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?

GASLIGHT THE WORLD

Let's say there's a young woman who is in an abusive relationship with a man. Let's say he is verbally abusive towards her and controls her sexuality in part by holding sex as a bargaining chip. Additionally, if she doesn't comply with his manipulative behavior, he keeps her away from her family and friends. She knows this is unhealthy, but cannot find a way out of this relationship without potentially making matters worse. So, she cuts herself. Her abusive partner finds her bloody and delirious, and takes her to the hospital where healthcare professionals see the signs of depression and self-harm. A psychiatrist talks with her about the apparent abuse, and after several scheduled therapy sessions, recommends that the woman leave the abusive partner. They even get the police involved to make sure the man cannot hurt her further. She takes the life-line and walks away, finally able to start a better life.

As someone who works in treatment, I have seen this kind of scenario play out many times. Most of my experience has been separating children from abusive parents. This is typical for victims of abuse--separation from the abuser. It would be unthinkable, unethical, and possibly criminal for a mental healthcare professional to recommend that a victim stay in the abusive relationship. Right?

I have worked in a number of treatment facilities over the past decade or so. I can't say any of them handle religion in a manner which doesn't cause problems. Utah County is chalk full of Mormons, who believe that they have the one true gospel and only they can save humanity from themselves/Satan/god. The stated policy for every treatment facility I have worked for has been that employees should not proselytize religion to their patients. And yet, I have seen countless instances of Mormons breaking that boundary. Overtly, and unapologetically.

At any rate, I actually agree with the policy. I think it's a good rule of thumb for healthcare professionals to avoid pushing religion (and atheism!), politics, pseudo-science, etc. on the vulnerable people in their care. But some facilities take it a little further. Not only do they discourage proselytizing of patients, they also recommend that patients do not make any changes in their religious views while in treatment.

On the surface, I can see this being a good rule of thumb as well. But I have seen a number of patients who have been hurt by religion or who simply don't want to follow the religion of their parents, and the facility where I currently work encourages them to stick with it. I have seen therapists even refuse to talk to their patients about their thoughts on religion and how it affects their relationship with their parents. Even just encouraging the patient to set a boundary with their parents would have helped smooth out certain situations. But no, that would upset the parents and we can't do that, because the parents are the ones who pay the bill, and let's be honest, the parents are the real customers here, not the patient who is depressed because his parents are controlling every aspect of his young adult life. No, no, religious views (of the parents) must be protected!

Part of the issue here may be due to the fact that Religious Trauma Syndrome is not yet recognized by the scientific community at large. At least, it isn't included in the DSM-V (the go-to diagnostic manual for psychiatrists). Religious trauma can fall under PTSD and similar diagnoses, but as is evident by the way many people avoid talking to patients about religion entirely, I think it would be helpful for it to be it's own category of trauma. It would provide a context for professionals to talk to patients about the very real emotional harm leaving religion can cause.

Imagine a person feeling controlled and manipulated through religion for their entire lives. The people they trust most use religion to coerce them to do or not do certain things. Imagine the religion tells the person not only can they not have sex, but that if they touch themselves sexually that they will be separated from their family for eternity. If it was an abusive parent or spouse, a therapist wouldn't think twice about helping the victim out of that relationship. But religion gets a pass. Religion is presumed to be a net good and way too big a can of worms to open. I have heard Mormons tell suicidal LGBT people that staying with the Mormon church is good for them and necessary for them to be happy. All they have to do is either marry someone they are not attracted to or remain celibate for their entire lives. After all, their family is at stake. Why would they risk losing their family for eternity? Do they want to make their mother cry forever?

To be clear, I'm not advocating that therapists push atheism on a patient. That would be just as unethical as pushing religion. But I am advocating therapists being willing to walk a patient through their own beliefs and encouraging them to stay true to their values rather than the values imposed upon them by parents.

Like many people, I found peace of mind and came out of depression by leaving religion at the curb. Staying in religion would have prolonged my depression. Thank god I'm now an atheist.





BONUS MATERIAL:





Dr. Darrel Ray on religion and sexuality:

S.A.D.

I don't particularly like the holiday season. I want to, but I don't. Some might think I suffer from Seasonal Affective Disorder (or S.A.D.). And while the timing seems to fit, I don't think it adequately describes my experience during the winter months.

First and foremost, I'm not really depressed. Sure the weather sucks, and I would rather it be too warm than snowy. But I can manage the cold, honestly. No, it is not depression that fills me, but anger. The holidays make me angry. I guess you could say I suffer from Seasonal Anger Disorder (too on the nose?).

So, why am I so angry when so many people around me are oozing joy and cheer? Why does the jingling of bells and conspicuous displays of trees decked-out with glistening, eye-catching trinkets get under my chilled skin? Religion. Of course it's religion. Religious people take their favorite holiday and spread it out over two seasons (yes, I'm looking at you, Costco). To them the "most wonderful time of the year" translates to about 5 months of overt proselyting. And when people push back and seek inclusion by saying something as innocuous as "Happy Holidays," Christians throw a hissy-fit about an alleged War on Christmas and a decline in American values, as if their religious traditions are synonymous with morality. 

I don't have anything against people being open about their beliefs and even arguing about them with others. I have done it plenty. But the holiday season gives Christians of all stripes a social license to be more brazen about it and they get offended by others doing the same. It isn't a level playing field. 

Some who have followed this blog or my other social media platforms might think that I am confrontational about religion and actively look for arguments with believers. While it is true that I have found myself in some pretty public arguments online and in person, I don't generally look for those opportunities, and I have even shut down many such conversations when I either didn't feel it was appropriate in the setting (mixed company, usually with children), or I simply wasn't feeling up for it. To be honest, I can't remember the last time I actually got into a religious argument with someone. It's probably been a couple years. 

I guess I'm just tired of the conversation. It is always with the same people (family members mostly) and I know it isn't a fruitful conversation to have most of the time. They are too defensive (they literally can't even entertain the idea that their religion might not be true) and my standards for evidence are too high for them to convince me (as if that's a bad thing). We are at a stand-still. Until something changes, I don't see the point.

Despite my reluctance to engage with believers, they routinely seek me out. Just in the past month I have been coerced through social pressure into participating in religious rituals (family members create situations where it would be perceived as rude if I refused), had the Mormon missionaries knock on my door and try to convince me to give them 10% of my income or suffer eternal consequences (when I told them I wasn't interested, they told me they would put me on a "do not contact" list if I gave them my name, which having been a missionary once myself I can tell you is not necessary), and an ultra conservative uncle of mine used the family contact list of all my extended family on my mother's side to send out a newsletter for his conspiracy-riddled Trump propaganda website. And I still have to make it through Christmas.

So, don't tell me "You can leave the church, but you can't leave it alone." I have been actively avoiding arguments with religious people for months (at least) and they keep badgering me. It seems they can't leave me alone. I would love to just let Mormonism be that silly little religious group I was a part of in my youth and move on to more important things, but they won't let me. They literally bring it to my house; they coerce me at family get-togethers; they advertise on freeway billboards and YouTube commercials; they make presumptuous jokes during staff meetings at work. Not a single goddamn day goes by that I am not reminded of the abusive, manipulative zealots that stunted my adolescence and young adulthood. And the holiday season just puts a bell and multicolored lights on it. So, please forgive me if I appear a little grumpy when I hear Bing Crosby in the grocery store telling me how wonderful it is that god sent his son to earth to be murdered because he--the all powerful, all knowing creator of everything--can't forgive his mortal children for touching their junk and drinking coffee without some good old fashioned blood-infused, death cult magic (it should be noted that as a child I was not allowed to watch the movie "Willow" because a sorceress tries to kill a baby so she can use its blood in a magic spell). 

You can leave the church, but the church won't leave you alone.





BONUS MATERIAL:




Christopher Hitchens on Mormon missionaries, among other things:

Christopher Hitchens on the death cult of Christianity:

STRAIGHT OUTTA DODGE

When the creators of South Park, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, dove headfirst into the Mormon pool by producing the satirical hit Broadway play "The Book of Mormon" they received a lot of criticism and adulation from all sides of the religious debate. The Mormon church actually bought ads in the program inviting patrons to read the book after watching the play. The church was betting that many who saw the play would think, "Wow, that's so cool that they are good sports about all this. Maybe I'll check it out." When the more self-righteous mainstream Christians clamored about Mormons not being real Christians and that the play normalized a cult, Matt and Trey came to the defense of Mormons saying something like, "Yeah, Mormons are weird, but they aren't any weirder than the rest of you Christians. At least when we run into Mormons they are super nice and happy all the time."

I get it. Mormons seem quaint and quirky to outsiders. A lot of people view Mormons in the same way they do the Amish: a little backwards, but ultimately harmless. And sure, maybe they aren't as subversive and nasty as some religious zealots can be. But that's how they get ya.

You see, for a Mormon, there is an ulterior motive to their overt pleasantness. They are literally selling you something. For the low, low price of 10% of your income, you, too, can achieve eternal life. Act now and they will even allow you see your family in heaven.

Their greatest marketing tool is their kindness. By being nice to you, the customer, they hope that you will be impressed by their graciousness and want to join their church. It is not unlike Coke-a-Cola spending millions to advertise their charitable givings during the Superbowl. And Mormons are not subtle about it either. They literally talk about it as a way to encourage non-Mormon friends and family to talk to the missionaries and get baptized whenever they have Sunday school lessons about how every member is a missionary. In fact, as an actual missionary one is required to do weekly public service so that locals will see the church in a favorable way.

In my mission we offered free English classes at the church for anyone who wanted to attend. I remember one time we were starting a new round of classes and we pushed extra hard to have a great turnout. We printed new eye-catching posters and plastered the city with hundreds of ads. It took us a week or two to post them all. When the class started we had our highest attendance ever. Dozens of people filed into the entry level class, most of whom I had never seen before. We were ecstatic. Another missionary and I were teaching together, and I started the class by explaining who we were, and what the class would be about. Suddenly, I felt "impressed by the spirit" to bare my testimony that the church was true and the Book of Mormon was a real historical document and all the other typical sound bites Mormons use during a sales pitch. Part way through my testimony, which was starting to drag and feel a bit forced (as they often do), the other missionary interjected and started writing basic words on the white board. He turned to me and whispered, "You gotta include more English, man." I was deflated. I really felt like god wanted me to say what I said, and that I would touch the heart of someone in our captive audience. After all, we were missionaries in post-communist Bulgaria. Business was slow and we were desperate for success.

The next week maybe 25% of the students came back. The week after we were back to our regular crew of about half a dozen people for all three classes.

Sometimes I think about that incident and regret sharing my testimony. Maybe I could have done some actual, no kidding good for the local people who obviously had a desire to learn English (learning English meant having a better chance of winning the Green Card lottery and moving to the USA). Maybe then my two-year mission wouldn't have been a complete waste of time. Other times I think it was a good thing that I put off so many people on the first day of class. At least that way they were able to see our true intentions--and let's be clear, converting them to Mormonism was our intention--and get out while they could.

Maybe it's a wash.

Fast forward to this past weekend when my wife and I went to her parents' home for dinner. We had a pleasant evening. There was good food, we played a board game, my dog got to spend some quality time with her third favorite person in the world. As the night was wrapping up, I thought to myself, "wow, this was actually a nice little get-together." When it was time for us to leave, my wife announced that we needed to get going, and without hesitation my father-in-law said, "Let's have a family prayer." It wasn't a question.

I was livid. I reluctantly stood by as my in-laws and my wife all kneeled on the floor and my father-in-law said a prayer about, well, I don't know, I was too upset to pay attention. The whole evening was a sham. It was coercive, passive-aggressive manipulation. He was betting that we wouldn't want to be rude after such a pleasant evening and would just go along with it. Then god would "do the rest" and soften our hearts and we would leap back into the Mormon pool once again.

Was is a big deal? Could I have gone along with it? Sure. I have in similar situations. But my wife and I have had conversations with her parents about Mormonism and our relationship with the church (we have both removed our names from the church's records). They don't know all the details, because my wife isn't all that eager to get in to it with her parents. And that's fine. She gets to dictate the pace with her family. But her parents know enough about our position to be able to reasonably infer that at the very least things like prayers and firesides and sacrament meetings and General Conference and reading scriptures is touchy for us and very likely to make us uncomfortable. Especially when put on the spot in front of other family members who may not know as much about the situation. What if our roles had been reversed? What if I made it a point to have a movie playing which I knew would offend my guests as they come in? What if I had steered the conversation to things like the health benefits of coffee and tea, or the moral case for abortion. What if before they left my home I insisted that I read a passage from Christopher Hitchens' book god is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything? At the very least I would be a poor host. But when religious people pull that nonsense knowingly in mixed company, they presumably get a pass. Frankly, it's rude and shows a lack of respect for our beliefs and boundaries. But Mormons don't care. The ends justify the means. In their view they are doing us a favor. They are offering us eternal life, after all, for the low, low price of 10% of our income. And if we act now we can spend eternity with pushy, self-righteous assholes.

I really need to get out of Utah...




BONUS MATERIAL:




Christopher Hitchens on how religion poisons everything.

CRAZY FOR JESUS

Note: I found this saved as a draft from last February. I never finished it and I don't really remember where I was going towards the end. I gave it a kinda sorta conclusion so that it didn't just end. Mostly I'm publishing this because I was going to write a similar kind of post about another recent occurrence of Mormons mormoning all over the place. I'm sensing a pattern...



I work in mental health treatment and the facility where I work has specific guidelines concerning the way in which staff should talk about certain topics with patients, the long and short of which is staff should generally avoid controversial topics, especially religion and politics. Living in Utah County, where everyone assumes locals are Mormon and "every member is a missionary," this is easier said than done since many people feel a strong desire to save souls from damnation and, after all, Mormonism is totally 100% true, so obviously it can't be a bad thing to use one's influence over vulnerable and impressionable patients in one's care to bring them to the truth which will totally change their life for the better.

You get the idea.

One would think that Mormons, of all faiths, would be able to respect this therapeutic boundary since they believe that those who don't join the church in this life will have an opportunity to do so in the afterlife. This, in turn, raises the question of what the deal is with those tens of thousands (notably not hundreds of thousands, Mr. Holland) of young pre-adult missionaries whose sole purpose is to convince other people that their worldview is fundamentally wrong and they should join the Mormons instead. What could possibly be the purpose of missionary work if the afterlife will surely tie off any mortal loose ends? (Tithing. The answer is tithing.)

The other day a few co-workers and I were chit-chatting between meetings. Apparently some Mormon co-workers not in the room have been bad in this regard. Very bad, indeed. Even after a superior lectured them and told them to stop trying to convert the patients to Mormonism, they kept doing it. And now they got one, because of course they did. Some time in the next couple weeks a mentally compromised and impressionable patient will be baptized into the Mormon church in part because they want to make their Mormon mentors happy. And because this is Utah County, other than a second slightly firmer talking-to, there will be no corrective action for the staff who broke this very important legal boundary (the fact that the staff broke this boundary could open up the institution to a law suit, although it's unlikely).

One person present in our conversation was very vocal in his opposition to proselytizing patients in our care. So much so that I thought I might have found a secular ally. That is, until he went on to clarify his position that although he would never talk to a patient about his personal religious beliefs, he really likes the fact that part of the treatment program at our facility emphasizes the importance of having a Higher Power and how it invariably helps in therapeutic treatment.

I was taken aback by this comment for a few reasons. First, I had completely forgotten that this was part of the program as I have literally never heard anyone--staff, therapist, nurse, psychiatrist--mention a Higher Power as part of the program in the two years I have work for this company. During training meetings prior to starting the job, I didn't make too much of it at the time because, again, this is Utah County and that kind of thing is pervasive within the professional community.

The second reason this mention of a Higher Power struck me was the apparent contrast, no, contradiction it has with the boundary staff are expected to hold regarding discussing religion with patients. I had never realized this before, probably because I had never been presented the two conflicting ideas so close together.

How can a treatment facility simultaneously promote the notion of a Higher Power as an integral part of its program and discourage staff talking about religion with patients? As my co-worker explained, it is because "a Higher Power can be anything."

Well, how is that not just offensive to everyone involved? Believers, non-believers, deists, Buddhists, everyone should find the idea that "a Higher Power can be anything" utter nonsense which belittles all worldviews. Allow me to explain.

For a non-believer (this would include Buddhists and other eastern philosophies which do not necessarily promote a god or deity which would intervene in our affairs) the notion that a belief in a Higher Power is necessary to be successful in treatment is offensive because it implies that since they do not believe they will not be successful. In addition to being offensive, this can be very damaging to the patient, and I have seen this first hand. Furthermore, the notion of a Higher Power in a therapeutic sense originates from Alcoholics Anonymous, which started out as Christian support group during the Prohibition which sought to bring vulnerable and dysfunctional drunks to Jesus. It is inherently religious. Only in recent years has AA and its affiliate organization NA (Narcotics Anonymous) softened the religious verbiage in order to reach a broader base. But the supernatural roots are still there. It should also be noted that the success rate of AA and NA is no better than other secular support groups, because what is really important in treatment and sobriety is social support.

For a believer in a specific, monotheistic god, like a Mormon, say, the fact that a Higher Power can be anything (i.e. a rock, a bag of chips, Donald Trump's dentures, etc.) suggests that the supposed benefits of believing are literally in one's head. What could be more offensive to a believer than to imply that god is psychosomatic, tantamount to a delusion?

For a deist, a Higher Power which would intervene and help a person with mental health issues runs contrary to the central tenet of deism which is that whatever Prime Mover started the Big Bang has left the universe to its own devices. Divine intervention is incompatible with deism generally. Even the softer notion of a Higher Power which would not intervene directly but would simply be disappointed if a person relapsed runs contrary to the core of deism. A deistic Prime Mover simply would not care about a person's treatment.

I could probably keep going, but you get the idea. What I'm driving at, despite my meanderings, is that I'm just tired of Mormonism. I left the church over a decade ago and I'm frankly exhausted. I guess it's true what they say, "You can leave the church, but the church can't leave you alone," or whatever...

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...

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:

ZIONTOLOGY

Mormons have a bit of a reputation for being litigious and pedantic. Maybe they think these are attributes of god. I think it has more to do with the Church's push over the last 50 years or so to build hierarchy within the church resembling a corporation. This is also why the Mormon missionaries wear business attire (with backpacks) as they pedal their bicycles door to door. Anal-retentiveness seems to me to be a cheap substitute for perfection, which Mormons are happy to point to as an attribute of their "gospel" ("The church is perfect, even if its members aren't" "If a perfect church can't produce perfect members, then in what sense is it perfect?").

In recent years the former president of the church (notice that I didn't say "prophet"), Tommy Monson, fought hard to soften the public image of the church. He embraced their colloquial label "Mormon" and ran multiple public relations campaigns which utilized the word in a positive light (i.e. "I'm a Mormon," "mormonsandgays.com," etc.). It seemed to be working, actually. I don't no if it has really helped membership, but the image of the church has literally never been better. Fast forward to this week, however, and Tommy's successor, Russell Nelson, has effectively undone much of the PR gains of the Church.

Rusty Nelson has always been one of the biggest sticks in the mud of the Church's leadership. He reportedly was the driving force behind the Church's 2015 policy change concerning homosexuals in the church, which categorized active homosexuals--especially those in legal gay marriages--as apostates, and the children of which could not be baptized until they reached the age of eighteen and disavowed the sinful lifestyle of their parents (children of straight couples can be baptized at the age of eight without any disavowals). So, for those keeping score it came as no surprise when Ol' Rusty Bucket announced an update to the Church's media style guide.

I know, I know. A style guide? Does this really matter?

Honestly, I didn't think it mattered much at first. If the Church wants to sully their public image, far be it from me to stand in their way. But, I listened to a program on NPR this morning which addressed this issue as it directly pertains to them and how they discuss the Church in their programs. You see, part of the update to the style guide is that news agencies are no longer allowed to refer to the Church as "Mormon" or "Mormonism" or even "LDS." The Church's official statement says that news agencies should refer to the Church by its full name, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (say that three times fast), in its first reference and all subsequent references should be "the Church" or the "Church of Jesus Christ" or the "restored Church of Jesus Christ" (Yeah, good luck with that last one). And members of the faith should be referred to as "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "Latter-day Saints" and not "Mormons." [insert "eye roll"]

NPR's response--which I loved--was that it was not up to the Mormon Church to make this decision for news agencies or those who are not adherents to the religion. Furthermore, the term "Mormon" is used as a point of clarification for their listeners and readers, most of whom have no context for the long-winded official name of the Mormon Church.

Hell yeah, exactly this. Rusted Nail-son may want to dodge the Church's sordid history, much of which the Mormon Church has actively sought to bury from public knowledge for over a century, but it is the job of journalists to accurately convey information to the public. I commend NPR for politely declining the rebranding mandate from a man with the hubris to call himself god's mouthpiece. As some of the people on the program pointed out, if god really speaks to the world through this man, and this is one of the rare instances when the man claims to have received such a revelation from god, couldn't god have chosen a more important topic than the name of a church? Ya know, like poverty, world peace, climate change.

I'll tell you why. Because god has nothing to do with it. This is in the best interests of the Mormon Church, according to their CEO. This would be no different than a corporation having some horrible PR nightmare occur, and in an effort to reduce their losses, the board of directors completely remake their image and even change the name of the company in order to distance themselves from the disaster. It's all about business.

In related news, some people in the ex-Mormon community have proposed "Ziontology" as the new preferred name for the Mormon Church. And I kinda like it.

TALKING 'BOUT MY SUPERSTITION

Over the weekend several of my Mormon friends and family posted links to articles about a new revolutionary study which seems to confirm one of their favorite religious prohibitions against the consumption of alcohol.

On the surface, I get it. It feels nice to be vindicated. So, why not gloat a little bit? It's not like pride is a sin. Right?

I have a few things to say about this new study. First, the headlines of the articles linking this study are a bit misleading, claiming that "no amount" of alcohol is good for your overall health, etc. Right, just like no amount of soda, candy bars or binge watching Netflix is good for your overall health. The authors of the study admit from the outset that this particular point is complex and that there are some studies which show that moderate alcohol consumption "can have a protective effect on ischaemic heart disease, diabetes, and several other outcomes." Before reading this study I had never heard of these benefits before. I assumed that it was general knowledge that alcohol wasn't really healthy and even people who cited those articles from the nineties about the potential health benefits of drinking red wine (which had more to do with the grapes used to make the wine than the alcohol) did so with a wink and a nod.

Second, the risk of lower alcohol consumption is proportionally lower than higher levels of consumption. Meaning, the more you drink, the higher the risk. This is a bit like saying the more you drive your car, the more likely you are to get into an accident. The only way to completely minimize one's risk of a car accident is to never get into a car. It should be apparent that this is an oversimplification, and, therefore, not very revolutionary, even when applied to alcohol.

Third, I have a problem with their lumping together of certain kinds of risks. Specifically, disease related risks (i.e. cancer and tuberculosis) and risks related to one's actions (i.e. car accidents and self harm). To me, these are important to distinguish because risks related to actions can be moderated through responsible drinking, and can be complicated through other factors like mental illness. If a person with depression drinks they are more likely to try to hurt themselves than someone without depression. From what I can gather, the study shows that there is a higher risk of alcohol contributing to deaths caused by accidents and self harm than caused by disease especially among people under 50 years old. The study also claims that for people between 15-49 alcohol is one of the most common factors for cause of death. What I infer from this is that one shouldn't drink and drive, and one shouldn't drink if they have depression or another mental illness which might be affected by alcohol. Furthermore, these factors can be managed through responsible drinking, and knowing one's limits. 

Fourth, the study is limited in that its methodology basically amounts to drawing conclusions based on correlations, and the integrity of the results depends on the methodology of other researchers (if a study used a flawed methodology it would affect the meta-analysis). This is a problem of meta-analyses in general. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons for for these limitations (most likely financial), and I'm not saying this discredits the study necessarily. I'm saying this is a potential problem which makes it difficult to prove causality. If anything, this just shows the need for further research, especially since this particular study claims to dispute some findings of previous studies. 

Alcohol has risks. No one has seriously disputed this in decades. But lots of things have risks. Lots of good things like driving cars or other foods and drinks. Lots of medications, such as aspirin, Tylenol and Ibuprofen, have negative effects on one's liver similar to alcohol, although to lesser degrees. These risks should absolutely be accounted for while making a decision. But let's not pretend that Mormons abstain from alcohol for health reasons (Utah has more soda shops than bars, despite the link between soda and type II diabetes). 

The Word of Wisdom (the basis for the Mormon prohibition against alcohol) is actually not against all alcohol consumption, and even says that wine is preferred for use in the sacrament: 

"5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.

7 And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies."

There are even some who argue that the WoW did not intend to prohibit beer--only wine and liquor. This is how some Mormons justify their use of Kombucha. Not to mention that Joseph Smith, the one who wrote the WoW, never made it a hard set rule, but only a suggestion and continued to drink alcohol with his apostles until the day he died. 

Let's suppose that there are no issues with this study and that there is now clear and indisputable evidence that alcohol is always bad and will eventually kill everyone everywhere. Until such evidence was found, believers did not have a sound reason for abstaining from alcohol. Refusing to do something because god told you not to do it is not a good reason to not do it. And now that there is a good reason to not do it believers do not get to retroactively claim that they were justified all along. 

Muslims and Orthodox Jews have prohibited the consumption of pork for centuries. The original claim was that pigs shouldn't be eaten because they are unclean animals. This was a spiritual claim, not a hygienic one. Now that modern science can examine the composition of meats, some Jews and Muslims are claiming vindication because pork has high sodium and fat content. They claim that god knew this all along and he was protecting them through these prohibitions. Well, pork isn't the only meat with high sodium and fat content. So is beef, and that is totally Kosher (so long as it doesn't have cheese on it, of course). And if god is using these ancient prohibitions to save lives, why didn't he reveal something useful, like washing your hands before you eat or after delivering a child. 

There are plenty of reasons to not drink alcohol, including just simply not having a desire to drink it. But using a religious prohibition as a reason to not do something is tantamount to superstition. And if a superstition turns out to have a nugget of truth behind it, it is still not wisdom. 

BONUS MATERIAL:

Christopher Hitchens on superstitions, among other things:

HIGH-MINDED HIVE MIND

There has been a long-winded debate among Mormons and ExMormons about the Church's influence over politics. I first came across this argument when GOP primary winner, and man whose political career died trying, Mitt Romney ran for US president in 2012. The question came up of whether or not the Church might try to influence Mitt's policies as president or outright tell him what to do. A similar concern arose of JFK in relation to the Vatican. At the time, Mitt assured voters that he would represent his constituents and not be bullied into submission by a church which has had a sordid political history.

In the past the Mormon Church has sought to influence politics in very direct ways. As early as their first settlements in the American frontier, Mormon founder, and man who repeatedly takes your 14 year old daughter behind the barn to "just talk about God and stuff," Joseph Smith had gathered thousands of followers in Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri. These small communities which relied almost entirely on local government were soon overrun by apocalyptic "Latter-day Saints" with a single religious mind who all voted according to their prophet's conscience (a prophet who was convicted of fraud in his youth for convincing other men to dig for buried treasure by staring at a magic stone in a hat, and who later started a religion based on an ancient gold book he found in the dirt which he "translated" by using a magic stone in a hat, and wouldn't let anyone with a background in linguistics touch it).

It is no wonder, then, that the locals responded with violence to oust their hive-minded new neighbors (who also happened to be stealing their wives and daughters as polygamous sister-wives, which is also why the Church was so in favor of a woman's right to vote since it would effectively give Mormon polygamous households several more votes).

The Church has learned over the years to be more subtle in their political influence. But as we have seen over the past few decades, the Church still can't keep its greasy fingers off of certain issues. We still don't know the full extent to which the Church has actively sought to thwart the gay rights movement in Hawaii and California. In Hawaii they kept to the shadows when gay marriage was proposed, but became much more brazen when the issue came up as Prop 8 in California, issuing an official statement from the Church to be read over the pulpits asking members to donate their time and as much money as they could to fight this societal evil. And many people took the Church seriously, sacrificing their children's college education to help fund the anti-gay marriage agenda (the Church teaches that members will face a choice like Abraham sacrificing his son Issac as a show of good faith to God, and people look for such sacrifices in their lives believing God is testing their faith).

For years the Church has denied any wrong doing regarding Prop 8 (among other things), and claims that most of their donations, like their humanitarian efforts, came in the form of faithful members volunteering their time. Maybe this is true, but many sources (such as the documentary "8: A Mormon Proposition") have shown that the Church has donated a metric butt-load of money as well.

More recently the church has sought to influence politics in Utah, where they have the strongest foothold. Around the time the US Supreme Court legalized gay marriage (2015), the Church successfully got the Utah legislature to incorporate protections for "religious liberty" in a bill which offered housing and employment protections for LGBT people. In other words, the Church successfully pleaded for the right to discriminate against gay people.

They have also successfully changed votes in the state senate regarding other issues, such as medical marijuana, liquor laws and comprehensive sex education. And despite their long history of breaching the bounds of tax exemption, officially the Church has maintained that they DO NOT tell their members how to vote (see video below).

Next they'll be telling me the Church no longer practices polygamy.

Well, in recent news--yesterday, in fact--the Church sent out a mass email to members in the state of Utah asking ever so politely that they vote "NO" on a bill which would legalize medical marijuana (see left).

It seems that no one told self-proclaimed prophet of God, and nonagenarian who's pretty sure today is a weekday, Russell Nelson that there are some things a prophet just can't do (should we tell him God is supposed to be omniscient?). I guess this is what happens when you send a self-righteous heart surgeon to do an attorney's job.

And, of course, the IRS will do nothing regarding the Church's tax exempt status. The best we can hope for is that enough ExMormons petition the Freedom From Religion Foundation to sue the Church.

The thing I don't understand is why the Church gets involved at all. They have a long list of prohibitions for their members which include many legal things, such as tobacco and alcohol, coffee and tea, premarital sex, watching R rated movies, dating before the age of 16, wearing revealing clothes, swearing, shopping on Sundays, etc. Yet, when issues come up in American politics (notably, not the rest of the world), the Church shoves itself into the conversation where less than 2% of the population (at best!) adheres to their worldview. Why not stay out of it and if it becomes legal, like gay marriage and alcohol and everything else, just issue yet-another prohibition for members. This is how the system is supposed to work.

Sigh...




BONUS MATERIAL:




Former Mormon prophet, and nice young man just trying to pay for college by selling magazine subscriptions, Gordon Hinckley reassuring the public that the Mormon Church does not tell members how to vote.