I read in the paper the a few weeks ago of the death of General Authority emeritus Marion D. Hanks. Elder Hanks very nearly had the privilege of being the first person I ever came out to.

Here’s the story, which happened some 32 years ago.

My father was a stake president during my adolescent and young adult years. We lived “in the mission field,” and in those days the General Authorities made frequent visits to stake conferences. They would arrive on a Friday night and leave on Sunday afternoon. They lodged with president of the stake they were visiting, who was responsible for their food, transportation and housing.

My mother was always stressed by these visits. We went into overdrive cleaning the (already clean) house and making sure there were no failures of hospitality. Of course, occasional lapses did occur. I remember one unfortunate day when after frantic and thorough cleaning of the guest bathroom, someone forgot to replace the towels. The bathroom itself, however, could have been used as an operating theater for brain surgery. It was my job a few hours later to hand in a towel to the naked and dripping member of the Quorum of the Twelve who had stepped out of the shower into the towelless (but very clean!) bathroom. My poor mother almost died of shame. The houseguest in question is still one of the Twelve.

These visits by the Brethren were surprisingly intimate. I’m the youngest child in my family, and for the last several years of high school I was the only child living at home. Therefore, at meals, it would just be my parents, me and the visiting GA. Being a teenager I was, of course, not fully mature, but I was an avid reader and had developed fairly good powers of observation. I studied these men carefully as they sat at our dinner table, rode in the car, spoke in Church and chatted informally with my parents.

I learned something from these visits about General Authorities. I learned that they were usually brusque and impatient men who lacked personal warmth in one-on-one situations. One member of the Quorum of the Twelve (not the one I gave a towel to) struck me as particularly short tempered, even hostile. Only later in life did I learn that the “G.A. personality type” I had encountered was really just an example of the more general executive personality type. I started to run into men like those GAs all the time when I entered corporate life. They usually had titles of Vice President or Chief Whatever. The business executives I saw were efficient time managers who had deep affinity for quantifiable results and were allergic to excuses offered by their underlings. I learned later that everyone who manages an organization of more than 1,000 people has this kind of personality. Unlike virtually every other religious denomination, the LDS Church uses a corporate style of governance. It’s no wonder that the top LDS leaders act like executives when they conduct church business. I’m not offering this tidbit in the spirit of criticism. It’s really just background for what happened next.

When I was a freshman in college I came home for spring break, and the visit happened to coincide with stake conference. Our visiting General Authority was Elder Marion D. Hanks. Elder Hanks had a bit of a cult following in the Church due to his compassionate sermons. I was eager to meet him. At this time I was actively preparing to submit papers for my mission. When I met Elder Hanks, the first thing I noticed was the total absence of the “G.A. personality.” He looked into my eyes, and I immediately understood that he cared and that he was interested in who I was. We chatted about my college experiences (I went to a well-known East Coast school) and some other topics that I don’t remember well. I was completely enthralled by the holiness and compassion of this man. Normally I was reserved, even cautious, around the visiting G.A.s, but not this time.

The stake we lived in was geographically large. At one point during the weekend Elder Hanks needed to be conveyed from one location to another, which would have entailed a car trip of approximately one hour. My father asked me to drive Elder Hanks where he needed to go.

My mind raced: I would have an hour alone with someone who I thought had the answers to the Big Questions. As you can imagine, I was completely preoccupied, prior to my mission, with trying to deal with my homosexual orientation. Like many young people, I thought G.A.s had a direct pipeline to God. A thought came into my head: I could ask Elder Hanks about my big secret.

Fate intervened, however, and I never got the opportunity to have that talk. My father’s schedule cleared, and he was able to drive Elder Hanks himself. I remember my father telling me that he needed to discuss some church business during the drive. The two of them traveled alone.

Thinking back on this I wonder what could have been, and I’m supremely grateful that I did not have the opportunity to bare my soul to that kind-hearted visiting church leader. I have absolute faith that Elder Hanks would have treated me with dignity and compassion. He was that kind of man. Nonetheless, this was during the era of the Church’s most hardline stance against homosexuality. The official thinking was that homosexual orientation could be changed by a process of repentance. Young people were routinely counseled to enter mixed-orientation marriages. No matter how compassionate Elder Hanks might have been, he wouldn’t have had any way to help me, and it is likely that he would have told me to confide in my parents, which at that time would have been a disaster. I might even have ended up in hands of LDS Social Services and who knows where that would have led. This was in the era of aversion therapy and Freudian nonsense. (Which is worse, being thrown into a pit full of behaviorists or Freudians?) It’s hard to remember today how bad the Church used to be on this issue. As bad as it now, there’s been a big step forward from when I was a young person.

When I read the Elder Hank’s obituary, I was pleased to find out that he was active in humanitarian causes and had been an early champion of LDS service missions. Even after all these years, I am filled with respect and admiration for this man.

After my mission I went back to college and encountered someone who reminded me of Elder Hanks. It was the famous anthropologist Ashley Montagu. Professor Montagu had pioneered research into the maternal-infant bond. As I got to know him in a small seminar, I was amazed at how profound were his understanding of and affection for the human animal. He had a great influence on my thinking. It was the first time that I realized the power of the humanist point of view and how much it had in common with the highest ideals (as I understood them) of my religious tradition. It was the first time I got a glimpse of the idea that you could be good without God. Of course, I was a closeted, active Mormon at this time on the brink of entering an extremely ill-advised mixed-orientation marriage. He probably thought I was a mess (which I was).

Both Elder Hanks and Professor Montagu have passed on. In the end, I don’t see these men as very different in outlook, even though one of them was probably a nonbeliever (we never discussed it) and the other was an LDS general authority.

[Related note: Interestingly, Elder Hanks was later sidelined in a manner to similar to Marlin Jensen more recently. It seems that sidelining the most compassionate General Authorities is something that repeats itself in every generation.]

Hi Everyone.  DJ Williams, a somewhat infrequent commenter on MSP, recently published a book that, while not primarily about Mormonism, addresses it as it relates to BDSM.  I recently read and reviewed the book and DJ has agreed to respond to comments on MSP.  Here’s the review:

Even though the book doesn’t actually do this succinctly at any one point, let me give a background on the author and the setting for the book. This is both important and relevant, as the book is an auto-ethnography. DJ Williams is from Southern Utah (he never specifies from where, exactly). He was raised LDS, served an LDS mission, and quickly after his mission, married and had a child. When his child, Brittany, was two, he left Mormonism (I discuss this in greater detail below). Leaving caused him a substantial amount of emotional turmoil and depression, which nearly resulted in suicide. With the help of a therapist, he worked through his depression.

It’s not clear exactly when he started his college education amidst the marriage, depression, and therapy, but somewhere along the line he started college, pursuing interests in a variety of topics, including: physical health, crime, deviance, and leisure. His interests led to graduate degrees, including a PhD in Physical Education and Recreation from The University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Canada.

While working as a postdoc researching deviant leisure (which is never clearly defined but seems to be used both to mean “leisure activities that are deviant” and “what deviants do for leisure”) at The University of Alberta he happened upon an article on sadomasochism (it’s deviant behavior– see the connection?) and became interested in the topic. After carefully considering the idea, Dr. Williams decides to visit a Mistress in Edmonton, Mistress Kitten, who introduces him to the world of BDSM. From his initial experience, he is hooked. Chronologically, the book begins just as he finds the article on sadomasochism and follows his nearly year-long participation in the BDSM scene in Edmonton then concludes a couple years after he leaves Edmonton (his post-doc ends and he pursues various other job opportunities).

This is a difficult book to review. Why? Because the book is an autoethnography (p. 5). What is an autoethnography? It’s basically a combination of an auto-biography and participant observation, but is supposed to contribute to the advance of science at the same time. Dr. Williams loosely justifies this approach with references to qualitative researchers who have explored this technique (e.g., Denzin and Lincoln discuss it in their reviews of qualitative research). The justification for using this technique is rooted in a post-modernist critique of empiricism. Basically, the argument goes like this: Most scholars don’t write from an auto-biographical perspective as they want to seem objective, but no one is objective, and stories are very compelling. Rather than feign objectivity, the auto-ethnographer throws objectivity out and simply writes from a subjective perspective, telling his/her story, but, in the end, the idea is still to draw scientific conclusions. As a scholar, I’ve used both quantitative and qualitative research and am perhaps more sympathetic to qualitative research than are most academics. Yet, despite my sympathies toward qualitative research, I’m still quite skeptical of autoethnography. I’m not alone in my skepticism (see Holt 2003 for an autoethnographical account of skepticism of authoethnography). Basically, autoethnography seems problematic because it is drawing conclusions from a sample of one, which scientists are trained not to do, and the approach is purely subjective, which scientists are also trained to avoid. That said, I can see the utility in the approach given very specific situations. As Holt (2003) notes, when a scholar is examining a topic that is deviant or at the margins of society, autoethnography can allow them to present their research in a way that challenges the status quo. BDSM certainly fits the bill on this point. Yet, it seems to me as though autoethnography will never truly gain mainstream legitimacy as a research technique because it is too subjective. It’s more of a technique used to break ground in area, but not to make substantial contributions to the general understanding of the phenomenon. In short, I can see the utility of the technique for exploring certain topics, but I remain quite skeptical of the extent to which autoethnography can contribute scientifically.

I’m not sure what the publication history of this book is, but I may not be the only person who has expressed skepticism about its contribution. I’m wondering if the book was rejected by various presses before it was self-published through booklocker.com. This may speak to the general lack of acceptance of autoethnography or other problems with the book. One of those problems is that the author, having published in the areas of deviance and sexuality, has the potential to provide a solid review of the literature on BDSM, but intentionally chooses not to (p. 7). There is no literature review and only a few references at the back of the book on BDSM. I hate to suggest it, but I have to wonder if the lack of a literature review is intentional because such a thorough literature review may have revealed that the scientific community knows a lot more about BDSM than is suggested in the book (see Kleinplatz and Moser 2006). Since the book is justified based on the lack of first-hand knowledge of BDSM by scholars (p. 23), recognizing the large body of research on BDSM would undermine that justification. However, to a scholar like myself, it is precisely a review of the existing literature on BDSM that would be helpful to set the groundwork for a personal foray into this world. The lack of a thorough literature review, then, is disappointing. Additionally, when scholarship is mentioned, it’s not referenced in any common fashion (e.g., in-line citations or footnotes); scholars are mentioned by name and their research is cursorily described, but no actual reference to their work is provided. This is awkward as it reflects a lack of clarity by the author as to who the audience is. Certainly experts on BDSM will recognize the names dropped by the author, which would, I guess, obviate including references. But that would suggest the audience will be other scholars studying BDSM, rather than people generally interested in BDSM and practitioners, neither of whom would likely be familiar with the scholars mentioned. So, even when scholarship is described, which is rarely, it is not done so in a traditional way that would allow people to track down that scholarship.

While I also point out some critiques of the book from an autoethnographical perspective below, I want to note that the ultimate contribution of this book to the study of BDSM isn’t clear. Yes, it does give first-hand accounts of BDSM, both from the perspectives of submissives and Dominants. Some of this descriptive material is quite engaging and even insightful. For instance, on page 43 Dr. Williams notes just how intense BDSM play is – it requires all of your attention and focus, “My mind is fully present. I am one-hundred percent in this moment. There is no past and no future. The outside world no longer exists. There is nothing but me and my Mistress in this strange little place. Even the researcher part of me has vanished. I am vulnerable and raw.” Having experienced moments like this personally, I can understand what he was experiencing. This is a useful contribution, I believe.

However, a theoretical understanding of BDSM is virtually neglected in the book. This is also unfortunate as I believe the author had the potential to develop an intriguing theoretical framework casting BDSM as a type of deviant leisure given his scholarship into leisure. This approach is set up early in the book (p. 22) as the author notes that BDSM could be considered a type of leisure. But there is really only one other mention of this (p. 50) where the author concludes that BDSM meets all the criteria of leisure, “Was my experience with Kitten a form of deviant leisure or possibly healthy leisure? Absolutely! It was incredibly playful, which would indicate a style of leisure. The time flew by – another property of leisure. There were a variety of positive emotions associated with the experience, including a sense of personal freedom. It suddenly occurs to one how being tied up can feel so freeing. Erotic activities may be very unusual, even taboo, in our society, but many can be practiced safely and carefully. BDSM may be deviant leisure in that our culture denies it as being deviant. However, I can see how may also have properties associated with normal, healthy leisure.” So, BDSM can be considered a type of leisure. I get that. But what does that mean? Why is this useful to know? How can or should this change society? Unfortunately, none of those questions are answered. A carefully constructed theory of BDSM as leisure would have been a very useful contribution of this book. Unfortunately, it’s missing. What’s more, toward the end of the book, a completely different understanding of BDSM is mentioned; BDSM is cast as a type of “erotic gift” (p. 207). This, too, is an interesting idea, but discussion of this idea is limited to one paragraph. Again, I’m left wondering what this “erotic gift” idea means and how it is important for the bigger picture in society. From an academic point of view, this book falls short in using autoethnography to contribute compelling theoretical frameworks for understanding BDSM.

As noted above, I’m not an autoethnographer. Having limited exposure to such work, I’m probably not ideally suited to evaluate it at the level of autoethnography, but I’m going to try. One problem I see from the autoethnographical perspective is that the focus of the book is on BDSM, which is, of course, erotic in nature. But the BDSM experiences he describes do not include sexual intimacy. While Dr. Williams has to be commended for his openness and willingness to describe his participation in these activities, I think he may not have gone quite far enough in his descriptions. He notes that prior to encountering the article on BDSM he was already into spanking and sex toys in his personal sex life (p. 24), but he omits any discussion of sexual intercourse during the time period explored in the book. It was pretty clear that he was not having sex with Mistress Kitten, his first mistress. But his relationship with his second mistress, Mistress Midnight, was very different from that with Mistress Kitten and seemed to cross from BDSM play into sexual intercourse, though that was never stated explicitly. The intermingling between BDSM play and sexual intercourse is completely omitted from the book. Do Dominants never have sex with submissives? Does the relationship between Mistresses and their submissives never go as far sexual intecourse? Perhaps this is too personal to include in the book, but given the nature of the subject of inquiry, it seems like this is an unfortunate omission. This is especially true in light of the fact that Dr. Williams openly admits to his attraction to many of the women he sees in the BDSM community. Was he not having sex during this period? Would that not be important to know in trying to understand the relationship between Mistress and submissive?

Holt (2003), while arguing that traditional criticisms of academic scholarship don’t always apply to autoethnography, does note that autoethnographies can be criticized based on the quality of the writing. Playing Dangerous Games is not horribly written, but it could have used the guidance of a very good editor (there are issues with present and past tense, that are somewhat annoying; cf p. 220). At times the book focuses too much on irrelevant details (p. 20). There are also irrelevant asides, like a long diatribe on politics that seems wholly out of place (p. 152). Some sections are repeated, in fact I found one paragraph that was copied nearly word for word from earlier in the book (p. 183). A good editor would have caught that. Finally, Holt notes that autoethnography has been described as narcissistic. While I won’t go so far as to describe this book as narcissistic, I think there is a little bit of narcissism at times (segments on p. 134 and p. 194 are quite self-congratulatory). Given the focus on the self, it must be hard to avoid narcissism, but I think Dr. Williams generally does a decent job of avoiding it.

A relatively minor issue that came up a couple of times in the book that I think is worth noting was a slight reversal of bias. While I discuss the major contribution of this book below – the advocating of openness about sexuality – it did seem as though the author took this argument and the defense of BDSM and other forms of sexual expression a little too far at times. For instance, on page 30 he writes, “Of course, there has been much research on sexuality and gender since, yet we haven’t made sufficient progress. Too often, we still privilege bland, monogamous, heterosexuality within marriage.” And on page 230 he describes a student interested in exploring BDSM this way, “or students like Megan, who live a more traditional relationship but badly want to spice it up in ways that reflect more authentic living.” In the first quote, he equates monogamous heterosexuality with blandness and in the second he implies that monogamous heterosexuality is not authentic. I may have noticed these points because I’m a married, monogamous heterosexual, and thus see it as a criticism of my own sexuality. Certainly we live in a heteronormative world, and even a sexually repressed world. I’ll grant him both of those points. But I also think he may be overlooking the benefits of monogamy. Having a single, committed partner is not only what a lot of people want, but is also advantageous when it comes to things like STDs, marital harmony, and jealousy. Again, I don’t want to give the impression that I have issues with open marriages, swinging, or anything of the sort. I fully embrace any type of sexual arrangement between consenting adults. But if what consenting adults select is married, heterosexual monogamy, I don’t think they should be criticized for that. I also don’t think it’s inauthentic. And it certainly doesn’t have to be bland!

Having laid bare some of the problems with the book, let me turn to some of the attributes. In my opinion, the real contribution of Playing Dangerous Games is the advocacy for alternative sexualities. Basically, the author argues that we, as a society and as people, should more openly discuss and explore sex and sexuality (p. 4). I agree wholeheartedly. Despite things like the sexual revolution and the sexualization of the media, we are a remarkably repressed society, sexually. Not to put Europe on a pedestal, but most countries in Europe have much lower rates of rape and sexual assault, and many experts attribute this to both the legalization of prostitution and the openness of sexual exploration in those countries. By showing that practitioners of BDSM are normal people exploring alternative behaviors that they find pleasing, arousing, and erotic in healthy ways, Playing Dangerous Games has the potential to open peoples’ minds to the possibilities of sexual exploration. Admittedly he reiterates that this is his goal at least a dozen times, if not more. But it is a worthy goal and one that is accomplished by this book.

While I’m generally not a fan of post-modernism, Playing Dangerous Games uses post-modernism to deconstruct the heteronormativity of U.S. (and Canadian) culture. While the argument of the book – that BDSM is a healthy and safe way to explore sexuality if done right (p. 70) – would have been bolstered by a good review of the empirical literature, the book itself illustrates this point.

Finally, there is the issue of religion, which is why I was asked to review this book. As noted earlier in this review, the author was raised Mormon. Mormonism is such an all-encompassing religion that it is hard to ever leave it. Or, perhaps more accurately stated, you can cease being part of the Mormon religion, but Mormonism never ceases being a part of you. This is certainly true of Dr. Williams. However, I don’t want to overstate the role of Mormonism in the book. At best, Mormonism can be described as a subtheme of the book. It’s not mentioned until page 24, and by page 33 it seemed like it was just an afterthought. However, Mormonism does play a minor role, and some of the ways it manifests itself are intriguing.

What’s not clear in the several instances when the author describes leaving the religion is precisely why he left. He initially offers just this vague denouement, “There came a time for me when the Mormon belief system no longer made sense, and some alternative explanations made better sense” (p. 79; a similar explanation is provided on p. 40). Later in the book he offers the following criticism of the religion, but not as a rationale for leaving, “My Church didn’t tell me about its secret meetings and deals, its history of discrimination and violence, and how numerous essential doctrines had been changed” (p. 126). As someone who studies people leaving religions, I have to admit I’m not sure I understand what happened. Not that people need to have a clear reason to leave a religion (in fact, many don’t; they just drift away), but given the suddenness of his departure from Mormonism, it seems as though more may have been going on then he lets on in his vague descriptions. This is also reinforced by the fact that his leaving was so hard on him, pushing him to the edge of suicide (pp. 40-41). Having exited the role of “Mormon” myself, I know this is hard. But I’m intrigued by how hard it was for him and, again, left wanting more details on his exit from Mormonism. Dr. Williams notes that his exit from Mormonism strained relations with his parents and family (p. 79) and also seems to suggest this may be tied to his divorce from his ex-wife (who is still a practicing Mormon in the book). While the focus of the book is on his foray into BDSM, from my perspective as a scholar of Mormonism and the non-religious, I couldn’t help but want more information on why he left.

A more substantial contribution may result from simply the publication of this book. It could inspire scholars to investigate Mormon sexuality. As noted above, Mormonism is virtually impossible to get out of your system if you were ever fully entangled in the religion. Dr. Williams realizes this as he enters the world of BDSM. He is, of course, conflicted about what he is experiencing and realizes that much of this is tied to his upbringing as a Mormon, “Somehow, I learned throughout my youth that sexuality was something bad. Not just a little bad-a lot bad! Sexual behaviors were not to be engaged in until marriage. The Book of Mormon even teaches that sexual sin is next to committing murder in its severity. Masturbation is even considered a serious sin” (p. 94). As he explores very intimate, erotic BDSM play with his first Mistress, who is basically a stranger, he is forced to confront what he was taught about sexuality growing up – sex and almost all expressions of intimacy are limited to heterosexual, monogamous marriage. Perhaps I found this brief discussion of his Mormon socialization most interesting because I can best relate to it. But I think Dr. Williams makes some good points here.

The best point he makes in this regard is that his BDSM experiences were not only life and worldview altering, but they were very fulfilling (p. 101). He felt a great deal of satisfaction and peace after engaging in BDSM play. Yet, Mormonism would consider what he was doing sinful (outside of marriage; inside, well, that’s a different issue). And using its ability to socially construct reality for its members, that sinfulness would translate into guilt and inner turmoil. What Dr. Williams does is deconstruct the Mormon notion of sin and show it for what it really is: a tool of the religion that controls followers and justifies the existence of the religion. Sin is only sin if you accept the social construction of it as sin. Once Dr. Williams realizes that he is not only not feeling guilt, but feeling great as a result of his BDSM experiences, he realizes that BDSM does not have to make you feel guilty. It only makes you feel guilty if you believe it will. Religion, then, exists only in the realm of social constructions. Deconstruct it and its hold over you disappears.

Dr. Williams contrasts his very positive BDSM experience with his first experience going through the Mormon temple to receive his endowments (pp. 124-126). He, quite rightly in my opinion, reverses the morality of the two situations. In BDSM, everyone involved is willing and fully aware of what is happening. In Mormon temple ceremonies, new initiates are usually ignorant of what they are doing and are generally pressured into making life-altering (even eternity-altering) commitments by their family and friends who are all expecting them to go through with the ceremony without raising objections. In other words, BDSM practitioners are informed and consenting while temple initiates are ignorant and pressured. Which of the two is moral? I think the answer is obvious and I think this is a great point.

The inability of former Mormons to extricate Mormonism from their identities also plays out in what I found to be a particularly hilarious situation (though I’m sure Dr. Williams didn’t consider it hilarious when he was experiencing it or when writing about it). He was temple endowed prior to 1990, when the penalties were removed. Thus, he is familiar with the penalties that inductees will face if they do not live up to their covenants. One of these penalties is to have your throat slit from ear-to-ear. Under his second mistress, Mistress Midnight, he engages in play one night that involves her holding a sharp knife under his chin to dominate him. What happens next you should read in the author’s words, “Midnight’s deadly weapon remains at my throat while my mind wanders back twenty years to the covenants I made in the temple with the penalty of death. “Fuck!” I scream silently to myself. “This is how I’m going to die, and maybe I deserve it! I made those promises all those years ago. Now it’s time I pay up.”” (pp. 126-127). Having experienced flashbacks to my Mormon days myself (none as extreme as this), I literally laughed out loud when I read this. Obviously it’s serious, but in a certain sense it’s also quite funny. Highlighting the empathetic nature of BDSM, Mistress Midnight saw that Dr. Williams had cognitively gone somewhere unhealthy so she stopped the scene and did her best to comfort him. That kind of concern for the mental health of the individual doesn’t happen in Mormon temples. The irony…

I realized as I was reading this that there is virtually no research on the sexual practices and attitudes of Mormons. That seems like it could be not only a fruitful but fascinating area of research for a young scholar with access to Mormons. I would be particularly interested to know if Mormons are conflicted in their sexuality, particularly if they engage in any “play” or sexual practices that are considered deviant in the Mormon subculture (e.g., anal or oral sex, fantasy play, etc.). This book could serve as a launching point for investigations into the intersections of sexuality and religious teaching on sex in Mormonism.

Overall, while a problematic book in many ways, this book does have its merits. The advocacy of open discussion and exploration of sexuality probably balances out the fact that this argument is made using autoethnographic techniques that are marginally scientific at best. The first-hand accounts of BDSM practice are worthwhile, but would have been bolstered by a solid literature review and a clear theoretical outline of BDSM as either deviant leisure or erotic gift. And the lack of a coherent exit narrative from Mormonism is offset by insights into sin and morality. I definitely don’t think most people will be interested in this book, but for those looking for a first-hand account of someone who enters the world of BDSM and then writes fairly openly about it, you may find this book an interesting and quick read.

References:
Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2007. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. 3rd ed. Sage Publications, Inc.
Holt, Nicholas L. (2003). Representation, legitimation, and autoethnography: An autoethnographic writing story. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(1).
Kleinplatz, Peggy J., Ph.D., and Charles, Ph.D., M.D. Moser. 2006. Sadomasochism: Powerful Pleasures. 1st ed. Routledge.

Author’s website:
http://www.deviantleisure.com/

Book Citation:

Williams, D J. 2010. Playing Dangerous Games: The Personal Story of a Social Scientist Entering the Complex World of Sexual Sadomasochism. Booklocker.com, Inc.

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?

Recently I saw a (small maroon) book with a title like “What to say when: answers for latter day saints”. I’ve searched popular search engines, online book retailers, LDS church publisher websites to no avail. So I can’t post a link.

But I thought it was an interesting idea/concept. It had gems of wisdom including what to say when your friend’s son doesn’t want to go on a mission (“it’s probably better that he doesn’t go, it doesn’t help anyone to have someone in the mission field who doesn’t want to be there”). Or when a friend in her thirties gets married (“don’t say congratulations, as if she’s fortunate to have finally caught a man”)

Perhaps this will mean fewer people will think it’s a good idea to cut off your apostate relatives and bear your testimony to them all the time. (kidding)

As a socially awkward person myself, I can understand the appeal of such a book. Most people don’t want to deliberately offend someone else.

It just gives me pause. Why would such a book be necessary? What is it uniquely about mormons that would make such a simple question/answer book worthwhile? Do other religions have such books? Granted, if you type in “what to say” to an online book retailer, there are plenty of examples.

To my mind, I think there is a great deal of rigid thinking in parts of mormon culture. There is a lot of pressure (Seth or others here may argue with me) to go on a mission, get married, have children, etc.

So it’s only natural (a part of life) that many people don’t fit into this paradigm. And thankfully, it’s no longer seen as a person’s “fault” that life happens as it does. And in our society, it’s much more common for people to talk about who they are, why they’ve made the choices they have – what they struggle with. I think at one time, this was not as common. But now it is much more common.

Maybe someone has realized that judgmental thinking/responses are not terribly helpful in such situations. (Example: well, you should just force your son to go on a mission or, to someone suffering from depression, you should pray more and read the scriptures). Such responses might have been quasi-socially acceptable at one point, but they are increasingly ill advised.

But I wonder if there’s something unique about mormon culture to look for a church sponsored or church book for this. Growing up, in my family, we didn’t read or listen to typical Christian themed books or music. I can’t say why exactly. Some ward members did, but it wasn’t terribly common. This has probably changed in the past few decades. There was this notion that even though they were Christian or religiously themed, they still weren’t totally acceptable. And they could even lead someone on the “wrong path”.

I think there’s a reluctance (still) to look outside of the LDS sphere for answers. This is a vast generalization of course, but I think there is a great deal of fear involved with studying history, losing one’s testimony and looking outside the bubble.

My crazy uncle (who I really like) just send me one of his amazing emails.  Here’s the email with some comments I couldn’t help but add included in blue:

HOORAY, HOORAY, HOORAY for Andy Rooney (hilarious that they think Andy Rooney would write this!). I myself have been grumbling and wondering how a handful of people have been able to take our right to pray in public places away from us (I’m assuming they mean the recent court case that determined a National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional). So, agreeing with Andy, I GLADLY will forward this email AGAIN, AGAIN AND AGAIN. Folks, this is the Month that we RE-TAKE AMERICA (from the majority group that has most of the power, those fracking Christians!).  Keep this going around the globe . Read it and forward every time you receive it. We can’t give up on this issue.

Andy Rooney and Prayer
Andy Rooney says: I don’t believe in Santa Claus, but I’m not going to sue somebody for singing a Ho-Ho-Ho song in December. I don’t agree with Darwin , but I didn’t go out and hire a lawyer when my high school teacher taught his Theory of Evolution (this is the sentence that immediately cued me into the fact that this couldn’t be Andy Rooney; he may be odd, but he’s not ignorant).  Life, liberty or your pursuit of happiness will not be endangered because someone says a 30-second prayer before a football game. So what’s the big deal? It’s not like somebody is up there reading the entire Book of Acts. They’re just talking to a God they believe in and asking him to grant safety to the players on the field and the fans going home from the game. But it’s a Christian prayer, some will argue.  Yes, and this is the United States of America , a country founded on Christian principles. According to our very own phone book, Christian churches outnumber all others better than 200-to-1.(ahh, the old argumentum ad populum) So what would you expect — somebody chanting Hare Krishna?  If I went to a football game in Jerusalem, I would expect to hear a Jewish prayer… (no he wouldn’t ’cause they wouldn’t)  If I went to a soccer game in Baghdad , I would expect to hear a Muslim prayer. (again, no he wouldn’t ’cause they wouldn’t; and I’m guessing he’d be offended if one was said)  If I went to a ping pong match in China , I would expect to hear someone pray to Buddha. (now he’s removing any trace from anyone’s mind how uneducated he is; definitely no prayers to Buddha in China before ping pong matches)  And I wouldn’t be offended. It wouldn’t bother me one bit. (I’d love to see this actually play out and see if he was offended)  When in Rome… (um, is he really saying do as the “Muslims/Buddhists/Jews” would do?  I don’t think he means what he thinks he means…)

But what about the atheists? Is another argument. What about them? Nobody is asking them to be baptized.(um, well, yes, people are) We’re not going to pass the collection plate. Just humor us for 30 seconds.(only if you’ll humor me for 30 seconds when you’re done; fair is fair) If that’s asking too much, bring a Walkman or a pair of ear plugs. Go to the bathroom. Visit the concession stand. Call your lawyer! (ah, yes, the old – “suck it atheists” approach when all else fails) Unfortunately, one or two will make that call. One or two will tell thousands what they can and cannot do.(yep, just like one or two told whites that segregated schools were a bad thing and beating wives was a bad thing; those a**holes, thinking they know what is best for everyone else! Bring back the 1940s!) I don’t think a short prayer at a football game is going to shake the world’s foundations.(nope, just inappropriate) Christians are just sick and tired of turning the other cheek while our courts strip us of all our rights.(um, wow!  Can you say “not a good Christian”?!? Matthew 5:38-42 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”)

Our parents and grandparents taught us to pray before eating, to pray before we go to sleep. Our Bible tells us to pray without ceasing. Now a handful of people and their lawyers are telling us to cease praying.(um, not exactly; the federal courts are simply saying that government can’t tell citizens when and how to pray; you can pray without ceasing, just don’t force me to listen to you)  God, help us. And if that last sentence offends you, well, just sue me.(no need; we won the lawsuit already) The silent majority has been silent too long.(oh, you mean the one with thousands of radio stations and TV stations and billboards and churches and politicians representing it?  Right.  I never hear that “silent majority.”)  It’s time we tell that one or two who scream loud enough to be heard that the vast majority doesn’t care what they want.(You hear that, blacks, women, homosexuals, etc?  The majority doesn’t want to give you rights.) It is time that the majority Rules! (um, that’s basically defined in the Constitution; been that way for a long time) It’s time we tell them, You don’t have to pray; you don’t have to say the Pledge of Allegiance; you don’t have to believe in God or attend services that honor Him. That is your right, and we will honor your right; but by golly, you are no longer going to take our rights away.(you mean your right to infringe upon my rights; didn’t know that was a right…) We are fighting back, and we WILL WIN!  (um, nope; you lost)

God bless us one and all… (no thanks) Especially those who denounce Him, God bless America, despite all her faults. She is still the greatest nation of all. God bless our service men who are fighting to protect our right to pray and worship God. Let’s make 2010 the year the silent majority is heard and we put God back as the foundation of our families and institutions. And our military forces come home from all the wars. Keep looking up.

I, of course, as the crazy nephew, couldn’t help but respond to everyone on the email list with the following:

Hi,

Sorry for the intrusion in your inbox, but I once again feel obligated to correct misinformation.  First, the email below was not written by Andy Rooney (if you know Andy Rooney, you know he’d never write that email):
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/prayer.asp

It was written by Nick Gholson, a sports writer in Wichita Falls, Texas.

It is also remarkably ignorant of the recent court case in which a Federal Court decided that a National Day of Prayer IS unconstitutional:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer

Basically what happened was Billy Graham, using the political influence of Evangelical Christians, convinced Congress to enact a National Day of Prayer in 1952.  The date for the National Day of Prayer was formalized in the 1980s at the request of Campus Crusade for Christ.  The National Day of Prayer Task Force, led by Shirley Dobson, was housed in the Focus on the Family building in Colorado, which is where James Dobson, an Evangelical Christian, has his headquarters.  In other words, the National Day of Prayer was an Evangelical Christian sponsored event!

Everyone who cares about religious autonomy should be cheering this court decision.  Why?  Because it makes it so government cannot tell you when and how you should pray.  Religious minorities, like Mormons, should be particularly excited by this case, as this reduces the odds of Evangelical Christians pushing their particular religious worldview on the rest of America, which I’m sure Mormons and other religious minorities would not like.

Just thought you’d like some accurate information today.

Yeah, I know, I’m THAT jerk who feels arrogant enough to think he should correct people via email.  Anywho, here’s a response I received:

No, I don’t know that Andy Rooney would never write an article like the one below. I don’t know him, do you?  But it doesn’t matter if Andy wrote it or Nick Gholson wrote it.  It is a well written article that everyone should consider.  And what was threatening or unconstitutional about a national day of prayer??  One could pray to their God or not, it was not forced and they certainaly were not telling us “when or how you should pray”.  Who cares who sponsored it.  It was a day where believers in God could collectively thank the Supreme Being for our blessings and ask His blessings for our country and fellow man.  So a federal court ruled it unconstitutional.  So what!!  That doesn’t make it right.  It just makes it one more  bad, unconstitutional, decision the courts have made over the years -  like the one the U. S. Supreme Courty made in 1857 where they ruled blacks, slaves as well as free,  were not and could never become citizens of the United States.  Or like the decision the Supreme Court made in 1890 when they declared that Idaho’s 1885 law denying Mormons the right to vote or hold public office was consitutional. Who knows - if this case goes to the Supreme Court perhaps they will overule the lower court.

No, I’m not cheering the decision the court made denying the right for a national day of prayer.  It’s only just one more assault on religion and prayer made by unbelievers and atheists.  I believe the goal of those who bring these court cases is not to preserve religious rights but to ultimately have all prayer and religion in this country banned.  They are trying to take away our right to believe in and worship God.  I doubt they will ever be happy or stop the assault on religion until they have everyone convinced that God is a myth and all religious worship and prayers are forbidden.

My less than kind response:

First, yes, I do know Andy Rooney.  He’s a famous television personality and social commentator on 60 Minutes. I’m amazed you don’t know him, but I guess not everyone watches 60 Minutes.

Second, it’s not well-written.  It’s actually quite poorly written.  But issues of grammar aside, the issue behind a national day of prayer is an important one.  Is it threatening?  Yes.  We were told WHEN to pray (first Thursday in May) and we were told HOW to pray (the National Day of Prayer Task Force wrote the prayer for everyone).  Since it sounds like you’re a Christian, my guess is that you probably don’t mind this because the prayers were Christian in nature.  But, and this is the point, what if they were not?  What if a Muslim or a Hindu were elected to office?  And what if their prayer was, “Allah, smite the Christians that they all die.”  Would you still feel the same way about a national day of prayer?  Or what if it was a Wiccan who was elected to office?  Would you be okay if, instead of prayer, they performed a magical ritual involving pentagrams, black cats, and human blood?

You see, here’s where you’re missing the point: You’re okay with a “National Day of Prayer” because you are in the majority and you don’t think that all of the minorities out there should find your beliefs offensive.  But THEY DO!  Especially when they are forced on them.  Try flipping perspectives for a minute to see the world from the perspective of a religious minority.  If you can’t, too bad.  You’re welcome to continue in your dogmatic views.  But perhaps seeing the world from the perspective of a minority will help you realize that the intent is not to remove people’s right to pray but rather to remove government from religion.  Do you really want big government telling you how to worship?  I’m guessing your against government and doubly against government controlling religion.  So why aren’t you for this court decision?

You then assume that “unbelievers and atheists” are assaulting religion.  Really?  Maybe they’re simply defending their rights (FYI, I’m an atheist).  Have you ever been forced to listen to an atheist give a “prayer” at a funeral or graduation?  Me either, because they would never force their views on anyone else.  Atheists don’t want to listen to your prayers any more than you want to listen to them.  So, they are asserting their rights to say, “Don’t make me listen to your prayers.”  And they’re not saying, “Oh, you now have to listen to mine.”  They’re/We’re simply saying, “Be as religious as you want – on YOUR time and YOUR dime, but not on mine.”  Isn’t that fair?  Or do you think it’s not fair because you want the government to support your beliefs over theirs?

Oh, and just for fun, if you are a Christian, maybe you should reconsider your position in light of your own scripture:
Matthew 6:5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.”

Your god says not to pray in public anyway.  This court decision actually just makes it easier for you to follow your own religion.

And, finally, her response:

Yes, I have heard of Andy Rooney and have listened to some of his commentaries, but I don’t know him and can’t speak for what he would or wouldn’t say and neither can you.

Please delete my email address from your records and I will certainly remove traces of your address from my computer.  I have no wish to hear from you and I also think it was very rude of you to steal email addresses from forwarded mail and then email your views to people you don’t know and who definitely don’t share your views!

Hey, Mormons: Wilco Tango Foxtrot?

(Comments are now closed at the original post, so please comment below)

Serious kudos to The Millennial Star and John Fowles for taking on this topic in this M* guest post:

Harry Reid fireside canceled because of politics

IMHO, it’s a pitch-perfect response to this outrageous situation, and ought to be re-posted far and wide, at official sites such as the LDS Newsroom Blog as well as on every member’s Facebook page and family blog.

Linkage:

J. Stapley at By Common Consent: Heber J. Grant on politics

Independent American News: Our Victory Over Harry Reid Confirmed!

The Salt Lake Tribune: Rolly: Only Republican testimonies in Vegas?

KUTV Utah 2News: Senator Reid Cancels LDS Appearence

USU Shaft: Senator Harry Reid shunned by fellow Mormons

The Mormon Left: The Unhealthy Mingling of Politics in Mormonism

Daily Kos: “If I see Harry Reid in the temple, I’m going to hit him.”

Extra reading: Enough with the Emails from Mormon McVeigh Wannabes, Famous Dead Mormons: Timothy McVeigh

Extraneous: And the Tea Party circus rolls into Provo, Utah:

Seen and heard:

“In Memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives and our children.” – Captain Moroni

“Anybody here want to be a socialist?”

“If we don’t win, that’s it for human rights on planet Earth.”

I posted this elsewhere not too long ago, and it seemed to get positive feedback, so I thought I would share this experience here and get your thoughts about it.

During a conversation with my wife in the car after meeting some fantastic believing/disaffected couples for dinner last week, I realized something that has somehow completely eluded me until now. My wife and I approach the church very differently because it has fulfilled completely different needs for each of us.

I joined the church as an adult convert ten years ago. Previous to that, I had many deeply spiritual experiences as a Christian, but not in the LDS church. I did not join the LDS church because I felt anything special, or because I felt it met any particular spiritual or emotional need I had. If anything, I found the LDS style of worship definitely lacking in the profound spiritual feelings department.

Instead, I joined the LDS church because, based on my investigation, I believed it was true. Many of the beliefs made a lot of sense to me, and as I read much of the material that has been written about the LDS church, both pro and con, I believed I had found something that fulfilled prophecy and had the true gospel. Or at least something as close to such a thing as I was likely to find.

Consequently, as I have reexamined my assumptions and my beliefs over the past few years, I found it easy to disconnect from the church emotionally once I no longer believed in it intellectually. After all, I did not join for the emotional, spiritual, or social aspects of the church. I joined the LDS church because it made sense. Once it no longer made sense, I had no reason to hold onto it, and I let go almost immediately.

My wife, on the other hand, still enjoys being a part of the community and enjoys the good feelings she experiences when she goes to church. As she has learned more about the historical or doctrinal problems in the church, I have sometimes been confused as to why many things don’t seem to bother her as much as they bother me.

But last week I realized that she did not join or stay in the church primarily for intellectual reasons. It doesn’t matter as much to her whether everything makes sense in a rational way, or whether there are problems with the history or doctrine. Those are not her reasons for being there. She feels spiritually connected in the LDS church, in the same way I felt as a Christian before I joined it. That’s why I look back on those times with fondness, and that’s why she stays in the LDS church today. Whether it’s true or not has little bearing on that.

I think a lot of us disaffected folks approach the church in the same way I’ve described my own approach. We see it as failing the test of truth, and therefore try to distance ourselves from it. That’s certainly a valid way of dealing with it. But I realized that there are other reasons people might reasonably choose to stay despite the problems, and I think that’s fine too. After all, I think just about everyone needs something spiritually fulfilling (note I did not say religious or supernatural). While I personally do not find that in the LDS church, and I never have, some people do. And that’s why my wife probably will never have the same problems with the church that I do, and that’s okay.

Now if only we could get the warm fuzzies without the authoritarianism, life would be golden!

Excerpt from transcript of Danielle Grant’s Local News 8 report:

The definition of family is under scrutiny.

This comes after a local same-sex couple was denied a family pool pass at Lava Hot Springs.

The two claim the staff at the swimming pool facility told them they didn’t fit the description of a family and couldn’t get the reduced rate.

The executive director of the Lava Hot Springs Foundation says they define parents as adults who are legally in charge of dependent children or who are married to the adult who’s in charge of the kids.

Since the state of Idaho doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages, the American Falls couple didn’t get the $20 pass.

Local News 8 talked with both parties about it and the two ladies say they’re frustrated the facility would belittle them. While the Lava Hot Springs foundation says they were just following its policy.

Sunshine, blue skies and getting wet in the water!

It was a day full of family and fun.

But the family of five says their fun was cut short in the ticket line.

“We’re a family. We live together. This is our family and she said, ‘No it doesn’t work that way.’ A family is a mom, dad and children. I was like are you kidding me?” said Amber Koger, who got turned away.

The executive director for the Lava Hot Springs, Mark Lowe, says to get the discount parents must be legally obligated to the children or married to someone who is.

And more than 100,000 people splash in the pools during the summer season and he says this has always been the policy.

“Not everybody accepts our lifestyle and that’s fine we deal with that everyday but don’t put our family down in front of the kids,” said Jeri Underwood, frustrated with the situation.

Towleroad mentioned the story a fortnight ago, but with this fresh and very worthy video report courtesy of Eastern Idaho’s #1 News Source, well, a second look might be in order.

Because, in all of the back-and-forth about “marriage” … it’s a useful reminder that this is ultimately about “family” … a concept so basic and universal that even some of us from the Mormon Corridor are able to grasp that – when it comes to family – “It’s about Time!”

And maybe it’s about time I post a shameless plug for my YouTube channel. With a few more subscribers, it’ll soon be the #1 “political news” channel in Taiwan.

Anyway, enough of my self-serving non sequiturs … who would’ve thunk – even just a few years ago – that a press release like this would be issued from Lava Hot Springs, Idaho?

As Idaho booster Misty writes, “Idaho might not be the kind of place you fantasize about when you think vacation, but you might be pleasantly surprised … Load up the car with snacks, friends, or your partner and kids and hit the road.”

And sure as shootin’, after this latest kerfuffle, you just might well be (properly welcomed and surprised). So, good on Lava Hot Springs, and here’s to progress and to pleasant surprises in future (rather than that other kind that Jeri and Amber and their kids had to deal with so recently).

By Dave Zirin

x-posted from Edge of Sports with permission.

As supporters of Gay Marriage have discovered, it’s never easy to be on the Mormon Church’s enemies list. The Church of Latter-Day Saints backed the anti-Gay Marriage Proposition 8 in California with out-of-state funds, and gave the right a heartbreaking victory this past election cycle. But the Mormon Church has been challenged in the past.

Just ask Bob Beamon.

If you know Beamon’s name it’s almost certainly because he won the long jump gold medal in legendary fashion at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics. Beamon leapt 29 feet, 2.5 inches, a record that held for twenty-three years. Great Britain’s Lynn Davies told Beamon afterwards, “You have destroyed this event.” This is because Beamon was not only the first long jumper to break 29 feet, he was the first to break 28.

But you may not know that Beamon almost never made it to Mexico City. Along with eight other teammates, Beamon had his track and field scholarship revoked from the University of Texas at El Paso, the previous year. They had refused to compete against Brigham Young University. Beamon and his teammates were protesting the racist practices of the Mormon Church, and their coach at UTEP, Wayne Vanderburge, made them pay the ultimate price.

They weren’t alone. As tennis great Arthur Ashe wrote in his book, Hard Road to Glory, “In October 1969, fourteen black [football] players at the University of Wyoming publicly criticized the Mormon Church and appealed to their coach, Lloyd Eaton, to support their right not to play against Brigham Young University. . . . The Mormon religion at the time taught that blacks could not attain to the priesthood, and that they were tainted by the curse of Ham, a biblical figure. Eaton, however, summarily dropped all fourteen players from the squad.”

The players, though, didn’t take their expulsion lying down. They called themselves the Black 14 and sued for damages with the support of the NAACP. In an October 25th game against San Jose State, the entire San Jose team wore black armbands to support the 14.

One aftershock of this episode was in November 1969, when Stanford University President Kenneth Pitzer suspended athletic relations with BYU, announcing that Stanford would honor what he called an athlete’s “Right of Conscience.” The “Right of Conscience” allowed athletes to boycott an event which he or she deemed “personally repugnant.” As the Associated Press wrote, “Waves of black protest roll toward BYU, assaulting Mormon belief and leaving BYU officials and students, perplexed, hurt, and maybe a little angry.”

On June 6th, 1978, as teams were refusing road trips to Utah with greater frequency, and the IRS started to make noises about revoking the church’s holy tax-free status, a new revelation came …

Whether a cynical ploy to avoid the taxman or a coincidence touched by God, the results were the same: Black people were now human in the eyes of the Church. African Americans were no longer, as Brigham Young himself once put it, “uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.” The IRS was assuaged, the athletic contests continued, and the church entered a period of remarkable growth.

Similar pressure must be brought to bear on the Mormon Church today for its financing of Proposition 8 in California. One nonprofit crunched the numbers and found that $17.67 million of the $22 million used to pass the anti-gay marriage legislation was funneled through 59,000 Mormon families since August. It was done with the institutional backing of the church, though many pro-gay Mormons have spoken out defiantly against the church’s political intervention.

The question now is whether this latest tale of social conflict and the Church of Latter-Day Saints will also spill onto the athletic field. Men’s athletics have been one of the last proud hamlets of homophobia in our society (although the attitudes of male athletes is more progressive than you might think). But women’s sports has been historically more open around issues of sexuality.

Will any women collegians raise the specter of Proposition 8 if they have to travel to the schools of Utah? Will we see the ghosts of Black 14 emerge from the past? If any athletes choose to act, the ramifications could be “Beamonesque.”

Over the joyous holiday season, I’ve had time to think about some less-than-joyous things.

I hate getting into arguments. It makes my heart sink to get into yet another argument. Some days, I just don’t want to check the blogs I read because I fear that there will be a comment in response to me, and I know that if there is, it could be another rebuttal I’ll have to counter. I know my emotions will spiral downward for some period of time that I can’t get back.

I hate getting into arguments, but crazily enough, that doesn’t stop me from jumping into them. Perhaps that’s my first fault? I can’t stand to feel misunderstood or marginalized, so I keep trying to press my view point until there’s understanding and agreement. At the same time, I know that I’m just falling into a trap I’ve set for myself…I know that all that will happen over the course of the argument is that I’ll be ruining friendships and boiling emotions, and I’ll leave the discussion just a bit more marginalized than I entered…

I don’t require agreement, but I think in an ideal world, opinions wouldn’t always butt heads and put us into a situations where one threatens another. So I always wonder, when I meet someone different if they will be the kind of person to provoke a disagreement of beliefs– or if I will provoke this disagreement. I wonder if I have to prepare myself for a future war of words.

If I find myself in an argument, I won’t let down. If I do, I feel I’ve betrayed my entire belief system. Perhaps that’s a second fault?

I know that “taking offense from what someone else has said” is one of those copout reasons that some faithful Mormons believe exmembers leave the church for, but I must say that the potential for argument is one of the reasons I dislike religion. And not just religion, but anything related to the sphere. Whatever the grouping, whether in the church or in another church or even among the churchless (it’s not as if atheists are immune!) there seems to be this confidence in opinions that ignites flames of disagreement and argument.

It doesn’t stop me from taking labels. Cultural Mormon. Weak atheist. Agnostic. Apatheist. These labels become too complicated, but still, I use them. Maybe a third fault?

One of my issues while in the church was reconciling what I didn’t believe with that I could believe. At the time, I liked many of the physical and tangible aspects of the church…like its organization or its emphasis on professionalism and business, but I disliked things like the intangible or spiritual aspects — even though I could see faith making a difference in others’ lives, it meant nothing to me. So while I had little problem defending certain aspects of the church and in regurgitating standard book answers for theological points, I felt uneasy defending things like the historicity of the Book of Mormon or testifying about matters of faith — not only did I feel enslaved to the idea of being in an argument about beliefs, which I hate, but I felt enslaved again because, as a Mormon, I had to defend everything — including that which I didn’t believe in. What kind of Mormon would I be if I told my opponents that they ought not take the BoM in any literal fashion? (I’m not sure if it is worthy-for-temple to view the BoM as an allegorical, yet fabricated work.)

It was incredibly freeing to distance myself from the label. I realized: I don’t have to defend things I don’t believe in. In fact, because the few things I did appreciate weren’t limited to the church, I didn’t even really need to base things on the church.

Reidentification didn’t necessarily spare me from all arguments. Instead, I traded anti-Mormon arguments from non-LDS Christians and other groups for anti-atheist and anti-nonbeliever arguments from everyone including LDS friends, stronger atheists than I and weaker atheists than I. But I was ok for a while with it, because at least I was defending the ideas I chose.

But…really…I was still making enemies.

I still wish, however naively it may be, that the things I say won’t create a spirit of contention. Yet, I wish simultaneously that I can be allowed to live without others denigrating my views. So, perhaps, for this holiday season, I apologize for the uncharitable things I’ve said (or the things which were interpreted as uncharitable). Unfortunately, I’ve never been a fan of New years’ resolutions, so I can’t say that in the future that I’ll be less willing to argue even if I hate the eventual escalation.