Thursday, January 29, 2015

Remember the turnaround....

It's all well and good until...

This last week the Mormon church came out with what they are calling a 'balanced approach' to marriage equality and recent laws being passed across the nation that will refuse public places to discriminate against the LGBT community. conditional support

The Mormon church wants other laws to be passed to also protect religious rights. Well, I have news for them, there are already laws in place, its called the first amendment.  Any laws written will only give equal protection to the LGBT community that is already afforded the religious community.

There are no *special* rights being given to anyone, just the same rights that everyone else, including religions, already enjoy.  The same day the Mormon church held their press conference, the Utah legislature also introduced  HB66  that would allow public officials who have a strong religious objection to marriage equality to refuse to issue marriage licenses. This is what the Mormon church calls a *balanced approach*.

This simply doesn't work. Why not? Because by giving public officials the privilege of claiming strongly held religious objections, then religion will trump law every time, every day....it will put religion ABOVE the law.

Can a person discriminate against a person by denying them housing? No. Oh, wait, unless they have strong religious objections.

Can a person discriminate against a person by denying them the ability to marry? No. Oh, wait, unless they have strong religious objections.

Can a person discriminate against a person by denying them medical help? No. Oh, wait, unless they have strong religious objections.

This always sounds all fine and well, that is until it is turned around. I wonder how these Mormons are going to feel then these *balanced approaches* are turned around on them?

How are the Mormons going to feel when their missionaries are refused haircuts because they aren't considered Christians?

How are the Catholics going to feel when they are denied the privilege of banking at the banks owned by the Jews?

How are the Evangelists going to feel when they are denied access to Indian or Chinese restaurants?

It's all well and good until what you wish for is turned around on you.
Be careful what you wish for, Mormons.


Thursday, January 1, 2015

Emotional Abuse and Autonomy

Emotional Abuse and Autonomy

“You need to have more kids, especially with how beautiful all your girls are.” My mother-in-law tells me for the hundredth time. Inside I’m seething, as I have to wonder why it is anybody’s business how many kids I have, especially my mother-in-laws when she knows how difficult my pregnancies are as well as the deliveries. She only has three kids, so who is she to tell me to have more kids, anyway? Why is it anybody’s business? I hate it when people tell me how many kids to have. I’m overwhelmed as it is, and this only makes me feel more overwhelmed.



“I’m going to take you to Africa and swing you from the trees.” Joe, an acquaintance tells me in a flirting manner.  I feel so uncomfortable, I don’t know what to say, what kind of come-on is that anyway? How completely inappropriate. I never know how to handle this, so I answer with a soft no, “I’ll just build a tree house and hide from you in its safety.” My soft no doesn’t work, as it often doesn’t, as he persists; “I’ll just build a ladder and come into your tree house.”  I walk away at this point because I’m so disgusted. My guy friends tell me it’s my fault for not giving him a strong no by just telling him to fuck off. I contend that a soft no would be respected by any person who respects boundaries.

“Your behavior is so juvenile, you need to stop acting so silly.”  I’m told this on the internet by someone who doesn’t like my sense of humor.  Why do I need to stop acting silly, I ask myself, I’m not hurting anyone, if it bothers them, why don’t they go somewhere else where it isn’t bothering them? If my behavior isn’t harming them, why do they feel compelled to tell me I must act according to what they want?

I’m tired, I want to go to bed.”  John then tells me it would offend him if I didn’t stay up and watch a movie with him.  The next day, I could hardly make it through my work day, I was so tired and then I resented him for making me too tired to make it through the day.

“I think this is funny!”
“That’s not funny, that’s stupid, and anyone who thinks that’s funny is stupid.” Says my friend.  Well, now I just feel ashamed.

“I’m so angry at Randy!”
 “How dare you…anger is of the devil, you need to repent.” 
“I’m sorry, was just expressing how upset I was that Randy raped me. Now what do I do with all these conflicting emotions?”

“Stop texting and listen to the speaker!”
 “But it’s boring.”
 “I don’t care.”
 Now I’m bored and frustrated.

As I left a controlling church, I realized how much I was told how to think:  your thoughts will condemn you, your bad thoughts lead to sinful actions, sexual thoughts are evil, etc.  I was told what to feel: anger is wrong, jealousy is wrong, sadness is wrong, be happy all the time. I was told how to behave: wear modest clothing, attend church every Sunday, do your church calling, listen to uplifting music, etc. As I look back on this, I realize that very little of these things had to do with harming others, but more with controlling me.

I began to learn to set clear boundaries and take control over my own emotions, thoughts and behavior. This has been a big learning curve for me. I have had to learn from others how to do a lot of this. I have been taught that my thoughts, feelings and behaviors aren’t really mine, but in the control of patriarchy as well as authority.  I have had to learn assertive communication skills in order to take back my personal power.

I remember listening to some women who were going through marriage counseling and how they were being told they could not control the behavior of their spouse, they could tell their spouse what bothered them, but their spouse was in complete control of their own behavior and could then choose to change their own behavior or choose to not change it. This was very difficult for me to understand at first. What if that behavior was damaging to the relationship? Wasn’t the spouse obligated to change? Could they be compelled to change? I have come to understand that we cannot compel others to change, not if we want a healthy relationship with them. We can assertively ask for what we need in a relationship, then after that, we have a choice; we can accept, compromise or walk away.  This has been the hardest lesson for me to learn.

Sulking, giving the silent treatment, yelling, or name calling are not healthy ways of communicating our wants and needs. We can ask for what we need, but the other person can choose to accept, reject or compromise. We become manipulative and lose ground if we use passive aggressive or aggressive tactics.

There are behaviors that are harmful, such as abuse, name calling, withholding money to control, etc. that should not be tolerated and if the person does not change, walking away is the best option. But I’ve often wondered about lots of other behaviors that are annoying but not harmful. How do we deal with the annoying behaviors of others?  I have learned we do the same. We can ask people to change, but they are still in charge of themselves and if they choose to not change, we choose to ignore or walk away.

Walking away can look like a lot of things. We can go into the another room, we can leave a party where someone is being obnoxious, put on head phones so we don’t have to listen to annoying sounds, etc.

As the years wane, I began to ponder why people think it is their right to tell other people how to act when it isn’t harming them. I wonder why people think they must tell others how to dress (mostly modestly) how to think (it isn’t okay to think about sex) or how to feel (it isn’t okay to feel anger, jealousy or sadness). 

I run a support group and this is always a point of contention within the group, as people attempt to control others by telling them what behavior and feelings are acceptable and which ones are not. This causes the most contention within the group than anything else. I have learned a lot over the years as I had to moderate the group. I have learned this; that people have a right to their own self-determination over their own thoughts, feelings and behavior as long as they are not harming others.

It is when others attempt to control our thoughts, behavior or emotions that causes the greatest amount of friction in relationships.  We seek autonomy.  I see other’s attempt to control us through passive words, behavior, ideas as well as through aggressive words, behavior and ideas. People are not separate from their behavior, and to say their behavior is bad, wrong or in error, but they are not is the same as calling them bad, wrong or in error.

Such things as sulking, the silent treatment, yelling, or name calling are just a few ways people use to attempt to control other people’s behavior, emotions or thoughts.  Why is it so difficult to allow other people the autonomy to self-determination?

The definition of emotional abuse includes this: verbal assault, humiliation, intimidation, infantilization, or any other treatment which may diminish the sense of identity, dignity, and self-worth."

So, when a person attempts to assert control over others, it is a form of emotional abuse. Each person needs to be able to determine for themselves, from the very small things, to the very large things. We can choose our sexual partners, when we are tired and need to rest. We get to choose how many children we are capable of having (or none at all), as well as which emotions we are feeling, from sadness to frustration to anxiety to anger to happiness. We get to choose our clothes, and even our laugh and sense of humor.  We choose our thoughts and ideas as well.


Thursday, December 4, 2014

Not all that wander are lost...

Not all that wonder are lost...Here are some YouTube videos that have helped me along my wanderings:

I left the Mormon church, not because I had discovered the Mormon church had lied to me about its history (the main reason most current members are leaving) but because I could not trust priesthood authority over my own thoughts, feelings, intuition, or spirituality.  Too many times the priesthood authority said was right contradicted my own moral compass and in the end, I chose to follow my own moral compass.  When I first left, I thought I would one day return, however, after watching this video, I knew I could never return:




This one asks how could it be possible to carry the gold plates when they would have weighed about 200 pounds:



I knew about the DNA and the Book of Mormon, so it was a pleasant surprise to find information about it on YouTube:


Hitchens is great and so are his videos about the origins of the beginning of the Mormon church:


I think it is natural that once a person questions their own dogma, to also question all dogma:

I can't get this one to embed, but it's still worth the watch:     What if?



I have tried on many occasions to try and talk to my Mormon family about my wanderings and about my research but they feel personally attacked and get defensive. Why do they take my criticism of their religion as a personal attack on them? Because of this:


So, this is a long video but well worth it. In fact, all the Ex-Mormon conference videos are well worth the time:


One of the things Mormons have misunderstood the most about their own church is the misappropriations of funds. Billions of funds spent on City Creek mall, for example:




For laughs, some of my favorite channels:
1. Mormon Ambassador:

2. Flackerman:
3. Mr. Deity:


4. Newnamenoah:




Sunday, November 23, 2014

Agency and Morality

I wonder and I wonder at the concept of agency...

What does it mean to choose? Are we free to choose or are we punished if we make a choice that is counter to the *right* choice?  According to the Mormon church, there is ONLY one choice, to do what they tell you:

"When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God's Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God."
Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945
Also included in the Improvement Era, June 1945 (which was the official church magazine before the Ensign)


"Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don't need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray."
LDS President Marion G. Romney (of the first presidency), quoting LDS President (and prophet) Heber J. Grant "Conference Report" Oct. 1960 p. 78

"When the Prophet speaks the debate is over".
N. Eldon Tanner, August Ensign 1979, pages 2-3

"Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray."
Boyd K. Packer (General Conference, Oct. 1992; Ensign, Nov. 1992)


Yes, from the times of Brigham Young: "The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother's arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth."
Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 289, 1862.

To today, the leaders of the Mormon church have claimed that they speak for god  and will not lead us astray. There have been recent developments that have led many people to have a crisis of faith and to attempt to stem this, the leaders are once again telling the people to not trust in their own moral compass, but to trust in the leaders of the church. In the most recent Ensign article, the  LDS leaders want you to trust them even when they have lied to you 

I left the Mormon church BEFORE I knew that Joseph Smith took other men's wives from them (the church calls this polyandry, but since polygamy and all its various forms was illegal at the time, then these marriages were illegal so he was in fact just engaging in adultery. He also lied to Emma, his only legal wife. He also used manipulation to gain access to girls as young as 14 years old.  Link to LDS acknowledgments

I left because it isn't right to discriminate against people because their skin color is different than my own.
I left because it isn't right to discriminate against people because their sexuality is different than my own.
I left because it isn't right to discriminate against people because their gender is different than yours.
I left because it isn't right to pursue the impossible idea of perfection at the cost of being your best. I left because my moral compass compelled me to leave.


Why did I leave the Mormon church? I left because I could not trust priesthood authority over my own thoughts/feelings/intuition/spirituality.



Too many times the priesthood authority said what was right contradicted my moral compass and in the end, I must follow my own moral compass.





Thursday, November 13, 2014

The Power of Cognitive Dissonance

Can you ever imagine yourself defending something you despise? 
Would you defend adultery? 
Would you defend using manipulation to take another man's wife?
Would you defend coercion to get teenage girls to marry you?
Would you defend lying to your wife in order to take new wives?

I have been astonished for the last few weeks as the new Mormon church articles have come out on polygamy and I have watched good Mormons who are usually moral people defend these types of actions in Joseph Smith.

When I was a believing Mormon, my believing Mormon friends and I would have many discussions on polygamy and I remember those discussions well. We didn't like it, we were offended by it. We hated D&C 132 that stated we would all live it in the Celestial Kingdom. Of all the things taught in the Mormon church, it was this doctrine that disturbed us the most. We despised the doctrine of polygamy.

Now, the Mormons who are defending it are coming out of the wood work. They not only defend it, but defend it in gory details none of us knew about growing up, such as taking teenage brides, lying to Emma and taking wives behind her back, and marrying women who were married to other men at the time. Joseph would also use strong arm tactics and manipulation to gain access to these women. Since this has all been verified through LDS.org and I love this article, I will only link to the sources as there is no reason to repeat it all again here.

None of  this is moral or can be justified, either by today's standards or standards from 200 years ago or 1,000 years ago. This is why; if God is in charge of his church and god is the same yesterday, today and forever, and these things are immoral today, then they were also immoral 150 years ago. If God would not tolerate Warren Jeffs taking child brides today, then he would not tolerate Joseph Smith doing it, nor would he tolerate Muhammad taking a nine year old bride in 600.  Immoral is immoral, no matter what generation.

So, my question is this...what leads good people to defend immoral behavior? Could it be cognitive dissonance?  

Cognitive dissonance is being in a mental state of having conflicting beliefs, behaviors or attitudes.When confronted with information that conflicts with their current state, they seeks to balance it. The more extreme the conflict is, the more the discomfort and people desire a state of equilibrium and will work to achieve this state, so they must change their beliefs, values, behavior or reject the new information.

With the acknowledgement that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and in such an immoral way has come out, it has put Mormons in a state of cognitive dissonance. They must now find a way to rectify that. How can the church, the Book of Mormon and the prophet they have been told all their lives be god's true church, while also being immoral?  The only way they can rectify these two opposing states of mind is to embrace polygamy where they never did before. To reject polygamy is to reject their esteemed prophet and ultimately the church and everything they have come to believe is true.
It is a crisis of faith they did not expect and are not ready for.
I say if they are going to defend polygamy with such force, they need to embrace it fully and live the principle once again...let go of the cognitive dissonance once and for all and just live it!



"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago [when charged with polygamy shortly after his marriage to Emma Hale]; and I can prove them all perjurers. (LDS History of the Church 6:410–411)"
Joseph Smith, perjuring himself 1844

If you are a believing Mormon or a former Mormon, how many details of polygamy did you know about as a Mormon? Take this quiz and find out:






Saturday, November 1, 2014

How to Avoid DV

I am a survivor-- I have survived abuse from my childhood, marriage and the strangulation of a short term relationship. The number one question people ask is why women like me go back to the abuser. I had learned by the third man to walk away, but in my 20 year marriage, I separated from him seven times; yes, seven times before I learned to walk away for good. Instead of looking at this from the woman's point of view, I want to look at it from the man's point of view....how do they get the women to stay.

How do abusive men get the women to come back to them time and again when the women suffer such abuse?

From the time we are infants, we are programmed to attach to our caregivers...our very survival depends on it. Our food, shelter and even love are dependent on our caregivers providing that for us.

Abusers are able to capitalize on this basic survival need all humans have, to bond with those who provide for our every need, our shelter, our emotional needs, our physical needs, even our very lives. They slowly take away the ability for the person to independently take care of themselves or to think they can get their needs met through family or friends.

There are four elements or conditions the abuser must control in order to make his victim his domain:
1.  A perceived threat to the victim's existence, and the victim believes the the perpetrator will carry out the threats

2. The perpetrator gives small acts of kindness to the victim...these acts of kindness may be in the form of jewelry (known as apology jewelry) telling the victim they will not hit them tonight even though dinner is burned, or taking out to dinner for a rare night out on the town.  These acts of kindness are given in the context of terror (the victim knows the perpetrator may turn on them at any moment.)

3.  The perpetrator isolates the victim. This happens over time and by several means...the victim knows that if family or friends are part of their life, their lives are also in danger; that by telling family what is going on, the victim's life is in peril, and the victim comes to believe the perpetrator has complete control over life and death.

4.  The perpetrator is able to make the victim believe they do not have the capacity to escape.

When asked victims of abuse, 'Why did you stay so long?' Most will say something like, 'I know it doesn't make sense, I just loved him.'  Yet, it is in the perpetrator's behavior that we find the answer.  The perpetrator sets up the victim through a series of constant threats followed by acts of kindness. The perpetrator will then cycle through the threats (followed by actual violence or emotional abuse) then followed by more acts of kindness.

The victim goes through cycles of having their self-esteem shredded followed by feeling loved.  This causes an imbalance of power called Trauma Bonding. This causes a hostile environment emotionally, physically and mentally, or a constant state of survival mode known as cognitive dissonance is set up to help the victim to survive.

When a person is in a trauma situation they have three options, fight, flight or freeze. The victims in these situations have learned to freeze out of fear. Fear is the number one weapon of the perpetrators.  When we are faced with fear, we often regress and the perpetrator uses this regression to his advantage and the victim is often seen as infantile, she takes her perpetrator back, and is immobilized to inaction, and becomes powerless. The perpetrator is then in the position of parent and the victim in the role of child.

It is important to know the patterns of perpetrators, so that women can recognize them early on and escape and family and friends can better understand why it is so difficult for victims to escape.




Narcissist and Stockholm syndrome