some are out for good while some still in one way or other in touch with their Mormon identity. Let me make a crazy proposal. Those of you who wish to take the best of being Mormon and stay being such may do so by taking the texts of D&C as well as other scriptures quote them lines of your choice and bring commentaries as in your opinions on the matter of the line. Be it an expansion of the rule, critic of such, exposing contradiction or writing a poem. Everything goes. You put it out in a open space where every single one can comment and here you have an original line sunk in thousands of readings reactions and interpretations. One may latter chose the most popular one by vote (Reddit style) and put them together hyperlinking everything. Having such plethora of communal voice submitted it may become Mormon identity Revised. Which in future may lead to revised Mormon attitudes, following and ect. It is different from a splinter group bc you are not creating a new text or new group you bringing new outlook and readings from within. Right now the text is controlled by the church and the hierarchy but it may be liberated. The general idea of always updating doctrine is great now the update should be in your hands. I must admit that I’m never Mormon and there are thousand of nuances I’ve missed. And I understand the power of following the breatheren. But here my humble 2 cents.

There lays a place
Out in the west
The humble land
Of Deseret
The place where pilgrims
Sing their holy song
The place where, so long ago
They were brought by Brigham Young
Teaching of the ways
Of the Latter Day Saints
No place in the east
For the picture that they paint
What an appetizing story
To all its humble disciples
Eden is not so far away
Nor the miracles of bible
Not so long ago
The Messiah, it's is said
Came away to America
And turned the skins to red
Infamy followed the pilgrims
Through the travels that they made
Polygamy and misogyny
Were the the price that must be paid
To live in the heavens
In the eternal ever after
Exiles in Mexico
Opened many new chapters
Compounds warring with each other
Fueds that's spilled much blood
The rage and craze of the LeBarons
That led to what was done
When I think back
To the Allred clan
The many children it claims
That came from just one man
Rulon was killed
Like many others
In the wrath of Erville
And his childrens many mothers
A revelation
Opens my eyes
This is my past
And my family who died

As the title says.
I’ve been doing a lot of work over the last 3 going on four years.
I started getting into magic when I made the logical leap in 2020 that the planet Earth is conscious.
The Earth has been acknowledged a God before, it is the land we walk on, it provides our bodies, provides our food. It’s 70% water just like us. It’s sentient man, it’s a life form. It just looks like an object in space because we’re materially driven. You want to see an alien species? Just look at pictures of your Uranus and tell me that’s not alien.
The Earth might as well be God, as far I was concerned. So I started praying to it. Not using any pre-approved religious stuff, I just made it up. I prayed about things that I wanted. Things that I wanted to change. To make the world a better place. I read a book by Napoleon hill and he said write a contract that you read every and I did and I did it for a while.
Those repeated prayers, poems I wrote and sang to the earth, things actually changed. I prayed for confidence I became more confident. You say I am confident enough it will catch on.
At this time I was also dabbling in LSD aaaand one night I did two tabs too far apart and from there I went through the big obelisk just outside Saturn at the end of 2001 space odyssey.
At the end of the portal, agonising fear of death as my identity, who I was, was dismantled and put back together again. Visions played in my mind. The planet thinking, feeling, knowing, I was right. A name flashed across my white stone written in the fashion of the Maya and an Angel of the Lord appeared before me, within me, all around me. I have no explanations for this at all. It was an acid trip, you won’t believe it anyway let’s move on.
From that point I have spent the last 3 years studying and practicing and taking breaks to focus on real life. I have studied the gnostics, the Bible, the Gita, Crowely, New Thought, New Age, the Tarot, etc etc and of course Chaos Magick.
Chaos says just believe whatever you want. Create your own reality. This is fine in theory, a fool that persists in his folly with become wise. But it’s a painful and long ass way to do so.
At the end of the day while it is as far as you are concerned “all in your head” there forces of nature that exist within and without all of your head. There is not just your consciousness in your heid, there is subconscious, unconscious and the super conscious and they’re all laughing at you thinking you know what’s up coz you “manifested” a $50 note by wanking onto a sheet of paper.
Nothing is true, everything is permitted, or so said the Assassin Hasan I’ Sabah. Permitted by whom? Allah? The man was a Muslim after all. (FYI Allah is just another brand name for that ineffable name that creates all brands, you’re a magician you know about correspondences right? Syncretism?)
Now don’t get me wrong whatever we want to practice and whatever we want to believe is permitted by them. They allowed Mormons for Christs sake. Whether it is ultimately folly or not doesn’t really matter unless we’re not having a good time with the consequences of our actions and more importantly our desires. Time will tell. Time is the destroyer of worlds. There’s no servitor you can create that won’t be inevitably be destroyed regardles of if you remember to feed it or not.
Milk for babes, meat for strong men is what I’m getting at. You can invent your own Pantheon like it’s make your own Pokémon day but at the end of the Arceus is the boss of everything and we are masters as player character only. And even then that’s dubious:
Life is a two player game. You and me are player two. Who is player one?
Just because the Catholics fucked it and raped our grandparents for generations doesn’t mean God isn’t real. God is a logical conclusion if you can see what I see, if you can hear what I hear.
(Tangent: Reddit is such a shit app for writing/creating on, why do we put up with this?)
Cause is saw that the planet was conscious from the start. The planet has an electromagnetic field. The sun has an electromagnetic field. The Milky Way has an electromagnetic field and one of the proposed shapes of the universe is a toroidal field because guess what? that is the shape of an electromagnetic field.
Here’s a neuroscientist that has a degree who proposed a link between consciousness and electromagnetic fields.
Of course it’s all up for debate and I’m just a lunatic on Reddit, don’t take my word for it. No dogma, I promise. Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law, love under will 🤞
But when you look at that and you read the Gita and all the other old as fuck books (that none of you illiterate millennials read) that say the same things over and over again, that there is a god you can kind of make the logical conclusion in the affirmative. Yes there is.
I’ve thought about it. I’ve thought about it a lot, like everyday. For years. Even more so recently.
When you come to the conclusion of what it is that truly exists which is none of this, nor you, nor I.
Once you come to this conclusion making servitors doesn’t make sense. Doing sigils for petty wants doesn’t make sense. No plans I make of my own will ever match their plans. Going against their will is pure folly. Such behaviour in the past has only made me wise to their ultimate reality: the Supreme Ruler.
Once you realise this you can only submit. Pledge yourself to the king in the hopes that he will be merciful. I’d mail myself to the cross is the romans gave me the wood. If you know this truth it makes perfect sense to sacrifice your body and your life and your desires for the only thing that exists within both chaos and the void.
TLDR: I am talking about the augoaides, the HGA. Find that within yourself and you will come to know this. Liberation.

Note: When referring to the pre-Colonial tribal peoples of North America, I will be using the term “American Indian” or just “Indian” instead of “Native American.” There are a variety of reasons, but the primary one is that every American Indian person I know uses that term as a point of pride and, thus, I will out of respect for them.
I’ve written in the past of my love of the Honest Hearts DLC. The way that it tracks the development of new cultures, its treatment of religion, etc. One thing I especially appreciate is how the twin examples of Joshua Graham and Randall Clark show that the Courier isn’t necessarily overpowered as both of them have faced similar odds and come out on top through skill and cunning.
Anyway, I know that, in general, Honest Hearts is considered the weakest of the DLCs and that I’m definitely in the minority because it’s my favorite. I understand the criticisms it receives and I can see how, in many ways, the writing and execution of all the other DLCs is much stronger. I just love it. But I watched this 7 hour (I know … what’s my problem?) retrospective on FNV and the creator really tore into Honest Hearts for other reasons. If you want to hear just that section, this is a good place to start. His primary issue is that Honest Hearts represents the “White Man’s Burden” or “Innocent Natives” trope. I’d like to address that.
First, in case you didn’t know, “White Man’s Burden” refers to a poem written by Rudyard Kipling, the author of (among other things) “The Jungle Book.” The poem is worth a read, but here’s just the first stanza:
Take up the White Man's burden - Send forth the best ye breed - Go bind your sons to exile To serve your captives' need; To wait in heavy harness On fluttered folk and wild - Your new-caught sullen peoples, Half devil and half child.
It was written to encourage the United States to take colonial control of the Philippines and send our sons to care for those “savages” who are “half devil and half child.” Hopefully, you can see the problem with that sentiment without me unpacking it further. Not just the sentiment itself, but in how it was carried out historically.
The question is whether Honest Hearts is an example of this. Let’s see:

What are “tribes” in FNV?

Let’s step back a bit and see how “tribal” is used in Fallout. When we’re talking about pre-Colonial tribes of North America, we mean peoples with a LONG history going back centuries or millennia. (I wouldn’t exactly call the Mayan or Aztec civilization “tribal,” so I’m not including them.) And I’m not just talking about their religion or songs or tradition. There was a form of representative republic that existed in North America (the Iroquois Confederacy) long before the first British settlers arrived and VERY long before the first Continental Congress. One in which women had a voice and a veto, something we didn’t get to until 1920.
In Fallout, “tribes” seems to be used relatively loosely. It can refer to any group of people with even the loosest of associations who banded together for survival and created something of a culture in the process. Occasionally, the culture pre-dated the banding together, but you get the point. The Chairmen were once the “Boot-Riders” because they were nomadic. The White Glove’s original tribal name is unknown, but they were cannibals. The Omertas were the “Slither-kin” who lured people to their camps, drugged and killed them or sold them into slavery. House takes them all and turns them into the three “Families” of the New Vegas Strip. The Great Khans are considered a tribe which carries on the ethos of a motorcycle gang. Seems like the Boomer "tribe's" entire identity is based on wanting to blow shit up. Etc.
I think the better application of the “White Man’s Burden” trope would be the NCR and Legion. Most of the “tribes” you encounter are nomadic and the NCR seems to focus more on cities. Nevertheless, you either have the option to join them or move on, which is quite similar to how the United States acted as they moved Westward. The Legion doesn’t really give the option to move. You join or die. Caesar is forcibly bringing “civilization” to them.

Are the Dead Horses, Sorrows and White Legs FNV “tribal” or stereotypical “natives”?

Eh … maybe. In reality, they’re each a mish-mash of refugees from the irradiated wastes of the remainder of the Mojave. Their languages are an amalgam of English, German and Navajo (Dead Horses), Spanish and English (Sorrows) or English, Spanish and Shoshone (White Legs). There are some American Indian languages in the mix, but they are not the only ones. They all dress in what could be construed as American Indian-esque armor, but given the history from which they come, it seems EXTREMELY unlikely that they were inspired, in-game, from an American Indian past. Rather, it’s a reflection of the needs of their environment.
Nevertheless, they are “coded” as stereotypical American Indians. I don’t think that can be argued. The war clubs, the manner in which they speak English, etc. It seems clear that’s what they’re meant to evoke. What the developers intended.
But here’s the thing. I don’t think the Dead Horses or Sorrows were set up as a childish, naive foil for the people of the Mojave, especially New Vegas. The best example of this is probably the oft-hated (although I love him) Follows Chalk. More so than Waking Cloud, Follows Chalk comments on his limited understanding of the culture outside of Zion. The guy who made the video seems to think this shows him being naive and stupid, but I don’t see it that way.
First of all, it seems clear that the developers pretty clearly expressed their thoughts about the greed and capitalism in New Vegas. I never, ever got the impression that New Vegas or the surrounding cities were the pinnacle of human civilization, even in the post-apocalypse. So I always interpreted Follows Chalk’s commentary as a critique both of New Vegas and our current society. He asks why you carry around all the bottle caps which, on the one hand, shows his ignorance of representative currency. However, sometimes it takes an outsider to point out the ridiculousness of jangling your way through the world and the emptiness of money. He also talks about how people pay to see other people flip over pieces of paper (Blackjack). Again, it seems pretty cutting critique of gambling. EVERY SINGLE person you meet in the Mojave who is trying to get to New Vegas to make their fortune is “coded” as an absolute idiot who is basically giving their money to the casinos.
Regarding the "Innocent Natives" trope, I can see how that could be applied here. But I rather think that the commentary by Follows Chalk and the entire culture of the Sorrows was set up as a counterpoint to the Mojave, especially New Vegas. It's meant to be a commentary on what the developers see as the weakness and moral degradation exhibited in the main game, not some innocent tribal culture which just exists to be protected by "white men."

Are Joshua Graham and/or Daniel “White Man’s Burdensing” the Sorrows and Dead Horses?”

I’d like to start with the White Legs. As mentioned before, it’s really the NCR and Legion that are “White Man’s Burdensing” tribes in the Mojave and remains of the west of North America. An excellent example of this is the White Legs. They’ve already been trained and had membership in the Legion dangled in front of them by Ulysses representing the Legion. Had they been successful in wiping out the Sorrows, Dead Horses and remainder of the New Caananites (especially Joshua Graham), they would have become full members of the Legion and any distinctives they possessed as a tribe would be eradicated. They’d be wearing red football gear, all their female soldiers would become slaves, etc. I think, despite also being “coded” as “native,” they can be excluded from this part of the discussion.
Let’s look at Daniel first. He’s a representative of the New Caananites and is actively trying to convert the Sorrows to Mormonism. I’m willing to give religion a pass in this case as trying to convert someone to your religion doesn’t necessarily mean you’re trying to eradicate their entire culture and bring them “civilization.” Some people will disagree with me on this, which is fine. But I feel the same about trying to convert people to Islam or Confucianism or the Norse gods. When done right, a religion can be incorporated into an existing culture. I admit that, probably more often than not, it’s usually paired with other elements of the missionary's culture (like language, dress, government, etc.), but it doesn’t have to be.
I’d say that appears to be the case with Daniel. He scoffs slightly at the Sorrows’ (very reasonable) taboos about the caves where Randall Clark had holed up. But, for the most part, he’s trying to preserve them as they are. He’s seen the Legion, he’s seen some of the way the rest of the wastes have to offer, he’s even seen Joshua Graham, and he’s trying to preserve the Sorrows unspoiled by all of that. He’s trying to preserve their culture, not bring his culture to them.
Joshua Graham is more complicated. He’d initially done for the Dead Horses what Ulysses did for the White Legs and was working on incorporating them into the Legion. He was “White Man’s Burdensing” them for the Legion. When he was called away for the Battle of Hoover Dam, they were left on their own and basically were chased from Res (probably “reservation”) to Zion. They are new refugees to the area. After being burned alive by Caesar, Joshua Graham returns to the Dead Horses to try and undo the damage that he had already caused and protect the people he had corrupted. He’s definitely changing the Dead Horses, both intentionally and unintentionally. Intentionally, he’s training them to defend themselves and inoculating them against recruitment by the Legion. But he’s not trying to change their basic culture and doesn’t even seem super interested in converting them to Mormonism. He IS arming them and helping them to fight off the White Legs on their own. Unintentionally, he’s quickly on his way to becoming, at the very least, a figure of legend and myth and, more likely, a deity who will be worshiped alongside the Father in the Caves (and, perhaps, the Courier). But I can’t exactly blame him for unintentional consequences.
Here’s the irony. Joshua Graham is largely responsible for the creation and success of the Legion. It was their initial interactions with the Blackfoot tribe that led to the creation of the Legion in the first place and Joshua Graham was an integral part of that. He’s realized the error of his ways and is trying to repent of his former actions by helping the Dead Horses defend themselves against the White Legs, a proxy of the Legion. He’s trying to undo his former actions that WERE “White Man’s Burdensing” with the Legion.
The ironic thing is that he appears to be doing exactly the same thing with the Dead Horses that he initially did with the Blackfoot. There’s no attempt to impose Roman-style civilization on them, but he’s training them to be more warlike and, thus, undoing an aspect of their prior culture.

What about Randall Clark?

I think the story of the Survivalist is important for two reasons. First, it speaks to the origin of the Sorrows. Second, it shows how someone can try to defend people without trying to impose your will on them and also how you can inadvertently impose your will on them at the same time.
Randall Clark had come to Zion right after the war. His initial entries are just him trying to survive and wrestling with his guilt over the death of his wife and son. Then, some Spanish-speaking refugees make their way to Zion and he kind of takes them under his wing. Without revealing himself, he tries to give them aid and protection. Then, the Vault 22 dwellers show up and kill almost everyone. He tries to rescue the refugees and, when he fails, he kills almost all the Vault 22 dwellers.
He finds one survivor from that initial group and they become a couple. She gets pregnant. The new wife and son both die. Not really relevant except that it becomes part of the religion later.
Later, a group of children make their way to Zion. Randall Clark, using the moniker “The Father,” cares for them from a distance, leaving them instructions, guidance, medicine, gear, weapons, etc. He inadvertently (along with his first and second wife and first and second child, who were conflated into a single wife and child) becomes a deity, the Father in the Caves. Because of his teaching and guidance and help, he is single-handedly responsible for their development into the Sorrows tribe, the longest, post-apocalyptic residents of Zion.
Can he be said to have been “White Man’s Burdensing” the Sorrows? Absolutely not! They didn’t even exist as a tribe prior to their coming to Zion. He was just helping out some kids and, apparently, did a good job as they seem to be the best of tribes you encounter in FNV. He is responsible for the Sorrows as they exist today … probably that they exist today at all.

Summary

The accusation that Joshua Graham is “White Man’s Burdensing” is unfair. He was as part of the Legion. The damage has been done. Now, he’s just trying to fix what he broke and protect the people he once corrupted. He’s not trying to bring “civilization” to them or change them except to a) save them from the Legion and b) save them from BECOMING the Legion. One could argue that, in doing so, he is doing what he once did to the Blackfoot tribe and potentially creation a religion a la “The Father in the Caves,” but that is not his intention.
The accusation that Daniel is “White Man’s Burdensing” is has more weight, but not much. He is trying to bring his religion to them, but he is also trying to preserve them as Randall Clark made them with the least amount of corruption of their culture possible. He is willing to go as far as evacuating them to a secluded place to buy them a least a little more time free of constant attacks by groups like the Legion and White Legs so they can continue as they have been.
I feel like Randall Clark was included for a specific reason, as a commentary on both Joshua Graham and Daniel. Joshua Graham seems like a modern incarnation of Randall Clark, a man driven by guilt and regret to help those he can help because either the harm once caused (for Graham) or the failure to save those important to him (for Clark). Neither man was trying to make them into something, just protect and help them. Daniel is not like Randall Clark, but is the one trying to preserve what Randall Clark created. Both are inheritors of Randall Clark’s legacy in their own way.
I must reiterate that both men aren’t trying to turn the Dead Horses and Sorrows into “civilized” tribes. They have both seen the weakness of “civilization” in its various forms and are trying to keep “civilization” from either corrupting or overrunning the tribes of Zion.
The accusation of “White Man’s Burdensing” is definitely applicable both to the NCR and Legion … especially the Legion. Not Joshua Graham or Daniel.

Shock: It’s not just about polygamy! It starts with a poem and short fiction. It includes jokes and quips. It provides political commentary on the upcoming presidential elections. It has everything except a crossword puzzle and sports scores. Two other surprises: 1. The editors were not anti-Mormon. They express belief in the Book of Mormon and “restoration.” They viewed themselves as reformers. 2. The editors were prudes. They complain about too much dancing and theatre in Nauvoo. It reminds me of Harold Hill’s song about the dangers of pool halls in River City, Iowa (“Music Man”). Anyway, the Expositor lays out five main grievances (along with a few others not addressed in detail): 1. Human trafficking and “plurality of wives.” The newspaper alleges that women proselytes come to Nauvoo with no knowledge of polygamy, and are coerced to participate in polygamy after their arrival. The newspaper describes a power imbalance that destroys the agency of these women. 2. Political ambition. The newspaper alleges that church leaders are blurring the lines between religious, political, and military power. 3. Blasphemy. The newspaper condemns the doctrine of a “plurality of gods.” It specifically condemns the notion that God has gods above him, waiting to remove him from his throne if he strays from his path of strict obedience. 4. Secret courts. The newspaper alleges that William Law and others were excommunicated without their knowledge and without an opportunity to defend themselves or call witnesses. 5. Secret oaths (early version of the second anointing). The newspaper condemns the “unconditional sealing up to eternal life, against all crimes except that of shedding innocent blood.” The newspaper uses language from Doctrine and Covenants 132, confirming the existence of this text in the days of Joseph Smith. (Some apologists have claimed Brigham Young wrote D&C 132 and backdated it to 1843 to give it legitimacy.)

Hey team, my family recently took the plunge and have stepped back from the church. We like the idea of regular family prayer, especially at mealtimes, but we want to try a different approach than the Mormon prayer formula. What have y'all tried that you like and would recommend? Protestant graces? A affirmation or poem? Thanks