To My Mormon Friends and to Those Who Have Left: Have You Done Any Good in the World Today?
A good friend of mine on social media gave me a link to a TED talk that he thought I might find interesting. Here it is.
To give you some backstory, I call myself a "former Mormon," and I even identify as a Cultural Mormon, although I am not a member of the Church anymore. I don't see myself as an "ex-Mormon" because although that may be parsing, "ex" sounds like "anti." On social media, I came out in favor of the Church's new policy regarding homosexuality and membership (which isn't new at all, but we'll get to that.) I was vilified and ripped apart by the ex-Mormon community on social media. I wasn't outraged and they were all outraged that I was not outraged.
I deleted my post, not wanting to spend any more time on the issue, but then I got this TED talk from a friend and he wanted my thoughts. I watched it and it indeed made me think. I responded to him with an email and this blog is it. I changed it a little, but he urged me to write it. I realize I am putting myself in the place to have even more people from my community "unfriend" me and vilify me. So be it. This is what I think. I am tired of getting invites, being included in group messages and being tagged in anti-Mormon rhetoric and treated as if I agree with them. I don't. Basically, I'm getting proselytized to by anti-Mormons and I'm bloody sick of it. (Not the friend who sent me the TED talk--in fact, I think my email helped him out of hurt, and that, ultimately, was my goal.)
The TED talk was done by a former LDS woman, and I listened to her with great interest. People like her have confused me for the past few years. I don't understand the impetus to change the LDS Church "from within." The reason I don't understand it is that one of the main teachings of the Church is obedience. If you are not willing to obey, then it's probably time to do some soul-searching. If you speak out against the Church, you run the risk of apostasy. If you believe the Church is true, you accept the teachings with an open heart and mind. If you have doubts, the Church is very clear--"...and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.” In other words, seek out the truth for yourself. Good advice and ballsy advice coming from a Church, if you think about it. "Don't take our word for it--seek out the truth for yourself."
But let's back up to a claim that she made that what churches teach becomes interwoven into our societal fabric. This is true, has always been true, but religions are here and they are here to stay, it looks like. The Salem witch trials are an example of religion run amok. I understand the danger here. As a society, we have come a long way. But churches holding sway in public policy is becoming less and less as time goes on.
I have heard people say that religion is a crutch. My question is this: who are we to deny a person in need of a crutch? If they need one, then let them have one. Personally, I see people who want/need religion as just human beings seeking meaning. I find meaning in different places than my LDS siblings, but I'm okay with that.
When my parents died, my LDS brothers were in charge of everything because my parents were LDS. At first I was upset--I felt excluded and "presided-over." Then my compassion kicked in. I realized something important: my brothers deal with things through the lens of their beliefs. This gives them comfort and purpose. Who am I to try and diminish that? Religion also addresses and mitigates their own personal fears about mortality (I am assuming, they haven't said this to me as such). When I realized this, I no longer felt excluded or upset. They believe they will see our parents again. They reaffirmed their testimonies. What good would it have done to demand they treat death the way I treat death: as a final and unresolved passage into nothingness? It would have accomplished nothing and would have created hurt feelings and strife. Instead, I practiced compassion, because I can only control myself. In doing so, my relationship with my brothers remained and stays strong and loving. Because I made a choice to not be offended.
In her talk, the speaker talked about what happens when your belief harms others. There are instances when beliefs actually harm others, take Islam and jihad killings, the recent attacks in Europe. That is actual, tangible harm. The Church's belief that acting on homosexuality is a sin, that women can't be ordained into the priesthood (but they can hold it through their husbands) or can't attend all-male meetings does not hurt anyone unless she allows it to hurt her.
"By proving contraries, truth is made manifest." In short, by examining both sides of an issue, one can find where one stands, one can hone in on what is "true" for him or her. What is true for one person may not be true for another. Oh, the author of that quote? Joseph Smith. My brother's belief that living a homosexual life is a sin doesn't hurt me, even though I don't believe in sexual sin, per se. I can allow it to hurt me. I can choose to take offense, take it personally--but I choose to not allow it to hurt me. That goes for them too--my lack of belief could hurt them if they choose to let it.
Other than real, physical harm, other people's beliefs don't harm me unless I allow them to. The speaker has allowed Church policy to hurt her. She made a choice to be offended, to feel inferior. The Church teaches that men and women are equal but different. They teach that husbands and wives should support one another. Who is it that decided that because women aren't ordained into the priesthood, they are inferior? Who decreed that having the priesthood makes you superior? Women who choose to feel inferior, and men who decide they are superior, that's who. This is not what the Church teaches. In the temple, men and women are ordained "priests and priestesses." Equal.
It is not religion which allows beliefs to bleed over into the secular laws of the land, it is individuals who seek to impose their "brand" on others, and that's something that needs to be addressed--but we shouldn't address it by forcing churches to change fundamental values in order to be in accordance with secular law. That's just as convoluted as forcing secular laws to reflect a particular church's doctrine, and we don't like that very much, do we? No, we don't. It would be extremely hypocritical for me to demand they accept my values, while simultaneously refusing to accept theirs.
Some LDS politicians seek to make policy in accordance with their beliefs. I disagree with this because what is true for a church--say not allowing gay marriage in a temple, should not be true for the secular arena. Our constitution allows for equality, and SSM allows homosexual couples equal protection under the law. If we take a look at the laws of the land, we have to realize that the more inclusive the law, the fairer it is. I acknowledge that religions are exclusive by nature. We are free to accept their exclusions and be a member, or renounce it. If we accept it, we must strive to obey in our own lives the principles we purport to sustain.
If an LDS person seeks to control or force someone to believe as he or she believes, say, via politics, then they are not following the principles of the Gospel. Free agency. Their job is to love and accept, not judge; to honor the laws of the land and to lead by example. It is our human natures to try and control what we can't control, and to seek out evidence to support what we already believe to be true. Everyone does it. If we see that a politician is seeking to impose his or her religious beliefs in the political realm, then that fight needs to take place in the political realm, not the religious one. We need to tell our politicians that what they choose to do in their personal lives has to be different than their public lives for the benefit of All, including people who are not of his or her faith. That's why it's called "public service." However, attempting to destroy what they do in their personal lives by attacking their religion is not the solution.
Mormonism, Catholicism, Judaism, they are all patriarchal religions that teach of a male deity and a male-centric hierarchy. If I believe that the Catholic faith is true, then my job is to accept my place in it as a woman, and strive to obey. Same if I was a Mormon woman. If I believe in the LDS Church, then I accept its teachings. All of them. I can choose to see my place in it as a second-class member, like the speaker did, or I can choose to see myself as equal but different to my male counterparts, which is what the Church has taught, time and time again. It's a choice to be offended and feel diminished. The speaker tried to make the claim that women were excluded from all-male meetings and that was somehow sexist and discriminatory. My question is, why does she feel the need to attend all-male meetings? Do you ever see men lining up to attend all-female meetings? No. It seems like rebellion for rebellion's sake, nothing more. General Priesthood? It's now televised, so male members can sit with their wives and "attend" on their living room sofas. The women's meeting has now been re-named General Women's Conference so that women understand that they are included in General Conference--but the deception is that they were ever excluded--they weren't. But the Church changed the NAME. That's all it did, it changed the name so that women felt more included. It's ridiculous that they even had to do that, in my opinion.
The speaker made an excellent point concerning anti-Mormon hostility. Being hostile toward religion doesn't work. Yet that's all I've seen from the ex-Mormon community: hostility and rage, a rage way out of proportion to the facts. And it has forced me into this weird position of defending the Church because I am not "anti"-Mormon. I am PRO in my beliefs, not anti. Parsing? Perhaps. But words matter, as is seen in the "new" policy (a policy which is in fact not new, but consistent with the former policy: that acting on homosexuality makes you an apostate, even within a state-sanctioned marriage.) This is not new, this is how it's always been. The Church had to redefine apostasy to include gay married couples because now gay marriage exists. That's all the Church did. It expanded what it already decrees.
As for children with gay parents, I see this move from the Church as a way to protect families, not hurt them. There is no need for a child to have to make a choice between a gay parent and being a faithful member of the Church. They are not being asked to "renounce" their parents. That's a popular myth circulating on social media.
In fact, the Church teaches to "honor thy father and thy mother." It's the fine line of loving the person, but acknowledging that their particular lifestyle is not in accordance with your beliefs if you are LDS. By decreeing that children of gay couples must wait until they are 18 to get baptised, they are assuring that these children are walking into their commitments to the Church with full accountability and consciousness. They are asking people to reaffirm their commitment to the Church's teachings. Not once have they told people to disavow or reject loved ones who are living a gay lifestyle. That may be how people are choosing to interpret it, but it's not what the Church did. The Church teaches that living a homosexual life is a sin; whether or not a child is baptized or not will not change that teaching.
If the child attends church meetings and is active, he or she will get that message. It will be up to them to reconcile what they believe versus how their parents choose to live their lives and it will actually create more compassion and love, not less--especially if both parents are working together to strengthen the child's stability and their own home life. At 18, kids will be able to choose whether or not they want to be a member based on their experiences in the Church and their personal experiences at home. It is possible, if done right, for the child to be LDS, remain faithful, and love their gay parents and accept them. These are not mutually exclusive things, no matter what the critics say. There is no harm to the child. There is no cruelty in making them wait. It is compassion, if anything, for the homosexual parent of that child on the Church's part by NOT making the child feel like he has to choose at all.
One person told me that if that is the policy for children of gays, then it should be the policy for kids with other "apostate parents" i.e.: parents who have left the Church and who are living "in sin." She said the Church needed to be consistent and fair. My question to her was this: who made you the arbiter of fairness? Since when is anything in life fair? Again, why are former members holding the Church up to an arbitrary standard they have set? You left the Church. Now...leave it. The expectation that the Church is or should be fair seems to come from a very immature place that still believes he or she is still a sunbeam. You're not.
The TED talk speaker went on to bemoan the hate mail, the death threats, the vitriol she experienced as she attempted to impose her self-proclaimed feminism on Church policy and doctrine. I happen to know of LDS missionaries all over the world who are beaten, threatened and spat upon for who they are and what they believe. What is the common thread here? Intolerance. Intolerance on BOTH sides. Don't be fooled into thinking ex-Mormons are the only ones who receive social retribution. This speaks of people in general trying to impose their wills onto others instead of practicing love and acceptance and honoring free will--and practicing detachment if there is disagreement. LDS people who lash out in hatred are not following the teachings of the Gospel. Non-LDS people who lash out are belying their own hurt and disappointment that they had to leave the Church because they don't believe a significant portion of the teachings for one reason or another.
The speaker said that she and her parents invalidate each other's lives by the way they live. That is utter and complete garbage, if you ask me. My LDS family doesn't have the authority nor the permission to invalidate my life. Nor would they try. If she gives her parents that authority, that's on her. In turn, my life doesn't invalidate the lives of my brothers because they don't allow that, either.
But what if they did? What if they looked at me and said, "Her behavior invalidates my beliefs, so I can't be around her." Do you know what that is? That is fear. My brothers are not so fragile in their beliefs. They are not afraid. So they embrace me and love me, with full knowledge that I don't share their beliefs. They choose love over trying to control me. That isn't about religion, that is about family dynamics. My family dynamics allow for us to love and support one another despite our differences. My brothers follow the teachings of the Church by loving me. I follow the dictates of my conscience by loving them. If other people's families are so dysfunctional and unhealthy that they can't do that? The LDS Church is not to blame. The LDS Church does not teach you to shun unbelieving family members. It teaches you to love them, above all else. If this issue tears a mixed LDS/non-LDS family apart, then believing members are not following the principles of the Gospel, and non-believing members have not evolved beyond tribal, mob mentality, and they haven't truly made peace with the choices they have made about their departure from the Church.
I love my Mormon family. I love my Mormon heritage. My belief system is about building things, not tearing things down. I can accept that the LDS Church has its own beliefs and I can choose to adhere to them and be counted as a member, or walk away. I chose to walk away. But I don't need to try and destroy other people's beliefs in order to validate my decision. I don't need to de-convert to justify my actions and behavior. I am not afraid. As a matter of fact, I am prepared to be wrong. About all of it. I can't say for certain that I've seen people any happier for leaving their faith. They simply trade one set of issues for another.
I'm tired of the hate-spewing, the vitriol, the hypocrisy and the misinformation being disseminated by ex- Mormons. They are willfully misrepresenting what has happened here to manipulate, distort and destroy faith. I dislike hypocrisy, regardless of the source. You can't preach love through a veil of hatred. All they are doing is screaming in an echo chamber to those who are bitter, giving each other ammunition to justify their lives, creating doubt in those who already had doubt, and solidifying the faith of true believing Mormons. That, and creating hurt where there doesn't need to be hurt. "It is a tale told by [idiots] full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
Many people leave their faiths because they feel they need to follow a different path. My choice is to be proactive in my beliefs. Isn't it better to be pro-something than reactionary and simply define ourselves by being anti-something? Let's show our LDS brothers and sisters that we are living our lives well. That's all you really need to do.
My intention with this long novella is not to persuade anyone to believe how I believe. But in a court of law, two sides are represented for a reason. That's the only way a decision can be made fairly and in an unbiased way. Too many people have refused to see both sides of this issue. They have pronounced the Church 'evil,' and that's that. I have chosen to see both sides, and so to my mind, that makes me the more informed and balanced. A lot of us left our churches with the idea that we have grown and evolved past the organization. Can't we show them we have?
