Thanks to chanson’s weekly round up, I read this post about Carson N. leaving.  It reminded me of my own experience.  My wife and I didn’t send emails, we sent letters in the mail.  But the anticipation of the response from family was pretty intense.  And one family member’s response was exactly what we feared – my mother called after receiving our letter and yelled at me for about 30 minutes, saying all sorts of horrible things, then hung up on me.  We’ve never really talked about that phone call, but we’re on better terms now.  And, in the years following that incident, my mother did say at one point that she would have rather that we had simply stopped attending and not told anyone, including her, than send out a missive telling everyone our intentions.

In hindsight, I question whether our approach was the best approach.  In one sense, it probably was – for us.  We were able to make a clean break from the religion.  We were out; everyone knew we were out; and we had no commitments we had to break (for the most part).

But as far as impact on family goes, I wonder if this was the best approach.  I don’t think it would have been as much of a shocker to my family if we just slowly drifted out and didn’t make a big deal out of it.  Our reasoning at the time was that we had to be honest with everyone involved, particularly ourselves.  But honesty “isn’t always the best policy” (I see that now).  I’m sure our parents would have eventually figured out that we were not going to church and were not interested in Mormonism during our visits home, and I’m sure it would have led to some awkward conversations when we indicated that we didn’t want to say prayers or attend services with them.  But our very loud rejection of their religion was probably a lot for them to handle all at once.  If we had eased them into it, would things be different?  Or, better reflecting my actual thoughts, “If we had eased them into our disaffection, would our exit have gone SMOOTHER?”

The other reason I think about how we left and whether it was the best approach is because the “big exiting letter” approach is so Mormon and so “cult-ish”.  When a Catholic or Episcopalian drifts away from their religion, they simply drift away.  I’ve spent the last year interviewing people who are “Nones” (no religious identification).  A couple were Mormons (recruited through my friendship networks), but most were not.  For some, when they finally told their parents that they didn’t want to attend services anymore, the parents were disappointed, and some were even a bit hateful (former Southern Baptists have had the hardest time with this), but most had a frank conversation and then it was basically not much of an issue after that.

That Mormons feel obligated to write a letter (1) saying that they are leaving and, (2) defending that they are leaving, says some interesting things about the Mormon mindset and the Mormon religion.  First, it suggest to me that Mormons give a lot more power and authority to their religion than do lots of other religious people.  To Mormons, the Church is a big fracking deal!  You can’t just ignore it.  You can’t just walk away when you realize how offensive it is.  You can’t just disappear from the Church’s radar.

You have to freak out!  You flip it the bird, tell it off, and warn it to never come back!  That suggests to me that the Mormon Church functions more like a bully than just some annoying friend.  You don’t ignore bullies.  You beat the crap out of them in order to get them to leave you alone, a la Casey Heynes:

But it also suggests something about those trying to leave.  They are locked into a mindset in which the religion has power over them.  They have to reject that power, and that requires an actual act of rejection, like writing the “big exit letter.”

Now, not all Mormons leave that way.  There is a great deal of speculation as to how many people are leaving the religion every year, and my guess is that, of the many who do, most do just drift away.  But many of those are recent converts who never did give the religion the kind of power that it has in the lives of those raised in it.  Yes, the Church tries to “bully” these people back by tracking them down and periodically sending someone to get them to come back, which reflects the authoritarian attitude of the religion – “we are in control here,” “you leave under our terms,” “it is our church, not yours.”  But most of those who drift out don’t buy into it and simply continue ignoring a pesky religion they dabbled with for a short while.  But for those of us who really bought it, who really believed it, and who gave our power to the Church, what do we do?

So here’s my big question: Is the “Big Exit Letter” (BEL) necessary for victims of LDS, Inc.?  Or should we just drift away?

It has become a platitude among journalists to refer to Internet communities as echo chambers that induce confirmation bias. In the good old days, goes the reasoning, everybody had to watch the same three network news and we were all on the same page, at least, with regard to the facts.

I am sorry but the proponents of the echo chamber hypothesis suffer from nostalgia. One need only to remember the turmoil over civil rights, the riots and police brutality at the Democratic convention in Chicago, the assassinations of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr and Robert Kennedy, and the culture wars to realize that Americans did not agree about the facts any more back then than today

For example, millions of Americans remained convinced that Martin Luther King was a communist, no matter how long they stared at Walter Cronkite.

In 1960, the bigots went crazy when John F. Kennedy became President without the Internet. In 2008, the bigots went crazy because Barack Obama became President with the Internet. And in 1932, the bigots lost it when Franklin Delano Roosevelt became President even though there was neither TV nor the Internet.

The media have little to do with it. The problem is rather that too many people in the United States have an authoritarian mindset and will not tolerate the loss of a democratic election. The sad reality is that they view their opponents as less than citizens and on occasion, i.e. the civil rights movement, as less than human. Those people are not susceptible to fact based arguments.

The echo chamber effect of the Internet is exaggerated as well. Internet Mormonism is a case in point.

It is true that a wide variety of Mormon communities have emerged on the Internet. From traditionalist heretics celebrating the Mormon temple cult to apologists rationalizing the faith, there are a wide variety of forums and message boards for Mormons of all flavors. There are Mormon mommies, Mormons who feel they were hurt by religion, Mormons who want to enjoy the community without subscribing to the dogma, Mormons who do not want to talk about politics and those who do. There are Mormons who want to protect each other from each other. There are smart Mormons and several flavors of feminist Mormons. Of course, there are edifying and uplifting Mormons. There is even a forum for Mormons who want to say, pardon me, F*ck.

The nice thing about the Internet is that all those people can now find each other. In part, that’s probably a function of space and numbers. There aren’t that many Mormons in the first place and if you want to have a discussion about the evil and virtue of the Mormon torture memo, you might be hard pressed to find people who are willing and capable to carry on an intelligent discussion about this and other topics in your local community.

That is especially true if you harbor any kind of doubt. There might be whispered assent in the hallway or the parking lot but Mormons quite effectively police each other face to face. The Internet connected not only rare Mormons but it allowed dissidents to remain anonymous and to form the Disaffected Mormon Underground.

For the first time since New Mormon History and Sunstone had been ostracized by Mormon authorities, dissenters found that they were not alone, that they enjoyed some protection from sanction, and that they could provide the benefits of community to each other.

Even though the brethren had initially succeeded in isolating Sunstone, the symposiums have now been rejuvenated by a generation of Internet Mormons whose theological outlook is more diverse than ever. I hear that there are even discussions whether this or that Mormon authority can be properly referred to as an SOB.

The one thing that Mormons have not been able to find on the Internet is echo chambers. No matter what your cause and outlook, other kind of Mormons would run in your forum and your blogs. They had to be warded off with sticks.

Had it merely been a matter of communications technology, the Internet would have produced the most diverse Mormon community imaginable. The preservation of unity actually required good old fashioned sanctions and prohibitions. Even so the Internet has produced the most diverse Brighamite communities ever.

As for the Disaffected Mormon Underground, that is being transformed by Facebook. Disaffected Mormons are increasingly out in the open. Most of us now post under our legal names and Mormons of all flavors are “friending” each. Despite occasional “defriendings,” I would say that Internet Mormons are self-confident and more connected than ever.

This is my first post on Main Street Plaza.  I’m grateful for the opportunity to share some thoughts with you, and hopeful that I can contribute something to a community which has been a huge support to me over the past few years.

That almost sounds like the way I would have started a sacrament talk a few years ago!! This post is about leaving Mormonism and actually, I think it may dovetail nicely with the post aerin64 did yesterday.  Perhaps before I get to the leaving part, we should look at the joining part.

Back in the days when I was a missionary, perhaps the hardest thing about helping a new member come into the church was the stuff they had to give up.  We shared this amazing story with them about prophesy in modern days, eternal families and a church community in which they could participate, and once they accepted a part of that, the rest seemed to come naturally.

The stuff they had to give up though…  First for many it was their own church and religious community, and then it was a matter for many of quitting coffee, alcohol and tobacco products.  The thing I most feared asking them to give up was 10 percent of their income, but for many they were coming from a background where they had been doing something similar anyway.

I got thinking about this the other day, as I thought about my continuing journey out of the church and out of Mormonism.  There is plenty I have to gain in this journey, and it has all seemed to come naturally.  Coffee isn’t exactly that bad for you, and once you’ve had that, moving over the odd alcoholic beverage with dinner or friends really isn’t a big deal either.  I suspect if I didn’t live in Utah, it would be even less of a deal.

But then I got thinking about what I was giving up.  Somethings seem obvious and are really easy.  Sunday meetings, continuous guilt that I’m not doing my calling as well as I could and an extra layer of underwear when it’s hotter than Hades  outside.  There are things though that I hadn’t considered when I began this journey, and one of them is the idea of the outside world in a pure state of dichotomy.

Let me explain…  for my entire life the idea of dichotomy has been drummed into my head.  God is good, Satan is evil.  Mormonism is good, other churches are evil.  Not drinking alcohol is good, drinking alcohol makes you evil (even 1 sip).  You and I could go on and on for days with this list, but the final thing I want to add is this one.  Joseph Smith is good, anyone who opposes him is evil.

Joseph Smith – the one man that all of us who have been in the Church revered and likely the cause of much of the reason that those of us who have left, have chosen to do so.  Handling it was really easy for me, as I simply switched the roles.  Clearly Joseph did some bad stuff, and lied about other stuff, so naturally Joseph Smith is evil (as are all who defend him) and any who oppose him are good.

Isn’t there more to all of us than simply being either good or evil though?  I think I could be considered pretty good in some aspects of my life and likely evil in others, and there are a myriad of aspects in between where I am a mix of both.  I’ve noticed this when I read things which defend some of Joseph Smith’s actions, or share his history in a positive light.  I get angry when people try to defend him and yet I find myself questioning why I have those feelings.  Was he not just a man, with a similar collection of attributes both good and bad, and countless more in between those extremes…  Much like all of us?

The problem is that I still have in my mind the doctrine of the dichotomy of good and evil.  I still judge Joseph Smith on the scales – was he all good, or all bad, and I do the same with those around me.  Just snap judgments – this person is good, that person is evil.

I suspect a psychologist could have an absolute field day with my brain, but for now I’m hoping to overcome it on my own.  Trying to see people as the complex people they are, and respecting their existence, as much as I value my own.  I think I’m making progress, but as with everything in the path out of Mormonism… 30 plus years of brain washing can’t be undone over night.

How about you?  Have you struggled to overcome the dichotomy of good and evil, and are there perhaps other things you’ve had to give up to walk away from it all?

Frederick Mark Gedicks
Brigham Young University – J. Reuben Clark Law School
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 901-914, 2010
God of Our Fathers, Gods for Ourselves: Fundamentalism and Postmodern Belief:

” … there is also an ethical reason for wariness. One should pause at imposing absolute truth on those to whom the validity of that truth cannot be demonstrated unless they already believe it — indeed, absolute truth whose universality or validity may sometimes be in question even among those who claim to believe it. As Learned Hand once famously declared, “The spirit of liberty is the spirit that is not too sure that it is right.” This is the best safeguard of religious freedom in a pluralist democracy, a constant and present and humble reticence at imposing one’s own truth as the truth for all.”

h/t Times & Seasons “Notes from All Over”

God of Our Fathers, Gods for Ourselves: Fundamentalism and Postmodern Belief

All of the levity over Mormon being the new black is a bit of a sideshow — obscuring the meat of what Elder Oaks is proposing:

Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights.

They shouldn’t be allowed to make that claim? And what do you (Oaks) think should be done to prevent them from being “allowed” to exercise their free speech on this point? Some sort of legal limitation on your critics’ rights to use their free speech to criticize you?

No joke or exaggeration, it sounds like that’s what he’s proposing:

But unless the guarantee of free exercise of religion gives a religious actor greater protection against government prohibitions than are already guaranteed to all actors by other provisions of the constitution (like freedom of speech), what is the special value of religious freedom? Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religion in the United States Constitution.

Am I misreading this?

Otherwise, what “greater protection” for the “religious actor” do you think he’s requesting? Any specific examples?

(In order to keep the question open to reasonable discussion with believers, let’s try to keep criticism even of the CoJCoL-dS itself civil and constructive on this thread.)

My mother Gudrun Bachmann was born on June 9, 1939. When World War II begun with the invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, she was less than three months old. When Germany surrendered on May 9, 1945, she was one month shy of her sixth birthday.

Besides a treasure trove of family stories from aunts, uncles, grandparents, parents and older siblings, my mother possesses remarkable childhood memories reaching as far back as before her second birthday.

Tonight, I want to tell you about my granduncles Theodor and Emil Fritz who perished in the battle of Crete on May 20, 1941.

My mother told me that my grandmother had confronted the director of the Office of Racial Policy (Rassenpolitisches Amt der NSDAP) in Stuttgart and told him: “Why don’t you just exterminate the entire German people. After so many centuries, there is no one left who does not have Jewish blood.”

My granduncle Emil had been arrested twice on the street because he did not appear to be “Aryan.” The first time, Emil had dressed up as a fiddling gypsy while fundraising for the Winterhilfswerk, a charity of the propaganda ministry. I do not know the details of the other arrest. Perhaps, it was sufficient to be short, dark haired, and dark skinned to be suspicious.

The family would then have to report at the police station with a family tree to demonstrate the absence of Jewish ancestry.

These troubles came to an end when Emil volunteered to become a paratrooper.

Emil’s enthusiasm for the paratroopers infected his older brother Theodore. Theodore had been a Lutheran pastor, which would have exempted him from conscription. However, his enthusiasm, energy and success had provoked the jealousy of others who reported him to Church authorities and made his life difficult.

So it was no challenge for Emil to enthuse his older brother for the paratroopers. Theodore said to my grandmother: “Margaret, if I come back, I will be a teacher.”

My mother remembers that one night, she was allowed to stay up late, perhaps for the first time in her life. Her parents were busily preparing a meal and a dinner table. Then the guests arrived and my mother had to go to bed.

Of course, the girl couldn’t sleep. The guests, the talk, the laughter, and the songs were too exciting. That night, my grandparents saw off fifteen paratroopers who only knew that a secret mission was imminent but no one knew when and where it would take place.

Theodore told his sister: “Margaret, I won’t come back. I feel it.”

On May 20th, Emil took off with the first wave. Already on the runway, a commanding officer ordered Theodore to remain behind. The officer argued that he could not burden their mother with the loss of two sons on the same day.

Theodore could not bear to stay behind while his friends and brothers were risking their lives in battle and ran along the plane as it was taking off. When he could not get on, Theodore begged another commander to let him on his plane.

That plane was shot down by the lone British air defense battery. Although the battle of Crete lasted only for three days, my great-grandparents did not get notified of Theodore’s death for four weeks. By the time they found the plane, the passenger’s bodies were reportedly so decayed that they identified Theodore by the spectacles on his face. As far as one can tell under the circumstances, he appears to have died immediately.

Likewise, Emil had been fatally wounded in the air. His comrades found him within feet of the German positions, having bled to death from a gut shot. Reportedly, there was a long line of blood and drag marks that indicated that he had been struggling to reach his comrades.

As my great-grandmother had been frail after Emil’s birth, my grandmother had effectively raised him. Margaret claims that the night her brothers died, she dreamed of an open grave. Instead of performing the traditional soldier’s hymn Ich Hat Einen Kameraden, the trumpeter played Emil’s favorite song Nun Hat Es Sich Gewendet, das Grüne Buchenblatt.

When the survivors returned a paratrooper reported that they had indeed played Emil’s song at the mass grave where he was buried. I am not sure if my grandmother prompted him or if he volunteered the information. It appears to be the case, however, that Margaret and my grandfather wore mourning from that day on.

Stranger yet, my grandmother claims that in a subsequent dream her brother Emil appeared as a translucent image at the foot of her bed in a white robe. She asked the figure: “Emil, is it you?” He replied: “Tell mother gently.”

Of the fifteen young men who had been guests at my grandparents house, none would return alive from Crete.

On his death, my great-grandmother found Theodore’s childhood journal. Every day begun with the entry: “Today was a nice day. Mother was happy,” or “Today was a bad day. Mother was unhappy.”

My great-grandparents considered it a blessing that their sons, at least, did not have to kill anyone as they had died at the beginning of the battle. Of course, from our vantage point there is something absurd about that attitude. If killing is the problem, you really should not be a Nazi paratrooper. But it is difficult to appreciate the divided loyalties that one might feel at times of war and few people are as consistent as Quakers, especially not German Lutherans.

Regardless, my great-grandfather knew quite well what he was talking about. When the Greeks rose against the invaders, General Student ordered atrocious retaliation against the civilian population, which would have marred Emil and Theodore’s conscience for the rest of their lives.

Later, my great-grandparents lost their youngest son Siegfried at the Eastern front, whose story deserves separate attention. If my great-grandmother had been an American, she would have been a triple gold star mother.

In 1944, the old couple’s home was fire bombed. When they escaped the house, the clothes on their backs were burning and my great-grandmother’s hair was aflame.

They had literally lost everything but they were alive and except for some burn wounds unhurt. To put our losses into perspective, both my mother’s and my father’s extended families were lucky. We did not lose women and children, just men and property. Many other families fared a lot worse, especially, those suffering under German occupation.

No man should have to die without having the opportunity to have children. Emil and Theodore remain interred on Crete. Only their sister Lore and one of my mother’s cousins visited their grave side.

I have never met Emil and Theodore but I cannot forget them. Although my second hand memories are a poor substitute for their dreams, aspirations, and disappointments, they add value and meaning to my life. Seeing my daughter perform on stage and my son learning the oboe, I sometimes wonder which bit would remind me of their great-granduncles had I been lucky enough to know them myself.

Todd Whitaker recently bore his testimony. The video of Todd testifying to his ward has now gone viral. As you may have seen, it was not your typical Mormon F&T meeting fare.

I caught up with Todd by email and he agreed to answer a few questions.

CB: Before we get started, I just wanted to mention a comment I noticed on another board that neatly described my own reaction the first time I watched your clip: “This video has many layers of win.” From your deadpan delivery of some harsh home truths about Mormon involvement in the Prop 8 campaign, to your calm side conference with the concerned bishop, to your not skipping a beat when the mike goes dead, all the way through to the calm exit with your escort in tow … The clip is a baklava of win. Did you have any idea – before you stood and bore witness at that meeting – that there’d be anything like the kind of response you’ve seen?

TW: I had no clue that it would become what it has … but I am pleased to have helped so many other closeted gay Mormons, as they seem to have derived some sort of courage from my testimony to stand up to their own bishops and friends and family members.

CB: What did the Bishop whisper in your ear when he got up?

TW: He said, “Todd, this is about Testimony, please step down.” My reply to him was, “I am almost finished. This is a Testimony, sir.”

CB: What thoughts were running through your head when you realized he had turned off the microphone?

TW: I was thinking to myself how one-sided this church really is. After all, I helped pay for that mic and the power to operate it. It also made me think about what my mother told me when I came out at the age of thirteen. She said, “I don’t want anyone to hurt you my son, and the Mormon Church will hurt you if they know who Todd really is. They will never accept you for who and what you are, so my advice to you is to not get too involved, as the rest of the Whitakers are deeply entrenched in this religion.”

I was also thinking that if I had any doubts before, I was absolutely certain now. I wanted to say a few words to the bishop but decided it wasn’t worth my time.

CB: Were further words exchanged in the foyer or outside the chapel as you left?

TW: Yes, a lady from the aisle in front of me followed me to the parking lot, grabbing my hand tightly as we walked to the rear of the building. She wanted to share her personal experience with me regarding her former husband of twenty-three years, who had left her for a man. She informed me that due to the animosity she had harbored towards him, she herself was disfellowshipped from the church. No one else dared to come near as they were all dismissed to go to their regular Sunday school meetings.

CB: What has the reaction been from friends and family?

TW: My immediate family, especially my father, has commended me for standing up for my rights, and I have unconditional support from my siblings and nieces and nephews. I am overwhelmed by the positive support they have all displayed. As for the Utah family members? I have sent a few emails to selected individuals and absolutely no reply. I haven’t heard a word from the Church or any Whitaker Mormons, interestingly enough. As for friends, again, I am overwhelmed by their unconditional love, respect, and support through all of this.

CB: Thank you, Todd.

And with that, we will now turn the remainder of the time over to Main Street Plaza for your comments.

And Todd, if you’re reading, please feel very welcome to join in!

A while back another blogger asked me to submit an essay about my Mormon experience. Probably, for good reasons he changed his mind and never published it. Since it is already written and might shed some light on my argument at Times and Seasons, I might as well publish it myself. It might help some people to understand where I am coming from.

I was an enthusiastic Mormon, walking five miles to get to Church when I couldn’t afford public transportation. Except for my younger brother, I was the only Mormon in my school. Everyone knew about me because I was a Mormon for a reason. Probably the best indicator of my commitment to the Mormon cause was my role as a joint teacher in the conversion of over thirty Germans, which contributed to the creation of another ward.

Freedom made Church a great experience. Our young men’s leader saw to it that we did not come to harm. Beyond that we explored the gospel together. That was fortuitous because German Mormons can either be intellectually self-reliant or they can be sociopaths. We cherished each other and went to great lengths to spend time with each other. Two of us would have to bike 35 kilometers one way to meet the rest of us. Neither distance nor dogma would separate us from the gospel and each other. We did what it would take and our parents and leaders would let us.

Freedom built our testimony. Six of us served missions. That would not be spectacular in the Mormon corridor but it was spectacular in Germany. None of the German leaders I knew had served missions, except for a couple who worked for the Church Education System. Of our group, only one remains active enthusiastically. One participates selectively. Four of us have distanced ourselves from Mormonism. I don’t think that any one of us had a good experience on our missions, though I am in doubt about two.

I left a very enthusiastic missionary and even though the experience was rather disappointing, in terms of trivializing sacred gospel principles with profane management techniques, I held on to my testimony. But I would never be comfortable at Church again. In 2003 I stumbled across the excommunication of the September Six. Finally, I had to acknowledge that LDS leaders are constrained by self-interest rather than god.

Excommunicating scholars for their work creates a theological paradox. At face value, membership in the LDS Church is a condition for salvation. Excommunicated researchers cannot be redeemed until they restore their membership privileges. However, that would require them to deny their research, which represents not objective truth but the results of their best efforts to know the truth. Hence researchers’ denial constitutes a lie and lying is a sin, which makes their salvation impossible. If these individuals wanted to repent their lies then they would fail once more to qualify for membership. Regardless of what the scholars do, according to Mormon theology, they will lose salvation when disciplined for their research. That’s abusive and heretical. It’s abusive because there is no way out for the scholars. It’s heretical because it creates a situation where the atonement does not apply.

Though it appeals to my sense of justice that those who excommunicate scholars entangle themselves in heresy, I am more concerned about abuse. Since the excommunication of scholars has been continuing for twelve years, Gordon Hinckley and the fifteen are responsible. The excommunications could not have been sustained without support from the top. It was my obligation to terminate allegiance to the abusers. Otherwise I would have become an accomplice. Though I am living a Mormon lifestyle, I can no longer accept callings, contribute money, or perform any other act that would support abuse.

Claiming to know the improvable, Mormons tend to regard those who disagree with suspicion, contempt, and hostility. The Mormon vocabulary refers to people as members, non-members, inactives, and apostates. Only conformists are complete human beings. Everyone else is defective. Non-members would better be members. Inactivity is the manifestation of weakness. Anyone who disagrees must be lacking in faith, virtue, or good will.

This aggressive language is necessary to sustain the belief that Mormons know what no one else knows. The only way, Mormon culture can maintain the notion of knowledge, which 98% of humanity does not share and the majority of their co-religionists refuse to apply, is to claim superior virtue. For in Mormon epistemology, it is the heart, not the brain that determines what is right (D&C 9:8, Moroni 10:3). And virtue, not reason, is the vehicle of knowledge. Those who do not obtain such insight must have been lacking in sincerity and effort (Moroni 10:4). Mormon theology reserves the ultimate judgment for those who reassess their experience.

Alma 36:6 describes reassessment in terms of murder:

For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.

In spite of the adverb “unpardonable,” the sentence concludes, “it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness.” “Not easy” means hard but not impossible. It is in the context of polygamy that Joseph Smith would claim a revelation (D&C 132:27) that is less forgiving:

The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.

Those who change their mind about Mormon knowledge claims are murderers of Jesus Christ and “shall not be forgiven” ever. It is fascinating that Smith threatens eternal damnation when he can no longer hide his sex life from his supporters.

Elevating faith to knowledge, the Mormon leadership can extract extraordinary devotion from its followers. That ability comes at a price. Where other religions shelter theology within the confines of faith, Mormonism has abandoned that refuge when it claimed knowledge. Defenders of Mormonism can respond to reasonable criticism only by attacking the messenger rather than engaging the argument.

In 1976 apostle Ezra Taft Benson disparaged realist history as “slander and defamation.” By the time the September Six get excommunicated in 1993 for their historical and theological research, Mormon apostles and members of the First Presidency have pointed out that
• only faithful history is accurate (Packer),
• historians are demeaning and belittling the Saints (Packer),
• criticism of officers of the Church is unjustified even if true (Oaks),
• publishing historical facts about Church officers amounts to blackmail (Oaks),
• “When the prophet speaks the debate is over” (Tanner),
• “Whether one’s a bricklayer or an intellectual, the process of coming unto Christ is the same: ultimately it demands complete surrender. It’s not a matter of negotiation” (Maxwell),
• members should not listen to alternate voices (Oaks),
• no Christian could possibly debate religion for discord is not of the Lord (Nelson),
• LDS Church leaders must be alert to small signs of apostasy (Hinckley),
• symposia are threatening the LDS Church (joint statement by the fifteen),
• participation at symposia is dangerous (Packer),
• “There is no place in the Kingdom for unanchored brilliance” (Maxwell).
The campaign culminated in the 1993 excommunications, a practice continuing today. In the eyes of LDS leaders, independent scholarship is a sin and loyalty is more important than truth.

Since doubt is taboo, social relations between corridor Mormons are rarely intimate. People are friendly but do not become friends. They meet at LDS activities but do not invite each other to their homes. We read the scriptures but would rather cite Seven Habits. We become missionaries but are uncomfortable meeting strangers. Though some Mormons can, Mormon society cannot tolerate a difference of opinion over religion. Mormonism cannot bear the threat to the illusion of knowledge.

The lack of intimacy in our neighborhoods and congregations extends to our families. As biographies of Mormon dissenters emerge on the net, a recurring theme is the inhibition of spouses to discuss their thoughts and feelings about their religious affiliation. Family members have become the most effective enforcers of discipline of Mormonism. The doctrine of eternal families means that doubts of my children, my parents, and my spouse risk not only the salvation of a loved one but that they are compromising mine. Reassessment of Mormon knowledge claims often estranges parents and children, and believing spouses frequently respond to questions with threats of divorce.

Most fascinating, however, is the silence within individuals. In my case, the mission emaciated me emotionally. The minority experience has benefited me intellectually but one thing that I did not learn was how to manipulate relationships. The mission experience is about gaming the system, playing the numbers, creating impressions, and conforming to expectations. Though I knew what pained me, I could not make sense of that experience because of the illusion of knowledge called the testimony. The fact that I would have advised any young men to serve, fully aware that my experience had been devastating, is a measure of the self-betrayal’s extent. It would take me some seventeen years to work things out because I believed that I knew that the Church was true. Only when I realized that LDS leaders are as self-interested as anyone else, was I able to rees-tablish common sense and put the pain behind me.

I remember my youth in the LDS Church fondly. I have benefited from the generosity of Mormons in many different ways. Though I could have done without the sacrilege pervading the missionary program, I could have dealt with that. But no matter how true the Church may be, it is wrong to bully our members to lie. The pressure to lie does not end at the confines of the ivory tower. Our priesthood leaders are the abusers. And the lies reach into our communities and families where fear of honesty undermines communication. Policies that discipline scholars in terms of “orthodoxy” corrupt everything that is good about Mormonism. It didn’t used to be that way. It doesn’t have to be that way. Mormonism can be better than that.

So Cleve Jones wasn’t joking when he thanked the LDS church! Now Lisa Duggan (of The Nation) explains why Salt Lake City’s LGBT community is an inspiration for the whole country:

At the Pride Center, a broad range of local activist groups and LGBT individuals actually talk to each other–in stark contrast to the balkanized landscape of national LGBT organizations. Indeed, perhaps more than in any other city, Salt Lake City’s queer scene resembles the storied days of ACT UP, when mainstream assimilationists collaborated with radical activists to develop talking points, coordinate strategy and change homophobic policy.

This conversation across boundaries is a product of savvy activists and, paradoxically, of the formidable political and cultural barriers created by the Mormon Church and the statewide strength of the Republican machine. In such a political arena, queer flamboyance and tough-minded seriousness have to coexist in order to get anything done. In that sense, as gay activists nationwide take stock of where the gay rights movement has come in the forty years since the Stonewall riots and plot a political future, they should look to Salt Lake City for pointers instead of Boston or New York.

It’s like the “mission field” in reverse! There’s something to be said for a little opposition. I’m looking forward to my visit more than ever — I bought my plane tickets just this morning.

Hat tip Holly

When we were members of the church, we knew very acutely how many rules and laws and words of wisdom and commandments we had to follow. Why did we keep up with it then…and why do we do what we do now? What motivates us to act?

For the past few weeks, I have been doing a lot of recruiting and networking events. I’m not even going to lie — even in such a poor economy, I’m living quite well as multiple accounting firms try to convince me to intern for their firm. So, included with that are all kinds of fringe benefits — plenty of events and activities and dinners and mixers and whatnot.

And I dunno…maybe it’s a Texas thing…but many times at these various events, they’ll only have two drinks available — tea and water. And even at one, they only had one drink available: tea. I don’t know what happened to the water.

So, I guess this is no big deal for everyone else and I’m putting a magnifying glass on something that is really quite trivial to everyone else, but occasionally, I have been asked why I won’t touch my glass.

“I don’t drink tea.”

Well, ok…but why not? This is Texas, after all! (I’ve had someone say that).

In a previous life, it would have been so easy to say, “Because of my religion.” But, I realize this is a copout answer (and not even a true copout answer for me). I mean, certainly people would understand if it was against your religion…but seriously, is that it?

Personally, I had tea once (actually, a few times, just to confirm)…it was disgusting (maybe that’s the sin I’ve been hiding all along that destroyed faith!). But that’s also a copout answer (because there are many things I have not tried [which coincidentally also fit in the word of wisdom], so I couldn’t necessarily use that excuse).

But it seems to me…that we should be acting not because our religion restrains us (which is what the answer, “Because of my religion” so often sounds like), but because we personally are motivated not to do certain things and are motivated to do other things. I can say even now…I am not motivated to drink, so I do not. I’ve seen others succumb to the peer pressure, but maybe I’m a robot and immune to it. Whatever the case is, if I don’t want to do something, I’m not going to do it*. (Unfortunately for my bishop and parents, I suppose, this also applies to the church or parental requests.) *But perhaps the whole point of peer pressure is that group pressure can change your very wants.

And I guess that’s how I’ve changed since then. The difference since leaving the church has been that I am more flexible with my motivations and demotivations. I don’t have to feel bad or guilty for wanting something that was bad just because the church said it was so.

So, what’s been more interesting of a question to me is…how do we want to do certain things, and learn to want to not do other things? It’s easy to realize that “we act because we are motivated to act in certain ways.” And it’s also easy to recognize that, with free will, we can choose to act against our natural motivations (although the jury is out on whether this is a net positive in all cases). But this just backs the question up one step, and now we have to wonder about what motivates us and how we can change these motivations.