Why I think the leaders of the LDS Church made a mistake.

These last few days have been very tumultuous for me. And if you are Mormon, or know what Mormon is, you probably understand why.

There have been a lot of arguments, from both sides of a very shocking policy change regarding homosexual couples and their children by the Mormon church.

Aren't familiar? The Mormons, or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, recently instituted a change in their official policy regarding the children of same-sex unions: they are not allowed the blessing with a name in infancy which would add their name to church records or the ordinance with baptism which would confirm their membership in the church.

Why? That has been the big debate. Church apologists and sympathizers maintain it is in an effort of love. That it is for the protection of these delicate children, to not confuse them or ask them to choose between their family and God at a young and vulnerable age. Once they are 18, they are permitted to petition the First Presidency for membership, providing they disavow their parent's union in writing.

Critics of the policy maintain this is not protection at all, as they ultimately will choose their family or the church and have to disavow the family they were reared in. At 14 or at 18, it is a devastating choice to make simply to be counted with god's sheep.

Apologists then say they know the prophet speaks for god and this new policy comes by revelation. Strangely, critics remember certain passages of scripture that are in direct conflict with this new policy.

"Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not"Christ said. He often said to become as a little child as well. Forbidding children entrance into the church goes against Christ's counsel. LDS members believe man will be punished for his own sins, and not for Adam's transgression. The doctrine that ensues is that children cannot be held accountable for their parents actions. They believe each person is responsible for their own actions and in charge of their own agency. Not allowing children of gay individuals membership is in direct conflict with this doctrine.

Then the LDS members call for a cease fire. To be allowed to worship however they like, and to not have their faith attacked. They ask to step off social media and embrace our fellow man physically.

This one bothers me significantly. In an age of media, it is just not realistic. Social media is how we communicate in the modern age. You can't just hop on a plane to visit someone you would like to speak to, or go door to door sharing your ideas. Social media is how we learned about this new policy in the first place. It was never meant to be shared. There was no official statement or declaration. It was meant to be quietly, perhaps secretly, added to the official handbook and children of gay parents would learn upon requesting membership they were not eligible. How devastating would that be? To have found faith only to be denied entrance into the kingdom of god simply because of your parentage?

I began thinking about why this policy was instated for myself. Why would the church want to deny these children membership? Was it because they were afraid members would begin to see homosexuality as normal? Did the believe these kids would have a negative influence? Silly reasons, but entirely plausible when you consider the context. Then it dawned on me. When I read that they were even denied a blessing and name in the church, it became clear.

When a child receives a name and blessing in the LDS church, their name is added to the official church record. They are not an official member yet, but they are on the record. And so are their parents. That was it. If they blessed the infant of a gay couple, that gay couple would need to be listed as parents. And then a church that maintains homosexuality is a sin, and only traditional marriage is sanctioned of god, would have a gay union on their official records. It would go completely against a doctrine they have been defending with great zeal for several years.

Then I began thinking about the apology that it is for the child's protection, and they are more mature at 18 and better able to decide if they want to become a member. Children born into the church, or who arrive in the gospel by way of heterosexual parentage, are eligible for baptism at the age of accountability, which is referenced in the Book of Mormon as age 8. I remember being 8, and then as an adult interacting with 8 year olds. Some of them still believe in Santa Claus, and most of them still play make believe. How is this appropriate to ask an 8 year old from a heterosexual union, or single parent home, to make this decision when you say a child of a gay union is not capable of it? If this is the argument, the First Presidency should come out with an official declaration indicating all members must be at least 18 or older in order to be granted baptism in the church.

Through all of this, I have had many negative interactions. Sharing my views has only been offensive to people defending the faith. Stating facts have been misconstrued as scorn and insults. I spoke to one person who said this revelation came from god about Blacks and the priesthood. He told me I insulted him by saying Blacks weren't denied the priesthood in the early church, because it went against god's will. I admit, I have been very confused by people's reactions. By their extreme loyalty and sometimes ill placed justifications of how this doesn't actually harm. I've also had many conversations with my LGBTQ friends. Not one of them welcomed this policy. Every single one of them was saddened, offended, and discouraged. How can this truly be a policy of love when it is hurting so many people it would directly affect? We've heard so many apologies from straight members. We've seen one apology from a gay member, but I believe this poor brother has been so brainwashed into believing his biologic condition is truly a sin, that he has no choice but to defend the Brethren.

The bottom line for me? I don't think god exists. And I've received a lot of flack for it in my view of this new policy. I've had members ask me why it matters if god doesn't exist? Tell me I have no right to have an option since I don't believe. The bottom line is I EXIST. At least I think I do. And WE exist. Just because I don't think god exists doesn't mean I am heartless. Doesn't mean I think we should commit mass suicide because life is pointless. Here we are. We exist. I think we should work on building each other up, including everyone, being kind and compassionate without the promise of an eternal reward no one has any evidence of. I am kind because I want to be. I am mean because I want to be. I don't have an invisible entity pushing me along in my actions. So why does it matter? Because I want it to. And the wellbeing of my gay friends and their families is important to me. They deserve happiness and fair treatment. They deserve all of the privileges and right I enjoy. And while I don't agree with the Church, they deserve to worship god in it if they want to.

Please, take a moment and read the sad responses from members and nonmembers alike who are upset, confused, betrayed, and saddened. Do not sit in your tower glowering down at everyone who has been negatively impacted thinking they simply don't have enough faith. And that you just know that the prophet is right. It was meant to be secret. Remember that. And remember, no one is responsible for your choices but you. You wouldn't want your life opportunities to be dictated by someone else's actions. Don't enforce that on others, just because you don't agree with the sexuality of their parents. We don't choose our parents. We don't always choose our circumstances. But we do choose how we react. And how we move forward.

I propose we stand up against this policy that supports a hateful attitude and work towards being loving and inclusive. Not blind and exclusive. These are real people, real families, real LOVE. And there are people being hurt by the LDS prejudice and blind loyalty. Let's help put a stop to it.

Women and the Gospel

Recently, a friend of mine made a post on Facebook questioning why women seem to take a secondary role in religion. Mormon Christianity in particular.

Her post was a little sad, reflecting on something I hadn't thought about. She said, as a mother, it would be incredibly sad to not have her children talk to her. That if they ever called home, they only spoke to her husband, and gave him credit for their life and achievements.

In Mormon doctrine, there is an obscure little bit about a Heavenly Mother, a partner to Heavenly Father or God. Her first mention was in a hymn entitled "Oh My Father" by Eliza R. Snow. It wasn't widely accepted at the time, or even spoken of. And even now, in LDS doctrine, members are encouraged not to speak of a heavenly mother, not to pray to her, or teach any doctrine about her. This is mainly because there is no clear doctrine, revelations, or information regarding a heavenly mother, other than if families are eternal and we seal a man and woman on earth, it only makes sense that she exists.

I was taught as a child that the reason we don't speak of heavenly mother is because it is god's way of protecting her. And keeping people from abusing and taking her name in vain. It is out of love that god has kept heavenly mother from her children.

Now, let me clarify something. I don't believe in LDS doctrine any longer. So the things I'm speaking about aren't necessarily of great value to me personally, other than to reason through some things I had enormous problems with as a member.

I always had a problem with patriarchy and male divine authority. Growing up, it bothered me severely. As a little girl, I hated not being able to go topless, having to run home to pee while my boy friends peed in the woods. How I had to sit in sacrament meeting while the boys passed the sacrament. How only men seemed to lead. And women got stupid callings, like nursery and primary and music coordinator. Sure sure, there were young woman's presidents, and relief society presidents, but who did they defer to in money and authority? The bishop. A man.

I remember having a conversation about this very subject when I was a newly married girl. I was mad, and talking to my dad about it because I thought maybe he'd understand. He gave me some counsel I thought was great at the time, and now just bugs me. He told me I'd never be truly happy until I embraced my role as a woman, wife and mother. And then he told me to quite worrying about the house being perfectly clean or how long my husband was out fishing. Those were good bits of advice :)

Having grown up LDS, my brain was conditioned to find meaning and contentedness in motherhood. So when I had my first son, I felt fulfilled. And, after some one-sided discussions about roles and jobs, I because a full-time stay at home mom. Looking back, we see the error of our ways now, but then, we were just following the prophet. Women stay home and have babies. Men work.

Having left, or nearly left the Mormon church now, I feel a little more intellectually free to think about these subjects. Like, the role of women in eternity. If what we are taught in the Mormon church now is true, families are forever, and the person you are sealed to is your partner for eternity. So, following that doctrine, and adding that man is now as god once was {King Follet discourse by Joseph Smith}, god probably has a wife, or wives. But this woman, or women, who birthed all the children of the earth who have existed, remain unspoken of. Is that the eternal fate that awaits faithful women of the LDS church?

Silent partners if you will. They make the babies, but god gets the glory. And god gets the prayers, and the authority. And heavenly mother, well, she gets to remain unseen, unspoken of, and disregarded. In fact, in most Christian faiths, she doesn't even exist.

Is that the eternal fate I want for myself? HELL NO! I don't want that for myself, my mother, or my sisters. What an incredible disservice to the intellect, talent, and unique personalities of women. We are sentient beings. We have brains. We have ideas. We can act in positions of power just as well as any man can. We can be mothers and we can have careers. It makes absolutely no sense for a woman to be successful in this life only to become a silent servant in the next.

The excuse of "god is protecting heavenly mother" is a horrible and sexist copout. It further exploits the chauvinistic view that women are weak and need to be protected. What LDS members fail to remember is that a woman deity would be above hurt, would be above sorrow, would be above offense. As a celestialized and glorified being, her name in vain would have as much bearing on her as god's name in vain has on him. She doesn't need protection. And if she is his eternal companion, she deserves recognition, particularly if she put in the majority of the work in the bearing of souls.

But, god will have no other gods before him. God is a jealous god. Makes sense. He hides his wife in the back corners of eternity, pats his daughters on the head patronizingly reminding them they are of value but only in the home and raising children, and lets men do his biding.

So I am very sorry. But even in LDS doctrine, it all boils down to sexist chauvinism, and exercising control over women. Even a perfect, glorified, deity female has to answer to a male. Where is the partnership, equality, and respect there? It doesn't exist.

Like I said, I no longer believe in LDS doctrine, but reasoning through a few of these things, I hope others will begin to see through it too. It's harmful, particularly to women. Ladies, don't let men define you. Stand on your own two feet. Joy in your success and accomplishments, be they family or career. You are important, you are valuable. And not just because you have a uterus and can grow babies. You are more than your body. You are more than your biology. Do not let anyone convince you otherwise.

Guns don't kill, people kill, guns just make it easier and more effective

I will admit, this is a subject I'm not super knowledgeable about, but I'm very opinionated about.

I am 100% for gun control.

One of my favorite movies growing up, don't laugh, was The American President.  Call me sentimental, but something about old people romance is just incredibly cute and sweet to me, even as a 12-16 year old girl. But there was always a speech that stood out to me, and when he says "I'm going to get the guns" it was so powerful. And I kept thinking, why don't we do that now? Granted, media coverage of mass shootings wasn't as avid as it is now, and violence was a little less glorified when I was a kid, than it is now. And video games are a lot more visually graphic now than when I was a kid.

But yes, I always loved the president's speech about gun control, we have real problems and we need real people to solve them. Its wonderful.

So why can't we as a nation realize we have problems and solve them? It seems like the answers are so simple, so why can't the solutions be that simple as well? I realize having a cohesive society is complicated, and new policy takes time. But this seems to be a matter of great importance, and maybe we should declare a state of national emergency. How many children need to be senselessly murdered before we make a change?

I have a friend. Wonderful person. Very kind, very sweet, very selfless. She was in a bad marriage, and eventually got a divorce. The man was literally insane, she had a restraining order against him, and she pleaded with the courts to take away his ability to own firearms. Eventually, my friend remarried. A man she loved, and felt safe with, and had a very happy marriage with. She went out one night with her granddaughter, her new husband stayed at home. Her ex-husband entered her home looking to kill her, and when he discovered she wasn't there, shot and killed her new husband.

They had been married for about two years.

There was an autistic boy, nonverbal and living in a group home. One night, he snuck out to presumably go home. He got lost, and tried entering the wrong home on his street. The neighbor, without calling the police or trying to find out who the boy was, shot and killed him.

He knew the boy as a child.

There was a little boy who was playing with his little brother. The two found their parents guns and decided to play cops and robbers. The older brother shot and killed his little brother.

How is he going to grow up knowing he murdered his brother?

There was a woman who got a gun purse for her birthday from her husband. A cute little purse she could keep her concealed weapon in. She was shopping for groceries with her two year old little boy. The little boy, somehow, was able to get into the compartment of the purse that held the gun, and shot and killed his mother in the store.

How will that father explain the boy's mother's death to him?

There have been movie theaters, malls, schools, recruitment centers, post offices, and places of worship that have been turned into scenes of mass murder, because some one used a gun.

But it's the person that kills, not the gun right?

Imagine just for a moment if in any of those instances, the murderer was using a knife, instead of a gun.

Taking away gun rights won't solve the problem. People who want them will still get them.

I can't disagree with that. But would it be more difficult? Yes. I believe so.

The second amendment was created in a different time. It was for the purpose of the people being able to form a militia in the event that the government over step their bounds. In a time when the general population could easily overthrow the government. Let's be honest, that is not possible now. Anyone who thinks their hand guns, rifles or shotguns could protect them against drones, tanks, bombs are deluded.

Then comes the self defense argument. I need a gun in case someone assaults me, or enters my home. Let's imagine for a moment, could we, if our nation had stricter gun ownership laws. Making it more difficult for people without sound mind to obtain a gun. There may be less instance of violence at gun point. As a woman, I'd carry mace or pepper spray before I ever carried a gun because if you're not a good shot, it's not going to be effective. If mace can bring down a bear, it can bring down an intruder.

But guns can kill from a distance. Yes! They can! And they do!

We have allowed our gun problem to get out of hand. Everyone and their dog owns a gun. And everyone and their dog is trigger happy. Kill or be killed. You come on my property you will be shot. Why? Why have we cultivated and allowed this mentality to grow? Why have we allowed savage video games that glorify gun violence be played by impressionable children? You can regenerate in a game, you can't regenerate in life.

Why have we allowed the media to make such enormous deals out of mass shootings? Why have we inversely created gun violence hero worship?

It's a plague on our society. It's a scourge. It is a virus. It's deadly. And you've got a bunch of rich wing conservatives clinging to their rifles on their porches asserting it's them against the world and they'll be damned if the distrustful government ever take their guns away.

I'm not calling for a complete removal of firearms. That would be impossible. Not to mention my dad hunted for our meat growing up. Guns have a time and a place. But just having a handgun in your nightstand on the off chance an intruder might enter your home is ridiculous. It's unnecessary. We need better control. We need to license ownership. We need regulations on purchasing and registering. Not anyone SHOULD be able to own a gun. It should not be a right. It should be a privilege, that should come after education, certification and licensing. We need to stop the insanity.

I am much less worried about an intruder in my home who may want to steal my TV or rape me, than I am about an insane man entering my child's school and killing everyone in the class. I am less worries about someone holding me at gun point in a back alley than I am of shopping in a mall and being shot to death by a religious radical.

I don't know the exact or the best solution. But I know that it needs to be a topic of political discussion, and that our legislators need to work towards a solution, and do it quickly before another mother has to burry her child because some insane person decided to shoot them to death.


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence?CMP=share_btn_fb

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_after_connecticut_shooting_could_australia_s_laws_provide_a.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics

https://img.njdc.com/media/media/2015/09/01/wholechart.png
http://www.latimes.com/.../la-oe-hemenway-guns-20150423...

Why did Laban need to Die?

The Book of Mormon starts out with an interesting story about the family and life of one young man, Nephi. In the course of the first few chapters, their life is uprooted by the local's desire to kill Nephi's father, and so they flee by the voice of god. When Nephi's father realizes, oops, they failed to bring scriptures along, god sends Nephi and his brothers on a quest back to Jerusalem to retrieve the original copy of the scriptures. They happen to be in the possession of a man named Laban. Why? I have no idea. He must have been a librarian, or curator, or inherited them.

Nephi and his brothers try every method they can think of to secure the scriptures, written on bound brass plates. From asking nicely to offering money. Laban is insulted, and threatens to kill them by their third unsolicited visit to take his property. I might be a teensy bit annoyed at this point as well. So Nephi and his brothers leave, defeated. His older brothers get carried away and beat the crap out of him. And after a bit, he decides to go back and do it himself.

Low and behold, he stumbles upon Laban, drunken to the point of unconsciousness in the street. God says, okay, here is his, kill him and then you can take the plates.

"Nephi Kills Laban" photo credit www.lds.org

Wait, What? You want me to kill him? Of course Nephi was uncomfortable. Not only was this an insane request, it went against the commandments, and probably his own personal morality.  God said, it's better that he perishes than your whole people parish in unbelief. So Nephi does the deed, takes Laban's clothes, steals the plates, and takes the book keeper along.

-_-

So, god commanded murder to get a book. Ah, but not just any book, scripture. The word of god, dictated to his prophets and transcribed onto the plates.

-_-

Written down by prophets.

-_-

Anyone else seeing the irony here? God asked Nephi to kill an innocent man because he didn't want to give up scriptures, when Nephi had his very own prophet daddy at home who could have easily written down the books of scripture through revelation from god.

Nephi also had the option of noticing Laban drunk, gone to the library, created a diversion to get the book keeper out and stolen them. He ended up taking the dang book keeper along anyways, maybe he could have just lied and said Laban said he could borrow them. Or offered the guy his freedom up front and they could have left together. Or! Laban was drunk, he still could have taken his clothes and impersonated him.

So why did Laban need to die?

Obedience. God is obsessed with obedience. Not morality, obedience. God has defied what is commonly accepted as ethical and moral for the sake of obedience. 

Example: Nephi and Laban

Example: Israelites and Canaanites (The children of Cane were thought to be the a fallen race, and the children were punished for the disobedience of the father. And they were made to be slaves, killed as children outside of the covenant, and just all around poorly treated)

Example: The genocide of the Hittites (god commanded the slaughter of every man woman child infant and animal {save the virgins who were spoils of war}, which is unethical and amoral. How can we say he was a loving god when he was happy to slay babies and women?)

Example: Esther marrying out of the covenant (marrying outside of the covenant was a nono, and subject to shunning, banishment, stoning, disowning, loss of birthright etc. And yet Esther had to marry outside of the covenant to be queen and get the king to not kill her people. So it was marital coercion in which god acted out his will that time around)

Example: Young pregnant virgin (do you really think Mary had a choice in the story? not only was she unmarried, she was under age, if she was only espoused, she was near to or just going through puberty. Which means her body wasn't physically mature to carry a child. And in her patriarchal culture, she would have been legally stoned to death for a pregnancy out of wedlock. If the sanctity of marriage and sex was so important to god, why did he bring his chosen son to the world in such a repulsive manner?)

Example: death to every first born in egypt (murder is bad, especially innocent babies, not that all were babies, but how many were children under the age of accountability who had committed no wrong? all to prove a point to the Pharaoh?) 

Example: Polygammy (so many times in the scriptures it say to have more than one wife is amoral, it's also unethical and unfair treatment of women, but church members were called to obey this "law" even though it went against the current laws of the land)

Example: slavery (slaves obey your masters, where is the morality or agency here?)

Example: Job (the agency of all of the people around Job was essentially taken away and morality thrown to the wind to show Job's obedience. Why did they not have a choice? If church members believe Satan can only temp and not force, how was he able to "tempt" so effectively everyone in Job's life? It seems like god had a hand in it to prove a point that Job was in fact blindly obedient to a fault)

Example: women are property (how is this moral or ethical? Of course, this isn't current, this is biblical, but it is still sick and wrong. And it was sanctioned by god. How could a god treat his "precious daughters" as property?)

Example: the flood that killed every man, woman, child, suckling baby, animal and insect in existence except one family. (I don't think this needs explanation......)

-_-

So it has never been a question of morality. Which is strange, because LDS doctrine affirms eternal laws and eternal morality, or objectivism. When their own doctrine is the antithesis of objectivism. It's all subjective. It all changes. Well, they say, god makes the rules, god can break the rules. Which also goes against the doctrine of god is bound by eternal laws.

So what are these eternal laws? Gravity? Evolution? I always thought that god made commandments based on objectivism, like murder is always wrong. But it seems like the scriptures are littered with god sanctioned killing. Holy wars, pity killing, scarifies, punishment. Don't kill, unless god tells you to, then its okay. That sure opens up a can of worms allowing people to claim absolution in god's name.

So again, it has never been about morality. It has been about obedience to god's subjectivity. Call me crazy, but I think that is ridiculous.

Why did Laban have to die for Nephi to prove his obedience? Why was that important to his eternal salvation? Let's take it a bit further. Why is any experience necessary for eternal salvation? If god was a fair god, he'd make it the same across the board. Instead, he lets some children be raped, some nursing mothers starve and watch their children die, some people suffer through cancer, some people get shot up in a public setting by a maniac, some people go to "war" and be away from their family because the price of oil is going up. Its sick. It really is. Why are any of these experiences necessary to gain salvation? And why does one person get to have the trial of living in a lavish mansion and not being able to find the right brand of caviar, while another wastes away from cholera? 

Well, god knows what each of us need. Tell me please! Explain this to me how a 10 year old girl in Bangladesh needs to work long hours each day in a fire hazard factory getting paid less than 10 cents to sew my shirt? Why is it necessary for that five year old boy in the monastery to be assaulted by his superior every night? Why does a morbid elderly woman need to "endure" to the end as she slowly bleeds to death in her brain?

Either god is a sadistic narcissist, or he simply doesn't exist. I'd much rather not have god exist, than know that he does and happily allows and often commands the evils of the world. 

Do I believe the Book of Mormon is true? No, so I don't believe the story of Laban and Nephi. I do believe it points out a very sick part of religion though, particularly the LDS religion, where obedience to god (the prophet in charge at the time) is what secures your salvation. And we mustn't forget the gobs of money required to fuel god's empire and build multimillion dollar malls and invest stock in word of wisdom fails like Burger King.

Lean not unto thine own understanding

Human understanding has been in a constant state of flux, of growth. Where originally, early hominids may have ascribed natural phenomenon to superstition, now we are able to understand with remarkable clarity how the world works around us. Is it perfect? No. Are there some things we still don't understand? Yes. Should we immediately jump to faith based claims and answers? Let's think about it for a minute.

One of my very favorite episodes of Avatar: The Last Airbender happens in season 1. It is called "The Fortune Teller". It features a new character, Aunt Wu, who makes predictions about her village. Main character Sokka, who believes whole heartedly in science and reason, can't stand the blind ignorance of the people in this village, and thinks Aunt Wu is a crack pot. He meets someone who asks if science and reason can explain why is rains. He says yes it can. Another person says Aunt Wu told him he would be wearing red shoes when he met his true love. Sokka asks how often he has workn red shoes. And the man answers every day since the prediction. When Aang discovers the long dormant volcano above the village is about to erupt, he tries to tell the village. They respond that Aunt Wu said the volcano would not destroy the village. So Aang and his friends resort to trickery to get the village to believe in a false prediction by Aunt Wu. Eventually they save the village, and the villagers respond by saying, well, Aunt Wu's prediction came true.

So there is a little bit of both sides here. Katara, Sokka's sister, maintains that there are just some things that cannot be explained. Sokka, believes there is an explanation for everything. While Aunt Wu made a vague prediction that did eventually come true, it was self fulfilling to those who understood it. They made it happen because they were told it would happen. The explanation for the village not being destroyed is simple, they made a plan and kept the village safe.

There are things that cannot be easily explained, either because we don't have the tools to understand it, or we haven't discovered the answer yet. Example, gravity. We know it exists. We can feel its effects. We are pretty sure it will continue to exist. What we don't know is how. Or why. We have ideas, and hypothesis', but we still cannot explain it. 

Religion has taken these "unexplainable" things and filled in the gaps of our understanding with deity.  We can't explain, therefore god. We don't understand why, therefor supreme being. We don't know how, therefore creator. It's an easy way to explain things we simply can't fathom. And it's a comforting thought as well. 

Vikings had an interesting way to explain the eclipse. They thought a wolf creature swallowed the moon, and that a god made him spit it back out. Ancient Greece and Rome had a plethora of gods to explain the good and horrible things that went on in the world. Zeus was a crazed eternal being who enjoyed wreaking havoc on humanity and sleeping with it's maidens. Ancient Israel had Jehovah, a warrior who would save them from their enemies. Different cultures have nature gods to explain volcanos, rain, the harvest etc....it is a common ideology throughout the history of mankind. It was our way of explaining the world around us in the best way we could. But as our brains evolved, and our understanding improved, and our ability to research and think expanded, we have been able to solve in part many of the mysteries aforeto ascribed to deity.

However, as we have trended away from supernatural superstitions, there have always been those in religious power who have feared what this would do to their positions. Think about it, if you will for a moment, what those in religious power stand to lose. The dark ages, for instance, were "dark" because of religion. There were theocracies that kept the people in a stagnate constant of ignorance. Then, the Renaissance, when men began to question and move away from the church. Scientific knowledge exploded in the 19th century with men like Darwin and Edison. 

Still, the trend in religion is that the knowledge of man is prideful. And to have faith in god about things we can't understand, instead of finding a way to explain them. "My ways are not your ways, neither are my thoughts your thoughts" coins a famous scripture in Isaiah. In the Mormon church, there is a scripture that states "lean not unto thine own understanding" and another in the Book of Mormon that says " O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken notunto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God."

Basically, the Mormon church counsels against education while advocating for it at the same time. It's a paradoxical problem that lands a lot of otherwise faithful members into a stereotype of prideful. To think you understand something of your own merit is frowned upon, and all the credit must go to god. Though it is taught that god frowns upon excessive education because then it makes you question his existence. And then that is bad, because the business of religion will lose its patrons, which will lose it money, and ultimately lead to its demise. So one thing, in the Mormon church, they are sure to reinforce is "read from the best books". Meaning the ones they say are okay. And not to put much stock in the knowledge of man. Which is completely ludicrous because the knowledge of man is what has made technology and medicine for example what they are today. There was a time when devils were being cast out of children who had mental retardation. And when homosexuals were stoned. Now we understand biology and that it's not a devil that causes down syndrome, but a chromosomal problem. We understand that evolution is responsible for earths diversity. We understand gravity is what makes the sun rise and set in our sky. We understand the earth was not created first, and we also understand that people can be easily swayed by the promise of eternal splendor, which is what makes it such a successful business.

I suppose that is another thing that bothered me severely. The very obvious aversion to knowledge, particularly knowledge that is employed on a daily basis to make our world function. And the way some religious people look down on the scholarly because of their academic success. It's unfortunate that an ignorant person's first response to the theory of evolution is "I don't come from no monkey". This demonstrates how little the understand about the concept, and how poisonous religious counsel can be in keeping otherwise intelligent individuals from understanding the world around them.

No, I was Not Offended

A popular notion in the LDS church is that people leave due to offense, or hypocrisy. There is a story that is told in Sunday school and Sacrament meetings about two women in the early days of the church. The full version of the story of Thomas B Marsh can be read here: http://emp.byui.edu/satterfieldb/quotes/ThomasBMarsh.htm.

The moral of the story ends up being, you shouldn't leave the church because someone offends you. People are human and imperfect. The gospel isn't.

A lot of members seem to think those who leave do so because they were offended. Or they didn't like the hypocrisy of members. Or they thought the leadership had problems. Or they weren't adequately fellowshipped. In short, they had a bad experience in the church which lead to their ultimate dissociation.

And here's the kicker for me. I was not offended.

Nope. I actually had a very good experience. With the members at least. I don't think anyone ever treated me badly. Sure my visiting teachers were flakes, and my home teachers never really came around. But to be fair, I wasn't the best visiting teacher anyways. Nope, I liked getting dressed up and going to sing hymns. I even liked answering questions and teaching lessons. Wasn't much for public praying, but I did like going to church.

When my husband starting questioning, I was overcome with fear. Even though I had questions too, my upbringing taught me to put them on a shelf and ignore them. There were things about the church I didn't like, but I had come to terms with the fact that God made the rules, and I had no say in it. When I couldn't keep the questions on a shelf anymore, I first sought answers from the church and it's members.

Here is where things got nasty. Now, in my experience, as long as you are a good member, a good sheep, everyone is nice to you. The minute you start to question, a figurative A gets painted on your forehead and you are labeled apostate. Maybe not explicitly, but you are viewed differently. Everything you say is offensive, or apostate, or sign seeking. It's hard to discuss questions with avid members of the faith because they are afraid of them. They are conditioned to be. "Only read from the best books". "Do not engage in anti-Mormon literature or media". "Are you a part of any organization in direct conflict with the teachings of the church?" It's very much a matter of fear and control. The minute you start to turn away, it gets ugly.

So no, while I was a believing member, I never had a bad experience. Not to say that's the case for everyone,  but it was the case for me. I didn't leave the church because I was offended. I left the church because the gospel didn't make sense. The teachings were paradoxical and immoral. The god that I was taught existed was unethical. Women were treated as inferior and second class (they will tell you this isn't true and defend it to the death). But in a patriarchal organization where women are put on a pedestal, but counseled to stay home and have children, not given church wide leadership positions of authority, not allowed to hold the priesthood, and forbidden to participate in church finances, I think that speaks for itself.

What's most difficult for me now, is how I am perceived by people who are still in the LDS church. I am lost, I am a sinner. I left because I was offended, or I left because I wanted to sin. I am a weak link. I was easily overcome by the devil. I lost the spirit. I stopped doing the things that were important. I was seduced by the lies of the world. My children will suffer for my mistakes. My family will be in a constant state of sorrow over my lost soul. I will always be seen as the lost sheep, or the "maybe" prodigal son. It's depressing.

What I would love more than anything is to share my experience with just one member of my family who will look at me and say, "ah, you might be on to something here." But none of them will. It leaves me feeling very alone, isolated, outcast. Especially when I think of how they perceive me. "We love you" translates into "we love you because we have to, but we don't approve, we are disappointed, saddened, and upset".

One thing leaving religion does is make you realize you do things because you want to. Not because any supernatural force compels you to, but because you want to. I love my kids for the sake of loving them. I help someone in need not for the promise of heaven, but because it brings me happiness. It all becomes very different when your motivation is yourself, and not an unseen god who promises heaven to the faithful and damnation to the weak.

But no, I did not leave to sin. I did not leave because someone hurt my feelings. I let because I saw through the lie. And my integrity wouldn't allow me to live it any longer.

The Thing That Got Me Thinking

Disclaimer: Most of this is my own opinions and feelings, I am not a scholar, but I do like to think.

This is the first in a series of posts where I will discuss some of my thoughts on leaving religion.

About this time last year I was spending a lot of time on Netflix. My subject of interest? The Amish. Why? I could relate to the people leaving.

I was feeling very alone. Very ashamed. Very confused. For several months I had been wrestling with questions. Some that I had in my youth, some I had run into as an adult, as a wife, as a mother, as a woman in this country. No one had answers for me. None of the people I trusted to know. They had excuses, they had platitudes, they had no idea. But it's okay, they told me, God will reveal all things to us after this life.

It wasn't enough. The god I had been taught exists said he wouldn't keep things from anyone. He'd reveal the truths to the penitent, to the humble, to those truly seeking. Never before in my life had I been caught in such a vice. I found myself on my knees every night. I had an ongoing dialog with a god I couldn't see, from sunup till sundown, cooking dinner, taking a shower, watching Glee. It never ceased. But it was very one-sided. I never felt anything that I didn't create myself. I had no visions, or ah-hah moments. No feelings of peace or satisfaction. Just confusion and betrayal. I was doing everything right. Fasting, praying, studying. Asking my parents, my bishop, my home teachers, I even wrote a letter to the First Presidency. No one could help me.

Fueled by a desire to prove my husband wrong, I found myself researching these difficult questions on my own. But the more I researched, the more I began to see, I was wrong. And I never thought I was. I never opened up myself the possibility. I decided it was time to start looking for the answers to the questions I had been afraid to ask.

And this was the thing that got me thinking. If god loves me so much, why did he let me marry a man who would fall away? Which led to, what is agency? As taught in the LDS church, agency is the gift to act of your own free will. To make choices. But, god knows everything. The Bible and the Book of Mormon are clear, god is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. He sees all, he knows all, he is over all. He has a hand in every event, he has a plan for every individual, and nothing goes against his plan. Trials are the refiners fire. God doesn't give us what we can't handle. God knows us and knows what we will do. 

So, what is this agency? How can any person presume to think they are in control of their own destiny when god knew all along what they would do? And this god, knowing what we would do, created the rules that would ultimately put us in heaven or hell. His hand in all things guides us to our ultimate demise or exaltation. Wait, what?!

The moment this dawned on me, I remember feeling sick. Heavy, like a huge weight had just fallen on top of my head. It was too much. God was responsible for everything. God was responsible for people going to hell. God allowed murder and rape, god sanctioned murder and rape. It's in the Bible! Agency meant god valued a person's right to assault a child over that child. But it also meant that god allowed that child to suffer, and put that person who assaulted them in hell. Even though he knew it would happen, did nothing to prevent it, and made the rules that would ultimately decide the eternal fate of both parties.

How can we believe in such a cruel deity? Who stands by and watches violence, deceit, war, starvation and abuse? We use tag lines like "god doesn't give us more than we can handle" and "god is in charge of our destiny". So god gives little boys rape? And god gives rapists their victims? Clearly, they both needed it. But some things you can't come back from, or repent from, and for those things, you end up in eternal damnation.

It is wrong! The god the majority of Christianity believes in is immoral, he is unethical, and he is a pervert. He sees everything? Then he is the biggest porn addict in the universe! And what's worse, he does nothing to stop it. And he thrives on it. People who are succeeding don't need god. So he relishes in failure, in defeat, in pain, in anguish, in abuse. And his favorite thing to reinforce: it is your fault. This is on you. You need to change. You need to repent. He makes the sins, and he makes the way to repent from those sins. Hmm.

Once this settled, I was able to examine other things. Like how god views women. Or other races. Which is inferior. How god commanded murder, and genocide. How he essentially committed statutory rape of an under age, unmarried minor in a patriarchal society who's practice was to stone unmarried women with child. He killed countless Egyptians to make a point to one man. He commanded his chosen people to kill every man woman, child, infant and animal (whilst the virgins could be acceptable spoils of conquest). He allowed the torment Job to teach Satan a lesson. Anyone ever wonder about Job's wife? Or his kids? Did they have any say in what happened? It sounds to me like the lesson of agency was lost in that story. Or Esther? They were commanded not to marry outside of the covenant, and yet she was told by god she was supposed to. Abraham, after years of wanting, finally had a child. God commanded him to kill him and then said, oh, just kidding! What a traumatic experience for father and son! Just to teach him a lesson? God killed every living thing on the planet in a flood! God told Nephi in the Book of Mormon to murder a defenseless drunken man lying in the street so he could steal a book. People! Wake up! This is the god you believe in! The one you pray to to find the right pair of shoes or to help pass your math test. This is the god you believe will heal your cancer, or turn your child back to the light. This is the same god who, according to scripture, has murdered, toyed with, and damned regular people like you and me. 

This is just one thing that I was finally able to think of and come to terms with:  the Christian god is not good. When I realized that, I felt like a part of me had died. I felt so lost and alone, like all those hours spent praying were the wasted hours of a crazy person talking to an imaginary friend. If you could call such a god a friend. A  being who healed the Christian doctor who was infected with ebola, but not the child he was caring for. Who's prayer was answered? And why? And why is that right?

There is so much more than this, but this was the starting point for me. Maybe it can be for you too.

Make no mistake, losing religion isn't easy. Leaving it is even harder, especially when it is so close to the ones you love. Which is why I identified with the Amish so well, leaving Mormonism. It's devastating. It's sad. It's heartbreaking. Often times, people like me are painted in a poor light. With associations of "she wanted to sin, she is proud, she is a know-it-all, she hates god for some reason". No, that's not it at all. I simply started thinking about some of these issues and found that as I did, logical things became clear. And I even wondered how I couldn't see it before. Do not make the mistake of labeling those who have left the faith as "sinners" or "offended" or "lazy". If anything it is more difficult not to believe.