SO LONG, AND THANKS FOR ALL THE TRAUMA

This holiday season has been the best my wife and I have had in years. Possibly ever. And I'm saying this having recently recovered from COVID-19. Why has this been a banner year for us? There are over 400 miles between us and our closest Mormon relatives, and I have silenced all my social media apps. 

You see, we recently moved out of Utah. It was a long time coming. I quite literally should have done it 15 years ago (I didn't have the money or means to move initially and found various lukewarm reasons to stick around, like a couple bands or a dead-end career). But after several months of hard work and planning, we finally got the hell out of Dodge. 

Sure, our new home is in a warmer area with less snow and smog. But I have long suspected that my depression this time of year is not caused by the season, but rather I simply loath and dread having to weather the holidays amid a sea of insufferable Mormons. Now I have confirmation. 

It has been a few months since I last drove past a Mormon temple, or a billboard for color coded scriptures for children, or been held captive by a Mormon supervisor at work in a conversation about how awesome it is that their wife is cool with them drinking Kava with their poly friends. Or heard casual homophobia, racism, sexism. Or a comment from an executive director about how we should all be praying before a storm. Or heard someone say that Mitt Romney should quit his job as a senator for Utah because he voted to impeach Donald Drumpf for obstruction of justice and is therefore a traitor to the GOP and the US of A. Or heard a co-worker argue with a mental health patient about the existence of god which is totally apparent because he always answers prayers with "yes, no or wait." Or heard a family member say that President Obama and Hillary Clinton are depraved and awful people while Donald Drumpf is a godly and decent man who just wants to help heal this nation--after all, he did set aside his fortune and live in the humble White House. I no longer have to read conspiracies in a group text about Omicron being a covert way to inoculate the population against COVID-19 without the use of vaccines--which the government will never admit to! I'm not surrounded by conservative science deniers who don't understand the first thing about vaccines, masks or public health. I no longer cross paths on a weekly basis with 18 year old missionaries who are accustomed to having everyone greet them cheerfully and offer them food. I am no longer inundated by people who fetishize parenthood and ask intrusive questions (mostly to my wife) about why we don't have at least 5 kids. People don't look at my wife's multiple ear piercings and tattoos in horror and righteous judgement. People don't view my big bushy beard as statement of counter culture. 

But above all else, we no longer have to be the bigger person at family gatherings by leaving politics and religion out of dinner talk despite no one else doing the same. We no longer have to hold our tongues in silence as everyone around us shits on our beliefs. We no longer have activities like movies and walks in the park ruined by inquiries about our status in the Mormon church. We no longer have to worry about offending people by our mere existence while eating ice cream. We can drink coffee in peace. We can swear and talk about R rated movies. We can have beer in the fridge and whiskey on display. 

MORONS WITHOUT BORDERS

It’s not every day that I find myself shouting obscenities into the ether as I drive home from work. Not every day. Most of the time it’s because of some perturbing incident that occurred at work. Sometimes it’s because of a guest on a podcast I listened to who said something unconscionably stupid. Rarely is it because of something so mundane as a statistical political podcast. Rarely… 

The offending podcast is the 538 Politics Podcast. Ordinarily I find the program to be informative and refreshingly neutral on controversial topics. Occasionally they say something critical of twice-impeached shitbag Donald Trump. But can you blame them? The episode which seems to have glued itself to my craw was about the decline of religion in America and how that is affecting politics. I often listen to atheist podcasts which discuss similar topics, but since 538 is a political podcast first and foremost, I hoped they would have a different perspective on the matter. In a way, I was right.

Their guest was a man named Ryan Burge who had conducted a number of polls about religiosity and had written a book about the results. The results were consistent with similar kinds of polls and surveys from many other groups which all indicate that Americans are becoming less religious with each generation. This does not necessarily mean that everyone is becoming an atheist, Mr. Burge is quick to point out. But rather, they are unaffiliated with an organized religion. This has led to the creation of a new demographic: the Nones.

All of this is fine. All of this is consistent with other sources I have seen, heard or read over the past decade. So what did I find so objectionable that I screamed “fucking idiots” at my car radio over and over? You see, in addition to being a published pollster, Mr. Burge is also a pastor. And he just couldn’t help but pontificate on the implications of these most dire trends. And the hosts didn’t just lap it up, they piled on.

The main focus of their collective criticism of declining religiosity in the US is the effect it will have on charity and social safety nets. Mr. Burge strongly implied that the only charitable organizations out there doing any meaningful work for the less fortunate are all religious. I guess he’s never heard of Doctors Without Borders or Planned Parenthood or the Red Cross or the countless homeless shelters and soup kitchens run by local governments. So let’s crunch some numbers.

One of the reasons churches were initially granted de facto tax-free status (as opposed to 501c3 charities who have to apply for tax-free status) is that churches were presumed to be the social safety net of our society. The government in its infancy had no real welfare system, so any aid had to come from elsewhere. To encourage churches to fill that gap the federal government granted churches tax-exempt status. Since then, other charities have risen without any religious affiliation. These charities have to apply for tax-exempt status and release their financial records to the public AND there is an expectation (I’m not sure if it’s mandatory or not) that they will use at least 5% of their funds on their charitable work. Churches don’t have to do any of that.

Let’s look at the Mormon Church as an example, in part because I am the most familiar with them but also because they are widely known as one of the richest churches in the world despite their relatively small membership. They claim over 16 million members on their roles. They pull in at least $4-5 billion a year in tithing (likely much more than that) and several newspapers have estimated their assets at over 40 billion dollars. Some insiders have claimed the existence of a rainy day fund of over $121 billion. Yes, you read that right. $121,000,000,000. Which makes the total assets of the Red Cross (about $3 million) look paltry in comparison. This small church with astronomical coffers boasts $40 million per year of humanitarian aid worldwide. And while $40 million is hardly chump change, it makes up approximately 0.8% of their tithing budget. Compared to their rainy day fund it is 0.03%. Either way you want to count it, the Mormon church spends a fraction of the expected 5% that secular charities spend.

Let’s put a couple of things in perspective. In 2012 the Mormon church put nearly $2 billion in on a local mall (ostensibly so they could clean up downtown Salt Lake City (by displacing the growing homeless population)), which is roughly equal to 50 years of humanitarian aid by the church ($40 million x 50 years = $2 billion.)

In recent years Utah has put a tax on alcohol sales in state run liquor stores, the funds of which go towards the state school lunch program. Each year the amount of money raised from this tax is between $40-$50 million, approximately 10% of the $500 million in alcohol sales per year (well above the standard 5%). Utah has a population of 3 million. About half of the population in Utah is Mormon but about half of them are actually active Mormons. For the ease of numbers, let’s say 2 million people in the state are either not Mormon or are otherwise not opposed to buying alcohol. Let's say about half of them are underage. This leaves us around 1 million people who might possibly buy alcohol in the state. $50 million split 1 million ways comes out to about $50 per person per year going towards school lunches. Compare that to the 16 million Mormons worldwide who contribute roughly the same amount (again, worldwide), which comes to about $2.50 per Mormon per year. I’m sorry, but the alcohol drinkers of Utah do as much or more for charity just in their state of 3 million people as the Mormon church does worldwide! That doesn’t sound like it supports Mr. Burges’ argument at all.

The last time I paid tithing in the Mormon church I was a college student and paid a meager $1000 for the year (it was a bumper year, no doubt). If we use the more generous percentage of 0.8% going towards humanitarian causes this means approximately $8 of my tithing went to actual charity. Whereas, if I spend $50 per month on alcohol $5 will go to Utah schools, which amounts to $60 per year. And if I did my math right, I’m pretty sure $60 is significantly more than $8.

So, if such a small amount of the money one gives to churches actually goes to charitable causes, where does the rest of that money go? The church keeps it. They might put it into the building and utilities. They might pay their clergy (which even Mormons do, although many believe their clergy is unpaid). Or they might invest in stocks, land, malls and insurance firms (which is what the Mormon church has been doing for 50 years). But the problem is, one can never know how exactly a church uses their donations, because they are not obligated to disclose their financial information. Donating to a church you attend seems self-serving at best. But the truth is, many members who donate to churches are not able to get aid from their own church. I have heard countless stories of people who are told by their bishop that in order to receive welfare from the church they must first pay their tithing. And after they pay their tithing they still don’t get any assistance. And their children go hungry...

A Mormon once told me that they don’t want state run welfare because charity should come from religious communities. Well, are there not religious communities now? Are there still countless people being forced out of their homes right now? Utah has had a growing housing crisis for a few decades and more and more people are displaced from their homes each year. What is their religious community doing about that? What is the Mormon church doing about that? Are they going to build another billion dollar mall and displace more homeless people? Think of the housing they could build with that kind of money! They could literally end the housing crisis in their own backyard if they wanted to. Why don’t they? Clearly the existing religions are failing to keep up with demand. And they aren’t even meeting the bottom threshold of 5% that secular charities are expected to maintain. So, what good is your tithing actually doing?

FUDGEY NUMBERS

Every so often I go to the ExMormon subreddit. I try not to go too often for mental health reasons...

Today I saw a repost which caught my eye:

Normally such a post would yield a "huh, makes sense" response from me and I would be on my merry way to more positive forums on Reddit, like r/scotch and r/bourbon. But today... today I'm feeling a little salty. Maybe it's the Laphroiag 10 Year I recently purchased (it's like they bottled a campfire on a foggy ocean beach). Maybe I woke up on the wrong side of the bed. Maybe the drivers on my morning commute were especially obtuse (Utah County shouldn't be allowed to have this much construction all at once). Yeah, that's probably it. 

At any rate, I did some digging. It turns out that the original news article is no longer available. Not a good sign regarding the veracity of statistics. Luckily, the DABC reports on such things in their annual report. And it turns out that the numbers are even higher than the Reddit post suggested. In 2018, Utah liquor sales contributed $45.43 million to the school lunch program in Utah. This is a no nonsense, no strings attached charitable contribution for those in need. Pretty cool, huh?

The second part of the post is pretty vague. It simply states that the Mormon church donates less per year than the amount collected from liquor sales. So, I had to dig a little deeper. First I found that the Mormon church claims to have contributed $2.2 billion (with a "B") in charitable aid worldwide since 1985. Bold claim. Too bad I can't verify this beyond what the Mormons say since their financial records have been undisclosed since the 1950's. But, let's do the unconscionable and take them at their word. $2.2 billion over 34 years averages roughly $64.7 million per year. Not bad. Certainly not chump change. But that's not a very firm figure, so I dug deeper still.

According to the church's own newspaper (why would they lie, amirite?), one of the highest level leaders of the Mormon church, Dallin Oaks, claimed that the church contributes about $40 million per year to charitable causes worldwide, and has done so "for more than 30 years." At $40 million per year over 34 years (to 1985), that comes to a total of $1.36 billion. Now, I'm no math wiz, but $2.2 billion does not equal $1.36 billion. That's a pretty sizable discrepancy. $840,000,000 to be approximate. 

This tells me a few things. First, the church's newsroom and the church's own newspaper and the church's leadership are not on message. Come on, guys. Fudging numbers only works if you're all united. Second, if both claims are roughly true (again, I'm throwing them a Pangaea-sized bone here), then we would have to assume that Mr. Oaks is citing more recent contributions whereas the other figure is more long-term. This seems more than fair if we grant Mr. Oaks was summarizing off the cuff. If these colossal and beyond generous assumptions are true, then it would mean that in recent years the church has contributed at least $14 million less per year than just a few decades ago.

Furthermore, Utah liquor sales contribute more to the welfare system of Utah per year than the Mormon church contributes worldwide.

It should be noted that in that same time the Mormon church claims to have gained more than double the members (1985 reported 5,919,483 total membership; 2018 reported 16,313,735 total membership; over 34 years reported gaining 10,394,252 members worldwide). This means that when they had 5.9 million members worldwide they were contributing roughly $64.7 million in charitable aid worldwide, (possibly more since $64.7 million is the average and earlier years would probably have been higher to off-set the $14 million average loss in later years ($14 million + $64.7 million = $78.7 million)) and now that they have 16.3 million members they are only contributing $40 million per year. In other words, if the numbers they provided are accurate, the Mormon church has contributed significantly less in worldwide charitable aid in recent years than in years past despite claiming significantly more members. 

To put this all into perspective, in 2012 the Mormon church funded a brand new mall right next to the church's headquarters in Salt Lake City to the tune of $2 billion, which is almost as much as the more generous of the two estimated charitable contributions since 1985. Huh, makes sense...

None of this takes into account the common stipulations put on the church's welfare system (like paying the church 10% of your annual income before receiving financial aid--yeah, let that sink in), which I actually have firsthand experience with. As a missionary I was a branch president for a small congregation in Bulgaria. Several members asked me in person for welfare from the church, but since they did not meet the church's requirements for welfare (not full tithe payers) I was not allowed to give anyone any assistance. Let me repeat, when I was in charge of a Mormon congregation in a developing part of the world I was instructed by church higher ups to not give anyone welfare money because they did not give me money first. We didn't have any other charity to offer either, unless you count the free English classes we missionaries offered twice a week. That's it. That's literally all we did for the local community. The rest of our time was spent going door to door trying to convince people that if they didn't join our church and give us 10% of their income they wouldn't be able to see their family for the rest of eternity. 

Tell me again how churches are inherently good for society and deserve tax exempt status...

RABBIT HOLE

The other day I went down a bit of a rabbit hole, at the bottom of which I learned some things about my family which I had not known. And, frankly, I'm not sure how I should feel about it.

It started with me recalling a YouTube video I came across four or five years ago, in which a journalist for the Times, William Lobdell, called my uncle, Clifton Jolley, "a real asshole." Mr. Lobdell had been an investigative reporter on some of the sexual abuse scandals within the Catholic church and had earned a reputation for being hard on religions. After writing a piece in which he mentions how his traditional Christian beliefs were no more ridiculous than the truth claims of Mormonism, and how this had led to his own faith crisis, a Mormon apologetic group called FAIR Mormon (how's that for hyperbole?) invited Mr. Lobdell to an open forum and debate. During this event, my uncle apparently shouted at Mr. Lobdell and told him he had no right as an outsider to tell believing Mormons their beliefs are not true. The thing which stood out the most to me about this encounter is that my uncle, to the best of my memory, had converted to Judaism several years ago.

Obviously, I had my story wrong. There is no way that my uncle would leave Mormonism for Judaism and then taunt a journalist for decrying Mormon beliefs. That would simply be too absurd.

In order to correct my misconceptions about my uncle, I decided to go against the wishes of my mother, who had always warned caution with regards to certain members of her family as they did not believe the same things we did, and I googled his name.

The person I found was a complicated, well-read, quirky man who had been writing articles for the Salt Lake Tribune--something of a liberal cesspool by Mormon standards--literally for decades. He is a poet, a teacher, and considers himself both a non-practicing "Jack" Mormon and Jew-ish.

I was correct that he had converted to Judaism several years ago. But he also kept the label "Mormon," because, as he puts it, the Mormon church has no right to tell someone if they are or are not Mormon. Apparently, this was an idea within Judaism which really resonated with him. Being a Mormon or a Jew is just as much about one's heritage and culture as it is about their worldview. I wonder if he would apply the same logic to someone raised in the Heaven's Gate or Moonie cults, or, for that matter, under communism.

While I found this new information intriguing, what really blew me away was that my uncle--the guy who publicly shouted at a reported for being critical of Mormon beliefs--had presented at the Sunstone Symposium multiple times. For those unfamiliar with Sunstone, it is an organization which discusses difficult and controversial (I would say "damning") topics within Mormonism. They invite critics of the Church to give presentations constantly.

It seems that my uncle has no problem with criticism of the church generally, as long as it comes from within. So, I guess by his standards I am okay to continue dismantling the tenets of Mormonism since I am staying in my lane, as it were.

The thing that really gets me about all of this is that I'm in my mid-thirties and there are several people to whom I am related that I know virtually nothing about. Honestly, I feel a little gypped. My mother's fear that my uncle and his family might be a bad influence on her children and show them a way out of the church prevented me from getting to know a really interesting member of my extended family. Someone in whom I could have confided a decade ago when my faith crisis kicked into full gear. I realize that he and I probably would not have seen eye to eye on everything, but that's okay. Just knowing someone who had made a similar journey out of the church and came out the other side decent person would have been huge for me. And I suspect this is exactly what my mother feared.

As tempting as it is for me to put all the blame on my mother, I have to take a step back and realize that she is a victim too. Her parents raised her in the church. It isn't her fault she took it seriously. There is a reason most people stick with the religion of their upbringing. They are familiar--and are, therefore, comfortable--with the organization and support system. Facing one's doubts about their entire worldview is inherently emotionally challenging and intellectually painful. Add to this the fact many people are taught that doubts are of the devil and you have a recipe which makes it a wonder that anyone finds their way out of religion alive.

So, no, I don't blame my mother for being overprotective and shielding me from what she thought were genuine threats to my eternal salvation. I simply regret that she felt it was necessary to do so.




BONUS MATERIAL:




My uncle explaining his complicated relationship with the church just a couple years before the shit hit my fan:

Part 1.

Part 2.

The beginning of William Lobdell's presentation:

MULTI-LEVEL MORMONING

Outside of every Mormon church building is a sign which states "Visitors Welcome." Only a couple of times in my years as a Mormon have I ever seen anyone take up this offer. Each time the visitors were swarmed by smiling faces eager to set up a meeting with the local missionaries so that the visitors could promptly be baptized (why else would god "inspire" them to walk through the door?). Never have I seen this tactic of flurried interest result in a new Mormon.

Most Mormons seem to have no idea why anyone outside of the church would have no interest in their religion. Mormons believe they have found the one true church with exclusive rights to truth and lasting happiness in this life and the next. Think of it like a pyramid scheme or Multi-Level Marketing company, which happen to do quite well in Utah (after all, why would your bishop's wife lie?). A person who buys into the rhetoric and truly believes the claims that their product has legitimate value and can improve everyone's life will have a similarly difficult time understanding why some people, such as myself, don't care how essential oils helped cure you of your chronic halitosis.

The MLM concept that each employee is a "CEO" of their own business is not unlike the Mormon concept that "every member is a missionary." Furthermore, just as MLM's require their "CEO's" to buy large quantities of product, the Mormon church holds individual member's salvation and eternal families at ransom for 10% of gross (can you really put a price tag on eternal happiness?).

Some Mormons, however, are less credulous. Well, in certain regards, anyway. For instance, once while engaged in an argument on social media wherein I called out the blatant homophobic policies of the Mormon church (shortly after the church announced that homosexuals are apostates and that children of homosexuals in a loving consensual gay marriage could not join the church without reaching the age of eighteen and publicly denouncing the sinful lifestyle of their homosexual parents), a believing Mormon plainly stated that they could not understand why any homosexual would actually choose to be a member of the church. To which I responded: "The Mormon church has made it clear that it is not a welcome place for homosexuals, and it is up to members to decide whether or not that is a good thing." Not long after my comment, this person unfriended me.

In a less dramatic conversation, a family member told me they couldn't understand why someone who wasn't a member of the church would willingly live in Provo, Utah (where BYU is located). At the time I didn't respond, in part due to the fact that this person had no idea that their comment applied to myself. But I think it is quite telling that even believing Mormons recognize that their religion isn't very tolerant or welcoming of outsiders (I can only imagine what it must have been like in Missouri 150 years ago...), which makes their missionary efforts and welcome signs outside their assembly halls seem unnecessary and ironic.

What does it say about Mormonsim if the one place in the world where their church has true power and influence--Provo, Utah--makes non-Mormons feel oppressed or unwelcome? What does it say about a church which claims to be "family centric" if a large minority of the population (up to 10%) and their families are excluded from "the one true church" simply because of who they are? What does it say about the church's leadership when believing members of their church bring attention to the injustices and harm caused by the church's policies and the leaders respond by excommunicating the whistle blowers?

You can tell a lot about an ideology by the way they treat heretics and apostates.

MY CAUTIONARY TALE

[This post may be Not Safe For Work]

During my transition out of Mormonism I always knew that if I ever decided to vocalize my opposition to the church some of my believing friends and family would be upset by it. I suspected that some might even sever ties with me entirely. I wasn't wrong. What I didn't expect, however, was for people who agree with my position, that the Mormon church is nonsense and is in many ways harmful, would also sever ties with me. This is that kind of story.

Before I get into the specifics of my falling out with "John," I should give some background into our relationship. In 2008, about a year after I graduated from Mormon-run Brigham Young University, I stop going to church. I don't tell anyone. I simply move to an area where no one knows me and slip into obscurity.

A year later, a friend I knew at BYU asks me to join his band. Excited, I audition and get the part. After a few practice sessions I decide I should probably let this friend know that I haven't been to church for over a year and probably will not go back. As I prepare myself mentally for this conversation--a dreaded moment for many new atheists--my friend pulls me aside and tells me how much he appreciates me joining the band. He adds that he was nervous because no one else in the band is active in the church and now he and I can support each other. Really, he is beaming. I don't have the heart to tell him the truth. So, I lie.

The lie is easy at first. After all, I had been going through the motions for years. What harm could it do to lie a little longer if it helps a friend?

A few months go by and John joins the band. John had left Mormonism several years prior and is a full fledged ex-Mormon. He parties hard with no regrets. I envy his open disbelief, and although I have no real interest in alcohol or pot, I also envy John's free-spirited lifestyle. Like my other friend, John has no idea I am a closeted atheist.

Sure, there are many times I could come clean, but for the first year or so in the band, whenever someone confronts me on Mormonism, or why I am in a "party band" if I don't drink, other members of the band defend me: "Oh, Matt? Ya, he's Mormon. He doesn't drink." And I just sit there, letting others lie for me. This, of course, makes lying easier.

Eventually, my Mormon friend leaves the band. After a period of intermittent participation, John also leaves, but on poor terms, severing ties with everyone in the group. The details aren't necessary to this story, but I will say I understand why John felt the need to do this, and I still support his decision to cut me off at this time. I would have done the same.

With my Mormon friend out of the band, I am able to test the waters a little bit. I make a few subtle comments critical of Mormonism here and there. No one seems to really notice at first, but over time people pick up on my disbelief, and ever-so gradually, I open up to my band-mates.

In 2012 my Mormon friend joins us for a reunion show. During rehearsal, one of the other band members casually mentions that I no longer believe in Mormonism. My friend's jaw drops to the floor. Later, we talk it out. He seems to be more surprised than anything. He saw me as Matt, the super chill Mormon so comfortable and firm in his beliefs that he can be a part of a hard-hitting party band for years and never slip up and go off the deep end. In truth, I was just never that interested in drinking and partying. I enjoyed the music.

Around this time, John reaches out to me on Facebook and we are on surprisingly good terms.

In 2015 I post a picture on Facebook openly satirizing a leader of the Mormon church and my feed explodes. After weeks of damage control, I start a private Facebook group to offer--and receive--support from other people in similar positions. I invite John to this group. In return, John invites me to a similar private group of his own.

At first, John is thrilled to find out that I have left the church. He participates in the group almost as much I do, posting memes eviscerating religion, such as the following:

In 2016, I attend a get-together with some old friends from BYU and I discover that a guy I used to know well is currently struggling with a mixed-faith marriage. I add him to our private support group and I post the following on my Facebook page:

To which, John responds:

I have become tired of keeping quiet. I have become tired of friends and family not knowing where I stand with the church. I have become pent up rage, destroyer of worldviews. I start posting articles and satirical memes multiple times a day. Despite my rage induced posting, I never really change my purpose in being outspoken: to reach those who are trapped going through the motions of belief, as I did for so many years.

On 8/9/16 I post a link in our support group to an upcoming mass resignation from the Mormon church at a local park, and John responds:

On 8/29/16, seemingly on the level, John posts the following:

Later that same day I post a follow up to the mass resignation. John responds:

John leaves the group. I notice that we are no longer Facebook friends. Concerned, I reach out to him and he lashes out:

After my last comment, I send John a friend request, which he ignores, makes his final comments and disables his Facebook profile. A few weeks later he reactivates his profile, but he has blocked me, removed me from his private group, and I am unable to message him.

I don't know where I went wrong. I don't how fix it. I am still unsure why he is so upset with me. It seems to have come from out of left field.

I want to point out his own hypocrisy in spending years pressuring me to abandon my beliefs and principles, to join him in drinking and smoking. I want to know if he really thinks my Facebook posts are on the same level as him repeatedly telling me to my face that my beliefs are stupid. I want him to explain to me, if he can, how sitting quietly in the corner after his comments, watching him party while I stay in the closet of atheism for the sake of a friend, makes me "holier than thou." I want to know how he can post two memes making fun of religion in my private support group--in which he has been an active participant for a year--and then, hours later, piss on my group and on me personally for posting about an event meant to build solidarity.

I don't know if I will ever get the chance to throw it all in his face.

I don't know if I really want to.

Seriously, what good would come from it?




On a positive note, after some cooling off, I posted the following in the support group and received some wonderful responses:

AS THE WHEELS TURN

"Religion provides the solace for the turmoil that it creates."

--Byron Danelius

A few weeks ago I had an unexpected conversation with a Mormon coworker about Mormonism. By piecing together things which I had said over the few days prior, she suspected that I was no longer Mormon. So, in a characteristic boldness, she asked if I was LDS. This led to an extensive conversation about Mormon culture--in particular, the all-too-common alienation of non-Mormons--and doubts, and research, and family pressures to believe and go on a mission. It was surprisingly enjoyable.

One of the reasons I hesitate to engage in these conversations is because many people do not take them very well. My disbelief in unsubstantiated faith claims has changed the nature of my relationships with several family members and friends. Most of the people around me trumpet their beliefs without a second thought. Mormons breed a culture of conformity which causes those who question or doubt to wonder if something is wrong with them.

After all, when everyone you know tells you that praying to god about the veracity of the Book of Mormon--the keystone of Mormonism, upon which the religion rises or falls--should bring about a specific feeling in your gut, what does it mean when that does not happen? Furthermore, what does it mean when that does not happen for the better part of a decade? The church will say "try again, and keep trying until it happens." This faux-scientific test seems to have only one acceptable outcome, according to the church. The outcome which favors their purse.

Because of these pressures to experience the same warm fuzzies as everyone else, Mormons feel as if these experiences, and by extension Mormonism generally, are inexorably tied to their identity. Their beliefs define them. This results in a knee-jerk defensiveness when an attack on Mormonism occurs. The attack is not just against an idea or an organization, but against the person. They often have difficulty differentiating between their beliefs and themselves.

You can imagine my surprise, then, when my coworker so candidly discussed difficult topics with me. She is a believer. I have no reason to assume that our conversation has given her cause to doubt. More than anything, she genuinely wanted to understand my experience. How refreshing.

I recently reconnected with an old friend through Reddit. We grew up in the same Mormon congregation and over the years have independently drifted way from the church. His faith crisis is relatively new, despite accumulating doubts for several years, and is still considered active in the church. Through our conversations, I have become aware of other mutual acquaintances who have either left the church, or who are beginning their own faith crisis. I have also become aware that despite my avoidance of outing myself as a non-believer, many people have noticed my disaffection with religion.

Naturally, this has caused me to think ("A most dangerous pastime." "I know."). Perhaps there are more people in my situation than I had supposed. Perhaps there are those who would benefit from a genuine conversation with someone who has gone through a similar experience. I recall feeling lonely when I first acknowledged my doubts. One of the first and most noticeable things about leaving a religion is the lack of a social group. This is why so many people who leave Mormonism have flocked to ex-Mormon support groups and meet-ups.

Personally, I haven't done much with the ex-Mormon community. I haven't felt a particularly strong need for it, although, at times I have thought about it. But my recent discussions with my coworker and my old friend have wet my appetite for similar discussions. I guess what I am getting at is that it may be time for me to be more vocal about my views on religion.

Then again, that sounds like a whole thing, and I'm not really into doing things and stuff. 

ONWARD CHRISTIAN A--HOLES

Because "atheism" simply means that one lacks a belief in god, many people are quick to point out that an atheist does not have to be liberal on social issues, such as gay rights and women's reproductive rights. While technically true, many atheists find themselves leaning left, as it were, in politics. In many ways, the justifications used by conservatives for their political positions are rooted in religious values. When a person loses their faith, often times their conservatism is next to go.

This is one reason the "culture wars" in America appear to be religious. I suppose to a certain extent it is, but there is nothing about atheism which would necessarily drive a person to liberalism. Progressive politics seem to be a byproduct of an absence of religious conservatism.

At present, we are staring down the barrel of two social collisions. First, in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriage--which many conservatives are calling an illegal overreach of a few agenda-driven judges--we have the self-made martyr Kim Davis, who continues to defy a federal judge by refusing to do her job as a county clerk in Kentucky. As she sees it, she should not be forced by the Supreme Court to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because doing so would be against her deeply held religious beliefs.

I suppose she would also have no problem if a Muslim who worked at a grocery store refused to sell her pork, or a Mormon who worked at a liquor store refused to sell her alcohol, or a Jehovah's Witness doctor refused to give her a life-saving blood transfusion. Surely, she would respect their religious beliefs...

I can respect her decision to not want to sign marriage licenses for gay couples. I am pro-freedom and choice. She should not be forced to do it. But, given that it is now a part of her job as mandated by the Supreme Court, if she cannot perform this part of her job as a public servant then she should resign. This is exactly what I would do if I felt that my boss required me to do something immoral or contrary to my belief system. I would quit.

The reason Ms. Davis refuses to quit is because she wants to be made a martyr. Unfortunately for her, the fate of most martyrs usually ends very, very badly. Her fate, somewhat surprisingly to me, is that she is being held in contempt of court and on Thursday of last week she went to prison.

After sending Kim to prison, the court ordered her immediate subordinates to sign the marriage licenses. Because they followed the court order, presumably out of fear of also being sent to prison, the court released Davis yesterday (Tuesday). So, she basically missed a holiday weekend in defense of her religious beliefs (just like Jesus!). Davis has yet to say whether she intends to comply with court orders, but the court made it clear that should she continue her defiance, she will return to prison.

After a paltry five days in prison (small potatoes for a truly committed martyr), Davis has milked some old fashioned self-righteous sympathy from conservatives. Some have speculated that Davis will resign only to be picked up by one of the frontrunner GOP presidential candidates and go on a speaking circuit to defend religious liberty. A likely candidate is Mike Huckabee, himself a narrow minded preacher eager to play the victim card, who stood by Kim's side during a rally immediately after her release. During this tour de farce, Davis, who is now on her fourth "traditional marriage," will make some money by pandering to the homophobia of the poor oppressed Christian majority. This is a similar plot to Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber in 2008.

The second social collision is much less comical than a butt-hurt bigot sending herself to prison in order to make money off of other bigots. This issue has more dire consequences, and in some cases, it is a matter of life and death.

For years, conservatives have claimed that 50 million babies have been aborted in America since Roe v Wade. This statistic, the accuracy of which is suspect, is meant to draw up emotion against abortion. It is true that abortion can be emotionally taxing, but this has nothing to do with the legality of it. Besides, the vast majority of women who have had an abortion maintain that it was the right choice for them, even years later.

Abortions will continue to happen because women will always seek bodily autonomy, no matter what fallacious arguments narrow minded politicians and theocrats use to try to strip women of that right. Legalized abortion means that women who seek it will have better healthcare during the procedure.

The most effective way to reduce the number of abortions in America is through comprehensive sex education and access to contraception. Fewer unwanted pregnancies will occur if people can control with greater accuracy when they get pregnant. This "no brainer," however, seems lost among the more fundamentalist religious sects, many of whom have been stirred into a frenzy by a recent "exposé" on Planned Parenthood, a non-profit whose primary purpose is comprehensive sex education and access to contraception and healthcare.

In this "leaked" video, an undercover Christian Soldier talks to a leader of Planned Parenthood on how they, too, can make money selling aborted baby parts. At first glance, this is horrific. It's mad scientist stuff. But, scratching beneath the shallowest of surfaces one comes to find that what is actually being discussed is giving an aborted fetus to a science lab for study. The only money Planned Parenthood gets during such a transaction is reimbursement for transportation costs, which is on the order of about $75.

The ripple effect of this video has caused several politicians--including governors--to push for the revocation of government funding of Planned Parenthood. Several states have effectively done so already. Here is the problem: only 3% of Planned Parenthood's dealings involve abortion. This means that the other 97% of their services will be crippled because of a political knee-jerking.

Some of their other services include free healthcare to the poor, educational materials on reproductive health, and free screenings for STDs. Much of what they do helps poor people who can't afford these services any other way and young people who are too scared to seek these services through their parents because of religious judgments. When one goes through Planned Parenthood for a given service, one is told how much the subsidized service costs (which is usually much cheaper than comparable sources), and one is informed that should the cost be too high, they can pay as much as they want. This means that people can get these services FOR FREE.

I can't see how anyone could oppose this system. Even those who want abortion to be illegal should be in favor of such accessible healthcare services and education, access to which has been shown time and time again to reduce abortions in a given area. Seriously, education trumps ignorance every time. When women have control of their own bodies, STDs and abortions drop and poverty levels improve. Abstinence only sex education is not education--it is religiously motivated ignorance. And when has that tactic ever benefitted society?

And to think that self-righteous Christian a--holes want to take this beneficial program away from those in need because of a misrepresentative, highly edited propaganda video from a group of ignorant sycophantic idealists with no concept of pluralism, freedom or education, who wish to lasso the rest of civilized society into the sand trap of outdated Christian morals. To these self-righteous opportunists, I have one last thing to say: it is a pity there isn't a hell for you to go to, you sanctimonious cunts.

BONUS MATERIAL:





The Young Turks on the Planned Parenthood video:

THE NONES HAVE IT

"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things--that takes religion."
--Steven Weinberg, Physicist and Nobel Laureate








Another friend of mine has ventured down the mind-numbing rabbit hole of discussing religion on Facebook. The main focus of the conversation is on an article which suggests that raising children without religion may have better outcomes than raising children with religion. This is an interesting proposition. Religions often claim to offer exclusive benefits to adherents. If such benefits are not exclusive--or, as the article suggests, come from the opposite direction--then what good is the religion? In my experience, anything good which a religion does can just as easily be done through purely secular means.

I recall a similar conversation from my youth, wherein a Mormon referred to an article which claimed that Mormons are healthier than other denominations. At face value, this seems to confirm the Mormon claim that god blesses members of their sect more than others. However, one must also consider variables which are not exclusive to Mormons.

For instance, Mormons prohibit alcohol and tobacco. These two things alone put Mormons at a lower risk of several conditions, including liver and lung diseases. It isn't Mormonism, per se, which is beneficial, but rather the indirect--and non-exclusive--benefits of a particular emphasis within Mormonism. Similarly, Hindus often tout the health benefits of their vegetarian/vegan diet, which Mormons tend to discount.

A non-religious person, on the other hand, can look objectively at the potential health benefits of any diet and make an informed decision as to which aspects they wish to adopt. Meaning, there is nothing which stops a non-religious person from abstaining from alcohol, tobacco, or meat. And they don't need a religious mandate to do so. They can make a decision based on evidence. They can even decide that moderation--rather than dietary abstinence--is right for them, which is a luxury not afforded by divine fiat.

Most of the "benefits" of a non-religious upbringing are actually simply an absence of the negative effects of religion. A non-religious child does not grow to fear hell or eternal punishment; they are not set back sexually by an aversion to contraception or comprehensive sex education; generally, they do not learn that homosexuals are deviants from whom children should be shielded; the love of their parents is not set on conditions of religious obedience. The list goes on, and to be fair, not every negative point on the list applies to every religion, and I'm sure that some points do not apply all non-religious people.

Other benefits fall more into socioeconomic metrics of society as a whole. For instance, more secular nations tend to have better healthcare and welfare programs and prison systems.

It seems clear to me that a non-religious upbringing offers many people a better life than a religious one. But what happens when an adult, especially one which has built their worldview and morality upon the premise that god will punish or reward them after death, transitions from religion to non-religion?

Many people struggle to make this transition, which is one reason some people avoid it at all costs ("There must be a god! There just must be!"). The idea that god may not exist truly terrifies them. Religions, and in particular more fundamental sects, teach members that if there is no god to issue postmortem justice, then there is no reason to do good, and no reason to refrain from doing bad.

The sort of dirt bags who really believe that the only reason they should not kill or rape or steal is because god will punish them can only be described as amoral sociopaths. However, I have found such people to be rare, and most people who have bought into this philosophical drivel simply do not give themselves enough credit. They are better than their religion would have them believe. Still, navigating through the quagmire of morality is daunting, especially for people reconsidering their tenuous faith-based reasons for pro-social behavior.

As for myself, I choose to not act like a jerk because I don't want people to treat me like I'm a jerk. This is my version of the golden rule, I guess. It doesn't always work in every situation, but, as Christopher Hitchens pointed out, it is about as good a rule of thumb for morality as any.

Some of the responses to my friend's post irked me something royal. One person accused my friend of being ungrateful to his religious grandfather by leaving and criticizing religion. This appeal to emotion is significant in two ways. First, it is fallacious to the point of nonsense. Second, it reveals the basis upon which my friend's detractor has built his worldview: emotion, rather than reason.

It is this coercive core of religious belief which traps many would-be defectors. Even I fell victim to Mormonism's entrancing concept of eternal families, and for many years I feared what my disobedience or apostasy would mean for my family in the eternities. This kind of emotional blackmail upsets me a great deal. I don't have a strong enough adjective to describe my disdain for this kind of manipulation. It is pure evil. Holding relationships hostage in this way is reason enough to dismiss out of hand any worldview which utilizes it. 

BONUS MATERIAL:

Tim Minchin, If You Open Your Mind Too Much Your Brain Will Fall Out:

A HERETIC'S GUIDE TO MORMON HOMOPHOBIA

Recently, I have been asked by friends for reference materials on homosexuality. So I figured I would post some good places to start.

For scientific materials, I would start with the American Psychological Association.

These are some of my posts, which focus on legal rights and the implications of Mormon doctrine:

Refracted Light
Lemon Test
Straight-and-Narrow Minded

Skip a Beating
Prop Hate
Morally Straight
It Gets Better

For those interested in the most current position of the Mormon church on homosexuality, they have created a site featuring gay Mormons who have found a way to stay active in the church (usually by smiling through a straight marriage). While there is some sound scientific information on this site (like information dispelling the myth that homosexuality is a choice), keep in mind that the church still only permits homosexuals to either marry some one of the opposite sex (i.e. Some one they are not sexually attracted to) or to be celibate for their whole lives. This causes a psychological dissonance many are unable to deal with while remaining in the church. And for good reason. Nonetheless, here is the site:

mormonsandgays.org

In contrast, here is a blog of a good friend of mine who tried to reconcile his homosexuality with his Mormon beliefs.

anothergaymormon.blogspot.com

Here are some great clips from the Atheist Experience on homosexuality:

Here are some videos from the YouTube page "iamanexmormon." This first video features a middle aged man who tried gay reparative therapy through the Mormon church:

Here is a side project from columnist Dan Savage, the "It Gets Better Project," featuring videos of adult homosexuals and celebrities offering support and advice to young gays and lesbians facing opposition from family and friends:

There are also films like "Philadelphia," "Boys Don't Cry," and "Milk" which deal with homosexual issues. And, of course, the documentary "8: The Mormon Proposition" which exposes the Mormon church's political and financial influence on a bill in California which sought to make gay marriage illegal by changing the state's constitution. 

FUDGE PACKER

Ordinarily I don't do much on Facebook. I scroll through my feed and look for amusing posts, but I haven't posted anything all year. Until yesterday...

I knew that the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage last week would bring out the worst in many people, especially considering I live in Utah county, home of the Mormon-owned BYU. I even knew that many of my friends, family and coworkers would likely express disappointment in the ruling and make ignorant projections about how their religious liberties will be taken away. And I was not wrong.

What I did not expect was the level to which my blood would boil listening to this filth. It is everywhere I go. Facebook is laced with it. Reddit is covered by it. Coworkers spew unfounded, fear-mongering drivel at inappropriate times. I am sick of it. Seriously, I am fed up.

In one conversation at work a coworker laughingly noted that another Mormon coworker had posted a rainbow picture on Facebook (this has become a symbol of support for the gay community). This picture featured a Mormon temple with a rainbow overlay. I thought it was a fantastic idea, so I made one of my own: a picture of Mormon apostle Boyd K. Packer with a rainbow overlay [see left].

It fills me with such joy to see the face of Mormon bigotry in apparent and ironic solidarity with the gay movement, even if it is only in a satirical form. It makes me so happy inside that I made it my Facebook profile pic...

This morning I saw two condemnatory comments on my picture from people with whom I have not spoken in over fifteen years:

Jon W.:
"Wow, Matt... is that truly what you think of Elder Packer..."

Chad F.:

"That's sad Matt. Not that you changed your pic or did the rainbow, I get that, but that you would use it in clearly a mocking manner."

Jon W. (replying to Chad F.):

"Sadily, I went to school with Matt, I never expected this of him."

This is what I wanted to say in response:

"I am not a swearing man, but...

"Fudge Mr. Packer's homophobic hate speech cloaked by religious expression! Fudge his attempts to impose his religious values on to other people! Fudge anyone who defends him or sympathizes with his views! Fudge Mormons who think that a fudging donation to a real fudging charity that feeds homeless gay teens makes up for the millions of dollars the fudging Mormon Church has spent fighting against gay rights, directly contributing to the fudging homophobia which put them on the streets in the fudging first place! FUDGE PACKER! FUDGING FUDGE!"

This is my actual response: 

"Chad and Jon: What you call "mockery" I call "satire." And given the awful things Mr. Packer has said about the gay community for many years, I'd say my satirical photo of him is pretty poignant. It is strange to me that you seem to be more offended by me painting Mr. Packer in a more tolerant light than his expressed position (again, in a satirical manner) than you seem to be by his own hateful words towards people he does not know. If this really is the case, I am happy to disappoint you."

Well, this seems to have opened up the floodgates. Here is the conversation thus far:

Chad F.:

"It's the fact that you openly mock a person that you know many of your friends hold in high regard. You were a spiritual giant to me, and more than anything a guy that taught me a lot about caring for others. I don't agree with but understand your thoughts on Elder Packer, but what you are doing has no impact on him. It does impact those of us who wish to call you a dear friend."

Matt [me]:

"I also have many friends who have been hurt by Packer's words. This picture is for them. Regardless, I appreciate satire--especially of sacred cows. I can't help it if others are offended. And I certainly can't live my life tip-toeing around people--even dear friends. But this still misses the larger point: I chose Packer for a reason. His words about the gay community has caused more harm than my photo ever could. Just look into the number of gay teens living on the streets of Salt Lake City and the number of gay teens in Utah who commit suicide because their families took Packer's words seriously. Homophobia perpetuated by Mormon leaders, such as Packer, impact these numbers, at least in part. Is Packer to blame for all the homophobia in Utah? Certainly not. But as a leader and spokesman of the Mormon majority in this state, he contributes to it. I believe that any friends of mine who find my photo offensive should look inward and ask why?"

Jon W.:

"Matt, I can understand how you feel but that is something you can't prevent. Bro. Packer spoke what was needed to be said and regardless the church leaders have always counseled us on the issues of homosexuality. Please go read what Bro. Kristofferson I know that's not spelled right but my iPhone spelled it wrong as you might consider something's he recently said."

Matt: 

"I don't see how Packer's homophobia is needed."

Jon W.: 

"Because you don't understand I am not faulting you Matt. Just show respect to him like you would like someone such as your grandfather. It is the best way to look at. Also there are times you just need to turn the other cheek."

Matt: 

"I can't respect someone who has hurt so many lives. I never heard my grandfather say anything hurtful against gays (but I never spoke to him about it while he was alive). My conscience will not allow me to "turn the other cheek" to hate. And I am truly saddened that you defend him. Truly I am."

Jon W.: 

"I respect my church leaders and I will never let society dictate what they believe. I am sorry that you don't understand why I am this way."

Matt:

"I wouldn't presume to know why, Jon. But I think it is healthy to challenge beliefs we take for granted. And I hope you take a serious look in to how much of your respect Packer has actually earned."

Jon W: 

"Elder packer is the second highest church leader and I won't turn my back on my beliefs. You are allowing your personal feelings dictate how you feel. I for one have many gay friends but I don't let Elder packer dictate what he says about them because they aren't members so they can live their life the way they want to until the end of days. When Heavenly Father returns."

Matt: 

"What about gay Mormons? How do you think Packer's words have affected them when he tells them their love is counterfeit and they can change their sexual orientation if they only pray hard enough?"

Chad F.: 

"You are missing the larger point, you didn't post something in support of gay marriage and the picture itself is not what's offensive. What's offensive is your disregard for what your friends find important. I recognize you that you think it's all a big fairy tale and that there is nothing important about these men, but that doesn't change the fact that you know many close to you don't think or belive as you do."

Jon W.: 

"Well said Chad, I appreciate that you also stand up for what you believe in like I do. It seems we also have some other mutual friends. I used to live up in Idaho falls, but moved to pokey in 2011."

Matt: 

"I'm sorry if your regard for Packer is greater than your regard for the people he has hurt. You are free to believe whatever you want. But beliefs matter. Packer's harmful comments on the gay community matter."

And then I posted a quote from Voltaire: "To Learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." [see left]

Jon W.: 

"Matt, I don't ever oppose church leaders it is wrong to when you sustain them on a daily basis. Society views doesn't change the fact as I don't hate that those who want to live their lives but when they mock others but I will let them live their lives the way they want, as it doesn't affect me. It only affects me when they start blaming church leaders as they are only speaking prophetically."

Matt:

"No offense, but I had trouble reading this comment. I think I get your meaning, though. You are welcome to believe what you want, sustain who you want, for whatever reasons you want. I hope you don't do it blindly, which is what I see a lot. I am stunned by your defense of this man and his comments. Society does not need a prophet telling gays they are inherently sinful and can change and should change their sexual orientation. This is abuse."

Jon W.: 

"Matt, those who he has hurt are not of the faith. I don't do anything blindly."

Matt: 

"Wrong, I know many gay Mormons who have been hurt by his words. Even if this was not the case, to dismiss those who have been hurt by Packer in this way is disrespectful and dishonest."

Jon W.: 

"He spoke the way he was supposed to. I will not debate that. I take for granted that you don't share my views. I can't tell you how to view everything and you can't just blame one person as he is not the only one who is speaking truth why not look something as a whole. It is just like I could blame the entire JW faith or the people who never took my word for the abuse I suffered as a teenager."

Matt: 

"Again, you are defending the indefensible. Packer has been saying for years that gay Mormons can and should become straight by praying. Do you have any idea what happens to a young gay Mormon teen who tries this and fails, over and over again? No wonder so many gay Mormon teens kill themselves. There is a reason psychological organizations around the world classify "pray away the gay" reparative therapy as abuse. Because it is. And this is what Packer is calling "truth" and you are defending him. Furthermore, Packer is not a lone wolf here. He is simply the most vocal and the most consistent."

Jon W.: 

"Matt as I said I will not debate this. I must ask you but do you honestly believe that people are born gay? I will tell you it is a choice and that choice is something that can either make or break you. This is my last comment on this matter because you are blinded by not what I am saying. I know you're hurt by his comments and that is your choice but I can't let you think I will ever have my beliefs be changed."

Matt: 

"This saddens me most of all. You are so dismissive of the pain of others and you refuse to entertain the idea that your beliefs might be wrong. I welcome debate. I am open to any evidence you might have for your views. If I find your evidence compelling, I will revise my beliefs. As for your question "is homosexuality a choice?" All the evidence I have seen unequivocally indicates that it is not a choice. Homosexuals are born that way. To quote Packer, himself: "Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?" Why, indeed. I differ from Packer in that I don't see homosexuality as a bad thing."

Jon W.: 

"It is a choice Matt you can't possibly think homosexuals are born gay. This is so wrong on every level. I will not tell you how to live that is not my choice but honestly show me where a baby that is born chooses to be gay, lesbian or transgender"

Matt: 

"Ummm, I don't understand your last question. No one chooses to be gay, lesbian or transgender. That's the point I was making."

Matt: 

"You should ask all your gay friends how many of them chose to be part of an oppressed minority. Their answers may shock you. And while you're at it, do some research into the psychology of homosexuality and ask your question again. It is not a choice (not that it would matter in the conversation of rights)."

Lyndsey D.: 

"Matt, may I just say, your bravery is remarkable. Thank you."

Matt: 

"Likewise, Lyndsey."

Jon W.: 

"I know it's a choice and no matter what you may think those who I know that are gay tell me it is a choice. There is too much evidence to show otherwise. Lindsey I admire that you for saying something but honestly you were much different in school and you changed after high school as you choose to live your lifestyle the way you want. I don't have anything to tell you as I am not here to judge you, except to say your life is your own and only Heavenly Father is your judge and you will be judged according to the way he sees fit when the time comes. I do wish you all the best."

Matt: 

"Going back to your comment, Jon "you can't possibly think homosexuals are born gay. This is so wrong on every level." It is only wrong on every level if you believe that a god would create you gay and then condemn you for it. Gay Mormons are given two options by the church: Marry some one you are not attracted to; or be celibate for the rest of your life. Tell me, which would you choose?"

Matt: 

"Also, I would be interested in meeting gay friends of yours who think it is a choice. I have never had that conversation."

Derek H.: 

"Jon W., when did you decide to become straight? Or where you always attracted to girls? When did you choose to be a man? Or where you born a man? I'm guessing you were born that way. So why are homosexuals different. I have always been attracted to women, and I was born the gender I identify as. Have you ever sat and listened to a teenager who was battling with this? I have. I have seen their struggle trying to be someone they are not."
Derek H.: 

"I also have a friend who's gay and is married in the temple and he says it's not for everyone."

Matt: 

"I understand the doctrine just fine, thank you. Are you saying that your gay Mormon friend who is in a straight marriage is sexually attracted to their spouse? As far as unfriending me, do what you gotta do, I guess. I hope you don't hide your beliefs, just as I hope you challenge them and learn to defend them."

Jon W.: 

"I would never jeopardize my temple recommend to oppose my beliefs and because I know that without it I would be lost. For Derek, I knew friends growing up that were attracted to women then only became gay by a choice later on in life."

Derek H.: 

"Then they weren't straight to begin with or they are bi-sexual."

Matt: 

"Jon, I am asking a hypothetical question. No risk of losing your temple recommend. But seriously, which would you choose? To be married to someone you are not attracted to or to be celibate?"

Matt: 

"Good point, Derek. Jon, have you considered the possibility that your friends might have been in the closet? Lots of gay people hide in plain sight out of survival."

Jon W.: 

"I will answer more when I get to work I am busy right now"

Matt: 

"Take your time. Gay marriage is legal now, so no rush. lol"


Hillary T,: 

"Matt... I respect this. I respect you. Anything more I have to say about this would surely flame the fire."

BONUS MATERIAL:

Boyd K Packer on Gays: