Suffer the Little Children...

Much has been written about the Mormon church's new policy on banning children of the LBGTQ community from being blessed or baptized into the Mormon church until they are 18. Even then, these children are required to move out of their parent's home and disavow their parent's . This is directly out of the bishop's handbook of instructions, with highlights added:

The Mormon church has claimed this in the best interest of the children. I disagree on every level with them since the Mormon church believes baptism is a saving ordinance and they are denying a saving ordinance from children:

1. They are making children choose between a saving ordinance and their parent

2. They are making children choose between their parent and the church

3. They are separating the child from their peers, while they are advancing the peers in the priesthood and the young womens, they are preventing these children from taking part in these rituals., including doing baptisms for the dead with their peers

4. They are setting these children up to be ridiculed and bullied by their peers because they are setting them apart, making them different by not allowing them to participate in giving talks in church, in praying, in advancing the same way their peers are

5. They are usurping the role of parent since it is the role of parent to determine what will and will not cause harmony or discord within the family and it isn't the role of the church to determine this

6. It is the role of parent to determine a religion for their children, it isn't the role of religion to determine what religion a child will or won't be raised in.

One more thing I must add. Many Mormons have been quoting their favorite apologists blog, Greg Trimble where he says that Jesus didn't accept everyone, implying that Jesus would reject the same people that Mormons reject. I agree with the premise that Jesus didn't accept everyone, I absolutely reject the premise that Jesus rejected gays, as there is NOTHING in any Biblical scripture to suggest such a thing. 

I will agree with Greg Trimble that Jesus did reject some people. Jesus rejected people who took financial advantage of people by selling things at the temple, he rejected the church leaders who did not take care of the poor and did their alms in public. He rejected the leaders who were hypocrites.

When I stopped believing in all the tenets of the Mormon church, I started drinking coffee, tea and alcohol, since I no longer believed these things to be sinful. I also had these things in my home. My true believing Mormon family, however, believed me to be sinful and would not come into my home, even when my Mom died. My family traveled great distances for my Mom's funeral and spent a great deal of money to be here for her funeral. I offered my home as respite for them. Not a single family member would stay in my 'sinful' home to save money or share in our grief together. I was shunned because of my sins. Love the sinner, hate the sin, right? It is impossible to separate the two out.

If Mormon's truly believe this new policy will not shun children and parents, they are in error. 

I wish people would think for themselves. If your first reaction to this new policy is one of revulsion, then your morals are telling you it is wrong. Why would you trust any person above your own ethics?

WHY?

We are Glorified by Love

After I was strangled a few years ago, it was the Christian thing to say to me, 'There is a purpose for everything".  I would bristle at this and say in return, 'There is no purpose for abuse." At this, there is a pause and without fail, they would have to admit I was correct and they could think of no purpose for abuse.

This is the main reason that when I left Mormonism behind, I also left Christianity behind. Yesterday I attended the UU service. Since it was Easter Sunday, the minster discussed Jesus and the atonement and the resurrection in detail.  My anxiety was building as she was talking because I do not feel comfortable with these topics, as I do not believe in them. As she talked about Jesus' death, she said the only way we can understand his death and ultimate resurrection is if we understand it as myth...when she said this, I breathed a sigh of relief.

Yes, I can accept Jesus as a man who spoke wise words and died a normal death, then his followers turned his death into a myth because it was too painful to accept his death.

What has happened with his death since then, I cannot accept, that his followers have turned suffering into a glorious thing. This; I cannot accept:

Then this, from the Mormon church:

“A good friend, who knows whereof he speaks, has observed of trials, ‘If it’s fair, it is not a true trial!’ That is, without the added presence of some inexplicableness and some irony and injustice, the experience may not stretch us or lift us sufficiently. The crucifixion of Christ was clearly the greatest injustice in human history, but the Savior bore up under it with majesty and indescribable valor.”

—Neal A. Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience (1980), 31
Or this:

“Sometimes … we find that even when we do our best to serve the Lord, we still suffer. You may know someone who faces these most challenging of circumstances: consider the parent whose child becomes ill, for whom everyone prays and fasts with all their heart and soul, but who ultimately dies. Or the missionary who sacrifices to go on a mission, then develops a terrible illness that leaves him or her severely disabled or in chronic pain. … The key is to remember that faith and obedience are still the answers—even when things go wrong, perhaps especially when things go wrong.”

—David E. Sorensen, "Faith Is the Answer," Ensign, May 2005, 73

Where does this idea come from, that there is glory in suffering? From this concept that Jesus was glorified in his suffering.  If he was glorified in his suffering, then we will be, also, right? 

I reject this notion. I reject the notion that a woman who is beaten by her husband should endure in silence because her endurance will bring her glory. I reject the notion that a child who starves to death will be glorified, I reject the notion that genocide will glorify a nation, I reject the notion that pain and suffering brings glory. 
Abuse of any kind does not glorify any of us; if all abuse was abolished from the earth today, this earth would be glorified. This, I believe. 

If we look at the death of Jesus as a myth, then see that the women who attended to him loved him, we see that his life was about loving the unlovable, we see that his life was about alleviating suffering and and bringing comfort. This changes the entire story of Jesus' life to one of love and not suffering and in this way it can change the way we see our lives and society.

We are glorified by love. 

My Journey of Opposition

Today several brave souls stood up in General Conference and raised their hands to oppose the sustaining of the general authorities as current leaders of the Mormon church.  As a part of the movement that is in opposition to the current leadership, I'm so proud of the brave people who had the courage to do this (there were
three others, by the way.)

I have had my own journey with this controversy.  When I was in high school, there was a new bishop put in our ward. Within a year, several families felt he was using his position as bishop to financially abuse them, to take financial liberties and to financially ruin them.

They took their evidence and frustrations to the stake presidency and as I recall, this was not a small group of people, even though it was a minority in the ward, there were about a dozen families involved, (including my own). They put their grievance before the stake presidency only to have it divide the presidency and cause further divide within the ward.

The families who brought the charges were not getting any redress, so they were being rather vocal within the ward with their frustrations, as well.  This was causing a great divide within the ward.  Ward conference was coming up and the stress level for everyone was high.  When the stake presidency called for a sustaining vote of the bishop, the opposition was high, and vocal.

The stake presidency said they would meet with those in opposition after church, which they did, but they only decided to leave the bishop in his position (two members of the presidency voting to keep him in, one voting to remove him), thinking that removing him would cause the ward members to distrust them and the process.

Several ward members went inactive over this and several family members lost homes over business deals and the financial repercussions were severe, who ever was at fault.

Years later, when I was going through my faith crisis, I began to realize that the church leaders did not make decisions based on listening to promptings from god, but on the leanings on the arm of flesh. This realization led me to the conclusion that I could not raise my hand to sustain church leaders.  There is great pressure to go along with the consensus, the group think has incredible pressure within the church, so being the lone person to raise my hand in opposition did not seem like a viable option.

What I chose to do instead; every Sunday for a few years, was to not raise my hand at all, and so for years I would not raise my hand to sustain my leaders. I would not raise my hand to sustain new people being called, I would not sustain bishops, apostles, nobody.

As I look back, I wonder how many people were also silently protesting the group think, the system that didn't give us a voice, the pressure to conform.

My heart goes out to all those who continue to feel stuck in a system that doesn't work for them, who are continuing on with their silent protests. I will raise my arm with a glass of wine in it to you today, in solidarity to those of us who refuse to be part of the group think.

Accepting others where they are

This last week I read and re-read the book, "You Can Heal Your Life" by Louise Hay. She talks about many of us (herself included) that have suffered abuse, but even though we are able to leave the pain behind, the belief systems surrounding that abuse we seem to carry into adulthood.

She talks about how those belief systems serve us, but they also hinder us.  For the past 10 years or so, I have lived by most of what she says in her book, but I obviously still carry some of those belief systems with me still.

She talks about how this is a process, not a one time step and she used to be angry at herself when faced with belief systems that were harming her, and now she just looks at it and says to herself, 'I love you the way you are and this thing still needs to be adjusted."

I'm a caretaker and as such, I tend to want to fix things and especially fix people. I run a support group for people in transition. I have learned a very important lesson over the years; I have learned that each and every one of us are responsible for our own behaviors, thoughts and emotions. 

Even when people's behavior, thoughts and emotions are harmful to them, it still isn't my job to fix them. The more I live by this, the more I am able to allow others to make their own mistakes, even when they are harmful to themselves.  

When we allow others to be responsible for their own actions, this also leaves no room for victim blaming, a victim doesn't cause abuse to happen to them because the person who does the damage is solely responsible for their own actions.

It is also easier to let go of telling others how to live their lives because they are responsible for how they live their lives, even if their choices bring them harm. 

We have a right to set boundaries when other people's behavior treads on us and causes us harm, however, so let's not confuse setting boundaries, which is good with allowing others to lead their lives.

I am still needing a reminder, but this has helped me live a better life.

It isn't all about you

Have you ever just gone about your own business, just doing your own thing, but there is that one person who has to make everything in life about them?

If you say the whether is rainy, they complain that it is raining just to irritate them.  If the cashier is abrupt, it is just to piss them off, and if you break up with them, they must make it all about them and how you are unfair to them; 'didn't i cook dinner for you well, and clean the kitchen and pay half the bills? What's your problem for not being grateful, after all?'

I have to wonder how ego-centric they are to make everything in life about them. They must be so deprived of self love to have to go through life feeling like that all the time.

Maybe, just maybe it's about me. Maybe I want a man in my life who is financially solvent, who communicates directly rather than passive aggressively, and who isn't depressed all the time. Maybe I want a man in my life who isn't always flirting with every skirt that walks in the room and instead makes me feel like the most important woman in the room.

Maybe it's about me because I have a right to make it about me.

Infallible?

Recently, the Mormon church had acknowledged that past prophets have not been completely infallible, and have indeed made mistakes.

Joseph Smith married other men's wives when it is expressly forbidden by god, Brigham Young was a racist, and the church leader's murdered men, women and children in the Mountain Meadow's massacre, among many other mistakes.

As I've pondered these and many other mistakes, I've come to wonder why does God, who people say is perfect, needs fallible men to communicate with us humans here on earth? If he is go grand and glorious and great, and full of power, then can't he figure out a better way to communicate with us than through fallible men?

I mean, really, scientists have been able to communicate around the world with people through televisions, telephones, and computers, you'd think god could be as clever and creative, if not more so!

People have been able to put up an electronic billboard in times square, for heaven's sake!


What? God can't think to build an electronic billboard in the sky and talk to us through it?

Wouldn't that be more effective than telling us women through an old man to only wear one pair of earrings?

How about a billboard in the sky telling us to stop killing each other over religion? How about telling us to stop hating each other because of how we dress, or look, or who we have sex with?

How about a billboard in the sky telling us that the most important things are to just love and accept each other and tolerate differences? Wouldn't that be better than discriminating and hating on each other?

How about that, god?

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

Survey on Joseph Smith's polygamy

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

What IS wrong with us?

WTF?

Don't Believe Everything you Hear About Apostates

Don't Believe Everything

 you hear about

 Apostates

Don't believe everything you hear about apostates, odds are, it probably isn't true.

When my boyfriend and I were dating, we did the dorkiest things, we would go to the Deseret Book store and look at the apologist books. After awhile, we noticed that all of them seemed to have a common theme, they seemed to be plagued with anti-apostate  literature. The workers didn't have a response, and I wondered, 'if they were comfortable with their doctrines, wouldn't they just leave us alone? Maybe they should follow the counsel of  the 5th Chapter of Acts., Gamaliel told the Jews that were preoccupied with proving them wrong to “let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:41)

The things I found in those books weren't fair and they definitely weren't accurate.  They took things out of context and misquoted things from us apostates.  

So here's the thing... a bunch of good hearted people go to the Mormon bookstores or innocently attend the Mormon church and BOOM!  They hit them with a bunch of stuff that makes us apostates look like a bunch of freaks.  Remember, just because a guy publishes a blog doesn't make him an expert on Apostates!  Remember, he's bashing people who have sincerely researched and studied out and come to a thoughtful conclusion that should be respected. He's too busy with the rigor of his self absorption to realize he is tearing down the apostates for their beliefs. 

Even if you never join the apostates, just don't believe everything you hear about them. Keep an open mind,  and find out for yourself.  Invite one over for dinner and ask them why they believe what they believe.  It won't hurt you to ask them, they aren't contagious after all.  Even if you decide to not become an apostate, it won't hurt you to be friends with them, there's no need to declare a theological war on them.  Even Christ said in Luke 9:50 that “he that is not against us is for us.” No apostate is against you, and if they don't want to be your friend, they shouldn't be an apostate.

So let's flip this around, if you're already an apostate, you shouldn't just believe what others tell you, you should study it out, find out for yourself...read lots of information,  in fact a good place to get both sides of the story is here;  http://mormonthink

You shouldn't become an apostate just because it's a cool thing to do or because Amy Adams  or Aaron Eckhart are famous exmormons.  Don't just believe in being an apostate because your Mom and Dad says you should, yes, these are great reasons, but you need to study it out in your mind when you get a stupid of thought that means you have stumbled into apologetics and you need to leave as quickly as you can.

You are not an apostate just because 

you like Amy Adam's tits

Do you remember when Carl Sagan made one of the most incredible statements in human history? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  Remember that Carl Sagan is telling us that the only way to get to truth is through studying and seeking knowledge.

So, if you're not an apostate, don't believe what you are told about apostates.  People err because they blindly follow without studying it out for themselves. 

Mormon God, where are you?

Today, the Mormon church pulled its missionaries out of Africa, afraid its missionaries are going to get Ebola.

Shouldn't the Mormon church be leaving its missionaries IN Africa to place a healing blessing on all those victims with Ebola?

I thought the priesthood healed sickness? Where are all those healing blessings? Isn't this a time for the Mormon church to show its true colors? Isn't this a time to show the world the great powers of the priesthood? Isn't this the time to heal the world?

Maybe the church is showing us their true colors by running away?

Mormon missionaries running away from Ebola

United Nations Photo

12 Reasons Religion Belongs at Church

I get links to articles all the time that show fallacies and I just ignore them, but sometimes, the articles are so bad and they must be answered. This article is one of them:  10 Reasons why religion should be in schools

FIRST:
For any U.S Citizen who understands the constitution they should immediately have bells going off in their head when they read that headline because they should know and understand the Constitution which reads:

Amendment Text 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

"The First Amendment also includes the right to freely express one’s religion. It does so by guaranteeing every person the right to express any religious belief, or none at all, while at the same time prohibiting the government from favoring any particular religion over another. The government cannot dictate how we should act or what we should believe, especially when it comes to religion" (highlighting is my own addition). freedom of religion

The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect religious freedom, so that one religion is not forced upon the people, it protects the freedom of all people to practice their religion of choice, so when this article assumes that ONLY Christianity will be taught in schools, this is illegal, as it would force one belief system onto all the American citizens, thus invalidating the U.S. constitution.

SECOND:
A set of bells continues to go off, that there is an assumption that there is only one religion in America, that of Christianity, and that Americans are united in what Christianity is! For example, the Catholic church alone is composed of 23 different church branches alone.

How about the Protestants? Well, you have the Lutherans, the Pietisms who branched off the Lutherans; then there are the Anglicanisms, and the Puritan branch and the Methodist branch or the Congregationalists: From the Continental Reformed Church, there are branches named Presbyterians, Calvinism, Baptists; then there were the Ana Baptists  (but they died out because they didn't believe in sexual intercourse), Pentecosts, Holiness Movement, and Adventist Movement.  American Christian Denominations

Of course there are the Scientology, Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons.  So, which one? Which type of Christianity would be taught? All of them? How about other religions? There are over 310 religions in the USA alone.  Here is a list of them:  310 Religions in USA

THIRD:
"It improves brain development".  He makes a non-sequitur fallacy in his first point: Herb Scribner points to a recent study that found that children raised to believe that fictional tales are real have a more difficult time telling the difference between reality and fantasy, and I quote from him, 'Believing in fiction and having a creative mind can be beneficial in brain development.'  fantasy 

Yes, I completely agree with this, but what does this have to do with teaching religion in the schools? There is no connection between being creative and teaching religion.

He goes on to point to an article on pretend play.  A non sequitur fallacy is one that does not follow logic, and that is what Herb does here. Children know the difference between fantasy and reality in pretend play. In the article he links to in pretend play, at no point do the children think they are really firefighters and try to really put out real fires. At no point do the children really try to cook on real stoves with real food. At no point do the children do the children try to drive real cars. They understand they are pretending...that is the point of their play! This is why it is called pretend play.

Pretend play improved brain development, religion doesn't, according to the articles he sites.

FOURTH
"It keeps kids out of trouble." Herb sites a study that shows a correlation between people in their 20's who live 7 years longer if they attend a religious organization than those who do not. The problem with this study, however, is it shows a correlation and not a causation, and as anybody who knows about research, there is a big difference between the two.

Correlation is not causation, as anyone in research will tell you. Here are a few examples of things that are correlated but there is no causation:

The more films Nicolas Cage appears in, the fewer people who die in helicopter accidents: correlation

Or how about this one, The More money the U.S spends on Science and technology, the more deaths there are by suicide:

FIFTH:
 "Religious schools do better than public schools." Again he makes a non sequitur fallacy and makes the leap that it must be religion that is making the difference and just because religious schools are faring better, THEN we must teach religion in public schools. He sites this study to back up his claim: Religious schools So lets look at this study and look at WHY religious schools may fare better than public schools:

1. Parental involvement. I agree. In any school, public or private where parents have a higher rate of involvement, students are going to have a higher rate of success. But what does that have to do with teaching religion in public schools? Again a fallacy, teaching religion in schools has nothing to do with parental involvement and has nothing to do with getting parents to get involved with their children's education.

2. Private, religious schools get to 'choose' their student body and it is expensive, therefore the students are socio-economically-racially not diverse. Again, what does this have to do with teaching religion in public schools, who take every student and teaching religion is NOT a factor in the success of these students.

3. There was a behavioral difference between the students in the private sector and the public sector. The private sector students tended to be more respectful to the teachers, less likely to express opinions. The public sector teachers were more likely to allow expression of opinions, the class sizes tended to be larger, and teachers tended to move on to a different subject before the subject had been mastered.  Again, all things that have nothing to do with teaching religion.

SIXTH:
"It helps kids learn more about themselves" The article he sites states that children are often too self interested. 

I agree that children need to be taught humility, openness, a sense of spirituality, self-discipline, self love, a sense of community. However, I disagree that there is only one way to teach this. I think there are many ways to teach these concepts and teaching religion in schools in not one of them. PTA, Kiwanis, community centers, are just a few of them, and yes, even churches teach these.

"It helps students learn more about themselves". The opening abstract of the article he quotes states: 

Currently, religious education at primary schools in Western Europe has evolved into a subject that seeks to support students to develop their religious identity. Religious Identity

In other words, the primary purpose of this study is to teach a religious identity, not a core identity. Religions have Sunday services to do this, this is not the purpose of schools.

SEVENTH:
"It helps Americans read more."
We are talking about children in schools, right? Then why is Herb quoting data about adults? The article he quotes from is taking data that states 41% of adults had not read a book....it is not taking data about children. So how does putting bibles in schools going to increase the reading habits of adults? Again, he makes a non sequitur fallacy.

EIGHTH:
"It helps kids develop psychologically."  Once again, Herb makes another Non Sequitur fallacy, that kids need to believe in something greater than themselves in order to excel, therefore the only way to do that is through teaching religion in schools. He then goes on to link an article that talks about the entitlement trap and the ONLY way to avoid allowing our children to fall into it is to not neglect our children's spiritual development.

NINTH:
"Religious majors are more likely to be unemployed".  Again, his line of reasoning is flawed. First, children go to school to get an education in core classes and not to choose a major. They choose a major most of the time in their twenties. Second, if we start to teach to children according to what jobs are available, we will flood those job markets and actually increase the unemployment rate in those areas. We can't all be ministers, now, can we? Who would we preach to?

Also, there are many jobs that have a lower unemployment rate than religious areas...telemarketing for example has a 0% unemployment rate...should we teach telemarketing skills to all our kids in public schools? By Herbs reasoning, we should.

TENTH:
"It can further your education". The premise of this article has no basis in fact, there is no data to back this up, however, studying knowledge of all kinds opens the mind, and for college students, taking a college course that studies all religions, I do agree with this article on this topic: " Students who concentrate in Religious Studies gain skills in reading analytically, thinking critically, and writing fluently. Because classes are often smaller than in other disciplines"   Taking college religion classes

ELEVENTH:
"It helps American business". Once again, he makes a non sequitur fallacy. The happier employers are, the better business does, and what makes employers happy? Religion, and of course, Christian religion. The problem is, both Herb AND the Washington Post make one of the biggest mistakes made when they look at research...they come to conclusions the research doesn't come to in the original data.

The research the Washington Post and Herb quote states that what makes people happy is a 'sense of meaning' and 'a sense of well being and comfort'  Both The Washington Post and Herb conclude that religion gives us both of those things, therefore religion is the meaning of happiness. What they fail to realize  is that many things in life can give us a sense of meaning and well being and comfort in life and it can be different for different people. It may be religion for some people, but it may not for others. It may be serving in the Kiwanis for some, it may be relaxing at home for others, it may be vacationing with family for some. You see, seeking happiness is so vast and different, it cannot possibly be the same for every person.

Allowing people the freedom to seek their own path is what is best for business.

TWELFTH:
"It can knock down depression". There is a link to having social connections and lowering depression. However, there are many studies that show religion increases depression:  religious people more depressed

The state of Utah, which has the highest rate of church attendance, also has the highest rate of anti-depressant use:  Utah leads nation in anti-depressants

There are many ways to get social needs met, and kids in school get lots of social time at recess, so again it is a fallacy to assume teaching religion in schools will increase social connections.

Kids are often exposed to girls scouts, boy scouts, karate, gymnastics, and many other classes where they have the opportunity to connect socially.

Teaching religion in schools is just illegal. I hope we keep religion where it belongs, in churches.

seeks to support students to develop their religious identity.