There has been a long-winded debate among Mormons and ExMormons about the Church's influence over politics. I first came across this argument when GOP primary winner, and man whose political career died trying, Mitt Romney ran for US president in 2012. The question came up of whether or not the Church might try to influence Mitt's policies as president or outright tell him what to do. A similar concern arose of JFK in relation to the Vatican. At the time, Mitt assured voters that he would represent his constituents and not be bullied into submission by a church which has had a sordid political history.
In the past the Mormon Church has sought to influence politics in very direct ways. As early as their first settlements in the American frontier, Mormon founder, and man who repeatedly takes your 14 year old daughter behind the barn to "just talk about God and stuff," Joseph Smith had gathered thousands of followers in Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri. These small communities which relied almost entirely on local government were soon overrun by apocalyptic "Latter-day Saints" with a single religious mind who all voted according to their prophet's conscience (a prophet who was convicted of fraud in his youth for convincing other men to dig for buried treasure by staring at a magic stone in a hat, and who later started a religion based on an ancient gold book he found in the dirt which he "translated" by using a magic stone in a hat, and wouldn't let anyone with a background in linguistics touch it).
It is no wonder, then, that the locals responded with violence to oust their hive-minded new neighbors (who also happened to be stealing their wives and daughters as polygamous sister-wives, which is also why the Church was so in favor of a woman's right to vote since it would effectively give Mormon polygamous households several more votes).
The Church has learned over the years to be more subtle in their political influence. But as we have seen over the past few decades, the Church still can't keep its greasy fingers off of certain issues. We still don't know the full extent to which the Church has actively sought to thwart the gay rights movement in Hawaii and California. In Hawaii they kept to the shadows when gay marriage was proposed, but became much more brazen when the issue came up as Prop 8 in California, issuing an official statement from the Church to be read over the pulpits asking members to donate their time and as much money as they could to fight this societal evil. And many people took the Church seriously, sacrificing their children's college education to help fund the anti-gay marriage agenda (the Church teaches that members will face a choice like Abraham sacrificing his son Issac as a show of good faith to God, and people look for such sacrifices in their lives believing God is testing their faith).
For years the Church has denied any wrong doing regarding Prop 8 (among other things), and claims that most of their donations, like their humanitarian efforts, came in the form of faithful members volunteering their time. Maybe this is true, but many sources (such as the documentary "8: A Mormon Proposition") have shown that the Church has donated a metric butt-load of money as well.
More recently the church has sought to influence politics in Utah, where they have the strongest foothold. Around the time the US Supreme Court legalized gay marriage (2015), the Church successfully got the Utah legislature to incorporate protections for "religious liberty" in a bill which offered housing and employment protections for LGBT people. In other words, the Church successfully pleaded for the right to discriminate against gay people.
They have also successfully changed votes in the state senate regarding other issues, such as medical marijuana, liquor laws and comprehensive sex education. And despite their long history of breaching the bounds of tax exemption, officially the Church has maintained that they DO NOT tell their members how to vote (see video below).
Next they'll be telling me the Church no longer practices polygamy.
Well, in recent news--yesterday, in fact--the Church sent out a mass email to members in the state of Utah asking ever so politely that they vote "NO" on a bill which would legalize medical marijuana (see left).
It seems that no one told self-proclaimed prophet of God, and nonagenarian who's pretty sure today is a weekday, Russell Nelson that there are some things a prophet just can't do (should we tell him God is supposed to be omniscient?). I guess this is what happens when you send a self-righteous heart surgeon to do an attorney's job.
And, of course, the IRS will do nothing regarding the Church's tax exempt status. The best we can hope for is that enough ExMormons petition the Freedom From Religion Foundation to sue the Church.
The thing I don't understand is why the Church gets involved at all. They have a long list of prohibitions for their members which include many legal things, such as tobacco and alcohol, coffee and tea, premarital sex, watching R rated movies, dating before the age of 16, wearing revealing clothes, swearing, shopping on Sundays, etc. Yet, when issues come up in American politics (notably, not the rest of the world), the Church shoves itself into the conversation where less than 2% of the population (at best!) adheres to their worldview. Why not stay out of it and if it becomes legal, like gay marriage and alcohol and everything else, just issue yet-another prohibition for members. This is how the system is supposed to work.
Sigh...
BONUS MATERIAL:
Former Mormon prophet, and nice young man just trying to pay for college by selling magazine subscriptions, Gordon Hinckley reassuring the public that the Mormon Church does not tell members how to vote.
I really want to enjoy the Fourth of July. I really do. I feel immense pride in and gratitude for the sacrifices others have made to allow me the freedoms I enjoy. I feel lucky to have been born into such comparative wealth to 99% of the rest of the world. I am grateful that despite the attempts of others to strip me of my right to believe according to my conscience, our secular government guarantees me the ability to say whatever I want against religion and theocratic zealots. But overt displays of patriotism just rub me the wrong way.
When I left religion many of the avenues of my patriotism went with it. I didn't realize this until I attended a local rodeo. The announcer ordered the crowd of five thousand or so to stand while he said a few words about how awesome the American flag is and what it represents. He then said a generic Christian prayer, and a guest performer sang the national anthem. In this moment I realized that my patriotism was different from that of the thousands of placating patrons surrounding me.
I have had a few more experiences similar to this incident at public events. Each time I have stood with the rest of the crowd and listened to the prayer or anthem or pledge of allegiance. And each time I pause to think if I really want to participate in the ritual.
I think what I don't like about American patriotism and causes me to second guess my own admiration for my country, is the proximity patriotism has with religious zeal. Many Americans mix the two and they make no bones about it. They often boast about it. They seem to think that their particular version of faith has an extra special relationship with the Founding Fathers or the Constitution. Sometimes they do this at the expense of those who believe differently than they do. And they do so without recognizing that a government which can discriminate against one set of beliefs, (like say, Islam or atheism) can just as easily discriminate against their own religion and for the same reasons. But since they are not the oppressed minority (and are, instead, the whining majority), they don't see the need for separation of church and state.
While I was attending Mormon-owned BYU, I took an American History class in which the professor Matthew Holland (son of prominent Mormon Apostle Jeffery Holland) explained how the separation of church and state is the only reason the Mormon church exists. Without it, the bigotry and hatred early Mormons suffered at the hands of more mainstream Protestants would have led to the federal government dismantling the religion with force. This made sense to me. But I noticed a few years later that some of my Mormon friends and family had become very vocal in their opposition to church-state separation. And I was blown away by it.
My theory is that these people have been listening to unhinged Right Wing sources like Fox News rather than tempered conservative voices like my history professor. And because of the current frenzied political climate they seem to be unable or unwilling to consider the irony in the fact that a Mormon sees no problem with churches and government being intertwined. That's like an African American suggesting that slavery might not be so bad.
It is this kind of blind fervor which causes patriotism to leave a foul taste in my mouth. The belief that god wrote the Constitution and inspired the Founding Fathers and has helped the US win every military conflict in our history (**cough, cough, Vietnam**) is fatuous and unsupported by any evidence. It is for this reason that the next time I am "invited" to stand and salute or recite some words or listen to some self-satisfying prayer, I might just sit it out. Not because I lack patriotism, but because I simply have the right to express it--or not express it--however I please. And what's more American than that?
To paraphrase Tim Minchin, "This is my country. It's not perfect, but it's mine."
"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:
"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]:
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:
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.
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."
"Their leader, Mahmoud al-Zahar, has announced that all inhabitants of the Islamic state of Palestine will be expected to conform to Muslim law. In Bethlehem, it is now proposed that non-Muslims be subjected to the al-Jeziya tax, the historic levy imposed on dhimmis or unbelievers under the old Ottoman Empire. Female employees of the municipality are forbidden to greet male visitors with a handshake. In Gaza, a young woman named Yusra al-Azami was shot dead in April 2005, for the crime of sitting unchaperoned in a car with her fiance. The young man escaped with only a vicious beating. The leaders of the Hamas "vice and virtue" squad justified this casual murder and torture by saying that there had been "suspicion of immoral behavior." In once secular Palestine, mobs of sexually repressed young men are conscripted to snoop around parked cars, and given permission to do what they like."
--Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great.
The discussion of gay marriage started to take off while I was attending BYU (a Mormon university) in the mid 2000's. By the time the infamous "Prop 8" scandal exploded, as it became known that the Mormon Church had milked millions of dollars from members to fight against gay marriage by changing the California state constitution, several arguments for and against gay rights began to circulate around campus.
Those advocating for gay rights (the minority) usually came from a place of equality and agency and the "right to choose." Those against gay rights, in particular gay marriage, usually argued from godly mandates, ill-defined morals and that "butt sex" is gross. As the issue has progressed through each passing presidential election, and now that over half of the states in the US have legalized gay marriage--including Utah--I hear Mormons crying out one argument more than ever: "We have a right to vote according to our conscience."
Yup, you do. Much like the equally vacuous idea that atheists have taken god and prayer out of schools, no one can stop you from doing so.
While I would prefer a world wherein everyone just agreed with me on every point (seriously, the most peaceful societies are those which produce mass conformity; or so I hear...), I have to concede that voting according to one's conscience is a basic right. But so is abstinence before marriage and suppressing the urge to masturbate--neither of which reflect a healthy attitude towards sexuality, and both are preached by Mormons. Just because someone is exercising a right does not mean they are good at making decisions.
My concern with the argument that one should vote their conscience is that the conscience of these religious fundamentalists (and Mormons are certainly fundamentalists) is telling them that it is OK to impose their religious restrictions on to people not of their faith. Interestingly, Mormons also prohibit the consumption of alcohol, and some would call it immoral and damaging to families (a much stronger case can be made for this than the notion that gay marriage will destroy the family unit); and yet, I don't see any Mormon leaders raising money to universally prohibit alcohol. Their conscience, it seems, only imposes itself on to others selectively and when it is politically advantageous.
The legal precedent known as the "Lemon Test" requires that all laws must serve a secular purpose (meaning, any given law must be religiously neutral, not favoring or advocating one religion over another, including non-belief). And since all arguments against gay marriage of which I am aware stem from religious prohibitions and serve no established secular purpose, any laws restricting gay marriage are illegal. This is the whole point of the current Supreme Court hearings concerning gay marriage.
The issues of bigotry, ignorance, sexual repression (which is a form of abuse when forced on to minors), and the moral quagmire of using the argument of "voting one's conscience" to oppress unwilling people not of a particular faith, are all dismantled through education. Teaching people how to process a moral situation (by evaluating potential harm and benefits), rather than listing vague or arbitrary restrictions, will always better serve society. Education is always better than perpetuated ignorance.
I understand the way many Mormons feel about gay marriage. They are in a tough spot. On the one hand Joseph Smith famously said that he teaches his people correct principles and lets them govern themselves, implying that people--even god's people--should have the ability to make a good or bad choice.
On the other hand, Mormons are taught to follow their leaders and to not openly criticize or challenge the Church on important matters--even if the criticism is valid. So, when a leader asks members to help fund a campaign to make gay marriage illegal in another state, members are expected to comply and give as much money as possible. Remember, the more a sacrifice hurts, the more god will reward you (look up the documentary "8: The Mormon Proposition" to see what I am referring to). The Mormon principle of agency is being challenged by Mormon leadership and members are caught in the crossfire.
My own struggle with this led to my leaving Mormonism. I suspect that as the Church continues to take the hard stance that gays should not be allowed to get married, and as the general population of the US and members of the Church “come around” to legalized gay marriage, more and more people will question and leave the Church. And when their pocketbooks are hit hard by declining member donations, the leaders of the Mormon Church will be dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century and, much like the issue of blacks and the priesthood in 1978, they will find a way to be "inclusive" of homosexuals. When this public relations move finally happens, they will call it a revelation from god.
"Don't swallow your moral code in tablet form." --Christopher Hitchens
I am often flabbergasted by the assertion that the Christian "10 Commandments" are the basis of modern morality (I say "Christian" because Jews tend to not limit themselves to such a finite number of divine mandates). Throughout the United States, courthouses and government buildings are riddled with plaques and monuments advertising everyone's favorite imposing religious screed.
Perhaps my cynicism is kicking in, but it seems that the most vocal proponents of plastering the "10 Commandments" on publicly funded government buildings know very little about the commandments, or what they say. In fact, it is a common gag on late night TV programs to ask random people on the street who profess to be Christians and advocates of the moral superiority of the "10 Commandments" just how many they can name. As you may suspect, most people can't name very many.
Typically, the commands which most people get right also happen to be the ones which likely do not need to be spelled out (i.e. Do not murder, steal, lie, etc.). Few people get the ones which set up the Old Testament god, Yahweh, as a jealous control freak, or equate women with cattle. I wonder why?
I have heard theists claim that every law on the books can be traced back to one of the "10 Commandments." Think about this. They suggest that traffic laws and taxes and divorce suits with messy custody battles all originate from the "10 Commandments."
Before I get to the actual list of commandments, I should point out that not only do the "10 Commandments" say nothing about the things above, but they also fail to address issues like rape, genocide, slavery, and child abuse. Not to mention some of the commandments have absolutely no modern adaptation in US laws, such as keeping the Sabbath.
There is no reason to think that the "10 Commandments" would be so broad and all-inclusive. After all, they are only the first 10 of over 600 Jewish laws in the Old Testament, many of which speak favorably of things like rape, genocide and child abuse. And this is exactly what we would expect from a moral code devised by tribalistic, bloodthirsty, ignorant Palestinians in the Bronze Age.
On to the Big Ten:
1. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Right off the bat, god shows his petty jealousy by at once acknowledging and dismissing the existence of other gods. This is consistent with the ancient Canaanite pantheon of gods, from which Yahweh originated. Conversely, this challenges the proposed omnipotence of Yahweh. Why would an all-powerful being care if mere mortals believe and worship him?
Also, none of the laws in the US constitution have anything to do with the idea that the Old Testament god should be the only god worshiped. Our pluralistic melting-pot of a society simply does not allow this totalitarian ideal.
2. "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:"
"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"
"And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."
More tribalistic chest-puffing. Some people read this commandment to mean that nothing should be more important to a person than god. But the language indicates to me that Yahweh wants to set himself apart from the other gods of the pantheon. To do this he threatens a curse on those who do not accept him, which will extend at least four generations. Nothing says divine justice and mercy and sound moral reasoning like punishing children for the actions of their great great great grandparents.
It is also worth noting that many Christian religions, including Catholicism and Christian orthodoxy, proudly flaunt their "graven images" (i.e. "pics of dead people"). Such saintly iconography has created issues in the past, in some cases resulting in Protestant splinter groups, and as a result the Catholic Church (I'm not so sure of the Orthodox Church) has changed this commandment. I suppose they can get away with this since they are just making it up anyway.
Again, this command has no modern equivalent in our multicultural society.
3. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
This commandment has bred confusion for centuries. It seems that every denomination has its own interpretation of this verse. I was taught that it decries profanity in general by specifying an improper use of god's name, whatever that means.
Some Jewish sects go so far as to condemn the very utterance of god's name (which in Hebrew is super long and includes every letter in their alphabet). Not only does this have nothing to do with morality or US law, it creates a false sense of morality in much the same way Muslims view pictures of the prophet Muhammad. Some Muslims are willing to kill non-Muslim blasphemers, such as Danish cartoonists and French satirists.
A less common interpretation is that one should not make oaths on god's name which cannot be upheld, because this makes god look silly. Although this reading of the verse makes more textual sense to me than the anti-profanity gibberish I was taught as a child, I still find it absurd.
Oaths make little sense to me. Aside from oaths made in court, and a few other instances, they have been largely abandoned by society in favor of written contracts, which, let's face it, are more effective and easier to regulate.
4. "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."
"Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:"
"But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:"
"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
Further in the 600+ commandments in the Law of Moses it is specified that those who violate this command should be stoned to death. Nothing about this is moral. Not the law, nor the punishment. Whether a person works on Sunday (or Saturday, if they are Jewish or Seventh-Day Adventist, or Friday if they are Muslim) speaks nothing about their morals.
The reasoning behind this law is completely crazy anti-science woo. Because the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the universe created everything in six days and then took a break, we must follow the same pattern. Why does an all-powerful being need a break? Why don't those who advocate for the moral superiority of the "10 Commandments" work six days a week? It seems to me that they like their weekends as much as anyone.
Of course, there is no equivalent to this commandment in US law. Although, many areas in highly religious states frown on businesses simply being open on Sunday. So much so, in fact, that I know many people who refuse to go to businesses that open on Sunday, even on other days of the week. This is a major selling point for Macy's grocery stores in Utah, for example.
5. "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee."
As with the command to not do any work on the Sabbath, the punishment for breaking this law, as explained further in the Law of Moses, is to stone the unruly children to death.
While there is no shortage of troubled kids who disobey their parents, it is not the disobedience which is most troublesome, since it is often a manifestation of deeper issues. Typically, mental issues, substance abuse and criminal activity are the primary reasons kids may be deemed sufficiently troubled as to warrant intervention or disciplinary action from the state. In most other cases I can think of, the children are actually victims and any "acting out" is simply a cry for help. So, again, there is little to no correlation to US law.
Adding to the moral disconnect between the "10 Commandments" and our society, the promise that obedience to parents will extend one's life is simply untrue and more superstitious bull crap. Unsure? Ask the parents of a child who has passed away just how extra disobedient the child was before their death. I would be surprised if any such parents could utter a single word against their lost child. As far as I can figure, the only way the promise of a longer life for obedient children would hold true is if parents, as the Law of Moses commands, stone their disobedient children.
6. "Thou shalt not kill."
Simple and to the point, this commandment is one of the few on the list which actually has a modern equivalent in our laws. In fact, every society that has ever seen growth and civilization has had some form of this prohibition. As Christopher Hitchens points out, it would be hard to imagine that the ancient Jews would have made it as far as Mount Sinai had they been under a different impression.
The universality of laws against murder suggests that the "10 Commandants" are not the origin of such a moral position, and are not necessary to see the societal benefits.
Some people who question the veracity of the bible point to the apparent hypocrisy of god issuing the command to not kill, when he also commands the Jews to wipe out entire civilizations, killing men, women, children, and in some cases, livestock. Not to worry, though! Christian apologists have you doubters covered. You see, the argument goes that the Hebrew word used in this commandment is specific to unlawful or unjust murders between Jews. If you are killing heathens or apostates for god, you are morally unblemished.
7. "Thou shalt not commit adultery."
Although this is not explicitly in our laws (infidelity may lead to uncontested divorce, depending on agreements made in the marriage contract, but it is not illegal), I generally agree that cheating on one's partner is immoral. It could cause psychological issues and distrust, as well as putting the other person in harm’s way of STDs without their knowledge. If both parties are aware and agree to extramarital relations beforehand, however, I see no moral reasons to oppose it.
8. "Thou shalt not steal."
As with the sixth commandment ("Thou shalt not kill"), prohibitions on theft seem fairly universal. And such universality suggests that a pronouncement from god on this subject is neither revolutionary, nor necessary. In short, when people are allowed to set their own moral limits, they generally wind up agreeing that stealing is bad. There may be exceptions to this, such as a starving homeless child stealing food to survive, but it works as a rule of thumb.
The reason this works is because most people understand that things like theft and murder do real, demonstrable harm to others. This is the root of morality: levels of harm in social interactions. God need not enter in to the equation, especially if he can arbitrarily decide not to follow his own moral commands should it suit his purposes (or, rather, the purposes of self-proclaimed prophets speaking on god's behalf...).
9. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
Most people simplify this verse to say that one should not lie. I find this overly simplistic. As with theft, there may be situations in which lying is the most moral choice.
A well-known example of this is Jews during WWII pretending to be Christians in order to avoid the wholesale slaughter of their people by the Nazis (by the way, many Nazis believed that, since the Jews killed Jesus, they were killing for god).
Not all examples of acceptable reasons to lie involve saving one's life, however. Perhaps a young atheist cannot admit their position due to family pressures. Perhaps parents want to surprise their small children on Christmas and Easter with miraculously appearing presents and chocolate eggs. Perhaps one wishes to spare someone else unnecessary grief.
The point is that lying is not cut and dry. Generally, it may be advisable not to lie, but it is not universal. Of the commandments which do have some connection to modern laws, lying seems to have the most exceptions. Furthermore, most instances when a person might lie are not illegal.
Perjury before a court, breaking or lying about legal contracts, or pretending to be someone else to deceive a police officer are among the few types of lies which concern our legal system. Whether or not you say truthful things about a neighbor will not generally raise any legal eyebrows.
10. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s."
So far, most of the commandments are either amoral (morally neutral) or morally obvious. This command, however, is explicitly immoral. It is tantamount to thought-crime. It tells believers that god not only knows what they think, but will judge them eternally according to their thoughts.
"Covet" is synonymous with "desire." Some add that it is an obsessive desire. If all a person does is desire, obsessively or not, and does not act on this, where is the harm to others? I don't see how wanting something can be implicitly immoral, much less punishable.
For instance, pedophilia (another issue completely missed by the Law of Moses) is pretty close to universally despised, yet simply finding children sexually appealing is not a crime. Only when an adult actively tries to seduce a minor is the criminality line crossed. It is the action which is criminal and immoral, not necessarily the thoughts.
I realize this may sound off-putting or morally questionable to some, and to be clear, I am not condoning pedophilia--even in thought. Such people need psychological help, because in most instances the condition is indicative of deep emotional issues, even mental underdevelopment. But needing professional help is not immoral and it is not criminal. And neither are disturbing thoughts or wanting the possessions of others.
Also, did you catch the subtle bit of sexism when god listed women alongside cattle as possessions of "thy neighbor?" Nice one god. Ancient Jews, like many patriarchal societies of their time, viewed women as property of men. Many Christians, Muslims and Jews today still follow this and treat women as second class citizens. Worst of all, the holy book to which they adhere and claim is the basis of their morality actually supports their misogyny!
If you take nothing else from this far too long post, please see that the bible does not make people more moral. It teaches them to surrender their conscience and accept an outdated moral authority. This is not morality--this is subservience. Hitchens asked, "Who, but a slave, would want this?"
Many atheists have addressed the "10 Commandments" by either deconstructing them and pointing out their immoral nature, as I have attempted here, or by submitting their own "atheist" or "secular" commandments.
The most entertaining of these which I have come across is from Bobby Henderson in his book, "The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster." This satirical take on religion is both more interesting than the original Commandments (aka "Condiments") and, somewhat ironically, more moral. See for yourself:
The eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"
1. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like A Sanctimonious, Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don't Believe In Me, That's Okay. Really, I'm Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn't About Them So Don't Change The Subject.
2. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress, Subjugate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I Don't Require Sacrifices And Purity Is For Drinking Water, Not People.
3. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, And Get This In Your Thick Heads: Woman = Person. Man = Person. Samey-Samey. One Is Not Better Than The Other, Unless We're Talking About Fashion And I'm Sorry, But I Gave That To Women And Some Guys Who Know The Difference Between Teal And Fuchsia.
4. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off The TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change.
5. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then Go After The B******.
6. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Build Multimillion-Dollar Churches/Temples/Mosques/Shrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money Could Be Better Spent (Take Your Pick):
A. Ending Poverty
B. Curing Diseases
C. Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable
I Might Be A Complex-Carbohydrate Omniscient Being, But I Enjoy The Simple Things In Life. I Ought To Know. I AM The Creator.
7. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Go Around Telling People I Talk To You. You're Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love Your Fellow Man, Can't You Take A Hint?
8. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses A Lot Of Leather/Lubricant/Las Vegas. IfThe Other Person Is Into It, However (Pursuant To #4), Then Have At It, Take Pictures, And For The Love Of Mike, Wear A CONDOM! Honestly, It's A Piece Of Rubber. If I Didn't Want It To Feel Good When You Did IT I Would Have Added Spikes, Or Something.
RAmen. BONUS MATERIAL: Christopher Hitchens on the 10 Commandments:
There has been a long-winded debate among Mormons and ExMormons about the Church's influence over politics. I first came across this argument when GOP primary winner, and man whose political career died trying, Mitt Romney ran for US president in 2012. The question came up of whether or not the Church might try to influence Mitt's policies as president or outright tell him what to do. A similar concern arose of JFK in relation to the Vatican. At the time, Mitt assured voters that he would represent his constituents and not be bullied into submission by a church which has had a sordid political history.
More recently the church has sought to influence politics in Utah, where they have the strongest foothold. Around the time the US Supreme Court legalized gay marriage (2015), the Church successfully got the Utah legislature to incorporate protections for "religious liberty" in a bill which offered housing and employment protections for LGBT people. In other words, the Church successfully pleaded for the right to discriminate against gay people.
Well, in recent news--yesterday, in fact--the Church sent out a mass email to members in the state of Utah asking ever so politely that they vote "NO" on a bill which would legalize medical marijuana (see left).
