SKIP A BEATING

Some times it needs to be said: the Mormon Church is bad for gays.

About two months ago a simple phone call with a Mormon family member turned into a three hour theological debate, all because I mentioned that I had spent some time with some gay friends. In response, they mentioned that spending time with people who do bad things encourages us to engage in similar behaviors (the standard religious attitude to spending time with people who swear, eat babies or listen to evil jazz music). I have a big problem with this kind of thinking and I dont believe relationships can be reduced to the likes of a seminary video on saying "no" to parties with any thing more than mild fun ("it's a Christian music-bonfire"). But this isn't really the point. It is important to see how good, moral, and nice people--all of which describe this person--can still be fundamentally wrong about things like whether homosexuality occurs naturally or is a choice (and is, therefore, "contagious"), and then vote based on this presupposition.

So why is this relevant? People who think like this affect other people negatively despite their best intentions. This is doubly so when legislation (and church funds) are involved. But when it is within the church itself, it gets very personal very quickly and can do the most damage.

Today I read an interview between an active, openly gay Mormon (also known as a "Moho" or "oxi-Mormon"), and a recently excommunicated gay mormon. It is important to note that, although now excommunicated and ostracised, the interviewee still believes in Church doctrine, the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. As shown in the interview, in a very real and personal way, the Church's stance on homosexuality IS harmful, and in my opinion perpetuates ignorance and prejudice.

HELL IN A HANDBASKET MADE FOR TWO

This is some what of a continuation of my story of leaving the Mormon Church.

There has been a lot of talk in the media about Mormonism lately. Partly because of various politicians and their increasingly public views on the matter. But also because of sites like this which have been spreading around social media like an empty collection plate--or tithing envelope! (By the way, to my knowledge, this site is run by an active member of the Mormon Church). One of the more interesting things on this site is a new survey which asked people why they left the Mormon Church (see left).

Now, before I get in to my own reasons, I would like to point out that when I was growing up church leaders (and family members) said time and time again that the main reasons why someone would leave the Church is because they were offended by someone or because they couldn't give up their favorite "sin." Since these reasons are at the very bottom of the list, they are not only not my reasons (every time you use a double negative, god kills a kitten...), but they apparently aren't anyone else's reasons either. This misconception seems to be one of the reasons this survey and site were undertaken.

For me, several of these could describe why I left. I guess, if I were to choose a primary reason I would go with "re-evaluating what it means to know," with "losing faith in god" as a close second. I don't get hung up quite so much on opposing views of Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon or Church history, as these things are largely a matter of opinion and both sides seem to have their share of covering up and spin. To those who accuse the Mormon Church of being a cult I would say: the beginnings of any religion will appear cult-ish--especially to outsiders. So, really, its a non-argument.

I do take issue with a few things in the Book of Mormon, like anachronisms (things being out of place, i.e. horses in America, steel, compasses, conflicting geography, etc.); as well as the claim that the Book of Mormon was originally said to be a record of the Native Americans, and the fact that this claim has been so thoroughly debunked through genetic research that it was (quietly) removed from the introduction of the Book of Mormon just a few years ago (I still have my 1981 edition to verify the change; originally, the passage read "[the Lamanites] are the prinicpal ancestors of the American Indians" but now reads "[the Lamanites] are among the ancestors of the American Indians" which is much softer language, but still not supported by any actual science). But these things are not necessarily nails in the coffin as outlined in this video (again, made by an active Mormon):




Getting back to my reasons for leaving the church, I said that I "re-evaluated what it means to know." In other words, "why is faith a virtue?" The more I have thought about this, the less convinced I am that gut feelings are a reliable source of knowledge. They may have a place when all other options are exhausted (similar to the "god of the gaps" argument, or taking a multiple choice test), but even then it is no better than an educated guess (and that's being more generous than some would put it).

And then to say that your faith gives you "knowledge" (which you can hear in any "fast and testimony" meeting of the Church) is just mind-boggling to me. Faith is not knowledge. It is the opposite of knowledge. It is an assertion of beliefs that you have no evidence for. If you had evidence then you wouldn't call it faith. I'm sorry, but faith seems to be little more than socially acceptable credulity.

There is a path to knowledge which includes logic, reason and evidence. If you don't have those things then you can not assert that something is true (even with those things, it is still up for debate--this is called peer-reviewed science). If you don't have those things then all you can do is say you don't know; and if you say you don't know if there is a god, then guess what--YOU'RE AN ATHEIST by definition.

One of my new favorite things to do is watch a public access show called "The Atheist Experience" based out of Austin, Texas (in the heart of Bible country, I might add). It is a great show for believers and non-believers alike, where a panel discusses religion and answers callers' questions from an atheistic perspective. This is probably the best thing to come from Texas since the oil tycoon (probably). Here is a clip where they discuss some of the things I mentioned concerning knowledge versus belief. The ending is especially telling... ;P



OBLIGATORY DISCLAIMER: I do not hold any ill-will toward any one who chooses to stay in the Mormon Church. If faith is enough for you, then more power to you. For me, it is not. As some would say, "I don't hate you--I just think you're wrong."

MY STORY

At the end of the Book of Mormon, the prophet Moroni gives a challenge (Moroni 10:3-5) where he admonishes the reader to ask God if the things written in the Book of Mormon are not true. What a great opportunity—a chance to ask God a specific question, and receive a specific answer. What better way can there be to both prove the existence of God and determine His true and living church?

While in high school, I wanted to find out if this was real, and if I really could find out for myself that the Mormon Church was true. So I read, prayed and waited. But nothing happened. Concerned, I thought I must have done something wrong. Maybe I had sinned and wasn’t worthy for an answer yet. So I repented and tried again. Still nothing.

At the end of high school it was expected of me to go on a mission for the church. My family expected it; my quasi-girlfriend expected it; even my non-Mormon friends expected it. Just before my temple endowment, my older brother came home from his mission and raved about how amazing it was and how much stronger his testimony had become. Ah ha! This was what I needed to really get an answer. What better way to know God than to serve Him by going on a mission and preaching and serving others? Surely, God would reveal himself to one of his servants. Surely, God would answer the prayers of one of his children concerning the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, if that child was humbly spreading His word.

I do not regret going on a mission. It was a great experience, and so much more than just a two-year "vacation." I grew as a person, as an American citizen, and as a man. But I never received an answer to prayer. Still, I tried. There was no choice but to keep with it. My family and social ties depended on this. Perhaps going to college and starting a family of my own would show my commitment, and then, yes surely then, God would make it known to me.

So I went to B.Y.U. and earned a degree; all the while, feeling depressed for not knowing, like those around me, of the Church’s authenticity. Every time I would sit in church and hear someone say that they “know the Church is true,” I would asked myself: “How? Your faculties are the same as mine. The promise, the requirements, the whole experience is the same. For over a decade I have tried to know what you claim, but I do not. How do you know? How can you know, what I cannot?”
Spiraling into ever-growing despair, I decided to try a new approach. Perhaps it isn’t true. Perhaps I haven’t received an answer to a single prayer because no one is there to respond. But if this is so, then why do I feel so depressed and unworthy when I sin? Then it hit me. This could be a conditioned response to my upbringing. Maybe, I feel bad because I am told that I must. Once you remove the threat of eternal damnation, there is no reason to hate yourself or feel condemned for not meeting the standards imposed upon you by a “loving God.”

Numerous times I have heard stories of those who accepted the atonement of Christ for their sins and felt as though “a weight had been lifted” from them. I felt the same thing when I acknowledged my doubt. My sins no longer have power over me. I no longer feel unworthy, depressed or condemned. I no longer feel burdened by fleeting perfection. Instead, I embrace my imperfections as part of who I am. And I am fine.

IT FIGURES

(Disclaimer: numbers and figures presented are taken from several internet sources, and some may not be accurate--but you already knew that, huh?)

"Using past patterns of growth as a baseline, religious sociologist Rodney Stark has projected an LDS population of 265 million by the year 2080. Using this projection, Stark has predicted that the LDS church will become the next major world religion." --Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Did you know....?

....the current world population is ~6.9 billion people

....the current population of Christians is ~2 billion

....the current population of Muslims is ~1.4 billion

....the current population of Hinduism is ~1 billion

....the current population of Buddism is ~1 billion (some debate here--silly commies)

....the current number of Jews in the world is ~14 million

....the current number of Mormons in the world is ~14 million

....the current number of Mormon missionaries is 52000 (while in the MTC in 2000 I was told several times that there were 50000 missionaries, so that's an increase of ~2000 in the last 11 years)

....the current annual world growth rate is ~1.2-1.4%

....the current annual growth of the Mormon Church is 2.5-3%

....the current annual growth of the rest of Christianity is 5-7% (depending on denomination)

....70-80% of new Mormons no longer go to church after their first year of membership.

....overall Mormon Church activity rate is ~50%

....in order for Mormons to "convert the world" every member of the church (active or not) would need to baptize 485 people

....in order for Mormons to "convert the world" every missionary would need to baptize 130769 people

....to do this before the world population doubles (estimated ~58 years--well before Rodney Stark's projection of the growth of mormonism) each missionary would need to baptize 2254 people a year--but by that time, it would only be half the population

....most missionaries are lucky to see 1 baptism per companionship, so if you figure each missionary will have 5-10 companions, then about 5-10 baptisms for a two year mission would be high

....if Rodney Stark's prediction is correct (265 million mormons in 2080) it will still be under 2% of the projected global population

....by this time the populations of all other major world religions will be 2-4 billion each

....the current population of "non-religious" people is ~1.1 billion and is currently the fastest growing religious category in the USA

REFRACTED LIGHT

I was raised to be homophobic. I didnt realize I was homophobic until I went to collage and found that I had gay friends. I had to choose to either shun them (like I was taught) or befriend them. I chose the latter.

It wasnt until I took a psychology class at BYU, during which we discussed **homosexuality, that I realized that I really didnt agree with the Mormon view that homosexuality is a choice, and can therefore be "cured."



This brings me to what caused me to write this. One of my (many) cousins recently made a comment (spurred from a women's conference of some sort where a speaker touched on homosexuals in the Mormon Church) where she said "I dont see what the big deal is. We dont ask gays to do anything different from any other singles in the church. Just obstain from premarital sex. It has nothing to do with being gay."


The problem is that the statement isnt true. Gays in the church are not asked to do the same thing as heterosexual singles in the church. Here is the difference: because gays can not marry (which is what the Church wants) they have to live their entire lives in celebacy in order to remain in good standing with the Church. Whereas heterosexuals are taught to marry and have a healthy sex life with a spouse. Celebacy is not the same thing as abstinance ...at all. Just ask any number of returned missionaries who have bible-bashed with a catholic about the celebacy of priests.

Now, if the church changed its position on gay marriage to allow them to have a civil marriage (not an eternal marriage in a Mormon temple) then it would be asking the same thing. Or at least a similar thing. But the Church has made it clear that they have no intention of changing that policy.


The notion of a cure for the "disease" of homosexuality has been prevelant in the Church pretty much since the beginning. LDS social services use "reparative therapy" to cure homosexuality. This method is based on the idea that, with enough prayer and scripture study, one can overcome homosexual thoughts and urges, thus becoming heterosexual again.

This in turn implies that anyone who does not overcome these thoughts is not working hard enough and should read more and pray harder. When this does not work (and really, how often has it worked?) people become distraught and have to make a choice: choose a life of celebacy in a church that does not fully accept them; or leave the church and live a life among people who embrace them.

For many the choice isnt a choice at all. It is more of an epiphany, really. As a social worker, I see teens who seem to be unable to make that decision (usually due to family pressure) and too many of them either leave home or kill themselves. The truly terrifying thing is that this is a growing trend in Utah and a sign that something needs to change.

Personally, I think it is high time for Mormons to get off the soapbox that homosexuality is a choice (and therefore a sin) and let gays get married. Afterall, "two dads are better than none" (I realize this is a separate topic--get over it).

Current polls on the subject show that younger generations are overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage. This means that it is just a matter of time until the older generations die off and gay marriage is passed. When this happens, expect to see an "official statement" by the Church... The same thing happened with blacks in the Church having the priesthood. The difference is that blacks didnt kill themselves...

**For a long time homosexuality was actually considered a mental disorder by psychologists. But this was partly because scientists had yet to differentiate between homosexuality and gender identity disorder (which is still considered a mental disorder). Once the distinction was made, however, they withdrew that section from the DSM IV and have ever since quelched the sentiment that it is abnormal.

Keep in mind that one of the main reasons a distinction was made was because studies showed that homosexuality did not cause disfunction (or an inability to lead an otherwise normal life). All mental disorders (potentially) cause disfunction that extends to many aspects of the persons life. Homosexuality does not fit this discription.

ITCHING FEELINGS

(i refuse to explain the title.)
so it has certainly been a while since my last post. i have been very busy with my band and school and work and failed attempts at a social life. but i find myself today with some free time (at work, no less) and some thing interesting to say. today's topic is "moral impositions."

the founding fathers are often misunderstood when it comes to religion. i have heard many, many people claim that the founding fathers were all god-fearing christians and as such founded a christian nation. while it may be true that many of them were religious, many of them similarly hated organized religion. but that is hardly the point they were making. they wanted a nation where people could worship who and how they wanted with out persecution.

religious freedom and christianity have had a bit of a messed up relationship in the past (christianity isnt answering their cell phone). just look at the crusades, the spanish inquisition, and any number of european nations which used christianity to unify tribes of barbarians under a common government during the dark ages.

where was i? oh ya, moral impositions. so, living in utah county i see mormons and non-mormons trying to live peacefully together, but it is clear that there is some tension and quite a bit of resentment on both sides (i am mostly referring to locals. byu students add to the tension, but not intentionally). the source of the tension comes from moral impositions placed on non-mormons. and since they are the minority they get pushed around and taken advantage of quite easily. the most recent example of this has to do with one of the last bars in provo, "atchafalayas."

originally a strip club on center street in provo, in the 90's "atchas" was constantly protested by stalwart mormon mothers until about 10-12 years ago it was finally shut down and converted into a bar. in order to become a bar they, of course, needed to buy a liquor license. for those that dont know how a liquor license works, it is basically a permit purchased from the government which allows you to sell (heavily taxed) alcohol in your place of business. there are various annual fees associated with these licenses and there is a limit to the number of licenses allowed in a given county. all bars and restaurants have to have a current liquor license in order to sell alcohol.

in recent years, the city of provo decided to tear down certain sections of the down town area in order to build a new conference center. atchas is located on one of the blocks that will be torn down and has been working on a contract with the city to make the transition to a new location as smooth as possible. one of the conditions of the contract was that atchas would be able to keep their liquor license. and all was fine and dandy until the last election for mayor...

the new mayor decided not to honor atchas' contract and they sold the liquor license to byu (who apparently has a standing order to buy up any available liquor licenses in the area in an effort to make the county "dry." they have been doing this for years, thus preventing the city from recieving those heavy taxes from alcohol sales). the city then told atchas that they can still relocate and reopen as a restaurant instead of a bar. well, this didnt stand well in court as atcha's lawyers cited the contract which clearly states that they are entitled to a liquor license.

now, some of you maybe thinking that a dry county is a good thing (and in many ways it is, im not disputing that) but the manner in which the city and byu are trying to make the county dry is both underhanded and unethical. forcing other people to follow your set of moral values in this way is no different from the crusades, the spanish inquisition, or any number of european nations which used christianity to unify tribes of barbarians under a common government during the dark ages... and (for those of who are still keeping score) it goes against the intentions of the founding fathers and their understanding of religious freedom. such an odd predicament for a group of people who pride themselves on following "the spirit of the law."

in related news: my band will be playing at the grand opening of the new atchafalayas some time in january.

SOAP BOX

i recently watched the movie "there will be blood" (which is not as violent as its name would suggest) and at the end of the movie i realized two things. first, i didnt get it. and second, religious nuts irritate me.



about the first point: the movie is fairly straight-forward in terms of its story telling and it flows nicely. it keeps you interested until the end of the 2 and a half hours. but when i say i didnt get it, i mean i didnt get the point. seriously, what was the point? the director has been acclaimed as an artist with a keen insight into humanity and the way people treat each other. and his other movies hold true to that. but i got to the end of "there will be blood" and i thought to myself "so what?" (for those who have not seen it, i am being vague on purpose). i guess it was sort of like the movie "signs" when the twist was that there was no twist.



about the second point: one of the main characters of the movie is a young pastor of a church in the middle of no where (now here?). now, the actor did a good job portraying a "fire and brimstone" preacher that has all the good intentions in the world (for those who havent seen the movie, think of the pastor from "pollyanna"). and i think that as a character he fit the movie well. but as i watched him cast out a devil from the hands of an elderly lady with arthritis, i realized that if i ever came across some one with that much vigor for religion i would probably slap them... with my fist... while holding brass knuckles... which i may or may not have in a shoe box in a closet... some where... now, this has nothing to do with my religious beliefs conflicting with theirs. nor does it have anything to do with me being offended by them. if they want to act that way, fine. it just annoys me.



about the second point (sort of): the other day i was with a friend who had recently become a vegan. so obviously i had to ask him "why?" after denying that his vegan wife made him do it, he said that he liked the feeling that nothing had to die for his meal. (which to date is the best explanation a vegan has given me). so then we got in to a (polite) discussion about whether or not the bible condones eating animals. and he made the comment that we should only eat meat in times of famine (thus retracting to the typical LDS-vegetarian stand). which i normally would accept as a valid answer (or say that the current prophet has said that it is ok to eat meat). but the problem i have with this answer is that he is not mormon. it was a defense that he stole from his (also not mormon) vegan wife who has made it a habit to quote the book of mormon and the d&c against mormons. usually about this very subject. now, i think it is great that two non mormons like to quote LDS scripture. but because the arent LDS they usually take things out of context and (like i mentioned before) the current prophet has said that it is ok to eat meat, a fact that they wouldnt know about. but the real question i have is why they use LDS scripture to support their views at all? they dont believe in the church or its teachings except for (seemingly) this one thing. and because of this they dont accept current revelations. what i am getting at is that because they are both born and raised non-LDS utahns they have built up a defense to combat the culture they are stuck in.

and frankly, i dont blame them.