DEAD HORSE WALKING

When I was a young Mormon boy I listened intently as the adults around me split hairs about whether or not it was appropriate for a young Mormon boy, such as myself, to wear a light blue dress shirt while passing the sacrament to the congregation. They settled on "it's not necessarily inappropriate, but a white shirt is preferred."

When I was a young Mormon man, I listened to my fellow young Mormon missionaries discuss the same topic, which had the added complication that many of the men which attended our congregations were too poor to afford clean, sterling-white dress shirts (post-communist Bulgaria in the early 2000's), and such a restriction would result in not allowing very many "locals" the "opportunity" to distribute chunks of white bread and tiny cups of water to the parishioners. The consensus was "It doesn't matter if it's inappropriate to wear a blue shirt or not; what choice do we have? Surely the Lord will understand our predicament."

And so on...

It seems that the blue shirt vs white shirt debate has been going on for generations and resurrects, as it were, every so often. I suppose this argument dies particularly hard because for many Mormons it is the closest they will ever come to theological nuance.

Invariably, whenever this dying horse finds new life, thereby prolonging its obligatory flogging, a secondary debate emerges: culture vs doctrine.

As one who has left the Mormon church, I rarely find the opportunity to join in these debates with believing members. And, for the record, I'm okay with that. But I do recall a few instances discussing philosophy and epistemology with Mormons and this topic has briefly come up. Since it isn't really that important to my overall critique of Mormonism (believers have no compelling reason to claim their positive feelings about the truth claims of the church are, in fact, from god, and, therefore, have no compelling reason to believe the church is true), I usually skip the debate between culture and doctrine in the moment. But I tend find myself thinking about it some time later. It's a curse.

The long and short of my argument is that you can't separate culture from doctrine just because you don't want to appear pedantic over minutia. The culture of the church is a reflection of its doctrine. There is a reason leaders of the church have stressed these seemingly minor things over the pulpit. Because, according to them, it matters. It is a way of gauging one's dedication to the church, and I don't mean this cynically. For church leaders it really is an effective shortcut for worthiness.

For example, the Word of Wisdom (Mormonism's rather underwhelming code of health) recommends against the drinking of coffee. As with the blue shirt vs white shirt debate, Mormons have debated the topic of coffee consumption for generations and I know of a few devout believers who look forward to the day when drinking coffee will no longer prevent one from entering the temple and going through the ordinances necessary for one's salvation (that's right, Mormons believe that drinking coffee is a serious enough transgression to warrant god denying the "sinner" eternal salvation). But as more and more studies come out which show that coffee has at least some health benefits (depending on how much sugar and cream one adds to it), more and more Mormons are finding abstinence from the drink to be less and less tenable on the grounds of health and wellness (this is important because Mormons generally believe that their more obscure beliefs will eventually be validated by the scientific community, thus allowing them to smugly taunt non-believers with a hearty "told you so."). And for this reason Mormons are focusing less on the health debate (because, again, they are losing it) and instead tout the point that sometimes god asks mankind to do things for reasons they don't understand as a test of one's faith.

Fair enough, I guess. However, before anyone claims this frail bit of reasoning to be innocuous, keep in mind such reasoning could give way to another Abraham and Issac situation (or, for any Mormons eyeing an apologetic response about the literalness of the Bible, Nephi and Laban (according to the Book of Mormon, god told Nephi to chop off the head of Laban while he was drunk and defenseless, then go to Laban's house, dressed in Laban's presumably blood-soaked clothing, and steal Laban's stuff and kidnap his servant, who Nephi also threatened to kill; and Mormons believe this was a moral thing to do.)), and who knows if round two would yield such a favorable outcome (regardless of the outcome, it was still an immoral thing for god to ask of Abraham or Nephi).

Well, the debate between culture and doctrine seems to have been lit anew as one of Mormonism's very tippy-top leaders, Dallin Oaks, while speaking to a large congregation, reinforced the importance of using the correct hand to partake of the sacrament. Let me restate this. One of god's representatives, a man who claims to be a "prophet, seer and revelator" (whatever that means) and also claims to have such a personal relationship with the resurrected Jesus Christ that he can unequivocally speak on his behalf, chose as his topic to a mass of believers the importance of using your right hand to eat bread and drink water instead of your left hand.

And they wonder why members get hung up about blue and white dress shirts...

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:

MODERATE INTELLIGENCE

I recently had the unexpected pleasure of discussing Sam Harris (author of The End of Faith) with a Mormon. By "unexpected pleasure" I mean that although this individual disagrees with Sam Harris on several points, he was still open to the conversation and willing to consider other points of view. Two points of contention this person has with Sam Harris are his anti-theistic views of religion generally (which I totally understand from a believing Mormon's perspective) and Sam's seemingly disparaging views of Islam specifically.

On the first point, I recommended this person look up Christopher Hitchens and reconsider whether Sam Harris really is that hostile towards religion in comparison.

On the second point, well, it gets more complicated. On the one hand, I think that Sam Harris has some valid and pointed criticisms of Islam and has made a career speaking publicly about the potential, and in some cases demonstrable, harm which the religion's scriptures and preachments can produce.

For instance, the infamous 9/11 hijacking was committed by the truest of believers, as was the murder of Danish cartoonists and filmmakers, the fatwa on the head of Salman Rushdie for the crime of writing a fictional book, the fatwa on Ayaan Hirsi Ali for leaving the religion and speaking out against chopping off the clitoris of baby girls, the countless and ongoing atrocities committed by ISIS against homosexuals and infidels, the murderous riots which stemmed from an inflammatory video daring to depict the Prophet Muhammad (one of which resulted in the Benghazi kerfuffle), and many other instances of faithful Muslims who take their religion and its texts literally.

The trouble with Sam's view, or rather the perception of Sam's view which I would argue he hasn't done enough to correct, is that these many examples of extremism are not representative of the religion as a whole, in much the same way that not all Christians are responsible for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Ku Klux Klan, the Holocaust, bombings of abortion clinics or the murder of abortion doctors. To confound the matter, many misunderstand Sam Harris' criticisms of the beliefs and tenets of Islam as bigotry against Muslim people (see video below).

In a way, and I am hardly the first to make this point, the Muslim world is currently undergoing a series of growing pains similar to Christianity during the Dark Ages. Hopefully more moderate Muslims will win out, as with Christians, but only time will tell. And I think this is Sam's overall point in criticizing Islam. It's not that Islam necessarily results in terrorism. But rather that it's teachings can be interpreted in such a way that terrorism is a result. A Christian example would be how Hitler exploited traditional Christian beliefs and prejudices about the Jews being responsible for the death of Jesus to build his Nazi army.

Likewise, the Bible supports some terrible things as well, such as the subjugation of women, the genocide of various middle eastern tribes, the stoning of homosexuals, apostates, disobedient children, those who work on the Sabbath, those who eat shellfish and those who wear mixed fabrics. If any Christian or Jewish sect followed the Bible literally and enforced these rules--which believers often defend as morally necessary for the time and people of the Bible--we in civilized society would have a moral obligation to stamp it out. Fortunately, however, most Christians and Jews don't take their holy books that seriously.

So when Sam Harris calls Islam "the mother load of bad ideas" understand that he means this in a context in which Muslims take their religion seriously and literally, and that the only real criticism a moderate believer can level against a scriptural literalist is a lack of nuance which all too often is based on an irreconcilable cognitive dissonance in the mind of the moderate. In other words, the reason a moderate is not a literalist is often because taking scripture literally--like when the Bible tells you what is an acceptable consequence for a disobedient slave--conflicts with a person's inner morality. Both are arguing from a position of faith and a presumption of scriptural authority, rather than reason and evidence. Therefore, how can one side claim the other is wrong in any absolute sense?

It seems to me that the best way for Muslims and Christians and Jews to assimilate into a cooperative multicultural society may well be for the growing moderates to cherry pick their respective religious texts and disregard the unpleasant bits. We may in fact depend on this apparent hypocrisy. The trouble seems to come from believing in the inerrancy of scripture. As much as I would like to see religion become a thing of the past, I must admit that a world of self-serving cherry-picking moderates is preferable to a world of valiant idealistic literalists.

And in an effort for transparency, I have been guilty of making sweeping generalizations about Muslims in the past of the sort Sam Harris is often accused, and have even written posts on this blog which today make me cringe. I have considered taking the posts down, but I feel they are an important part of my journey away from religion, as painful as they may be to me now.



BONUS MATERIAL:



Sam Harris calling Islam "the mother load of bad ideas" and Ben Affleck losing his mind:

BABY STEPPED IN BULLCRAP

Every so often I hear believers swoon over some religious leader who said something that wasn't completely terrible. Congratulations to them for managing to scrounge up at least a modicum of human decency. Can I stop holding my breath now?

Perhaps these baby steps are a good sign. But don't expect me to ignore their long history of abuses for which they have yet to atone.

Probably the most blatant example of this two-faced ingratiation is Pope Francis. On the one hand, he pays the most swell-sounding lip service to progressive Catholics on topics like, say, gay rights. But on the other hand, if you know anything about actual Catholic doctrine, you can hardly say that the Pope is a friend of the LGBT community. Case in point: a few weeks ago social media was all a flutter over an anecdote of a gay man who had a one-on-one conversation with Francis, wherein the self-proclaimed infallible Holy See said of the man's homosexuality and abuse he suffered at the hands of a Catholic priest, "You know Juan Carlos, that does not matter. God made you like this. God loves you like this. The Pope loves you like this and you should love yourself and not worry about what people say."

So there you have it. The Pope, and by extension the Catholic church as a whole, is now totally squared on the LGBT issue. Except that he isn't. If he was actually interested in righting wrongs against LGBT people he would actually change church policy to be more inclusive--which is something that the Pope could do! But he doesn't seem interested in that. Which means that he isn't really interested in making amends or ending abuse.

Some people have argued that Pope Francis is laying the ground work for more impactful change in future generations. Bullcrap. Did Moses lay inter-generational ground work to prepare the Israelites for the Ten Commandments? No, he destroyed the golden calf and made them wander in the desert for forty years. Did Jesus ease the Pharisees into the higher law? No, he raided the money changers in the temple and called local church leadership a bunch of greedy hypocrites. Did Pope Benedict simply fulfill John Paul's end game by abandoning the atrocious centuries-old doctrine of Limbo? No! That's not how a top down theocracy works! God tells the Pope, the Pope tells the church, the church accepts it as dogma. And according to the church's dogma, once the Pope makes something official, anyone who disagrees--including politically motivated Cardinals--is in the wrong. That's how infallibility works.

This same principle applies to the Mormon church and their "prophet" as well. A handful of lower-tier leaders have made efforts to soften the church's stance on LGBT issues (while others have hardened it), and progressive Mormons sing their praises. But in terms of actually policy, there is no place for homosexuals in the church. At least none which the mental health community would call healthy. And the fact that this is just the latest example of the church being decades behind the times shows how very fallible their theocratic system is.

Every year Provo hosts a giant patriotic circle-jerk for the Fourth of July. The night before the big day they kick off the event with an informal parade where everyday folk drive cars and motorcycles up and down State Street making all kinds of noise for hundreds of cheering pedestrians lining the sidewalk. The next morning, along the same street and in much the same fashion, is a formal Freedom Festival parade. The evening is filled with fireworks and music and dancing at the Stadium of Fire, which  conveniently rakes in a boatload of money for Mormon-owned BYU.

Last year the Freedom Festival brought controversy to the event when it came to light that every single LGBT advocacy group which had petitioned for a float in the parade was denied. This year, the mayor signed a statement that the festival would not discriminate against any group on the basis of sexual orientation. And the very next day, the festival denied all of the same LGBT groups participation in the parade on the basis that they were not "patriotic." Which, of course, raises the question of how the festival can in turn allow a group of 150+ Mormon missionaries to march in the parade...

In response, several LGBT supporters began making plans for a protest during the parade, which is similarly allowed during the Salt Lake Pride Parade, only from the other direction (what's more patriotic than a protest?).

Well, in a rare display of public outcry--at least for Utah County--LGBT advocates seem to have won the day. The festival organizers have agreed to allow LGBT groups in the parade so long as they abide by certain patriotic stipulations, including wearing red, white and blue colored clothes and waving American flags, etc. Interestingly, for the first time, the Mormon missionary mob will not be participating in the parade, but will instead be volunteers helping run the festivities. My guess is that this is intended to allow missionaries to rub elbows with patrons more freely. Clever, I guess.

My favorite part of the whole debacle, and the most reassuring sign that Utah is capable of baby steps even if the Mormon church isn't, is that Utah County Commissioner Nathan Ivie threatened to pull taxpayer funding for the event ($113,000) if the organizers continued to discriminate against LGBT groups, and had this to say: "I also know bulls--- when I see it. I didn’t think somebody would be stupid enough to do what they did."

Perhaps Mr. Ivie is new to Utah...

COGNITIVE DYSENTERY

I don't normally listen to the Rational Faiths Podcast, which purports to "Keep Mormonism Weird." They unabashedly defend religion and Mormonism, often in a condescending way (at least for unbelievers; maybe believers find it refreshing and "edgy," but I wouldn't know). I guess they loosely qualify as religious apologists, which, let's be honest, is a pretty easy bar to clear. Perhaps deep down I'm a masochist, but today I took the bait and listened to an entire episode, thus reaffirming my previous distaste in the format.

The episode which piqued my interest was "Ask a Mormon Lesbian With Laura Root (episode 12; 225)." I had some idea the direction Ms. Root might take the conversation, and I wasn't wrong. LGBT people who (voluntarily) choose to stay within the Mormon religion, including Ms. Root, tend to follow one line of reasoning: they claim to know Mormonism is the one true church as evidenced by exclusively divine feelings, and they struggle to reconcile their aforementioned feelings with the church's harsh stance on LGBT people within the theology (as Ms. Root puts it, there is currently no place within Mormonism for LGBT people and the church is an unwelcoming place for gay people--this may be the only point on which we agree).

The bulk of the show was dedicated to a question from a listener who was looking for ways to support LGBT people in the church. In particular the listener didn't know how they should approach situations in Sunday school or other classroom settings when someone says something homophobic in a lesson or cites the church's Proclamation on the Family, which contains some strong words against gay marriage.

Ms. Root and her guest (a straight Mormon man with gay relatives who has reconsidered his position on LGBT Mormons) defended the Proclamation on the Family, but also advised listeners to plant seeds in support of gay marriage. Try to figure that one out.

Furthermore, Ms. Root tackled the elephant in the room of why a gay person should stay in the church. Her response: To support the gay children who will inevitably be born in to bigoted, homophobic Mormon homes. Admirable. Perhaps even worthwhile to a certain degree. I can't make that decision for anyone else, but I will say that while this approach may give some LGBT youths a soft landing pad within the church, ultimately I think it will do more harm than good.

As I noted above, Ms. Root said herself that there is no place within the church's theology for LGBT people. The center of Mormon doctrine revolves around the traditional family unit, including the hierarchy in heaven. Without major changes in core doctrines LGBT people really have no chance of making it into the highest degrees of glory in Mormon heaven, which is all about one man having polygamous wives and innumerable children. For gay people, it just doesn't work.

One alternate theory is that faithful gay people will be made straight in heaven, but this sits about as well for many gay people as the idea of a straight person contemplating becoming gay. Not to mention the sexual orientation of a person is pretty central to the core of who they are as a person. Changing that would fundamentally change the individual, so in what sense would they go to heaven?

Ms. Root's advice, while laudable, is shortsighted. The core of the issue is the doctrine, not the conservative homophobic ideals of yesteryear which pervade the church's culture. The only way for the church to consider changing their doctrine--and this has been found true many times over the church's history--is through their pocketbooks (like when they denounced polygamy (twice!) because the Federal government threatened to seize millions of dollars in church assets, including their temples).

Maybe this means the church gets sued for discrimination (which is why the church is so vocal about Utah legislation including provisions for the church to be allowed to discriminate). Maybe this means that other universities boycott sporting events with BYU (this very likely played a roll in the church's decision to allow black men to hold the priesthood in 1978). Maybe this means that every person who finds the church's position on homosexuality to be reprehensible leaves the church in droves, thus hemorrhaging their annual tithes and offerings. Maybe it should be all three, plus a few I didn't think of.

I understand the urge to stick around and make things better from the inside, but this approach has never yielded anything from the church aside from consolation prizes (like when parents complained about worthiness interviews of children, and the church "allowed" parents to sit in on the interviews--a right which they already had as parents.). The only worthwhile advice anyone should be telling a young gay person in the Mormon church is to get the hell out before they become another gay Mormon statistic.

UNDER THE RUG

In the ever-growing wake of religious scandals (abuse and rape of children, fraud, theft, dark political money) the Mormon church has always found a way to minimize its own questionable practices as they come to public light. For instance, when critics found millions of dollars of money coming from the church to influence the 2008 vote in California on Proposition 8 (which would change the California constitution to make gay marriage illegal), believers said the figure was grossly exaggerated, and that most of the funds came in the form of Mormon volunteers going door to door to rally supporters for "traditional marriage."

In November 2015 the church announced that homosexuals are considered apostates to the church and that children of homosexuals in a gay marriage could not join the church until they reached the age of eighteen (rather than eight) and only after they formally denounce the gay marriage of their parents. The church tried to soften the PR blow back by interviewing D. Todd Christofferson (a high ranking Mormon Apostle with a conveniently gay brother) by an active believing lackey fielding pre-approved softball questions emphasizing that the church super duper loves gay people and the purpose of this change is to not cause division among gay households, just like they do with polygamous households (never mind that gay marriage is legal and polygamy is not).

When the church received criticism about conducting "worthiness" interviews of adolescents as young as twelve years old, wherein the church leader would ask explicit detailed questions about the youth's sexuality and masturbation practices, the church reluctantly--and only recently--conceded that parents could be present during such interviews (apparently this isn't a new thing, and there is a protest march at Temple Square scheduled for this Friday. Fun.). It should be noted that even with this "change" church leaders will still ask pre-teen boys and girls whether or not they masturbate with the intent to help them repent of their transgression. 

When concerned Mormon parents encouraged a grassroots movement to record these sexually explicit interviews of minors to show the world how inappropriate such questions are for a grown man to be asking children, the Utah state legislature tried to pass a law which would make such recordings illegal (how's that for separation of church and state?).

When the church came under scrutiny for not encouraging church leaders to report child abuse to the police, the church's attourneys responded with the "Gold Standard" defense, claiming that if they reported abuse to the police, fewer people would feel comfortable confiding in the bishop. 

In 1978--well past the tail end of the civil rights movement--the Mormon church, which had always maintained that god will never grant priesthood authority to black men because of the curse of Cain and their lackluster performance during the pre-mortal war in heaven, backtracked on the issue and allowed black people full membership rights, including admission into their temples and allowing black men to hold priesthood office. Mormons still have a hard time understanding why black people aren't jumping at the chance to join the church nearly forty years after this announcement.

In 1890 the Mormon church announced that the eternal principal of plural marriage (i.e. polygamy) would no longer be practiced or endorsed by the church. In 1904 the Mormon church announced again that the eternal principal of plural marriage would no longer be practiced or endorsed by the church. Why the second announcement? Because many believing faithful Mormons didn't buy the ruse. They knew that the only reason the Mormon president made the announcement in the first place was because the US government was threatening to seize the church's assets, including their million dollar mini-mansions (i.e. temples). It was largely seen as a political move, and even the president of the church who made the announcement, Wilford Woodruff, married yet-another-wife afterwards. Those who did not see it as a political move denounced Woodruff as a false prophet. Now the church hems and haws and tries to downplay the importance that polygamy played in the church, but their scriptures and several decades of church leadership clearly and unequivocally state that polygamy is necessary to reach the highest degree of glory in heaven. To this day several Mormon sects and even individual Mormon leaders still practice polygamy (including current president of the church Russell Nelson!). 

Most recently a woman has accused Joseph Bishop (a high profile Mormon who has held very significant positions within the church, such as Mission President in Argentina, Mission President to the Missionary Training Center, and President of Weber State University) of sexual abuse and attempted rape while she was a missionary under him in the MTC (mid 1980s). I won't go into the details of the abuse here since others have done so quite thoroughly (Infants of Thrones, Mormon Stories). Instead I want to focus on the church's response to these allegations (their official statement). 

The long and short of it is that the church claims it went through proper legal channels and reported the abuse to police and did not have enough evidence on their own to issue any discipline to Bishop at the time (to put this into context, a couple years ago John Dehlin was excommunicated for using the Mormon Stories podcast to discuss problems with Mormon church history and abuses by the church against homosexuals, and Kate Kelly was excommunicated for creating the Ordain Women movement and suggesting that the church should allow women to hold the same leadership positions as men within the church). This is strange to me since we now know of a second woman who has made similar accusations against Bishop, and the first woman recorded a conversation between herself and Bishop wherein he admits he "confessed all his sins" to his ecclesiastical leader, including the abuse of both of these women. He also strongly implies that he abused other women for many years. 

Maybe he's lying. Maybe the recording was faked. Maybe it's all true, but the church didn't know the details or extent of the abuse. Maybe the church is lying. Who knows? But let's suppose that the church's version of the story is completely true. Does this make things better? Not in the view of a believing Mormon. 

You see, Mormons believe that their church leaders have what they call "the power of discernment." Basically this means that they have a direct line to god and if someone is lying during a worthiness interview (like when they ask a twelve year old girl if she masturbates) god will let the church leader know. Nothing gets past god. Except, apparently, Joseph Bishop. 

A couple years ago I posted something on my Facebook page about Utah having an unusually high suicide and homelessness rate for gay teens as a direct result of the November 2015 policy change discussed above. In response, a Mormon acquaintance sent me a blog article (unfortunately the link appears to be broken), which sought to make the case that Utah had the same rate of suicide for gay teens as any other state. If I had granted that this blogger's assessment was accurate, I would still be left asking why Utah wasn't better than all the other states. If the Mormon church is true, then surely they should be better suited to help those most in need of support. The claim that the predominately Mormon state of Utah is just as bad as anywhere else is a tacit admission that the church doesn't really make things better in important social matters. 

Furthermore, that fact that the church has such a long history of being several years behind every social movement of the past hundred years (with the exception of women having the right to vote, which Mormon apologists love to point out, but which can easily be explained as an opportunistic way for Mormons who still practiced polygamy to cast more votes per household. So there's that.) begs the question, in what sense is the Mormon church true? In what sense does the church make people behave better? In what sense does god lead the church and its leaders? 

Why would god not tell Joseph Bishop's priesthood leader that he's lying about his worthiness? Why would god allow Bishop to be promoted through the ranks of the church amid prolonged sexual abuse? For Mormons who want to fall back on the adage that god does not intervene due to agency, first of all, that is a terribly convenient excuse, don't you think? Second, that doesn't explain why god allowed Bishop to be promoted. In addition to leaders having the power of discernment, Mormons believe that if a leader becomes sinful or abuses their power, god will remove them from that position. Why didn't he do it to Bishop? 

What the hell, here's a scripture for reference: D&C 121:37 "That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man."

It's almost as if god doesn't exist... 

BONUS MATERIAL:

Tracie Harris on god allowing children to be raped.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS MAY APPLY

The following video of Mormon Apostle Elder D. Todd Christofferson (there's a lofty self-made title for you) was shared on my Facebook feed:

It's great that Mormon church leaders are trying to use more inclusive language, as they do in this video. I have a few issues, though...

First, actions speak louder than words. The church talks a good game, but it doesn't have the best track record among gays, blacks and women. 

Second, Mr. Christofferson mentions that a segment of the population that leaves the church does so because they don't feel accepted or welcome in the church. I am sure such people do exist, but in my experience, feelings of alienation come as a result of deeper issues and doubts--not because Mormons aren't "friendly" enough. John Dehlin has studied this and his work shows that "being offended" or "not having a friend" in church are among the least common reasons people leave Mormonism. 

Third, the idea that Mormons welcome diversity is tenuous and conditional. What they really mean is that they welcome all to adopt their culture and religion. This is demonstrated by their massive missionary efforts, through which they send tens of thousands of young adults (most of whom are straight out of high school) with the sole purpose of convincing everyone on earth that their world view is incomplete and flawed and that Mormonism is infinitely better. A large part of culture is derived from the predominant religions in the region. Which means that even though some people who have joined Mormonism have been able to assimilate some aspects of their culture (i.e. Polynesians), the roots of their culture of origin must be gutted and abandoned before they can truly accept Mormonism ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me"). 

When I hear Mormon leaders talk about diversity, what I really hear is a fleeting hope that enough non-white people will join the church so that they can be taken seriously as a major world religion. An ambitious task for a religion boasting less than 1% of the global population.

USER FRIENDLY

I have heard religious people use the following scripture as an argument against atheism: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." This is the theological equivalent schoolyard name calling. If by "fool" they mean a person who does not believe the same unsubstantiated nonsense as they believe, well, it seems to be more of a compliment than an insult. Such provocations only serve to expose the weakness of their arguments. If there was anything of substance to be presented, they would not fall upon insults to rattle their opponent. Arguments stand or fall on their own merits, as Matt Dillahunty points out. Name calling is not an argument.

It is in this vein of "I know you are, but what am I?" that I have a hard time stomaching some of the ideas promoted in the most recent General Conference of the Mormon Church. One leader, Mr. Dieter Uchtdorf, flat out said that skepticism is the easy path and lacks the moral courage and integrity that a faith-filled life requires. This is absurd and condescending to anyone who has wrestled with difficult topics while a believing Mormon.

Problems and inconsistencies in the Mormon narrative, especially regarding history and the veracity of Mormon scripture, have caused many people over the years to question whether the church is true. This phenomenon has only accelerated with the advent of the Internet, which has increased the layman's access to information. In the past, when someone heard disconcerting information they would have to pour through volumes of books in order to find the truth. Now, most people can fact check claims they hear in church on their phones as they sit in the pews. Pulling wool over the eyes of the average Joe has become more challenging to charlatans everywhere.

  

The accessibility of information and the effect of raising doubts in members has become a growing problem for the Mormon church. Many people have speculated that this problem has caused the church to be more open about their history in recent essays published by the church, in an attempt to get ahead of the curve of dwindling membership.

Surely, amid the commotion, Mr. Uchtdorf has spoken to sincere believers who struggle with their new-found doubts. Surely, he has heard their pleas for satisfactory and comprehensive answers to their questions. Surely, he has seen the alienation that comes to members who doubt and the strength of character it takes to step away from the church of their family and friends. How dare he call it the "easy way." There is nothing easy about it.

I have a hard time believing that someone in Mr. Uchtdorf's position could make such a statement naively. Which implies that he made a conscious decision to ostracize a growing segment of the population of the church.

Another idea promoted in this conference is that true-believing members should only read church approved sources for historical information. In particular, members should avoid the Internet when researching the church. This is obviously a response to the problem described above that members are coming across information on the Internet which disproves the user-friendly version of church history promoted by the church itself. The more the church can control the narrative, the more they can insulate members from facts which challenge faith.

This is done out of necessity, of course. Without resorting to such totalitarian tactics, the church would likely continue to lose members--especially young adults--which directly threatens their coffers. And without ever-inflating tax-free money bags, how else would the church buy another multi-billion dollar high-end mall?

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. 

DUMB IT DOWN

"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience."
--Dilbert

Some of the more convoluted religious discussions I have participated in have been on the topic of salvation for the mentally disabled. Many religions claim that entrance into heaven is conditional upon certain acts of contrition and ritual manifestations of belief. Arbitrary acts of compliance, such as baptism, confession, communion, sacraments, endowments, and so on, are meant to show an all-knowing god that you really mean it--that you really do super-duper believe.

The question becomes, "since many mentally disabled people do not fully understand the meaning behind religious ceremonies, or are incapable of understanding what a god even is, are they required to go through these rites of passage in order to make it into heaven?"

I first encountered this question while on my mission, when a middle aged woman requested that her mentally retarded 20 year old son be baptized. As missionaries, we looked forward to any baptism. Even so, it seemed unnecessary to baptize a grown man with the mind of a five year old. Surely god would allow him into heaven based on his condition, which surely god had imposed on him in the first place.

A few years ago autism was reclassified and broadened to a spectrum disorder, which allows for gradation of symptoms and severity of the condition. Still, there are many things which are in common of autistics as a whole. For instance, autistics tend to be analytically minded, and black and white in their thinking. This makes nuanced social and moral situations difficult for them to process. Because of these attributes, autism is especially interesting when discussing the salvation of the mentally challenged.

A Mormon associate of mine has an 11 year old autistic son (let's call him Peter) who told his mother that he doesn't want to go to church anymore because he hasn't seen any evidence for Jesus. In contrast, a Mormon relative of mine also has an 11 year old autistic son (let's call him John) who loves going to church and often makes decisions concerning social interactions based on lessons he has learned at church. Peter is very independent—almost to a fault—and John depends greatly on his parents and younger brother for guidance.

When Peter's mother told me about his decision to stop going to church, several people in our group reassured her that "he will come around." In Mormonism this means that at some point Peter will have a spiritual experience, or a "burning in his bosom," which Mormons believe is a sign that god is talking to them.

This burning sensation, as far as my ex-Mormon mind can understand, is no different than a "burning" desire for a proposition to be true. Meaning, Mormons believe that because they "have a good feeling" about Mormonism, this means that Mormonism is true. But to me, this is hardly a sound reason to assume the supernatural.

Based on other encounters Peter's mother has shared with me, I don't see Peter "coming around" to Mormonism solely based on feelings. Mormons will likely dismiss his unbelief as a symptom of his mental state, and claim that god will (probably) forgive him accordingly. This makes heaven a consolation prize for those inconvenienced by god's extra-strength cruelty in this life, leaving those who only experience god's regular-strength cruelty to fend for themselves.

If god can so easily forgive a mentally disabled person predisposed to unbelief, why can't he do the same for the rest of us unbelievers? Why is belief in something for which there is no evidence so important for our eternal salvation? What kind of plan is this?

John, on the other hand, has come to rely on church lessons for moral context and pro-social behavior. Mormonism has become his “Rosetta Stone” into social interactions. He is one of the few people I have met who really values and thinks about phrases like "What Would Jesus Do?"

John will likely remain in Mormonism as an adult because he has developed a comfortable routine out of it--another attribute of many autistics. Mormonism helps him understand right and wrong. I have discussed in other posts how difficult it is for many people who have based their moral standard on a belief in god to reconsider their morality after realizing god doesn't exist. For an autistic person who has made religion a social barometer and a routine, this becomes exponentially more challenging.

It will be interesting to see how John turns out, especially considering his affinity for science and space exploration. I wonder how his mind will process a potential faith crisis after, say, praying for someone to get well and waiting in vain for a response from god. After all, the scriptures are clear in the chain of events: pray in faith for something righteous and god will grant it. Will he so easily accept the inconsistent ad hoc rationalizations offered by believers for god's apparent negligence? I can't say. I hope that if that day comes, he finds a secular worldview to be just as useful in determining his morals and social behavior.

BONUS MATERIAL:





South Park weighing in on the subject:

BLANK SLATE

"The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain."

"Isn’t this statement encouraging news for parents whose children are sealed to them?"

--Richard H. Winkel, 2006 General Conference

I'm not really into weddings. I understand their purpose, and I support marriage in general. But weddings? Gag me twice with a crusty plunger...

Part of my disdain for weddings comes from my Mormon upbringing. Because of Mormonism's strict rules about weddings (they must be held in an exclusive Mormon temple, and only adults who hold a "temple recommend" may attend), I have only attended two real Mormon weddings, despite coming from a large Mormon family.

The consolation prize for any poor uninvited saps (i.e. heathens and children) who want to wish the happy couple well is a monotone reception, usually held in a local church's gymnasium. I can only handle so much sparkling apple cider, chalky dinner mints and white cake back-dropped with recycled plastic lilies draped over white wire arches. Oh yes. Mormons have a type. If you're lucky, they might have a slide show of engagement pictures, a chocolate fondue fountain or a third-cousin playing contemporary piano music for the low price of a future favor of equal or lesser value.

With such a bland template to go off of, you can imagine the challenge my wife and I had in planning a purely secular ceremony, which would not only celebrate our relationship and reflect our personalities, but would actually be enjoyable.

First and foremost, we didn't put arbitrary religious restrictions on who could attend. I was tempted to say that anyone whose wedding I would not be allowed to attend would likewise not be allowed at my wedding, but this seemed just as petty as when Mormons do it. Besides, our wedding was a celebration--not merely a stamp of worthiness.

Because Mormonism had left a bad taste in both our mouths, we decided to use a non-denominational minister who promised to accommodate our secular views. Naturally, some family members encouraged us to use a Mormon bishop who would happily officiate our ceremony free of charge. But this would undoubtedly mean our ceremony would be neck deep in references to god and heartfelt pleas for us to recommit to Mormonism so we can be married in the temple for "realsies" (after giving 10% of our money to the church for a year, of course...).

The minister was great. Well worth the money. We met with him several weeks prior and went over the itinerary. He was very professional and made a point to go over our religious views so the ceremony would reflect our beliefs. When we said we wanted a secular ceremony, he said he could easily take out all religious references from his service and focus instead on our relationship, loyalty and love. Ya know, the stuff that a marriage should be based upon. We were not disappointed.

The ceremony itself was outdoors at a quaint local farm, rather than a stuffy windowless room in the blandest of mini mansions. We stood under an ivy-covered gazebo, surrounded by close family and friends--and not just the ones who agree with us philosophically. We were even able to personalize aspects of our ceremony in a way a Mormon couldn't even dream of doing, such as pre-writing funny notes to each other which the minister incorporated into the service and playing Star Wars music as the bride walked down the isle.

Even the reception was personalized. We had catered food and Italian sodas--far more substantial than any reception I have ever attended. The cake was an homage to a video game (Portal) which we both enjoy playing and which served as a catalyst for one of our first long conversations. Not to mention it had several flavors, so everyone would enjoy it.

Throughout the reception area we had candles with inside jokes carved into them, and several pieces of art which we had made. The purpose was to celebrate our relationship visually in fun and creative ways. It wasn't about an invisible omniscient third-party who would watch us have sex (think about that, believers). It was about us. Not in a selfish way. But a in a celebratory way.

I mentioned that I have only attended two real Mormon weddings, only one of which was immediate family: my younger sister. My family is huge. I am the fourth of 8 kids. I was too young to go to either of my two oldest siblings' weddings. Instead, I waited in the temple lobby. My second older brother was married while I was on my mission, and a wedding is not an approved reason to leave the "work of the lord."

My younger sister was married while I was attending BYU, and it is basically part of the admission process to have a temple recommend. So I was able to attend her temple wedding. The officiant was an older gentleman who repeatedly praised my sister and her new husband for choosing to follow god's commandments, and admonished them that if they continue to be worthy to go to the temple (meaning, continue to give the church 10% of their money), then they would have a successful marriage which will totally continue in the eternities. The speech was all about their marriage in the context of obedience to Mormonism. Bleh. Gross. Double gross. "Yank-out-my-fingernails-with-your-gingivitis-teeth" gross.

My younger brother married a convert to the Mormon church. I wrote about their wedding in another post. Long story short, there was a bit of a feud between the parents of both families: my parents wanted a temple ceremony at the exclusion of non-Mormons and her non-Mormon parents wanted a civil ceremony so they could attend (no duh).

My brother made the difficult decision--and it was difficult--to have a civil wedding on a beach outside of Seattle, accessible to both families. My mother was heartbroken, even though she knew full well that my brother and his wife would still be married in the temple later. Yup. Mormons can do both.

As a way of discouraging a reasonable and inclusive wedding, the church usually makes more ecumenical couples wait several months before allowing them to be married in the temple (for "realsies"). The church had my brother wait about 3-4 months, which is quite short compared to the usual year long probation. I recall him saying once that he felt like he was being punished for doing the right thing. I replied, "you are."

The moral of the story, and of this post, is that secular weddings are better than religious weddings. They are more inclusive. They focus on the couple and celebrate their marriage. They bring people together, rather than divide. Because of the Mormon church's ridiculous policies to exclude certain people from weddings, I have only been present for two of my siblings' weddings.

I don't know that I have ever considered what my ideal wedding would be. But if I had, I think our inclusive secular wedding, which brought my family together for the first time in 15 years, is it.

BONUS MATERIAL:

Tide commercial (wait for it):

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: