Post-Election Doomsday Predictions

I for one am neither surprised nor the slightest bit dismayed by my political antithesis's re-election. We know what leads to the final 'passing of the torch' and this just hastens the day and solidifies the resolve and preparation of those who are already well entrenched.


It is completely disenchanting to hear so many people of the same faith in me post such hateful, extremist, end of the world, life, liberty and happiness comments. If you are a true follower of Christ and of the LDS faith you should have hope in your own life-knowing that YOU determine your own happiness. Civility and compromise are qualities that we should all exemplify.


These quotes showed up in my Facebook feed this morning – both of the authors are Mormons that I grew up with. Post-election day is always a let-down; people win and people lose. Some people are happy, some people are sad, some people get angry. This particular election was historic; Mitt Romney was the first Mormon presidential candidate of a major political party. Romney’s candidacy sparked an interest in Mormonism that I have never seen before; this election season has been a roller coaster of emotions, as I have watched the media cover the issues that had such a profound impact on my life.

As a child, I sat through many lessons about the Second Coming of Christ. One teacher taught us that two missionaries would be shot in Jerusalem and that their bodies would lie in the streets for the period of three days. Another teacher told me that the Saints would gather in Missouri and that there would be a period of intense natural disasters. Families were commanded to store a year’s supply of food, in preparation for hard times and famine. After the Second Coming, after all of the chaos and terror, we were taught that Christ would usher in the Millennium, which would be a thousand-year period of peace and prosperity, when Mormonism would spread throughout the world. The Second Coming of Christ is a strong belief within Mormonism; a video that went viral last week indicates that even Romney believes in the predictions surrounding the Second Coming.  The leaders never made predictions as to when the Second Coming would take place but we were warned to always be ready, as it could happen at any moment.

Growing up, my father would say that “one day the Constitution will be hanging by a thread and the leaders of this country will look to the Mormon leaders to save it.” This statement, purportedly made by the founder of the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, is commonly referred to as the White Horse Prophecy. I am not sure how many Mormons still ascribe to this prophecy. After Romney’s loss, a quick glance through the ex-mormon discussion boards indicates that more Mormons believe this prophecy than I realized. Many ex-mormons have reported the doomsday predictions of their Mormon relatives. Glenn Beck appears to believe in the White Horse prophecy, although I have always considered Glenn Beck to be a more extreme example of Mormonism. Nevertheless, there is a doomsday attitude that goes deeper than just the sorrow and fear associated with a candidate’s loss; I find myself wondering how many Mormons view this as a sign of the Second Coming.

Election Day 2008: Politics, Religion, & Family

          The night of Election Day, 2008, I found myself in the library writing a paper.  Genetics lab – and the fly report – is infamous at Cornell, the bane of many aspiring biologists.  As it turned out, this report was due the day after Election Day.  The morning of Election Day, I woke up early, rode the bus to the local town hall, entered the red-curtained booth, pulled the lever for my choice in candidates, and then headed back to the library to write my report.  I worked late into the night; I could hear the cheers outside the window as I alternated between writing about fly genetics and checking CNN every half hour for election updates.  I finished my fly report a few hours after the race was called and then crashed on the couch at lab for a few hours of shut-eye.  I was both thrilled with the Obama victory and exhausted from the demands of a heavy course-load.  I fell asleep dreaming of a better tomorrow.   

          The next day, as I headed to class wearing the rumpled clothing from the previous day, I started hearing murmurs about a Proposition 8 that had been passed in California.  I was confused about what Prop 8 was – something to do with gay marriage.  Since it was a California initiative, I assumed the proposition was in support of gay marriage.  I had been so focused on the presidential election that I did not stop to think about what else was going on in the rest of the country.  But, as I later found out, Proposition 8 was not in support of gay marriage; it was a ban against gay marriage.

          A little while later, I began hearing about the Mormons and the role they played in getting Prop 8 passed.  There are no words to describe my devastation when I found out that the religion I was raised in – and that my family actively supports – had invested so much time and energy into stripping human beings of their right to marry.   Before Election Day 2008, Mormonism had been a part of my past, an identity that infused my up-bringing and had been responsible for shaping my character.  I had complicated feelings about the culture and the authorities but Mormonism was simply a quirky part of my up-bringing.  My identity as an agnostic humanist is owed, in part, to the rigor associated with leaving Mormonism.     

          After Election Day 2008, my relationship with Mormonism became much more complicated.  There is no way to sugar-coat this issue - I became ashamed of my up-bringing, of my family's association with a religion that had actively campaigned to remove the rights of both friends and acquaintances.   With that initial flush of shame set in an even deeper shame; how could I be ashamed of the religion that my family loves so much?  Pre-Prop-8, I had made a tenuous peace with Mormonism.  Post-Prop-8, I found myself battling hurt and anger all over again.   

There is a long history of homophobia within the Mormon Church; Boyd K. Packer, one of the most out-spoken authorities on homosexuality, is next in line to become the President of the Mormon Church.  In 2010, Boyd K. Packer, in a telecast watched by Mormons the world over, said "Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?”* Should the current leader, Thomas S. Monson, die, Boyd K. Packer will assume leadership of the Mormon Church and be seen as a modern-day prophet, with the power to commune with God and receive revelation for the Mormon Church at large.  Last month, in another world-wide televised broadcast, the General Authority Dallin H. Oaks gave a speech titled “Protect the Children”, the topic of which was the danger of single-parent homes.  Following his descriptions of the dangers associated with children growing up without married parents, he proceeded to state “We should assume the same disadvantages for children raised by couples of the same gender.”  

The Mormon Church’s stance on homosexuality – along with their actions to actively suppress the rights of gays and lesbians – is heart-breaking.  At this point in time, gay Mormons only have a limited set of options - mixed-orientation heterosexual marriage, celibacy, or leaving the faith they were raised to believe in.  All of these are heart-breaking options. 

The truth is, I struggle to balance the love I have for my family with my concerns about the teachings of Mormonism. I am uncomfortable with prevalent insularity of Mormon culture, the active hostility towards members who leave, and the swift punishment that is meted out to members who express views that are not in alignment with the teachings of authorities.  As a former Mormon with a devout Mormon family, I find myself in a tenuous position.  How do I balance my two worlds?  How do I reconcile the love I have for my family – for whom Mormonism is both an identity and a way of life - with my deep unease over the intolerant actions of Mormon authorities?  With every piece of writing, every conversation, I find myself walking a fine line, one that carries the constant risk of falling.  How do I balance my own personal convictions with the convictions of my family? 

I love my Mormon family but according to Mormon theology, I have thrown away my chances of being with them for eternity.  To my family, the most hurtful part of my apostasy must be the simple fact that I will no longer be with them for eternity.  The obligations of Mormonism that consume their lives are no longer part of my world-view; I am no longer on the path to an eternity spent with my family, in spite of the fact that I was raised with a full knowledge of the obligations that the Mormon Heavenly Father expects of me.  I am unable to grasp the concept of a loving God who requires rituals and a belief in a specific theology as a requirement to enter Heaven.  

Heartbreak is found on both sides of the divide between Mormons and former Mormons.  

Another Election Day is approaching, historic for the fact that the Republican nominee is a devout Mormon.  Once again, I find myself wondering what impact the future will have on my relationship with my family and my up-bringing.  I have been watching this Mormon moment, wondering what impact politics and religion will have on the relationships between faithful members and former members.  The MormonThink controversy has reminded me of the omniscience of the Mormon authorities and their willingness to suppress any truths that threaten the church’s image.  I wonder what will happen when the eyes of the media are diverted from the actions of the Mormon Church.  Will the actions of the Mormon Church cause a further rift between faithful Mormons and non-believer family members  or will the Mormon authorities work to create long-lasting changes for a more tolerant future?  

*Note: The transcript for Boyd K. Packer's speech was later amended following a public outcry.  For that reason, I referred you to the original video of his speech; for a more detailed explanation of the changes made, I refer you to this article written by a gay-rights website.  

Partisanship

          We live in an era that is becoming more and more partisan by the day.  I am still young - perhaps this has always been the case.  All I know is that since I have reached adulthood, I have been watching this country slide into an us-vs-them mentality.  Liberals versus conservatives.  Christian versus non-Christian.  Theists versus non-theists.  Evolution versus creationism.  Citizens versus immigrants.  
          What troubles me the most is that people seem to accept these divisions as inevitable.  I acknowledge that working together in spite of differences is challenging.  I have strong opinions on many issues - in general I am quite liberal.  I support access to contraceptives, health-care reform that allows uninsured people with pre-existing conditions to obtain affordable insurance, increased funding for education, and the continuation of public programs that support people who are in tough circumstances.  At some point in our lives, we all need a helping hand, whether it be in the form of education grants, food stamps, unemployment benefits, social security benefits, or a myriad of other public services.  As valuable as private charities are in providing aid, these services have limitations - limited funding and geographic availability being the two main drawbacks.  
         I don't know what the future will hold but I do know that this election is making me very uncomfortable.  I have watched Mitt Romney change positions with an alarming regularity; his only consistency seems to be that he is inconsistent.  What worries me even more than his inconsistency seems to be the fact that his tactic is working.  What does this say about our society - that it is OK to change positions depending on the audience?  My only wish is that I knew what Mitt Romney believed in.  
          Obama isn't a perfect candidate.  But overall, he has consistently espoused values that I believe in.  He has worked to reform healthcare, to pass laws that provide a path to citizenship for the  undocumented youth in this country.  He has worked to increase funding for research and come out in support of gay marriage.  He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Act into law, which provides women with more options for fighting pay discrimination.  Even more than that, he has shown a willingness to work with the other side.  I am tired of watching ideologies and in-fighting stand in the way of practical solutions for this country.  From what I have seen over the past four years, he is a person who is working to make a better life for everyone in this country.  My vote for Obama - which I cast yesterday - was in support of what he has achieved as president, as well as the values he espouses.  
          I had hoped this election would be about the issues.  Instead, this election has been more about sound-bites and zingers.  In Mitt Romney, I don't see a candidate that understands the issues of low-to-middle income families.  He doesn't seem to understand what it is like to worry about paying for college or the challenges of finding a job without having connections or the challenges of finding affordable health insurance.  He doesn't seem to understand the value of public services that help people in need.  I have a huge respect for the private sector.  However, the private sector is a profit-driven enterprise and with this comes certain limitations.  I do not think disaster relief or educational enterprises (including public programming) are suited to the private sector.  Given the staggering costs of health-care in this country - which is primarily a private-sector enterprise - I no longer think that health-insurance companies should be a profit-driven venture. 
          To quote Jon Huntsman Jr, "When was the last time we sat down as a people and talked about solutions?"  

Hurricane Sandy

          I just wanted to take the time to offer my condolences to those who are dealing with Hurricane Sandy.  I grew up in the Northeast; many of my friends and family are still in the region.  From what I can gather, they are all safe, although there has been quite a bit of flooding and power outages.  I am also grateful to see our politicians laying aside their campaigning to deal with this disaster, as this is an issue that transcends partisanship.  
          If you want to help out with disaster relief - either by donating time, money, or blood - the Red Cross is a good resource.  Anne-Marie, over at the blog "The Menacing Kitten", also offers some excellent tips for donating in the wake of a disaster.   

The American Dream And Mormonism

          The American dream – or at least, my interpretation of the American dream – is that if a person works hard enough, then that work will lead them to a better life. And by that standard, Mormonism is intrinsically American. I grew up with the idea that if I worked hard enough, then the blessings of Heaven were available to me. I grew up in a religion that placed an emphasis on good works and deeds. An oft-quoted scripture verse during my childhood, taken out of the Book of Mormon, was the verse 3 Nephi 12:16

          Therefore let your light so shine before this people, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven

          Within the Mormon faith, good works have adopted a very standard definition. As a teenager, good works meant following the Word of Wisdom, obeying the morality guidelines, and participating in all of the activities expected of the youth. As a teenager, I worked on projects for the Young Womens’ association, I attended a daily scripture study in the hour before school started, and I attended weekly youth activities. As a girl, my life’s path was drawn out for me – marriage in the temple to a worthy Mormon male, child-rearing, home-making, church callings, and regular worship. All of the lessons in church prepared me for the future I was expected to take up. The men also had parallel lives sketched out for them – college, full-time missionary work, marriage, church callings, career, and the day-to-day demands of Mormonism. When Mormons grow into adulthood, the idea of good works is expanded to include temple marriage, family, church callings, and tithing. When Mormons go through their endowment ceremony – an expected rite of passage – they swear an oath to consecrate everything to the Lord.
          The good works portion of Mormonism is time-consuming, more so than many people realize. Positions within the Mormon Church are staffed almost exclusively by volunteers, all of whom have their day jobs to perform. In addition to their volunteer work, members are expected to tithe 10% of their income, perform regular temple work, raise large families, pray and read their scriptures regularly, and attend a variety of church activities. In return for fulfilling all of these obligations, the leaders have promised many blessings. Growing up, my elders taught me that the only road to true happiness was found within the Mormon Church.
          There is both beauty and virtue in hard work. Hard work has led me to accomplish many things in my life. However, hard work cannot fix everything - hard work cannot change the fundamentals of a person’s personality or undo the random variations of luck. And sometimes, what is considered as broken is not, in fact, anything that needs to be changed. I grew up with the sense that I was flawed, simply because I did not conform to the ideals of Mormon womanhood. I was not gentle or motherly or sympathetic or good with household duties. The thought of a lifetime of homemaking and rearing a huge family filled me a sense of helpless terror. I did not possess any of the traits that were expected of a good virtuous Mormon girl. 

          The fact that I did not conform to the ideals of Mormonism meant that I grew up thinking that there was something fundamentally wrong with me. I tried to be faithful, to prepare myself for a future that did not fit who I was but that I was assured was God’s plan for me. I acknowledge that I have many flaws; I am stubborn and oblivious to the social cues that other people navigate with ease. But working to change the fundamentals of my personality – the part of me that sensed that the future sketched out for me by my religious leaders was not the right future for me – is a battle that is both futile and unnecessary.

The Great Unknown

                       It is said that –
                       Enlightenment appears dark
                       The progressive way appears retrograde
                       The smooth way appears jagged
                       The highest peak of revelation appears empty 
                         like a valley
                       The cleanest appears to be soiled
                       The greatest abundance appears to be 
                            insufficient
                       The most enduring inner strength appears like 
                            weakness                         
                       And creativity appears imitative

                                    Excerpt, Verse 41, 
                                    Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu

          Sometimes, action requires heading into the great unknown, with no idea of what the outcome is.  I am the type of person that likes to think and research my decisions, making careful plans as to what my next course of action will be.  But there will always come a time when no amount of planning prepares you for what life throws at you.  As a young teenager, I never intended to leave the Mormon Church.  Then my questions started heading down a strange path, one that was both frightening and freeing, all at once.  Now, ten years and one major auto-pedestrian accident later, I am preparing to head down another unknown path, one that involves a career change and graduate school in an alternate subject.  I don’t know where this path will lead me.  But sometimes, when all the research is done, all of the questions answered, the only course of action left is to jump into the unknown, with the hope that everything will turn out all right in the end.

Grieving The Loss Of Community And Trust

                I lost my faith when I was sixteen.  I lived in secret for a full year, afraid of the consequences of leaving.  When I did muster the courage to leave Mormonism, the fall-out was even worse than I feared.  The activities and obligations of Mormonism are all-consuming; between the restrictions that publicly marked me as Mormon and the time-intensive church activities, Mormonism was an identity, a community, and a way of life.  Where I grew up, Mormons were a minority; at school, I was the non-drinking, non-swearing Mormon girl who woke up at 5:30 every morning to attend an early-morning seminary class.

                Then I left and the community I was raised in crumbled around me.  I grew up with Mormons; they were my family friends, my school-mates and comrades.  I saw them on a daily or weekly basis; we shared the common bond of being a minority group.  I knew that leaving would cause a rift but little did I know just how much.  My conversations with people I had known for a lifetime suddenly became missionary-based.  In spite of a lifetime of faithful church attendance – and being respected as a good teenager – the conversations became about assessing my level of knowledge and my worthiness.  The perception is that members only leave because they are sinful, prideful, deluded by Satan, or ignorant of the Gospel.  After leaving, the questions I was asked indicated that members were trying to assess which category I fit into.  I was never asked my reasons for leaving; I was merely asked to come back into the fold.  

                Sometimes I miss being a part of a community.  Mormonism, for all of its flaws, has the benefit of being a strong community.  Members look after each other; if someone is in trouble, people will volunteer their time and effort to help out.  When my brother was building a house, the missionaries and members were there every Saturday, volunteering their time to help out.  I have seen my brothers volunteer their time to help members move.  I have a lot of respect for the hard-work and dedication of Mormons. 

But leaving – and dealing with the associated consequences – has left me with a slew of trust issues.  I never dreamed that I would lose lifelong relationships so quickly after leaving.  I never dreamed that the people who had known me a life-time would make such quick assumptions about my character, simply because I left.  I never dreamed that I would lose the respect of my parents so quickly, in spite of an abundance of evidence that indicated I was a good kid.  Mormonism is an all-consuming identity; you are either all-in or all-out.  Issues are phrased in black and white – you are either pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon.  By crossing that divide, I was forced to abandon Mormonism altogether.  This experience has left me skittish about communities at large.  Perhaps this fear is logical.  Perhaps it isn’t.  Either way, the fear is still there. 

There is a grieving process associated with losing a community.  At first I was angry.  On some level, I still am, as Mormon teachings have an “us versus them” mentality that makes interfaith relationships tricky, if not impossible.  But most of all, I am sad.  I am sad that I no longer have anything in common with the people I grew up with.  I grieve that there is a divide between us that I cannot cross.  

Perfect Mormon Girl

          When I was nine years old, I had a friend named Laura.*  Laura was a year older than I was; her parents were friends with mine. Between church and ward activities, Laura and I were thrown together a lot. I worshiped Laura; she was a year older than me, which to a nine-year old meant that she was wiser. She had silky brown hair, clear skin, and was very attentive about her clothing - boys and adults alike seemed to like her. Laura graced me with her friendship and I responded eagerly. We would skip sacrament meeting together and wander the halls to talk. She was a boy-crazy girl; most of our conversations were centered around the boys that she liked and her philosophy on life. 
          In hindsight, I now recognize our friendship to be toxic. Laura was older, yes. She was pretty, yes. But she was also extremely insecure. She needed someone to make her feel good about herself. As a shy, chubby girl with hero-worship shining in her eyes, I fit the ticket. Anything I would do, Laura would claim to have done better. If I was excited about getting an A on a test, then she would tell me about the A+ she had gotten on her latest test. If I swam a lap in sixty seconds, she would say she swam it in thirty. I say ‘claim’ because there was never any evidence that she was telling the truth. At that age, however, I lacked the cynicism to challenge her assertions. 
          Laura moved away the following year. Years later I met Laura again only to find her exactly the same as before. We met up at her parent’s house in Utah. Laura had married at seventeen, to a guy in the Army. She had a young child. She showed me picture after picture of her husband, trying to impress upon me just how wonderful he was. After saying hello to her family, we left to go visit some of her friends. 
          Once we were in the car, Laura said “OK, I have to ask before we do anything. Do you still go to church?”
          "No, I haven't gone in years." I said. 
          “Oh good.” she said. “We can have fun then.”
          “Why did you stop going?” I asked.
          “It was too hard.” she said. “I just couldn’t be the perfect Mormon girl.”
          And for a moment, I understood her completely.

*name has been changed

Why Does My State Have A Law Preventing Me From Holding Public Office?

Texas Longhorns

                I have never considered politics as a serious career option.  I have always held an optimistic view of what public servants can accomplish and given my diverse background, I’ve always thought I could add something to the public sphere.  I am an agnostic with a Mormon family and Hindu in-laws; respecting religious differences is a part of my day-to-day life.  I understand what it means to worry about paying for college and what it means to grow up in a family without money or connections.  Watching my husband – a very remarkable individual – navigate the murky immigration system of this country has given me a deeper sympathy for the realities of immigrant life.  I have a deep respect for education; I believe no individual should be held back from pursuing educational opportunities because of an inability to pay.  I am a wife, a daughter, a neighbor, an intellectual, and a dreamer.  I am, at my core, an American; I believe that people should be given the opportunities to work hard and succeed in life.  However, there is the reality of being elected; I have never considered myself to be a serious candidate for public office. 

Why then, does it hurt so much to find out that the state I live in has a clause in their state constitution that bans a person like me – a nontheist – from holding public office?  Article 1, Section 4 of the Texas Constitution states “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.” 

So, in theory, if I were to run for public office in Texas and win, I would be required to acknowledge the presence of a Supreme Being.  I am an agnostic; I don’t know if there is a higher power or not.  I do, however, believe that lying is wrong.  I cannot see myself acknowledging something that I do not believe to be true.  In my mind, that is a lie. 

Throughout my life, there have been many obstacles to becoming the person that I am today.  As a girl being raised in the Mormon faith, I was told not to dream of higher education or a career; as a woman, becoming a mother and a housewife was my duty in life.  As someone who decided to leave the Mormon Church, I ran up against the many prejudices against people who make the decision to leave.  As the seventh child in a lower middle class family, I had to fight to make it through college without financial assistance from my parents.  This fight was ultimately successful through a combination of hard work and the generosity of scholarships. 

For every road-block in life, there was a solution available to me.  I spent a lot of time thinking about who I was and what I believed in; when I figured out the answer, I acted in a manner that was true to who I am as a person, in spite of the negative consequences.  But never, in all of my years, have I come up against a law that specifically bans someone of my beliefs from a career choice.  And that is what hurts the most; that the state I have chosen to reside in has taken the official stance that, as a non-theist, I am not capable or worthy of holding public office. 

I may never be in a position where this law becomes an issue.  However, I can verify that there are many other non-theists out there who can contribute to the public sphere in a valuable and lasting manner.  Why is my state banning them from holding public office?  

When Will The Mormon Church Stop Labeling Historical Fact As "Anti-Mormon"?

          A couple weeks ago, I reported on the pending excommunication of David Twede, managing editor of the website MormonThink. I am happy to say that his excommunication hearing for September 30th was postponed, although authorities reserve the right to re-schedule the hearing for a later date.  
          As with most of these situations, the details that emerged added a further complexity to the story. David was new to his role as managing editor; the previous editor, one of the founders of the site, was forced last month to resign his church membership under threat of pending excommunication. In support of David, this editor has decided to share his story on MormonThink. In his statement, he discloses a letter he wrote to the local stake president, stating his intention to resign rather than face excommunication. In this letter, he makes the following point
          “You said that MT (MormonThink) is “anti-Mormon, anti-Joseph Smith and anti-LDS Leadership”. However, you never said it wasn’t true. The majority of the source material comes from the Church itself, so how can publishing true, historical facts be considered anti-Mormon?”
          The official reasons for David’s excommunication hearing are murky. The letter that was delivered to David cite apostasy as the reason for his pending church court trial. David describes the interrogation by local leaders to be concerning articles he published between the dates of September 11th and 15th. One of these articles was a piece about Romney’s faith. Although Romney was never mentioned in the meeting between David Twede and local ecclesiastical leaders, the leader did state “I’m not a political man…”, indicative of the idea that the unspoken issue is likely connected to David Twede’s commentary on Romney’s faith. The reason cited for David’s excommunication was David’s e-mail to another member in the ward, where he provided links to Mormon history, one concerning the controversial subject of the Book of Abraham. However, although this was cited as a reason for disciplinary action, it should be noted that the link that David provided another member was written by the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR). The person who identified David Twede and forwarded David's writing to Church headquarters was Scott Gordon, president of FAIR.
          I have been watching this situation unfold, from David’s first post on September 11th detailing his experience at church; to his post labeled “The Hammer of Laban”, where he indicated he was facing an unidentified disciplinary action; to the removal of his personal blog; to the news discussed on ex-Mormon forums of his pending excommunication hearing; to the media coverage of the situation; to the post-ponement of the hearing.
          Last month, I had a conversation with my mother about my reservations concerning the actions of church leaders. When I cited the September Six - and explained who they are – as a reason for my reservations, my mother told me that I couldn’t hold past actions against Church leaders. But here we are, twenty years after the September Six, and once again Mormon authorities seem quick to punish any members whose actions don’t conform to the standard script, provided that this punishment doesn’t lead to bad PR. Once again, the authorities seem loathe to confront the murky history of Mormonism.
          MormonThink is a valuable resource, as the website provides information about Mormonism that is not discussed in church. There are so many aspects to Mormonism that I only learned about after leaving – their link with Freemasonry, the fact of Joseph’s multiple wives, the multiple versions of the First Vision. There are also many aspects of Mormon history that Mormon authorities downplay or ignore – the historical reasons for the priesthood ban on blacks, the teachings on blacks by previous authorities, the supposed translation of the Book of Abraham. MormonThink strives to discuss all of these issues. These are all issues that Mormons need to know; the decision to support a religious institution is one that should be made with full knowledge.
          For now, the David Twede story is closed. The true test will come after the public eye is off the actions of Mormon authorities. When that happens, what will their actions reflect? Will the authorities continue to punish anyone that does not stick to the faith-promoting script? Or will they confront their history – all of it – in a manner that leads to a more tolerant, more human religion?
          When will the Mormon Church stop labeling historical fact as anti-Mormon?

Book Review: Mormon Diaries

The Mormon Diaries traces the journey of the author Sophia L. Stone through her life as a Mormon woman to her eventual abandonment of Mormonism for a broader interpretation of Christianity.  Written as a challenge to write daily about the author’s life experiences and expanded into 28 chronological essays, this book explores the reality of being a woman within the confines of Mormonism.  As with all good memoirs, this story is about a journey, a period of time where the author challenges her thoughts and arrives at a new understanding. 

Stone details her life growing up in a Mormon family; the challenges and comforts of growing up in a religion that provides a complete road map to life.  As she writes “Everything important was drawn out for me through living prophets.  All I had to do was use the thick, black marker of my choices to trace the lightly penciled sentences that were written by those with authority, who’d lived longer and knew better about my life’s purpose.” 

Stone details the realities of life as a Mormon woman in a way that is very intimate and real.  She relates her anxiety surrounding her baptism and testimony, the challenges of finding the right husband, as well as the manner in which her identity became wrapped up in being the nurturer, at the cost of her own needs and desires.  There is a list of Mormon “Thou shalts” – starting with “Thou shalt keep the Sabbath day holy” and ending with “Thou shalt not doubt, ever” – that spans a full four pages and serves as a brilliant reminder of what the realities of living a Mormon life is like. 

The author also tackle the thorny issue of leaving the Mormon Church – the dismay and confusion of loved ones, the strain that her journey left on her marriage, the delicate navigation of religion with her children.  There is a deep thoughtfulness in this book, along with a lot of love for family and friends.  Towards the end, the author bears her new and expanded testimony:

“I believe God loves me and that he can save everyone.  I believe there’s light and goodness in all religions, in all traditions, and in all people.”  

Mormon Diaries is available on both Kindleand Nook for $0.99, as well as in paperback form for $8.99

Who Owns The Term Mormon?

          Polygamy is a touchy subject for many Mormons. Mention the word polygamy to a faithful Mormon and you will observe an almost universal knee-jerk reaction – an explanation that Mormons do not practice polygamy and that polygamist groups covered in mainstream media are not Mormon. To counter the image of polygamy, Mormon authorities made an unsuccessful attempt to trademark the term “Mormon”, as an attempt to prevent fundamentalist Mormon groups from using the term. Members are also instructed to refer to themselves as members of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints, LDS for short, as a way of combating the stigma of polygamy associated with the term Mormon, although in an ironic twist, the latest attempt to improve the image of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has been an expensive ad campaign titled “I’m A Mormon”.
          What I find interesting about this reaction is the fact that polygamy was an integral part of early Mormonism. Joseph Smith – the founder of the Mormon Church and considered to be a modern-day Prophet, Seer, and Revelator – married an estimated 33 women. His successor, Brigham Young, had an estimated 55 wives. The third leader of the Mormon Church, John Taylor, had seven wives. In 1882, when the U.S. government began cracking down on polygamy in Utah, there was a lot of confusion within the church. John Taylor – leader of the church at the time - wrote a document in 1886 that fundamentalists argue affirms the permanency of plural marriage. In 1890 the Mormon president Wilford Woodruff issued a Manifesto disavowing the practice of polygamy. Polygamy was still practiced in secret, with some Mormons choosing to move to either Canada or Mexico to continue the practice of plural marriage. Eventually, after much controversy, the President Joseph Fielding Smith issued the Second Manifesto in 1904, which once again disavowed the practice.
          Fundamentalist Mormons still believe in and practice polygamy. The difference between fundamentalist Mormons and mainstream Mormons is that fundamentalists do not believe the 1890 Manifesto was a divine revelation. Instead, they point to the 1886 revelation by John Taylor that re-iterates the permanence of God’s commandments, one of which they argue is the practice of polygamy. In a nutshell, the only difference between mainstream Mormon and fundamentalist Mormons is the fact that fundamentalist Mormons believe in a literal interpretation of the past Mormon leaders, rather than following the leaders that came after John Taylor. When Martin Luther split off from the Roman Catholic Church, he did not lose the right to call himself a follower of the Bible and Jesus Christ; neither should fundamentalist Mormons lose the right to call themselves followers of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
          Furthermore, LDS members do believe polygamy exists in Heaven – they just don’t believe in practicing polygamy on Earth, where the laws of the land prohibit the practice. Growing up, I was taught that if a man was widowed, he could be sealed in an eternal marriage to another wife. When he went to Heaven, he would be reunited with all of his wives. Mormons believe that only married people can gain access to the highest level of Heaven. We were assured that if we didn’t receive the opportunity to be married in this life, then we would have the opportunity to get married in the next life. There was, however, no assurance that the celestial marriage would be monogamous.
          This begs the question – what defines the term Mormon? Are the members of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints the only people who can lay claim to the term Mormon? Or does this term extend to all the sects that follow the teachings of the early leaders and the Book of Mormon?
          Even those who still practice polygamy?

Follow The Prophet

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints – more commonly referred to as Mormon - believe that their leader is a modern-day Prophet, imbued with the power of revelation from God.  With this teaching of modern-day revelation is the burden to always follow the teachings of the authorities, as their dictates come from the Almighty God himself. 

I was raised in a family with a literal interpretation of Mormonism.  My father was convinced that one day the U.S. government would fail and that Americans would turn to the Mormon leaders for guidance; that one day the entire world would know of and gravitate towards the Mormon faith; that modern-day revelation was real and that visions were a fact of life.  Above all, the President of the Mormon Church is venerated as the mouthpiece of God, qualified to receive revelations for the entire church. 

The lessons on un-wavering obedience to Mormon authorities start at an early age.  In the official lesson manual of the Mormon Church is a lesson titled “Follow The Prophet”, aimed towards the youth of the Church.  One of the quotes drawn from this lesson is by Marion G. Romney, talking about the past President and Prophet Heber J Grant:

“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting, I drove him home. … When we got to his home I got out of the car and went up on the porch with him. Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray"

Marion G Romney, in Conference Report, October 1960, pg 78                                                                                                                                                                        

Or as I sang as a little girl in Primary – “Follow the Prophet, follow the Prophet. Follow the Prophet, he knows the way.”  When my Primary teachers talked of the apostles and the prophet, I imagined the bearded sandal-clad, linen-clothed men of the New Testament.  I was shocked when I realized the apostles and prophet of whom my teachers spoke of were in fact the old white guys that showed up on the screen twice a year during the world-wide televised General Conferences.  Then I grew up and I began to crush under the burden of trying to follow the leaders’ will, as their teachings on the role of womanhood and striving for perfection stuffed  me into a tiny little box that just didn’t fit.  Like Cinderella’s ugly step-sisters, to fit into the narrow box of Mormon womanhood I needed to chop off pieces of me that just couldn’t fit inside that box. 

          The Mormon Church’s approach to dealing with the messy history of the prophets’ teachings is to deny the fact or to claim that the teachings of current prophets outweigh the teachings of old prophets.  The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) made the following statement when addressing the messy and very uncomfortable topic of the teachings about race within Mormonism

          Past church leaders should be viewed as products of their times, no more racist than most of their American and Christian peers (and often surprisingly enlightened, given the surrounding culture). A proper understanding of the process of revelation creates a more realistic expectations of the Latter-day Saint prophet, instead of assumptions of infallibility foisted on the Saints by their critics.

          Previous statements and scriptural interpretations that are no longer in harmony with current revelation should be discarded. We learn "line upon line, precept upon precept," and when modern revelation has shed new light, old assumptions made in the dark can be done away with.”

To combat the openness of the Internet era, where the messy history of the Mormon Church is easily accessible and a source of chagrin to many faithful Mormons, members are now justifying that these leaders were “speaking as a man” or that certain beliefs are “folk doctrine”.  There is no way to draw a distinction between a leader “speaking as a man” or “speaking for God” – these distinctions all depend on the convictions of the individual interpreting the quotes, as well as the potential embarrassment factor of the quote.  And once again, I would like reiterate the lesson that the Prophet is considered the mouthpiece qualified to receive revelation from God for the entire church and that as members we were taught that the Prophet will never lead us astray. 

Perhaps Heber J Grant was “speaking as a man” when he had that conversation with Marion G Romney.  Or perhaps Marion G Romney was “speaking as a man” when he gave that speech.  Or perhaps all of the talks by the authorities that I attended as a youth will one day be dismissed as been “spoken as a man, rather than from God”.  But how can members distinguish between the two?  How do members balance the past teachings of the Prophets with the idea that the Prophet will never lead his people astray?  Were the Prophets leading the people astray with their teachings on race?  Was the Prophet leading the people astray with Proposition 8?  And if members don't agree with the teachings of the Prophet, what about the consequences of challenging authority?  But to admit that the Prophets can lead the people astray is to strike at the very root of Mormonism itself – question the legitimacy of the Prophets’ teachings and you question the very foundation of Mormonism. 

Some members are able to shrug off the confusions of doctrine, focusing instead on the good points – the plan of Salvation, the idea of eternal families, the idea of Christian love.  But I was not one of those members; I was a member that took the teachings literally.  My literal interpretation of the leaders – enforced by the attitudes of members around me – turned me into a person at war between my conscience and the teachings of my leaders. 

Mormon Editor - And Romney Critic - Faces Excommunication

          David Twede - managing editor of the website MormonThink and a Mormon in good standing - is now facing an excommunication hearing on September 30th as a result of a series of articles he wrote discussing Mitt Romney’s faith, along with the intersection of Mormonism and politics. MormonThink is a website written by active members of the Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-Day Saints – commonly referred to as Mormons -who are seeking to create an open dialogue about Mormon history. Their mission statement is:

[To promote] Education and openness of our religion's unique history and heritage. If people want to learn about the true historical issues of the church, that they won't hear about in Sunday School, they can learn about them here. We aren't afraid to discuss the tough issues. We hope to make the church we grew up in a better place by making it more honest.


Our goal would be that no knowledgeable member should have to be afraid to speak the truth in church to avoid offending a naive member with the truth about polygamy, the BOM translation process, Masonry, or any other historical aspect of the Church. We want the Church leaders to be 100% open and honest with the members so we can be 100% open and honest with our children, families, friends, investigators and fellow members.

          By necessity, the MormonThink authors have to remain anonymous. In 1992, the Mormon Church excommunicated or dis-fellowshipped six prominent intellectuals, known as the September Six, for publishing scholarly works that were not aligned with the Mormon Church’s official teachings. This was a prominent example, however, over the years there have been other examples of sanctions taken against member. Grant Palmer, who spent 34 years working as an educator for the Church Education System, was dis-fellowshipped for publishing the book “An Insider’s View Of Mormon Origins” and later forced to resign under threat of excommunication. Although the accuracy of these scholarly works have not been questioned the issue is the fact that these books paint the early history of Mormonism in a manner that is not faith-promoting. Boyd K. Packer, who is the acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve, has stated "Some things that are true are not very useful." In this spirit, the Mormon Church seeks to preserve the faith of their members at the cost of historical accuracy. Members are instructed to only read history that has been sanctioned by the Church; all other sources are thought to be Satan’s way of leading the faithful astray.
          There are two articles that lead to David Twede being threatened with excommunication. One article is titled “The History Of LDS Politics”, which delves into the relationship the Mormon Church has had with politics, Prop 8 being only a small blip on a long history of political interference. The second article that is sparking controversy is titled “Mitt Romney’s Faith”, which discusses his beliefs as a Mormon.
          David Twede has made the following statement on his blog concerning the matter:

“Open and honest dialogue will allow members to choose, according to their agency, whether these facts are too troubling or in the end, humanizing. What do I mean? If we learn that the prophets are just as human, just as weak as we are, perhaps we will not feel anxious about our imperfections. Perhaps we will be more at ease in the church and more tolerant. Yes, I believe an honest view of Joseph Smith's weaknesses and by opening the facts it will bring love and tolerance to the wider membership of the church because they will lose their need to feel inadequate about imperfections in themselves and others. The Mormon Church needs to jettison Perfection Syndrome.

That is Christianity at its best, I think.”

          MormonThink is a valuable resource; the website is run by active Mormons and gives members the opportunity to learn about the full history of their faith in an honest and balanced manner. The editors strive to approach the issues from all possible angles, allowing both sides of the story to be heard.


Resources:

MormonThink: an excellent resource on the history of the Mormon Church

David Twede's blog, where he discusses his pending excommunication hearing and the events leading up to matter

The History Of LDS Politics: A full accounting of the intersection of the Mormon Church and political matters

Mitt Romney's Faith: The specifics of Romney's beliefs as a Mormon

Blessings & Tithing

                As far back as I can remember, the leaders have promised that if a person has the faith to pay tithing, then “the Lord will open the windows of Heaven and pour out his richest blessings”.  Leaders repeat this promise over and over, in different permutations of the original revelation on tithing made by the leader Lorenzo Snow, who promised that if members had the faith to pay tithing, then rain would come to rescue the crops from drought.  Leaders talk about how you can’t afford not to pay tithing.  They give examples of people who paid tithing and were miraculously able to make ends meet.  They promise - over and over - that having the faith to pay your tithing will result in blessings.

                And since Mormons tend to be literal when interpreting the promises of their leaders, this creates an odd dynamic.  As we repeated, over and over, “The Church is perfect.  People aren’t.”  Since the Church is perfect - and the imperfection of people provide such an easy scapegoat - a lack of material blessings is assumed to be correlated with a lack of faith. 

                My parents were poor for many years.  For them, paying tithing was an extreme act of faith, as often the money that was paid to the Mormon Church was needed to feed the family.  And yet paying tithing didn’t result in more material wealth.  My parents struggled along, trying to make the pennies match up, while performing the requirements of Mormonism with diligence.  The faith of my parents - to pay tithing even when tithing was a struggle - is an awe-inspiring testament to their commitment. 

                If you look at the members that rank higher in hierarchy - bishopric, stake presidency, General Authorities, Presidency - you will notice that these leaders are notable more for their professional and financial success.  Thomas S. Monson, the current President, was an advertising executive and eventual general manager for Deseret News Press.  His first counselor, Henry B.Eyring, is a graduate of Harvard Business School and was a professor at Stanford, as well as the president of Ricks College.  His second counselor, Dieter F. Uchtdorf, was a German aviator and airline executive.  These men were part of the middle to upper class, with significant professional achievements, when they were recruited for leadership.  I have no doubt that there are many good and faithful men from modest backgrounds; however, these men do not seem to be reflected in the makeup of the authorities that are responsible for guiding the Mormon Church. 

                Within my own ward, the leaders who were never from the “ragged” families - the families that worked blue-collar jobs while following the command to have lots of children, even if you couldn’t afford them.  Most of the leaders selected were either college professors or white-collar professionals.  I didn’t notice much of a difference between the leaders and the poorer families in terms of their character or faith.  But I did notice a difference in which families were called to leadership positions. 

                For what it was worth, I don’t think the stigma was applied to me, even though I was from a poor family.  I was a bright student and enthusiastic about my studies.  There were a number of wonderful women that stepped in to support and guide me.  But with the oft-repeated promises of receiving blessings if you are faithful enough, there is the mindset that a lack of blessings correlates with a lack of faith.  

Separation of Church And State

          I am an agnostic.  My family is Mormon.  My husband is a Hindu who came to the U.S. for grad school.  Within this spectrum of religious and cultural identities is the beauty and promise of the American dream; we are a nation of diversity and opportunity.  We are a pluralistic society, one in which every individual’s religious and cultural identity should be respected.  The strength of the United States is in the promise of tolerance for the entire spectrum of humanity. 

          Every-time I hear the intersection of politics and religion – the insertion of “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, the constant refrain of “God Bless America” by politicians on both sides of the aisle, the words of “In God We Trust” printed on our national currency – I find myself wondering where the American ideal went astray.  Our nation was founded on the idea of a separation between church and state.  The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”   

          Separation of church and state is not meant to tear down the institution of religion; rather separation of church and state is meant to foster an environment in which individuals feel comfortable worshipping according to the dictates of their own conscience.  The refrain of “under God” or “God bless America” assumes many things, the least of which is a belief in a singular God.  This may feel like a small matter – the removal of a few words that may or may not offend most people.  But if these words are to be repeated in a public environment, with the attendant pressure to follow along, then we need to respect the idea that religion is a deeply personal and private matter.  Religion does not belong in either the government or government-funded institutions. 

          John F. Kennedy, in his 1960 address on religion, stated,

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."

          With this election cycle heating up, the controversy surrounding candidates and their religion is only getting worse.  God – and prayer – has been mentioned by both Democrats and Republicans alike.  I don’t feel comfortable with the intersection of religion and politics; this is not the country we were meant to be.  We are a far cry from the ideals upon which our nation was founded.  If we are to truly become a nation where all people may worship according to the dictates of their own conscience, then we need to remove religious ideologies from the confines of government.   

          In the words of John F Kennedy: “Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.”

Commentary: "Women, Do Your Wifely Duty To Prevent Your Husband From Sin

          Last week, there was a guest post on the site Feminist Mormon Housewives that has left me speechless.  I wasn’t planning on writing a commentary – there are so many angles to discuss and so many uncomfortable points to the post – but I feel that I must, if for no other reason than that this issue needs to be addressed. 

          The post is called Women’s Conference (Or Do Your Wifely Duty To Prevent Your Husband From Sin)  This post details a talk that a Mormon bishop gave on two separate occasions to the women of his congregation.  The author sat through the first one in shock; the second time, a full year after the first talk, she came armed with a notepad to record the bishop’s PowerPoint presentation and accompanying lecture.  Both of the lessons had the implied message “Good Mormon women have regular sex with their husbands in order to keep their marriages “happy” and keep their husbands from sin.”  The first time the bishop gave the lesson, the title was “The Key To A Happy Marriage”, the second time the lesson was simply referred to as the “Sex Talk”.

          A couple of nuggets from this bishop's lesson include

Next he puts up this big picture of a line of german shepherds at a police academy. In front of this line of dogs walks this little cat and it is obvious that all the dogs want to do is pounce on the poor thing. Everyone giggles at what this picture is suggesting and he continues on with his message. “This is a stupid cat. Luckily these dogs are so well trained that they can fight against even their deepest genetic desires and stay in line.” “But,” he said, “Just because they are keeping formation doesn’t me they don’t REALLY want that cat. Trained dogs STILL look at cats.”

 “He then reminds us that, “…there are women who WILL take your husband’s…” and Solomon says, “…be ravished with your wife…” he goes on to add that if you won’t be ravished with him, a stranger will.”

He tells the women that all through young men’s lives there is a drumbeat going on in their heads that says: “When I get married I can have sex…when I get married I can have sex…when I get married I can have sex…” “I just need to hold on until a beautiful wife lets me.”
(O…K…)

He tells us how often times the deprived spouse is loathing the thought of eternity with his wife. The deprived spouse takes the sexual rejection as a personal rejection and becomes resentful. And the deprived spouse is more tempted when he is deprived.

          I don’t know what disturbs me most about this series of talks.  I am disturbed by the fact that an entire year went by between the bishop’s two talks with identical themes, with no apparent backlash.  I am also disturbed by the fact that this bishop wasn’t fired or chastised and that there wasn’t more of a backlash.  Most of all, I am deeply unsettled by the message that this particular authority figure gave to a group of Mormon women.   

          There are two main points related to Mormon practices that I would like to address, as I feel they are directly related to this incident. 

(1)    The majority of local authority positions within the Mormon Church are filled by volunteers.  Bishops and stake presidents, in addition to their day-job, also spend an additional 20+ hours tending to the needs of their congregation.  These positions are considered to be divinely inspired; when a new bishop or stake president is selected, the General Authorities will come and interview possible candidates.  The General Authorities claim to have divine revelation when it comes to selecting the right candidate.  These bishops and stake presidents receive very little training to perform their duties; instead, they are told that the Holy Ghost will be their guide.  Members look to their local leaders for guidance on everything from marital issues to crises of faith, yet these leaders are ill-equipped to carry out the roles they are assigned.  This leads to a wide variation of leadership between wards.  

(2)    Mormons have very strict laws on chastity.  Pre-marital sex – and any forms of sensual foreplay – is strictly forbidden within Mormonism.  So is masturbation and porn.  Part of Mormonism involves going through a temple recommend interview, starting at age 12 with youth temple trips.  During this interview, a local authority will ask the interviewee about obeying the law of chastity, including issues with masturbation and porn.  As a woman, I was taught to safeguard my virtue, as it was seen as a gift for my future husband.  The lessons on chastity start at a young age and only continue to intensify.  As a result of this repression, sex becomes a very twisted and uncomfortable topic to address and is often associated with a sense of shame. 

          In addition to these Mormon-specific points, there are also the aspects that apply to a more general audience.  There is the very disturbing analogy of the German shepherds, trained not to attack the tasty cat in spite of their instincts.  There is also the idea that a woman bears responsibility for her husband’s infidelities. 

          I simply do not know how to react.  I don’t know where to start, what to address.  All I know is that reading this post made me upset in a way that I have not been in a very long time.  I wish I could write satire about this bishop’s attitude like Donna Banta.  I wish that I could write a sharp, incisive commentary that distills this issue into a single point.  Instead, all I have to offer are a jumble of opinions and a need to talk about this issue.  Sex is not shameful.  Women should not be blamed for the infidelities of their husband; neither should they feel compelled to fake desire at risk of losing their marriage.   

Book Review: Nonbeliever Nation - The Rise of Secular Americans

                In his book Nonbeliever Nation, the author David Niose defines secular Americans as “individuals that choose to live without religion, or at the very least, without theistic religion.”  Although the number of self-identified agnostics and atheists in the U.S. is listed as 1.6% of the population, the author points to the results of the American Religious Identification Survey, which showed that 18.4% of the responders did not affirmatively claim belief in a higher power.  The author argues this result is an indication that there are more secular Americans than we realize. 

                This book was both a history lesson as well as a reminder that secular Americans need to be more open about their identity.  The author covers the early days of the United States, discussing and refuting the widespread claim that the Founding Fathers meant for the United States to be a Christian nation.  A large part of this book was also devoted to the recent rise of the Religious Right in politics; the author points to the election of Reagan as a watershed moment for the Religious Right.  Reagan’s election was aided by the formation of the organization Moral Majority by the evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell; since then the dominance of religion in politics has steadily increased to a point where omitting the mention of God results in a huge backlash for a politician. 

                The dominant theme for this book is the argument that secular Americans need to assert their identity.  A 2006 University of Minnesota study found atheists to be the most feared minority in America, ranking behind Muslims, gays, and recent immigrants.  With these attitudes is the attendant fear of associating with such a misunderstood identity.  However, the author argues that by remaining quiet about our secularity, we have allowed the national conversation to be dominated by a minority that actively spreads misinformation about the dangers of non-believers.

                This is not a book that will de-convert anyone of their religious beliefs. Nor is this a book that seeks to take away the right of any individual to worship according to the dictates of their conscience.  However, this is a book that call for the separation of church and state, as well as a reiteration of the need for secular Americans to affirm their identity as people that live their lives without religion.  

Nonbeliever Nation - The Rise of Secular Americans can be found in both e-book and hardcover at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Powell's.  The author is currently doing a book tour.   

My Writing Companion

Meet Toby, my writing companion.  He likes to sit by me when I work; most of the time he is jealous of the machine that demands so much of my attention. 





If you would like to read more about how I got Toby, I did a guest post on the blog "Poetry Sans Onions" titled "Everyone Deserves A Second Chance", where I wrote about adopting Toby as a senior cat from the SPCA.