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:

MAGIC ERASER

"Given this overwhelming tendency to stupidity and selfishness in myself and among our species, it is somewhat surprising to find the light of reason penetrating at all. The brilliant Schiller was wrong in his Joan of Arc when he said that "against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." It is actually by means of the gods that we make our stupidity and gullibility into something ineffable. 

--Christopher Hitchens, god is Not Great

In recent weeks I have been overwhelmed by the stupidity which surrounds me. Sure, I am often surrounded by ever-dimming light bulbs in the cluttered shelf that is my job. I expect this; I can manage this. What I am referring to is an influx of stupidity from people who should really know better.

Those who have read my posts from the last few weeks will note my struggle on Facebook in dealing with Mormon friends and family who oppose gay marriage. It has been exhausting.

One of the more distressing annoyances has been people throwing clever-sounding one-liners at me, as if it should automatically shut me down. Inane lines such as "hate the sin, not the sinner," or "doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith," or "I find more and more that I am not allowed to criticize those who oppose traditional values," or "The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center," or “I know that [God] loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.”

My blood boils further when I address their comment intelligently, or simply ask them to explain their position in more detail (i.e. The Socratic Method), and they drop out of the conversation all together. What does it say about a person's argument if they turn tail and run when asked to explain themselves?

Having thought a while longer about the phrase "doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith," which was popularized in Mormon culture a couple of General Conferences ago, I realize that many people do not really understand what is being said by it. "Doubt your doubts" implies a level of investigation.

For instance, if I hear that the Book of Mormon contains archaeological inconsistencies which fly in the face of what scientists say about ancient America, I might begin to have doubts about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as an accurate historical record. To "doubt my doubts" in this instance would mean that I would look at the research on the subject and then draw a conclusion. It may be that such anachronisms are not really in conflict with known history; but if they are, research should reveal this. If a conflict exists, I would want to know.

Many believers reject such troublesome inquisitions out of hand. They have a knee jerk reaction to opposition. I think this is where the sound-bite arguments come in to play. They build up a superficial wall around their pet beliefs. When their shallow wall starts to crumble, they cower.

One underhanded argument which is occasionally presented to me is that "one can leave the church, but one cannot leave the church alone." This is meant to be insulting. This is meant to get under the skin of the doubter. In this way, it attempts to validate the believer's scripture-based assumption that non-believers do not exist--they are merely rebelling against god's commandments, which are written on the hearts of men.

This is childish. This is no better than non-believers claiming that believers only believe to make themselves feel better. This is no way to live in a civilized society.

The accusation that people who leave religion, such as myself, continue to criticize it because they are trying to convince themselves that they don't believe, when, in fact, they really do, is nonsensical. In a strange way, it reminds me of a trend I have noticed at my work. I have worked in social services for many years, and every so often troubled teens admit to me that when they grow up they also want to work in social services.

Many of them are victims of physical, emotional, verbal or sexual abuse, usually some combination of all of them. As the kids understand how therapeutic practices can help abuse victims find peace and methods of coping, they feel the need to assist other victims in the process. Their desire to be a therapist or psychologist or counselor is motivated by their empathy.

This is analogous to people who leave religion with a bad taste in their mouths. I do not continue to criticize Mormonism because deep down I believe it is true. I criticize Mormonism because I believe it is a harmful ideology. I have seen the harm of Mormonism in my own life and in the lives of those close to me, many of whom are still entrapped by it.

The harm of Mormonism may not be as overt as the psychological trauma caused by abuse. But the way such a life-encompassing theology warps a believer's perception of reality and confuses sound methods of attaining knowledge with subjective feelings attributed to god, thereby fooling believers to accept as true ridiculous claims for which they have no evidence, suggests a pervasive corruption of the mind every bit as deep as abuse. And it will take more than clever soundbites to expunge this smiley-faced evil from society.

BONUS MATERIAL:




Christopher Hitchens on the harm of religion:

Christopher Hitchens responds to a stupid question:

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]:

A HERETIC'S GUIDE TO MORMON HOMOPHOBIA

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

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

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

Refracted Light
Lemon Test
Straight-and-Narrow Minded

Skip a Beating
Prop Hate
Morally Straight
It Gets Better

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

mormonsandgays.org

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

anothergaymormon.blogspot.com

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

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

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

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

FUDGE PACKER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chad F.:

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

Jon W. (replying to Chad F.):

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

This is what I wanted to say in response:

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

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

This is my actual response: 

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

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

Chad F.:

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

Matt [me]:

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

Jon W.:

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

Matt: 

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt: 

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt:

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

Jon W: 

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

Matt: 

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

Chad F.: 

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt: 

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

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt:

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt: 

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt: 

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt: 

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt: 

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

Matt: 

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

Lyndsey D.: 

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

Matt: 

"Likewise, Lyndsey."

Jon W.: 

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

Matt: 

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

Matt: 

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

Derek H.: 

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

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

Matt: 

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

Jon W.: 

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

Derek H.: 

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

Matt: 

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

Matt: 

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

Jon W.: 

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

Matt: 

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


Hillary T,: 

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

BONUS MATERIAL:

Boyd K Packer on Gays:

COMPLEX PERSECUTION

Subtitle: THE WORST DAY SINCE YESTERDAY

The other day I had a conversation with a distraught psychiatric patient. She was concerned that she would be unjustly "punished" by her therapist for breaking a facility rule. This patient has repeatedly broken this rule over the last few months and has zero trust with her therapist on this matter.

As I discussed the situation with her, she weaved together a fairly believable story in her defense wherein another patient with an equally nefarious track record was actually responsible for the infraction. I don't know who the instigator was, but I was willing to give this patient the benefit of the doubt, if only for the sake of argument.

As I pointed out to this girl, she had broken this rule so many times in the past that even though she may not have intended to do so this time, it would be very difficult for anyone--especially her therapist--to believe her. I shared with her the story of another patient who had been in a similar situation a couple months earlier. This other patient rather maturely responded to the accusations, "I didn't do it. But I have done it several times before, so I understand why no one believes me. That's why I'm not fighting it."

In these situations, even mentally unstable teenage girls understand that when trust is lost it can be difficult to earn back. Sometimes, due to repeated poor decisions, one just has to bite the consequential bullet and suck it up. If these teenage mental patients can grasp this concept, why is it so hard for a grown man like Glenn Beck to wrap his head around it?

In the wake of the recent shooting in South Carolina (a young male white-supremacist shot and killed several black people in a church), many vocal conservatives have expressed their view that this atrocity was an attack against religion, rather than manifest racism. Fortunately, many people seem to be quick to point out that this bigoted monster did what he did for purely racist reasons, as he shouted these purely racist reasons just before he opened fire.

This seems pretty straightforward. But when someone sees everything that happens on the world stage as an affront against their group, or a sign of the times, or some grand-scale conspiracy (I'm looking at you, Mr. Beck) it can be hard to see the nose on Plain's face (you're welcome, AD fans).

You see, Glenn is preparing to "call the attorneys" because he feels that a newspaper in Miami has "smeared" his good name. The article in question has accused Beck, along with several other conservatives, of shying away from the heart of the issue: racism. Quotes from a surprising number of pontificating pundits seem to indicate a fear of talking head on about the real issue. Claims of conspiracy, anarchy and attacks against religion, all avoiding the racism at the core. The quote from Beck indicates a similar misunderstanding of the motives behind the attack:

“I don’t know why the shooter shot people. He might shoot people because he’s racist. He might have shot people because he’s an anarchist. He might have shot people because he hates Christians.”

Beck defends himself by claiming that his statement was timestamped a mere 12 hours after the attack, which he claims was too soon after the attack to have any reliable information about the shooter--not even his name. As soon as information was provided, Beck clarified his position and called the shooter a racist.

Because he was lumped together with other narrow minded conservatives (gasp!), presumably over a clerical oversight or just sloppy journalism, Beck is claiming intentional slander and is rounding up the attorneys. Seriously? This is what tipped the scale for Glenn? This straw broke his camel's back? Really?

I have heard many far worse indictments against Glenn Beck, some go so far as to accuse him of faking his positions in order to dupe gullible and rich patrons.

It occurs to me that the only reason Beck is making a fuss this time is because he can actually prove this detractor to be wrong. He never threatens legal action against Jon Stewart or MSNBC or the countless other newspaper writers who have accused him of pulling thoughts directly out of his anus; this reporter writing this article in this obscure newspaper has crossed the line against this freedom-of-speech toting, hypocritical self-made victim.

As with my patient, who found herself caught in an awkward situation of mistrust and perhaps being forced to face the music for something she didn't do, Glenn Beck is facing his own music for years of crying wolf. No one trusts Beck outside of his close-knit group of equally persecuted conspiracy-minded donors--a "woe is me" circle-jerk.

At times I am tempted to accuse Beck of "faking it," as others do. I have made similar comments about some of Beck's contemporaries on Fox News (which I don't consider a legitimate news source, and even they have distanced themselves from the inane yapping of Beck). I hesitate to lump Beck with other conservative charlatans for one very simple reason: everything I have heard Beck say, being as fatuous as the mental-diarrhea of a retarded dingo, all falls in line with Mormon thinking.

A convert to Mormonism who literally wants to build a large libertarian compound as a sanctuary from the tyranny and oppression of the Obama administration, Beck placates to the worst-case-scenarios of Mormon theology. He sees today--the worst day since yesterday--as a sign that Mormon Armageddon is coming and that Mormon Jesus will soon be ushering in the Mormon millennium along with a host of posthumously baptized Mormons (and you thought the Mormons were just playing around by baptizing all those dead people; during the thousand year long Mormon millennium, baptized dead people will come back to Earth to help baptize more dead people—zombies baptizing zombies).

Mormons are masters at rationalizing the craziest of religious beliefs, because, you see, anything that god commands is necessarily good and must be defensible. The next time you watch Mr. Beck draw up patronizing tears of joy or turmoil, pay close attention to the spinning wheels in his superstitious mind as he spitballs conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory. And know that, while I believe he is sincere, I also believe he is bat-shit crazy mothballs. 

BONUS MATERIAL:

Glenn Beck argues against Gay Marriage:

Glenn Beck counters Glenn Beck on Gay Marriage:

Is Glenn Beck Completely Nuts?

THOUGHT PROVOCATEUR

My direct supervisor, inspired by her need to be optimistic, just told a rather down-and-out patient that "hope is eternal." I assume she meant for this to inspire the patient. Perhaps it did. But upon hearing my light snicker in the background, my supervisor directed her attention towards me: "Matt, I'm serious."

I replied, "It's just a silly thing to say, is all. You see, if hope is eternal then it will never end, which means that the thing you hope will happen, will never actually happen. This means that 'eternal hope' is useless."

She turned around and went to a meeting. I, on the other hand, got to thinking. This phrase, "hope is eternal," is common in Mormon circles. And like my supervisor, many Mormons only think superficially about the over-the-pulpit drivel many share in faith-inspiring optimism.

If, per chance, a proposed warm and fuzzy saying is only inspiring on the surface (meaning, it inspires only inasmuch as you don't think about it too much), then the over-thinker is labeled a pessimist.

Forgive me if I only find inspiration in things truly inspiring and thought-provoking. Telling me that I am "thinking too much" or "taking it too far" only serves to undermine any superficial meaning which may have been left.

May I propose a counter argument? You think too little. If you decide to withhold "thinking" in order to shield a pet belief or favorite saying from criticism, then perhaps it isn't worth defending. This type of willful ignorance has only ever stood in the way of real progress. Let it go and be done with it.

CANON FODDER

"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted."

--Christopher Hitchens, god is Not Great

Few things seem to offer as much comedic fodder as religion. Brian Dawson, a Mormon Sunday School teacher (until recently, that is...), in an attempt to answer a difficult question asked by one of his students, found himself in ecclesiastical hot water after he taught a group of Mormon teens facts about the church discriminating against black members--an area of history the church has long minimized.

This sort of thing has happened before. Several instructors from the church's education system (if you can call it that) have been reprimanded, and in a few cases left the church entirely, due to issues brought on by teaching people less flattering facts about the church. High profile cases, such as the famed "September Six" of the 90s (six historians were kicked out of the church for exposing historical documents confirming Mormonism's polygamist past), and the more recent excommunication of the founder of the podcast "Mormon Stories," John Dehlin, have received national attention.

What makes this particular instance ironic and even funny is that the teacher used sources provided by the church itself. That's right. He was reprimanded by church leaders for using church sources to talk about church history. You can't make up this crap.

The Mormon Church has been spinning the truth about their history since it first had a history. Before Mormonism became a recognized religion, Joseph Smith laced his life with controversy.

Most people nowadays are aware of Joseph's polygamist relationships, for instance. But many people do not know about the truly messed up tactics he used to manipulate people into those relationships. Horrible things such as telling 14 year old girls that if they don't marry Joseph or if they tell anyone about it, their whole family will be damned. Or Joseph sending men on missions to the other side of the world, and then marrying their wives while they are gone. Or Joseph telling his first wife, Emma, that if she objects to his philandering behavior then god will destroy her (this one is actually in canonized Mormon scripture: D&C 132).

Even fewer people are aware of Joseph's treasure hunting enterprises with his father. They were so bad at finding treasure via magic rocks that on more than one occasion Joseph was sued and convicted of fraud. By the way, these magic rocks used by Joseph to swindle poor farmers out of their money are the same rocks he used to "translate" the gold plates in to the Book of Mormon. This is no different than divining rods or psychic mediums--nothing more than parlor tricks and gullible sorcery.

The only "treasure" Joseph ever found was the gold plates, which no one without a vested interest in the Book of Mormon's success ever saw without a cloth over it. No one with anything close to a real academic credential ever saw--much less examined--the purportedly ancient gold plates to determine their authenticity. No one thought it suspicious that these mysterious and elusive gold plates were found by a convicted fraudulent treasure hunter with magic rocks?

Over the last few years (starting around the time of Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign, curiously enough) the Mormon Church has quietly released a series of essays clarifying controversial historical issues. The Church finally admitted in these essays, which are available for all to read on the Church's official website (lds.com), that Joseph was a polygamist and that he married over 30 women, some of which were well under the age of eighteen (he was twice their age), and some were married to other men.

They also admitted that Joseph used his treasure-hunting magic rocks (in a hat!) to "translate" the Book of Mormon, contrary to the traditionally more-palatable (i.e. "whitewashed") version of Joseph using in tandum the gold plates and the biblically-referenced Urim and Thummim (according to some accounts, Joseph didn't even have the plates in the same room during the "translation" process).

They admitted--finally--that the policies started by the Church's second president, Brigham Young, which until 1978 were used to exclude black people from being able to receive the priesthood, were inspired by Brigham's own racism, rather than revelation from god.

The admissions made in these essays were ground-breaking in one way or another. The remarkable thing to me is that the Church is finally admitting to things over which they have excommunicated historians in the past. These essays, although clearly not enough to undo the Church's wrongs, is something of an apology.

There are still many things to which the Church has yet to come clean, and they still whitewash much of their history in an effort to make it more faith-promoting. But perhaps we have seen the last of the Church's efforts to buy up historical documents with embarrassing information in order to control their public image, such as the "Salamander Letter," even if those documents turn out to be fraudulent.

All of this public relations management dished out by Mormon HQ has me thinking: Why the sudden admission of issues long covered up?

The hypothesis circulating around some Mormon circles, that the Church is attempting to help Mitt Romney's next campaign, is intriguing. There may even be some truth to it. But I see a much deeper motive than seating the most powerful man in the world (which, surprisingly, is not the Mormon prophet who claims to talk directly to, and for, god). In a covert and never-to-be-admitted way, the Mormon Church seems to have stumbled upon one of modern society's great truths: The internet is where religions go to die.

For centuries religions have relied on a monopoly of information to control their public image and divert doubters and naysayers. Mormonism, being no different from any other fundamentalist religion, teaches its members to only read from Church-approved sources--especially on matters of the Church's history. Anything which challenges the Church's official story is deemed "anti-Mormon" and should be avoided at all costs.

This monopoly of information, however, has become increasingly difficult for the Church to maintain, due in large part to the Information Age. The internet provides questioning Mormons a means to discreetly research controversial issues of the church. Open forums give doubters a voice among other doubters. Historical documents cannot be purchased and hidden as easily as in days passed.

The members are finding this information and because the facts seem to contradict the Church's storybook version of their own history, the Mormon Church is being forced to face their historical problems in a public way in order to "get ahead" of the flood of people stumbling on this information and leaving the Church. And they are leaving. The Church is seeing its greatest era of apostasy ever and no amount of contraception bashing and over-breeding will stop this flood from surging now that the dam holding back their true history has been cracked.

BONUS MATERIAL:

YouTuber, Thunderf00t on religion and the internet:

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.