A Marvelous Work And A Blunder: An Ex-Mormon Blog

Watch This

2010-05-06T10:14:00.000-06:00

An online acquaintance made an excellent series of videos in response to last year's General Conference talk by Holland that many Mormons are still rabidly promoting on the internet. It's an illogical, emotional, manipulative, arrogant and dishonest example of public speaking. But I'll let FlackerMan tell you all about it:

The 2010 MS Walk

2010-04-30T10:17:00.001-06:00

It’s almost time.

I try to participate in the MS Walk every year, in honor of my mother. It’s a cause that matters greatly to me. And I would love your help.

This year I’m hoping to raise at least $1,000. If all 328 of my Blogger followers gave just $4 that would be more than enough. See? Even small donations can make a big difference! So, if you’re able, please consider sponsoring me. Not able to donate? That’s OK. You can still help me out by blogging, tweeting, and sharing on Facebook. Any help at all will mean a lot to me, and to the MS Society.

I’m sure you’ll be hearing from me about the MS Walk a few more times between now and the date of my local walk. Consider this a “kick-off” post.

And, just FYI, I will make a blog signature for anyone who donates $10 dollars or more and provides a valid e-mail address in their online donation form. You’ll have to select the “name and amount” option to receive your free signature. Or, if you donate $15 dollars or more you can choose between a free signature or one month of advertising space on Domestic Dork {provide an e-mail address and select “name and amount”}. And everyone who donates {again, you’ll need to provide an e-mail address in the form”} has the option of being added to an “Honor Blog Roll.” The blog roll will be left in my sidebar on Domestic Dork for 3 months and then left indefinitely on the blog page {see the “blogs” button in my menu on the left side of my Domestic Dork blog}.

Thanks for reading this, and thanks in advance and from the bottom of my heart for any donations and/or help spreading the word.

I Love You Guys

2010-03-08T11:40:00.000-07:00

CaraDee left a link to the video below on my last post. I'm a fan of Non-Stamp Collector but I hadn't seen this particular video of his. Creationists, WATCH THIS. Thanks CaraDee!

THIS IS FOR WHAT I HAVE NO PATIENCE!

2010-03-06T11:10:00.002-07:00

Let me start off by saying I’ve already gotten some nice comments on my last post about “atheists having faith.” Chanson linked to a post of hers on the issue. And Andrew S. left a really insightful comment:

E.g., if you notice the guy's comment...he always pins atheists as being people who believe there is no god. So he isn't framing this in terms of belief vs. nonbelief, or do believe vs. do not believe.
Instead, he is framing it in terms of believe there is vs. believe there is not. He consistently address those who "believe there is no god," who have faith "there is no god" etc.,
Well, phew! All I can do is give a sigh of relief. His stinging indictment doesn't even apply to me. I am an atheist because I do not believe in gods and I do not believe there are gods, not because I believe there are no gods. And most atheists (I think, I have never conducted a formal poll) would agree. It seems to me that most people concede -- even if only grudgingly -- that belief either way requires "faith" (I agree with chanson that this also says more about the person's opinion of faith than anything)...and many people will concede that "nonbelief" is "reasonable."
What they fail to realize is that atheism includes that nonbelief.

And then there was this “gem.” {Rant to follow.}

Well said, let first examine who is God. God is the source of everything and the creator of every creature. Answer this Questions: Do you know that there are manufacturers for every car and a potter for every pot? Have you ever seen a beuatiful garden that just happened without a meticulous gardener? If your answer is yes, why do you think the earth and man just happened; when no car or house just happened. Here is the bottom line; to deny God is to deny that there is no manufacturer of cars or no potter for pot. And that is either you are a hypocrite or you are a fool.
For more on this read my blog, Achievement The Way I See It 2 http://josephabioye.blogspot.com

When I provide links READ THEM before you run your mouth or you just end up looking like a douche and pissing me off. Seriously. This makes me angry. I provided a LIST of things to read re: evolution. It just so happens that those links {and books} address the designer/”just happens” fallacy.
ATHEISTS/EVOLUTIONISTS DO NOT BELIEVE THINGS “JUST HAPPENED.” But then, if you had READ the information I provided you’d know that. But no, you’d rather leave trite little analogies that DO NOT APPLY.
Here’s that reading list for you again. Do not bother me with your cliché arguments again until you’ve read them.

And I highly recommend buying or borrowing: The God Delusion and The Greatest Show On Earth. We own and love both.
If the Christians who make these idiotic analogies and arguments actually spent time listening to what the other side has to say they’d know those arguments have already been addressed and answered. But it seems they’d rather sit around repeating their crap to each other and congratulating each other on how smart they are, and what great zingers they’ve come up with to show how foolish the non-theists are. No, “heaven forbid” they actually learn what the hell they’re talking about. It’s far better to spew fallacies about watches and watchmakers and how evolution is “just a theory” {yes, in the same sense of the word as the THEORY OF GRAVITY}. THIS is exactly the kind of bullshit I have little patience for.
That said, I’m done. I’m not wasting my time providing the same resources over and over and over again. I have better things to do with my time, like having breakfast with my family, which is exactly what I’m going to do.

“Atheists Have Faith”

2010-03-05T13:44:00.002-07:00

The following comment was left anonymously on Adam’s post:

As far as I can tell you use faith as much as your parents do. With exactly the same type of evidence. You see everything as evidence that there is no God, but as far as I can tell you haven't proved it. You can't, anymore then someone can prove there IS a God. You can't know for sure that there isn't, anymore then I can no for sure that there is. You have faith that there is no God and things just happen the way they happen, but you can't prove there is no divine being influencing things, anymore then I could prove to you that there is. And you have little patience w/ people that do not share the same faith, which is common regardless of which faith is followed. Because everyone believes they are correct. You have faith my man. Your logic is as good or faulty as anyone elses. [sic]

I have a few things to say to that…but first, a comic:

{taken from The Godless Paladin}

By this reasoning it would be just as valid to believe there is an invisible pink unicorn watching over us all from a rainbow castle in the sky as it would be to not believe in such a being. By this reasons it would be just as valid to believe there in Thor, or Vishnu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster as it is to not believe in such gods.
Calling atheism, or NON-belief, “faith” is like calling NOT collecting stamps a hobby.
And it’s ridiculous.
It does not take faith to not believe in something for which there is no evidence. Would you say it takes faith to not believe in the boogey-man? Does it take faith to not believe in fairies? Does it take faith to not believe in Russell’s teapot? What’s that? I’ll let Russell explain:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. {via Wikipedia}

You’re arguing that since you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a supreme being then it must be equally reasonable to believe in such as it is to not believe and that both views require faith {nevermind the fact that specific religions and their claims can be shown to be untrue – we’ll focus merely on the abstract concept of a supernatural being called “God”}.
Richard Dawkins argued that “if agnosticism demands giving equal respect to the belief and disbelief in a supreme being, then it must also give equal respect to belief in an orbiting teapot, since the existence of an orbiting teapot is just as plausible scientifically as the existence of a supreme being.” And Peter Atkins “said that the core point of Russell's teapot is that a scientist cannot prove a negative, and therefore Occam's razor demands that the more simple theory (in which there is no supreme being) should trump the more complex theory (with a supreme being).”
But now I’d like to take a moment to address specific parts of your asinine and cliché comment. Let’s start with:
“You see everything as evidence that there is no God”
No, we see the fact that there IS NO evidence for God as a pretty damn big sign that there probably is not one. We’re 6’s leaning 7 on the spectrum of theistic probability. When we say “there is no evidence for God’s existence” it is not the same as saying “we have evidence for God’s non-existence” {again, you can’t prove a negative}. Your reasoning in twisting our statements on the matter is fallacious.
“You have faith that there is no God and things just happen the way they happen…”
I’ve already explained the error of the “atheists have faith too” argument. What I want to address here is the second half of this statement. If you are referring to evolution when you say “things just happen” please READ A DAMN BOOK on evolution. I don’t have the time nor the patience to lay out for you the science. I don’t particularly feel like banging my head against a wall trying to explain the ridiculousness of the “just happens” argument against evolution when other, much better writers, have already done so {see also The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion}. Or at least start by reading the following:

“And you have little patience w/ people that do not share the same faith, which is common regardless of which faith is followed.”
Again, non-belief is not the same as belief. I don’t think I need to spell that out a million times but who knows? Maybe I do. But ignoring that issue for a moment…you say I have little patience with people that do not think the way I do. I’m sorry? Do we know you? I didn’t realize you were an authority on how we feel about other people. I can't speak for Adam. But here’s what I don’t have patience for:

I don’t have patience for nonsense. I don’t have patience for illogical arguments. I don’t have patience for poorly thought-out comments and assertions that have no evidence. And, on occasion, I lack patience with the people who espouse them as truth, or as world-views on equal footing with those that are based on evidence.
I don’t have patience for faiths that require 10% of their adherents income, no matter how poor they may be all while wasting BILLIONS of dollars buying land, building malls, and remodeling perfectly good buildings for their Masonic rip-off rituals. I don’t have patience for faiths that treat women and gays like lesser persons than men but say it’s OK because really, it’s God that is the sexist/hetero-sexist. I don’t have patience for faiths that lie about their history. Would you like me to keep going?

But despite those strong feelings I manage to maintain relationships with people who believe in God. You don’t know me. You don’t know how much patience it takes to keep my mouth shut when my friends say things that make me want to scream. You don’t know how much patience it takes to watch my family and friends sacrifice so much for faiths that abuse their faithfulness and yet be quiet because it’s what they want from me.
You have no idea just how much patience it takes to be a secularist in a religious world without going completely postal. Aside from dealing with trite, apologetic comments like yours, I live in a world where people fight to teach children fairy tales instead of science in our public schools. 48% of Americans openly admit they they would not vote for an atheist. People legislate their bible-based morality instead of making laws that are equitable for all based on evidence and principles of acceptance and fairness. People throw hissy-fits about using the phrase “Happy Holidays” to refer to a season which, in fact, includes several different holidays {including Christmas which was appropriated from a Pagan celebration}. I live in a world in which people expect me to “respect” their beliefs because they are religious in nature, not on their merits. Adults all over the world insist on believing in fairy tales, including the Christian fairytale whose God is a sadistic bastard {read the Bible and tell me a deity who commands genocide and carries out the murder of innocent children isn’t reprehensible}. And on top of all that these same people turn around and say there’s something wrong with US for not believing in their delusion. So don’t presume to tell me about patience. This blog is the one place I don’t have to be patient.
And finally, in regards to your closing statement:
“Your logic is as good or faulty as anyone elses.” [sic]
I think I have shown that, when it comes to your logic, that is clearly not that case.
Note: Anonymous comments get treated a certain way ‘round here. If you don’t respect your opinion enough to put your name on it, then why should I respect your opinion? I point this out because I want my readers to know that should they want to leave comments I’ll try to play nicely, assuming they’re brave enough to own their words. I say that as a person who, when I was still a believer, DID put my name on my comments when I (and I’m not proud of this) defended Prop H8. I did it, but it terrified me. So I understand why you might not be willing to do the same. I would just like to say that if you’re not willing to link your name with your beliefs on the matter then please ask yourself why that is.

Faith

2010-03-04T09:56:00.005-07:00

The following rambling post is written by Adam. Holly would have made it more concise and clear. That's why she gets better grades in English class, I guess.

I recently responded to a facebook status from a TBM friend-of-a-friend that read:

"Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind: which if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything, but upon good reason; and so cannot be opposite to it. He that believes, without having any reason for believing, may be in love with his own fancies; but neither seeks truth as he ought, nor pays the obedience due his maker, who would have him use those discerning faculties he has given him, to keep him out of mistake and error. He that does not this to the best of his power, however he sometimes lights on truth, is in the right but by chance; and I know not whether the luckiness of the accident will excuse the irregularity of his proceeding. This at least is certain, that he must be accountable for whatever mistakes he runs into: whereas he that makes use of of the light and faculties God has given him, and seeks sincerely to discover truth, by those helps and abilities he has, may have this satisfaction in doing his duty as a rational creature,that though he should miss truth, he will not miss the reward of it. For he governs his assent right, and place as he should, who in any case or matter whatsoever, believes or disbelieves, according as reason directs him. He that does otherwise, transgresses against his own light, and misuse those faculties, which were given him to no other end, but to search and follow the clearer evidence, and greater probability." -- John Locke

Now, normally I try to avoid getting into the middle of a TBM's testimonybook, but this time I actually had something to say that wouldn't make me a troll.
So I said:

Great quote! I'd love to pull that one out to stick it to the theists who say I've chosen Logic as my God instead of using faith - they never seem to see that they still have REASONS for deciding what to have faith in!

Which elicited this response from someone else:

I would compare logic to the thought process behind making decisions, and faith to taking action based on those decisions. They complement each other perfectly and both are required to succeed. If you sit in the library all day and do nothing but think the only good you have done is to give the custodian another piece of furniture to dust. If you constantly act without thinking, you give the paramedics a lot to do. God requires and expects us to think, and then to take action of our own free choice.

I found this stance frustrating. By that definition, Atheists and Theists use faith equally. Every day, I reach out my hand and flick the light switch, with full faith that it will turn on the light over head. But is that really what we talk about when we say faith? By using such a broad definition of faith, you've robbed it of its intended meaning.

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
(I love playing "The Devil quotes scripture"!)

Faith is about things you haven't seen. Really, it's about things you CANNOT see, because if you see it, then it's not faith anymore. So the light switch analogy would only apply to faith if the person had never seen a light, had no understanding of an electric circuit, but had been told that if he moves this piece to this position, a light will appear. That would count as faith.
The next day, when he goes to turn on the light again, it would be something different, because now he has SEEN that turning on the light switch causes the light bulb to illuminate.

Most religious people will tell you that their faith is built on prior experiences, that they have seen the light switch turn on in the past. Really though, they haven't. Ask around. Have any of them ever seen a miracle? Most will tell you yes. Ask the details. Most likely, it was "I felt really horrible and I got a blessing and I felt better", or "I paid my tithing and then even though money was tight somehow we made it through." If we want to match this to our analogy, it would be like turning on the light switch, then seeing if there's any sunlight that day. Chances are, at some point, the sun will shine through their window, making it brighter. They will believe that this was because they turned on the light switch. But there's always the caveat: if they had turned on the switch and light hadn't shone, it's because of God's will (His path for you, or a test of your faith). If they hadn't turned on the light switch and the light had shone anyway, it was God either reminding them to turn the light switch or testing them to see what they would do.

In short, they pay lip service to logic in connecting the dots to point to a conclusion, but the dots are placed arbitrarily based on the expected outcome.

Not long ago my father was trying to get some of his artwork showcased. After 3 or 4 deals fell through, he finally got one gallery to host him. To him, this was a testimony builder - God had lined things up such that he really had to work hard, keep trusting and not give up. But what would have happened if he had been successful on his first try? Well, that would have been a testimony builder, God blessing him for his righteousness. What if he had never succeeded? It would have been God showing him that this was a road he shouldn't pursue (sometimes God leads us down a dead end to show us to go the other way).

And what would have happened if my father weren't a man of faith? Well, with the same artwork, and the same dedication, he would still have had the same results. (I wonder how much effect these things had on the unraveling of my testimony? The blow that shattered the illusion was realizing that if God weren't there, everything would look exactly the same.)

A short while later, my parents were considering buying a new car. The researched that model, they trusted the dealer, all was well and they were very excited - until the day they went to sign the papers. Then Mom got a nervous feeling. She didn't say anything because Dad seemed fine. She tried to ignore it, but it got worse and worse. At the last second, when dad was about to pull out his pen and sign, she pulled him aside. They decided that even though they don't know why, they should follow that prompting of the spirit.
How does this story end? There was no "a week later someone else bought the car and it blew up!" or "a month later we had major financial problems." They never found out why they were "instructed" to not buy the car. But they still sent out an email to the whole family thanking Heavenly Father for His loving guidance. To them, that was a faith promoting experience!

Now, the next time they have a bad feeling and it turns out wrong, they'll draw a line between those two dots and find God. But where was God when they got scammed by the crappy window installer 10 years ago? Where was God with every bad stock they bought? Basically, life is a whole sheet of graph paper. Stuff happens. Sometimes it's random, sometimes it's due to our actions, sometimes it's due to the actions of others.

Logic dictates that we look for patterns, that we try to find cause and effect in the world around us. The scientific process is one where a theory is made based on observations, then future results are predicted based off that pattern. If the results don't match the prediction, the prediction must have been wrong.
Faith is where an event happens, then people assign a supernatural cause. There is only one dot, but they draw a line. Once their line is established, all dots that don't fall on that line are ignored, and many dots that don't hit the line are fudged to make them fit the predetermined pattern.

I think now that my original point was flawed. Initially, I wanted to show that Logic is inherently a part of faith - people use logic to decide what to believe in (otherwise it's just gullibility, not faith). Some people connect the dots of reading the book of Mormon, praying, and feeling the spirit. Some people connect the dots of turning to God and having their lives change. I've even had someone try to convince me that the Bible was unique among all other books by being written over the course of thousands of years, but still containing one consistent message (He obviously hasn't read the whole thing - it's anything but consistent).

I think what I'm seeing now is that Logic does play a role, but it's a very superficial role. While they may use some semblance of logic to connect the dots, it is mysteriously absent during the process of placing those dots.

So maybe I have chosen Logic as my God? So be it. At least I'm sticking to my guns instead of having one foot in each boat.

-Adam

Tweeting Your Abortion

2010-02-25T17:42:00.002-07:00

So, there's this single mom on Twitter who is live tweeting her abortion {medical, not surgical}. Her IUD failed and she got pregnant with her boyfriend. She was 6 weeks along. She's listed some of the reasons she doesn't want to be pregnant; she has a special needs son and wants to be able to focus on mothering him; she has significant pregnancy-induced medical risks. She's also made it clear that her reason for tweeting about it is to demystify the process because there's a lot of misinformation out there, and because she wants to help remove the shame stigma.

And I think she's fantastic.

Some people are calling her an attention whore {or just plain whore}. I have a hard time buying the idea that she'd be taking these risks just for 15 minutes of fame. Apparently the death threats have already begun...it seems some extremists only value life up until a person is born. But I don't want to waste my time talking about the nut-jobs going after her. I don't have that kind of time.

This whole thing has really grabbed my attention. I've been doing research on some repro-rights and women's rights, etc. And an online friend in Provo clued me into the awful new law headed to the governor's desk in Utah. Have you ever noticed, after buying a car, that you suddenly see that car ALL the time ALL over the place? I guess it's like that. Repro-rights and abortion have been on my mind and now I'm noticing the issue coming up all over the place.

The discussion of which I've been a part regarding the law in Utah have been interesting. Some people have defended it with a "well, it's not going to be used in a bad way" argument. I think that's an irresponsible assumption. Laws are often twisted in one way or another...and the wording of this law is practically begging for it to be applied in bad ways. I have a lot of thoughts on the situation, and not sure how organized they'll turn out to be but, here goes:

I fell down the stairs TWICE while pregnant. It must have been on purpose! Nobody's that clumsy, right? {Hah! Even the most graceful woman can find herself suddenly QUITE clumsy while pregnant, center of gravity changes, can't see your feet, etc.} The first time I fell I hesitated to head to the hospital. I was worried out of my mind, but I was also worried I was overreacting and that I'd be a burden/nuisance to the hospital staff if I went in to get checked out. Eventually some online friends convinced me that it was worth it, if for no other reason than to get some peace of mind. So I went in. But I sit here, and I remember how I hesitated {I hesitated even though it wouldn't have cost me a dime}. And I imagine how much more hesitant women will be to seek medical attention if they're worried someone is going to report them to the police. After the case in {was it Iowa?} in which a woman was turned over to police after falling down the stairs I worry that women in Utah won't seek medical attention after accidents.
Who gets to decide what's reckless? Is the woman who has a baby at 40 being reckless because of her age? Is the woman who feels trapped in a violent relationship being reckless? Is the woman who drinks coffee while pregnant being reckless? What about the woman who eats deli meat, or sushi? What about the woman who goes horseback riding every day {I knew a woman online who rode every day, including the day she went into labor}. It's easy to say the law won't go too far...but not only can you not promise that, you have to ask...WHOSE definition of too far? Some people have an occasional drink while pregnant {sometimes following the, in my opinion, bad advice of their doctors}. I think that's reckless...but I don't think it should land a woman {a woman who may have a family who depend on her} in jail.
I'm wary of any law that seems to put an embryo's "rights" above that of an actual, living, breathing, thinking, person. - I don't believe an embryo is a person. I think at some point a fetus must count as a person because I don't feel comfortable with the idea that passing through the vagina suddenly instils a baby with person-hood when there was none the day before the birth. That said, I don't know where that line is drawn...age of viability? Maybe. But here's the thing...very, very, very few abortions are late term. In Canada {according to Wiki} "During the year 2003, 6.5% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks, 2.2% between 17 to 20 weeks, and 0.8% over 20 weeks" And {also according to Wiki re: the US} {my thoughts in pink} of the women who got “late term abortions” did so because of the following reasons

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion - With the number of anti-choice laws in place that attempt to do just that {make it difficult to get an abortion} this doesn't surprise me. The pro-life movement is actually doing fetuses a disservice in this case. If they didn't make it so damn hard for women to get a safe and legal abortion this number would probably be a lot smaller because the women this number represents would have been able to get the abortion earlier on {this problem also occurs with the pro-life efforts to restrict access to Plan B and birth control}.
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents - This is a cultural problem that won't change any time soon I'm sure, but I think the woman tweeting her abortion and the article in Glamour probably help. If 26 out of 100 {Wiki} pregnancies are ended by induced abortion worldwide, then it's probable that we all know someone who's had one for some reason or another. If we can remove the shame stigma from it then we can lower this number too. I would much rather women be choosing Plan B, or RU 486 than be getting abortions later in their pregnancies when we can't be sure of the person-hood status of a fetus.
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion This number {as well as the 6% who didn't realize timing was important and the 5% who didn't know they could get an abortion} are disturbing. Women who are educated with the truth about abortion will have an easier time making their choice, one way or another. But the sad fact is that there is a LOT of misinformation, or in the case of abstinence only programs, no information at all. This is yet another reason I think it's great that the woman on twitter {and now another woman getting an abortion who has joined her} are tweeting. Honestly, I've been pretty clueless myself. I'm educating myself now, because it interests me. But I really have been holding some outdated, untrue, etc. ideas or been unaware of certain facts. This seems to be common. In the discussions I've been seeing it seems most of us aren't even clear on the difference between Plan B and RU 486 and how they work, nor what the laws say about our bodies. And I find myself very unsettled by the idea that we're not making sure we know what's going on, not only medically concerning our own bodies and options, but politically and legally.
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy I'm wondering if this number includes induced stillbirths.
11% Other
So, yeah, off on a tangent there. But my point is this...I think a law that values fetus rights over the rights of women {about whom we have NO doubts of their person-hood} are anti-woman. Women are people, not just walking incubators.

As best as I've been able to glean from the news is that this whole mess got started after a 17 year old girl hired a man to beat her up in an attempt to cause a miscarriage. I definitely think the girl should be charged with filing a false police report, but I certainly don't think we need to go and create a dangerously vague law in response to this one, very sad situation. And I'm annoyed that the "solution" to this problem is to create a new law that infringes on women rather than CHANGING the bad laws that created the situation in the first place. This girl hired this guy because her father wouldn't let her get an abortion. Utah has parental notification and consent laws in place so her FATHER got to make the decision about HER body. That's just wrong. Parental consent laws are wrong. And here's why I think that...first, it's not the parent's body. The parents will not be going through 9 months of pregnancy and then giving birth. It's not the parents who will have to provide for this child by either raising it or giving it up for adoption. Secondly, parental consent laws basically say "we, as a society, think you're old enough to be a parent but not old enough to decide on your own, without your parent's knowledge/consent whether to have an abortion." That's ridiculous. But now they're making another bad law to fix the problem created by the first bad law! I also have to wonder how this girl might have fared if Utah schools taught comprehensive sex ed. Did you know that the Provo location of Planned Parenthood gives out more Plan B than any other PP in the nation? Just something to think about.
This law isn't about protecting people, it's about punishing women...punishing them for having THE SEX outside of the prescribed manner, or punishing them for being "BAD MOTHERS" {being reckless while pregnant}, etc. This girl was stupid, but I don't think we should make stupidity criminal. What I do think is that we should make it easier for girls like her to get safe, legal, and {preferably} early abortions.

I really do think that, ultimately, most anti-choice laws have more to do with punishing women than we'd like to admit. And the way some pro-lifers talk about women only strengthens that suspicion. If it were really about babies then the pro-lifers wouldn't be trying so hard to limit access to Plan B {emergency birth control} or regular birth control. But it's NOT just about babies. On some level it's about THE SEX. Some people don't want people having sex outside the prescribed "appropriate" manner {heterosexual marriage}. It doesn't matter that not everyone holds the belief that only married people should have sex. Some people who think that's wrong think that they're on a moral high ground which makes it OK to enforce that belief on society as a whole...even if that means embracing sex education methods that lead to MORE teen pregnancy and MORE STDs. Of course, there are also the people who think that a fertilized egg = person. And I just don't know how anybody is supposed to reason with them. They're opinion isn't based on science or anything provable, so trying to explain to them that a 6 week old fetus should not have the same rights as a 20-something year old mother of one is, at best, a frustrating endeavor. These are often the same people who think regular, hormonal birth control, is evil because sometimes an eggs manages to get fertilized but then doesn't implant because of the birth control. To these people any type of abortion, even the ones women don't know about that were caused by their birth control, are murder. And then there are the outright liars who have been saying this woman on Twitter has aborted a fetus with arms, and eyes, and hands and blah blah blah.

But back to the "punishment" idea. If you listen long enough to the arguments against choice you'll hear the subtle indicators that underlying the anti-choice movement is a current of misogyny. Phrases like "well she should have kept her legs shut" or the more polite version "she made her choice when she chose to have sex" and "she wants to have sex without consequences" {"consequences being a code-word for "punishment"} are often thought-stoppers. But we should think about them, hard. First off, we should think about the imbalance of this attitude. It takes two to do the {horizontal} tango. But we only seem to insist on punishing the girls...their biology makes it so easy to do so. But secondly, when we throw arguments out like "well, this is the consequence or her previous choice" as an argument against abortion we're basically saying it's more important to us that this girl or woman face the consequences/punishment for having THE SEX than it is to consider her well-being or the well-being or a potential child. And, for those of us who are married and using birth control, it's doubly crappy for us to use this argument. When we do that we're saying it's OK for us to have THE SEX and not want the consequence {babies} because we're married...but it's not OK for the unmarried people. That's a double standard based on moral codes not all of society shares.

So, there are some of my thoughts. I'm pro-choice. I'm uneasy with late-term abortion; it's great that it's so much more rare than the anti-choice movement would have you think. I don't know that I would feel comfortable legislating my uneasiness. I think that if we made sure all our citizens had not only comprehensive sex education, but easy and affordable access to birth control, Plan B birth control, and RU 486 that we wouldn't even need to worry about late term abortion. And I think the new law in Utah is at least as stupid as the current laws that created the problem in the first place.

You Gotta Ask Yourself…

2010-02-24T12:17:00.001-07:00

Q: According to Ezra Taft Benson, “we are to ‘give heed unto all [of the prophet’s] words’--as if from the Lord's ‘own mouth,’" and the prophet will “never lead the church astray” {see quotes below}.

"I say to Israel, The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God." (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, selected by G. Homer Durham [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946], pp. 212-213.)

“I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home....Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: "My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it." Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, "But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray." Marion G. Romney [In Conference Report, October 1), p. 78]

The Prophet Brigham Young said {among many reprehensible things}:

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.10, p.109)

As a Mormon I was always told that God would remove a prophet before he would let him lead his people astray. So, here’s what you gotta ask yourself: If Brigham Young was the prophet, and he was incapable of leading the church members astray, then what do we make of this particular teaching?

Was he just “speaking as a man?” The problem with that idea is that:

Ezra Taft Benson warned against dismissing the teachings of a prophet in just that manner.
It seems far too convenient an excuse to not make anyone with a shred of logical thought suspicious. “Follow the prophet! Follow the prophet! Follow the prophet! Don’t go astray! Follow the prophet! Follow the prophet! Follow the prophet! He knows the way…except for when he doesn’t because he’s just speaking as a man and we can feel free to dismiss anything he says if we don’t like how it makes the church look.” {That last bit is a play on a song Mormon children sing regularly on Sundays.}

So, was he not speaking as a man after all? The problem with that idea is that:

It makes it pretty damn clear that the church was in fact racist and that God is a huge jerk.
It begs the question…why is interracial marriage OK with God now, but not then? Which in turn begs the question…so, in the future, will God decide he’s OK with gay marriage after all?

Makes you wonder…doesn’t it?

I’m A Winner!

2010-02-23T11:17:00.001-07:00

I would just like to say THANK YOU to all those who voted for me in the Brodie Awards. I won in two categories!

Check it out!

Please Vote For Me

2010-02-09T10:10:00.002-07:00

If you head over to Main Street Plaza they’re having a blog awards thingy. I’m nominated in the following categories and would LOVE it if you voted for me. :)
Best Humor Piece: Well, Duh
Best New Blog: A Marvelous Work and a Blunder
Best Gay Rights Post: Some Common Arguments Against Gay Marriage
Best LDS Church Watch: I’m Not Buying It
I would especially like to win Best New Blog and Best Gay Rights Post {though, I feel weird about that being straight and all…but it’s a post of which I am very proud}. I actually didn’t vote for myself under Best Humor Piece because, well…the LolDowment {scroll down} just DESERVES to win.
So anyway, please vote for me. I’ll love you forever and ever, or something.
Thank you!

Liar, Liar Pants On Fire!

2010-02-01T17:55:00.002-07:00

The official church statement regarding the film 8: The Mormon Proposition:
"We have not seen '8: The Mormon Proposition.' However, judging from the trailer and background material online, it appears that accuracy and truth are rare commodities in this film. Although we have given many interviews on this topic, we had no desire to participate in something so obviously biased." {via the Washington Post, emphasis mine}
HA! Ha ha ha! AHHH HA HA HA! *snort* HA HA HA HA HA HAA! Ah ha ha! *snicker* Hee hee hee hee hee! *squeal* Ha ha HA ha ha HA! *pant*
I can’t speak to the accuracy of 8TMP because, like the church, I haven’t seen it {yet}. But I’d like to think that if the film were full of lies and inaccuracies the Washington Post might have pointed that out, or that Sundance wouldn’t have selected it, or that…you know, the church would actually address WHAT is inaccurate or untrue. But sure, go ahead and just refuse to see it because it’s “so obviously biased” and throw out snarky little sound bites about accuracy and truth to make people {and by “people” I mostly mean “church members”} believe it’s just anti-Mormon propaganda and the church is once again, the victim of persecution. I mean, I don’t for one minute buy this “accuracy and truth are rare commodities in this film” crap because if that were really the case the church could point out specifics. But you know, that’s not their style. The usual game plan is to paint anything critical of the church or its history as anti-Mormon lies and pretend it isn’t there {and warn the members to NEVER read such things}.
But that’s not what has me laughing.
What has me laughing is that this is the ultimate example of the pot calling the kettle black {except, in this case I don’t think they’re calling the kettle black so much as calling the clear crystal vase black, but I digress}. I mean, of all the organizations to know about lack of truth and accuracy the LDS church has to be a top one. After all they’re intimately familiar with lack of truth and masters of purposeful inaccuracy.

"Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. ... When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. As the scriptures say, there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.” Dallin H. Oaks

"My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors." Dallin H. Oaks

“There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.” Boyd K. Packer

Both of those men are current church leaders. Clearly they think the church’s reputation and the member’s “testimonies” matter more than truth or accuracy. And of course they’d have problems with full truth and accuracy regarding church history. Have you READ the true and accurate history of the LDS church? It doesn’t take much delving into that history to come face to face with problems with the version the church teaches. I’m not going to get into all the examples in this post because, well…it would be a really freaking long post and it’s already been done {by members of the church no less}!
You want a really insightful look into the practice of “lying for the Lord?” Check out this article.
I could, honest to Google, write an entire blog on NOTHING but the lies and inaccuracies the church teaches and not run out of material for years. So excuse me while I go laugh some more about the ridiculous hypocrisy of the church’s statement regarding 8TMP.
Because if I don’t laugh I’ll cry.

More on the LDS Church and Haiti

2010-01-26T18:52:00.003-07:00

After my last post about the LDS church and Haiti it seems someone signed me up for the LDS Philanthropies newsletter. Ha ha. {Can you say “unsubscribe?”} It was weird, but whatever.
Then I saw this article about the initial rebuilding costs in Haiti being $3 billion. Don’t forget, $3 billion is how much the LDS church is spending on their mall/condo building project.
Then I heard that just last month the LDS Church bought 3,152 acres in Florida for $31.7 million.
This month the church bought another 13 acres in downtown Salt Lake City for an undisclosed amount.
This past week the church announced they’re building another temple, this one in Payson, Utah.
Yet, with all this spending the church has the gall to ask their members to give, give, give so they can help Haiti. Don’t forget, the members already give 10% of their income {and more} to the church fully believing that the church is doing God’s work, helping the sick and afflicted, the poor, you know…the stuff Jesus taught? Never mind that estimates place the LDS church at giving a mere $3-4 per member to the poor each year {and I’ve seen estimates even lower than that}. Never mind that the LDS church is estimated to give LESS THAN ONE PERCENT to the poor. Never mind that WAL-MART {the store many people think is downright evil} gives MORE to charitable work {1.5%} than the LDS church does. Never mind all that, just pay, pray and obey!
Here’s another disturbing tidbit:

"In 1997, U.S. congregations of the similarly sized Evangelical Lutheran Church in America raised $11.8 million in cash donations for worldwide hunger. The same year it raised $3.64 million for domestic and international disaster response, for a one-year humanitarian cash total of $15.44 million, more than half the amount the LDS provided over fourteen years." P. 129, Mormon America , Richard Ostling {via MormonThink}

So, keeping all that in mind, I was more than a little annoyed when I received the following e-mail from a Mr. Barret Christensen from LDS Philanthropies:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello,
I found your blog online and noticed that you might have an affinity to the work the LDS Church is doing down in Haiti. If this is the case we officially launched a giving/informational widget for Church members to use on their personal blogs and social networks.
If you would be willing we would love to have you post this widget on your blog and social networks, to help spread the word and raise money for the cause. In the first three days of the widgets launch we have raised almost $100K. It has traveled to 89 countries and 54 different languages. We would love to keep it moving. If you have any questions please feel free to send me an email. You are also welcome to forward this email on to other LDS bloggers and social media users.
To share it, click on the “share” button which will expose the embed code for your blog or website. It will also allow you to post it to the more popular social networks.
Three methods for posting:
1: Here is a link: http://farm.sproutbuilder.com/load/swD1vM0bH6iRezSa.swf?_ts=1264353886&v=1264353880515
2: Here is an image of the widget that has the link embedded in it.

3: If you lose track of the widget you can always find it on the LDS Philanthropies, Humanitarian Services Site. http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/humanitarian-services/
Regards,
Barett
BARETT CHRISTENSEN DONOR SERVICES, LDS PHILANTHROPIES.
801-422-1940 (w) | 801-234-9587 (m) | christensenbt@ldschurch.org , barett@byu.eduLinkedIn: Personal, Business Personal, Business :Facebook
YouTube: Business Personal :Twitter
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My response?

You clearly didn't bother READING what I had to say about the LDS church and Haiti. I wouldn't give a DIME to the LDS Church. If they really want to help Haiti they can sell their $3 billion dollar mall and send them the money.
Mormon 8:37 For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for the notice at the end of the message, tough luck. You sent me an UNSOLICITED e-mail asking me to help make you money. Your church has MORE THAN ENOUGH MONEY TO HELP HAITI. STOP increasing the burden on your trusting members. USE THE MONEY THEY’VE ALREADY GIVEN YOU. AND READ MY #$&*ING POST BEFORE YOU ASSUME I’M INTERESTED IN YOUR WIDGET.
And, because I think it deserves to be repeated, here’s that scripture again {from the Book of Mormon}:

Mormon 8:37 For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.

Grrrrrrr.
Arrrrrrgh.
I wanted to write an eloquent post. But you know what? I’m too damn angry. I gave thousands and thousands of dollars to this church thinking I was helping make the world better, helping the poor. I shudder to think how few student loans I’d have to repay {if any} had I not been giving 10% of my pre-tax income to that dishonest organization. And I can’t stand watching loved ones, friends and family, handing over their hard-earned pay under the same {false} assumption. I can’t stand watching them ask for MORE money to help Haiti when they have MORE than enough. I can’t stand the utter hypocrisy of a church that preaches one thing and practices another.
I just can’t stand it.
If YOU can’t stand it either please share this post and my last post {via Facebook, Twitter, e-mail, whatever} with anyone you think needs to know about this travesty.

What Would Jesus Do?

2010-01-15T20:06:00.005-07:00

The Mormon church teaches that Jesus Christ is at the head of the church. HE leads it. It is HIS church {and all the others are wannabes, presumably}. Most members believe that Jesus has appeared personally to the prophet {currently Thomas S. Monson} and his twelve apostles. Many believe he visits them regularly. Keep these things in mind as you read this post.
The LDS Church refuses to disclose its financial information except for in countries where it is legally required to do so, such as Great Britain {though most other churches have no issue opening their books so that their members, and the public, can see what they’re doing with their money}. But it is estimated that the LDS church is worth $80 to $100 billion {yes, that’s BILLION with a ‘B’}.

“It is the wealthiest per capita religion in the world with annual tax-free revenues estimated to be $6 Billion per year. The LDS Church owns 928,000 acres in North America, is the largest ranch land owner in Wyoming, is the 2nd largest land owner in Nebraska (Ted Turner #1), has the largest cattle ranch in 48 states (Adjacent to Disneyworld in Florida), is the largest foreign landowner in UK. The LDS Church owns several businesses, numerous radio and television stations, its own insurance company, and is rumored to be the largest single producer of commercial beef in the USA . They own enormous properties in Hawaii including a Marriott hotel franchise in Hawaii, the Polynesian Cultural Center (which is the most visited tourist attraction in Hawaii)…” and more. {via MormonThink}

The Church is currently building a $3 billion {yes, again, that’s BILLION with a B} mall/office/condo building in Salt Lake City {a MALL in this economy? Geez, it doesn’t take a prophet to know THAT’S a horrible idea}. They assure us no tithing money is being used. And since they refuse to let us see their books we’ll have to take their word for it. Of course, any money they make from their business ventures is money that was originally tithing {maybe from a hundred years ago}, and then invested. So really, it’s a bit moot, don’t you think?
The church coughed up at least $189,903 in non-monetary expenditures for Prop H8. And, after sending a letter to its wards {ward = congregation} throughout the US, it cajoled members into giving around $25 million.
This sad thread of comments {many from former ward clerks who are responsible for local money matters} indicates that a single ward may bring in $500K to $1 million each year but only receive a very small amount back to fund ward activities such as Christmas celebrations, children’s programs, etc. {in one case one ward sent $15k per WEEK to headquarters in SLC and was allotted just $7K {yes, there are NO zeroes on that number} for the entire YEAR}.
Members are expected to tithe, and unlike many churches that leave it up to the individual to determine what a tithe is, and if they can afford to pay one, the LDS church has a strict interpretation. A tithe is 10% of your income {and most “good Mormons” will insist it’s 10% BEFORE taxes}. It doesn’t matter how poor you are. If you want to be a member in good standing, if you want to be admitted into the Temple {for worship or family weddings} you must be paying tithing. In some wards if you need financial assistance, or food it won’t be given unless you’re paying your tithing {and even then, it’s not the Church’s job to help members who are struggling}. Every year you’ll be hauled in and asked if you’ve paid a full tithe that year. On top of tithes members are expected to donate extra money to help the poor {wait, extra money to help the poor, what the hell happened to all that tithing they paid?}, help pay for the missionary program, and more. And, since each ward is budgeted so little to pay for its programs, many members end up paying out of pocket for things like photocopying, food, etc. in relation to their callings {callings = assigned, unpaid positions}.
OK. Now, stop. Let it all sink in, particularly the $3 BILLION mall. What else could $3 billion buy?
Well, if a mission costs each missionary {yes, those guys in suits are PAYING for the privilege of knocking on your door} $400 USD p/month {that is, each young man or woman pays the church $400 then the Church gives them money back based on the expected expense of where they’re serving, much like it treats its wards – missionaries often struggle to have good meals, toilet paper, etc. and end up spending extra of their own money – Adam knew missionaries on his mission that depleted their life savings picking up the slack}, and If a mission is 2 years {18 months for the women}, that’s about $9,600. For $3 billion the church could pay for 312,500 missionaries instead of insisting these young men and women VOLUNTEERS and their families be the ones struggling to foot the bill.
Or, better yet, instead of paying for people to go harass us door to door the church could do a lot, and I mean A LOT of good in Haiti.
But wait! “The Church IS helping Haiti!” some would protest.
You’re right, let’s take a look at what they’ve done.

Within 24 hours of Tuesday's quake, the LDS Church joined forces with one of its major partners of late in providing humanitarian aid, Islamic Relief USA, the nation's largest Muslim relief organization.
Islamic Relief USA officials announced Wednesday they were flying aid to Haiti in cooperation with the LDS Church.
Two planes, one departing from Denver as early as Thursday and another leaving from Miami later this week, each will transport to Haiti more than 80,000 pounds of food and emergency resources such as tents, tarps, water filtration bottles and medical supplies donated by the LDS Church, spokesman Scott Trotter said. {via Deseret News, the newspaper owned by the LDS church}

Unfortunately, MONEY not supplies is what is needed right now. And, as of yet, I have heard nothing about the church sending money {though they seem to have plenty to spare}. Even Brad and Angelina have pledged $1 million already. But, it is still fairly early I guess? Maybe it’s too soon to judge. So let’s take a look at how the church helped in an emergency in the past…
As I mentioned before, we don’t know what the church does with its money in the US. But we do have insight to their behavior in the UK. And here is the disturbing summary of what happened after the 2005 tsunami:
The church asked UK members to donate money to help the tsunami victims. Guess how much of the UK members donations went to tsunami victims?
No, really, guess.
OK, you ready for the answer?
Nothing.
Nothing went to the tsunami victims. {For the full story click here and scroll down to “The Tsunami.”}
Personally, I think charity fraud is vile. It’s the worst kind of people taking advantage of the best kind of people. And, in my opinion, what happened in the UK is charity fraud. It makes you wonder what is happening in the US where the church isn’t required to open their books.
Some estimates place the church as donating LESS THAN 1% of its income to help the poor.

In Jan. 2006, from the Church PR department, (Deseret News Publishing Company): Edgley said, “that since 1984, the LDS Church has donated nearly $750 million in cash and goods to people in need in more than 150 countries.” That averages to 37.5 million per year or about $3-$4 per Mormon member went to the poor. The total of $750 million in 22 years spent in cash in goods to people in need is less than HALF what the church is spending on these malls. Less than half!! The Mormon church is spending less than 1% of its income to help the poor. {via Exmormon.org}

They could prove us wrong. They could be as upfront as other churches, say the Catholic church about their charitable work. They could let us see just where their members contributions are going. But I suspect we wouldn’t like what we’d see.

{ETA: The death toll in Haiti is expected to possibly be as high as 200,000 people. That's well over the population of Salt Lake City! And yet the church has only helped send a measly $1 million worth of supplies? We, as a family, have given a little over three quarters of 1% of our yearly income to help Haiti. So, percentage-wise we've given more to help Haiti than the church gives in humanitarian aid TOTAL.}

So, remember the first paragraph to this post? You know, the bit about Jesus Christ himself directing this church?

What would Jesus do?

Build a mall, apparently.

Addendum: The church says it is continuing to send aid {though, still no word on whether they have contributed any of there vast monetary resources} and that it is using local church buildings to provide shelter. So that's definitely better than a kick in the face. But the overall concerns I voice in the post {such as the less than 1% in aid} still stand. And I will continue to distrust LDS charity until they OPEN THEIR BOOKS TO SCRUTINY.

Pink

2010-01-15T10:36:00.001-07:00

Remember when I told you about the new Young Women’s program and how Mormon girls are being taught that they are pink?

Not long after I found this: http://www.pinkstinks.co.uk/ They say their aim is to:

   * Inspire, motivate and enthuse girls about the possibilities and opportunities open to them
    * Improve girls’ self esteem and confidence, raise their ambitions and ultimately improve their life chances
    * To challenge the 'culture of pink' which is based on beauty over brains and to provide an alternative

Now that is an idea I can get behind.

And no, the irony of ranting against this “girls are pink thing” while having pink in my blog color scheme is not lost on me.

Just Sayin’

2010-01-13T14:32:00.001-07:00

You know, maybe instead of spending 3 billion {and more?} on a shopping mall LDS Inc. could have set aside that money for an emergency just like the earthquake in Haiti.

Just sayin’.

Here’s what I had to say about this tragicle.*

Here’s what Jerkface McJerkison Pat Robertson had to say. {SPOILER ALERT: they brought it upon themselves for making a pact with the devil.}

For a list of organizations seeking your donations visit my post.

Please, don’t pray. Pay.

*tragicle: video explanation

Comment Response

2010-01-12T20:22:00.001-07:00

When I get a sincere comment from a member of the church I like to put a little effort into responding. So, for reference, here is a comment I got {in its entirety}, followed by my thoughts.

I have written & re-written a comment 4 times now, because I'm so unsure of how to phrase what I wanted to say, in a way that doesn't sound offensive to you.
I came across your blog & was curious as to 'why' you left the church. I'm sorry for the trials you went through, & your feelings now about the church. I am glad you are, at least, happy.
I am an active LDS member, I was converted in New Zealand & now live in Utah with my husband & adorable kids.
I felt that in your description of when you left & why, you were very one-sided. I felt you weren't pointing out the 'happy' members. As in, the ones who don't 'look down at worldly people', or feel 'inadaquate most of the time'. I try not to judge people, I try to be more loving & understanding & do consider myself a good person. Not brainwashed, & not stupid. I'm following my heart, spirit & head. And it lead my to where I am - I asked a billion questions, got my answers (& some of them weren't easy to get!) But I made sure I knew what I was doing as I lost all my friends and most of my family joining the church.
But there are members (I meet them everyday) who are "sunday" members. Thinking that because they're baptized, they have a free ticket into heaven. There are those who judge daily, are mean, cuss, cheat & steal.
BUT - there are those who don't. That have a great feeling about them, that have a testimony, & stick to their covenants. That go in knowing what's what, & understanding and loving everyone. Even those who hate them (not indicating you, I just mean there's alot of people who dislike 'mormons,' for being 'mormons') And I feel like I'm one of those people. I am sorry for what you went through, but I wish you had of been more ... level? Thanks for your post though, & having the courage to post it!

First, I appreciate that you put so much effort into your comment. And I will try to be gentle in my response. But past doing our best to speak respectively we cannot control those we are speaking to. Ultimately you may or may not be offended by what I have to say. But know that I do not intend to offend, and that I will be writing with more care than usual {when I write to a general audience I don’t hold back so much with the snark, but when I’m talking to an individual I try to treat them as I would like to be treated}.

Firstly, it is not my job to be a PR machine for the church and it’s “happy members.” The church spends quite a lot of time and money trying to convince the world that Mormonism makes them, and will make everyone else, happier than anything else. I feel it is my job to point out that that is not always the case, and often is not. If Mormonism is God’s one true church, and Jesus’ yoke is indeed light then that raises some serious questions about the depression rates of members, particularly women.

And of course there are good people in the church. There are good people outside of the church. Good people do not mean that something is true. And while yes, there are good people, there are plenty of bad people too. They say the church is perfect, the people are not. But one has to wonder why “God’s perfect church” produces so many problems in its people. And Mormons, particularly lifelong members, don’t understand that outside Mormonism people are very different {in a good way}. If Mormonism is all you know you might not recognize that people can be, and are, kinder, happier, more helpful, and any number of things.

But people aside, the gospel isn’t true. The church is built upon the lies of a charlatan, a man who used religion to manipulate people for money and for sex. And if Mormons were the nicest people in the world it wouldn’t change the history and truthfulness {or lack thereof} of the church, nor the fact that these things are hidden. And you may choose to look further into these issues or not. Despite the church discouraging personal research I would recommend that you do. Read “In Sacred Loneliness” or visit even this member-run website. Visit some of the sites in my sidebar. If, as Gordon B. Hinckley said, the church is either true or it is a fraud, wouldn’t you want to be sure? If it is true, what does it have to fear by having the full history known by its members? And if it is a fraud, can’t you think of better ways to spend 10% of your income? ;)

This next bit won’t be pleasant to read, I’m sure. I’d probably not like to have read it a year ago, but I want to be honest in my response to you. Just know that I don’t say this in an attitude of condescension, but one of sincerity:

“I try to be more loving & understanding & do consider myself a good person. Not brainwashed, & not stupid.”

Would you expect a brainwashed person to think they are brainwashed?

I would encourage you to read Lyndon Lamborn’s excellent book on the topic of mind control as it relates to Mormonism. But if you don’t have the time, or the money for his book, watching his presentation or reading this overview would be second best. Whether intentional or not, Mormonism in practice, changes the way people think. It “brainwashes” people {a crude term but it will do}.

I do not think you are stupid, by the way. Plenty of VERY smart people believe some very strange things. Breaking free from Mormonism is very seldom about intelligence. It’s usually about courage, a honest desire to know the truth no matter what, and sometimes, luck.

“…as I lost all my friends and most of my family joining the church. “

In the same comment in which you tell me how happy you are, and that you are not “brainwashed” you tell me you lost all your friends and family to join the church {an experience I’m somewhat familiar with, as a convert myself}. What sort of church causes such rifts? What kind of loving father in heaven would want to drive wedges between his children because he insists one church is better than another? I suppose you could argue that it’s the fault of all your friends and all your family that the rift exists. But are you sure? Are you sure you sacrificed those relationships for a good reason, and not because you were influenced to believe it was a good reason? I would want to be sure.

I felt sure at the time that I damaged my own family relationships and friendships. I thought feelings were proof of truth, because that’s what I had been told. And I liked the people telling me, so I believed them. I believed my emotions {or “the spirit”} could testify of truth. I didn’t stop to think how easily feelings can be manipulated {aka “brainwashing”}. I didn’t stop to think that “the spirit” felt just like I feel when I watch a moving film, or read a touching story. I didn’t stop to think that other people’s feelings about Islam, or Zenu, or any other number of gods/religions are just as convincing to them. Many things did lead to my eventual “deconversion” but ultimately, the one thing that started Adam and I on our exit path was facing this question: How is my “knowing” the church is “true” any different than the Pentecostal who “knows” the rapture is about to happen or the suicide bomber who “knows” he will receive 72 virgins in heaven?

After honestly asking ourselves that question everything started to unravel. After we answered that question and made the decision to resign our membership came many “revelations” about the true history of the church, the changes to temple ceremonies, etc. It took us many, many months to undo the thought training we never thought we had. Now I’m not saying the church maliciously plans how it can manipulate people. But people are being manipulated.

“There are those who judge daily, are mean, cuss, cheat & steal.”

As a side note, it’s troubling to me that you placed cussing alongside stealing in your list of reprehensible sins. That you would place them in that manner as if cussing is as an indicator of what makes a person “bad,” makes me wonder.

All that said, if you are happy, then be happy. But consider this, I thought I was happy too. I told anyone who would listen how happy I was. But I came to realize that I thought I was happy because I was told that I was happy.

Thank you for YOUR courage to post your comment here. I can imagine, especially if you’ve read some of my snarkier posts, or earlier, angrier posts, I might come across as pretty scary. I’m really not. I’m outspoken, but I’m honest. I guess you think of me as a “missionary” for freethinking and truth. Take care.

The Thinking Has Been Done

2010-01-10T11:34:00.004-07:00

Somebody shared this article with me. Here it is, in its entirety, with my own off the cuff comments {in blue italics}.
A woman sat at her dining room table, buried in dozens of books and magazines. She looked discouraged. Her daughter asked if she could help. This little story strikes me as made up. There’s nothing wrong with made up examples…when they’re clearly labelled such. This just irks me.
The woman said she was preparing a Relief Society lesson. She told her daughter she didn't know how she could possibly "boil down all the information" she had collected for the lesson. The process, the woman acknowledged, was both time consuming and frustrating.
The daughter looked surprised.
"Why," she asked, "are you trying to boil down information? An inspired Church-writing committee has already done that for you." Oh yes, the thinking has been done. No need to do it yourself. Thinking is what? Too hard? Too dangerous?
The committee's work, the daughter continued, has been approved by the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. It has been translated into dozens of languages and sent around the world. It corresponds with the lessons and information taught at the same time to other auxiliaries and quorums in the Church.
Now the woman looked confused.
"Everything you need — and more — is in your manual," the daughter said.
As Church members, we are asked to prayerfully prepare Church lessons and activities. We are to seek personal revelation from the Lord and study Church materials and instructions. We can counsel with our presidencies or committees and seek advice from priesthood leaders as we strive to meet the needs of those we serve. The scriptures are an invaluable resource.
But we may be tempted to do more, to turn to unofficial lesson plans, resources and information found in books and on the Internet. DANGER! DANGER! DANGER! DANGER! OMG! THE INTERNET, BEWARE! “Don’t read anything not from the Church! It’s anti-Mormon!” They’ve been playing that card for years. But I love that they’re tightening their grip and, as illustrated in this article, saying to not consult anything EXCEPT the manual {the recently dumbed down manual for 2010}, not even books from Deseret Books! Not even the history of the Church or the Journal of Discourses! HAH! I can bet why, too! BECAUSE THERE IS SOME REALLY MESSED UP STUFF. You read the real history of the church {and I mean, from Mormons, not just non and ex-members} and you learn stuff they won’t teach you in Sunday school. It’s true, what they say about “studying your way out of the church,” it happens quite a lot. What does it say about an organization that discourages people learning about its history? What does it say that there are people who set out to seek knowledge {often so they can affirm their testimonies} and the knowledge they gain sends them running? Many TBMs would say they have something wrong with them, that their testimony isn’t strong enough, that they need to have faith…when what they need to be asking is this “what did they learn?” The problem isn’t with the people, it’s in the knowledge they gained.
Sometimes, the material might seem like an easy solution to meet the time-consuming demands of Church service. Other times it might feel like a way to spice up a lesson or activity.
But leaders and teachers in the Church do themselves and the people they serve a disservice when they turn to unofficial — not correlated — materials in the planning of lessons and activities. Translation: Leaders and teachers in the Church do THE CHURCH a disservice when they turn to unofficial—not correlated—materials in the planning of lessons and activities.
Correlation is an inspired effort overseen by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to simplify the programs of the Church and unify Latter-day Saints in faith and doctrine.
Since the early 1960s, Church members have seen the results of more than four decades of correlation efforts, established to:
Maintain purity of doctrine. Translation: Bury the stuff the Church would rather we not know about.
Emphasize the importance of the family and the home. Translation: Appear more mainstream and focus on milk, not meat.
Place all the work of the Church under priesthood direction. Translation: CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL.
Establish proper relationships among the organizations of the Church.
Achieve unity and order in the Church. Translation: Squash dissent. Silence questions.
Ensure simplicity of Church programs and materials. Translation: BORE THE MEMBERS TO TEARS.
Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve said that correlation is a process "in which we take all the programs of the Church, bring them to one focal point, wrap them in one package, operate them as one program, involve all members of the Church in the operation — and do it all under priesthood direction" ("Lesson 42: Continuing Revelation to Latter-day Prophets," Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual, 243).
Today, the correlation process helps ensure that materials published in the name of the Church — carrying the Church logo — are scripture-based, doctrinally accurate and appropriate for the intended audience. “Appropriate for the intended audience?” Am I the only one who finds that kinda creepy? That’s the kind of thing most people use to describe making sure a movie or book is OK for a child to enjoy…it is certainly not the kind of thing I’d expect in reference to mature adults who should be capable of thinking for themselves. All Church publications are planned, prepared, reviewed and implemented under the direction of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.
Following the advice of her daughter, the woman above turned off her computer, shut the dozens of books open on her dining room table and picked up her manual and scriptures. The frustration she had previously experienced disappeared. She knew the material was doctrinally accurate. She knew its source was valid. She knew it had been approved by the men called to lead the Lord's work on the earth today and that it was what they wanted her to teach. Following the advice of her daughter, the woman above turned off her brain. The frustration she had previously experienced disappeared. She didn’t have to face the prospect of learning unpleasant things and struggling to make sense of them without losing her testimony. Besides, it would be less time consuming to just teach what the men wanted her to teach.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks said in his October 1999 general conference address that as he traveled the Church he had been pleased and impressed with how Relief Society and priesthood lessons were presented and received.
"However," he added, "I have sometimes observed teachers who gave the designated chapter no more than a casual mention and then presented a lesson and invited discussion on other materials of the teacher's choice. That is not acceptable.
"A gospel teacher is not called to choose the subject of the lesson but to teach and discuss what has been specified. Gospel teachers should also be scrupulous to avoid hobby topics, personal speculations, and controversial subjects. The Lord's revelations and the directions of His servants are clear on this point."
Elder Oaks asked Church members to be mindful of President Spencer W. Kimball's great instruction that a teacher in the Church is a "guest."
Quoting President Kimball, Elder Oaks said a gospel teacher "'has been given an authoritative position and a stamp of approval is placed upon him, and those whom he teaches are justified in assuming that, having been chosen and sustained in the proper order, he represents the Church and the things which he teaches are approved by the Church. No matter how brilliant he may be and how many new truths he may think he has found, he has no right to go beyond the program of the Church'" (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, "Gospel Teaching," Ensign, November 1999, 78). STOP. READ THAT AGAIN. If that quote came from a South Korean government official, or a radical Muslim, or any number of people would anyone hesitate to take issue with it?
President Thomas S. Monson said there is peace that comes from teaching with the spirit of obedience. Oh, yes! Just like a dog, who when obedient to his master, is rewarded with food, and shelter, and the occasional game of fetch. Yes, let’s be like animals. Let’s not use the brains we’ve been given to think for ourselves. Pray, pay, and obey. Because, don’t you know, the rest of the world has no peace? We atheists, especially, are miserable.
"As we teach others, may we follow the example of the perfect teacher, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," he said. "He left His footprints in the sands of the seashore but left His teaching principles in the hearts and in the lives of all whom He taught." (Thomas S. Monson, "Examples of Great Teachers," Ensign, June 2007.)
The Church — through its inspired correlation program — has given us official sources of information to help us prepare lessons and plan activities. Instead of turning to unofficial books and Web sites, let's use those sources.
It’s amazing how the same organization that gives us the song and dance about the glory of god being intelligence is the one working SO hard to keep its membership from USING intelligence. The thinking has been done. Not all truths are useful. OBEY! Teach what we tell you to say. Turn of the internet. Put down the book. Only gain the knowledge we WANT you to gain.
But, mostly, I just feel bad for the members who have to sit through these dumbed down, repetitive lessons. I’ve certainly got better things to do on Sunday morning.

Women Who Need Gods, Handsome Princes, Paramedics, and Vampires

2010-01-07T17:17:00.000-07:00

{This was posted by a regular at one of the forums for ExMormons that I frequent. I thought it was fantastic and got permission from the original poster to repost it here. Enjoy!}

When I was a little girl, my sister ("Mary") and I would often play make-believe together. Mary was obsessed with a certain TV actor (Johnny) who played the part of a paramedic in a weekly series. So was I. Mine and Mary's playtime usually involved pretending we were injured so Johnny could come and rescue us. It was quite hilarious but we were quite infatuated. Especially Mary.

I remember one specific occasion when Mary wanted me to break her leg so paramedics could be called to her rescue. No, I'm not kidding. Of course I would not even try to comply with her demands and even at that young age (5ish?) her obsession struck me as not a good thing. Not emotionally healthy. Where did it come from? Make-believe was one thing, but hurting oneself to get attention took playtime to a whole new level.

Mary and I were raised in a very patriarchal home and had several other siblings. We read lots of fairy tales about the beautiful princess who was always saved -- not by herself -- but by a handsome prince. So we dreamt about handsome princes who would someday come to save us.

Our mother and older sisters devoured Harlequin Romances that were all pretty much the same: Some perfect chiseled and ruggedly handsome brilliant man who possessed a bottomless fortune, who was named something like "Roarke" or "Thor" or "Rex" somehow fell madly in love with insipid female idiots with "honey brown hair" or "silvery blonde hair that framed her elf-like face just so."

I started reading those "books" when I was in junior high school. At first I devoured them too. But after about a year, I learned to hate them. I hated the women. I hated the men. The men were all about rugged and authoritative anger and passion while the women were boring and weak and helpless and unbelievably stupid. And somehow it was supposed to be a turn-on when the perfect man roughly grabbed the blank woman in his painful and passionate grasp because he could no longer contain his inexplicable passion as his lips crushed hers in their bruising and mobile moist exploration while his manhood made his desire for insipidly boring femininity painfully apparent. Ahhh. Romance.

I moved on to a different genre where the women were more intelligent and interesting and the men were more human and interesting and frankly, attractive. My sisters and my mother thought I was weird. Thank God, I was breaking the mold. Well, sort of. There was still that God I was still thanking.

Our father was a well-respected and perhaps even idolized church leader who also had a prestigious job. People in our ward and stake loved him and told us how brilliant and amazing and spiritual he was. Because he was our Dad, that made us feel special and important too. We basked in his priesthood and patriarchal glory. So did my Mom.

The boys in our family were treated with more respect than the girls. My older brother "needed" a car so he could drive to high school. I "needed" to take the bus. My mother expected me to clean my brothers' messy rooms and it raised all kinds of hell when I refused. I never thought it was fair that "housework is for girls and boys do yard work." What was so special about having a penis?

Then there was Jesus, The Perfect Man, who was also a god. Only he could save me. My puny efforts fell far short of sufficient. I couldn't escape my need for a male savior even in my faith.

In our patriarchal world where men were the idols of our idle thoughts, where the idea that women were nothing without men was the reality, Mary and I both married young. Of course we did.

While I had no visible talents, Mary was a talented and naturally gifted artist. She was an excellent student and only a class or two away from graduating with a degree in art when she casually discarded her gift upon realizing her one true dream of becoming Mrs. Johnny Doe. Now, several years after her divorce, she draws cutesy signs and posters and disposable handouts for her calling in the Young Women's program. She feels her lack of a man like a chronic pain. She knows she is nothing without one.

Mary found her "one and only" for the umpteenth time several months ago. She fell head over heels and said things to me like "he hangs the moon and the stars in my heart." Mary is still a little girl pretending, waiting and hoping to be rescued by the love of a fantasy man who will finally prove her value. He's an exmo and she's still hopeful. An unworkable combination. He persuaded her into his bed, and she persuaded him to attend church, all the while clinging to her temple recommend so she could show up all "righteous" to my TBM daughter's temple wedding -- from which I was excluded. I don't hold it against Mary. I feel sorry for her. Mary's exmo boyfriend recently dumped her. Poor Mary is again sitting at home alone feeling like she is worth nothing because no man appears to want her.

Her efforts to find her "one-and-only" have become increasingly more desperate as she expands her search to the internet, where she is advertising her availability like some package deal on overpriced ink cartridges for an outdated printer.

Mary loves the Twilight series about obsessively controlling and stalking vampires who step out of a magical world into the reality of young women who, like Mary, are not that special either ... and inexplicably fall madly "in love" with someone who has no special talents, no dreams or ambitions of her own to speak of. She's happy and fulfilled just being loved by some fantasy version of perfection.

What Mary does not realize is she does not need a god, a handsome prince, a cute paramedic, or a vampire. She is a beautiful woman with an inner strength she refuses to realize. Every week when she attends her church meetings her status as a second-class citizen is systematically confirmed. Her reliance on men for any sense of her self-worth is carefully reinforced. Her female role-models of true beauty, intelligence, strength and independence are silently absent. Instead, she gets bombarded with examples of bitchiness, jealousy, submissiveness, and obedient resignation to the patriarchal status quo.

Ahhh. Romance.

BARF

2009-12-27T10:45:00.001-07:00

So apparently more changes are being made to the LDS church’s Young Women’s program. I already have issues with that program. The inequality in spending on the young men versus the young women for example, or the lessons {implicit or otherwise} that teach these impressionable girls that THEY are responsible for the thoughts and actions of the boys, or the “licked cupcake” lessons, etc. But when I read this article about the new changes I about near died when I got to the following quote:

The booklets are pink. "We are excited about the color of pink, because we think these young women are pink. They resonate to the softness and the femininity of that color. We want them to understand that they are soft, they are unique, they are feminine and that they don't have to be like the boys."

Oh yes, the young women are soft. They don’t have to be like the boys {code speak for “they SHOULDN’T be like the boys”}. Because, OMIGOD you guys, it would be HORRIBLE for a woman to be strong! Strong isn’t feminine enough, apparently. And heaven forbid the girls be like the boys…the boys who are regularly encouraged to plan for missions, college, and careers while the girls are in the room next door being taught the importance of making babies and how to apply makeup {I’m not kidding, folks. I swear to Google I had lessons on MAKEUP in my time in the Young Women’s program}.

There are a million ways in which the LDS church is anti-woman. Apologists and Feminist Mormon Housewives arguments to the contrary Mormonism and feminism are mutually exclusive. I’ve been considering for months writing a book on the very topic…and this quote has got me riled up enough that I might just do it. But I dunno. I get so pissed off about crap like this that I can barely see straight, never mind write coherently.

Just, ugh. BARF.

Maybe I’ll write more later when I’ve cooled down. For now let me just end with this…

I AM SO GLAD I’M NOT RAISING MY DAUGHTER IN THAT!

Dead-Dunking

2009-12-09T16:50:00.001-07:00

Hey all! I know I’ve been absent. But after my daughter’s birthday party and Adam’s finals are over I’m hoping to do some more journal posts.

Anyway, today I wanted to take just a sec to share a link someone shared with me. If you’re not aware, within Mormonism there’s a doctrine which allows living people to be baptized on behalf of people who have died. It’s one of the things that happens in Mormon temples. Mormons are only supposed to submit the names of deceased RELATIVES, a policy the church really doesn’t do much to enforce. Which is why Pope John Paul II was baptized a Mormon posthumously.

Yes, I’m serious.

The Pope.

Also? Jewish Holocaust victims, criminals, founding fathers, etc.

Speaking as someone who once held this view I will say this: Mormons just do NOT get how offensive this is to non-Mormons. They think they’re doing a good work. They think they’re making sure these people get into heaven. After all, if you don’t believe in Mormonism why does it matter? What’s the harm? They’re not hurting anyone. If you don’t buy into the idea of proxy baptism then it shouldn’t bother you, right?

Wrong.

I see things so differently now.

Sorry For My Absence

2009-11-24T16:26:00.001-07:00

I explained over on my other blog that I’m MOVING. Yeah, we’re getting new digs. So my posting schedule is all messed up right now. When I do have a chance to post I’ve been focusing on Domestic Dork because I’ve got a bunch of tutorials and a blogging contest entry I’ve been working on.

But things should settle down some time in December. Plus Adam will be done with the semester soon, which means he can help wrangle the munchkin which means {hopefully} more time for me to write. :)

Unpaid Clergy and Why That’s a Problem

2009-11-16T12:12:00.002-07:00

Seems the LDS church is getting sued {again?}, along with the Boy Scouts of America, for sexual abuse of children. Obviously, sexual abuse of children happens in plenty of churches and you don’t need me to mention which ones. But this has me thinking…

See, on the local levels church leaders don’t get paid, nobody does. All positions are “volunteer” {and by ‘volunteer’ I mean ‘assigned-to-you-and-if-you-don’t-want-to-do-it-don’t-think-you-can-do-it-or-absolutely-hate-the-idea-of-doing-it-and-turn-them-down-then-you’re-turning-down-GOD-and-shame-on-you-now-go-home-and-feel-guilty-you-faithless-selfish-failure-as-a-disciple-of-Christ’}. This includes Boy Scout leaders. This includes Bishops, who are allowed to interview children and teens alone about many issues including sex, this includes Sunday school teachers, etc. Now, I will be the first to say that most of these leaders have good hearts, and wouldn’t hurt a child. My issue is that some of them are *not* trustworthy but are often trusted implicitly by other church members who assume that just because it’s a fellow Mormon they’re a good person and it’s OK to leave your child in their care {remember, most cases of sexual abuse are committed by people who are familiar to the victim…not by strangers}. And this would be a lot less of an issue if people were hired for these jobs.

Mormons take a lot of pride in their unpaid clergy. It often inspires condescension towards churches that pay their ministers. But is it really a good thing? I get the idea that followers of Christ want to give to “him and his church” but I’m not so sure that system is working. Aside from the fact that certain positions are absolute time sucks which take a person away from their family for hours upon hours upon hours each week with only “spiritual rewards” there are no background checks and no training for these people. Do you see why I think this is a problem? Leaders are expected to “follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit” when counselling with members. Now, you all know I don’t believe in the Holy Ghost anymore than I believe in Casper the Friendly Ghost. For one thing, if there really were an entity providing a conduit to the will of God, then why the hell is God telling people to call child abusers to positions in which they are in charge of children? Just saying’.

The way I see it, you have a scenario in which people are given trust and responsibility without having earned it. And that can create all sorts of problems. Let’s say Sister {in the LDS church everyone is called Brother and Sister instead of Mr. and Miss/Mrs./Ms.}, let’s say Sister Smith is having marital problems and goes into see Bishop Jones. Bishop Jones has absolutely zero background/training in psychology, or marriage counselling. He’s an accountant. But, because “God called him as Bishop” Sister Jones believes he’s qualified to help her. Let’s say Sister Smith’s marital problems are *really* serious. Let’s say she’s being abused. Maybe Bishop Jones counsels her to head to the women’s shelter to protect herself and her children. That’s probably good counsel. But let’s say Bishop Jones isn’t her assigned Bishop. Let’s say Bishop Thompson is, and let’s say Bishop Thompson counsels her to figure out what she’s doing that might be causing her husband to get angry with her, and tells her she needs to be humble.

Awesome.

See, there is a handbook that’s supposed to provide a guide to priesthood leaders. But it’s just a manual to Church policies. In the end these leaders aren’t getting checked up on to make sure they follow those guidelines, and I wonder how many of them actually read the whole thing before they start spouting their opinions as advice…er, I mean, before they listen to the Holy Ghost telling them what to say. There’s no predictable mode of operation. Leaders responsible for counsel and for church discipline are not trained for their positions, not even a little. But if the church had paid local clergy like they do at the upper levels, and believe me they CAN afford it, they could begin to solve a lot of problems, starting with child abuse.

ETA: Fellow ExMo and blogger Curmudgeon wrote about this very topic. Don't miss his post!!!

Guest Post

2009-11-11T13:50:00.001-07:00

I met Daniel when I was a freshmen at BYU. We’ve recently reconnected via Facebook. I was so impressed with his response to the recent announcement from the LDS church that I asked him to write a guest post. Daniel’s blog can be found here. And you can see some of his FANTASTIC artwork here.

Salt Lake City just passed an ordinance that protects gay people from being fired from their jobs or evicted from their homes simply because they are gay. In an unprecedented move, an official spokesman supported the ordinance on behalf of the LDS Church before city council. This is an important ordinance--I know because I live in Utah, and I am frequently scared that I could be fired from my job or kicked out of my apartment because I am gay. Don't believe it happens? Think again.
One of my friends was living in a privately owned apartment in Provo. The apartment complex as a whole was contracted with BYU. When BYU discovered that my friend was gay and had previously been in a relationship (he was, at the time, single and celibate), BYU called the apartment manager and forced the owner to evict him from his apartment.

I do appreciate the Church for standing up for this ordinance, though the ordinance would have passed with or without the Church's approval. I hope that this move will set an example for members of the LDS church and let them know that it's okay to support gay people and their rights in both the public and private sphere. Mormon friends, the stamp of approval is there--you can be a gay ally!
But as a whole, this small move is not enough. While it might make the Mormon Church appear moderate and reasonable, the reality is that the Church didn't make any concessions on this PR stunt. Case in point, the scenario involving my friend could still happen to me.

It's not just that the ordinance only applies to Salt Lake City and I live in Provo, though that is in and of itself significant. (Where was the LDS Church during the Common Ground Initiative when this very issue was brought before the State legislature?) Even if that same ordinance were passed in Provo, exemptions that the LDS church made sure were included in the ordinance would allow BYU to evict people from it's contracted housing even though it doesn't own that housing or collect rent from its tenants.

Says Michael Otterson, the official LDS spokesman, "In drafting this ordinance, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations — for example, in their hiring of people whose lives are in harmony with their tenets, or when providing housing for their university students and others that preserve religious requirements," he said. No wonder the LDS supported the ordinance! It seems they don't want anyone else to fire or evict gay people, as long as they still can.

As the Church stated, this ordinance protects common-sense rights. It shouldn't be significant that the Church stands up for common-sense rights, it should be a given. My head will turn when the Church stands up for equality and fairness even when it isn't obvious, and even when it means compromising previous positions that were discriminatory. And the opportunity for them to do that will come in the near future if they want to take it up, because as a gay Utah resident, my rights are still not protected. Equality for LGBT people isn't a reality yet.

-Daniel

Well, Duh

2009-11-11T11:00:00.001-07:00

I am opposed to the nuking of unborn, gay whales.

I support initiatives to outlaw stealing candy from babies.

I think burning your neighbor's house to the ground is wrong.

I think poisoning kittens is mean.

I am opposed to tattooing "LOSER" on people's fore heads against their will.

I am against mandatory euthanasia of menopausal women.

I support minorities' right to breathe.

I believe all people should have the right to call rainbows "pretty."

I think cancer is bad.

I think only a vile group of people wouldn’t support a law to protect LGBT persons from housing and job discrimination and that it is absolutely not newsworthy to state your support of basic human decency (unless of course you’re pulling a PR stunt in a pathetic attempt to draw attention away from all the other shitty, anti-gay things you do).

Just sayin’.

FAQ

2009-11-10T12:33:00.001-07:00

This section will be added to over time. If you have a question you’d like answered please leave it in the comments.

Why do you call Adam your boyfriend/partner? I thought you guys were married.

Please see this post for an explanation.

Gay Marriage: The Debate Continues

2009-11-10T11:17:00.001-07:00

I received the following comment on my last post about gay marriage.

I just have issues with the re-definition of marriage. You can say it "quacks" like a duck but really, it doesn't. Where do you draw the line? Should elementary and secondary school gym classes all shower together? Who has the right to tell a boy that he isn't a girl and so he isn't allowed to shower with the other girls? Marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't see why "gays" feel the need to redefine it? Make something else special and create a process for that. Call it "Euphoria" or what ever you want, but if you redefine marriage, then we should be able to call man-woman interactions gay (because according to you, we should be able to call anything whatever we want). Just a thought...

I’d like to address this very thoroughly…so here goes…

“I just have issues with the re-definition of marriage.”

Which one? The so called definition of marriage has changed countless times throughout history, as I pointed out already in my previous post. In fact, gay marriage is nothing new and has been practiced before modern times. So which cultural idea of marriage should we go back to? How about one in which women are property with no rights? How about one where parents arrange the marriage for their children. How about one in which divorce is illegal? Oh…wait. You mean you have issues with defining marriage as anything other than YOUR definition? I see.

Well, here’s how I define marriage:

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged by a variety of ways, depending on the culture or demographic. (via Wikipedia)

Huh. That definition says nothing about the sex of the parties entering into the marriage agreement. How ‘bout that? If you ask me, I’d say it’s a step forward for a culture to re-define it’s notions about marriage to benefit its citizens, to be more accepting and inclusive, and to provide further protection for peoples who have been, up to that point, without those protections. I think it’s just dandy that people finally came to their senses and realized “hey, maybe women are people after all” and changed marriage laws accordingly. I think it would be just dandy if we did the same for gays too.

But props to you for being honest. I agree, you do have issues. And since I’m not you nor your psychiatrist I can only guess at what those issues may be. However, you have the power to ask yourself and find out. Why do you have issues? Why does it bother you so damn much that gays who enter into a social union or legal contract that creates kinship call it the same thing you call your social union or legal contract that creates kinship? Are you sure you aren’t biased? Are you sure your issues aren’t with gays rather then semantics? Because I’m having a hard time seeing why, if you don’t have issues with gays you have issues with the semantics.

“You can say it "quacks" like a duck but really, it doesn't.”

Oh really? Two people fall in love, get engaged, get married, maybe expand their family with children, live together, celebrate anniversaries, take care of each other in sickness and health, for richer or poorer as long as they both shall live. Quack! Quack!

Oh…wait…they don’t have sex like you do! Uh-oh! Well, never mind then. Clearly sex is what defines a marriage. While we’re on the subject, what do you think about attacking other people’s marriages based on their sex lives? We could put cameras in peoples bedrooms and anybody we catch doing things considered improper in, oh, say…LDS culture, would have their marriage invalidated on the spot. So no oral sex, no viewing pornography, no mutual masturbation, and definitely no open marriages (regardless of whether it’s working for that couple).

That’s ridiculous you say? Why yes, yes it is. It is ridiculous for one group of people to throw their time and money extensively into a cause that takes away the civil right of civil marriage from couples who do not live up to their own notion of religious marriage. It is ridiculous to ignore all the similarities between one marriage between two loving, committed people and zero in on the sexual differences.

“Where do you draw the line? Should elementary and secondary school gym classes all shower together? Who has the right to tell a boy that he isn't a girl and so he isn't allowed to shower with the other girls?”

Yikes! That’s one big, ugly red herring you’ve got there! Let’s feed it to the logic shark shall we?

First off, we’re talking about gay adults entering into legal and social agreements, not children in gym class. Second, even if we were talking about children in gym class I think you might benefit from reading up on the differences between homosexuality and transexuality because you seem to be mixing them up. Gay boys do not think they are girls. Third this almighty “line” you mention? It gets drawn one law and one policy at a time. The gay marriage laws/policies are about gay marriage. They wont magically jump into schools and force changes there. You’re fear mongering. Fourth, are there really schools that still have group showers for gym kids? Seriously? My school didn’t even have showers for us period. And fifth and finally, putting aside reason for a moment, lets pretend calling gay marriage “marriage” somehow creates the unlikely scenario you’ve tossed into your comment. Here’s an easy solution: make private showers. It’d be better for everybody and would certainly cut down on a lot of anxiety, body shame, and hazing (that happens regardless of sexual orientation).

“Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Except, you know, when it’s not. But I’ve already addressed that once in this post and once in my last post. But the point I’ve been trying to make, and maybe you missed it, is that civil marriage is what society says it is. So how about we start being more inclusive and less homophobic and worry about our own damn marriages instead of everybody else's?

“I don't see why "gays" feel the need to redefine it?”

That’s because it seems that you haven’t truly put yourself in their shoes in an effort to treat them as you would like to be treated. Try it sometime, empathy is fantastic. I promise, trying to understand gays won’t make you gay. And you know what? I’ll help you out…read on:

Your purposed solution to the gay marriage issue is “make something else special and create a process for that. Call it "Euphoria" or what ever you want.” Really? Call it whatever they want? How about “marriage?” Oh wait..

You said you don’t see why gays feel the need to use the word “marriage.” Stop. Think. Think hard. You said you don’t see why gays feel the need to use the word “marriage”…within an argument all about how you don’t want them to use the word. You’re basically saying “hey! I care about this word and don’t like how you’re using it! You should just stop caring about this word so I can be in charge of what it means and how it is used! That’d be great! Thanks!” Clearly words mean a lot to you (they mean MILLIONS of dollars to certain groups of people…*cough cough Mormons cough cough*). Now, tell me again that you don’t understand why they matter to someone else?

Let’s make up a dorky name for YOUR marriage…”Euphoria” is already taken so how about “Blissisitude” or “Blissyness.” I like “Blissyness,” let’s go with that. How would you feel if I called your marriage a “Blissyness” and your spouse your partner? Everybody else gets to call their marriage a marriage, but not you. Now, be honest, that wouldn’t bother you? Put yourself in their shoes.*

Ask a Latter-day Saint how they feel when others say “you’re not Christian!” They’ll often say “Yes we are! We believe in Jesus Christ! We believe he’s our savior! His name is in the title of our church!” The naysayers argue back “well…you don’t believe in the Nicene creed!” Or…in other words Mormons don’t fit the mainstream’s definition of “Christian.” I don’t think you really need me to point out the parallels there.

Now, tell me why you don’t see why words matter? They sure as hell seem to matter to you.

“but if you redefine marriage, then we should be able to call man-woman interactions gay (because according to you, we should be able to call anything whatever we want). Just a thought...”

Just an illogical thought. I’m going to outline a basic logical premise for you.

If all dogs are mammals. Are all mammals dogs? No. Just because A = B does not mean B = A. If all dogs are mammals. And all dogs have paws. Do all mammals have paws? No (for example, whales or humans do not). Just because A = B and A = C does not mean B =C. Is that clear?

A “marriage”
B word
C definition that changes based on culture

A = B. A = C. That does not mean B = C.

So no, not according to me do I think we can call heterosexual relationships “gay” and be accurate. But thanks for putting those words in my mouth. They were yummy. And by yummy I mean “bitter and illogical.” Same difference.

I’ve been pretty rough on you, or rough on your comment at least. Anonymous comments get treated a certain way ‘round here. If you don’t respect your opinion enough to put your name on it, then why should I respect your opinion? I point this out because I want my readers to know that should they want to leave comments I’ll try to play nicely, assuming they’re brave enough to own their words. I say that as a person who, when I was still a believer, DID put my name on my comments when I (and I’m not proud of this) when I defended Prop H8. I did it, but it terrified me. So I understand why you might not be willing to do the same. I would just like to say that if you’re not willing to link your name with your beliefs on the matter then please ask yourself why that is. Is it because you’re chicken? Or is it maybe because they don’t quite ring true with what’s in your heart?

Think about it.

*From now on I’ll be referring to all marriages as relationships/domestic partnerships/etc. and all husbands/wives/spouses as boyfriends/girlfriends/partners. If gays shouldn’t care what those things are called then certainly straight people shouldn’t either. Right? I wonder how long it will take before someone is offended…

Some Common Arguments Against Gay Marriage

2009-11-04T14:49:00.007-07:00

I know I talk about this a lot. But I think about it a lot. Why? Maybe because I’ve always obsessed over what I find to be unjust. Or maybe because I’m trying to make up for lost time. But I feel the need to address it again. This time I’d like to list some common arguments against gay marriage, or against its supporters and my responses.

“I’m OK with domestic partnerships. Just don’t call it marriage.”

If it looks like a marriage. And it acts like a marriage. And it gets benefits like a marriage. And it quacks like a marriage. Then why the hell can’t we call it a marriage?

If you aren't prejudiced against gays, why do you seem to think it demeans your marriage to have it described using the same word? I guess my point is two-fold. First, if you don't have a problem with gays why do you care if they use the same word you do to describe their monogamous relationships? Second, if you do admit you have a problem with gays {maybe because your religious belief prescribes such} why do you have a problem with gays using the same word you do to describe their monogamous relationships? I don't approve of abusive relationships, but I don't in any way feel threatened by them being called marriages. It says nothing about me or my marriage.

“Marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s just what it is! You can’t change the definition.”

Why not? We’ve been changing the definition for millennia. Marriage is between one man and one woman…except when it’s between one man and several women, or one man and two women and some handmaidens too, or one woman and a couple men, or even marriage between a man and a man. Yes, that’s right. Same-sex marriage isn’t new.

“The Bible says homosexuality is an abomination.”

Why would anyone even use this argument anymore? Look, unless you’ve sworn off shellfish, are OK with slavery, want to outlaw divorce, and think it’s a great idea to follow EVERY rule in the Bible then you’re picking and choosing. Picking and choosing isn’t a bad idea. The Old Testament is filled with all kinds of crazy, awful shit {in fact reading it helped lead me to question and ultimately leave the Mormon church}. So please, pick and choose! But how about you try picking the parts that say love your neighbor, not the parts that say stick your nose into his business and tell him he can’t marry the man he loves?

Also, I don’t believe in your Bible anymore than I believe in the Siddhartha, or Dianetics, or the Iliad. And I sure as hell don’t want you making laws for me and my friends based on any of those religious texts. Let’s make laws based on group ethics, logic, and tolerance instead of ~~superstition~~ religious belief please.

Also, what about churches that do condone same-sex marriage? Why does your religious belief get to pre-empt their own?

“Gays and their supporters hate us. They’re bigots for calling us bigots. We don’t hate anybody. We’re not bigots. They’re boycotting us and blacklisting us.”

Well these guys are bigots. And so were these guys. “But I’m not like them!” That’s great. It’s really awesome that you don’t go around beating gays to death. But stop and think for a minute. Here’s a community of people who are all too familiar with being hated, most often by the religious. And then you come along and support the same initiatives that people like that would support. Is it really that surprising they think you hate them? You’re playing for the same team of people that do hate them, virulently. If you’ve ever found yourself thinking “I don’t want to support a group of people who can hate me so much, and call me names, and who can act like gays acted in the Prop 8 backlash” I have to ask…why can you support the aims of groups who act the way anti-gays do? Why do you base your support of a cause on the understandably emotional outbursts of a hurt minority instead of the merits of their argument? And why so much focus on the No on 8 group’s behavior? Were they the only ones behaving poorly? People act regrettably when they’re upset {even the police aren’t above reproach}. But that’s not a reason to pick sides, especially since you’d have to pick nobody’s side.

And why on earth is there all this anger about boycotts? Boycotts are nothing new. I boycott Nestle because I don’t like what they do. Will my boycotting change their behavior? Well, decades of boycott haven’t so far. But I’m still gonna do it because I’m speaking with my money. I’m saying “I don’t approve” with my wallet. To me, boycotts, like flag burning, are a form of speech, protected speech. And I will defend your right to boycott anyone you feel deserves it. LGBT persons and their straight allies are well within their rights to boycott supporters of legislation that they find reprehensible and hurtful. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. You are every bit as entitled to your opinion that homosexuality is wrong and you are free to donate your time and money to enforce that opinion. But you are not entitled to be free from accusations of prejudice for doing so.

Let’s look at the word hate and the word bigot. First “hate.”

dislike intensely; feel antipathy or aversion towards; "I hate Mexican food"; "She detests politicians"
the emotion of intense dislike; a feeling of dislike so strong that it demands action
Hatred (or hate) is a word that describes the intense feelings of dislike. It can be used in a wide variety of contexts, from hatred of inanimate objects (e.g. vegetables, bicycles, tables, chairs, etc...) to hatred of other people, or even entire groups of people.
hated - despised: treated with contempt {emphasis mine}

From where LGTB persons (and us, their supporters) stand we see a group of people so opposed to gays and having so little sympathy for gays {aka antipathy} that they felt it demanded the action of changing the California constitution {in the case of Prop 8} to outlaw them marrying each other. Their love for each other has been deemed contemptible and not worthy of protection.

Now, “bigot.”

a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion ...
bigoted - blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others; "a bigoted person"; "an outrageously bigoted point of view"
bigoted - Being a bigot; biased; strongly prejudiced; forming opinions without just cause {emphasis mine}

From where LGTB persons (and us, their supporters) stand we see a group of people so intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and religions that they legislated those opinions in a way that forces other families to submit to them without just cause {not without cause, but without what I think is just cause as evidenced by this post rejecting the supposed reasons for outlawing gay marriage}.

We’re just calling them like we see them. Frankly, I’d rather be called a bigot for hating what I view as bigotry then be called a bigot for supporting causes that hurt real people {and more than just their feelings}.

And if it’s not hate, what is it? What is it that could inspire you to stick your nose in other people’s families and legislate love? Fear? Would you prefer being called homophobes? I doubt it. Is it because your religious leaders told you to? Would you prefer being called obedient drones? I doubt it. Prove to us it’s not hate. Show us an argument against gay marriage that actually makes sense and isn’t based on fear or religious belief and maybe we’ll stop thinking you have a thing against gays.

What if it were me? What if I was your friend and I told you I was a lesbian? Would you still have voted to keep me from marrying the person I loved? What if it were your son, or your daughter? Is your precious “definition” worth enough to you that you’d rather protect it then protect them? If yes, then that seems like hate to me. If no, then why on earth are you doing it to other people’s friends, and daughters, and sisters, and mothers, and brothers, and uncles, and sons, and grandmothers? These are REAL people. And this is REALLY important to them. They can’t just forget this and move on after the election is over because every day they’re reminded by society that their love isn’t valued by their neighbors and coworkers. Every day that they go home to their ‘boyfriend,’ or their ‘domestic partner’ they’re reminded that people around them find their relationship unworthy of the word ‘marriage’ because they aren’t heterosexual. So while you go home to your husband or wife and all the legal and social respect and protection that comes with those words they don’t. Please don’t forget that. Please remember that next time you just can’t understand why they think you hate them.

“It’s not the same as interracial marriage. Gay is a choice, being black isn’t.”

Oh really? “Well, OK. Maybe people are born with gay feelings, but they still choose to act upon them!” Yes, that’s right. Just like YOU choose to act upon your straight feelings. Just like you chose to marry the person you married because that was who YOU loved. You could have chosen not to. You could have chosen to marry someone else, or to not marry at all. But you didn’t. You loved who you loved and you married them. You didn’t have to ask for society’s permission. And I’m betting very few {if any} gay couples would have wanted to deny you that special day and that special commitment you made to each other. So why do you feel the need to prohibit other people’s choices? So you're against gay marriage? Don’t have one.

“I don’t want schools teaching my kids gay marriage is OK.”

*head desk*

Look, first off…government schools teach government values. End of story. They teach that drugs are bad, acceptance is good, and that the founding fathers were all freaking heroes to be worshipped {never mind their imperfections}. I promise, every school in this nation is teaching kids something that their parents don’t like. Some teach abstinence only sex ed, which I find irresponsible. But it’s impossible to create a curriculum that will please everybody. So your options are either homeschool your kid or make sure you teach them your values...you know, parent them? If my daughter goes to a school that teaches abstinence only you know what I’ll do? I’ll teach her about safe sex myself. You know what I won’t do? I won’t fund or support a campaign to outlaw the marriages of couples who haven’t had sex before their wedding night.

That said…this is a fear-creating argument not particularly based in reality.

“Marriage isn’t a civil right.”

Oh, OK then. So then if a majority votes to say you can’t get married you’d be cool with that? I guess it’s easy to decide something isn’t a right when you’ve already got one and it’s not under attack.

What is a civil right? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Protection from discrimination? Is marriage a civil right? Yes. I say it is. Civil marriage is a civil right. Gays have every right to pursue happiness as married, stable couples who are not discriminated against based on their sex or sexuality. By all means, don’t let them marry in your church or your temple if your religion is all hetero all the time. And don’t try to sell me that crap about the government forcing churches to marry gay couples against their beliefs. Last I checked Mormons weren’t forced to marry inter-ratial couples in the temple {nor are Mormons in Canada, where gay marriage is legal nationally, being forced to marry gays}. Protection for religion is built into the American Constitution. I promise, it’s not going anywhere any time soon. And I promise, by extending more freedom and respect and protection to gays you won’t be giving away yours no matter what the fear-mongers try to tell you.

And if civil marriage is a civil right then the majority, no matter how big, should never be allowed to vote it away from the minority.

I LOVE Stephen Colbert and other links

2009-11-04T11:02:00.002-07:00

Hello! I’m busy writing my heart out for NaNoWriMo. But I’ll try to keep the blog posts coming as well. That said, I just watched part of last night’s episode of The Colbert Report. I laughed so hard. It was one of my favorite Colbert moments thus far. What was it about? It was about the kissing incident in Salt Lake City a while back. If you have a minute WATCH THE VIDEO. :) You can read an article about the segment here.

Here’s an article about an atheist bus ad that will be displayed in Seattle.

Also, please consider forgoing the pizza this weekend, or your latte and send that money to Jaeli’s family instead. Jaeli is a very sick baby girl. She has violent reactions to anything other than breastmilk and Jaeli’s mom needs help purchasing milk from the milk bank to keep her little girl alive. Giving about five dollars will purchase about an ounce of breastmilk.

ETA: If you're looking for another good cause to give to 8: The Mormon Proposition (a documentary coming out next year) is looking for financial help.

Halloween

2009-10-30T17:14:00.001-06:00

I’m really proud of the costume I made for my daughter. So please go check it out and feed my ego by telling me how purely awesome I am. :)

Around The Web

2009-10-29T09:40:00.002-06:00

This article about the church’s history of racism in relation to the recent statements from Oaks is an interesting read.

So is this article about the National Organization for Marriage, money, and Maine. In a nutshell the NOM doesn’t want to reveal who their donors are because complying with the law requiring they do so is “oppressive” and will threaten free speech. Ha-ha. I think what they mean is it will force people to own up to their speech. Seems their donors don’t want to come out of the closet and admit their bias against LGBTQ persons. Maybe they’re ashamed of their bigotry? Or maybe they’re just loser-chickens who want to be able to talk with their money in a way that hurts others but that won’t hurt them by causing them to actually face the consequences of people knowing they're asshats. In my opinion Maine voters have a right to know who’s trying to influence their laws. I don’t like these secret combinations if you know what I mean.

I just have to throw in this quote before I close:

"Fred Karger's claims are just - in a word - silly," says Brian Brown, Executive Director for the New Jersey-based National Organization for Marriage. "We've not received any contributions from the Mormon Church, and even if we had, every religious group has the right to donate to NOM just as they have the right to donate to other groups that stand up for issues that they believe in."

Really, not any contributions at all? Hmmmm…I find that hard to believe. But I guess we’ll find out for sure once the NOM starts obeying the law. When they do I’m sure I’ll have plenty to say. In the meantime read the articles for yourself. They’re not too long and they’re pretty interesting!

Temples and Taxes

2009-10-24T09:08:00.001-06:00

I read this interesting article about Temples in England and how they are not tax exempt. It’s a short read, but presents an interesting perspective on LDS Temples. The article claims that only 30% of church membership pays a full tithe (a requisite to enter the temple). I have no idea if that statistic is right, but I can tell you this, if it is I never had a clue. As a believer I would have been shocked if you told me that…in fact, I would have been shocked if the numbers were reversed and 30% didn’t pay a full tithe. I was operating under the assumption that almost all my fellow members were paying full tithes. I certainly was. To not pay a full tithe was to “rob God” while paying a full tithe insured protection, temple “worthiness” and financial stability. Yes, that’s right. I was taught that no matter how little money I was trying to get by on (and as a college student, it wasn’t much) if I paid my tithing everything would magically work out. And by “magically work out” I guess they meant “not work out without taking upon me tens of thousands of dollars of student debt.” Whatever, close enough. {insert big eye roll here}

Anyway, it’s an interesting article. Go read it. Or, ya know, don’t. Use your “free agency” and decide for yourself. ;)

Guest Post

2009-10-21T13:35:00.002-06:00

Today (and tomorrow) I’m a guest blogger on Godless Blogger. Don’t miss it!

My Apologies

2009-10-20T12:11:00.001-06:00

Look at me, all “I’m gonna post more!” and then I leave you hanging. Sorry. See, I’ve got this miniature person in my house. She’s adorable as all get out, but not entirely supportive of my writing hobby-but-god-I-wish-it-was-a-paid-career. It’s probably because she can’t read. That and she can’t wipe her own bum and dirty diapers definitely come before blog posts.

Also, a lot of people have beaten me to the punch on writing about Holland’s general conference talk and now I’m not as interested in tackling it. I did watch it. I have thoughts about it. But they’ve been said. In a nutshell? It was an emotional, thought-stopping mess riding the line between uninformed and downright dishonest. But the membership loved it. Apparently all it takes to do a good talk is use a prop (which, interestingly, the members are discouraged from doing in their own talks – nothing like leading by example) and get emotional. Sometimes I think public speaking should be a required class in high school…

Anyway, I’ve got to write two guest posts today. So I’ll just leave you with this trailer for a documentary I’m very interested in seeing. Also, I’m working on a glossary for this blog. So if you have questions about words, ideas, or whatever that you’d like some clarification on just leave a comment.

Persecution Complex

2009-10-14T15:12:00.004-06:00

You know, LDS Church leaders are giving me more material than I can keep up with. I still have two more General Conference talks I want to address but the stupid just keeps coming and now I also have a recent talk Dallin H. Oaks gave at BYU-I to discuss (plus the proxy baptism and marriage of a Catholic Saint and more journal posts to do}. I really don’t think I can address all this in a timely manner but I just have to say something about this ridiculousness from Oaks who said:

It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.

Oh. my. ~~god~~. Google.

This is *not* a joke. He actually had the audacity to compare Prop8 backlash (boycotts, protests, and some vandalism*) to the intimidation blacks and white allies faced during the civil rights movement. Hah! Coming from a church with a questionable history regarding persons of color I’m surprised he’s comparing themselves to the *victims* of the civil rights movement, and not the oppressors. But you know, I could spend all day going back on forth on whether the church was really racist or not {hint: as an institution, yes}. But what I really want to talk about is this:

You won {for now}. Your billions of dollars and your preaching and your volunteers and all your efforts to pass Prop 8 succeeded. You stripped the civil right to civil marriage from gays in California. So stop acting so damn persecuted because those of us who don’t feel threatened by our neighbor's love lives aren’t pleased about it.

You can’t make us agree with you.

People can boycott, and badmouth all they want because, thus far, you haven’t stripped that right from them. YOU decided it’d be a good idea to send a letter out to your membership mandating they give their support to the Prop 8 cause. They obeyed. Now own your actions, consequences and all. You sound, at best, absolutely silly whining about how persecuted Mormons are because people are pissed off at them, because people tried to deter the passing of Prop 8. You want to know what persecution looks like?

How about getting the shit pounded out of you for being gay?

As a friend of mine on Facebook pointed out, Mormons have their religious rights protected. It’s built right into the constitution. And despite Oak’s fear-mongering that isn’t about to change. But guess what guys, you don’t have the right to be above criticism, boycotts, or similar actions. Believe whatever the hell you want. But just because your opinions and worldviews are based on faith and scriptures they are no more immune to attack than opinions based on political ideologies, scientific theories, or bedtime stories. YOU may say God agrees with you. YOU may think we should all agree too. But WE think you’re delusional/homophobic/etc. But by all means…whine about how unfair it is for us to say so.

Complain about how it’s so unfair for people to boycott Prop 8 supporters (but it’s totally cool to fund Prop 8). Complain about how unfair it is for people to say you’re bigots (but it’s totally cool to preach that gays are sinners). Complain about how you’re the poor, pathetic victims of the big, bad, bully minorities (LGBT).

You do that.

I’ll be over here at my computer…laughing my ass off…

…Or crying. Whichever.

*Vandalism ain’t cool guys. Find another way to protest. Just sayin’.

ETA:

Former LDS President Ezra Taft Benson was known in the 1950s and '60s for referring to the "so-called civil-rights movement" as a communist plot, said American history scholar D. Michael Quinn, a gay former Mormon. {via The Salt Lake Tribune}

ETA:

Just a reminder...Oaks is the same guy who suggest parents refuse to let their gay children bring their partners home for the holidays or introduce them to their friends. I've mentioned that before.

National Coming Out Day

2009-10-11T16:16:00.001-06:00

Today is National Coming Out Day and I’m “coming out” as a straight ally. I live in Canada now {and I love it}. But I haven’t forgotten that my GLBT friends in my home country {the United States} are still not equal in the eyes of the law. Civil marriage should be a civil right throughout the United States. GLBT persons should be able to serve openly in the military. GLBT persons should not have to hide who they are. They should not have to fear for their jobs, or their safety. They should not have to be defined by their sexuality anymore than a straight person is defined by hers. They are not stereotypes. They are people, real people, people you know, people you work with, people you love…people who should not be treated differently because of who they love.

Arm Yourself

2009-10-08T11:46:00.002-06:00

This was written by Adam and posted elsewhere {the context isn’t all that important}. I thought it was really great and wanted to share it here.

The bottom line is that I just don't think that Religion and Reality coincide. How many times have you thought to yourself, "Gee, I really wish God hadn't set things up so that they look like a hoax." I would read the Book of Mormon and say "I wish God hadn't included so many references to things we can't find any archaeological evidence of." "I wish God hadn't changed the Lamanites’ DNA so it looks like they migrated from Asia ten thousand years ago."

Eventually, those things add up. You keep coming across pieces of information that don't fit, and you say "I don't know what to do with this, but I know that what I have is true, so I won't worry about this new information." It's like doing a crossword puzzle. If you get a word wrong near the start, you start having to think harder and harder to force other words to fit in. Eventually, you get to a word that you know the answer to, but it doesn't fit with what you've got. In Mormonism, the approach is to discard the word, assuming that there is some synonym that you don't know. "We'll find more archaeological evidence later that shows that there really WAS ____(Horses, Barley, Steel, Armies of millions dying in one place)."

But at some point, the cognitive dissonance adds up. You have to re-evaluate your initial assumptions. You have to say "what if that first word I put in was incorrect?" I've had a few members tell me that they ask this question constantly, and keep finding the same answer. I would have said I did that too. I was wrong. I had questioned my faith, but I had never really ASKED and looked for all possible answers. So I went back to my crossword puzzle, and I said "What if that first word was really *this synonym* instead?" And you know what? Now all the words start fitting.

The reason archaeological evidence directly contradicts the Book of Mormon account? I used to say God is testing our faith, and the evidence that will support the Book of Mormon has yet to emerge. Now I say the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction. It fits better.

The reason BILLIONS of people worldwide have spiritual experiences that lead them in directions other than towards the church? I used to say they were being led towards small nuggets of truth that exist in other religions, or that they were being caught up in emotional fervor, and mistaking it for the spirit. Now I say that the same is true for members of the church. A Pentecostal feels the rapture coming and is CERTAIN that Christ will take her. A Terrorist straps a bomb to himself and is CERTAIN that Allah will accept him. A Mormon reads the Book of Mormon and is CERTAIN God is telling him it's true. Is there really a difference? Can you compare your experience to that of someone else and say that yours is stronger? That yours is truer? That they are being emotionally misled, but you are immune to that? The simpler explanation is that this is a common human trait. When we hear a story about unfairness, we feel angry. When we hear a romantic story we feel romantic. When we hear a spiritual story we feel spiritual. Paul H Dunn has shown us by example that the story need not be True to make people feel "the spirit" and be convinced.
After I decided that there were too many coincidences to ignore, too many stretched explanations to replace one beautifully simple one, many things started to click into place.

"Aha!" I said. "THAT's why the Joseph Smith Translation of Matthew doesn't match the 3rd Nephi versions of the same sermon! Either Jesus gave the JST version in Jerusalem, then it got mistranslated to EXACTLY MATCH the DIFFERENT version he gave to the Nephites, (in which case, if it was good enough for the Nephites, why did it need to be fixed in the Bible?), or Jesus gave the Jerusalem version in both places (in which case the JST is incorrect), or Jesus gave the Nephite version in both places (in which case the BoM is incorrect). The simpler explanation? Joseph Smith didn't think of the JST until after he had written the BoM, and forgot to make them match.
And why do Egyptologists unanimously disagree with the Egyptian translations Joseph gave of the Papyri? Mysteries of the Kingdom? No. Joseph didn't speak Egyptian.

And there are dozens more: The Hoffman documents, The Kinderhook Plates, the sexual scandals (I was never taught about Joseph's other wives: he had 27, several of which were already married at the time. And yes, he consummated). There is just a TON of stuff that doesn't fit into "The Church is True" conclusion, so the church tells you to avoid it. “Don't read anti-Mormon propaganda, it is lies crafted to deceive you.”

“If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak.” —Journal of Discourses, George A. Smith

"Convince us of our errors of Doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God and we will ever be grateful for the information and you will ever have the pleasing reflections that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings."
- Orson Pratt, The Seer, pp 15-16, (1853).

"Mormonism, as it is called, must stand or fall on the story of Joseph Smith. He was either a prophet of God, divinely called, properly appointed and commissioned, or he was one of the biggest frauds this world has ever seen. There is no middle ground."

- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol 1, Page 188-189
If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed."

- J. Reuben Clark, D. Michael Quinn, J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1983, p. 24.
"Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."

- Gordon B. Hinckley. "Loyalty," April Conference, 2003.

Have you taken Hinckley up on his challenge? I did. It's true: there is no middle ground. I don't hold a grudge against those who investigate and still believe - that is your prerogative, but I think that it is intellectually dishonest. I do however prompt people to do the investigating. You don't even have to look at anti-Mormon materials, just go to Wikipedia. All sources are cited, and almost all of the sources are from within the church. Check familysearch.org, look at Joseph's marriages. Look up some of Joseph's prophecies. Read about Brigham Young.

If knowledge is power, you need to arm yourself.

We Know Because We Know

2009-10-07T12:00:00.003-06:00

As promised, here are more of my thoughts on the talk Elder Hales gave in General Conference.

After spouting off as fact what he thinks of atheists/atheism* Hales goes on to discuss knowledge, sort of. Let’s begin with a quote:

We know He {Jesus} lives because we believe the testimony of His ancient and living prophets, we have felt God’s spirit confirm that the testimonies of these prophets are true. {emphasis mine}

So…in other words he knows because he believes because he has a feeling?

Maybe I’m being nitpicky here, but to me that seems an abuse of the word “know.” I know my name is Holly because it says so on my birth certificate. I know I like pumpkin pie because I’ve tasted it myself. I know a lot of things based on personal experience and evidence, not feelings. Here’s a man telling millions of people he knows when what he really means is he believes, he feels, he trusts the scriptures and other church leaders. Of course, there are plenty of his followers who honestly believe he’s seen the resurrected Christ with his own eyes and really does KNOW. Of course that would be too sacred an event for him to disclose to anybody {how convenient} despite the fact that biblical prophets and apostles were always going about telling people God/Jesus had appeared to them. In fact, so did Joseph Smith…

Hales then talks a little bit about Joseph Smith who he says was called to prepare the way for Jesus' second coming. He doesn’t point out that Joseph Smith said he expected that second coming to happen within 56 years but hey, even prophets make mistakes.* Then he shares the church’s favorite version of the first vision story. And goes on to say, again, that you can know the church is true because…wait for it…

We told you so.

Yup, God is real and the church is true because prophets say so in General Conference. But then, the crazy guy on the street corner with the cardboard sign says the same thing so who’s to be believed?

Hales says you can trust the Holy Ghost. In other words, if you ever get warm fuzzies or strong feelings that’s the Holy Ghost telling you what the Church teaches is true. And that’s how you know. And oh boy, do we run into problems with this principle. In fact, this is probably the principle that most contributed to our exit from Mormonism.

Aside from the fact that it’s kind of manipulative to interpret people’s feelings for them {e.g. “those warm fuzzies you’re feeling are God telling you we’re telling the truth!”} it’s also irresponsible and downright silly to tell people because they feel something it is in fact true. As Adam often puts it:

A Pentecostal feels the rapture coming and is CERTAIN that Christ will take her. A Terrorist straps a bomb to himself and is CERTAIN that Allah will accept him. A Mormon reads the Book of Mormon and is CERTAIN God is telling him it's true. Is there really a difference?

Once Adam and I were willing to honestly ask ourselves that last question “is there really a difference,” once we were able to bring ourselves to wonder “could these feelings be, well, just feelings?” that is when everything came apart.

Hales then goes on to say that the Holy Ghost won’t testify to you if you’re skeptical. Yup, that’s right. God hates critical thinking. So you’d better suspend it. Don’t use your brain. Just wait for the warm fuzzies and we’ll tell you what they mean.

I don’t know if Hales realizes how dishonest his talk was. He may very well believe every word he said. But I find the talk not only offensive but illogical and deceitful as well {whether intended or not}. He’s a man in a position of power telling those beneath him that they shouldn’t think, they should feel and that those feelings can be trusted as being from God. He’s telling millions that they should believe because Joseph Smith said so, or because Thomas S. Monson said so. He paints critical thinking as something dirty and then frightens these people into line by telling them if they think too much then God won’t talk to them anymore {very loving fellow, this God} and that without God they’ll live meaningless, purposeless, and altogether crappy lives.

And I feel that that is reprehensible.

*Of course, the apologists would say he was just "speaking as a man” not as a prophet, which is the same thing they’ll say in response to any of the crazy shit Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, etc. said.

The Darkness of Secularism

2009-10-05T16:01:00.001-06:00

I don’t watch General Conference anymore {obviously}. But I hear things, both from fellow ex-Mormons who attend due to family pressure and from believers attending in faith. So when I caught wind of Elder Hale’s talk discussing atheism I was not exactly a happy camper. I may or may not have called him names on Facebook. I knew I wanted to write more thoughtfully about the whole thing {without the impulsive name calling} so I went ahead and watched the talk myself. It isn’t fair to criticize that which I haven’t given due diligence researching. You can ~~be bored by~~ ~~be angered by~~ watch it yourself here {it was in the Saturday PM session}.

Right out of the gate Hales is off and running with an attack on atheism. He uses loaded language like "the darkness of secularism.” There is nothing dark about secularism. The most basic meaning of the word refers to anything not being directly related to religion, so driving your car, doing your laundry, or playing ski-ball all qualify. What Hales may have been getting at was “the darkness” of secular humanism, which “is a humanist philosophy that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives.” Yup, gotta watch out for reason, ethics and justice…they’re bad ya’all.

Hales then says

Without God life would end at the grave. And our mortal experiences would have no purpose. Growth and progress would be temporary; accomplishments without value, challenges without meaning. There would be no ultimate right or wrong, no moral responsibility to care for one another as fellow children of God. Indeed, without God no immortality or eternal life.

~~Holy~~ Secular $#*^! Where do I begin? Let’s start with the {unoriginal} ~~criticisms~~ myths of non-belief.

Myth: Life is meaningless without God.

Unless you’ve lived a life without belief I really don’t think you’re qualified to tell me it’s meaningless, especially because, guess what, it’s not. Just because I don’t have a supernatural parent assigning meaning to my life doesn’t mean I’m incapable of finding or forging my own. Same goes for having purpose. I’m very happy determining my purpose in life {raising my daughter to be happy and good, loving and supporting my life-partner, fighting to make the world better and more beautiful, etc.}. And I don’t need geriatrics to assign a one size fits all purpose for me thankyouverymuch.

Myth: Without God people have no morals.

Please. That line may work on people who don’t have any atheist friends but it won’t work {I hope} on anyone who actually knows an atheist. I certainly hope my friends know I’m not running around eating babies, stealing cars, or cheating on my husband {my life isn’t that exciting, guys}. I still give to charity, strive for honesty {unless you ask me if that dress makes you look fat}, and try to do what is right and good. And I do it because it’s right, not because God told me to, not because God told me if I really loved him I would {manipulative parenting much?}, not because I’m afraid I’ll go to hell if I don’t. However, if by morality you mean not drinking coffee, not watching R rated movies, and not speaking ill of the Lord’s anointed then, OK, you’ve got me. I’m a sinner first class.

Let’s move on. Hales talks about how there is no ultimate wrong or right without God. What he fails to mention is that there isn’t an ultimate right or wrong with God either. Mormonism {any religion really} is full of contradictions in morality that make that perfectly clear. It’s wrong to murder…unless it’s a drunk guy that’s passed out in the street and he has something you really, really want and God tells you to do it. It’s wrong to have more than one wife…unless God tells you to do it. And so on. And frankly, I admit it…I don’t believe in ultimate wrong or right. I believe in shades of grey. I believe it’s wrong to lie, but if I had to lie to save my daughter’s life I’d sure as hell do it.

Hales also says that without God life would end at the grave, there would be no eternal life. Of course, he says that under the assumption that there IS a god and there will be eternal life. I believe there is no god and no life after death. If I’m right then believing otherwise won’t make it so. I’d also like to point out that believing this is all there is has actually added meaning to my life. I strive to extract every last ounce of joy and purpose from my time on earth because I know it’s limited rather than wasting my days looking forward to a celestial future that won’t come.

I have more to say about this talk. And there’s another talk by someone else that I think I’ll need to address. But this post is long enough. So, for now, that’s all. I’m going to go have a baby sandwich. ;)

A Fearless Champion of Truth!

2009-10-05T14:00:00.001-06:00

The following was written by my fellow ExMo and friend, Devin Z.

Have I ever told you about my experience with Telus (a Canadian phone company)? A couple of years ago we lived in Grande Prairie. We thought we were going to live there forever – most definitely a long time. So we went ahead and signed a long term contract for our Internet use, and in exchange we would receive a free computer. Telus had a deal with Dell, and we went through the motions to get our computer. However, after a month of waiting our computer never arrived. There was some error in the order. So again, we went through the motions to get a computer – another wait, and another failure. Three times is the charm? Not it case. We never received a computer.
It didn’t take us too long to realize Grande Prairie was a mistake for our family, and we started our preparations to move. I called Telus several times in this moving process and confirmed that we wouldn’t have to pay to get out of our contract because we were moving to an area without high speed Internet, and we had never received a computer. However, when the time came to move we were told that it was our fault for never getting the computer; Dell had charged Telus for the computer, and they were going to recover that charge through us.
I was pissed!
Try as I might, complain as I did, there was no way for us to avoid the charge, and I wasn’t about to have creditors chasing us down. It was money that we didn’t have. We were in the right unquestionably. If Telus didn’t have a virtual monopoly in rural Alberta, I wouldn’t drop a cent in their general direction. They have lost a customer forever.
It still makes me angry even though it has been a couple of years. It was only a few hundred dollars.
Now, imagine if you will that instead of being a few hundred dollars it was tens of thousands of dollars. And, instead of being just a business contract, it involved countless hours of all your time, talents, and energy. And then imagine how you must feel when you discover that that organization that you have freely given yourself to has lied, distorted the truth, manipulated you to believe in ideas that are provable falsehoods, and asked you to stake your personal integrity to witness for these “truths?”
My brother asks me: “Why is it that ex-Mormons seem to congregate to pull down their previous faith? I feel like you are included, but I thought you were above that?”
Here is the bind created by Mormon dogma: If I stay quiet, people will continue to fall prey to logical fallacies, emotional manipulation, and pseudoscience; if I take the time to speak the truth, Mormons believe that this is evidence that their church is true because “the wicked take the truth to be hard” or that obviously I have fallen prey to Satan’s influence.
Mormonism demands that its adherents are honest but then they are offended when we speak the truth. Mormonism stresses personal integrity but labels integrity a sin when a person leaves an organization that fraudulently misrepresented itself. Mormonism tells its followers to get an education but then silences those that learn something.
My own personal integrity says that I must speak out and warn those around me and maybe correct a problem that I contributed in perpetuating. It has nothing to do with spite or anger. And, it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that I would speak the truth. I was raised with the injunction to speak the truth and be honest in my dealings with my fellowman. My actions today stem from my unabashed pronouncement of belief despite my parents’ embarrassment in inappropriate situations or yelling out the windows to warn passersby’s of the evils of smoking. I am exactly what I was supposed to be – a fearless champion of truth!

So much of this could have been written by me, Adam, or a thousand other ex-Mormons. A big thank you to Devin for writing it so clearly and letting me share it here.

I’m Supposed to Come Up With A Title

2009-10-01T21:37:00.001-06:00

So, would it be weird if I wrote about stuff that has little to nothing to do with Mormonism?

Because I think I’d like a place where I feel like I can get into some really deep/thought provoking/etc. issues. And those kinds of things don’t always seem to fit on my other blog.

I’m not going to write anything like that tonight, because I’m tired and my brain feels broken. Just sayin’ I probably will in the future.

Journal Flashback May 6th. 2001

2009-09-23T14:50:00.001-06:00

This is the first of many, planned posts featuring things I wrote in my journals as a Mormon. I’m starting with the earliest stuff and working my way forward. I’m not going to bother editing the spelling and such because 1. I don’t feel like it and 2. it’ll give us all something to laugh about. Just FYI, all these journal entries were written in the form of prayers to “Heavenly Father.” Anything in {brackets} is added content for clarification.

Here’s the first excerpt:

That’s why we are told to live like Him {Jesus Christ}. You would never ask us to do something we can’t. It makes me feel better about myself. I don’t need to worry about whether I can do well at school and in my career. If I’m following my calling You wont let me fail.

The very first thing I noticed about this entry was that, at the time, I still was planning and looking forward to having a career. This entry was written very shortly after getting involved with the Mormon church. I still didn’t know a lot about “the Gospel” and I still held a lot of my own opinions and dreams. I hadn’t yet made the switch from a career mindset to the SAHM mindset. I guess I didn’t see, yet, that “my calling” would be a one-size-fit’s-all assignment, not some personalized path.

I wanted to go into show business. I started doing musical theatre when I was seven. I added competitive speech, drama club, glee club, etc. to my performing resume as I grew. My very last musical was the summer I wrote that journal entry. All the musicals I did were through the church I attended before becoming Mormon. I stopped auditioning for them as I became more wrapped up in Mormonism. I cannot begin to explain how much I regret that. I loved the stage. I miss it so, so much.

Don’t misunderstand me. I love my daughter. And I love that I’m able to stay home with her instead of having someone else care for her and enjoy watching her grow. I would be heartbroken if I wasn’t the one with her all day, every day. But Mormonism is directly responsible for the young age at which we decided to start our family. And while there are definite perks to being a young mom, and while I would never, ever trade my baby girl for anything I’m also not blind to the things I’ve missed by becoming a mother so soon.

There are, of course, the financial implications. If I wasn’t caring for Lucy I could be working full-time and supporting Adam while he’s in pre-med instead of doing freelance digital illustration which nets me about $2 an hour on a good day, and 5 cents an hour on a bad day. Providing for Lucy would be a lot easier without all the student loans and with a decent savings. But, in the end, money isn’t everything. And we’re doing OK for now.

There are other things to consider, my love for the stage being one. If I could find a show to audition for I wouldn’t be able to do so. There isn’t a director anywhere who would be fine with a cast member interrupting rehearsals to breastfeed her baby. Besides, there just isn’t time for plays. Diaper changes, feeds, play time, chores, work…I have to sleep too. By the time I have time to audition for another show I can tell you this…I’ll be too old to have a chance of being cast in the lead.

The sad fact is that Mormonism tells young girls and young women that careers are merely a Plan B. Plan A is get married and have babies {preferably lots of them}. A degree is important, sure…so that if your husband dies or leaves you then you won’t starve. But your “divine role” as handed down by God Almighty Himself is to be a SAHM. The end.

What makes that teaching even more dangerous is that Mormonism also teaches that the people saying this stuff are speaking for God. It’s not just advice, or an opinion that you can disregard if it doesn’t jive with your own. It’s God’s will. There’s a mostly unspoken understanding within Mormonism that a woman who works outside the home is selfish, and “bad.”

The expectations of when to have children and how many are, over time, changing. Many families can get away with having three kiddos instead of eight. And many couples, like us, wait a year, or two before procreating. But the pressure to do otherwise is still there. I dealt with guilt for using birth control from the time I was married until about two years later when we stopped. I was convinced I was denying some spirit in the pre-existence a place in my family and that I was a terrible person for it. And of course, a year or three before children doesn’t mean much when you’re also getting married at a young age. Because, even with the wait, you’re still really, friggin’ young.

I was barely 20 when I got married. Now I’m twenty-three. I can’t even rent a car without paying extra fees because the science indicates that my brain hasn’t finished “growing up” {the brain reaches full maturity around the age of twenty-five}. I love my daughter. I’m doing my best to do everything that is in her best interest. And, frankly, I think I’m doing a pretty great job. She certainly seems very happy and healthy so that’s gotta count for something right? So, in the end, for us, it’s worked out pretty well so far. But really, who thinks it’s a good idea to encourage women as young as 18 and 19 to get hitched and start a family? Before you’re grown up and before you have a chance to discover who you are and to just be that person for a while you’re suddenly responsible for this beautiful, wonderful, crazy, little person who can’t even wipe her own butt.

Would I have done things differently if it weren’t for Mormonism?

Sure.

Would I change it now if I could?

Not on your life.

About My New Design

2009-09-23T13:04:00.001-06:00

I did it all myself.
It may change slightly in the future but I’m planning on keeping it this way for the most part.
I used Photoshop, Inkscape, and fonts from:

100 “ExMo Points” if you can guess what inspired the triangles.
Yes I’ll help you with your blog…
No I won’t do it for free.

About “Eat, drink, and be merry:”

In The Book of Mormon there is a section that reads:

Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us.

It then goes on to talk about how foolish that is, and how there will be a lot of false churches and how wicked they are and blah, blah, blah…

It’s one of many scriptures that kids in seminary (church classes for teenagers) are supposed to memorize. Since leaving the church it’s become my favorite scripture because it so nicely describes my life and attitude now. I eat, I drink (coffee, tea, beer, wine, mojitos…mmmmm…mojitooooo), and I’m really freakin’ merry these days. And you know what? “Tomorrow” we will die. And we’re not going to fly up into the heavens to live with some magical sky parent. We’re going to stay dead. So I’m going to enjoy this life while I have the chance. :)

Changes

2009-09-22T23:46:00.002-06:00

You’ll be seeing some changes around here.

I sort of, almost, kind of addressed this is in a recent post – people like to hear my story. And, though my abysmal posting rate might indicate otherwise, I like to tell it. Mostly because I like to hear {or read} myself speak {or write}. And I’d like to post more often, but hadn’t really known what to say.

Until now.

See, all Mormons are encouraged to keep journals/family histories/etc. I started keeping a journal right away after getting involved with the Mormon church, *right away.* And I kept one since then more faithfully than many. In fact, the church is partly to thank for this blog. I started blogging as a way to keep a journal. Having a blog about my exit from Mormonism was just a natural step.

Well, I still have every single one of those journals. They’ve been sitting in a box for some time. I was mortified by the idea of actually reading them and facing my own stupidity and superstition. But tonight, as I lay in bed unable to sleep, I figured I should. Why?

Because it will give me something to write about, regularly.

Seriously. I’m not even half way through the first one and I’ve got probably ten posts worth of material. Which is impressive considering these early journal entries mostly consist of “I’m so happy! I love you, God!”

Oh, did I forget to mention that all my journal entries were written in the format of prayers?

Yeah.

They were.

I even ended them with “in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen” which is how Mormons are taught to end their prayers.

It’s going to feel pretty humiliating, especially at first, for me to share this stuff with all of you. I can’t believe some of the stuff I believed. I can’t believe some of the things I did. But I really think {hope} you’ll appreciate it. If nothing else, they should provide a good chuckle. But I think {hope} they’ll provide more like…

insight into how the church sucks people in
a glimpse into the terrifying abyss that is the mind of the teenage female
a real life demonstration of how all-consuming Mormonism is
opportunities to think hard about different things

Thus far I’m mostly amazed at how much worse my spelling and grammar were back then than they are now. But I’m also amazed at how similarly I spoke, at the time, about becoming Mormon as I do now about being ex-Mormon. This will really be an interesting journey.

Also? I’m thinking of doing a redesign of this blog.

Why?

Um…because I can do so much better now. UPDATE: Nothing like re-working your blog layout at 2am. What do you think?

"In the Shadow of the Temple."

2009-09-21T12:16:00.001-06:00

I don’t know much about it yet, but apparently there’s a documentary coming out called "In the Shadow of the Temple." You can get more info here on their blog. And you can see outtakes and previews on their YouTube channel, including this clip featuring one of my ExMo friends. I’m off to go watch all the other clips now!

Random Thoughts

2009-09-19T17:51:00.001-06:00

Despite my atrocious posting rate on this blog, you guys continue to follow me. And I’ve even gotten a few new followers. And I hate to disappoint an audience. So here I am. Posting.

I think part of the reason I’ve been so absent {aside from being busy writing for my other blog, and doing graphic design projects for my clients, and being a mom and all that stuff} is because I haven’t had anything relevant to say. I’ve been so wrapped up in living my life that I haven’t really been visiting the exMormon forums or taking the time to think about exMormon-y things. And that’s good.

9 months. That’s about how long it’s been since we sent in our resignation letters. Things feel so different now. I don’t think like a member anymore. I used to fear it’d take me years to deprogram the guilt and fear conditioning. But I’m very glad I was wrong.

People sometimes surprise me with how fascinated they are with my experience. One family member recently told me I should write a book about it. But what on earth would I say? Everything I have to say has most certainly been said before. And I’m not sure 8 years or so is enough experience to fill an entire book. If you want to read a book, get a hold of Lyndon Lamborn’s book. It’s great. But I do love to talk to people about the church, and what it was like, and what it means to be ex-Mormon. It’s always interesting to hear the questions people ask. Some people are more interested in what I believe now (I’m very much a non-theist). Some people want to hear about the weirder things, like what the temple was like and what my “temple name” was (Deborah). Some people want to know how others have reacted to my leaving the church. And others want to know how I got sucked into it in the first place. Then again, some people wish I wouldn’t talk about it at all. But that’s no surprise.

Truth is, all the evidence stacked against the church makes it clear to me what a fraud it is. And I will say just that to anyone who wants to listen. I feel it’s the right thing to do. And when people ask me questions I’m not going to demure and say “well, maybe you should ask a Mormon” or “Well, this is what a Mormon would say” (unless promptly followed by “but I say…”). Some Mormon’s will tell you “you wouldn’t ask a Ford salesmen to tell you about a Chevy.” True…but I’m not selling anything. I’m not asking for money, or anything at all (though the Mormon church asks for plenty)! And my response is “But you would ask somebody who’s driven a Ford for nearly a decade.”

So there.

I’ve driven the proverbial Ford for about 8 years. So ask any questions you want. I’ll do my best to answer them. Maybe you’ve seen the “Ask A Mormon” websites…well, consider this the “Ask An Ex-Mormon” website.

Ask away.

Militant Atheism

2009-08-26T19:08:00.001-06:00

The hubs and I recently watched this Richard Dawkins lecture on TED (I love TED and so should you).

And, as I blog, I’m having a twittervation about speaking my mind on Twitter vs. being sensitive to my Christian followers. Lately I’ve been getting a few conservative, Christian followers…guess they didn’t realize I’m a liberal, LGBT-supporting, Obama-voting, atheist?

At any rate…I explained my “politeness” on Twitter thusly:

I'll cuss sometimes. But I really like a lot of my Christian followers and don't want to lose them by being insensitive.

All of this makes me wonder…

Am I just being a scaredy-cat, follower whore? Am I too chicken to speak my mind for fear of losing my audience? Or is there merit in being user-friendly to a broader audience {especially when I do have an outlet for uncensored thoughts – this blog}?

Your thoughts?

Podcast

2009-08-04T10:11:00.001-06:00

Yay! It’s up! I haven’t listened to it yet. I wanted to share it with you all first.

You’re welcome.

Now…

…GO CHECK IT OUT!

This special panel brings together three couples: Devin & Melissa, Holly & Adam, and John & Zilpha. Each married young and less than six months after first meeting one another. They discuss their marriages in the context of Mormon culture. Specifically, they discuss the cultural elements that drove them to marry so quickly, the role of Church teaching in their marriages, BYU, the upside of these marriages, and having children. Finally, the panel gives advice to anyone else who might be contemplating a short courtship marriage. {Mormon Expression}

Spamming For Jesus

2009-08-03T10:14:00.001-06:00

I have an account with Xanga (blog platform) that I never use anymore. So imagine my surprise when, in my inbox this morning, I saw that someone had left me a comment.

Hello Ms. Van Gogh[screen name],
You made a nice-looking site but I see that you don’t write here much anymore!
I want to help people to really get to know Jehovah God, especially in these troubled times. 7Whatever the LORD God plans to do, he tells his servants, the prophets. (Amos 3:7) (CEV)

Niiiiiiice.

Niiiiiiiice…

2009-07-29T13:18:00.001-06:00

{click image to be taken to original source}

No commentary from me on this one, at least not today. Just know that I’m smiling as I type this. :D

Seen & Overheard

2009-07-26T17:26:00.001-06:00

{a round-up of tidbits I’ve come across on the internet}

I read the following on an Exmo forum the other day:

When I hear a TBM say "People only leave the church because they are offended" I really want to stop them short by saying "wow - that's an awful thing to say about your church. Are people so offensive in your church that they can turn half the members away from God with their behavior? What kind of church do you belong to, anyway, that drives away members in such numbers? What do they teach the members that makes them so offensive to others? You don't hear other churches claiming that they are so offensive they are losing members in droves. That's really a sad situation.

The official church website says:

• Remember that “a soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger” (Proverbs 15:1). It almost never helps to argue or contend with others regarding your beliefs or to become defensive or belligerent. Just share your stories in a kind and gentle way, remembering that not everyone will agree with what you say—and that’s okay. Remember to respect others and their opinions.

• Be friendly and polite, even if you comment anonymously. Act like you would if you were talking to your next door neighbor. How you comment may be just as important as what you say.

A friend on Facebook had this as a status in celebration of the lunar landing anniversary:

“We will never get a man into space. This earth is man’s sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it…The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.” May 14, 1961 – Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr

An online friend said this on his blog:

Well duh, we shouldn't allow gay people to marry or adopt or have kids because OBVIOUSLY gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only ever raise straight children.

Feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments.

Tonight we’re giving the podcast-interview-thingy another go. Hopefully everything works out this time.

I’m Not Buying It

2009-07-18T17:53:00.001-06:00

I’m not buying their story. And here’s why:

It took them a week to release their version of events (even in the face of outrage and protests over the incident). If it really takes that long to write three short paragraphs to tell the “real story” then you might want to fire everybody in your PR department. The guys you detained managed to tell their story within 24 hours and they don’t even have a PR department.
If they had “obviously been using alcohol” (a single beer according to other side) why weren’t they charged with public drunkedness or whatever charge Utah has for drunk, “belligerent, lewd, profane” individuals?
This press release makes them look absolutely faultless. The other side isn’t pretending to be perfect. They admit they cussed at the guards after being treated the way they were treated. Nobody is perfect. Stop pretending you didn’t do anything wrong (still waiting for more info on if the guards did, in fact, illegally detain the two men and if so, when will they be charged?).
They don’t exactly have a history of telling the truth when the truth is “not useful” for them.

Are there any witnesses? Where are they? At this point I’m inclined to believe the first story from the men detained, rather than this press release from the organization that can’t stand to look bad.

Here’s the thing. If you don’t want to let gay couples hold hands or whatever on your property then COME OUT AND SAY IT. You have a right to be that way (I think it’s mean, and bigoted, and over the top but it IS your property). Don’t play stupid games. Don’t try to tell me NO PDA whatsoever is allowed on the grounds (because that’s a LIE and you know it). And don’t pretend you’re gay friendly. As an organization you are NOT gay friendly and never will be. It doesn’t matter how many of your members as individuals are open minded and tolerant. As an organization you are not friendly to gays. You have leaders who suggest parents refuse to let their gay children bring their partners home for the holidays or introduce them to their friends. You used electric shock therapy on gays at BYU until the 70s (hmmm…the 70’s were big for change, eh?). You’ve treated gay students at BYU like criminals. So yes, you have every right as a religion to teach that homosexuality is all kinds of filthy and immoral. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too. So don’t think you’re fooling anyone into believing you’re gay friendly while teaching that crap.

Aaaaaaand I can’t write a post on this topic without throwing on this link:

http://www.affirmation.org/

That is all.

PS: The interview thingy got postponed. So it will be a while before I have links for ya’ll.

Mormon Expression

2009-07-12T16:58:00.002-06:00

The husband and I will be participating in a discussion tonight with Mormon Expression (Mormon Expression is on Twitter). I'll be sure to provide links once the podcast is available.

In the mean time you can read about Mormon Expression in this Examiner article.

And my apologies for the sporadic posts. My main blog takes up almost all my leftover time after taking care of the mini-me. But I'm not abandoning the blog. And I am brainstorming some new posts. So stay tuned!

Dear "S"

2009-06-11T19:44:00.000-06:00

Dear “S,”

You recently left a comment on my blog. I try not to assume people are trolls right off the bat so I'm happy to reply to your message. And since you had the good form to at least provide an initial and a screen name I'll try my best to refrain from snark (though I've always been a bit sarcastic and may slip up here and there). To make things clear and easy to read I'll use what I call the “quote and reply” format. I hope that you will be willing to read and consider what I have to say since I'll be putting in so much effort and time to your reply.

If you don't like the Church... Don't go.

I don't go, not anymore. And if we're using that logic I suppose I could say if you don't like my blog don't read it. But I've never been big on that argument (the love it or leave it all or nothing thing just doesn't jive with me). So, you're welcome here as long as you play nice. :)

Do you really have to have a blog? Blogs are.... a podium for "I", "Me", "I","I", "I", "Me", Etc.
Truly selfish... Agreed that it is the same for bloggers that are "believers" in one thing or another, not just "non-believers"...

No, I don't have to have a blog. But I do want to have a blog. I'm a writer at heart. And these days my blogs function as my journal (journal keeping: one of the things I picked up from the church and for which i am, honestly, grateful). See, I have ADHD and my thoughts race very quickly and my handwriting can't keep up. Typing works much better. And since I'm typing it anyway why not go the extra step and click the "publish post" button? I like to share with those who are interested.

Despite your assertion that blogs are merely vain and selfish they do serve a purpose. This blog, aside from being the very cheap form of therapy that it is for me, has been of interest to others who are going through the same process as I am. I've been thanked for writing this blog. And there are blogs out there (on leaving the church and a million other topics) that I am grateful for. For example:

This blog and this blog have inspired me to take better care of my body.
This blog makes me laugh which is good for the soul.
This blog motivates me to get boring housework done and helps me understand that I'm not the only person with an imperfect home.
This blog gives me ideas for things I want to do with my daughter when she's old enough.
This blog taught me lots of great stuff about money management.

I think you get the idea. Blogs, well...good blogs anyway, are not just about “Me, I, I, I, me.” They are about content and community. They're like free, interactive magazines but, in my opinion, more enjoyable because they have such a personal touch.

Old Joe Smith was correct in at least one of his statements (paraphrasing here) that after uniting with the Church one will not remain "neutral". They just can't walk away. They have to fight...

And do you ever stop to wonder why? I mean really stopped and thought hard about it? I'm not talking about giving a “seminary answer” of being filled with the spirit of contention or led astray by the devil. I'm talking about putting yourself in someone else's shoes and trying to understand how they feel instead of telling them how they feel. Here, let me give you a small insight into what it means to be an exmo

Think about how much you give to the church. Tithing, time, whatever is asked of you. Now, pretend that you found out it was all a fraud. Pretend you didn't get to have your mother (or a single member of your family for that matter) at your wedding. Pretend you went into debt trying to keep up with tithing and fast offerings while living on a student's budget. Pretend you had fought to defend the honor of an institution that lied to you. Pretend you walked away from that organization because integrity demanded it. Now pretend that people you thought were your friends stopped being your friends and gossiped about you. Pretend your family members still in the church insulted and harassed you. Pretend you suddenly realized what a fool you had been and that you had done bad things because the church told you to. Can you honestly say you wouldn't be angry?

Of course we can't remain neutral. We see the damage the so called “Gospel” did to our lives and our loved ones. We want to protect others from the same. And, frankly, we want to commiserate with each other because you can't just drop something so all consuming (daily prayers, scriptures, weekly church and meetings, monthly temple attendance, etc.) and just walk away as if nothing happened. You have to spend quite a lot of time deconstructing church programming and discovering who you really are. No-one should have to do that alone.

And as long as we're quoting church leaders:

"Each of us has to face the matter-either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."
- Gordon B. Hinckley. "Loyalty," April Conference, 2003.

Frauds deserve opposition, especially frauds that harm. It's really not that much different than warning my friends that this or that brand of product is a cheap piece of crap and they should save their money because it doesn't do what it claims. Well...I'd like to warn people to save their tithing because the “Gospel” doesn't do what it claims nor is there going to be a second coming, nor heaven and eternal salvation so they might as well spend their money and time enjoying their finite existence and helping others do the same.

I read most of your blog... You are mistaken in a few areas, probably because of your age, with regards to recent DNA issues, ore/weapons (ore has been found you can contact me for references) in Ancient America and the actual condition of America when Columbus arrived here (see the book "1491" by the author Mann)... new discoveries actually throw out most of what we've learned in text books all of our lives about the small bands of native Americans when Columbus arrived... new evidence actually verifies that there were huge cities with millions of people...
I would have thought you had done your home work before creating a blog at your young age...

Do you know how condescending that sounds? How about I won't imply that you're a fool because you're an old fogey and you don't imply that I'm a fool because I'm 23. Fair enough?

As for doing homework, what makes you think I haven't? Have you visited any of the references I've listed throughout this blog? How about at least visiting Mormon Think which is run by members of the church. The only scientists who claim there are evidences for the truth of the Book of Mormon are, not surprisingly, Mormon. No reputable museum, or organization that I have found proposes that the Book of Mormon is a true historical record. Find me a book, newspaper article, or other, similar source that is NOT connected to a Mormon and I'll take a look. If all you have for me are biased, apologetic references then, I'm sorry, but I don't have time to waste on those.

I don't expect to see this comment on your blog... as I'm sure that you only post comments supportive to your view...

Now, now...you know what they say about assumptions.* Just because I'm an apostate doesn't mean I'm a jerk. Sheesh. I only delete comments that are truly offensive, which is the same policy as my other blog. But really, that's kind of a negative outlook isn't it? You're sure I won't leave your post up? I mean, I know the church often teaches that we apostates are led by Satan and are so angry and hate-filled that we become caricatures. But, come on. You seem like a fairly decent guy from the limited exposure I've had. Shouldn't you know better than to assume the worst in people? People can be stupid sometimes. But they can be filled with good as well.

Besides, I'm not threatened by comments supporting the church so I have no need to censor them. The truth is the truth no matter how many people declare otherwise and the real evidence supports it. A quick “prayer” before the altar of Google reveals all the light and truth people need. After all...

"If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak."
- George Albert Smith, 1871, Journal of Discourses, Vol 14, pg 216.

If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." (emphasis mine)
- J. Reuben Clark, D. Michael Quinn, J. Reuben Clark: The Church Years. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1983, p. 24.

And frankly, I abhor censorship. The thought of book burnings make me cringe. I may delete meanness. But I won't delete an idea just because I disagree with it.

Holly, I'm not gonna say "I'll pray for you" etc... I will say that I have gone down your road of study. EVERY CONVERTED member of the Church has had their questions. I have. It took some real study, some real work, some miracles (of which I can't speak because of their personal nature) I wish you well in your positive efforts. I do not wish you well in your negative pursuits...

I do not consider my blog a negative effort. Though, having been in your place not too long ago, I really understand why you do. Please try to consider this:

I find my blog a positive effort because of the reasons I've already listed. It is a cheap form of therapy. It is helpful to others going through the same thing (and, I've been told, entertaining to some nevermos). And it serves as a warning and a source for truth.I think you can understand that even if you don't agree with it.

I do appreciate that you said "I'm not gonna say 'I'll pray for you.'" It was one of the reasons I wanted to take the time to give you a decent reply. I think most atheists find statements like "I'll pray for you" annoying at best. I wish you well in your positive pursuits also, though I'm sure we disagree on what those might be. And I hope that, if nothing else, after reading my response you will take with you a better understanding of exmos and be able to spread that understanding (and maybe even some compassion) to your peers in the church. So many view us as nothing but bitter, evil people who have "sinned against the light." Maybe you can challenge that stereotype and remind them that, if they actually take the time to talk with us (as you have), they might find that we're much more complex than that.

Take care.

*You make an ass out of “u” and “mumption?” ;)

The Book of Mormon

2009-06-10T21:02:00.000-06:00

I recently was left this anonymous comment:

I guess I can see where you are coming from on somethings.. but i believe the book of mormon too much to just leave it in the dust. you didn't mention anything bout that. [sic]

The Book of Mormon? You mean the book in which:

God tells Nephi to murder a passed out drunk man rather than just steal his (not covered in blood and gore) clothes.
One of the heroes executes prisoners of war and political enemies.
God uses dark skin as a curse.
God slaughters a large number of people who don't believe in him (but he loves us all so much).
The culture contains plants, animals, and man made goods that couldn't have been there?
There are huge urban centers for which no credible evidence has ever been found.
Jesus gives a sermon that word for word matches the Bible which Joseph Smith later said was an incorrect translation.
The geography described is a rip-off of the local geography of Smith's home.
The claim is made that Israelites are primary ancestors of Native Americans (though I hear they're editing that little blunder out these days) even though DNA evidence absolutely proves otherwise.
There is population growth at a rate that shouldn't be possible.
Witnesses claim to have seen the book even though other witnesses said Smith was a
"ne'er-do-well knock-about who picked up money by convincing gullible farmers that he could find buried treasure on their lands through his magical powers and his "peep stone" (the same stone with which he claimed to have translated the sacred golden plates)."(http://packham.n4m.org/witness.htm)
There are countless other problems. See: http://mormonthink.com/bomweb.htm (Mormon run site) for more info on much of what I've listed as well as additional problems.

You mean that Book of Mormon?

Yeah.

Not buying it.

Besides, I wholeheartedly believe the Church is not true, and that Joseph Smith was a lecherous con man. It's not hard to make the jump to not believing in the Book of Mormon. But, if it appeases the believers out there any better than talking about the facts I can also tell you this: I prayed about the truth of the church (and that includes the Book of Mormon). And the answer I got (silence) to me means either it isn't true or that God is a kind of an ass hole for not telling me even though I sincerely asked, praying with real intent as per the "Book of Mormon promise."

"Ah! But you got an answer at one time telling you that it is true" say the critics.

And Pentecostals speak in tongues, jihadhists are getting a bunch of virgins in heaven, and God told this guy to told to cut off somebody's head. Isn't it awfully arrogant for me to think the rest of the world is deluding themselves but not me?

And so, for humor's sake, I leave you with this quote from Mark Twain:

"The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so "slow," so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle--keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, according to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason." http://truthandgrace.com/twainbom.htm

Talking to TBMs 2

2009-06-06T22:52:00.000-06:00

This is an old conversation, but my last post reminded me of it and I wanted to share.

And it ended there.

Talking To TBMs

2009-06-06T22:18:00.000-06:00

This post brought to you by my husband and Facebook. {click for larger versions}

The conversation prompted Adam to make a new status:

The comics (god, I love Non Sequitur) are below:

At this point "Red" took it to a Facebook chat message:

Isn't Facebook great?

Angry

2009-06-06T10:09:00.000-06:00

I'm having a bit of an "angry day." My better half checked out what Wikipedia has to say on the "Book of Abraham." Grrraarrgh! Somehow his Pearl of Great Price professor failed to mention that Egyptologists have provided the REAL translation. That's definitely something we never covered in early morning seminary. But hell, what do the experts know?

I'm mad at myself for being duped. I could have done a little research way back when but noooo...Joseph Smith was a "true prophet." I don't need to research. I'm mad at myself for being so foolish and trusting. But I'm also mad at those who fooled me.

It's all just bull&*%$.

Mmmmmmmm...BEER!

2009-06-04T20:50:00.000-06:00

Oh my god! Giant cans of beer!

{one of my favorite brands...looking forward to touring the brewery someday}

Edmonton Exmos

2009-05-31T10:20:00.000-06:00

Thursday:
The mini-conference in Edmonton was most definitely worth the 6-7 hour drive. Of course, after that long in the car Baby Lu was pretty fussy. So I missed a lot of the lectures. However...thanks to the joys of technology I won't have to miss out (and neither will you)!
Bob McCue: Mormonism in Context
Lyndon Lamborn: Destructive Mind Control

We stayed at the home of an exmo. Lyndon was staying at the same place. It was nice to get to spend a little extra time with Lyndon and our host. Plus, Lyndon makes the best salsa I have ever had.
Friday:
We spent a loooong time at the West Edmonton Mall. Then, in the evening, there was a big gathering of local exmos with food, beer, and a cozy fire. It was one of the highlights of the entire trip. Meeting so many other people in person who get what it's like to leave the Mormon church was a really wonderful experience. And now my Facebook friends list is getting longer. Lucy was quite popular and she made a lot of friends too. But that's not surprising. She is adorable. And earlier in the day she had been "flirting" with Lyndon.

Lyndon gave us an autographed copy of his book, Standing for Something More: The Excommunication of Lyndon Lamborn. I looooove the title! I've already begun reading it (post to come when I finish it). He also shared his salsa recipe with us! Yum!

Saturday:
We packed up, said our goodbyes and headed home.

us with Lyndon

us with our host, Michelle

We had so. much. fun. And we met so many awesome people. If we end up in Edmonton for Adam's med school I will be very happy to get to spend more time with everbody (except, of course, Lyndon who lives in Arizona and Bob who is from Calgary). There's talk of trying to get Richard Packham to speak next year. That would be awesome. But even if they can't get him, or another speaker as good as this year's speakers I still think it would be worth the drive. I have friends who are Mormon and I love them. I have friends who are nevermos and I love them too. But it is a really meaningful thing to now have so many new friends who are exmo. They "get it." And they "get us" without having to try to explain anything.

Yup, definitely worth the long car ride.

Just Got Back

2009-05-30T20:52:00.000-06:00

I *just* got back from Edmonton. And I'm feeling sooo brain-dead. I will post about the Exmo Mini-con tomorrow or the next day, so check back soon.

Mini Conference

2009-05-19T17:15:00.000-06:00

Next weekend Adam and I are heading up to an Exmo Mini Conference. Lyndon Lamborn and Bob McCue will be making presentations. There will be a gathering/BBQ for exmos. And we'll be making a quick trip to Ikea. I, for one, am stoked. I will be sure to share my thoughts after the fact.

I'm also planning on posting more often. The little one is spending more time awake which means more time playing with her mama which means less time for mama to blog. But I'm going to try.

Ticket to Ride

2009-05-01T18:15:00.000-06:00

Got my "official" letter stating I am no longer a member of the church today. I'm referring to it as my ticket to outer darkness. ;P It made me smile. It's in a frame on the bookshelf for now. But eventually it'll go in a page protector in a binder/journal.

Just A Quick Link

2009-04-27T16:22:00.000-06:00

http://realmc.blogspot.com/2009/04/pain.html

Short read. So read it! :)

Hullo Again

2009-04-27T15:52:00.000-06:00

I know it's been a while. But I haven't felt much drive to write about Mormonism and my exit from it for a time. But, here I am...because I hate to let a blog die. :)

I had a break though recently. One day I noticed that I'm happy. I've been happy before. But I was always happy due to this or that. But the other day I realized I was feeling happy and content not because of anything external (but despite quite a few things). Somehow I've found peace and I wasn't actively trying. I find that I've let go of a lot of childhood hurts. I'm leaving a lot of my fears behind. And I can't say where this change has come from, or rather why and how it has happened. I do know that I haven't felt like this ever in my adult life. And I do know this recent change hasn't come from "living the gospel of Jesus Christ."

I'm also thinking about the church a lot less. I'm feeling normal outside of it. I don't find myself starting to bless my meals out of habit. I don't feel guilt for really stupid things. And I'm much more relaxed because of it.

If I'm supposed to be miserable outside the presence of God then someone might want to tell the big guy I need some serious smiting.

Also, the membership records office told Adam our "you're going to outer darkness letters" have been mailed and are on the way!!! :D

Speaking of outer darkness...if outer darkness is being outside God's presence like I was taught then judging by how it feels to be cut off from him at this time I don't think I wouldd mind going there (you know, if it were more legit than coal in one's stocking). I certainly wouldn't want to go to the highest degree of the almighty "Celestial Kingdom" if what past church leaders have taught about it were true. I'd rather not spend eternity as a polygamous wife sending my spirit children away to be tested unfairly all the while knowing many of them would never make it back.

Actually, the whole idea of heaven is becoming more and more puzzling to me. Isn't this finite life enough? I guess if I wasn't happy I wouldn't think so. But as it stands now I love my life. I love my family. And I feel downright lucky to be living my life with the people around me. I count it as a privilege and I certainly don't feel the universe owes me anything more than one go at living. I'm just going to do my best to make sure it's a good one.

Conference Weekend

2009-04-04T18:22:00.000-06:00

Husband is picking up extra shifts.
I've been surfin' the net, doing research for my novel, sleeping in.
Tomorrow we're having company over for nori-wrapped tilapia.

All in all a pretty normal weekend.

And one of the best weekends of my life because I know full well what I'm missing. :D

"Daughters of God"

2009-03-05T20:01:00.000-07:00

I could probably write enough posts on being a women in "the Church" to constitute an entirely independent blog. And I should probably be writing much more than I currently am. But for now I'll start with this quote from an online conversation on the topic titled "How to suffocate a woman's soul and kill her dignity:"

Make sure she knows that if she's not happy, it's not because the plan is flawed, it's because SHE is flawed.

The conversation in it's entirety can be found here. {Conversation is no longer available. :( *sigh*} Other interesting sources can be found here and here (that last one is run by members of the church).

"The One True Church" Part B

2009-03-03T16:40:00.000-07:00

Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. -Gordon B. Hinckley

Could *one* fact, if of enough importance, show the church to be "a great fraud?"

How about several?

Joseph Smith did not translate "The Book of Abraham."

The temple rituals are not of God.

The Book of Mormon is fiction.

There's more (what shocked other former Mormons) such as the fact that
Joseph Smith married (and I mean that in the full sense of the word) multiple teenagers and already married women).

I vote "false" and "a great fraud."

"The One True Church" Part A

2009-03-03T15:53:00.001-07:00

Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. -Gordon B. Hinckley

I've heard it said too many times to count that "if the Book of Mormon is true/Joseph Smith was a true prophet/etc. then the church is true." This line of thinking (only one important thing must be true for the entire gospel to be true) is what enabled me to ignore problems with the church. If I felt I had a testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet, then the Book of Mormon really was the word of God as translated from golden plates and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was God's church as restored by holy messengers and the only church with the power of God's priesthood.

All it took was protecting my faith and ignorance in one subject matter for me to excuse any other problems that came my way. And the really twisted logic came when relying on my "testimony" of one principle to accept a problem with another, only to reverse which I relied on later! For example, one day I might rely on my testimony of the Book of Mormon to keep me from losing faith when encountering something which made me doubt Joseph Smith. A few days later I might rely on my testimony of Joseph Smith to remind me that problems in the Book of Mormon must simply be something I didn't understand (and certainly not evidence of the Book's falsehood). This twisted reasoning allowed me to "put things on the shelf." I never had to think about a damn thing because something else was "true" and certainly there was an explanation for whatever thing concerned me. And frankly...it's kind of a nice way to live and view the world. I didn't have to spend time dwelling on things which made me uncomfortable. I could simply escape back into the fantasy.

"Gee...I don't think I buy this people turning black and white stuff as written in the Book of Mormon. But there must be an explanation."

"I cannot understand how a loving father in heaven would *ever* demand that his daughters suffer the pain of practicing polygamy. But Joseph Smith was a prophet so it must have really been a revelation from God."

"Wow...the God of the Old Testament is really mean and nasty and not at all like Jesus was. But the Book of Mormon is true so it doesn't really matter what the Bible seems to say."

Those are some examples that came to mind just now. But here's where I'm going with all this; I have two points:

1. Within the "gospel" real thinking is "dangerous" so it is replaced with faulty logical reasoning, rationalization, and postponement of evaluation (after all, everything will be explained in the life to come).

2. If, as so many TBMs conclude, the truthfulness of one important principle is enough to confirm the whole of it or, better yet, if, as Gordon B. Hinckley basically said, the church is either completely true or a complete fraud then what happens if the truthfulness of one important principle can be shown? The type of information that could crack the foundations of the church and show it to be "a great fraud" is absolutely available (my link and reading lists are a good place to start)! Which is why members of the church are given dire warnings to never, EVER read what they call "anti-Mormon" literature.

Gay Marriage

2009-02-28T16:18:00.001-07:00

The following is a letter I just sent to a friend:

I just posted this video: http://vimeo.com/3089746 to my FB profile with the following message.

"Is it right for the majority to oppress the minority? Not long ago it was the civil rights movement that was going to destroy America. Before that it was granting women the vote. As far as I can tell America is still standing and better than ever. These are REAL people, REAL families. Would people be so quick to take away their dreams if they had to face them in person?

I can no longer pretend that I don't feel strongly about this issue, because I do. I now live in Canada where people have the right to form families regardless of sexual orientation. It hasn't harmed my marriage in the slightest.

I'm aware of the arguments the other side espouses. Because I used to spout them off in an effort to convince myself that I agreed. But I didn't. And I don't. And I'm ashamed I ever pretended to. But I won't pretend anymore. And I won't sit silently by because I'm afraid to face those friends with which I disagree. I owe it to my gay friends and myself to be honest: I support gay marriage."

I was not as good a friend to you in high school as I should have been. The truth is that I was ashamed...not of you, of myself. I was embarrassed because I had made the decision to join a church that is very hetero sexist and homophobic. I tried so hard to rationalize it (along with a long list of other really messed up stuff in the Mormon church) but early this year couldn't do it anymore. My husband and I both left the church (for many, MANY reasons..though their hate/bigotry should have been reason enough). Now I'm trying to deal with the shame of having lent support to an organization that would seek to take away the rights of the minority. I should have listened to my conscience 8 years ago when it told me not to join the Mormon church. And I should have listened to it in November of last year when it told me Prop 8 wasn't right.

I feel lucky that I was uncomfortable enough to not have donated money to Yes on 8. But the fact is I payed tithing to the Mormon church for 8 years and THEY gave money to Yes on 8 (and lied about how much, to boot). And I regurgitated the very lame, very weak, very insidious arguments spewed by the Yes on 8 crowd to justify what the Yes on 8 Campaign and the Mormon church were doing. I did it partly because I was told I had to do what church leaders said if I wanted to be a good person and partly because I was trying to convince MYSELF of the crap we were peddling.

It didn't work.

My point is this: I will NEVER again support those who try to tell the world you don't have the right to be married to the one you love (and I hope you find the right guy someday :) - or maybe I should say the right "duck"). And I won't ever again silently stand by while bigots say and do that which is wrong. By being silent I give them more power and they already have far, FAR too much power as it is. For what it's worth, I'm sorry. I'm sorry it took me this long to make the right choice. I'm sorry I let fear and stupidity convince me to ignore my sense of right and wrong. And I'm sorry I didn't pursue friendship with you the way I would have if I hadn't been so damn ashamed of myself. I know now that I missed out. I hope you can forgive me for being a fool and a coward.

Here is the video:

"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

We Interupt This Blog to Bring You Shameless Begging

2009-02-26T09:48:00.000-07:00

March is fast approaching. You may not be aware of this but March is MS Education & Awareness Month. My amazing mother has lived with this disease (and a nasty progressive form of it) for about as long as I can remember. She has been facing it with strength and class and is an incredible inspiration to me. This will be my second year participating in the MS Walk to raise awareness and funds so that a cause and a cure may be found.

Please become an online donor and help me in the fight to end MS (donations are tax deductible).

Trolls

2009-02-24T18:25:00.003-07:00

Dear Trolls,

Some have suggested that I allow TBM trolls to be un-moderated so they can show their "Christ-like love" and help prove that the church does not exclusively produce nice, happy people. But I'd rather just send trolls to the dungeon where they belong. A troll generally has one purpose: to harass me and attack me personally until I shut down the blog. Not going to happen.

So, if you're obnoxious you will be banned (often without warning). In fact, your fellow commenters can ban you. It only takes 5 votes for my readers to ban a troll. Once you're banned I'll add you to the dungeon list below. Ban worthy behavior includes, but is not limited to:

Personal attacks/insults
Really, really fallacious logic (because it pisses me off, and if you can't take the time to make sure your arguments are sound then you don't deserve my time)
Spamming (because everybody hates spam)
Testimonies (I use my brain, not warm fuzzies and ask that you do the same)

More examples can be found here.

Trolls In The Dungeon

Bill Bass
Mike Tebow

Babies

2009-02-21T16:56:00.000-07:00

I love babies, especially my baby. I think they're adorable, magical, and that they inspire love and hope in just about any decent human being. That said, I don't want eight of them. Nor do I want five, three, maybe not even two of them.

After my baby girl was born this past December I found myself struggling to make sense of a persistent feeling that had made itself at home within me: I didn't want a big family.

I had been planning on a big family. "Good" Mormons don't place a limit on the number of spirits they'll provide bodies for unless there is a really good reason (i.e. mum will die if she has another pregnancy). I had been planning on letting nature take its course. I worked very hard to be enthusiastic about having lots and lots of babies.

But then my DD (dear daughter) was born. And suddenly I found myself not only wishing I could focus on just her but also feeling guilty for wishing thus. I wanted to be a "good" Mormon. But I didn't want to have lots of kids.

When we left the church and I realized that my family size, and my body were under my authority, and not that of fifteen men in Salt Lake (nor any of their predecessors) who had never, ever met me I literally heaved a sigh of relief. DD did not have to be first in a long line of children. In fact, if we so decided she could be our first and our last, our "alpha and omega" you might say.

Suddenly I realized that I wouldn't be spending the next ten to fifteen years pregnant and/or nursing. I wouldn't be spending the next two decades being a full time stay-at-home mom. When DD started school I could get a job, volunteer, etc. (unless DD ended up with a sibling after all, in which case it would be once he or she started school). "Heck," I thought, "I could even get a part time job before DD starts school if I really want to."

Suddenly the world was open to me.

Now, I don't know if DD will be our last. I think it'd be awfully nice for her to have a sibling. And I think I'd like to give birth again and have an opportunity to raise another baby. But the fact that I get to choose (guilt free) brings me great peace, as does the fact that I now know there is also nothing wrong with "postponing" any (possible) future babies until DH (dear husband) is done with medical school (if that's how we want to do it). Postponing is a no-no for "good" Mormons. In fact I had felt no end of guilt over not having my first baby until I had been married for three (*gasp* THREE!) years.

Leaving the church is about many things, not the least of which is freedom; not just freedom to watch what movies you want to watch, or freedom to drink what beverages you want to drink but freedom to determine what is best for our family sans guilt/judgment/fear/etc. Most days I find myself pausing just because the gratitude for that freedom overwhelms me.

Life is good.

ETA: Plus it's nice to not feel like I'm raping the planet by having a huge family.

Counselor: Return & Report

2009-02-20T16:46:00.000-07:00

It was OK. It was nice to have someone to talk to though at times I wasn't sure what he was trying to say or if he understood what I was trying to say. I think the counselor makes a great sounding board off of which to bounce ideas. I've always been the type of person who needs to talk or write on and on and on to figure out what it is I'm really thinking and feeling. It's great when a counselor can ask probing questions to encourage that exploration. Plus it's a pleasure to talk to somebody who isn't Mormon. And it's helpful to talk to someone who is familiar with the town and can guide me to some resources for meeting new people.

It's strange. Based on his comment on my last post Bill Bass seems to think counselors are for telling people what is right and wrong. What an odd thing to think, no? Maybe Bill Bass had some experiences with a counselor who tried do to just that. If that happened to me I'd find a new counselor. Or maybe a counselor tried to give Bill advice and Bill didn't realize he gets to decide for himself if it's good advice or not. Then again, maybe Bill Bass is just a snarky troll.

Counselor

2009-02-20T12:32:00.000-07:00

My husband has access to a counselor (for him and for me) through his job. Today we have an appointment. I'm looking forward to having a professional to talk to and work with as I'm making this change. I have a lot of deprogramming to do. The support of others in similar situations online has been immensely helpful but I'm interested to see what difference a trained counselor can make. My biggest hope is that it will speed the healing process.

I'll return and report.

Think

2009-02-18T17:58:00.000-07:00

As I'm typing one-handed because my other arm is buried under a sleeping baby this will be a very short post. But I am very pleased with this website created and run by members of the church. It seems honest, fair, balanced and non-threatening. I would encourage my TBM friends reading this blog to visit it.

Beer

2009-02-17T13:15:00.001-07:00

I didn't think I'd like beer. My parents had let me try sips of it as a kid and it was nasty. I knew beer is an acquired taste and that it would probably be a long time before I liked it if I decided to drink it. But I've been introduced to Big Rock Beer and have found that I do like beer. I look forward to trying the different Big Rock varieties over time. I like to play it extra safe and limit drinks to once or twice a week (or none at all) since I'm nursing. Though that may be overkill. So it may be a while before I get a chance to sample them all. I really want to give two of their seasonal varieties a try. One is called Winter Spice (has cinnamon, cloves, etc.) and the other is Espresso Stout (coffee and beer in one...a double "Word of Wisdom" whammy)!

We've decided to use our recycling deposit returns as our liquor store money. We collect discarded bottles and such and turn them in when our boxes get full (along with our own empty bottles and cans). I'd like to save up for several months so we can go tour the Big Rock Brewery (which is in Calgary, not too far from us). It's $25 per person so it may be a while. But I think it'd be a fun date. I really know nothing about how beer is made (other than it involves hops, barley, and fermentation). I think it would be interesting to see how it's done. Plus you get to try little mini samples of each beer and then pick your favorites to take home.

It's weird to be writing about beer. Even though I grew up in a home where moderate drinking was common (and never a big deal) I've been so surrounded by people who think that there is no such thing as responsible drinking for a long time. I always knew my parents were normal, healthy adults and weren't doing anything wrong (they didn't believe in the Word of Wisdom so they couldn't be faulted for having the occasional drink). But my social circle consisted of some individuals who would think if one has any alcohol at all he must be an alcoholic and a big ol' sinner. I never agreed with that attitude but I always kept my opinions to myself. So casually blogging about beer is a new and strange experience.

It's kind of nice to be exploring this new...I don't know what to call it, hobby? I mean, drinking beer (or any alcohol) isn't done like drinking water, or juice. It's about flavor and enjoying the experience (you drink like it's water and you'll only end up wasted which is not the point). It's especially nice because it's a chance to delve deeper into the Canadian way of life (especially since I'm drinking Canadian beer).

I think tonight I'm going to have some pizza and a beer while watching Strange Brew.

Food For Thought

2009-02-17T12:12:00.000-07:00

I've come across some interesting items that have the wheels in my brain turning.

Leaving the church has caused to no end of paradigm shifts. Some are sad (finding what I cherished to be not at all what it appeared to be) and some have been joyous (finding that I don't have to feel guilty for being imperfect).

These items are of the former type of paradigm shift.

Anecdotes about sexual abuse. Be sure to read the quote from Richard G. Scott about victims needing to take some responsibility for abuse (disgusting).
Mormonism's Problem With Child Sexual Abuse (article in the Salt Lake Tribune in 1996).

Of course, this is a Church organized by a man who participated in "questionable" sexual conduct himself (here's a brief introduction).

The truth about Mormon divorce rates.

These things do not jive with the claims of the church.

Loss & Healing

2009-02-13T23:55:00.000-07:00

When I no longer need to write on here and when I no longer think about the church and the damage it did each day, then I'll know I've healed (as much as possible).

In the meantime I'm grateful for the outlet this blog provides me. My brain is working overtime trying to make sense of it all and if I had no way to get the thoughts out of my head I'd go a little (more) crazy.

I do wish I had held on tighter to my non-Mormon friends when I converted because I desperately want to have meaningful relationships with non-members right now. I still value my genuine friendships with Mormons. But I need social time with those who don't remind me of that from which I'm trying to recover. But my non-Mormon friends weren't "a good influence" so I separated myself from them. What a terrible loss my religious arrogance caused me. One of many losses my membership in "God's One True Church" caused me.

Let It Be Known

2009-02-10T17:51:00.001-07:00

I think I need point out that which may not be clear from previous posts:

Not all TBMs go crazy when one leaves the church.

Yes we are dealing with some really strange and hurtful behavior from some. But we also have a good number of friends and family members who are doing their best to understand and respect our decision (and some are doing an excellent job). And for that we are grateful.

I don't want to be found guilty of only ever portraying the facts that support my assertations and my worldview (after all, who wants to be a hypocrite?). To ignore the fact that there are TBMs who *are* being Christ-like in their dealings with us would be a great injustice, not only to the them, but to the cause of truth.

So here's to you, my faithful friends. Kudos.

The Positives

2009-02-09T18:09:00.000-07:00

To answer Mary's question about if there are things I've gained from the church that I still value I sat down and made a list. I was surprised because it actually ended up being more difficult then I expected (probably because I didn't include things that I most likely would still have gained had I never joined the church). But it wouldn't be fair to say that the church provides nothing valuable, in fact it would be a lie. Some things I'll continue to carry with me:

Journals - I have come to love chronicling my life and recording my thoughts and feelings (both on my blogs and in a private, written journal).
Emergency Preparedness - I may not feel the need to have a 1-2 year supply of wheat (as I no longer believe in the reality of a biblical Armageddon) but having a financial reserve, a well stocked pantry, and 72-hour kits are still important to us.
Gratitude - We may not pray before our meals, but we still like to take a moment to express our gratitude for the food on our plates. We still say something we're grateful for, and something we're grateful to each other for each night before we go to bed. Life is so much nicer when we take a moment to appreciate it.
Lucy - Had it not been for my membership in the church I probably would have postponed my family for quite some time. And while I can see the advantages to being childless while young I wouldn't change the fact that I had Lucy when I did. She brings so much joy and love into our lives. We love having her here and now. Besides, since I am a younger mother I don't have to worry about running out of energy chasing after her once she learns to walk. And I'll probably get to enjoy being a young grandmother as well. So that's cool.
Unique Fun - There's no denying that Mormons have to be creative when it comes to thinking up things to do for fun. The prohibitions on behavior mean that Mormon college students don't fall into the routine of partying every weekend that some (SOME) non-Mormon coeds do. I might not have learned to love games like "Killer Bunnies," "Bang," "Guillotine," etc.
Adam - I met Adam, and some very dear friends, at BYU. Had I never joined the church I certainly wouldn't have gone to BYU. Granted, I'd probably have made other friends and met someone I'd spend the rest of my life with. But I like Adam. And I like the friends I did make. So I'm including them in my list.
Some Great Art/Music - I was exposed to some beautiful hymns through the church. Granted, they'll never hold the same amount of meaning for me as they once did. But I'm not so disaffected that I can't enjoy religious music and art (who doesn't appreciate the Sistine Chapel, or the David for example?). And while I've always found most LDS art to be vapid, sickeningly sweet, and downright bad (hardly worth the canvas it's painted on) there are some very important exceptions (much of Walter Rane's work, and Minerva Teichert come to mind).

I'm sorry the list is so small. I would have liked to think I gained much more than that. But, while the list is short, there are some important items on it. I guess the question to ask now is, was it worth it? Are the things I gained worth the price I paid?

I think so. But honestly, I haven't given it much thought. What's the point? Determining whether it was worth it or not won't change that I did, in fact, pay that price. And I can't change that. So I'm certainly not going to spend the rest of my life wondering how much I should regret it.

"Angry Apostates"

2009-02-09T13:54:00.001-07:00

A common theme touched upon by TBMs when discussing defectors is that we're angry/bitter/hateful/etc. It is, after all, easier to label those of us who leave than it is to face the critiques and questions we bring up. Additionally, TBMs are taught in Sunday School that we're wicked, under the influence of the devil, etc. (I'm not joking...it's in the 2009 lesson manual). But I'll let you in on a secret...

We are angry...

...And with good reason. We gave our "heart, might, minds, and strength" for years (in my case 8 years, in many cases 20, 30, 40+ years). We gave 10% of our income (even when we couldn't afford it). We gave our freedom to determine for ourselves right from wrong. We gave hours upon hours each week. We gave our all, only to discover it was for an organization built on secrets, untruths, and deceptions. And almost all of us then experienced the pain of learning the true feelings of some of our friends and family members (an experience I am still in the midst of). It can take a long time to recover from things like this, years even. And it's even harder for those whose church experience included abuse of some sort (yes, it does happen...the Catholic church is not alone in that scandal).* Add to this the frustration of dealing with TBMs constantly trying to bring us back into the fold. It's hard to recover and move on when people won't leave you alone.**

I'd like to take just a moment to point out that being angry does not mean being miserable. Yes I'm angry. No I am not in a constant state of anger. In fact, I'm enjoying a lot of peace, relief, hope, joy, and fun! My feelings about the church do not define me.

TBMs have a bit of a victim mentality. Most have a hard time telling the difference between being PERSecuted and being PROSecuted in the court of public opinion. Because there are ex-Mormons out telling the truth about the church and it's history, because there are people sharing why they left, the TBMs feel that they're being picked on. They like to lump ex-Mormons who publish the facts with anti-Mormons who stand outside the conference center and yell about how Mormons are going to burn in hell (a completely ridiculous association in my opinion). Believe me, I will never hold up a sign, or hand out pamphlets outside conference, or the Hill Cummorah Pageant. But I will write my thoughts and feelings on this blog. And I will speak up about the truth when it is relevant to current conversation.

TBMs also can't grasp why they aren't afforded the same respect as other, more mainstream, Churches. Well, first off, some people do view Mormonism on the same level as other religions (but it's usually people who find organized religion as a whole repugnant). Secondly, there are good answers to why people take issue with the LDS Church vs. most other churches. It's just that many TBMs can't accept the answers. The LDS church demands FAR more than other churches. The LDS church claims much (such as the authority to speak for God) but a thorough study of the history of the church and the life of Joseph Smith Jr. reveals that those claims have no basis in fact. The LDS church is too much like a cult to pretend otherwise (who wants to bet I'll get a nasty comment on this post for pointing that out?). The LDS church is far more controlling of its members. The LDS church likes to meddle in the lives of non-members. The LDS church frankly does more damage than most mainstream churches.

And the fact of the matter is that Mormons are not alone. But they'd rather not be associated with their bedfellows in the "persecuted religion club" such as radical Islam, Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. (before you get your panties in a bunch let me make it clear that I do not think the LDS church is on the same level as jihadists, or Scientologists just the same category).

Another consideration as to why ex-Mormons "attack" just the LDS church and not others is that the LDS church is what we have personal experience with and intimate knowledge of. A quick spin on Google will reveal plenty of similar groups for other religions run, not by ex-Mormons of course, but by the disaffected of those religions (though you might have a hard time finding anti-Scientology and Islam groups since that kind of thing can get one killed). I don't have a blog about the Jehovah's Witnesses because I'm not qualified to critique their religion in depth.

Another reason ex-Mormons "can't leave the church alone" after leaving is because while one is deprogramming it is awfully hard to not be reminded of the church at every turn. We were trained to think about the "Gospel" all day, every day. We can't even sit down to a meal without feeling a compulsion to bless the food. To be constantly reminded of the Church is to be constantly reminded that we've been had. You're a very strong individual indeed if you can withstand such frequent reminders of the betrayal you've experienced, and your own feelings of stupidity at having believed the nonsense without getting angry, or at least somewhat annoyed.

My personal humiliation, as a convert, of having been sucked into all this, of having been duped into believing every word that was fed to me without ever giving the other side a chance to have their say is sometimes infuriating; infuriating enough to make anyone angry (with, perhaps, the exception of the Dalai Lama - I hear he's a pretty level-headed guy).

Also, ex-Mormons are sometimes quite vocal because we're looking for support, looking for others who understand us, to counter all the negativity we face upon announcing our decision to leave the church. And some are vocal because they simply want to protect others from the same fate.

Then there's the issue of the "apostate" label. Dictionary.com defines an apostate simply as "one who forsakes his religion, cause, party, etc." But within Mormon culture the word is associated with much more. Here's a sampling of the attitudes with which "apostates" are viewed:

If there is a despicable character on the face of the earth, it is an apostate from this Church. He is a traitor who has deceived his best friends, betrayed his trust, and forfeited every principle of honor that God placed within him. They are disgraced in their own eyes. There is not much honesty [within] them. They have forfeited their heaven, sold their birthright, and betrayed their friends. [Even Satan despises apostates] That is all I wish to say on that point. Let apostates go. (Brigham Young JOD 12:94)

I would say, let [apostates] alone severely. The man who will apostatize from the truth, forsake his God and his religion, is a traitor to everything there is in heaven, earth, and hell. There is no soundness, goodness, truth, or virtue in him; nothing but darkness and corruption, and down to hell he will go. This may grate on the delicate ears of some, and they may think it is a pretty hard sentence, still it is true. (Brigham Young JOD 12:58)

And thus we can plainly discern, that after a people have been once enlightened by the Spirit of God, and have had great knowledge of things pertaining to righteousness, and then have fallen away into sin and transgression, they become more hardened, and thus their state becomes worse than though they had never known these things. (Alma 24:30)

There you have it. Apostates are hardened, treacherous, dishonest, despised, corrupt, and completely lacking goodness and virtue. I for one, feel all kinds of warm fuzzies to know how highly I am thought of.

What it comes down to is this, TBMs can't understand why ex-Mormons are angry because they can't see their beloved church as a cult, a fraud, or anything but the "One True Church." If you believe your church is God's one established church and that all others are an abomination, if you believe that wickedness and misery await anyone outside your church, if you believe that only someone under the influence of Satan would fight against or even dare to question or critique your church then of course you won't, can't understand ex-Mormons. Of course you won't, can't sympathize with our hurt and anger. To admit that you understand our frustration is to admit you understand the reason for it. And if that's the case then it may be that you too doubt; a road of thought most are too frightened to travel.

Yes, too frightened. It's not about smarts. There are plenty of extremely intelligent TBMs (and we ex-Mormons have our share of dunces, make no mistakes). It's about fear. Quite a few TBMs fall into two categories:

Those who are not blind to the problems in the history and doctrines of the church but who continue to "fake faith" for fear of losing friends, family, their support circle, etc.
Those who are too afraid that they won't like they find if they really study church history, ask tough questions, etc. and so choose to remain ignorant.

Those are just two categories. There are of course others (including those who have so successfully been deluded/deluded themselves that they can mentally weasel themselves out of any cognitive dissonance). And it must be said, I can't blame those who are scared. I do understand what that is like because I have been there. I understand, even if others can't understand me.

Of course, in the end I suppose I don't really need Mormons to understand me. There are plenty of caring and wonderful people out here in reality who feel for me, who "get it" so to speak. I am not alone. And I suppose, even if I were, that it still wouldn't matter. I'm done worrying about what others think of me. I approve of who I am and that is enough.

*Fortunately this is not the case for me.
**Why is that anyway? According to church doctrine we "apostates" are destined for outer darkness so why waste your time (more on this in a post to come)?

I Love Coffee, Get Over It :)

2009-02-09T13:39:00.000-07:00

I love coffee. My dad loves it too. He can somehow have a cup of the stuff every night without it keeping him up. So I grew up with the aroma wafting through the house. Frankly, I think I love the smell of the stuff even more than the actual drink (though I do love that). When I was little it was a treat when Jay (my dad) would let me push the button on the coffee grinder. And some times he'd bring me along with him when he went to the local gourmet coffee shop. It was a cozy, heavenly smelling place. I remember that Jay used to try the small free samples of whatever the special was that day. The memories are all hazy though...because when I hit fourteen and got involved with the church my coffee days ended and I lost that bonding opportunity with my dad.

I gave up coffee 100% to obey the "Word of Wisdom." But I never stopped loving it. Whenever I would come across a coffee candy or ice cream I would check the ingredient list, desperately hoping it was made with artificial flavor (the only candies I found that were WoW kosher were Jelly Belly Beans and Jelly Belly candy canes). Eventually I started drinking Pero and Postum (roasted barley drinks). But they're not the same.

Now I live nearly 3,000 miles away from my dad. Every time I brew a cup of coffee (decaf, for Lucy's sake) I find myself wishing I were at home sharing a pot of coffee with Jay and making up for lost time.

Good for Families?

2009-02-08T13:50:00.000-07:00

The LDS church loves to paint itself as family friendly. I used to believe it was because I chose to ignore what was right in front of me. The church tore apart my family.

Through the "every member a missionary" practice I was introduced to the church. Against my parents wishes I (a minor) was given the missionary discussions (my parents never knew). I was encouraged to disobey and deceive my parents (isn't there a commandment or something about honoring one's parents somewhere?). And even though it caused no end of conflict, broke my mother's heart, and strained my relationship with all my other family members I joined the Church because "God's will was more important than my family."

Much of the blame rests on me, of course. I was being a selfish, bratty teenager.

Over time my parents mellowed. Even though it was hard for them they acknowledged that it was my choice. But that didn't help me grow closer to them again. They weren't members. They didn't have the "Gospel" in their lives. They did things they shouldn't (coffee, occasional drink, *gasp*) because they didn't know better. [insert eye roll here] I was seeing them through different lenses now. And though I loved them...I couldn't appreciate them as much as I should have because I could only see them as "Mom, who isn't a member" or "Grandpa, who thinks the Church is a sham" (and, boy was he right).

And of course, it was my duty to try to convert them to the "One True Church." So my interactions with them (and with my inactive BIL and SIL) were always tainted with an element of missionary work. Gotta pray for them. Gotta be a good example for them. Gotta be extra nice to them (what? Shouldn't I be nice because it's, I dunno...nice to be nice?).

Now, after leaving the Church I'm seeing a whole new side to the "family friendliness." Certain family members are so threatened by our choice they have resorted to behavior that is insulting, juvenile, and somewhat frightening (even threatening us). Basically, they are not being at all "Christ-like." It seems in the eyes of some that not only are we not adults, and individuals with free agency but we are wicked and an evil influence.

Is it any surprise? When one believes that God will only allow a family to be together if everybody in it is perfect (or close to perfect) then of course he or she will feel threatened when someone in that family breaks that circle. His or her eternal life is being changed by the actions of someone they have no control over (what kind of God would allow that?). It isn't surprising then, when he or she then tries to exercise control over the "apostate" any way they can: guilt, fear, power-trips, faulty logical reasoning, etc. When "no success can compensate for failure in the home" and failure = not raising a large brood of children to marry in the temple, follow the church no matter what and raise another group of children to do the same that makes for a lot of miserable families who mistakenly think they've failed simply because a family member does not believe what they believe.

Why?

2009-02-05T19:54:00.000-07:00

I have been asked "why?" Why am I leaving the church?

Well, first, let me make things perfectly clear. I am not leaving the church. I have already left the church.

And the why of it all is an answer so long I felt I needed to create a blog devoted solely to answering it. So one mere post can never be enough. But here I go anyway...

***

When I joined the church in the first place I had some issues. I was not comfortable with polygamy, the stance on gays, or the history of blacks and the priesthood. But they had to have explanations right?* Someday God would explain why things were the way they were. So I put my concerns on the proverbial shelf and forged ahead, silencing my conscience along the way. Incidentally (or maybe not) it was by ignoring my own sense of right and wrong that made me even more susceptible to the thought-training of the church. The less I trusted my own conscience the more reliant I became on the patriarchy of the church to tell me what to do, think, and feel. How I ever could have thought that was healthy I don't know. Chalk it up to being a dumb teenager?

***

I was a "good Mormon." I was practically obsessive compulsive about "choosing the right." Of course...I never felt like I was good enough. Yet, I also thought I was better than most everyone else (including many other Mormons). That's the double whammy. Members find themselves thinking they are somehow better than those "of the world" but also find themselves struggling with intense guilt of never being good enough (especially the women). Add to those feelings an intense underlying fear that if one is not perfect she will never make it to the highest degree of heaven and will not be with her family eternally and you end up with an individual who, no matter how happy she looks on the outside, is miserable deep down. How I ever could have thought that was healthy I don't know. Chalk it up to not knowing there was a better way?

***

I hated the temple. I had looked forward to a temple wedding because I had been taught how wonderful and ultimately important temple weddings are. My wedding was a huge disappointment. Not only was my family automatically excluded because they weren't Mormon, the wedding itself was not special. The only thing special about it was the man I was marrying. But even worse than my wedding was the endowment ceremony. It was a huge let down. I felt like it was contrary to the things taught on Sundays. I didn't "feel the spirit." In fact I felt a bad feeling when I went. And I felt so guilty because of it. I tried to go more often (as instructed) thinking it was my fault I didn't like it. But the more I went the more I hated it. I didn't dare tell anyone how I felt because obviously there had to be something wrong with me, or my testimony, if I didn't like the temple.

There was something wrong, but with the temple, not with me. I was being asked to make some very serious promises (without being given any indication of what they would be beforehand) and I was being put under oath to never, ever tell anyone. Looking back it was very much like an abuser telling his victim that if she tells anyone he'll hurt her or her loved ones. The temple wasn't just weird. It wasn't just exclusive. It wasn't just freaking boring. It was a place of control through fear.

The worst part was learning about the changes the ceremony has gone through. I had been led to believe that the temple ordinances were sacred and revealed to Joseph Smith by God himself. I had been told that sure, the temple ritual was similar to Masonic temple rites but that was because the Masons had a version that had been handed down for centuries so it had some truth but had been changed. Change is a big deal to Mormons. The Bible had been changed, the church Christ supposedly organized had been changed, etc. It was the reason for the "restoration of the Gospel." The Mormon church had the real deal. The Mormon church had it straight from God. Or, so I was told.

Yet, the temple ceremonies, the ultimate sacraments of the church had been changed. I guess I can understand why. Had I been asked to perform the ordinances as they were when they included promises to seek revenge for the death of Joseph Smith, or when they involved blood oaths, or when they required women to promise to obey their husbands, or when they implied that all other Christian churches were in league with the devil, or when they asked patrons to strip down completely and don a single poncho of fabric for the washings and annointings I would have been even more freaked out. Even with the changes I didn't feel good about the temple rites. But I again ignored my intuition and reason. How I ever could have thought that was healthy I don't know. Chalk it up to being scared?

***

I might have left the church over any number of issues (there were plenty besides those already listed). But I didn't. I kept trying to be a "good Mormon." In fact, as my "testimony" weakened I redoubled my efforts to do things right (say personal and family prayers daily, do personal and family scripture study daily, have "Family Home Evening" weekly, attend church, attend the temple, etc.). Nothing helped. So I did what Mormons (and those thinking about becoming Mormon) are always told to do. I asked God. I prayed. I prayed over and over and over again for him to tell me it was true.

I got my answer (or non-answer to be more accurate).

And that is why I have left the church.

For the first time in approximately eight years I feel a sense of peace, freedom, safety, and self-worth that transcends anything I ever felt in the church. I was led to believe that anyone who left the church would be miserable, that they did it because they were offended by something petty, because they wanted to sin, because they weren't committed enough, etc. I know now that's a load of bull. Breaking free from the fear, guilt, control, self-righteousness, etc. isn't as easy as I'd like. But I am already reaping the rewards. Leaving the church is one of the best things I've ever done. How I ever could have thought the church was healthy I don't know. Chalk it up to being being brain-washed?

For Adam's explanation of why see here.

*There are explanations, but they're not pretty and they're certainly not divine.

Mormonopoly

2009-02-05T19:01:00.000-07:00

No, I'm not talking about the board game.*

I'm talking about the monopoly on morality, service, and marital/familial love TBMs think they have. I'll explain further, but first I think I need to address this:

Since removing my Mormon blinders I've realized what a bitch I was. Oh, outwardly I was "really nice." And by "really nice" I mean that

I was non confrontational
I pretended to like everybody I had to deal with at church
I spewed platitudes and "warm-fuzzies" instead of what I really thought
etc.

But in the privacy of my own mind and confidentially to my husband I was thinking/saying some really mean, judgmental things. I suppose on some level everybody is opinionated, but I hope that most people have the decency to not pretend they aren't.

I say this now because I want to make this perfectly clear: When I complain about Mormon behavior nine times out of ten it will be behavior that I took part in. Mormonopoly thinking being no exception. Anyhow, moving on...

It has been suggested that if Adam and I did not marry because God told us to then our relationship must be based solely on hormones and that at the first sign of trouble we'll bail on each other.

I'll give you a moment to let that sink in.
.
.
.
Besides being a completely illogical deduction it is an incredibly insulting thing to say. TBMs do not have a monopoly on love, commitment and strong marriages. In fact, LDS divorce rates are quickly catching up to the rest of society (and considering the extra-strong stigma divorce carries within Mormon society that is saying a lot). Additionally life within the culture of the Church can actually be damaging to a marriage. I wonder what my parents would have to say about this. Goodness knows they've had more than their fair share of trouble (my mom has severe progressive MS). They haven't bailed on each other. But, clearly since God didn't tell them to get married their relationship is a sham, built solely on hormones. [insert massive eye roll here]

Of course, the irony of Mormons lecturing anyone about marriage will not be lost on other "apostates**" like me.

The fact of the matter is that I married Adam because I love him. I love him, we get along very well, and he's a good man (with or without Mormonism thank you very much). And when we committed to each other we committed. We determined before our wedding that divorce is not an option. Other than abuse or adultery there is no reason we will tolerate for splitting up (and even in those cases we wouldn't necessarily consider it).

But it doesn't stop with marriage. It's not uncommon for TBMs to think that without the "Gospel" they would be horrible people, that those outside the "One True Church" are caught up in lives of sin. Though, I suppose when you think coffee is a sin then yes...almost everyone is a big 'ol sinner. But I digress. My point is this: Mormons do not have a monopoly on morality.

I can offer service to others (which I have) without having to have a Bishop or Relief Society President ask me to. I can be a good person without secret handshakes, a huge (and probably unhealthy) number of meetings/committments, daily reading of questionalble "sacred texts" and without a "prophet" to tell me what to do. It's as simple as offering others the same kindness and respect I would want them to offer me.

And being a good person does not mean I have to sacrifice the health and happiness of myself, my friends, or my family in an effort to "be nice" or "do what's right." I can say "no" without it meaning I'm "letting down the Lord" or that I'm not being Christ-like. Frankly...I don't know that I want to be like Christ. I no longer want to be like so-and-so in Relief Society. In fact I don't want to be like anybody else. I want to be like me.

For years I've suppressed my thoughts, feelings, likes, dislikes, etc. all in an effort to be the perfect Mormon woman. I've been conforming to somebody else's ideal. I've foolishly believed it was the only way to be worthy, the only way to be good. What a load of hooey. Since leaving the church I haven't suddenly started being a bad person (well...unless you include things like the occasional morning cup of "sin"). In fact I've found myself starting to be a better person. For one thing I'm not nearly as judgmental as I once was. You might say I stopped obsessing over the "letter of the law" long enough to actually remember to live the "spirit of the law."

I'll say it again. I do not need the church to keep me in line. I am an adult, and quite capable of telling right from wrong and acting accordingly. I don't need to slave away trying to be like someone else or how someone says I should be. I can be me because, believe it or not, she's a good woman.

*Yes, there really is a board game.
**Somebody remind me to write a post about the use of the term "apostate" some day.

What's In A Name?

2009-02-04T19:41:00.001-07:00

I wanted to take a moment to explain how I chose the title for this blog.

A Marvelous Work And A Wonder is a book by LeGrand Richards "designed to assist missionaries in their study and presentation of Mormonism." It is filled with arguments to use to defend and support Mormonism. Well, A Marvelous Work & A Blunder is designed to pretty much do the opposite. Actually, that's not quite true. My intention is really to express my feelings and my own personal issues with the church as a way of deprogramming the thought training the church used on me. While I certainly won't hesitate to tell it like it is I'll leave the nitty gritty detailed arguments to those with more time and more desire to use them.

I chose the word "blunder" because that is what my decision to join the church in the first place really was, a big blunder. Since sending in my resignation letter I often find myself marveling at how I ever could have fallen for such a fraud. For approximately eight years I sacrificed and worked to be a "good Mormon." Now I get to undertake the marvelous work of undoing the damage, however long that may take.