Stereotyping

 
The other half of "Closed-mindedness" takes the form of "stereotyping those who are opposed to the group as weak, evil, biased, spiteful, impotent, or stupid".

This sounds a lot like the top 5 myths that circulate when someone leaves the LDS Church.

All of the standard assumptions about why someone would leave Mormonism denigrate the doubter's character. Being easily offended shows weakness of character. Desiring to sin means you're evil, or weak when faced with temptation. Accusing someone of never having a real testimony is like calling him a tenderfoot or a faker. Calling someone lazy is just another way of calling them weak. Pinning everything on anti-Mormon arguments suggests the person who decided to listen to those arguments was being stupid and succumbing to those arguments is evidence of one's powerlessness when it comes to controlling his or her thoughts. The general approach within Mormonism tends towards belittling the doubter.

Thank goodness John Dehlin and people like him have been making extensive efforts to dispel these styrotypes.

Waiting downstairs (or outside)

Getting married in the temple means that the only people who will be at your wedding will be those members of your family and friends who have gone through the temple endowment and currently hold a temple recommend. Never mind the fact that no one, apart from the couple getting married, is actually required to do anything comparable to making a covenant. Okay, so there is the issue of seeing the couple take take each other in the "Patriarchal Grip, or the Sure Sign of the Nail" hand grip and maybe having to explain what the hell that is to non-member friends and family, but can't we get around that by simply telling the couple before they enter the sealing room that when they are instructed to hold hands across they alter they need to do the "Sure Sign" thing? I bet no one who wasn't already informed would even notice.

A story of no fun.

I guess there's also the issue of the couple wearing the temple clothes. Those might be hard to explain to the uninitiated. Then again, can't we give our family and closest friends the benefit of the doubt that they will respect our religion and our choice to participate in it?

Or, if we don't want to caste such Mormon pearls before unsympathetic swine, why don't we have civil marriages for all followed by temple sealings for the Mormons? Holy shit! That might actually work!

And really no one, especially not God, would be offended.

Let love in

Mormons are taught early on that they want to be married in the temple. We've been taught that if someone can't or doesn't want to get married in the temple, we should kick their sorry ass to the curb.

George Durrant reported a conversation he had with his fifteen-year-old son. He had asked him, “Where are you going to get married?”

“In the temple,” was the reply.

“Why?”

“I’ve just never thought of getting married anywhere else.”

“Why?” the father pressed.

“Well, that’s where you go so you can be married forever.”

“But,” the father asked, “what if you meet a girl who doesn’t feel that the temple is that important?”

There was a long pause. Then he replied, “Dad, I wouldn’t marry her.”

I can just imagine the numerous conversations shared between Mormon couples in love when they discover that the temple has been eliminated from the equation. My heart swells at all the tear drenched "I'm sorry"s and the understanding "go fuck yourself, you unworthy pig"s that have sent eternal dreams summer-salting off the highway of holy love and into a cold gray ditch of empty Big Gulps and soggy cigarettes. Tragic.

Tragic, but necessary. We can't be placing love of another human over our love for Mormonism. Marriage is so much more. Some teachers of the youth even complain about the expression "marry in the temple" because they feel it makes light of the ordinance and prefer instead "to call the Lord’s way of marriage the 'sealing ordinance' or 'being sealed.'" This isn't just a marriage, it's a godly right of passage; this togetherness isn't simply for time, it's FOR ETERNITY.

Sealings are more than just some silly hoopla Mormons have added to their religion in attempts to legitimize polygamy or an attempt to create an analogous rite to the the highest sacrament of Catholicism, and anyone telling you otherwise is just speculating. The fact is that as much as God loves you, he can't respect your love unless you proved your commitment to him and your spouse at one of his alters. Period. God's house is a house of order (D&C 132:8), and there's nothing confusing or disorderly about making sure everyone on earth who loves him marries in his holy house. So don't worry about the guy who's sealed to three different women, all of whom learned to hate him deeply and divorced him; don't worry about if the atheist grandfather you vicariously sealed to your grandmother probably won't accept the ordinance but your grandma probably will; don't worry that Joseph Smith was sealed to 11 women who were already married to other Mormon leaders; don't worry about your brother who's sealed to an unfaithful woman who doesn't love or deserve him; don't worry about anything, it all makes sense to God.

And yet sometimes I can't help but think about how hard it can be for people to find love and how often the love they find lies outside of their religious culture. Sometimes I think about God being a completely loving and completely understanding father and just how his love and understanding might play out in the eternities. At times I think how strange it is that so many Mormon grandparents are convinced that all you need is a penis, a vagina, and two strong testimonies for a marriage to work. (It's almost as though Spencer Kimball said this: "it is certain that almost any good man and any good woman can have happiness and a successful marriage if both are willing to pay the price.) And maybe it is a little funny that Mormon kids think that they will conveniently find the person they will marry within their very limited ward boundaries.

Instead of pushing love away because temple requirements get in the way, wouldn't it be more respectful and loving in many cases to trust in God's love and celebrate the love a couple shares with each other? For many people life is too short and too hard to go it alone. It's also true that Mormonism can be very harsh on its single members. Can't God let his children embrace love and companionship as it presents itself without putting harsh parameters on who qualifies?

Good neighbors

Dear brothers and sisters in the faith,

Heaven knows we have some high standards and heaven also knows how easy it is for those standards to be compromised. It only makes sense that we only carefully interact with people who are not of our faith. It's only natural that we avoid inviting certain people over because we have no coffee in the house to offer them and that we turn down invitations to go out because none of us drink. It's right that we keep our children from spending too much time in a home that doesn't share our standards of living, our children might get the idea that it's okay if other people don't believe like we do! I mean, what if our children notice an R-rated DVD next to the TV or something? Scary!

We are completely justified in keeping certain neighbors at arm's length. We have to keep the World at arm's length given how we've learned that Satan is in reality "the god of this world." We can't take any risks! We have to surround ourselves with light and truth and, while it's true that everyone probably has some truth, we're really the only ones who have it all, so it only makes sense to keep to our own.

It's just that sometimes I get to thinking how Christ-like it would be to be open to everyone. I start thinking about how condescending our attitude is toward everyone who doesn't toe the Mormon line even when they're not Mormon. I ponder from time to time the arbitrariness of so many of our standards and then I consider how so many others seem to be directed at young teenagers who haven't yet learned to think for themselves and act on their own integrity.

Could it be possible that there's really nothing to fear? Would it be better if I showed more respect and trust toward my non-LDS neighbors and also my children? Should I stop taking brownies over with the sole intent of converting said neighbors?

Beware thy friends

Mormonism is extremely concerned about whom you interact with. Mormons know how easily it is to be influenced by friends and associates, and the influence goes both ways. That's probably why Mormons advise the youth of the Church to "choose friends who share your values so you can strengthen and encourage each other in living high standards" and to "invite your friends of other faiths to your Church meetings and activities". The Church doesn't want to lose the youth to the non-Mormon influences of others and would instead like the youth of the Church to have a heavy influence on their friends in order to convert them. There's nothing incredibly odd about that approach. It's called protecting your interests.

The real problem of all this is how it plays out on the ground. The reality is that choosing "friends who share your values" typically translates to other Mormons which fosters Mormon insularity. Non-members, non-believing members, and even believing members coming from a part-member family are often excluded a priori from the friend list. Even a seemingly innocent relationship might actually be the water hole of a "spiritual crocodile" who will be your downfall.

 This is not a spiritual crocodile.

"These spiritual crocodiles can kill or mutilate your souls. They can destroy your peace of mind and the peace of mind of those who love you. Those are the ones to be warned against, and there is hardly a watering place in all of mortality now that is not infested with them." (Boyd Packer)

It's fear mongering that continues to this day.

"Now, a word of caution to all—both young and old, both male and female. We live at a time when the adversary is using every means possible to ensnare us in his web of deceit, trying desperately to take us down with him. There are many pathways along which he entices us to go—pathways that can lead to our destruction." (Tom Monson)

Mormons stick to themselves for fear of having to suffer or - Lord help save us! - be seduced by opinions that are unsympathetic or antagonistic to Mormonism.

But it's more than fear of your spiritual downfall. There is another very practical reason to avoid non-Mormons, struggling Mormons, and unorthodox Mormons: you might not get a temple recommend! Question number six, to which you must reply in the negative, asks

"Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?"

Yelp! Does this mean you can't affiliate with your beer-drinking uncle? Does this mean you can's play sports with that one guy who's always trash talking Mormons? Does this mean you can't have your daughter over for Thanksgiving because she has a profile up on "I'm an ex-Mormon" and got married to another woman? Are you really a good Mormon if don't cut your ties with the pant-wearing, Ordain Women-supporting Feminist Mormon Housewives?

(I know, I know! This shirt's about having sex, not turning friends and family away.)

How many people give relationships up because the Church teaches them to avoid diversity? Why would anyone want to belong to an organization that tells you who you should and should not accept into your life?