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. 

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. 

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.

Social Voyeurism

My 13 year old came to me after her interview with the bishop. I was in the process of having a spiritual crisis, as was my daughter, but this was just over the top. She was being interviewed to do baptisms for the dead and the bishop asked the usual questions, but he threw in a new one and my daughter was surprised, shocked and didn't even know how to answer, since she didn't even know what he was talking about. He asked her if she was having anal sex. Now I get the privilege of explaining anal sex to my innocent, naive daughter. Thanks, bishop, :::sarcasm:::: for opening the eyes of a once innocent girl who didn't need to know this when she wasn't even dating, let alone sexually active.

I looked up the definition of a voyeur, since I this seems to fit into the category. This, from wikipedia:

Voyeurism is the sexual interest in or practice of spying on people engaged in intimate behaviors, such as undressing, sexual activity, or other actions usually considered to be of a private nature.^[1]

The principal characteristic of voyeurism is that the voyeur does not normally relate directly with the subject of his/her interest, who is often unaware of being observed. Voyeurism may involve the making of a secret photograph or video of the subject during an intimate activity. When the interest in a particular subject is obsessive, the behavior may be described as stalking.

The term comes from the French voyeur, "one who looks". A male voyeur is commonly labeled "Peeping Tom"...  Voyeurism

As I think of the term, I look back to all those other interviews where I had to answer questions that I felt violated in my personal space and other bishops probed into my sexual behavior...in fact I decided to coin my own term; social voyeurism.

I think back to when I was nineteen and dating a young man. He was mormon and pushing his limits with me. It was very confusing since I had been taught conflicting things within the mormon church. I had been taught to submit to all male authorities in all areas and that I was responsible for male's sexual behavior since they cannot control their own sexual thoughts or behavior.  As he pushed his limits with me, I tell him no, yet he continued to push his limits. I tell him no, but he continued. I tell him no, but he doesn't take no for an answer. I continue to tell him no, I push him off me, I tell him no, but he forced me. Crying, telling him no telling him I don't want this doesn't work and he raped me.

Distraught and not knowing where to turn, I went to my bishop and tell him what happened. The bishop asked for detailed information...did I let him touch my breasts on the outside and inside of my clothes? Did I let him touch my private parts on the outside and inside of my clothes? How loudly did I say no? How forcefully did I push him away? He then informs me that I am responsible for the young man's sexual behavior and puts me on probation. I am not allowed to hold a church calling, to pray or take the sacrament for 6 months.

Years later, I am looking at the definition of a voyeur. A voyeur is one who has sexual interest and spying on others engaged in sexual practices. Certainly my daughter's bishop and my bishop at 19 has shown that. By asking such intimate questions, they are indeed spying into our private lives and our sexual practices and concerned about our intimate behaviors that are of a private matter.

 I think back to when I was engaged to be married. I had to go in for a temple recommend interview. I was asked the same probing questions. I had determined by this time that these questions are not any of the bishop's business, so I determined I would not answer any of them.  When I leave, I begin to feel guilty, so I turned around and tell the truth. The fiance and I had done things short of fornication, so the bishop insisted that tell him very intimately all that we had done. Again, I must confess things of a very private matter. I must tell him about our petting, our touching private parts, about how my fiancee touched my breasts, both on top of my clothes and under my clothes.  I returned each month until we are married. (Interesting, since my fiancee decides to lie to his bishop, he didn't have to go through the same process, so much for the spirit of discernment.)

If there is one thing that needs to change about the mormon church, it is the social voyeurism that continues to invade the personal space of children and adults alike. Why did I feel compelled to answer these violating questions? Why, after all I went through, did I allow my daughter to also be violated in a similar manner?

Because of the nature of voyeurism itself...the Mormons don't even see they are being observed. Just like the definition states, "the principal characteristic of voyeurism is that the voyeur does not normally relate directly with the subject of his/her interest, who is often unaware of being observed." the Mormons are unaware they are being observed, that their boundaries are being crossed.  

Why are they unaware? Because they have been taught their entire lives that it is normal for middle aged men to sit in a room alone with teenaged girls and boys and ask the most private and personal questions imaginable. We were taught to never question priesthood authority because they are never wrong because they represent god. We are taught that our bodies are not our own, they belong to the church, and as such, we must answer to the church  and priesthood authority about them.

 The church  also decides what we wear (garments, cover shoulders and legs to the knees, don't wear more one pair of earrings, no tattoos, men must wear white shirts to pass the sacrament, etc.).  The church decides how we act (always be reverent, no loud laughter, evil speaking of the lord's anointed.).  The church decides how we think and what we listen to and what we say and watch (no music that will offend the spirit, thoughts lead to actions, and swearing is bad and no R or X rated shows or pronography). So you see, our bodies are not our own and decisions about them are made by the church.

If a high school teacher were to pull one of their students into a room alone and ask the very same questions, that teacher would be arrested and convicted of sexual crimes against a child, yet each year, thousands of parents allow the same violation to occur in Mormon churches without batting an eye.

This is a violation of our children. If a peeping Tom were standing outside my child's window, I would have them arrested. Why then, would I allow an adult man to peep into the very private lives of my children? Why do you?

After the incident with my daughter, I  decided to write a letter to my bishop informing him that there would be no more private interviews with my children.

It is time that all parents become advocates for their children and stand up and say NO to these social voyeuristic interviews.

(Now, whenever I see my daughter's bishop around town, I whisper under my breath, bishop Anus.)