UNDER THE RUG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BONUS MATERIAL:

Tracie Harris on god allowing children to be raped.

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. 

IF YOU STOCK IT, THEY WILL COME

"God, Satan, Paradise and Hell all vanished one day in my fifteenth year, when I quite abruptly lost my faith. I recall it vividly. I was at school in England by then. The moment of awakening happened, in fact, during a Latin lesson, and afterwards, to prove my new-found atheism, I bought myself a rather tasteless ham sandwich, and so partook for the first time of the forbidden flesh of the swine. No thunderbolt arrived to strike me down. I remember feeling that my survival confirmed the correctness of my new position."

--Salman Rushdie

"I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."
--Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism)

In some religions there is a subtle but significant difference between doctrine and cultural norms. For instance, it is common for Hindus to abstain from eating animal products as they tend to view the practice as cruel. But this is not a hard-line rule as many Hindus still choose to eat meat. It seems that for some Hindus it is a matter of upbringing and what is common in the surrounding culture rather than religious beliefs. It is rare for individuals to challenge religiously-inspired cultural norms, even if such norms are not strictly doctrinal.

A common practice within Mormonism--even among my own family--is to abstain from caffeinated soda. This is a practice thought to be a logical extension from Mormon scripture which states that one should not drink "hot drinks" (i.e. "coffee or black tea"). The reason for such a prohibition is often expounded upon by members and church leaders, but to my knowledge the church has never officially explained the reasons god would even care about such a thing.

Nonetheless, it is generally accepted among Mormons that since both coffee and black tea contain caffeine (a slightly addictive stimulant) that this commonality must have something to do with their prohibition. Further more, other drinks which also have caffeine must be similarly discouraged by god, therefore one should also abstain from caffeinated sodas. This hypothesis was reinforced in the 90's when the then-president of the Mormon church Gordon B. Hinckley did not deny that the church discourages the consumption of caffeinated soda during an interview on 60 Minutes.

Despite the fact that church leaders often encourage such extrapolation of commandments (at least when it leads to even more conservative practices, like many Mormons who don't view PG-13 movies when the church only discourages watching R-Rated movies) in 2012 the Mormon church sent out a press release to clarify that caffeinated sodas are not explicitly prohibited by the church. As one might suspect, this pronouncement caused a stir among members and many people began to ask follow up questions about how this will change things for Mormons in general and the various church functions and institutions, most notably church owned universities and schools.

When asked how this would affect the largest of the Mormon schools, Brigham Young University, the response was that there was "no demand" for caffeinated soda on campus, therefore the local vendor who stocks the university's vending machines with non-caffeinated soda upon the request of BYU dining services--not the university administrators or the church--would continue to do so.

Is it true, though, that there is no demand for caffeine on campus? I, for one, would often drink Mt. Dew or Dr Pepper while attending BYU. I did most of my studying at home, but I knew many people who would bring caffeinated soda with them while they studied on campus.

One does not need to take my word for it. Just last year an incident occurred which illustrates my point splendidly. The company which stocks BYU's vending machines accidentally put caffeinated Coke Zero in a machine in the Brimhall Building on campus. It did not take long for word of the error to spread among students via social media, and within hours, all of the caffeinated soda was snatched up. Keep in mind that Coke Zero is among the least popular flavors of Coke. But this did not matter to those seeking caffeine on a campus which systematically limits its use.

There is also a student-run online service called Caffeine On Campus (I'm not sure if this is still active) which allows students to order any caffeinated beverage they like and have it hand-delivered to them anywhere on campus for a nominal fee. No demand? Really?

So, the question stands, why does BYU not offer caffeinated soda on campus when the church has officially declared it "OK" to drink? 

Perhaps rather than teaching people correct principles and allowing them to govern themselves they have created slaves of culture, non-confrontational pushovers (for contention is of the devil), who will blindly follow those around them for the sake of conformity and who passively await clarification on life's difficult questions from spiritual "authorities."

This principle is why I find religion not to be a moral system. In no way do those who follow commandments make a moral assessment of a situation and decide the best course of action. It is infinitely easier to simply do what you are told by a supposed prophet than to think for yourself.

Instead of asking what you should do from a self-appointed authority (especially one whose authority extends only as far as you allow), maybe you should ask yourself what you should do based on your desired outcome. If you don't like caffeinated soda, fine. Don't drink it. But take the time to formulate your own thoughtful and compelling reasons to do so. 

BONUS MATERIAL:

Richard Dawkins on secular morality:

The Atheist Experience on the cost of religion:

AS I LAY BEFUDDLED

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
--Thomas Jefferson 

"Our Bible reveals to us the character of our God with minute and remorseless exactness.... It is perhaps the most damnatory biography that exists in print anywhere."
--Mark Twain

"You believe in a book which has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd, and primitive stories; and you say that I am the one who is mentally ill?"
--Dan Barker (Author Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists)








At work the other day I helped supervise a cottage of patients during a group therapy activity. Not my usual task of late, but not a big deal. I was paired with another staff who is about as antithetical to myself as possible, although, I'm not sure she realizes this. She is a college student attending BYU. She was home schooled in what seems to be a more conservative Mormon home than I, which is saying quite a bit. She often assumes that everyone she works with shares her religion, values and understanding of the world, as is evident by her occasionally asking me (of all people) about Mormon current events and policies (about which I am always happy to provide information).

She is as overtly nice to people she meets as she is surprised and uncomfortable when she learns that someone is more liberal or progressive than herself (which is not at all). At work, she does best in situations which are very black and white, for nuance and situational-judgment can be buggars to sort out in real time.

For such a person, "good enough" is a meaningless term. Either a thing is good, or it is not. When she gives a patient a directive, she expects exactness and complete compliance. So when she returned to the cottage just before the group started and noticed that the patients were a tad loud, she saw it as blatant and intentional rebellion. But rather than shout the directive again or issue swift consequences for the infraction, as she is often want to do, she coolly approached me and said, "So, this is quiet free time, huh?" To which I replied, "-ish."

With less than 5 minutes before the start time, and everyone behaving relatively well, I wasn't going to pick that battle unless the room raised a few more decibels. Besides, I had bigger fish to fry in that moment, but I will spare you the details.

Last year the lead singer of a "Christian metal" group (say what?) called As I Lay Dying, Tim Lambesis, was arrested for hiring a hit-man to kill his wife. Unbeknownst at the time to Mr Poopforbrains, the man he had hired to do this dirty deed (for the dirt cheap price of $1000) was an undercover cop. It seems that he blames, at least in part, his sudden douche-baggery to losing his faith in Christianity:

"Lambesis stated that "I grew up in a Christian home and held that belief myself for many years. In the process of sincerely trying to defend that belief in a scholarly way and shortly after finishing my degree, I felt that it was unreasonable to call myself a Christian in light of the evidence..." On June 2014, Lambesis came out as an atheist, claiming that he, along with other members of the band, just kept pretending to be Christian just to sell records.... He even recalls feeling awkward when asked for their testimonies and when fans ask to pray with them. According to Lambesis, his renunciation of Christianity made it easier to have an affair." [emphasis mine]

It is often argued by Christian evangelists that morality comes from god, and that one cannot have morals without god. But what happens to a person raised to believe that god is the arbiter of morality when that person comes to the realization that this god does not actually exist? For this person their sense of morality may shatter.

A person may do the "right thing" for good reasons or for bad reasons. Taking a more obvious moral example, murder, one may refrain from killing another person because of laws, or to avoid the consequence of jail time or a death sentence. 

Arguably, a more noble reason would be for the sake of empathy. This may out of reach for more hot-headed people. But what about the perpetuation of a social meme where a society which generally does not kill one another is preferable to one where murder is accepted or encouraged? This reason may have psychological roots as well, as many people who kill others--even out of self-defense or in a time of war--often go through PTSD and anxiety from the experience. In short, we have evolved as a social species which benefits from not killing each other. 

Ok, ok. Murder is an easy example to make my point. But what about more nuanced quandaries? What about issues like gay marriage, abortion, swearing and picking your friend's nose? If you object to these things solely because god says they are bad, in what way are you a moral agent? If pressed to provide a reason for inhibiting other people not of your faith or world-view from doing these things all you have to say is "god says so", do you really have a reason to interfere with their lives? Could some one of another religion do the same to you? Should Muslims be able to refuse to sell you pork during Ramadan? Should a conservative Christian working at a grocery store be able to refuse to sell condoms to patrons? Should a city clerk be able to deny processing marriage certificates to gay couples in the few states which currently allow them to marry?

And what about defending the reprehensible acts commanded by god in the Bible? Is merely saying "god says so" a sufficient reason for slavery, genocide, infanticide, stoning unruly children, stoning unbelievers, burning witches and soothsayers and calling for rapists to marry their victims? Is it enough to say that donkeys and snakes can talk? Or that the earth is only 6,000 years old?

Some people who leave religion struggle with maintaining their morals. Often this is a result of Nihilistic leanings, which is pushed by many religious people as the de facto moral position of atheists. To this day, I can recall lessons from respected and highly educated members of the Mormon church on Nihilism being the inevitable conclusion of a world-view without god ("Nothing is eternal, therefore, nothing matters." To which I readily reply, "A cheese burger may not be eternal, but when I am hungry it certainly matters to me."). To me, it is not at all surprising when people who grow up hearing these ideas later emulate them when they leave religion in the proverbial gutter. 

I would argue, however, that religion does not teach people how to make moral judgments on their own, thereby crippling their ability to do so when the crutch of religion (i.e. following orders) is removed. Sam Harris often compares moral assessments as analogous to good health practices. How do we determine objectively that one moral outcome is preferable to another proposition? Compare the outcome to alternatives. 

On the subject of health, one can clearly demonstrate that drinking drain cleaner is worse for one's health than drinking, say, chocolate milk (Unless you're one of those lactose intolerant weirdos. Seriously, why the intolerance. What did milk do to you?). Likewise, we can compare moral systems by their effect on society. As with the murder example before, one can easily see the benefits on society of prohibiting murder versus the alternative.  

I agree with Christopher Hitchens that, although not always applicable (silly masochists), the golden rule is a pretty good rule of thumb. The concept that one should not interfere with the affairs of others unless they cause you harm generally breeds a society of cohesiveness and solidarity. 








BONUS MATERIAL:

An article from The Friendly Atheist on Mr Lambesis.

The Atheist Experience on Biblical vs Secular morality:

SING A LITTLE SONG

"[Ted Bundy] said that after a while, murder is not just a crime of lust or violence. It becomes possession. They are part of you ... [the victim] becomes a part of you, and you [two] are forever one ... and the grounds where you kill them or leave them become sacred to you, and you will always be drawn back to them."
--Special Agent William Hagmaier of the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit quoting Ted Bundy (serial killer)

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:"
--Jesus

Some people describe religious beliefs as "false yet harmless" convictions lacking any real or demonstrable harm to the person holding them to be true. But can believing something to be true without supporting evidence really be without harmful effects on other aspects of one's life?

While some thoughts or beliefs, at least on the surface, may seem not to directly hurt a person, the very process through which one comes to believe falsehoods is harmful in itself, and if left unchecked, can sprout through in other lines of reasoning until one does, in fact, believe something harmful.

For example, let's say I believe Santa Claus exists and I have some anecdotal, though fairly unconvincing evidence to support this hypothesis. While the specific belief that "Santa is real" may not hurt me, the fact that I accepted the claim without thorough examination, perhaps because it makes me feel comfortable or offers me reassurance in some way, leaves me susceptible to accepting other unsubstantiated claims on tenuous evidence. It is the process of thought which causes the harm more than any specific false or unsupported belief.

Throughout the countless religion classes I attended while growing up in the Mormon Church, I heard several times that "our thoughts inform our actions," or some variation of that theme. For this reason, one should be mindful of one's thoughts since thinking about bad or sinful things (especially things of an explicit or sexual nature) will invariably lead one to act accordingly. Cases of serial killers and rapists are often described as examples of people who contemplated about such horrific acts long before committing any crimes, thus suggesting that in some sense their crimes could have been avoided by thinking happy thoughts.

But it was not the thoughts of Ted Bundy, and others like him, which led him to kill so many people. No; his beliefs, not simply his thoughts, informed his despicable actions. If he had merely thought about killing people, rather than believing that he could and should do so--consequences being damned somewhat ironically--he likely would have lived a long life as a charismatic, if slightly off-centered and perverted loner. Additionally, being a sociopath, thus lacking the necessary empathy to prohibit him from inflicting harm onto another human being, didn't help.

Likewise, if I spend a great deal of my time fantasizing about flying like a bird or Peter Pan, I know deep down that any attempts to do so would be foolhardy and no amount of thinking will allow me to actually attempt it successfully. However, if I sincerely believe I can fly, perhaps only under specific circumstances (i.e. with the aid of pixie dust), the game changes entirely, and I might be inclined to try it. 

Many suggest reciting or humming a religious hymn as an effective way to distract oneself from unseemly or distasteful thoughts and thus save oneself from the anguish derived from the eternal effects of unrepentant sinning. Coincidentally, many also discover the very Pavlovian conditioned response which may occur if one repeatedly couples thoughts of hymns and sexual desires, however innocently or well-intended. 

As compelling as the argument may sound that our actions are so easily informed by even our worst, most depraved and perverse thoughts, fundamentally the reasoning is flawed, and is nothing more than a feeble attempt by small-minded theocrats to control the minds of their adherents--especially youth with budding libidos. This is what George Orwell described in his book 1984 as "thought crime". It is not enough to say that one should abstain from sexual promiscuity--even thinking about something like adultery, according to Jesus, is the same as committing it, and is just as damning. So much for nuanced and thoughtful consideration from a "just and merciful" god.

Bonus Material:

The Atheist Experience dispelling the notion that lust is the same as adultery:



GIMME SHELTER

"Part of what a doctor can give a patient is consolation and reassurance. This is not to be dismissed out of hand. My doctor doesn't literally practise faith-healing by laying on of hands. But many's the time I've been instantly 'cured' of some minor ailment by a reassuring voice from an intelligent face surmounting a stethoscope."
--Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion")





I don't like talking about my job on this blog, although, today I feel compelled to do so. I have mentioned a few times in previous posts that I work with at-risk teenagers. The facilities in which I work are classified as Residential Treatment Centers. Basically, such facilities combine aspects of boarding schools, mental hospitals and juvenile detention centers.

More specifically, I work with teens with a variety of mental disorders, a history of physical, sexual, verbal and neglectful abuse, chemical dependency and substance abuse, and quite often a criminal history. Many of my patients are either orphans or children of the state (i.e. Child Protective Services takes the kid away from the parents). Many of my patients who still live with their biological families wish they didn't, and for damn good reasons.

These are children with the worst start in life. They have every reason to give up, and many of them do. For many, Residential Treatment Centers offer the first opportunity for a real education, real medical care, a real meal and some one to talk to. For some, this is their last stop before a life in prison.

Often times people will ask me what the success rate is for my line of work. Are we able to rehabilitate these kids? Can they get a job? Will they stop using drugs? Will they perpetuate or stop the cycle of abuse into which they were born?

I usually respond, "It depends on what you consider to be 'success'".

Most people I talk to seem to have the idea that we make these kids "normal" by conventional standards. But for me success is simply having them leave our facility better off than when they came in. For example, let's say we take in a 16 year old girl who has made several attempts to kill herself; if we can improve her self-image enough that she no longer makes serious suicide attempts, but instead starts cutting her forearms and wants to start drinking as soon as she gets home--that is success. It is not ideal. But at least she is alive, and hopefully will continue treatment of some kind when she leaves.

To a certain extent, success in this field is subjective. There is no way for me to be sure that kids really are better off going to Residential Treatment Centers rather than sticking it out at home, because there is no way for me to analyze the alternative for individual patients. Choosing one life-path necessarily means you will never go down another path. But studies are being conducted which follow-up with treatment patients.

As one might expect, the results are pretty scattered, but generally speaking, after about 5 years or so, most former patients tend to speak favorably of their experience in treatment. Some even confess that they would probably be dead if they had not been to a treatment center. Alas, this is still a bit subjective, though.

This leads me to the reason I started this post. A couple of days ago, a facility where I used to work posted the following on Facebook:

"Did you know that ‪#‎spirituality‬ can be therapeutic for teens. It's true"

They also included a link to the following "study": Helping Your Teenager Discover Spirituality.

First of all, the writers of this article differentiate between religion and spirituality, but only loosely:

"Spirituality can be defined as a sacred connection between oneself and a higher power... Religion focuses on beliefs and practices associated with a religious organization or creed; spirituality focuses on inspiration, self-reflection, and personal connection to the sacred."

The thing which bothers me the most by this opening statement is that they switch the definition of "spirituality" without acknowledging it to the reader. A connection between oneself and a higher power is not the same thing as focusing on inspiration, self-reflection and a personal connection to the sacred. I'm not really sure what is meant by the last line, a "personal connection to the sacred". What does "sacred" actually mean outside of a religious context?

The article continues by making claims that spiritual and religious teens have lower occurrences of "bad things" and higher occurrences of "good things" (as defined by the authors). But again, here we have a case of people generalizing and concluding things based on a correlation (which is not causation), rather than refining the research to determine what it is about religion and spirituality--if anything--that actually contributes to positive outcomes in the development of teenagers. There is an implication here that such success lends credence to the notion that god exists; but in reality, even if religion and spirituality do cause more positive outcomes in teens, it could just as easily be explained through the placebo effect. And considering the extensive research which has been done on the placebo effect and the utter lack of conclusive evidence for the existence of any sort of god, which seems more likely?

It always bothered me that this particular facility focused so much on religion while I worked there. One of the highest ranking (and highest paid) employees at this facility was a full-time Chaplin, who required every patient to meet with her upon admission in order to determine the belief system (or lack thereof) of the patient. At first it didn't really bother me since I was still a practicing Mormon. But over the few years that I worked there, I began my deconversion and began to see the problem of their model of ever-so-gently pushing religion on their patients.

These are young, volatile, impressionable teens, many of whom are either ambivalent towards religion due to having to deal with more pressing matters (i.e. abuse), or they hate the idea that a god would let all of these terrible things happen to them. They come to a facility for psychiatric help and for the first time feel safe among adults. In this state, some are susceptible to the views of the adults they are coming to know and trust. It is fantastically inappropriate and a conflict of interests to suggest to these young, damaged minds that they need religion or spirituality in order to be happy and normal (which is the implication). For this very reason, most Residential Treatment Centers train newly-hired employees to avoid talking about religion with the patients. They are here for treatment--not church. And for this reason, none of my patients know I'm an atheist.



BONUS MATERIAL:

Here is a great response from Hemant Mehta (the Friendly Atheist) concerning the idea that teens in treatment need religion: Does Believing in God Really Lead to Better Psychiatric Treatment Outcomes?

Here is Sean Mackey (Stanford Medical) on the placebo effect:

And the placebo effect of religion:

SHAMELESS PLUG

So, something neat happened a few days ago...

I have linked to The Atheist Experience in many of my posts, and it really has been an integral part of my own de-conversion from Mormonism. I love just about everything about the show: the topics, the open call-in format, the hosts. It's all good stuff. I have even considered visiting Austin, Texas just to sit in the audience and meet the people who put on the show.

Well, it turns out that the show has been gaining some notoriety, which is unusual for public-access content. The show is all over Reddit, which is great since r/atheism is one of the most popular atheist sites on the internet, with over 2 million subscribers just to that sub-page. Even more exciting is that now big name celebrities, such as Ricky Gervais (creator of "The Office"), are becoming fans of the show and promoting it (btw, Matt Dillahunty is the main host on the show):

Did you notice the 108 "retweets" at the bottom there? And that's just on the first day of posting.

At any rate, the most recent show (below) had a caller who starts a conversation about people using the show as a tool for de-conversion. And since this was the case for myself (I have literally watched almost every single episode from the last 8 or 9 years), I thought it fitting to pay a tribute and promote the show in a post as a way to show my gratitude.

WATERED DOWN

"26 And after that he came men also were saved by faith in his name; and by faith, they become the sons of God. And as surely as Christ liveth he spake these words unto our fathers, saying: Whatsoever thing ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is good, in faith believing that ye shall receive, behold, it shall be done unto you."
--Moroni 7:26 [emphasis added]





There is a common myth within Mormonism of two missionaries stranded in the middle of the desert, standing beside a car with no gas, and one says to the other: "Hey, let's pour some water in to the gas tank and ask god to turn the water into gasoline." After a brief comparison to a similar miracle performed by Jesus turning water into wine, the other missionary pours some water in to the gas tank, utters a heart-felt petition to god and viola! the car starts and they drive off to save more souls.

Many religious people have probably heard similar types of stories as this one (which should tell you something of the nature of such tall tales...). Well, in my mission a couple of sister missionaries actually tried this. One might think that this would be the perfect opportunity for god to reveal himself, and flex his supernatural muscles, but the result was exactly as one would expect if some one had poured water in to a gas tank without asking god for a miracle--not only did the car not start, but they had to send it to a mechanic for major repairs.

So, why didn't god answer the prayers of these young women who were supposedly on his errand? Surely, they demonstrated great faith, and their request would have been worthwhile by god's standard. Why such negligence from an omnipotent being who promises his faithful adherents that they can move mountains if they just believe?

In retrospect, the most interesting thing to me is not that the sister missionaries failed to receive an answer to their prayer, but how the rest of us missionaries responded to the story: belly-aching laughter. Every one of us laughed hysterically when we heard about the faux pas, and some even made misogynistic claims of the ineptitude of women behind a wheel, etc. Not a single one of us thought it would have been reasonable to expect god to answer their prayer. Why not?

The truth is, I, and many like me, are implicitly skeptical of miracle claims, if only with regards to the claims of others. I can't tell you how many times I have heard miracle claims and thought, some times aloud, "That's a little far-fetched, or just too good to be true. Why should I believe such a claim?"

Generally speaking, I think most people are pretty skeptical, if a little under-practiced. Skepticism is a skill set. It is very similar to logic, the scientific method, and the Socratic method. Each methodology has a set of fairly well-established rules which help us reduce bias and increase potential understanding. Applying these methods of thinking to our own biases and beliefs is one of the most difficult, yet most necessary forms of self improvement.


BONUS MATERIAL:

The Atheist Experience on failed prayers:

LITTLE PEOPLE

"But both in theory and in practice, religion uses the innocent and the defenseless for the purposes of experiment.... By all means let Abraham offer to commit suicide to prove his devotion to the Lord or his belief in the voices he was hearing in his head. By all means let devout parents deny themselves the succor of medicine when in acute pain and distress. By all means--for all I care--let a priest sworn to celibacy be a promiscuous homosexual.... But the conscription of the unprotected child for these purposes is something that even the most dedicated secularist can safely describe as a sin."
--Christopher Hitchens (author, "god Is Not Great")




Like most religions, Mormonism has some unique cultural traits. Green Jell-o, road shows and knowing someone who was saved from Ted Bundy by the Three Nephites are all common in Mormon culture. Also like other religions, there is a push within Mormonism to have children give talks in church and bear their testimonies of things which they cannot know. Few people seem to have a problem with this; that is, until they see children of another faith engaging in this practice...

This is fairly common, actually. In my home ward it occurred at least once a month during sacrament meeting (the main congregational meeting). Usually it would play out as follows: a young mother or father escorts their 2-6 year old child to the pulpit, holds them up to the mic and whispers into the ears of the child statements of fact, such as "I know the Church is true; I know Joseph Smith was a prophet; I know the Book of Mormon is true" and so on. Very often the parroting child receives praise from the both the parents and members of the congregation, despite the fact that they just lied in front of dozens of people by saying they know things to be true which they do not know, simply because their parents told them to say such things.

Now, I can appreciate the general adorableness of a 3 year old speaking into a microphone over a large crowd as much as the next cold-hearted cynic; but does no one else see the inherent problem of teaching a child through positive reinforcement to lie about their beliefs? What will happen when that child grows older and the social pressure to acquire a "genuine" testimony of the things they have been mindlessly repeating for years increases? How many Mormon teenagers have a real testimony and how many are simply lying or repeating platitudes and assertions from their childhood? How many adults are in the same position?

I can recall one instance when I gave a talk in church at about the age of 8. I was too old to be expected to just repeat the words of my parents, so I had to come up with something to actually talk about. I don't know how much my mother helped me prepare my talk, but I do know that I delivered it by myself--a fact that I was quite proud of at the time. The talk itself was about the "first" time I ever received an answer to a prayer:

My mother's side of the family gets together about every 3-5 years at a campsite out side of Fresno, California. There are two barrack-type buildings (one for the boys, and one for the girls), a kitchen, and a rec hall, all along-side a river just a couple of miles from a large lake. It has been a family tradition for 50+ years. On one side of the camp is a rather steep, rocky hill which goes up about 100 feet or so to the service road.

Well, when I was about 3 years old, my 5 year old brother and I decided to hike up that hill. As we reached a large boulder about half way up the hill, we decided that we were lost, despite the fact that we could still see the barracks. My older and wiser brother decided that we should say a prayer so that we could make it back to the camp safely. He offered the benediction. After a little exploring around the rock, and deciding that we were still lost, we continued up the hill until we reached the road. We turned left.

A little ways down the road (approximately 50 feet), we found a small convenience store (full of candy and ice cream) where one of the employees very quickly figured out that we had wandered away from the nearby camp. They escorted us to the camp down the hill, where our grateful, albeit slightly confused mother was getting out of the shower.

In my 3 year old mind, we had gone on a wild adventure and had received an answer to prayer. In reality, two young adventurous boys had wandered around the outside edge of a campsite for about 15 minutes.



BONUS MATERIAL:

An ex-Mormon expresses her feelings on indoctrinating children:

The Atheist Experience on Indoctrination (part 1):

Part 2:

FALSE POSITIVE

"Stepped into a church I passed along the way
Well, I got down on my knees and I pretended to pray
You know the preacher likes the cold, he knows I'm gonna stay"
--Mamas and the Papas (song "California Dreaming")




This is a sort of continuation of a previous post.

One of the things which fascinates me most about the Book of Mormon story of Korihor and Alma is the rather ironic lesson in tricking yourself into believing falsehoods. You see, the Mormon Church teaches that if a person has a desire to believe in the Church but as of yet has not received the spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost testifying of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, then that person can gain a testimony "through the bearing of it". That's right, the Church actually teaches that if you don't know the Church is true, just say you do in front of other people over and over again--eventually you will start to believe it.

Here are a couple of quotes from various Church authorities (source Mormon Think):

"A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it. Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that 'leap of faith,' as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and step into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two."
--Boyd K. Packer (Mormon Apostle)

"Another way to seek a testimony seems astonishing when compared with the methods of obtaining other knowledge. We gain or strengthen a testimony by bearing it. Someone even suggested that some testimonies are better gained on the feet bearing them than on the knees praying for them."
--Dallin H Oaks (Mormon Apostle)

The implication that these men are trying to convey to their members is that by saying one knows the Church, etc. is all true, one will finally receive the witness from the Holy Ghost. But, as I have asked before, how does one reliably discern between a genuine divinely-caused burning of the bosom and an emotionally-charged, self-induced sensation reflecting one's desire to believe (aka confirmation bias)?

Furthermore, Joseph Smith once told Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery that he had received revelation through the same process he had used to allegedly translate the Book of Mormon (a seer stone in a hat) that they should go to Toronto, Canada to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon, in order to expedite the publishing process and get the books made more quickly. Returning empty handed, Hiram Page and Oliver Cowdery inquired of Joseph why the Lord had seemingly given him a false revelation. Joseph received yet another revelation, again through the same process, that "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil". This presents a perpetual problem for believers, as such potential sources of revelations are apparently indecipherable in their similarities--even to Joseph Smith:

"Be ever on guard lest you be deceived by inspiration from an unworthy source. You can be given false spiritual messages. There are counterfeit spirits just as there are counterfeit angels. Be careful lest you be deceived, for the devil may come disguised as an angel of light.

"The spiritual part of us and the emotional part of us are so closely linked that it is possible to mistake an emotional impulse for something spiritual. We occasionally find people who receive what they assume to be spiritual promptings from God, when those promptings are either centered in the emotions or are from the adversary."
--Boyd K. Packer

Now, to a true believer this is important information, although the Church has yet to offer a reliable way to discern between these "false spiritual messages" and genuinely divine messages. For someone such as myself who thinks all three options are of the same man-made origin, this apparent conundrum is very telling.

For those of you positing the possibility that Joseph Smith just made a one-time mistake, consider the fact that the same thing happened to the Muslim prophet Mohammad, which is the origin of the "Satanic Verses" in the Koran. If Joseph Smith was admittedly deceived by Satan once, is it not possible that it could have occurred more than once? Could it have happened every time? Is it only possible to tell if a revelation is true by it coming to pass? Is this method the least bit rational or reliable?



BONUS MATERIAL:

The Atheist Experience on faith:

HELL HATH NO FURY

"...what interests me and always has is this: Do the preachers and prophets also believe, or do they too just "believe in belief?" Do they ever think to themselves, this is too easy? And do they then rationalize the trick by saying that either (a) if these wretches weren't listening to me they'd be in even worse shape: or (b) that if it doesn't do them any good then it still can't be doing them much harm?"
--Christopher Hitchens (author "god is Not Great")



This post might get a little personal...

In the various conversations I have had with family members, in particular with my mother, concerning my position on and apostasy from religion, I have had to define for them what "atheist" actually means, and why I qualify as such, rather than a mere agnostic. There is a common misconception that all atheists believe no god exists, or that they are distinctly anti-religion. However, atheism is simply the position of not holding a belief in god.

Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience often uses an analogy to explain this distinction by comparing an atheistic view of god with a courtroom trial. Suppose a jury is trying to determine if a defendant is guilty or not guilty. Those in the "not guilty" camp include those who believe the defendant is innocent, and those who are simply not convinced of guilt. The same goes for atheism, which includes those who claim to know that no god exists and those who simply do not have an active belief in god (this also applies to theism, which includes those who firmly know of god's existence and those who simply believe). In a sense, atheists find god "not guilty" of existence.

Now, there is another label which has become more popular in recent years: anti-theism. This is the position that not only is religion wrong in terms of its supernatural claims, but that it is actually harmful. This is a point of quite a bit of debate, even within atheist circles, and those who side against anti-theism often say that some beliefs give people meaning or hope, and are therefore, net-positive even if they are untrue.

First of all, I have yet to hear of a false belief which has absolutely no negative effects on a person's life, views or method of thinking. But I don't even have to go that far to show why such supposed "false yet positive" beliefs are actually harmful and why I am anti-theistic.

In one of the very first conversations I had with my mother about my atheism, she admitted to me that she has failed me as a mother. According to her, it was her job to prepare me as a youth to go out into the world and stay firm in my faith; to live in the world, but not of it. And since I no longer have faith in the religion of my upbringing, my mother did not adequately prepare me for adulthood; ergo, she has failed me.

Never mind that by most counts I am a good, moral person, and in many respects still live a "Mormon lifestyle" devoid of many of the things the Church condemns as sinful. Or that my job has me working with people in some of the worst conditions in the developed world. The fact that I don't believe in Mormonism means I won't be able to join my family in the Celestial Kingdom.

The best I can hope for, according to Mormon theology, is the Terrestrial Kingdom (aka Heaven Jr) where my family can visit me on occasion (when they aren't busy building galaxies and making spirit babies). But if I, having gone through the temple endowment ceremony, am a son of perdition, even that consolation prize is taken off the table. This is what my mother fears most of all, and it is why she still prays for my speedy return to Mormonism.

This idea, although completely fatuous and rooted in a notion taken on faith rather than evidence, literally terrifies my mother to the point of tears. This is the damage mythology causes in the hearts and minds of true believers, however pleasant-sounding or otherwise inert it may seem. This is why I hate religion.


BONUS MATERIAL:

Some inspirational thoughts from Christopher Hitchens:

Matt Dillahunty explaining his courtroom analogy (part 1):

Part 2:

Part 3: