Skip to main content

Addendum to Coincidence or Design

At Sunday dinner this last week, I had the obligatory conversation about the new job I just procured. This current job is fairly similar to the last one I had, just on a much larger scale and with a lot of added tasks. Anyway, my dear younger sister, being the wonderful Mormon girl that she is, became really excited after I explained that my new job was similar to the last one, and she says something along the lines of, 'There was a reason you had that last job," implying that god allowed me to have the last job so that he could allow me to have this current job. For some reason I became really frustrated with her comment, but all I could spit out was, "Not really." Smooth and witty, no? But she persisted and reiterated her declaration. After that, I shut down the conversation as quickly as I could, not really wanting to start a debate about "god's plan" and all that crap at the dinner table surrounded by my family. I'm just not that kind of person, and as much as I wanted to confront her on this idea, it's just not in my personality to do so. 

I wanted to tell her something along the lines of, "Of course there's a reason why. I applied and accepted the job offer (to both jobs)." and maybe something like, "Well sure, I was considered a better candidate at this new place because of experience at the last place, but I also had the power to say no to the offer and keep looking." (The only thing that really compelled me to accept the job offer was having been unemployed for almost a month and for being terrified of going another month without a paycheck.) Or maybe I would have said something like, "God had nothing to do with this job. If god were really in the picture, he would have stepped in a few years ago and redirected me from my stint at Nike, and maybe persuaded me to major in something more applicable than English, which would have then set me on a course to attain- in theory- an even better job than my now current job." Seriously though, if god were in the picture, why would he have set me on such a menial course in life, knowing full well that I don't enjoy this type of work? 

It's all just so dumb, and now that I see that there is absolutely no logic in believing that there is a plan for me or that there's a god pushing me in the right direction, I start to feel a level of disgust directed at myself for going through so much of my life drawing out mental maps and contributing every good step in my life as being a result of a god and every bad or misguided step I took as my own inability to listen to what god actually wanted me to do. I have no one to congratulate but myself when I do something well or make a great decision, and as much as I hate to admit it, I have no one to blame but myself for making poor choices or for not reaching what I believe to be my full potential. At times, this realisation is a very real and depressing thought, and I struggle to reconcile the feelings of betrayal and misdirection I feel that I've suffered at the hands of my former religion and that have contributed to my prior apathetic nature as far as making my life better on my own was concerned, because I realise now that it was all my own doing. I feel like I have a great impediment that I need to surmount in order to become a better person, not necessarily morally, but just generally. I want to feel good about all aspects of my life. 

(I apologise for my lack of eloquence in this post.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

In Response to Mr. Greg Trimble

(Apologies for another long post) In a perusal of my Facebook news feed, I stumbled across a lovely article that a neighbor of my parents shared entitled “So…You Think the Book of Mormon is a Fraud” . Mr. Trimble, who authored this lovely article, uses the typical Mormon circular reasoning that states that if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet; and if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the same Church that Christ established while he was on Earth. So in the Mormon mind, it all comes down to whether the BOM is true or not, and for this, they rely on warm fuzzy feelings to confirm that the Book is in fact, true. Mr. Trimble states that he noticed that most of the people who criticize the Book of Mormon the loudest, have not actually read it. While this may be true, I don’t think a person needs to read a book fully to understand whether it’s true or not. That’s what research is for. Reading the Book of Morm

The War in Heaven; Part 2

                I suggest that the extreme horribleness of hell, as portrayed by priests and nuns, is inflated to compensate for its implausibility. If hell were plausible, it would only have to be moderately unpleasant in order to deter. Given that it is so unlikely to be true, it has to be advertised as very scar indeed, to balance its implausibility and retain some deterrence value.                                 Richard Dawkins, God Delusion, pg. 361  I began the first part of this post because of a comment on Facebook and the article that it linked to. I was frustrated by both because they contradict the doctrine I was taught throughout my relation with the Church and they blatantly ignore that it was the same for every member up to the publishing of this article. Not only this, but they make it sound as though the members who believe that we had a choice in heaven between Satan and Jesus (almost every single member) misinterpreted these lessons, and they are the ones at fau

I'm Not a Fan of Matt Walsh: Part 2

Matt Walsh is an Idiot: Why “Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally” is not effective. I am a glutton for punishment where Matt Walsh is concerned. He is a pompous ass, and reading his articles makes my blood boil, and not just because he writes for Glen Beck’s network and we don’t share the same opinions. Bottom line is that he is not a great writer. If he were to turn one of his articles into any of my University English professors, he would not have fared well. Even my 11 th grade English teacher would have ripped him a new one. Why: Because he cannot write an argumentative paper. Not a single one of his articles I have read has contained any semblance of argumentation. He likes to say things like, first and second, as if he’s actually introducing solid reasons to support his opinion, but they end up being wordy and condescending with an overabundance of analogies that don’t actually provide support. The article listed in the title of my post is one of Walsh’s more recent