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. 

SIN NO MORE

"The Christian resolve to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad."
--Friedrich Nietzsche








One of the arguments I have heard recently attempting to rationalize why the Mormon god does not allow gays to act on their homosexual urges is that he is putting them through a sort of "test." Mormons see homosexuality as a weakness or temptation, akin to an addiction or a bad habit, over which one must gain control.

The problem with this--the first problem--is that homosexuality is much more than simply an urge. It is a biological drive. Mormons believe that heterosexuals also have this drive, but heterosexuals are given an avenue to use it "appropriately." For a Mormon, there is no appropriate way for a homosexual to "control" their sexual urges except through homosexual celibacy.

For straight Mormons there are stages of appropriate sexual behavior. For example, unmarried straight couples are free to hold hands, kiss (in moderation) and even cuddle. Sex is prohibited, but only until marriage, at which point they are free to have sex as often as they want.

Gay Mormons, on the other hand, are not afforded the same gradation. It is not just about gay sex. It is also about gay hand holding, gay kissing, and gay cuddling. Mormons think of themselves as accepting of gays. But they fail to understand the basic biological and psychological need--and it is a need--to have sexual release and love.

I have heard Mormons say "We prohibit all forms of premarital sex, including heterosexual premarital sex; therefore, we ask nothing different of gays." To these Mormons, this means that both heterosexuals and homosexuals are treated equally within the church. But they completely miss all the basic forms of affection that come before sex, which the church prohibits for homosexuals, but not heterosexuals. It is not just about sex.

For many years the church refused to even acknowledge the existence of homosexuals, claiming that such debauchery was just a form of heterosexual rebellion. They called it a choice. And as a choice, it was a sin.

Now that the scientific evidence shows pretty darn conclusively that homosexuality is not a choice, the church is spinning the angle that it is not a sin to be homosexual; just acting on homosexual urges is sinful. Well, this is about the most wicked thing a god could do to a person.

Keep in mind, that since Mormons view homosexuality as a trial or temptation meant to test one's ability to obey god, this also means that god chose to give this particular "trial" to particular people. God could have just as easily chosen to not have homosexuals. Why didn't he? Why would he give someone an urge as basic as the sex drive, and command them on threat of damnation that they cannot ever act on it?

This is not love. This is not a test of character. This is torture. This is abuse.

According to Mormons there are three "degrees" in heaven: the Celestial Kingdom, the Terrestrial Kingdom, and the Telestial Kingdom. According to the Book of Mormon (which, curiously, mentions nothing about these kingdoms), sexual sins are the worst sins a person can commit after murder and denying the Holy Spirit.

In the case of denying the Holy Spirit, the transgressor will be sent to "outer darkness," which basically amounts to annihilation. There is some debate within Mormonism as to what it means to deny the Holy Spirit; so, as an ex-Mormon who has been through the temple endowment ceremony, I may or may not qualify.

The worst murders, first-degree premeditated murders, will send one to the Telestial Kingdom. Lesser murders, such as manslaughter through neglect, may afford one an opportunity to repent and go to the Terrestrial Kingdom. This is not well defined in Mormon doctrine, however.

Depending on the severity of the offense and one's level of repentance, sexual sins will either send a person to the Telestial Kingdom or, if one repents hard enough, to the Terrestrial Kingdom. Only the most repentant sexual sinners (to a level where god says "it never happened") will be allowed into the Celestial Kingdom. This means if one does it a couple times, but they are super sorry (to god) and never do it again, they might make it.

To my knowledge, the church has not explicitly stated what "degree" in heaven a homosexual can attain. I would imagine that should a homosexual manage to stay in a straight marriage and suppress all homosexual urges (which is not recommended by psychologists at all), they can make it to the highest levels of the Celestial Kingdom.

If they remain celibate for their entire lives, or at least show sufficient penance for engaging in homosexual activities, they can make it to the bottom of the Celestial Kingdom (meaning they make it to the Celestial Kingdom, but they don't get the perk of an eternal family and eternal sex; this means that a truly celibate gay Mormon will literally never have sex--ever). Anyone who engages in any homosexual activities without repenting will not make it to the Celestial Kingdom, and possibly not even the Terrestrial Kingdom.

Gay Mormons know that the best they can hope for in this life is either a straight marriage or a life of celibacy. Should they act on their homosexual urges in the same way heterosexual Mormons are allowed, they will likely only make it to the lowest Kingdom (Telestial). Worst of all, for those headed to the Telestial Kingdom (those gay Mormons who cannot help but act on their powerful sexual urges), suicide will not change the outcome. This is why many gay Mormons struggle with suicidal ideation. To them, suicide will just speed up the process of the inevitably of the Telestial Kingdom, and it will remove the persistent homosexual temptation they would face in this life.

This is only made worse when Mormon leaders promise that, like an addiction, homosexual urges can be overcome through fervent prayer. Some leaders have even taught that homosexuality can essentially be "cured" through enough prayer and scripture study. When this does not happen (as the scientific community clearly states), homosexual Mormons are caught in a self-perpetuating guilt cycle and are left wondering why god won't help them.

The short answer is "There is no god and homosexuality is not bad." This realization has freed many gay Mormons from the psychological shackles with which the church has tried to ensnare them. It really does remove all the guilt, the shame and the "final solution" gay Mormons face. Sure, some gay Mormons just leave Mormonism for a more progressive church. And on some level I am fine with this. At least they are no longer caught in the abusive center of the Mormon Church's attempts to reconcile their close-minded beliefs with science.





BONUS MATERIAL:





Cult of Dusty reviews a Mormon anti-masturbation video [WARNING: explicit language]:

FUDGE PACKER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chad F.:

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

Jon W. (replying to Chad F.):

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

This is what I wanted to say in response:

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

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

This is my actual response: 

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

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

Chad F.:

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

Matt [me]:

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

Jon W.:

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

Matt: 

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt: 

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt:

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

Jon W: 

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

Matt: 

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

Chad F.: 

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt: 

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

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt:

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt: 

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt: 

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt: 

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt: 

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

Matt: 

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

Lyndsey D.: 

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

Matt: 

"Likewise, Lyndsey."

Jon W.: 

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

Matt: 

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

Matt: 

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

Derek H.: 

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

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

Matt: 

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

Jon W.: 

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

Derek H.: 

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

Matt: 

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

Matt: 

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt: 

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


Hillary T,: 

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

BONUS MATERIAL:

Boyd K Packer on Gays:

SEIZURE SALAD

"It is best to read the weather forecast before we pray for rain."
--Mark Twain 

The first time I witnessed a seizure I was on a Mormon mission in Bulgaria. I had been in the country for about a year and I was living in the Capitol, Sophia. The man who had the seizure was a quirky and likable thirty-something with epilepsy. Aside from a sometimes overpowering body odor, which was common in the economically distressed post-communist country, I can't think of anything bad to say about him. With an ear to ear smile and an eagerness to please anyone willing to look passed his embarrassing stutter, he had found an accepting community in Mormonism. Everyone liked Pepe.

As you might expect, when Pepe fell to the floor in a convulsive fit during a church function (Family Home Evening), everyone present went on high alert. Save Pepe! A small army of young Mormon missionaries surrounded Pepe, frantically trying to decide what to do. None of us knew whether Bulgaria had an emergency system set up like America's "911" program. The only thing we could think to do was to pray.

One missionary put his hands on Pepe's head and commanded Pepe to be healed and made whole. In a matter of seconds, Pepe stopped shaking and after a couple of minutes he was on his feet apologizing for the inconvenience. We were amazed.

If this was all the information I had about the situation, I might still wonder if I had witnessed a miracle. But, education has a tendency to thwart the miraculous and the supernatural. As I came to find out, seizures rarely last longer than a few minutes. Whether we prayed for Pepe, called for medical help, or sprayed cheese whiz on our faces and tickled each other, Pepe would have snapped out of it on his own in about the same amount of time. It was my ignorance which kept my faith alive.

A few years later, after I had learned a thing or two in college about the human body and seizures, I found myself at a get together with some fellow young adult Mormons (BYU students). We were staying at a ranch in Blackfoot, Idaho (Utah junior). While one of the girls was riding a horse in the corral, the horse spooked and began galloping. The fenced-off area was only about a quarter acre--not much room for a horse running at full speed. When the horse was about fifteen feet from the fence, it abruptly stopped, causing the girl to fly over the horse's head and roll--ribs first--in to a large wooden fence post. She was unconscious.

As with Pepe, a swarm of young true-believing Mormons rushed to aide her. Seeing her convulsing to and fro and gargling bloody foaming spit from her mouth, I gently held her head out of the thick mud and kept her airway clear. I knew that her seizure would only last a few moments, but my concern grew when she did not regain consciousness after her convulsions ended.

One of boys, also a returned missionary, handed me a small viol of consecrated oil. This extra special magic healing oil is very important to Mormons, who bless the oil in advance and keep it in a viol on a key chain for just such an occasion. I didn't feel comfortable asking god for a blessing (this was around the time I started to quietly acknowledge my doubts about Mormonism, and for all I knew, god had spooked the horse in the first place), and I told him to do the blessing himself. Besides, I was focused on not letting her suffocate on her own spit.

His prayer was typical of Mormon blessings: "Please, god, heal her, don't let her die, etc." Hardly inspired. Hardly helpful.

I held her head for 10 minutes or so until EMTs arrived (it was an isolated area), all the while keeping her airway clear and her neck and spine straight (she tried to roll around a few times), and talking to her positively about the situation in case she could hear me, despite her inability to respond. Once the EMTs arrived, they put her on a stretcher and airlifted her to a hospital in Salt Lake City, Utah. There, she stayed in a coma for a few days. After awaking, she had a few cracked ribs, some amnesia and loss of some motor skills.

Expectedly, everyone left the ranch somber and worried for their friend. They "kept her in their prayers" and rushed to visit her when she regained consciousness. In the minds of many, god had responded to the young man's blessing with oil in a positive way. Even the injured girl was grateful to god for "healing" her.

As I pointed out, this second incident occurred around the time I first acknowledged my doubts about Mormonism. I was still attending BYU--surrounded by Mormon culture--and I had an inner struggle with the situation. Part of me wanted to chalk up the whole thing as yet another example of superstitious religious folk reading into situations and assigning divine intervention to make them feel better (my current position). But being on the cusp of a faith crisis, I was truly worried that the real reason I refused to offer the blessing was because deep down I felt unworthy to do so.

Mormons have several "rites of passage" for youth and young adults, the most well-known of which is the mission. Before one can go on a mission, however, one must first complete another rite called a "patriarchal blessing." I received my blessing a couple days before I left on my mission. The Mormon Patriarch assigned to my area was an elderly man, who had been a bishop, a stake president and a mission president--all highly respected positions in the Mormon community. As I recall, he and his wife had recently returned from Haiti on a mission trip.

He brought me into his study and explained the process to me: he would put his hands on my head, say whatever words he felt god tell him about my future life in Mormonism, and he would mail me a transcript. It would be my life's horoscope. This sounds like a great deal--direct revelation from god concerning my entire life. However, like most things which sound too good to be true, this life-changing blessing comes with a catch.

Should I disobey god, the deal is off. Should I leave the church, the deal is off. Should anything specified in my blessing not happen, it is because I sinned or did something wrong. You see where this is going.

The reason I bring this up is because in my patriarchal blessing is a clause, which I later found to be rather common in these sorts of blessings, where I was promised that I would be allowed to heal sick and infirmed people through god's power. During my faith crisis, this really messed with my head. Had I simply been unworthy at the time this girl needed a blessing to save her? Would god really make her suffer more because of my sins, stubbornness, or disbelief?

I know now that no matter what the outcome had been for this poor girl, Mormons would find a way to call god merciful. Even if she had died, some would have said "Well, it was her time to go. She is now in a better place. God needed another angel in heaven to help people come to Christ. He allowed her to die as a mercy. Had she lived she would be in pain." And so on. God cannot lose. And because he cannot lose, he cannot be supported through reason and logic. If he cannot be supported through reason and logic, how can I believe he exists and base important life decisions on this belief?

When I realized that I had no good reason to believe that god exists, my faith crisis became less of a crisis and more of an intellectual adventure. My decisions mattered on a more intimate scale. The world became infinitely more fascinating and complex. Natural explanations for creation, to me, are more satisfying and honest than "god did it." Magic doesn't explain anything. It only raises more questions. I would rather admit my ignorance and say "I don't know" than accept an unsupported answer as true because it makes me feel good.

These days, my conscience is not clouded with concerns about my "worthiness" when I help someone in need. I no longer feel bad about refusing to ask god to save that girl. I feel that focusing on first aid and helping her breath was far and away the right and moral choice. 

OUIJA SQUEEGEE

"...it is surprising how petty some of the "supernatural" miracles now seem. As with spiritualist seances, which cynically offer burblings from the beyond to relatives of the late deceased, nothing

truly interesting is ever said or done."

--Christopher Hitchens, god Is Not Great

"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."

--Mark 9:42

Let me tell you of a few incidents I have had with a co-worker. Easily one of the largest people I have ever met, the stature of this native of Samoa is surpassed only by his religious assumptions. Not only does he (let's call him Stephen) assume everyone with whom he comes in to contact is religious, Stephen also seems to have forgotten every conversation we have had on religion and super-nature. I have both stated my skepticism of religious claims and challenged his personal beliefs. Yet, he still assumes I pray...

Just before Halloween of last year, another co-worker (let's call her Stephanie) announced that she had seen a super scary movie: Ouija. As she described her terror, which she assures only worsened when the movie ended, and how she had to sleep with the lights on for fear of dark forces assembling against her, Stephanie pointed out that films about monsters and slashers don't scare her as much as dark supernatural movies. Films about demons and black magic and the dead communicating with the living via a children's toy made by Mattel are totally different and much scarier because they "could actually happen."

Since this occurred before any patients were awake (I generally avoid these conversations in front of patients), I poked fun at Stephanie's pronouncement that such magical things could really happen. This led to an interesting conversation with several co-workers who all seem to think black magic and Ouija boards are real. Seriously, I was literally the only person who did not believe that Ouija boards could relay messages from the dead.

I explained group-think mentality and how one's desire to believe a proposition influences one's perception of events. I explained how the ideomotor effect can lead a group of people to believe that their collective involuntary movements are really a demonic influence.

I even pointed them all to a specific episode of Penn and Teller's B.S., wherein the two veteran magicians thoroughly debunk Ouija boards by blindfolding participants and changing the position of the board. The test subjects collectively moved the board piece to where they thought certain words were located on the board--not where the words actually were. If the board was communicating with dead spirits, the testers would have moved to where the words actually were, rather than where they thought the words were.

To put it simply, there is ample evidence that Ouija boards do not communicate with the dead. So, I asked the rational follow up question: if there is a reasonable natural explanation for a given phenomenon, why would you accept a supernatural explanation?

Not to be out done by reasoned argumentation, Stephen shared an experience he had within his own family. Stephen's cousin, who is also quite large, went on a visit to Samoa. Upon returning, Stephen's cousin was "not himself". He was distant, and full of rage. Stephen's aunt swore that while on his trip, Stephen's cousin had been possessed by a demon. Stephen offered to help, and, with another cousin, he attempted to exorcise the demon.

During the ritual, Stephen's cousin thrashed about and threw Stephen and his other cousin across the room a few times. Stephen reported that his cousin's eyes were pure black and he couldn't focus on Stephen or anyone else in the room. It was all very intense. I do not doubt that the facts of the story (Stephen being tossed around and his cousin's eyes being black and vacant, etc.) all happened more or less as Stephen described.

You see, Stephen works with mental patients. He witnesses rage and vacant eyes in patients at work and doesn't immediately assume it is demonic in nature. It seems that the main reason Stephen assumes demonic possession in the case of his cousin is because his cousin tossed him across the room--something which rarely happens to a man of Stephen's size. But, as I pointed out, Stephen's cousin is also quite large. It would be more impressive if Stephen had been thrown by a small child, rather than another 350 pound Samoan.

I shared an experience I had with a patient who claimed to be possessed (she also had black, vacant eyes, and was quite strong). After her ordeal (she stabbed her wrist with a pencil over 40 times and bit off chunks of her arm, which she either spit at me or swallowed--all while asking to be taken to a church), a debriefing was called for staff with the resident psychiatrist.

The doctor explained the psychological process of mental dissociation (becoming completely disconnected with one's surroundings, often hallucinating). The patient was not actually possessed and there is a clearly understood scientific explanation for her behavior and physical symptoms. So, again I asked: if there is a reasonable natural explanation for a given phenomenon, why would you accept a supernatural explanation?

Stephen never responded to my counter argument, but clearly he understood that I do not agree with him on supernatural claims. Surely he would not be so quick to assume in the future that my position on supernatural phenomena is the same as his. Surely...

A few weeks ago, Stephen got in to an argument with a patient about god. The patient, who is a minor, revealed that she doesn't pray because she doesn't believe in god. Stephen took it upon himself to convince her that there is a god (Mormons...). To be clear, the company for which we both work frowns on this.

Stephen asked her why she doesn't believe in god. The patient responded that for the first ten years of her life she was abused physically and sexually. She prayed every day for god to save her, but nothing happened.

Undeterred, Stephen pointed out that god answers prayers in different ways: yes, no and maybe. He then looked right at me and said, "Isn't that right, Matt?"

With a tone of surprise and fluster, I responded, "Don't ask me!"

I was furious, but I did not intervene because I had confidence that the patient could hold her own. After all, platitudes are small comfort to victims of abuse.

The patient responded that she still wasn't sure of Stephen's assertion. So, Stephen offered the following anecdote to further prove that god answers prayers:

A man is stranded on top of a house during a flood. As the water rises to dangerous levels, a boat approaches the man and offers to save him from certain death. The man declines the offer and says, "Don't worry, god will save me!" Another boat comes and offers to save the man, and the man declines again in the same way. "God will save me!" A third boat comes and the man declines yet again. The man dies.

Entering heaven, the bewildered man approaches god and cries, "god, why didn't you save me?"

God replies, "Save you? I sent three boats after you!"

This is the evidence Stephen offers a seventeen year old girl who doesn't believe in god because, for the first ten years of her life, she cried to god to save her from daily sexual and physical abuse, but never received an answer.

She was unimpressed by Stephen's story, and seemed to just want the conversation to end. In essence, Stephen told this young woman that god did answer her prayers; she just didn't recognize it. This is classic blaming the victim.

If I had knowledge of a child being raped right now, and I had the power to stop it, I would be under a moral obligation to intervene. If I did not do everything I could to stop it, I would be a monster worse than anything in Stephanie's scary movies.

God allegedly sees every child being raped at this very moment and he has the capacity to end it. Yet he doesn't. Why does god get a pass? His ways are higher than ours? He is mysterious? Our morality doesn't apply to god? He has a greater purpose in mind? To preserve the free-will of the offender? What about the free-will of the child being raped?

Basically this line of reasoning suggests that god uses rape to teach children valuable life lessons. Disgusting. Ah, but god will help you find your misplaced car keys, or align all the traffic lights to be green on your way to work...

I admit that there is a difference between the morality of Stephen's god and my own morals: my morals are better.

There is only one moral answer to a child suffering this kind of daily abuse. It is not "no, you will learn a lesson which will make you stronger"; nor is it "maybe, we'll see"; it isn't even sending metaphorical "boats" which the child must recognize in order to be useful. There is only one ethical, acceptable answer to a child asking an all-powerful being to spare them abuse: "yes, I will stop it immediately." Anything short of this is evil.




BONUS MATERIAL:

Penn and Teller debunking Ouija boards:

BELLY ACHE

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."
--Scott D. Weitzenhoffer








Many times when I challenge the beliefs of religious people they will accuse me of being cynical and closed-minded. The problem is not that I dismiss their beliefs out of hand, as some claim, but that the evidence which they present for their extraordinary claim is laughable upon inspection.

Most often, they are simply committing the "argument from ignorance" fallacy, and figure that if I cannot offer a more plausible explanation than "god did it" (or "aliens" or "ghosts"), then they are justified in their belief. Never mind the fact that "I don't know" is always a more tenable position than asserting unverified supernatural forces.

I will admit that on some occasions I have literally laughed out loud at a person's supernatural claims, but I do at least try to hear them out first.

A couple of months ago a childhood friend of mine posted a story on Facebook with the following comment:

"The more I read about this story the more incredible it is. . Miracles do happen!"

Intrigued, I read the article which inferred that a dead Catholic Saint (my friend is Mormon, by the way) appeared at a car accident scene, said a blessing with a woman trapped in a car, immediately following which the firefighters were finally able to open the car enough to get the woman out, and then vanished without a trace. 

Now, the facts of the claim are that a man dressed as a Catholic Priest showed up and said a prayer, and the firefighters got the woman out shortly after. These are facts confirmed by several eye-witnesses, including the firefighters and medical personnel. But a dead saint?

Other articles claimed that the man was an angel, which, depending on who you ask, isn't that far from a dead saint.

One of the reasons so many people are convinced this priest was an angel is that the road had been blocked for "quite a few miles", according to the local sheriff deputy (video below), and no one saw how he got to the scene or how he left. Intriguing to be sure, but does this imply, much less prove, supernatural powers?

Furthermore, witnesses add that no one recognized the priest from the local parish of the small nearby town.

Oh, and he had an unrecognizable accent (which raises the question, why would an angel have an accent?).

So far it seems that there are a lot of unanswered questions about this priest. But do unanswered questions and astonishing coincidences equal a miracle? Perhaps to those eager to believe.

In the days following the incident, but still before the article was published, no one had come forward as the mysterious priest, thus adding fuel to the speculative fire. Not surprisingly, the local Catholic Church said that they had no interest in conducting an investigation of the priest's identity, and neither will the local sheriff deputy (who is also convinced of a miracle).

This seems especially telling to me. These people are more interested in maintaining their comfortable belief, that an angel saved a woman's life, than determining the truth about what happened. As I have said before, once you accept a wrong answer, however comforting it may be, you stop looking for the right answer.

Well, as it turns out the mystery priest did turn himself in, er... he came forward and answered all the questions that people were using to posit this as a miraculous angel sighting. Not only is he not an angel, but he was also past the road block before police put it up, thus allowing him to slowly approach the scene until he got about 150 yards from the car where he stopped to help. Also, he was visiting the local parish because the regular priest was ill, and he was more or less subbing. And the accent? Irish or something; I couldn't quite place it (therefore, he's an angel, right?)

So, that's it. No more miracle. Everyone sees that it was a regular priest doing what regular priests do, and this is no more miraculous than any other accident with a survivor. Right?

I was hoping that my friend who had originally posted this story would post an article about the mystery priest coming forward. He did not. Even if he had been made aware of the priest of earthly origin, this would still not be a notch against god's track record for him. He is the kind of believer who holds the preservation of faith as more important than truth. Although, I doubt he sees it this way.

What about the eye-witnesses who started all the commotion in the first place? One firefighter had this to say:

"My initial reaction was kind of two-fold: One side of me was absolutely ecstatic that I'm now gonna be able to physically meet this individual that was there to provide the comfort. And the other side of me was kind of sad because I know there was a lot of people that were touched by this story that were grasping on to the thought that this mysterious priest was placed there by god in a form that they had their interpretation of. He was my angel either way and I'm gonna still stick to that."

(Note: even the priest admits that the woman was saved by expert response of professionals who have trained for this very thing. It's too bad he also asserts that they did so with god's help. But if god is going to help professionals in this way, why train in the first place?)

So, what did the priest actually do other than occupy the time and attention of police and firemen attempting to save the life of a woman trapped in a car and offer reassurances? Where is the miracle? That personel were able to pull the woman out after the priest offered a prayer? She was trapped in the car for over an hour, not to mention had barely survived a horrific accident. Where was god then? More importantly, if god really had caused the firefighters to open the car only after the priest showed up, how would you demonstrate this? It is one thing to point to the coincidences of the event; it is quite another to offer verifiable evidence of supernatural intervention.

If the priest had not come forward and clarified the issue, would anyone still be justified in believing he was an angel or that it was a miracle from god? How would such an answer really answer anything? Wouldn't it simply confound the issue with more unanswered questions?

A comfortable delusion is still a delusion.



BONUS MATERIAL:

"News" segment on the mysterious priest:

Sheriff's deputy describes mysterious priest:

The priest comes forward:

PREACHING TO THE CHOIR

"It is wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true."
--Dallin H. Oaks (Mormon Apostle)

"Some things which are true are not very useful."
--Boyd K. Packer (Mormon Apostle)








So, this weekend is the General Conference of the Mormon Church. A talk was given this morning by a Mormon Apostle, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, which caused many faithful Mormons to go straight to their Facebook accounts (or blogs) and post comments and quotes from the talk, such as:

"Can't love Elder Uchtdorf's compassionate and nonjudgemental talk enough."

“Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended, or lazy, or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations. Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question of whether they should separate themselves from the Church. In this Church that honors personal agency so strongly that it was restored by a young man that had questions and sought answers, we respect those who honestly search for truth.”

"If you seek truth, meaning, and a way to transform faith into action, if you are looking for a place of belonging, come, join with us. If you have left the faith you once embraced, come back again. Join with us. If you are tempted to give up, stay yet a little longer. There is room for you here."

To those who are currently struggling with doubts about the Church, this admonition may very well seem positive and encouraging. This may even help some come back to the Church. But I have a few problems with what Mr Uchtdorf said (surprise!).

But first, if he really is so concerned about those with doubts, shouldn't he provide reliable, credible sources for people to investigate and resolve their concerns? All he does, really, is acknowledge that legitimate concerns exist. In no way does he even attempt to address these concerns or provide a way for doubters to address their concerns on their own.

Next, he followed the above quote with this bit of "logic":

"Sometimes questions arise because we simply don't have all the information, and we just need a bit more patience. When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn't make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction."

In other words, "We may not know how it all fits together now, but the Church is true, therefore there must be a reasonable, rational explanation. We just shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the Church isn't true before we get that explanation which resolves everything."

Not only have I addressed this type of reasoning in other posts, but it is rather ironic that he should be suggesting such a skeptical and moderate view with regards to doubts when he represents an organization which tells people to accept as true things for which they do not have evidence, simply because they pray and have faith that they are true.

It is interesting that he does not admonish doubters to use this same method of seeking truth and knowledge concerning issues of Church History, Joseph Smith's translation capabilities outside of the Book of Mormon, Jewish DNA in Native Americans, the utter lack of archaeological support for the Book of Mormon, or anything else Mormon apologists have been wrestling with for decades. It seems that in matters of fact and evidence, it is best not to pester god with prayer. He's probably busy watching 5 million children under the age of 5 die of starvation this year...

Next up, this little nugget of "wisdom":

"Doubt your doubt before you doubt your faith."

This was a popular phrase passed around by some of my Mormon friends on Facebook. It carries the sound of poignancy and wit, without actually possessing either. As philosopher Daniel Dennett would describe it, it is a "deepity", meaning it sounds deep and meaningful on the surface, but lacks any real substance upon close inspection.

What Mr Uchtdorf would have you, the doubter, do is to continue believing despite your doubts. Again, he offers no way to legitimately resolve your concerns, and seems to suggest that your faith should be enough to override any concerns you may have. Meaning, "The Church is true, therefore your questions are invalid or in error." This is as absurd as it is dishonest.

And what about those, such as myself, whose primary doubt is the very nature, reliability and veracity of faith? How is faith a path to knowledge? Isn't believing something to be true without evidence to support it intellectually lazy? How is faith a virtue?

Personally, I am less concerned with the historical problems of Mormonism. When I was a believer, I was much like Mr Uchtdorf in that I had unresolved questions, but I told myself that an explanation must exist because the Church is true. I was more or less fine with the fact that I didn't know how everything worked out because I had faith that everything must and would work out once god endowed us with the proper understanding. This never happened for me, and I have yet to hear of it ever happening to anyone else.

Once I left the Church, based primarily on the idea that faith is not a path to knowledge, I was finally able to relish all of the anachronisms and historical issues of Mormonism.






BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is Mr Uchtdorf's full talk:

YouTuber Flackerman addresses "following the Prophet":

Flackerman also addresses the current method of resolving concerns about Mormonism (repost):

 

And one of my personal favorites "Top 10 Mormon Problems Explained":