"You can leave the Church, but..."

You Can Leave the Church, But You Can't Leave it Alone. (Reposted from here.)

I had a conversation with a friend about people who wonder why post-mormons don't all quickly move on. I'm sure you've all heard the saying, "You can leave the Church, but you can't leave it alone." This is my response to that claim:

There's a huge double standard, as evidenced by the following:

1- I don't go knocking on my neighbor's doors to tell them about Agnosticism.

2- I don't text them saying, "I noticed you went to Church today. I sure missed you at not-Church. Hope to see you soon."

3- I don't bribe their kids with treats to stay home from Church.

4- When my Mormon neighbors move, I don't track them down and invite them to leave the Church in their new area.

5- When PBS has a show on about Charles Darwin I don't make fancy invitations and invite them to watch it with me.

6- I don't keep track of who's going to Church and who's not.

7- I don't fly across the country to Philadelphia at my own expense and spend two years trying to get Philadelphia Mormons to leave the Church.

8- I'm not constantly quoting Richard Dawkins or Carl Sagan on Facebook.

9- I don't put on a huge anti-Mormon pageant every year and invite all of my Mormon friends.

10- I don't secretly interrogate their children to find out why their parents are staying in Church.

11- When a Mormon neighbor makes the decision to stay in the Church, I don't write them a letter explaining the eternal consequences of their decision and telling them that before they make such an important decision they must sit down with me to discuss it.

12- I don't drive down to the Church on the night they're having youth activities and say, "Hey kids, we're on our way to the arcade. Do you want a ride?"

13- I never look at a Mormon and try to figure out what type of underwear they're wearing.

14- I never use funerals as an opportunity to teach the plan of natural selection to grieving Mormons.

15- I have never written my testimony inside a copy of No Man Knows My History and given it to a Mormon while explaining what the book means to me and how it has changed my life.

16- I have never bought a Mormon a gift subscription to a Secular Humanist magazine.

17- I have never told a Mormon how they should vote.

18- I have never criticized a Mormon for the clothes they are wearing.

19- I have never chastised a Mormon friend for posting something on Facebook that was too mormony.

20- I do not deny my Mormon friends and family the opportunity to attend weddings, even if they're not Agnostics in good standing.

21- I do not send Birthday cards to my Mormon Neighbor's Children with a note that says, "Darwin loves you and so do I. We sure miss you when you go to Church."

22- I don't tell my Mormon friends that they're going to hell because they don't believe in the Big Bang.

23- When my less-active Mormon neighbors decide to start going to Church more often, I don't visit them at a time when I know their spouse will be at work and tell them, "Now you know you don't have to go to Church just because your spouse wants to go. You're allowed to make up your own mind."

24- I don't disown my child if they decide to be Mormon.

25- I don't counsel anyone to divorce their spouse because they've decided that Atheism isn't true and that Mormonism makes more sense.

26- When I notice that a family in my neighborhood has attended Church for several weeks in a row, I don't leave delicious chocolate cupcakes on their doorstep with a note that I wish they would stop attending.

27- I don't get together with several of my Post-Mormon neighbors and say, "Hey, lets make a list of all the Mormons in the ward boundaries, and let's think about it and pray about it, and we'll narrow that list down to 5 names, and we'll focus all of our energy and attention on these five people or families, and we'll try to get them to leave the church."

When I was Elder's Quorum President, I was instructed to contact all the elders and potential elders every year, even if they had requested not to be contacted, because they could have changed their mind since last year.

So who's not leaving who alone?

Polygamy - Joanna's take

Here are a few things to consider from Joanna Brooks' recent blog post.

"[T]he new website on Joseph Smith’s polygamy does not say that Smith was wrong—not for marrying against the wishes of his first wife Emma, or marrying women already married to other men, or marrying girls as young as fourteen. It acknowledges that Smith’s polygamy demanded heartwrenching sacrifices of his first wife, but it sidesteps the crucial question of whether these sacrifices were founded in lasting principles of Mormon theology, or were they pains caused by the human excesses of our charismatic founder?

Is it the will of God that polygamy should persist in LDS Church theology and policies pertaining to LDS temple marriages, as it does to this day?"

Dear Tommy, would you and your buddies please let us know if LDS Mormons today are rightly dreading future (and eternal) polygamy?

Get 'em young

God likes his vessels young and tender. Joseph Smith, for example, was (according to LDS Church speak) an innocent, uneducated young lad of only 14 who couldn't possibly have known the ways of the world. That's important for us Mormons to believe because it's an example of the way God works. He took something weak but pure and made it strong! That's the kind of generous god we worship.

So is it any wonder that God commanded Joseph to marry a girl "several months before her 15th birthday" (OK, more than one actually)? We all know how strong these chosen teen brides (OK, there were a lot more than just two) became, right? I mean, they were pivotal in the highest ordinances revealed to Joseph! No?

I guess being shuffled about like chattel in life only to be completely swept under the rug after death and then dredged up only reluctantly because you're a major liability might not feel especially great.

TEMPLE SECRETS REVEALED!

I wasn't sure I'd live to see this day though I often dreamed it would come. The Mormon Newsroom has finally revealed to the world the faith's secret temple garb, from underwear to baker's hats. (Here's the YouTube link.)

Frankly I'm amazed. Way to go Newsroom! I don't doubt for a second that you released this information out of a pure desire to be open and forthright with the world and not because you're hoping to catch up with the many other people who have already been controlling the online discussion about (not to mention entered the production of) these things for years.

My only complaint is how you frame the explanation of garments and temple clothes. You point to religious clothing worn by other faiths as though everyone thinks those clothes are totally awesome and not at all weird. If you're goal is to say "Hey, look! We've also entered the masquerade of bad fashion ideas people shouldn't make fun of!" then all you've really accomplished is making Mormons look like Johnny-come-latelies. If you think you're somehow going to convince the rest of the world that Mormon temple garb is better than every other religion's, I doubt this video will do the trick.

Oh, wait! And there was also that line in the video about "echoes to antiquity" found in temple clothes. Why didn't you mention the much more recent echoes as well? I'm sure the general public would also love to hear about the Mormon connection to other once secret robes.

The "M" word

I have to admit I get annoyed whenever I see Mormons become defensive over the use of the word "Mormon". You see comments pop up like "That's not the name of the Church!" "Why don't you do your research!" or "It's just a nickname btw!" Getting the name of the Church wrong or referring to its members incorrectly means everything that uninformed individual said is incorrect and probably anti-Mormon. Never mind that latter-day saints do in fact refer to the Church as the "Mormon Church" and don't colloquially refer to members of the Church as saints. They only very rarely refer to members as saints and when they do it's typically heard in the expression "the early saints" which is kind of weird considering that those "early" folks were pretty sure they were all latter-day and shit.

Members of the LDS Church call themselves Mormons, I promise. We can say "Mormon" but everyone else had better mind the "M" word! But I have to admit that as an active member I definitely thought it was a smart move when the LDS Church started insisting more and more that people use its official name. (Although I also thought it would have made more sense had they  emphasized that they had wanted to be called the Church of Jesus Christ, not the LDS Church, but whatever.)

Who cares? What's the big deal? All groups have insider-outsider language, right?

Probably, yes. What I found (and still find) disturbing, however, is the way in which Mormons look for tiny mistakes in the things outsiders say in order to dismiss their arguments while going to great lengths to dismiss or ignore mistakes and inconsistencies made by their leaders. The tradition goes all the way back to Joseph Smith (but I don't believe Tom's had the same kind of slip ups as Gordon).

Jesus warned against this scenario (if you're into Jesus).

Why is this OK? Why do the prophets get a free pass on bad information while everyone else gets hosed for simple and often superficial mistakes?

"Mindguards"

 
The last of Irving Janis' symptoms of groupthink is the existence of "self-appointed members who shield the group from dissenting information". In other words, people either hiding or spinning the information that's out there. 

The LDS Church has both self-appointed mindguards and officially appointed mindguards. On a very low level, consider all of the parents, bishops, and stake presidents who purposefully neglect they youth of a clear understanding of what goes on in the temple. On the opposite end of control, consider the documents hidden in the First Presidency vault. Why are are members kept from these things (and everything in between)? 

In the semi-self-appointed category we have the apologists produced and employed by BYU. In a way they're endorsed by the Church. They're paid by the Church and their work has been crucial for the writing of the recent "difficult issues" topics on the Church website. And yet the Church can turn its back on these people and their work whenever convenient. 

On the side of officially appointed mindguards we have the Church historians and the Public Relations department. 

How can the general membership be expected to have its own thoughts and opinions about Church history, doctrine, and policy when certain information is kept from them?

Johnny "Gone Rotten" Dehlin & Kate "Machine Gun" Kelly

Well members of the LDS Church can now officially hate John Dehlin and Kate Kelly, two horrible people advocating for the fair treatment of gays and women in the Church, because just a few days ago they were both informed via post that their heads are going to roll! That's right! Excommunication, that most glorious of loving practices!

Sorry, John and Kate, but we will not tolerate your evil liberal ways. We hope you have fun getting shit on by your family and community from here on out because you now wear the sign of the Beast on your brow. Or maybe try repenting or something. Show us how sorry you are. We love that shit!

And for all you assholes out there who actually like what John and Kate have done, REPENT YE MOTHERFUCKERS, FOR THE CHURCH OF GOD IS PISSED! You have now been given a fair warning with the examples of John and Kate that love and compassion are not enough. The same goes for you followers of brother Waterman, too! (Sister Colvin, you might be next!) Mend your ways or you might be next! (Unless you don't have enough people listening to you, in that case let all your crazy out whenever you feel like it.)

In efforts to clarify the situation the Church has released an explanation of sorts. I just have a few questions about this press release. Did John and Kate really do this to themselves or isn't it really the Church doing the excommunicating? When can we expect our leaders to clarify John and Kate's false teachings? What exactly have they said that is so horribly incongruous with LDS doctrine? And is the "door" really and truly "always open" to people who are excommunicated? I thought there was policy that getting excommunicated twice locks that door for the rest of your mortal existence. Dieter, can you help us with any of these questions and doubts? 

Truly this is God's work, I solemnly declare, in the name of Greasy J, amen.

Sacrificing Abraham

For many doubters the smokiest of Mormon guns is The Book of Abraham. At this point I would imagine that most Mormons are aware of the fact that there are a few problems with Joseph Smith's translation of the scrolls. If you are unaware, you absolutely must watch this video:

I've been waiting for the Church to release a more in depth defense of The Book of Abraham like it has recently done for several other sticky issues, but obviously the folks over in the PR department are taking their time with this one.

How can they possibly set this mess straight? We can only wonder. Can Mormonism simply throw Abraham to the dogs?

What's in a name?

"C'mon, guys, stop screwing around with these non-Jesus temples."

"Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake. And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel." (3 Nephi 27:7-8)

It's so obvious to members of the LDS Church that the true church of Jesus would bear his sacred name, which is why the Church likes to be known as the LDS Church. LDS stands for Latter-day Saints. Wait, what? No Jesus in there? Oh, well that's because the official name of the Church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We've totally got some sweet Jesus action going on there now, right? Don't ask me why the LDS Church doesn't prefer to be called the CJCLDS, or the C of J, or LDC of C, or any acronym that would keep a J or a C or both in the mix.

"...but if later on we change it, Jesus won't care."

In 1830 the Church began as the Church of Christ. What an excellent name for Jesus' church and how very fitting with Jesus' instructions in 3 Nephi. But four years later, in direct opposition to the words of Jesus, the name was changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints. They gave up Jesus... but only briefly! In 1838, the Mormons reclaimed JC as the central figure of the Church, which adopted the name Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. So that was only four years of not being Jesus' church which isn't so long in the grand scheme of things.

Oh ya! Sometimes the LDS Church likes to put "Mormons" in parenthesis after LDS. It's very important to the Church's PR department that the whole "Mormon" thing not get out of hand either. Don't ask me why.

The end of LDS sexism

Good news, everyone! Sexism in the Church is gone. Women have finally made it onto the Ensign centerfold! Look!

Wiminz! Church wins! Complainers lose!

LDS artistic interpretations

The LDS Church has done a wonderful job of controlling the popular imagery of the translation process of The Book of Mormon. Searching the Church website will get you pictures like this:

Plates present but no hat.

Or this:

The plates again but there's no hat here either.

Notice that there is a huge discrepancy in the LDS version of the story:

It doesn't feel very good when the accuracy of a South Park episode surpasses all the prophet talks and prophetically endorsed pictures you've encountered as a highly active and fully believing member of the Church. How are we not supposed to wonder why the hat thing's not been very popular in Mormon art? What else is the average Mormon ignorant of?

#LDS

For those of us who have been committing the #sin of mis-hashtagging, even if out of ignorance, the #LordandSaviorJesusChrist and the #OneTrueChurch have finally decided to show you the #straitandnarrow. Make sure you do it God's way from here on out.

So the next time you go off tweeting about the age change for young missionaries, be sure to use #LDSage otherwise anyone who clicks on that hashtag just might miss the media wave and not #feeltheSpirit and join the #LDSChurch (#Christian). And that would be bad.

"Christians" and "Mormons"

LDS Church and its members feel horrible when people (usually people claiming to be Evangelical Christian) insist that Mormons are not Christian. It's a very confusing accusation to most Mormons. Why? Because the full name of the Church is The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints! The PR department even had the "Jesus Christ" part enlarged on the Church logo just to make it clear that Mormons are all about Jesus. This isn't the Church of Joseph Smith (even though he started it up in 1830), or Brigham Young (even though there are other Mormon branch offs that the LDS Church dismisses), or the Church of Tom Monson (even though his is the only living human with any legal power to manage the organization). Mormons believe that Jesus is the Savior of the World and that this is his church!

Fundamentalist Mormons feel horrible when people (usually people claiming to be LDS) insist that polygamists are not Mormon. It's a confusing accusation to most fundamentalist Mormons. Why? Because they wholeheartedly believe in Joseph Smith and The Book of Mormon. How can you believe in The Book of Mormon and not be a Mormon? How can you carefully and religiously follow the examples of conjugal life as set forth by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith and not be Mormon? Why does the LDS Church get to determine what "Mormon" means and who can use it when there are so many other faith traditions that share the same history and almost the exact same beliefs?

Why don't Mormons understand how hurtful it feels to be excluded from certain beliefs simply because someone wants to take control of a word's definition and use?

And how about this fine example of doublespeak from the Mormon Newsroom's Michael Otterson? Here's his defense of Mormons calling themselves Christian:

"I submit to you that a group should be allowed primarily to define itself."

And here's his objection to groups he doesn't like defining themselves:

"Some polygamous groups use names similar to ours, as we have seen. Some describe themselves as fundamentalist Mormons. We can’t stop people from calling themselves whatever they want, but for the sake of clarity for your readers and viewers, we suggest that the term “Mormon” is not an appropriate adjective for members of these communities – as, in fact, the Associated Press style guide suggests." (emphasis added)

What the fuck, dude?

Promoting faith

"As the Information Age is now upon us, we feel with all of this information out there, we owe it, particularly to the rising generation, to provide good, reliable information." That's from Steven Snow, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy (just below the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) and spokesman for the Church on this particular occasion, saying that if it weren't for the Internet the Church would happily keep ugly information about the Church away from its members, especially the youth. It's time to start telling the whole story. Or at least enough of it to keep doubters doubting their doubts and not their faith.

"We have understandably in the past not spent a lot of time worrying about these issues because our mission is to promote faith in the Lord Jesus Christ," says Snow. Is it really that understandable, Steve? I'm not sure I personally understand it. I think my understanding for why the Church has been leaving all the juicy parts of it's history locked up in the First Presidency vault leans more in the direction of "holy shit, the leaders of the Church KNOW this whole thing's a giant clusterfuck of half-truths and total lies and they don't want to blow their cover!"

Members who don't want to consider the possibility that the Church has - since its inception - dealt dishonestly with its members and the world might come up with an accusatory comment like the following:

"You've seriously been to church every Sunday your whole life and never knew about this stuff? Come on! That doesn't make sense! The Church published an article back before you were born that mentions some of this in a footnote, AND an apostle brought it up in a stake conference a couple of decades ago. None of this should be a surprise!"

That makes perfect sense, right? We should all be responsible for finding and reading every Church publication and devoting all contents to memory, shouldn't we? What? Who cares if it's all in English? Members in non-English-speaking parts of the world should be learning English from the missionaries anyway! What? I don't care if they don't have constant access to and unlimited time to spend on the Internet! It's members' fault that they don't know this stuff! It's their fault they don't have a good enough understanding of the Gospel! It's their fault their testimonies can't handle a couple of bumps in the road!

Let's turn to Steven Hassan for some interesting considerations of what the Church has been up to. He points out that an organization is guilty of using deception when it (a) deliberately holds back information [that isn't "faith promoting"], (b) distorts the information to make it acceptable [as in the case of Joseph Smith practicing "magic"], or (c) lies outright [like claiming polygamy started in the early 1840s]. But that's only the beginning of the kinds of deception Hassan lists. When information originating from outside the organization is minimized or discouraged (as it is in the Church), when there are distinctions between insider and outsider doctrines [e.g. the temple] and leaders who control all the information are the ones deciding "who 'needs to know' what" (as has been and still is the case with the Church), and when the organization floods its members with propaganda (Ensign, Liahona, New Era, The Friend, Deseret News, I Am a Mormon, Church movies, etc.) you just might be in a cult.

I know Mormons hate being compared to a cult. They absolutely hate it. Mormons don't have to get permission from their bishops to make decisions about things like how to spend their money and where/if to send their kids to school. They can read and watch whatever they want without reporting it to their higher ups. Mormons are free to do what they want. And, no, the stake president isn't demanding members give up their daughters for polygamous marriages! How can anyone dare compare Mormonism to a cult?

We're not a cult! We're just okay wearing Church-prescribed blinders and having the wool pulled over our eyes. That's all.

Anti-Antis!

Stepping out meant taking a step in and that was scary. I wasn't worried about stepping into a dangerous, violent world of corruption and depravity. So the Church didn't work out for me! Not the end of the world. So God didn't pull through! Shucks, but life goes on. I was worried about becoming an Anti-Mormon in the eyes of my family and friends.

A "fall" like mine meant that I had probably become an enemy to the Church. I could no longer bear testimony of the truthfulness of it all. I was no longer cool with those most sacred of covenants made in the holy house of the Lord. What if I started telling people I no longer believed in the Church? How many fragile testimonies might my disbelief damage? What if I started sharing temple secrets? What if I tried to oppose the Church? What if I became obsessed with bringing the Church down?!

Well guess what. I was as opposed to Anti-Mormons as much as I was before. I couldn't understand why anyone would dedicate time to trash talking Mormons. I didn't want to say anything that might lead someone down my path of disbelief. So why the blog?

Mormons would love to control the narrative of Mormonism. They would love to eliminate all uncorrelated thoughts, practices, and voices. They hate it when a weirdo gets up in fast and testimony meeting, they hate it when someone digs up a crazy comment by a prophet or apostle, they hate it when someone gets in the media saying something that isn't exactly what they want that person to say. Mormons want to be beautiful and perfect. They want all warts burned off.

Unfortunately I and all the other warts are still here, and it's only fair that I and the other warts get a chance to talk about our thoughts and experiences. We don't have to silence ourselves for the Church's sake, especially when the Church - its leaders and its members - feel obligated to continue not just preaching, but also speaking ill of those who leave the faith.

It's past time for open dialog.

Our big break

When you're a believing Mormon you're always looking for the big break, that event that catches the world's attention and gets people flocking en masse to the One True Church. Gordon Hinckley's interviews on 60 Minutes and the Larry King Show had everyone sure that finally the citizens of the United States would wake up to the Marvelous Work and Wonder of the Church! Hinckley's temple building blitz had us all wringing our hands in anticipation as well. Temples mean publicity, it's true, but they also mean God's conquered more land from which his holy powers of the Priesthood would be felt. The Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City provided an opportunity for numerous articles and reports throughout the world on Mormonism. Surely the Olympics would spread the True Gospel like never before! Then there was Mitt Romney running for president of the United States. A Mormon! A faithful member of the Church leading the most powerful nation on earth! Our time had finally come. Let's not forget the "I am a Mormon" publicity campaign! The nations of the world were obviously ready to learn at our feet. We should build a mall for our throngs of visitors and interested parties...

The reality is that none of these events have created a miraculous surge of conversions to the Church. The only surge in numbers we've seen recently came after the Church lowered the minimum age required to serve a mission and the number that surged was simply the number of missionaries in the field, but not the number of converts.

Most Mormons get over the disappointment of nothing exciting ever happening with the Church. We're very good at recovering our faith and adjusting our gaze back up to the horizon when current events fail to produce significant results. We don't let doubts hold us down. Our day will come.

The power of PR

Of all the responses I have seen to the Church's recent statement about the banning of black people from the Priesthood and the temple, Denver Snuffer's speaks most directly to Mormon understanding. It looks like Tommy might actually get a chance to (re)write some scripture before he's relieved of his post!