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.  

Mormon Urban Legends - A Correction

            A recent post of mine detailed my experience with a Mormon urban legend – the following statement that I first heard at a youth camp:

"You were in the War in Heaven and one day when you are in the spirit world you will be enthralled with those who you are associated with. You will ask someone in which time period he lived in and you might hear, "I was with Moses when he parted the Red Sea," or "I helped build the pyramids," or "I fought with Captain Moroni." And as you are standing there in amazement, someone will turn to you and ask, "Which prophet time did you live in?" And when you say "Gordon B. Hinckley," a hush will fall over every hall, every corridor in heaven and all in attendance will bow at your presence. You were held back six thousand years because you were the most talented, most obedient, most courageous, and most righteous. Are you still? Remember who you are!"

This was a persistent quote; I heard it multiple times during the course of my teenage years.  Later I found out Mormon authorities had gone so far as to debunk the quote – in 2008, they issued the following disclaimer:

“A statement has been circulated that asserts in part that the youth of the Church today “were generals in the war in heaven . . . and [someone will] ask you, ‘Which of the prophet’s time did you live in?’ and when you say ‘Gordon B. Hinckley’ a hush will fall, . . . and all in attendance will bow at your presence.”

This is a false statement. It is not Church doctrine. At various times, this statement has been attributed erroneously to President Thomas S. Monson, President Henry B. Eyring, President Boyd K. Packer, and others. None of these Brethren made this statement.”

            I made the error of assuming this disclaimer meant the entire statement was false.  But as some friendly ex-Mormons were kind enough to point out, the truth is a little more complicated than I realized. 

            On March 4, 1979, Ezra Taft Benson, who at the time was the President of the Quorum of the Twelve and who became the President of the Mormon Church in 1985, gave a fireside talk to students at Brigham Young University:

“For nearly six thousand years, God has held you in reserve to make your appearance in the final days before the Second Coming of the Lord. Every previous gospel dispensation has drifted into apostasy, but ours will not. True, there will be some individuals who will fall away; but the kingdom of God will remain intact to welcome the return of its head—even Jesus Christ. While our generation will be comparable in wickedness to the days of Noah, when the Lord cleansed the earth by flood, there is a major difference this time. It is that God has saved for the final inning some of his strongest children, who will help bear off the Kingdom triumphantly. And that is where you come in, for you are the generation that must be prepared to meet your God."

All through the ages the prophets have looked down through the corridors of time to our day. Billions of the deceased and those yet to be born have their eyes on us. Make no mistake about it—you are a marked generation. There has never been more expected of the faithful in such a short period of time as there is of us. Never before on the face of this earth have the forces of evil and the forces of good been as well organized. Now is the great day of the devil's power, with the greatest mass murderers of all time living among us. But now is also the great day of the Lord's power, with the greatest number ever of priesthood holders on the earth. And the showdown is fast approaching.”

So now I feel foolish.  I had assumed the retraction was for the entire statement – instead, the retraction was simply for the idea that people will bow down to you, as well as the fact that no Mormon leader had made that specific statement.  But the idea of God holding my generation back – of one generation being better than another – is an idea that was perpetuated by no less than Ezra Taft Benson, whom as a child I considered to be a living Prophet, a person that I thought communed with God.  

I guess this particular urban legend serves as a reminder of the difficulties in establishing Mormon doctrine versus myth.  

Even Colbert Is Getting Cranky

Stephen Colbert - infamous for his ability to make Americans laugh about the sometimes heart-breaking absurdities of politics - is getting cranky.  Some of the quotes from his coverage of the Republican National Convention include:

 "Ryan stretching the truth to make his speech more effective is just another form of doping.  In that, if you believe him, you are a dope."

"That's a great new slogan.  Fox News: Shut Up And Watch."

"'Our dining room table was a fold-down ironing board in the kitchen' -- Ann Romney

Can you imagine?  It must have been so awkward when the maid interrupted their dinner to iron."

"The lame-stream nit-pick patrol are now saying there were other times when Ryan misrepresented the facts in his speech.  Here's when they say he was lying - riiiiight there when he starts moving his lips!"

Election cycles are grueling.  In 2004, I was agitated between the rock and a harder place of Kerry and Bush.  I wasn't enthusiastic about John Kerry but I also didn't like the jingoist war-mongering of Bush's presidency.  In 2008, I was considerably perturbed to see McCain - a maverick whose views I didn't agree with but whose integrity I had always respected - devolve into a politician pandering to the lowest common denominator.  This election, I have been transfixed by the candidacy of Mitt Romney: his endless flip-flopping, handy ease with facts, and irritation towards dissent remind me of Mormon authorities in a way that invokes unpleasant memories of my past.  Then Romney picked Paul Ryan as a running mate and the situation has been devolving ever since.  Last week's Republican convention made me long for the old 'Etch-A-Sketch' days, when people assumed Romney would once again shift to a centrist position after securing his party's nomination.    

I thought elections couldn't get any worse than the last one.  But in the past four years, I have watched our legislators squabble like children, forgetting the people whom they have sworn to uphold and serve.  Working together to solve the problems of our nation seems to be a dim memory.  

I don't know what the outcome of this election will be.  When a comedian whose job is to make people laugh at the absurd runs out of jokes, I find myself afraid for the future of my country.  What is in store for us as a nation?  Will we allow our politicians to continue distorting facts and blocking necessary legislation on partisan grounds?  Or will we dig deep as a nation and demand a higher standard of the people we have elected to serve us?  

Jon Huntsman Jr, former Governor of Utah and Ambassador to China, came onto the Colbert Report last week.  When Stephen Colbert asked him about the future of the Republican party, his response was:  

"It's got to be more.  It's got to have a heart and soul.  It's got to have solutions for this country.  When was the last time we sat down as a people and talked about solutions?"

A Stranger's Kindness

                I had a minor panic episode this morning while walking to a doctor’s appointment.  I was crossing an intersection when a car drove by, the driver yelling something at me.  I jumped in fear; my heart constricted and my lungs contracted as a wave of dizziness washed over me.  My body froze as I stood on the sidewalk waiting to return to a state of equilibrium. 

A crossing-guard noticed my reaction and asked if I was okay.  Without much forethought or conscious effort, I found myself telling this concerned stranger all about my accident and my fear.   Two years ago, I was hit by an elderly driver while walking across the street.  I was on the crosswalk with two other pedestrians – the driver drove up onto the median and hit all of us.  I was the first person to get hit – my head went through the windshield, leaving me with a mild traumatic brain injury and a laceration above my right eye that required 100+ stitches and missed slicing my eye by less than a millimeter.  The crossing-guard was sympathetic – she listened to the babbling of a stranger with patience, her face a mirror of empathy. 

I explained to the kind woman that my life at the moment is about balancing my fears – I panic at the sight of on-coming cars, which leaves me with the option of either panicking while driving or panicking while walking.  A few months ago, when I was trying to drive again, I was almost hit by another driver.  I came very close to blacking out from the incident, which has left me with a deep-seated fear of causing a car accident from my anxieties.  At this point in time, I choose to face my fears while walking.  At the very least, I can stand on the sidewalk until my fear subsides. 

In return, the woman told me about her fear of driving – she was rear-ended last year.  Now whenever she sees a car behind her, she is anxious that she will get hit from behind again.  I told her I was sorry to hear about her accident and we commiserated about Houston traffic.  She told me I was strong, which brought me to the point of tears – I do not feel like a strong woman.  We talked for another ten minutes, about life and marriage and family, before I had to leave to make my doctor’s appointment.  I thanked her and said good-bye. 

I wish I had given her a hug.  Or told her just how much her sympathy meant to me.  

Labels And Language

Post-Mormon.  Ex-Mormon.  Agnostic.  Atheist.  Humanist.  Feminist. 

            These are all labels that I have used to describe myself at one time or another.  When asked to define my religious beliefs, the long answer is that I am an agnostic atheist humanist with strong feminist and egalitarian ideals.  For a short answer, I reply either humanist or agnostic, depending on my current frame of mind.  I choose to define myself as a post-Mormon, as I feel the term implies a less negative connotation than ex-Mormon, although ex is also an accurate descriptor.  Sometimes others will describe me as an “anti”-Mormon, although I do not consider myself to be such.

            In science, language has to be precise.  The first important example I was taught – in an introductory developmental biology class – was the difference between cell fate specification and determination.  During the course of embryonic development, cells adopt certain fates – this is how an entire complex organism develops from a single fertilized egg.  During the course of development, cells go from an undifferentiated state to adopting specific fates.  This is how muscle cells, neurons, epidermal cells, and everything in-between develop to form an entire complex organism.  This is what makes developmental biology – and life – so beautiful and fascinating.   

There are two specific stages of differentiation – specification and determination.  A cell that is specified will develop autonomously if placed in a neutral environment such as a petri dish.  If a specified cell is placed in an environment with conflicting differentiation signals, then this cell will adopt an alternative fate based on the signals received.  Specification is a stage that is still labile.  Cell-fate determination is more fixed; the cell will adopt the same fate even if placed in an environment with conflicting signals.  Many of the classic developmental biology studies involved cutting pieces of a developing organism and transplanting from one area of the embryo to another in order to study how development was affected.  As differentiation progressed from specified to determined, the organisms that developed from these experiments became weirder and weirder.  The classic example – performed by Hilde Mangold in the 1920’s – involved transplanting an area known as the dorsal lip region and resulted in the development of secondary body axes in frog embryos. 

Spemann-Mangold Dorsal Lip Transplantation Experiment

Precise language is important in all areas of life.  Imprecise language can lead to fights and to confusion when communicating complex ideas.  Although I do label myself as an agnostic atheist humanist with strong feminist and egalitarian ideals, there are still many examples where the use of labels can hurt rather than help.  The label may be innocent enough – feminism is defined as “the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights equal to men – but the emotions associated with the feminist label can be quite negative.  I know my personal definition of the labels I use to describe myself – do others define these labels in the same manner that I do?  When other people use labels to describe themselves, is my understanding the same as theirs? 

 This illustration of the famous dorsal lip transplantation experiments, as performed by Hilde Mangold, was taken from Gilbert's "Development Biology" textbook, 6th edition, which can be accessed publicly at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9983/   The exact figure used can be accessed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10101/figure/A2302/?report=objectonly

Note: This is an experimental post on my behalf - I would love to hear feedback on how effectively I was able to communicate the biology concept, as I am pretty inexperienced talking about biology to a general audience.  If the example is too arcane or poorly explained, please don't hesitate to give feedback.