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.  

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.   

Mormon Urban Legends

            When I was fourteen, I attended a Mormon youth program called “Especially For Youth”, which was a week-long activity meant to inspire and motivate the youth of the church.  The week was filled with talks, activities, and testimony meetings.  Every night, the girls in my group gathered together for a spiritual thought before heading to bed.  Towards the end of the week, my counselor Laura* gave us all a piece of paper with the following message:

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!

            I felt very solemn when I read this slip of paper – I had a great destiny to fulfill.  I didn’t feel more faithful, but here was an adult telling us that we had been saved for a special purpose.  I was both uncomfortable with the idea of having been more faithful in the pre-existence and sad that my youthful levity meant I was failing at the great destiny that was expected of me.  

 A few years later, I discovered that this statement was in fact an urban legend.  In the meantime, I heard this quote from multiple sources – we were special, we had a great destiny, we had been the elect spirits who had been saved for the latter-days for some great purpose.  This quote was repeated by teens and adults alike with all of the solemnity of gospel-truth.  I was grateful when I heard this quote was false, as I was uncomfortable with the implied superiority of this statement. But discovering this quote was false also went a long way towards increasing my cynicism about Mormon culture. 

In 2008 – nine years after I first heard this quote - the Mormon Church issued an official statement denouncing the falsity of this statement.  But when I first heard this quote, I believed.  I believed that I had been saved for a special purpose – and I felt like a failure for not living up to my destiny. 

Note: After posting this, people were nice enough to point out that the truth was a little more complicated than I had thought.  For a more in-depth discussion, I would recommend reading this follow-up post.

Exciting News!

I just wanted to write and say that my piece on Mormon weddings was just picked up by the site BlogHer - if you are interested, go and check it out!  

Update: Sweet Land Of Bigamy

The book "Sweet Land of Bigamy", which I reviewed previously, is having a sale this week on Amazon - the Kindle version is available for only $2.99.  If you haven't read it yet, I would highly recommend giving it a try!

Book Review: Book Of Mormon Girl

          In the first chapter of her book, Joanna Brooks writes

          "I grew up in a world where all the stories I heard arrive at the same conclusions: the wayfarer restored, the sick healed, the lost keys found, a singular truth confirmed. And an orthodox Mormon story is the only kind of story I ever wanted to tell.

          But these are not the kinds of story life has given me."

          I bought this book because I was curious. My life story is an echo of Joanna's -- I was raised in a staunch Mormon family, the youngest of seven children.  I bought this book because I wanted to understand the perspective of someone who is similar to me yet chose a very different path in life.  I wanted to understand how the author balances her personal beliefs with the beliefs of her family's faith. I too struggle to balance the love I have for my family with my reservations concerning the Mormon Church’s actions.

          Joanna devotes a lot of time to her childhood and the security she felt growing up in such a strong religious tradition.  Joanna grew up in the cozy cocoon of California Mormonism, with parents that were strict but loving.  As a child, she thought of herself as a root beer among cokes - a reference to the Mormon practice of avoiding caffeinated sodas.  There are hints of the turmoil that would come later, hints of dissonance between her personal convictions and the teachings of the Mormon church. But mostly, she concentrates on the happy memories. There is a saccharine quality to her recounting, a need to present her childhood as being the orthodox Mormon story.

          Then she very abruptly shifts to a period of turmoil. There isn't much segue from her recounting of a happy childhood to the disillusionment of adulthood. Her recounting of the excommunications of prominent intellectuals --- the September Six --- came across as very rote. There was a lot of heartache bundled up into just a few terse pages. Her battle with the controversy surrounding Prop 8 was more vivid, although there was still only a limited explanation of how the author dealt with the turmoil.

          At the end of reading this book, my questions were still unanswered -- I still don't understand how the author deals with the dissonance between her faith and her personal convictions. The author displays an enormous amount of pride in her Mormon heritage, which is something I understand.  However, she is hesitant to tackle the full issues; I still don't understand how the author has managed to reconcile her convictions with the actions of the Mormon church.  

          I read this book about six months ago and ever since reading it, I have thought a lot about what this book is trying to accomplish and what the ramifications may be.  I find that my thoughts on this book are bittersweet.  My mother is a Democrat Mormon, similar to Joanna.  My mother is very quiet about her convictions; since my mother doesn’t speak up, her open-minded and tolerant approach to religion remains unheard.  I am grateful to women like Joanna who have the courage to speak up and say that they don’t support some of the actions of the Mormon Church.  

          There is also the very pressing reality of the Mormon Church’s actions.  Prop 8 hurt a lot of innocent people who didn’t deserve to have their rights taken away from them.  Mormon authorities has also taken strict disciplinary action against non-conformists within the church.  During Joanna’s time at BYU, Mormon authorities excommunicated six prominent Mormon intellectuals, known as the September Six.  Now we are at a point where mainstream America is focusing on Mormonism.  The Mormon Church has responded by running an expensive ad campaign that highlights groups of people that are often marginalized at church - the minorities, the liberals, the career women.  The cynic in me thinks that Joanna Brooks is allowed to remain within the confines of Mormonism because she provides good PR at a time when the Mormon Church is desperate for a better image.  The true test of the Mormon Church will come after the spotlight is removed - will this new tolerance continue or not?  

          In spite of these reservations, I do think this book serves an important role.  This book is a reminder that there are a lot of good-hearted Mormons out there who don’t agree with everything the authorities say.  My suspicion is that there are more of these members than we realize.  One day, I hope these people feel comfortable speaking up.  I am grateful that Joanna has shown the courage to speak up.  

          I would recommend reading this book; however, the reader should understand that this story only scratches the surface.

Note: This review is of the first edition of this book.  When I contacted the author about any relevant changes, her answer was that the main narrative is the same, however, there have been about two chapters added, including one at the end.  

I Am A Feminist

          I am a feminist.  In this day and age, feminism is treated as a joke, an aberration, a word that conjures up the image of emasculating, bra-burning angry women who clamor for a world without men.  Feminist is used as an insult meant to brand a woman as being angry or hateful.  But militancy is not the soul of feminism.  Feminism is the conviction that women should be judged based on their accomplishments rather than their gender.  People should be allowed to explore and develop their own unique talents and when they do develop these talents, they should be rewarded in an egalitarian manner that has no bearing on gender.  

          I am not anti-marriage or anti-family.  I am not anti-man.  I have no objection to a woman staying at home to raise her children, just as I have no objection to a woman pursuing a career or forsaking marriage altogether, as long as these choices are independent of gender constraints.  I believe, in the deepest sense of the word, that people should be given the right to shape their own destiny and that gender should not be an obstacle to achieving dreams.  This belief defines who I am as a person.  

          With the recent cuts to Planned Parenthood, the fights over healthcare coverage of contraceptives, the attempts to restrict abortion rights, and the recent comment by Rep. Todd Akin that belittled the suffering of rape victims everywhere, I am feeling besieged.  I am watching as my beloved country slides backwards in terms of human rights and equality.  My body is not a political battlefield; my convictions should not be a source of ridicule or derision.  

          As a woman, my opinions are influenced by my own personal experiences; my experience is that of a woman’s.  But equality is a two-way street; I do not believe that men should be defined by their gender any more than women should.  My primary interest is in the unique talents of an individual, irrespective of whether these traits are in accordance with gender stereotypes or not.  Male, female, straight, gay, young, old, and everything in between - we all share a common bond of humanity that transcends labels.   

          The time has come to redefine what feminism means to our society at large.  And so, at this point in time, I would like to open this discussion to all of the wonderful people that have taken the time to read this post.  What does feminism - and equality - mean to you?  

Facebook Boundaries And Mormonism

          I am Facebook friends with a lot of Mormons from my childhood and adolescent years.  Some of them - mostly peers from my teenage years - I befriended.  Others friended me - some of the requests were from people I hadn’t seen in years and so I found myself at a loss as to how specific I needed to be about my break with the Mormon Church.  Should I be up-front about the issue or should I just assume they either knew or didn’t care?  

          Within the past few years, as Facebook has become more universal, I have gotten a lot of friend requests from the peers of my parents and older siblings.  Some of these acquaintances realize that I am no longer Mormon; others do not.  Every time I receive one of these requests, I hesitate before clicking the “Accept Friend Request” button.  Do they know that I am no longer affiliated with the Mormon Church?  Do I want to open myself up to the possibility of judgment because I am no longer a member?  My policy over the years has been to accept these friend requests but to be honest about my identity as a former Mormon - my profile states that I am an agnostic liberal.  I was never a heavy Facebook user, although after starting up a blog and establishing an online presence, my Facebook activity has increased within the past few months.  

          With these Facebook friends comes an added burden - the constant influx of faith-promoting stories that my friends choose to post to their account.  The Mormon leaders have urged members to view social networking sites as opportunities to share the gospel to the world - a virtual version of the idea of “every member a missionary”.  Mormons treat this directive with the same approach they treat the other instructions from leaders -- some Mormons embrace this advice with enthusiasm while others are reticent to do so.  I am reminded of the talk I heard by the former leader of the Mormon Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, in the fall of 2000¹; I was fifteen years old at the time.  In the talk, President Hinckley stated that the authorities were taking a formal stance against women wearing more than one earring in each ear.  At the time I had two holes in each ear and I felt uncomfortable when listening to this talk.  I never took the second pair out - and felt quite guilty about my disobedience - but by that time, my faith in Mormonism was already starting to crumble.  The following years there were additional talks by authorities directing women to obey the prophet’s directive on earrings.^2.3  There was a lot of guilt wrapped up into my decision to keep my second pair of earrings.  

          Over time, I have read a lot of the Mormon stories that have showed up on my Facebook feed.  Some of the posts make me cynical - if you are gushing to the world about how wonderful your religion/life is, who are you really trying to convince?  Some of the stories have made me quite upset.  I knew, when I saw the posts linking to a story about a homosexual Mormon man happily married to a woman⁴, that this story was going to cause heartbreak to young Mormons struggling with their sexual orientation.  Sure enough, a few weeks later on one of the Ex-Mormon forums, there was a story of a young man who came out to his parents, only to have them point to this example and ask him “Why can’t you do this?”.  I wasn’t surprised to hear the story used in this manner, based on the adulation I saw on Facebook.  These stories, combined with other articles that describe a church I never knew, have stretched and fractured my normal facade, causing me to become cranky and agitated as I compare my own Mormon reality with the mirage that these articles describe.  Perhaps my own Mormon journey was unique.  Talking with other former Mormons, my suspicion is that it wasn’t.  

          Every-time I see a post that whitewashes an issue that caused me a lot of pain growing up, I wonder what the best course of action is.  Should I speak up and point out either the factual errors or that there are people out there with very different memories of the same issue?  Should I reciprocate by sharing some of my own personal experiences?  Or should I stay silent and respect online boundaries?  After all, even if my friends do not maintain these boundaries, that is no excuse for me to reciprocate in kind.  

          All of this makes me tired.  I am tired of receiving these friend requests and wondering if I am considered a re-conversion project.  I am tired of having my Facebook feed littered with stories I don’t agree with, that don’t reflect the reality I grew up with.  I am tired of having to decide, every-time I see an article that is misleading or inaccurate, whether to speak up or to stay silent.  I do not like choosing between being polite and reminding people that stories such as mine exist.  I also know that if I were to speak up - and within the past few months I have started speaking up - that I will end up hurting these people just as much as they hurt me.  Mormonism is a religion that teaches its members to fear dissension - by pointing out alternatives, I am crossing a line that most Mormons are uncomfortable with.  In spite of all our differences, these are people I grew up with - I do not wish to cause them pain.  

          The dilemma of what to do leaves me with an irritated, itchy feeling as these stories get under my skin.  In my weaker moments, I wonder if the easiest course of action is to just purge my account of all proseletyzing Mormons.  But this does not seem any more reasonable a course of action than the alternatives - after all, these people played a big role during my childhood.  Mormonism - and the people within Mormonism - were an integral part of my childhood.  Is it healthy to purge my life of all things related to my up-bringing?  I may not be a Mormon anymore but there are many Mormons that I love.  

          When I am stressed, I react in a knee-jerk fashion, rather than the studied rationality I have always strived to maintain.  My online Facebook activity, especially within the past few months, has been degenerating into the type of behavior that I do not like, either in myself or others.  I feel uncomfortable with this new version of me that publicly “likes” ex-Mormon stories and who points out differences in opinions; I was also uncomfortable with the old version that never spoke up.  Where is the middle ground, the balance I want to maintain?  Balance seems elusive with each new version of a Mormon illusion I never knew.  

          This is not a problem that is exclusive to my Mormon Facebook friends.  I also have friends from other areas of my life that, for one reason or another, view Facebook as a tool for displaying their sentiments about some very personal beliefs.  Sometimes I agree with their sentiments.  Other times I do not.  And this too can be tiring, although in my situation, Mormonism is something that has caused me much pain over the years in a way that political sentiments have not. 

          I think we all need to step back and remember that although we live in a tidy virtual age, human emotions are still visceral and messy.  Everyone has a different point of view, a different story to tell, different convictions that form their character.  Everyone has their own trigger points.  Facebook is an impersonal media - we throw our thoughts out into the virtual world without understanding the consequences that lie on the other side of the Internet.  We fail to see the faces behind our Facebook friends and to understand what our virtual actions do to our friends in real life.  

¹ “Your Greatest Challenge, Mother”, Gordon B Hinckley, General Conference, October 2000.  http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2000/10/your-greatest-challenge-mother?lang=eng

²“His Word Ye Shall Receive” M. Russell Ballard, General Conference, April 2001.  http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2001/04/his-word-ye-shall-receive?lang=eng

³“Quick To Observe.” David A. Bednar, Devotional Address, Brigham Young University, May 2005.   http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1456

⁴“Club Unicorn: In Which I Come Out Of The Closet On My Ten-Year Anniversary” http://www.joshweed.com/2012/06/club-unicorn-in-which-i-come-out-of.html