We hope and expect to come back, and we might even post an interesting news item from time to time, but you’ll need to find another place to talk. That shouldn’t be a problem, given that there are about a bazillion Mormon-related blogs and bulletin boards. If you are the kind of person who is more comfortable in a stimulating Sunday School discussion, you might try By Common Consent. If you find the cultural hall more comfortable than the chapel, try visiting New Order Mormon for its discussion board. Or if you are on your way out of the building altogether, you might consider Main Street Plaza.

Thanks for visiting.

When I heard that idea, that absolute certainty and evil are the same thing, I couldn’t help but think of LDS lore. Remember the story about the suggestion that it might be better to make everyone do the right thing, so that all return to God, vs. the alternative that people have choices? Whether or not you believe that those two proposals were actually put forward in a heavenly council, it is an idea worth pondering. Choice is a basic Mormon ideal, and it seems more real to me when we are less certain. Certitude enhances meaning in one’s life, which has certain benefits, of course. But certitude also limits the number of alternatives we see, which impacts our ability to choose among our options.

Our individual preferences regarding certitude’s benefits (meaning in life) and its limitations (choice) might be one way that people in the cultural hall are different from those in the chapel. What do you think?

http://mormonsformarriage.com/

Comments are welcome, particularly if you have a related story to tell.

What do you think? Should we change the words to the Primary song from “Jesus Wants me for a Sunbeam” to “Jesus Loves Waterboarding”? I don’t remember… was it in the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus approved of physical pain as long as it wasn’t “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”

Sigh. What a world we live in.

http://signingforsomething.org/blog/

It’s a guide to writing letters in protest, and the folks running the site will even help print the letters and get them delivered if you don’t want to do it yourself.

I’d be interested in hearing of any other efforts.

In support of the amendment, I think that church members are being directed to www.protectmarriage.com .

By not deciding, I’m maintaining the status quo, which is the path of least resistance and least disruptive to my family.

By sitting on the fence, I get to work both sides of the fence. 

A huge part of this is my (self-perceived) place in the communities on both sides of the Mormon/DAMU divide.   I have a lot of my ego tied up in being Nanna P, DAMU denizen and pontificator.  Not as well known (but still someone people recognize) is Ann the Bloggernacler.  Shallow, but there it is … in both places, I’m “somebody.”  Without them, I just another working stiff. By staying on the fence I can be a welcome (beloved!) participant in both groups, as long as I adhere to the appropriate social norms for each (which is pretty easy to do, because I want to be liked). But because I’m on the fence, I won’t ever be wholly in either group.

And then of course there’s the really big inhibiting factor: fear. Fear of everything. Fear of being duped again. Fear of making the wrong decision. Fear of making a big change, but nothing really changing.

So because I am basically a coward, I’ll probably just stay here in the lawn chair at the crossroads for a while longer. There be dragons down those roads.

(This is probably my public navel-gazing quota for the year. Thanks for the space.)

There are a number of good reasons for staying. I like many of the people. The church is weird sometimes, but most Mormons are awesome. My husband is a faithful believer, and our little guy likes church a lot. I think it would be difficult for my husband and confusing for the kid if I stopped going. I’m pretty plugged in to the whole Mormon internet thing and I feel really connected there. Some of the doctrines, such as eternal marriage and the divine nature of the soul, are illuminating and exciting.

Lately, though, I’m starting to think that’s not enough - that I’m stunting myself by staying. I might make a pretty decent Christian in another church, but I’m a crappy Mormon. All my past efforts to the contrary, all my insights and hope notwithstanding, it just doesn’t work. The unique things that are absolutely central to a Mormon identity - modern prophets, the restoration, authority - are completely meaningless to me. The undercurrents of sexism and political conservatism drive me absolutely batty.

What bugs me most about this is that by not deciding I am still making a choice. By maintaining the status quo, I’m staying. In the past I’ve made the decision to stick it out, but I seem to come back and revisit that decision over and over. It’s like the only decision I can make that WILL stick is to leave.

This indecision’s bugging me.

Not able to pass up on an opportunity to make a joke about the nylon announcement–joking helps me cope, I found a movie photo from “The Graduate” of Anne Bancroft as Mrs. Robinson seducing Dustin Hoffman’s character. She is putting on her nylons in the scene and has her leg up in a classic pose. Well in my spoof, I wrote, …don’t forget to wear your nylons to church… or something like that. I sent it to a few of my closest friends. I noticed that nylons are generational. Few young women even own them. Do they make a woman more modest? I don’t think so. My husband doesn’t think so either. A man in my ward suggested that he could go down to the local sexually oriented lingerie store and buy “fishnet nylons for all the women in the ward who don’t have them.” He went on to say we could leave a box by the door of the church house, “to help the men out.”

Then more recently another announcement was made in our ward. It was that we shouldn’t bring our cell phones to church with us, and that we shouldn’t spend “too much time” with technology on the Sabbath. Hmmm. perhaps cutting out genealogy done on the internet, writing to your missionaries, family, calling on the phone, What? What happened to “TEACH correct principles and let them govern themselves…:” Joseph Smith. Teaching in generalities helps each of us to grow at our own pace and needs. Emphasizing trivial specifics on dress standards, leaves many feeling bewildered and unsure of their own worth. I had to smile at a recent enrichment night held in the church house. In our service project one less active sister wore short shorts and a spaghetti strap tank top. Was her service any less valued? How would she have felt if someone had said something about the inappropriateness of her dress? Does God value the service of a clean-shaven man any more than that of a man with a beard?

True principles apply to everyone. Each person can individually assess and apply accordingly. But when we stop teaching principles and teach meaningless standards, the Spirit is constrained. I feel a void in my life when leaders micromanage and forget “what matters most.” I go to church craving meaning and truth and come home with a hollowness that isn’t filled. I go to church hungry and come home starving or with nothing but a candy bar for sustenance. I urge a return to teaching principles. Let’s not “sacrifice that which matters most for that which matters least.” Also check this post: beneath the surface

In a discussion with my seminary teaching son about the importance of teaching correct principles and letting people apply that to their own circumstances, he mentioned this quote from Elder Scott: As you seek spiritual knowledge, search for principles. Carefully separate them from the detail used to explain them. Principles are concentrated truth, packaged for application to a wide variety of circumstances. A true principle makes decisions clear even under the most confusing and compelling circumstances. It is worth great effort to organize the truth we gather to simple statements of principle.

Elder Richard G. Scott “Aquiring Spiritual Knowledge”

http://nelsonseawright.bookofmormon.sgizmo.com/

All sides of the faith spectrum (true believers, inactives, ex-members, etc.) are welcome to participate.

We Mormons anthropomorphize God, calling him Heavenly Father, and seeing human characteristics in deity. Of course, in doing this we are following the Greeks and others throughout history. People seem to understand God in much the same way we understand each other. Maybe this is one of my problems with God.

Doing this worked well for me while I was younger. God appeared to be a larger-than-life version of my dear ol’ Dad. Loving; deeply concerned for me; always there… these words described both my earthly father and my heavenly one. And then, somewhere along the way, I realized that this didn’t work for me any longer. Amid the talk of a loving Father intimately concerned with us was the realization that not all fathers were good like mine. More disheartening, I saw that the father described in scripture sometimes seemed not to care for his children the way a father should. At least, not in a way that made sense to me. I questioned the way he took care of his children… or maybe I was questioning people’s rationalizations for the way their deity treated them.

Later, once I had children, I began to realize my own shortcomings as a dad. There have been times when my family, the people most important to me, have wanted my attention. And I wanted to give it to them, too, but I am human, so other things distracted me. I may have been preoccupied with work, or wrapped up in my own activities, thoughts and emotions… whatever the case, during those moments I give my family less of my self than I would like. Such is the nature of life these days. Our ideal self is not our real self, in part because we multi-task our way through the day in the hope of getting more done. We live life faster, but “faster” is not the same as “better.”

I don’t know how it works in the cosmos. Perhaps multi-tasking gets in the way in the Great Beyond. Maybe this explains the reason that answers to prayers seem slow in coming, or why the prayer for the trivial appears answered while the prayer to end someone’s agony is not. Or, maybe the inconsistency of it all is due to factors beyond the supernatural. God may be limited, indifferent, or not there at all. The next time I’m gazing at the starry night, I’ll think about this some more. Thinking about existence is an essential part of being human.

But first, I’ll implement my Mormon practicality. I’m going to remember some of the good things I learned from my father, tell him thanks, and work to give those things some how to my own children.

In honor of Father’s Day this Sunday, do something for someone that represents the best of fatherhood: Give them your attention and your love.

Sexism is rampant. Recently during a Clinton speech (someone will know where and when) a sign was held that said, “iron my shirts.” That kind of sexism is winked at, laughed at, and at times embraced. Television allows calling women “bitch” all the time. The word should not be used and next to one other word is about the most degrading thing to say about a woman. Political pundits often use the “b” word to describe Hillary Clinton. I’ve heard Mormon men call her a witch. Seriously, guys–we know what you really mean. Again we’ve made strides. Women have the world open to them and even the highest office in the nation, but still until we can eliminate the kind of language that demeans and is meant to keep women in their place we still have a long ways to go.

I grew up in the 70’s. Feminism was a dirty word in LDS society. ERA–equal rights amendment was suspect. We were taught that legislation that guaranteed what men (white men) took for granted was giving into Satanic beliefs, that equal rights for women would destroy the family. I still remember being angry when a phone surveyor called me in 1982 and asked to speak to the “head of the house.” When I answered that my husband and I were both the heads of the household, the woman actually got angry and told me that if I was married that my husband was the head of the household. I have no idea why I allowed myself to be entrapped by a narrow-minded woman who had bought into the common lingo of the time, but I did and found myself fuming with anger.

The church is still filled with sexism and it’s taught as God’s will and truth. Women are often divided on the issues most important to women, motherhood, equality, families, working, and so forth. We are our own worst enemy. Often women who must work or who choose to work outside the home judge women who stay at home and vice versa. This isn’t common just to Mormon women–Oprah did a whole show on it. It might as well have been a Relief Society discussion. The issues were the same, the arguments were the same, and the group was about as equally divided as I’ve seen in any church group.

I guess my point and I do have one is that we still have a ways to go when it comes to equality. Basically it just comes down to respect.  We should learn to be more kind, more accepting, more tolerant, and more willing to give people a chance. And all this means eliminating the kinds of language and actions that divide us, whether they be divisions on race, religion, or on gender. It’s my hope that this presidential race–no matter the outcome–will be one that brings us together.

1) To avoid the guilt that I initially felt upon disbelieving [early in my 20s], I recognized that everyone has their own form of Mormonism. Thanks to a great therapist. Everyone emphasizes something different-even the GAs. And there are even the crazies who use mormonism to justify their own hatreds [of foreigners, gays, working women, whatever]. I just provide the counterbalance to those who go off the right- wing end.

2) I consciously recognize what I do like and believe, and I think hard about how I can reconcile my personal beliefs with official beliefs. Not always possible-for examples I am fully in favor of gay civil rights. However, even the most anti-gay Mormon [Hi, Dad!] can’t cry foul when I talk about tolerance and love, straight out of the New Testament. Well, they can, but institutionally, I am on higher ground. I’m a passionate evolutionist-so in conversations, I just blithely ignore anything that indicates that my viewpoint is incompatible with any Mormon beliefs. It’s amazing how a brash, always positive, personality can work any situation. And then I go home and rant to my husband [seriously, how in this day and age can anyone NOT believe in evolution.-did the Enlightenment just never occur? Do we not have brains so that we can think?]

3) When I am called to talk or speak I look for some aspect of what I do believe in the source material. I then give my personal take on the source material-omitting the ideas that are clearly Mormon-incompatible. I don’t think that is dishonest-rather it is more akin to the little social lies that we are all expected to say. Just because I am rigidly honest with myself, doesn’t mean that I need to burden others with it. But I always push my personal agendas into the talk [humanitarianism, education, compassion, full civil rights, personal empowerment, etc.] Seriously, very rarely does anyone take issue with me. I am always asked to talk again.

4) I look for people who appear [or who could be made to feel] uncomfortable : the gays, the tattooed, the foreigners, singles, widows, i.e. anyone who doesn’t feel that they fit the mormon mainstream. I use my calling in the RS presidency as an excuse to put my arms around them, welcome them, and make it clear that they belong. This does more for me than for them. It reminds me that there is room at the table for everyone. Even me.

5) I am a strong feminist who has learned [through tough experience] how you can talk about women’s roles in the church and still be within the lines. I spread my message of female empowerment in every possible positive way. I never criticize the church in public [lesson learned!] but just assume that whatever positive, encouraging thing I am saying about women is compatible with Mormonism. Many people want to hear this, so I get away with a lot.

6) Sometimes, if there is a lesson I find offensive, and I can think of a doctinal basis for disagreement, I articulately disagree [smile on face]. However, nothing could have saved the Mother’s Day talks last Sunday. Talk about neo-Victorian nonsense. I just called my sister after church and told her to shoot me if I ever considered going to church on Mother’s Day again. When I need to, I leave meetings [babies are great excuses, and I have a new one] and hang out in the hall. I love the social aspect of Mormonism-it’s the village that I want so badly. Mormons are inherently social, so I don’t get a black eye for being in the hall. And it gets me out of the worst talks.

7) I’m a highly-educated professional. I really admire traditional women, although I have zero desire to be one. So I am vocal and specific in that admiration. I make it clear how much motherhood means to me. This makes me less threatening. It also reminds me to look for the good in others. No one ever gets tired of hearing about the good in themselves, and on my mission I learned how helpful it was for me to always look for the good in others, and articulate it to them. It helps me be more appreciative, and since we are all struggling along, it lifts them up.

I”m in a leadership position. I wear pants, figuratively and literally. This, seriously, helps me feel better-because if I had seen a professional women in church, wearing pants, when I was a girl, I would have had an alternate vision for my future. I wouldn’t have struggled so much. I try to be the heroine that I needed.

9) I comfort myself. The younger generation is more modern than I am. They take equality for granted. The Internet puts a lot of uncomfortable truths about the church on the table. The church will have to adapt, 20 or 30 years behind the cultural curve. When they do, I will be there to take a turn in shaping things. As long as I stay in it is my church too.

I’m sure that there are a million other compromises that I make-sometimes it’s exhausting, and sometimes I don’t feel that it would be worth it, if my husband were not such a devout believer. But then I think of all that I have been given through my membership [see previous post] and I figure there might be more in store for my future. Besides, who knows. Nothing wrong with hedging a bet.

Natasha

One of the interesting things that I have read in several blogs and bulletin boards is a question along these lines, “How does a gay or lesbian marriage harm my heterosexual marriage?” One person at NOM put it this way: “What has always confused me is that people are threatened so badly by Gays getting married. “

Surely there are many reasons for this, and different people will be influenced more by some reasons than by others. From a social psychological perspective, at least two lines of research seem relevant. One has to do with identity, and the finding that when an institution we identify with - such as our church or our view of marriage - is threatened, we feel threatened.

The other line of research has to do with social influence, where we have learned that, depending on the nature of the issue, people are persuaded more effectively by one of two different kinds of methods. When the issue involves objective facts that can be agreed upon by unbiased observers, informational influence is more effective. Videotape, bank records, and DNA evidence are the kinds of things that are most convincing in a courtroom trial. When the issue involves values or other things that are more subjective in nature, normative influence is more effective. We compare our position to the other people’s positions in order to gauge whether we are on the right track or not.

In the case of whether society allows people to marry each other without necessitating that one be female and the other be male, we can see these social-psychological concepts at work. Many Mormons consider marriage to be something that strikes at the heart of their self-definition, with repeated declarations that marriage is between a man and a woman. (Or, a man and several women, as discussed in an earlier Cultural Hall gathering.)

When it comes to issues that involve values, the objectivity aspired to in the court of law is unavailable. Should marriage be limited to one male and one female? Research on the question (summarized here) is called into question by critics who suggest that it is not objective. (Perhaps, but even so, one would expect that if gay marriage had harmful effects they would be more clearly demonstrated in the data than they are. Instead, research appears to support marriage in general, whether hetero- or homosexual.)

Thus, opponents to gay and lesbian marriage rely more on appeals using normative influence. And because it is a subjective issue, when our identity becomes involved the debate becomes quite heated. People who strongly support or strongly oppose gay & lesbian marriage, aren’t arguing merely about abstract ideas, they are arguing about themselves.

I have wanted to post on this a long time.  I think sometimes I spend too much time thinking about how Mormonism limits me, without thinking about how it has helped me.   But as a mostly non-believer, I stay in Mormonism because my life has been so enriched by it.

Aspects of Mormonism that I love/like:

–the belief that we each have a divine worth and should therefore make decisions accordingly.  I don’t know if I believe this anymore, but when I did, it helped me to make MUCH better decisions than I would have otherwise, especially as a young person.

– the “it takes a village [ward] to raise a child” mentality.  Hillary was right!  Our children do so much better if there is a community of mostly good people looking after them, and not just the nuclear family.  My husband spends a lot of time helping other peoples’ teenage boys [in scouts] learn responsibility and decency and I look forward to someone else reinforcing these same values to my sons when they are older.  I love that my ward growing up gave me several families as  alternative examples so that I know that my dysfunctional nuclear family was not the only way to go.

–the belief that as part of humanity, we owe each other service given unstintingly.

–that I am part of a community that cares when I am sick, knows my job status, and expects me to reciprocate.

–the fact that I have a group of elderly people who have more life experience than I do, who meet biannually to give me advice for the future [some of which I, of course, can ignore].   When I am humble, I find a lot of it useful.

–the belief that life is sacred, that we are spiritual beings, that sacred texts can help us find meaning.  Again, as I have lost belief, this is perhaps the most painful thing to let go.  I may never fully let it go, because it helps me to act more nobly, more carefully, and with more hope for the future.

–the emphasis on male sexual restraint as well as female sexual restraint:  both lead to more satisfying and strong families than the alternative.   Girls are taught that they matter enough to say no.  I never doubted that as a teenager.  I love that my husband was expected to value himself enough to say no.  I also love that he was encouraged to marry in his 20s, instead of his 30s.  We got part of that decade together because of it.

–the emphasis that a family is worth working for, fighting for, and living for.  I am so glad that  my culturally-bred resistance to divorce kept me from leaving my husband when I really wanted to, because now I have the benefit of a long, loving marriage.

–the push to have children meant that I actually had two, and they have made my life a joy.  Maybe I wouldn’t have had any otherwise.

–the push to develop one’s talents has helped me get a lot of education, so that I am a professional now.  [the counterdrive for women to not work and to be nurturers rather than whole people  has made me confused and unhappy about working, but at least I get paid well when I do]

–the fact that I grew up as a slight outsider to US culture  has made me more careful about accepting all of US values wholesale, especially the rampant materialism

–the pragmatism of a people who store grain for the future.  That the welfare system tries to help people change and take care of themselves.

–that even the worst of us has a constant reminder ala church attendance, that we need to be better people and members of the human community.  Not everyone takes this seriously, but many of those that do experience significant personal changes for the better.

–that I get to experience the thrill of rebellion by doing something as innocuous as wearing silk pants to church

– that I get to experience the thrill of rebellion by doing something as innocuous being clear and concise and open with my opinions [instead of doing RS speak].

–that I got to know and love a foreign culture via my mission.  I have never since experienced such an intense love from others as I received from those in my mission.   But it was wonderful that I was allowed to spend that time serving and loving others who were so different from me. [granted, I don’t like everything that I was encouraged to do/teach].

–I have lived in several different places.  In my wards, I have met amazing people from diverse  backgrounds.

A caveat: I know that all of these can be misused, taken to extremes, abused, etc.

But I love that they work more than they fail.

I am curious: what aspects of Mormon culture and belief enrich the lives of other active but non- or semi-believing Mormons?

I really didn’t want to go to her church. It was a scary place with a great big brown cross and enormous windows, and of course I knew it was the wrong church. I wasn’t too worried though because I knew my mom wouldn’t let me go. So I told my mom that Jamie wanted me to go with her to church. My mom surprised me, by telling me that I should go. She said, for years now Jamie has been coming to primary, so it would be nice for me to go with her. She told me that growing up in Montana in a small town there wasn’t an LDS branch, so her family had attended a church similar to Jamie’s.

So the day came. I was scared to death. My mom gave me some money to put in the collection plate and I walked with my friend down the block to the building I’d only peeked into from outside the windows. The chapel looked similar to ours with wooden benches. I remember the preacher dressed a little funny and preached a little differently than I was used to. He prayed with his eyes open and his arms outstretched. When it was time, I put my quarter in the basket. Next, we had a break, and I finally saw the evidence I had expected, the evidence that the church was wrong. The adults sipped coffee and visited, while the kids ate cookies, drank punch, and ran outside for a few minutes.

After the break, we went to Sunday school class. The teacher asked me the names of the first four books in the New Testament, and I froze. I could not remember even one of them. Of course I’d rattled them off in my own church. I had proof of that with a little plastic symbol of a book on my bandalo, but my mouth was completely dry. So the teacher started us off, and all the children chanted–Mathew, Mark, Luke… I was embarrassed. Here I belonged to the one true church and these kids seemed to know more than I did.

I made it through. And I never went back. I’m glad that my mother insisted that I go to church with my friend. I learned something I never forgot. Being in the minority can be intimidating, uncomfortable, and even frightening. It didn’t really sink in for a long time. I was well into adulthood before the lesson had it’s full impact on me. Being in the religious minority in Utah can be intimidating, uncomfortable, and at times frightening. Ask any non-LDS person in Utah, and if they are honest with you, they will share negative experiences varying from hurtful to horrific. We teach our children to share the gospel with their friends. Unfortunately with limited social skills our children may feel obligated to tell their playmates that their churches are wrong. Or they may ask them why they don’t attend the true church. Or they will tell their friends that their parents are bad because they drink beer, coffee, or smoke. I wish missionary work wasn’t taught to primary children and our youth. This one principle causes grief for our friends, and puts stress on families who most likely have their own faith. You can argue that they should be like my mother and happy to send them to their friend’s church, but it isn’t the same when the power is uneven.

I wish that instead of teaching every member a missionary that we taught every member a friend. A friend invites to include others and makes them feel welcome. A friend respects beliefs. A friend is interested in their friend’s belief system rather than just wanting to teach their own agenda. Not too long ago I was asked to give a talk to youth on missionary work. I stressed that it isn’t fair to teach about our church, unless you have a sincere interest in your friend’s belief system. Don’t expect your friend to listen to you, unless you are willing to listen to them. I stressed how intimidating it is to attend a church you aren’t used to, how exclusive we Mormons are with our daily language and conversation. Pay attention to how often a group of Mormons, even when there is someone who isn’t of our faith in the group, talks about things that revolve around, missions, callings, temple, mutual, young mens and so on and so on. Being respectful may mean toning conversation to include everyone in the group. Some of our LDS youth are under the impression that they are only supposed to date members of the church. How unfair for those ten percent who aren’t in the LDS faith when the prom comes along. We need to teach what “The Strength of Youth” pamphlet really says. It states to date only those with high standards, who allow you to keep LDS standards. Using this standard may exclude several LDS members, and include many who aren’t LDS. If our youth follow dating guidelines to date in groups until after their missions, then there is no reason to not include non-LDS friends in their dating activities.

In our small mostly LDS community, I have numerous friends representing a variety of religious traditions, Baptist, Catholic, Quaker, and generic Christian. My friendships are genuine because I have no agenda other than friendship. Since they know I respect their traditions, true camaraderie is possible. It’s my contention that if I had ulterior motives, mutual friendship would be impossible. I’ve talked at length with my Catholic friend, and to my Christian friend to try and understand what it would be like for them to live in our community. My devout Catholic friend said that when her children’s friends try to convert them, it shows a lack of respect for their own faith. She did however want to have her children included in non-religious activities whenever possible. My other good friend pointed out that I have a support system built in because of the church, and she has to get her support system elsewhere. She said that no matter where I move to, I will have an immediate group, where it has taken her years to establish that here, and starting over somewhere else would really be starting over from scratch. She’s right.

One of my friend’s mentioned how much she and her husband appreciated President Hinkley, how they felt he’d been good to teach tolerance and they respected him greatly for it. She hoped that President Monson would be able to do the same. We get the message in conference often, but the message is mixed. We’re taught to respect all religions and only offer true friendship, but as long as we stress “every member a missionary,” our young people will be excluding and hurting their friends. And we as adults, will be excluding and hurting our friends, only with a little more tact. Hopefully. And another thing, going back to my childhood experience, wouldn’t it be nice if WE had a social break between meetings, had a snack, visited, and made friends. I can suggest the perfect time too, shorten the block to two and half hours with a break between sacrament meeting and relief society/priesthood–skipping Sunday school altogether or reducing it to a few minutes. Wouldn’t that be nice?

Watch Karen Armstrong’s talk here

or http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/234

As far as the priesthood barrier being lifted in 1977, well I witnessed that one first hand. If I’d been home in Utah at the time—I would’ve seen very little change in my overly white community. However, I was traveling through Europe, heard the news via an American radio station in Germany. Then the next week I went to church in Hyde Park, London, where black men blessed and passed the sacrament for the first time in their lives. And I heard numerous members, both black and white, bear their testimonies with tears streaming down their faces, that the day had finally arrived, the day they knew would come. It was a wonderful day. Where was my faith? Is that issue still on the shelf—Yes, but the bag became a little smaller.
In the thirty years since then, I’ve added lots of cans to my shelf, some little cans, tomato sauce size and others much bigger. I’ve rearranged the shelf a few times—moving stuff to the back—out of the way so I wouldn’t have to face it. No matter what though, eventually I dig through the cans and pull things out and look at them one at a time. Sometimes those cans bother me a little, sometimes a lot.
Once the shelf broke. The cans rolled to the floor in a heap and I couldn’t put them back on. It was a sad day for me. I wanted to leave the church. I no longer believed that it was true. Which can broke the shelf? It might have been historical things I’d learned about Joseph Smith. It might have been the lack of equal rights for women. It might have been all the cultural stuff that gets in the way of my worship of God. It might have been overwhelming depression, and a mid-life crisis. No matter what all I wanted to do when that moment came was to run. So what did I do?
I didn’t run. I still went to church, feeling hollow and miserable inside, but I had a good husband, and two wonderful children. Life should have been good. Eventually, I came to a reality. I need the church. Leaving wasn’t an option. Even if I’d been convinced that it was the right thing to do, I could not have made the step to leave it. Not then and not now. It’s a big part of who I am. Think of Barak Obama saying why he couldn’t disown Reverend Wright, or his white grandmother. Sometimes in choosing the good part, you have some baggage to carry with you too.
I want to point out that I do not judge people who for whatever reason decide to leave the church. For me it wouldn’t work. I choose to stay. What I did was to stop expecting the church to be perfect, to have all the answers, and to be the complete truth. While some would criticize this approach, I’ve learned to pick and choose what I’ll cling to. Most of what I choose to discard is cultural stuff, but there is some doctrine too. I find that nearly every week after church, I find it necessary to discard a few things: like the strong encouragement for clean-shaven men, white shirts and ties, and even lately telling women to wear nylons to church and which type of sandal God apparently prefers that we wear. I choose to ignore statements from the pulpit encouraging us to write to our congressman about amendments that limit the rights of groups of people. One of my biggest disappointments is when other churches are bad-mouthed by well-meaning teachers and students who should know better. That isn’t what we’re about, is it? Another thing I purge is comments made by ordinary members that insinuate that we should be Republicans. Almost always at church I will hear something that ruffles my feathers, but just as often I hear a little gem that gives me something to smile about or bring tears to my eyes and makes me feel good about the whole thing. A few weeks ago, a beautiful eleven-year-old girl bore her sweet and sincere testimony, “I’m grateful that my mom got to come home.” I watched the girl go back and sit with her mother near the front of the chapel. Her mother put her arm around her, pulled her close, and gave her a squeeze. Where’s her mother been for three years? Prison. And now she’s back, and coming to church. Isn’t this what the gospel of Jesus Christ should be about? Acceptance, love, and making steps toward God. I loved Elder Wirthlin’s talk in conference. “The Lord did not people the earth with a vibrant orchestra of personalities only to value the piccolos of the world. Every instrument is precious and adds to the complex beauty of the symphony. All of Heavenly Father’s children are different in some degree, yet each has his own beautiful sound that adds depth and richness to the whole.” If only we could believe it. And embrace all who choose to enter.

More fundamentally (no pun intended), the issue will not go away until the church clarifies its position on polygamy. As I see it, the alternative to my suggestions is to be more explicit in embracing polygamy in the past and the hereafter. Whatever the leaders and individual Latter-day Saints decide to do, I believe that the public will continue to refer to “Mormon Fundamentalists” and “Mormon Polygamists” until the church adopts a new strategy.

April 15, 2008, from  http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_8923931

For many, many people, Mormonism is inextricably linked to polygamy. This is true for me, with polygamy in my family history, and having met polygamists whose beliefs include the Book of Mormon and other indisputably Mormon things. Polygamy has had, and continues to have, an important role in the development of the church, in the biographies of church leaders, in the life experiences of its members . . . the list goes on.

Not every Mormon holds the same view, of course. Take a moment to read a newspaper from, say, the United Kingdom or some other place where Mormonism is an exotic curiosity, and you’ll see a recurring pattern. The newspaper posts an article on the raid in Texas on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and people’s comments soon begin equating the FLDS with the LDS.

Later, you read a passionate rebuttal saying that the LDS Church has nothing to do with polygamy or the FLDS. Then, another writer brings up the history of polygamy in the church, questioning the knowledge, honesty or motivation of the Mormons.

The discussion appears as endless as it is futile. To deny polygamy’s importance to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Mormonism is, well, to be in denial. Many Latter-day Saints prefer to avoid polygamy or to think that it has no bearing on the present, but this is pointless if we are to consider what other people think of the church. Evidence of this is found in the results of a recent Vanderbilt study on bias against Mitt Romney and Mormons. Negative opinions in the study shifted markedly when people were provided “clear, accurate information” about polygamy and other stereotypes regarding Mormonism.

From my reading of newspaper letters, article comments and blogs, it seems that defenders of the church too often provide information that is clear but inaccurate or incomplete. For example, it strikes an observer as disingenuous when told “the LDS Church has nothing to do with polygamy,” as I’ve read in the comments to several newspaper articles in recent days. Clear? Yes. Accurate? Not so much.

What are Latter-day Saints to do? Here are a few ideas:

a) Acknowledge that we were polygamous, and describe more completely the changing status of polygamy in Mormonism: the 1890 Manifesto against polygamy, another in 1904, and the more recent excommunications of polygamists from the LDS Church. Admit that this is an ongoing issue the church has faced. Follow that statement with a clarification that many understandings of Mormonism exist, as is true of all religions, but that the vast majority of the Mormons people meet are not polygamous.

b) Remind others that it is the extreme example that gets the most attention, both in the media and in our own memory. As a result, it is inaccurate to paint all Mormons as polygamous, just as it is inaccurate to state that all polygamists are child molesters, or that all priests are, for that matter.

c) Develop a new understanding - a revelation, even - regarding Doctrine & Covenants 132, the section of Mormon scripture that forms the foundation for polygamy and celestial marriage. As part of this, discontinue the policy allowing men to be sealed to more than one woman. Such a change would make it clearer than ever that polygamy is in the past. After all, the LDS hymnal asks, “In the heavens, are parents single?” to which it answers, “No.” That the current policy suggests parents are not only wed in eternity, but are sometimes even wed to more than one spouse, seriously undermines the claim that polygamy is in the past. Instead, it suggests that polygamy is in both the past and the future, and that current policy is the exception rather than the rule.

The church and the people who care about it need to develop a more effective way of dealing with the perennial questions about polygamy. Of course, my suggestions presume that Latter-day Saints come to terms with polygamy and recognize the diversity of Mormonisms. Not an easy task, perhaps, but easier than what the pioneers did and, in its own way, pioneering.

Well, what do you think the church should do regarding polygamy? Please note that this thread is not a forum for ‘bashing’ the church. Because I am interested in what productive options the church has, and in your evaluation of those options. I’ll delete messages that stray off course. I can point you toward other forums (fora?) that are better suited for complaining about the church; this is not the place for that. (Okay, I did intend that pun.)

My next memory of him is when I gave my first talk in Sacrament meeting. Our branch met in a tightly-packed “phase 1″ building, so I had plenty of opportunity for eye contact. His are the eyes I remember best from that day. As I gave my talk, I quickly learned that I could count on him for feedback that told me that I was being heard. Really heard. He smiled, nodded his head, and then took time afterwards to discuss my talk and to welcome me again to the branch.

A few days ago he had an accident at home, and now he is gone. The viewing was this evening; the funeral tomorrow. I will miss him and his smile. There have been days when I missed church, whether because I was out of town or just not in the mood, or I didn’t want to sit through three hours with lighting that can trigger my migraines. On those days, I may not have missed the lesson I disagreed with, heterodox guy that I am, but I certainly missed Bill and his smile.

While at the viewing, a friend tried to make sense of his death. She believes that the accident was God’s way of “bringing Bill home”. Another friend suggested that his wife, who died a few months ago, needed him. Maybe the universe works that way, with a God that intervenes, causing accidents that take lives when our “time is up”. Maybe, but I’m more inclined to think deaths like Bill’s happen for reasons other than divine intervention. Accidents happen, and the laws of physics cause trauma to our bodies. Life is fragile that way.

We look for answers, for reasons to explain the events in our lives. We seek those answers when it comes to explaining death as well. Whichever answer we arrive at, we find comfort in it. If the answer includes God taking care of us and then calling us home, the comfort seems obvious. But it also leaves us to explain why God’s intervention appears unreliable.

If the answer is more like mine, comfort comes in different forms; for me it comes in the sense of connection with humanity through a shared engagement with life. And there is comfort, too, in knowing that the memory of Bill’s smile, and the many good things he did, lives on. My friends and I may disagree over the question of divine intervention, but we agree on our connection to a fellow traveler and to each other. For me, that’s enough.

We may not have a lot of action here, but we’re not redundant.

Not just sex

Infidelity is a public issue, Lynn Wardle reminds us (”Infidelity by elected officials rightfully is a public issue,” Opinion, March 21). But his analysis does not go far enough. Marital fidelity is only one type of promise that the powerful break. Elected officials’ illicit relationships too often exploit power differentials, and this is a core reason they are immoral. The more general statement regarding morality condemns the powerful taking advantage of the weak.

Sometimes exploitation and immorality happen through sex, other times through direct violence, but most often exploitation occurs by promoting structural inequity that bolsters power at the expense of the weak. Because it rarely provides lurid headlines and it happens subtly, structural violence seldom garners our attention. Nevertheless, more people are harmed and even killed by structural violence than are hurt by sexual improprieties.

Wardle urges the media to investigate sexual infidelity and exploitation by the powerful. Yes, but don’t stop there. Investigate the powerful’s exploitation of others, whether or not sex is involved. Morality is about more than sex!

Michael Nielsen

What do you think? If you were to try to summarize morality with a general statement, what would it be?

And please note that some of the comments left by readers at the Trib, both on Wardle’s op-ed piece and on my letter in response, are disparaging and even just plain mean. Respectful discussion is welcomed here; name-calling is not.

“Our task is to learn that if we can voyage to the ends of the earth and there find ourselves in the aborigine who most differs from ourselves, we will have made a fruitful pilgrimage. That is why pilgrimage is necessary, in some shape or other.  Mere sitting at home and meditating on the divine presence is not enough for our time.  We have to come to the end of a long journey and see that the stranger we meet there, is no other than ourselves—which is the same as saying that we find Christ in him”  –Thomas Merton

What is the role of the established religions in the arising of the new consciousness? Many people are already aware of the difference between spirituality and religion. They realize that having a belief system–a set of thoughts that you regard as the absolute truth-does not make you spiritual no matter what the nature of those beliefs is. In fact, the more you make your thoughts (beliefs) into your identity, the more cut off you are from the spiritual dimension within yourself. Many “religious” people are stuck at that level. They equate truth with thought, and as they are completely identified with thought (their mind), they claim to be in sole possession of the truth in an unconscious attempt to protect their identity. They don’t realize the limitations of thought. Unless you believe (think) exactly as they do, you are wrong in their eyes, and in the not-too distant past, they would have felt justified in killing you for that. And some still do, even now.

The new spirituality, the transformation of consciousness, is arising to a large extent outside of the structures of the existing institutionalized religions. There were always pockets of spirituality even in mind-dominated religions, although the institutionalized hierarchies felt threatened by them and often tried to suppress them. A large-scale opening of spirituality outside of the religious structures is an entirely new development. In the past, this would have been inconceivable, especially in the West, the most mind dominated of all cultures, where the Christian church had a virtual franchise on spirituality. You couldn’t just stand up and give a spiritual talk or publish a spiritual book unless you were sanctioned by the church, and if you were not, they would quickly silence you. But now, even within certain churches and religions, there are signs of change. It is heartwarming, and one is grateful for even the slightest signs of openness, such as Pope John Paul II visiting a mosque as well as a synagogue.

Partly as a result of the spiritual teachings that have arisen outside the established religions, but also due to an influx of the ancient Eastern wisdom teachings, a growing number of followers of traditional religions are able to let go of identification with form, dogma, and rigid belief systems and discover the original depth that is hidden within their own spiritual tradition at the same time as they discover the depth within themselves. They realize that how “spiritual” you are has nothing to do with what you believe but everything to do with your state of consciousness. This, in turn, determines how you act in the world and interact with others.

Those unable to look beyond form become even more deeply entrenched in their beliefs, that is to say, in their mind. We are witnessing not only an unprecedented influx of consciousness at this time but also an entrenchment and intensification of the ego. Some religious institutions will be open to the new consciousness; others will harden their doctrinal positions and become part of all those other man made structures through which the collective ego will defend itself and “fight back.” Some churches, sects, cults, or religious movements are basically collective egoic entities, as rigidly identified with their mental positions as the followers of any political ideology that is closed to any alternative interpretation of reality.

But the ego is destined to dissolve, and all its ossified structures, whether they be religious or other institutions, corporations, or governments, will disintegrate from within, no matter how deeply entrenched they appear to be. The most rigid structures, the most impervious to change, will collapse first. This has already happened in the case of Soviet Communism. How deeply entrenched, how solid and monolithic it appeared, and yet within a few years, it disintegrated from within. No one foresaw this. All were taken by surprise. There are many more such surprises in store for us.

Thoughts?  Reflections? Applications to “the Middle way” or Mormonism?  Or non-applicable?

What caught my eye about Lantos’ funeral is the description of his faith and beliefs:

“Tom didn’t believe in God in the way that most of us do,” his widow said at the service Feb. 14 in the Statuary Hall in the U.S. Capitol building, where his family — including 18 grandchildren and two great-grandchildren — were present….

His daughter, Annette, said in her eulogy that her father was a man of “profound faith” and listed his beliefs: in the U.S. Constitution, in education, in friendship, in the responsibility to change the world for the better, even in the power of dogs to heal — but notably, belief in a deity was lacking.

Instead, the younger Annette suggested, he admired his wife’s beliefs but did not embrace them: “He had faith in the sustaining power of her faith in spirituality,” she said.

Such words could be used to describe many of us in the Cultural Hall. If there is a heaven, Lantos and others like him will make it an interesting place. Rest in peace, Tom.

Rocky Mountain Retreat for LDS Women (Links to earlier post about the retreat)

This year’s featured speaker is Claudia Bushman.

Registration is open now. For more details, and registration forms, visit the retreat’s website.

It is called The “Only True” Church: Does “True” Necessitate “Only”?

Also, have any of you read from the Theologian Paul Knitter? I have not but now I am curious.

“What is different about the Church over there, or at least different than you expected?”

The response surprised me.They said:

 “The Saints here love the Church very much. But seem very reluctant to share the Gospel with others and seem reluctant to share friend’s names with the missionaries.”

 My questions to you all on this Blog.

1. Is this unique to the UK (nobody does it here in New York either) I don’t think people in general feel comfortable with this?
2. Do any of you invite friends to Church? Or have you ever given names of friends or collegues to missionaries. How do you feel about it?
3. Do you view the Gospel and the Mormon Church as the same thing or two very different things?

Perhaps we will learn more about the reasons why he did this to people he did not know. Having an explanation such as that helps us deal with the pain and loss. But in our everyday lives, we do what we can to avoid the unpredictability that surrounds us. Events such as this, when they hit close to home, bring us back to the reality that our world includes unpredictability and it isn’t as safe as we supposed it to be.

I am going to read again my copy of Elliot Aronson’s Nobody Left to Hate. His social-psychological examination of the Columbine High School killings contains much wisdom for us as a society as we consider senseless violence.

More fundamentally, join me in a moment of silent reflection. Whether or not you believe in God, pause and contemplate existence and the fragility of life, and recognize that there are, every day, many people who suffer and who die horrible, premature, and preventable deaths. Then, consider how you might help alleviate at least a little suffering that goes on in the world today. There is too much war, too much suffering, and we all too often move through the day carefully avoiding exposing ourselves to it. Facing suffering is part of life, but doing something to alleviate even a small part of others’ suffering is the essence of truly living.

I know I don’t post often but I have been thinking about something and I felt like this was the right place to air the laundry.

So like many of you, Mormonism really screwed me up. I mean it was doing a number on me while I was in it, but leaving really turned my brain around. In the subsequent years I have noticed a severe increase in depression and anxiety and a general decrease in more obscure fields like purpose and sense of belonging. After 5 years out of the church I look around and think “Hey! Wha’ happened?”

While leaving the church I was obsessed with not being one of those ex-mormons; the kind who spend all their time seething and hating on the apostles and jumping all over the doctrine and pointing out that Brigham Young owned slaves or whatever. You know, the kind of person whose comments we tend to delete on this site.

That’s not to say I wasn’t mad, but I didn’t really focus it anywhere. I didn’t get mad at the prophet or apostles. They seem like good guys. I didn’t get mad at my bishop, or my mission president even though they were kind of jerks about the whole thing. I didn’t even really have any fights with my parents where I told them how much the church had hurt me. In fact once I left I got really positive about the church just so they wouldn’t… well I don’t know why. It just seemed the thing to do.

Joseph Smith once said, and I paraphrase: Anyone who leaves the church is not just gonna hate it, but they will be an enemy to it the rest of their lives.

Well I don’t want that. Why does it have to be like that?

I have often described the feelings surrounding leaving the church as the same around breaking up with your one true love. You thought your relationship was one thing, but it turned out pretty f’en different. But a lot of those feelings, anger, pain, rage, they don’t have anywhere to go. With relationships you can always find some other sucker to take you on, but I have zero desire to find another religion (sorry Unitarian church, I’m just not feelin’ ya).

So this is my question: What do I do with this black tornado inside of me? What do you do?  Should I pretend I am 15 and the next time I visit my parents storm out of a room slamming a door yelling “You don’t own me!” Should I go punch some missionaries in the nose (god knows it happened to me enough on my mission)? Should I just get a punching bag and some stronger sedatives?

Joseph Smith also said, and again I paraphrase: If a religion can’t ask you to give it everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, then that’s a wussy religion.

Ladies and Gents, I’m here to tell ya, that Mormonism aint no wuss.

Sighsville. Thanks for letting me vent everyone. John I’ll understand it if you take away my posting privileges.

This struck me as insightful, but I would say it just a bit differently. I suspect that at least some of the time people’s identity is too wrapped up in the church, and they love themselves more than they love their family. When a family member leaves the church, it initiates a sort of self-preservation mode, and the former-Mormon is rejected in order to preserve a coherent sense of self.

Maybe there’s a real Christian message here? One of the great commandments is that we love our neighbor as ourself. A more outward focus in our love, the kind Jesus extolls in Mark 12, might actually help preserve family relationships when we or those we love explore different paths to enlightenment. And I can’t help but think that it would make Jesus smile.

Me, I’m thrilled that reproductive technology has allowed me to choose when to have my children. But there’s something still a bit too scary about a computer-controlled vasectomy.

Save the Date

2008 Rocky Mountain Retreat for LDS Women,
May 30th - June 1, 2008
Snow Mountain Ranch, YMCA of the Rockies
Featured speaker: Claudia Bushman
More details and registration info coming mid-February

An announcement for Mormon “women of good will” who’d like to spend a weekend in the Colorado Rockies, eating, talking and meeting others.

(This is a recycle of last year’s post about the retreat.) 15 years ago, a group of LDS women in the Denver area started a group that came to be called the DAM Women. The name has nothing to do with the current DAMU community. It stands for Denver Area Mormon Women. It is a group of friends, who, in those pre-internet days, used to get together to discuss various church issues. ( Yeah, I know the internet existed 15 years ago, but most of us weren’t cool enough to have modems.) We also decided that we needed to have our own retreat, like unto the Exponent II retreat, and the Midwestern Pilgrimage. So, we started one. This year will be our fifteenth year. And, if you’re a mormon female, you’re invited.

A little background about the retreat– While it’s similar to the Exponent II retreat, we have no official connection to Exponent II. And, fairly obviously, we have no official affilation with the LDS church either. I have a very warm spot in my heart for the retreat, since I was one of the “founding mothers”. It was mostly started out of frustration, in those pre-internet days because we’d keep hearing about things going on in Utah, such as Chieko Okazaki’s talks, or we’d hear about cool things going on in Boston, but nothing much was going on in Denver. We also needed a way to meet other women who “didn’t fit in” to traditional Mormonism. A friend told me about the amazing Snow Mountain Ranch* and it turned out to be a perfect place for us. We stay in two large cabins, with flush toilets, running water, and real beds. Attendance ranges from about 35 to about 60. Age ranges from about 18 to about 80. Typically about 1/3 of the women there have attended every year, another 1/3 have attended most of the time, and another third will be new or newish. We try to be very friendly, and usually we succeed. As far as religious affiliation, we really run the gamut from folks who are still very active, to folks who haven’t been to any church in years,  yet come to the retreat every year. We ask that if you have axes to grind, you grind them with consideration to the feelings of others, be they conservative, liberal or whatever. A few people have been critical of us for having speakers and planned activities, rather than just a big group discussion, but we feel it’s better to have some organization, and we do have lots of time for free discussion, and plenty of interesting women to discuss it with. We’ve also been criticized for not being activist, but that really wasn’t the intent either. The intent was to meet other women, to talk about the kinds of things we can’t normally discuss at church, and to bring in interesting people from outside the Denver area.
In the past, we have made classic Relief Society glass grapes, and,  another year,   tampon angels. We’ve watched Trapped by the Mormons, and New York Doll. Past speakers have included Barbara B. Smith, Chieko Okazaki, Aileen Clyde, Linda Hofmann Kimball, Elouise Bell, Dorothy Solomon Allred, Marjorie Condor, Cherry Silver, Peggy Fletcher Stack, Robert Kirby (the first man ever allowed), Emily Watts, Kathy Stokes, and Fred and Marilyn Matis.

I don’t know for sure what Dr. Bushman will talk about. We’ll have a potluck and opening activities on Friday night, and featured speakers on Saturday morning and evening. Saturday afternoon is a trip to the hot tubs at Hot Sulphur Springs. Sunday morning is Quaker meeting. We’re always very happy to have new women come, so let me know if you’re interested at sootica@mac.com .

* Snow Mountain Ranch

This morning I re-read pieces of his interview for the documentary on PBS. It did my heart good. Thanks again Greg.

Here are some of my favorite highlights and a link to the interview:

The Book of Mormon is more than a literary text or a guide to an archaeological dig. Nor does it prove God exists. Can you explore the middle way of looking at the Book of Mormon?

“Perhaps the most prevalent viewpoint in the church is either the Book of Mormon is a literal history of the Americas before Columbus or it’s wrong. There is an alternative somewhere between those two. If you look at the Bible, some of the greatest books of the Bible — and in my mind in particular the Book of Job, which I feel to be one of the greatest books in world literature, is fictional. Its message is independent of its historicity. That’s the key in dealing with the Book of Mormon. Whatever its message is, it continues to resonate with the people who encounter it.

It’s not because of its doctrinal sophistication, because if you look at the Book of Mormon compared to the Bible, the level of theology of the two is quite separate. So that’s not the attraction. It’s not the historicity, because the people who read it don’t come away from reading it thinking, “Well, that was an interesting history.” It’s that there is truth within that book, just as there is truth within the Book of Job that is, in fact, a fictional book. …

That’s the message that people need to get. Forget about the container for a while. Get inside of it and grab the truth that’s in there, regardless of the form that it’s in, regardless of how it got to be in that container — and then you win. …

In his earlier days as a prophet, Joseph Smith was dependent on physical artifacts as part of the prophetic process: plates; … papyrus; … Urim and Thummim, the seer stones. Look at the early revelations, and the introductions to them for a few months say, “Revelation received through the Urim and Thummim.” Then that stops, and it never picks up again, because he is no longer dependent on those physical objects to open his mind to the revelatory process. Now, what does all that mean about the Book of Mormon? Could it be just a revelation instead of a translation? To me, yes. No problem. And it doesn’t have any impact on what it has done subsequently. Yes, it could have been a literal translation of an ancient record, and this is what the result has been. But it’s not the only explanation. And in fact, those parts of the explanation that are susceptible to scientific inquiry are beginning to go in the other direction — a metaphorical Book of Mormon, if you will. …”

Is it tough to be an intellectual in this church? Is it changing?

“Being an intellectual in this church is a hard way to make an easy living, for two reasons. One is the wealth of source material: If you go back and look at the history, it’s enormous — and troubling, because it doesn’t always square with the public relations version of things. The second reason it’s difficult is there is an anti-intellectual bent in the church that in some cases has gone so far as to push people out simply because they were thinking people, either overtly pushed them out by excommunicating them or sending the message that they’re not welcome and we’d be a lot happier if you’d just have the good grace to leave, and leave quietly.

So it’s not an easy lifestyle, but people don’t tend to choose that lifestyle. You are that, or you’re something else. I don’t think you choose to be an intellectual. It’s the way you’re wired. It’s the way you view the world. So there you are, and if you’re going through that journey alone, it’s a very perilous and lonely journey. It turns out there are many other people in the church with a similar mind-set, but they are a loose amalgamation at best. It’s been with difficulty over the decades that those of us who consider ourselves within that philosophy try to hang on to the church for ourselves and try to hang on to others and keep them in.

That’s why magazines such as Dialogue came into being — a lifeline for 40 years now to those whose wiring causes them to question. It allows them to question and to stay in at the same time, whereas otherwise they may just be shown the exit door. …”

Do you see a culture of certainty … in this church? The “I know, I know” — does this create … closet doubters?

“There is a strong thread within the church that clings to the notion that I have to be able to say in public, “I know,” regardless of what the “I know” involves. Unwittingly that has created a culture that says to the other ones who can’t say that in honesty, “Gee, there must be something wrong with me, because I can’t say, ‘I know,’ if I don’t know.” I think that the desire to be able to go up to the pulpit and say “I know” is not unique to Mormonism. I think that pervades the entire world, and it’s why fundamentalism in whatever clothing — Christian, Judaic, Islamic — is a dangerous thing, because it gives a false certitude to people. They think that the tough questions in life can all be reduced to one-line answers, and they can’t. If you think that’s where the world is and you try to live in that world, it’s destructive ultimately. So we have to be able to move at some point from, “Oh, yeah, I know,” to, “Listen, here’s where I am. I think I know some things, and I’ve experienced some things, and there are a lot of things I don’t know. But I’m here for the duration, so let’s move forward together and help each other.”

It is striking, the words “I know” in Mormon culture.

“Well, I come at this as a practicing scientist. Science has been my livelihood for over three decades. When I write a scientific paper and I put anything close to “I know” on it, that means something really strong. And generally we have to qualify that and say things like: “Within the parameters that we have conducted these experiments, here are our conclusions. P.S. — they’re subject to change.” So I can’t just abandon that mind-set when I walk in the doors of a church and suddenly say, “Oh, yeah, I know, I know, I know.” … “

As a teen I was always confused what the term “petting” and “necking” meant. I knew what “making out” was and after time came to equate making out and necking. But the petting thing was always a bit of a mystery. Some bishops gave rough definitions like “touching any part of your partner’s body that would normally be covered by a bathing suit.” But the variations of touching were mystifying–did it mean touching while clothed? or touching without clothes? And did touching mean just with a hand or did it mean touching in general (as in, if two people were kissing and rubbing the bathing-suit parts of their bodies together were they ‘petting’)?

I suspect the actual definition of petting varied according to the bishop using the term. What he meant might be totally different from what another bishop meant (as an aside–do they still use this same ‘petting’ terminology with teens or is there some more current lingo?).

As I tried to understand what petting was, it seemed logical to me that oral sex fell under the petting category. It wasn’t really sex (yes, this was long before Bill/Monica) given that the female partner wouldn’t lose her virginity or risk pregnancy and it seemed to fall under the ‘touching the bathing suit areas’ definition. Now I think I was probably crazy to think this, but given the lack of any concrete definition and trying to establish some sort of sexual sin hierarchy of lesser to more severe sins, this seemed to make sense.

But then I had a bishop in a singles ward say that oral sex was actually worse than vaginal sex because it’s a perverse form of sex. He said if someone were to engage in ‘regular’ sex, that would be far less dangerous to their body and spirit.

As a parent reflecting on this now, I think that bishop was plain crazy. If my kids became sexually active I would be far happier were they engaging in oral sex than vaginal sex–it’s safer in so many ways (no pregnancy risk, less chance of STDs, etc). Do you agree with me? Or was that Bishop right?

I remember seeing the bottle sitting on the back of the toilet in her bathroom for a few years after that, unused. Sometimes I would go in and sniff the perfume and wonder why it didn’t make my Mom feel pretty and energetic. After a few years went by I felt pretty silly about the gift–Mom wasn’t a perfume kind of person to begin with.

Reflecting on that incident now makes me think about my kids and my relationship with them. Do they see me as someone who is happy and fulfilled? Or do they see me as exhausted and careworn? A non-LDS friend attending sacrament meeting with me awhile ago pointed out how tired all of the women looked. I suppose we are a hard-working group of people–especially us women.

I like to be busy and I probably take on too many responsibilities at times. But I hope the vibe I send my kids is that I am happy with my life, and not that I am too weary. They know I like to giggle, and hear their silly stories, and sing along with the radio too loudly. They see me pursuing my hobbies and working hard to achieve my goals. Though I do have my moments of exhaustion, I’d like to think that my bursts of uninhibited joy are more common. I don’t want my kids to think that motherhood or womanhood is self-sacrificing drudgery. I want them to understand that it’s enlivening even if it’s work-intensive.

What about you, what was your perspective on your mother’s life when you were little? And has that changed as you’ve grown up yourself?

When I was a more orthodox believer, my political differences were a source of irritation, but that’s about it. Now that my faith is less typical, my political differences seem much more problematic. I mentally equate Mormons’ political views with doctrine, and set the difference between my views and theirs as yet another faith issue. Of course, it’s not. I have been a liberal Democrat since I was in my early 20s. I’m a pro-choice feminist who supports same-sex marriage and a single payer national health system. Those are not faith issues.

It is not entirely my fault that I make this mental equation of Republican = Righteous = Doctrine. The Republican member who feels free to belittle the opposition party in the middle of Gospel Doctrine class (as the instructor) is not an anomaly; it has happened to me in wards and stakes in several states. Tell people you’re a Democrat when they start ranting about the Kennedys or the Clintons and they’re likely to look at you funny for a while (probably because they’re embarrassed that they assumed you were in the “in” crowd). I can’t bridge the political divide alone between progressive Mormon and conservative Mormon all by myself, but I haven’t seen much willingness by the other side to meet me in the middle. Tyranny of the majority, I guess.

I have been heartened by the interesting discussions at Council of Fifty, Mormon Mentality, and FMH. They’ve been vigorous and lively. While there’s quite a bit of disagreement, I haven’t noticed anyone’s righteousness or Mormon Credentials questioned because they’re left of center. Maybe it’s the nature of the Bloggernacle, which seems to attract Mormons more left of center than the average.

My political choices are informed by my values and my life experiences - just like the choices of many Republicans. We’re allowed to be different, we’re both allowed to be Mormons, too. I’m going to save my “I don’t belong here” angst for doctrinal matters, like the nature of God or the importance of ordinances. Render to Caesar, etc.

Perhaps the most crucial conversation we had came several months ago. Two days previous, my wife had firmly requested that I stop wearing garments unless I planned to return to the temple. “If you’re wearing them just to appease me,” she said, “I wish you wouldn’t.”

Without any desire to do temple work, and after confirming several times that she was serious, I visited a nearby Jockey outlet and came home with a large bag full of normal underwear.

Never underestimate the power of boxer-briefs. The Jockey bag on the counter seemed to represent the concession that my wife would never be able to change my mind. Worse, it represented my apparent refusal to change my mind for her. My wife had requested the change so she could adapt and move on, but reality stung worse than she had expected.

It was clear she was unhappy, and even after years of complaining about garments I admit I was surprisingly reluctant to make a formal switch. I set the bag under the kitchen table and asked her to join me on the front porch to talk.

We had talked countless times before—so many times it seemed like running around in predictable circles. (I say “study,” you counter with “pray.” I say “psychology,” you counter with “trust.” I say “dishonest,” you counter with “line upon line,” and that brings us back to “study.” And around and around we go.) But this conversation felt different from the start, and within only a few minutes I had an epiphany: With few exceptions, we believed the same things. It was our interpretation of what we believe that was causing the problem.

For example, my wife believes God can talk to us through priesthood blessings, and so do I, but our interpretations are quite different. She believes God’s influence through the priesthood means the Church is true, whereas I believe God’s influence through the priesthood means God loves Mormons just as he loves Buddhists, Jews, and any other person on earth who has ever experienced “priesthood-like” miracles.

A long list of similar ideas followed, everything from polygamy and the origin of the endowment, to the Word of Wisdom and billion dollar shopping malls, and to our relief we found that our beliefs on most things are actually quite similar. Life might be simpler if our interpretations lined up as well, but we found common ground by recognizing the difference between what we believe and what our beliefs imply.

We ended that discussion feeling relieved and a little silly that it had taken so long to recognize that when we should have been focused on common ground, we were instead focusing on differences.

That weekend I returned the unopened underwear to the Jockey store. My garments didn’t mean anything more to me then than they had when I bought them, and they didn’t mean any less to my wife, but we had realized that our different ideas didn’t matter nearly as much as we thought they did. We still talk frequently about church history and doctrine, but the difference is palpable. We haven’t had an unpleasant conversation since the day I shopped at Jockey.

I know, I know. It’s good for you. So are brussels sprouts. It is a measure of my spiritual sterility that I would rather play solitaire on my computer (I lost $1000 in pretend money last night during a bout with insomnia) than read the scriptures. I don’t know HOW to read the scriptures. Randomly? Meditatively? Make a plan? Set a date? In the bathtub? Could you, would you, with a fox?

I don’t much like Brussels sprouts, but I like broccoli, and I like cauliflower. I’m not opposed to cruciferous vegetables in principle. Maybe I just need a different approach. I have a KJV and an RSV. I prefer the RSV. Would a different version help? A good study guide? A concordance?

I think many non-LDS are surprised by my ability in these traditional arts/crafts. But for me it seems like second nature to whip up a homemade pie, make cinnamon rolls from scratch, or sew a quick costume for one of my kids’ school activities.

I wonder if the younger generation of LDS women is learning these crafts? They don’t seem to teach them in YW (except for learning how to bake brownies or rice crispie treats) and they have very few, if any, classes in these areas at Enrichment Nights. I suspect that the younger generation of LDS women have never sewn a dress or preserved veggies.

In some ways I mourn the loss of such skills, even as I realize that they are unnecessary in today’s world. What do you think? Do you think that girls (or boys!) should be learning to cook and knit during their teen years? Are we missing out on an important part of our LDS heritage when we don’t teach traditional homemaking skills?

Guest post by Tim

Several months ago, I came to this site under the greatest anguish. Since that time I have learned far too much. I have very nearly left the church on several occasions and even wrote a letter but never delivered. In the last couple weeks I came to a point where I felt at peace with the church, that I can finally get on with it and not worry any more. In fact I even decided to go ahead and get my recommend renewed. The new scanner model is in effect in January.

Well, after I get it renewed, I felt good about it. I also realized afterward that I did not even care if it was all true or not. Maybe that disqualifies me as a worthy holder of my recommend…

As many of you know, this week starts the new study years in GD class on the BoM and this year also starts the new PH/RS classes on the teachings of Joseph Smith. As I sat in GD class I was so uncomfortable as we discussed the beginnings of the BoM. I felt like I wanted to either blurt out corrections or get up and leave. As I sat down at home today and read through the new ToJS lesson manual I wanted to throw up. I have studied too much lately it seems, because I felt like I was reading utter non-sense as fact after fact was omitted. I was astounded at how awful I felt reading it, like I was doing something terribly wrong in doing so. Only a year ago these same things were the greatest comfort…

Before today, I really thought I was going to make it-ya know? I had some concern about how I would feel with the new material, but had no idea it would be this profound.

So I ask, how does one continue on? How do you manage to keep it up and teach knowing that what you are saying is against your new beliefs (if you are still actively serving, that is)? Or even if you don’t teach, how do you fulfill your callings if your testimony disappears? Or do you?

The song, “All Good Gifts,” is from the ancient musical “Godspell.”

There are a number of versions on YouTube, but either the video is lousy or the tenor is flat (or both!) so I’ll leave you to seek one out yourself. It’s a beautiful song, based on Episcopal Hymn #138 (or so I read on the Stephen Schwartz music site).

ALL GOOD GIFTS

We plow the fields and scatter the good seed on the land..
But it is fed and watered by God’s almighty hand..
He sends us snow in winter, the warmth to swell the grain…
The breezes and the sunshine, and soft refreshing rain…

All good gifts around us
Are sent from Heaven above
So thank the Lord, oh thank the Lord for all his love…

We thank thee then, O Father, for all things bright and good,
The seedtime and the harvest, our life our health our food,
No gifts have we to offer for all thy love imparts
But that which thou desirest, our humble thankful hearts!

All good gifts around us
Are sent from Heaven above..
So thank the Lord, oh thank the Lord for all his love..

Merry Christmas.

It is pretty easy to slip into a black-sheep mode during this time. When so many of my family events involve impromptu testimonies from everyone I love, it is hard to not let the doubt carousel in my head spin out of control. I find myself folding my arms a lot and fantasizing about sinking into couches.

This year I am determined to not let myself feel this way. Or at least try to limit the amount of time I spend feeling apart. I think as outsiders of the faith we spend so much time feeling separate that we are almost unable to let ourselves enjoy the company of our loved ones. Sometimes they do keep us at arms length, but often times we are pushing back just as hard.

Holiday seasons are always dangerous times emotionally. It is near impossible to meet expectations set for us by Hallmark and McDonald’s and even harder to come up against the expectations of a faith abandoned. We all need to let ourselves off the hook a little this year. And you know who was into letting yourself off the hook? Jesus.

It is soon to be the darkest day of the year. Whether things are a bummer now or not, symbolically we all have our long Decembers. This year I will take comfort in knowing that at the end of a long year, and an even longer month I have one day when I can believe that the next year will be better and I can spend it with my family. And that can be Jesus for me this year.

I love you all and I hope you feel love and hope this holiday season.

The next GumboSnacker will be Friday, February 1st. We’ll go to the Krewe of Selene Mardi Gras parade in Slidell and then come to my house and hang out. Maybe we’ll have gumbo this time. Y’all come!

At Mark’s request, here is the recipe for the shrimp pasta thing:

2 T olive oil
1/3 cup chopped onion
2 cloves garlic
12 oz. jar marinated artichoke hearts, drained and cut into quarter-sized pieces
1 can diced tomato (do not drain)
2 lbs. raw shrimp, heads, tails and veins removed (from frozen is fine)
1 12 oz. can evaporated milk
1/8 tsp cayenne pepper (or to taste)
1 cup Parmesan cheese
1 lb. pasta (I used spaghetti; penne would be good, too)

Cook pasta according package directions.

Meanwhile, saute onion in oil over medium heat until almost soft, add garlic. Add artichoke hearts when onion is softened, stir until heated and then add shrimp and cayenne pepper. Cook until shrimp is almost opaque. Add tomatoes, undrained, and evaporated milk. Heat until lightly bubbling; add Parmesan cheese and mix in well.

Toss in bowl with drained pasta. Serve immediately with extra Parmesan cheese and fresh black pepper.

Apparently, my new Zen Mormonism is just in time for the rest of the English speaking world to start having the kinds of discussions I was having three years ago. The same old arguments about “is the church a cult?” are now playing out on a national stage, thanks to our Good Buddy Mitt and his Evil Twin, Mike. Right and left alike are freaking out about how stupid/cultish/racist/brainwashed/hellbound Mormons are. It’s only been going on for about a week, since Mitt’s speech, but I am well and thoroughly sick of it.

I have my own disagreements with church teachings and doctrine, but nothing is as simplistic as these people are making it, but there’s no room in the discourse for a sensible conversation. As in almost all areas in politics, the extremes define the rhetoric.

Back when some lefty bloggers working for the Edwards campaign wrote about President Bush’s “wingnut Christofascist base,” a guy in my ward spoke from his bully pulpit about how evil Democrats are for oppressing Christians, and how dare they talk about his faith that way? Well, I’ll tell you how they dare: politics is a dirty business, and when you drag your faith into it, it’s only a matter of time before people start pissing on it.

Mormons, welcome to the intersection of politics and religion. Careful where you step.