Protecting our Children from Sexual and Spiritual Abuse

WHAT DO WE DO NOW?

________________________________________________________

The "Protect the Children" march by Sam Young has come and gone. The LDS Church has made it very clear that their strategy now is to ignore the problem.  In fact, in the recent LDS Conference, President Russell M. Nelson made it very clear that he considers one-on-one interviews crucial to the church's mission.

I'm left wondering why?

Mormon leaders have long held that these interviews are necessary to protect the "sanctity" of the Temple. Now they are being held up as a way for members to gain important spiritual guidance. There are a couple of problems with these claims.

1.) We know that people enter the temple unworthily. Who? Well, Joseph L Bishop for one. Was the sanctity of the Temple protected from him? How about NewNameNoah, who played the part of a worthy member, and purposely lied to both a Bishop and a Stake President to obtain a "Temple Recommend" to show the problems with "spiritual discernment?" He discusses his purpose in this video.

And what about the "spiritual discernment" of President Spencer W. Kimball, who called this man to be the MTC President and allegedly knew Elder Bishop personally? Or what about all those Church leaders who came to speak at the weekly devotionals in the MTC? Where was their discernment?

So what value is there in relying on "worthiness interviews" in protecting the sanctity of the temple? Obviously, it didn't stop "unworthy" individuals from attending. And those tasked with guarding the temple didn't have the discernment to stop them. So in reality, the church is already relying upon members to self-police.

2.) There is no question that being able to talk about our experiences can have immense emotional benefits, and certainly discussion with others who have perhaps more maturity and training in sensitive sexual matters can help children process and deal with sexual trauma, or even make sense of consensual sexual experience. Mormon Bishops have no such training. Nor do they receive training. Which leads to my next point.

That's not the purpose of the interviews. The purpose is to "judge worthiness" an act of immense emotional risk for a child. Psychologically, being taught that one is "unworthy" is akin to mind rape. Once that belief takes root in a child, there is no taking it back. As sexual desire is instinctive and pervasive, every time a child is tempted by sex or masturbation, she/he is again "unworthy." It is a pernicious act to shame a child for consensual sexual behavior. It is unconscionable to shame a child for masturbation, an act so normal, that it is nearly universal. It is devastation to blame a victim for the crimes of her predator.  The church isn't "teaching responsibility," they aren't stopping "sin," they are only engaging in sexual voyeurism and applying sexual shame. They are instilling beliefs which result in lifelong damage. 

_____________________________________________________________________________

Youth "worthiness interviews" are an act of spiritual terrorism.

_____________________________________________________________________________

3.) Confession of sexual "sins" provides leaders who are sexual predators with valuable intelligence, in which (a point I've made in other blogs) is a risk of which cannot be overstated.) How much easier is it to manipulate a vulnerable teen if a Bishop is aware of "sexual impropriety" or "sin" when guilt is already instilled within a child? Particularly so, in the center of a culture which views "sexual sin" to be as serious as "the shedding of innocent blood" (murder.)

Given the fact that the church has released sensitive information regarding the victim of the Joseph L. Bishop, dating back to an incident of alleged sexual misconduct by the approx. 55 year old victim at age 17 (and this is the important part) obtained through a "worthiness interview" conducted 38 years ago, I am concerned that these "worthiness interviews" actually are part of a much darker purpose.

For generations, sexual behavior has carried with it, significant social stigma. The requirement of "LDS doctrine" claims that forgiveness requires a "full and complete confession." Now that we know the church isn't above documenting and using this information in a smear campaign against a victim, making "a full and complete confession" takes on sinister overtones. Perhaps, one-on-one interviews where "a full confession is required for forgiveness" is a method of gaining intelligence on members?  Any bets that "Brother Bishop" had access to this intelligence while called to serve as the MTC Mission President? Why else would he choose that particular victim?

_____________________________________________________________________________

If the church is documenting your sexual sins, and we now know they are, do you really want to take a risk of sharing something sensitive with your bishop? 

_____________________________________________________________________________

With the advent of the knowledge that the church has used intelligence gained through worthiness interviews as part of a smear campaign, members really need to take steps to protect themselves.

Here is what you can do:

1.) Tell your bishop that you will no longer answer any questions regarding sexual conduct. Inform him that the church has demonstrated unethical behavior and broken trust with its members in sharing information regarding the victim in the Joseph Bishop MTC sexual abuse scandal. Any questions regarding sexual conduct will result in termination of the interview. Inform him that it is his choice to refuse you a temple recommend, but there is no negotiation on this point.

2.) Inform the Bishop that your children are off-limits.  There will be no worthiness interviews with your children, either with or without your presence. If this means that your children will be unable to participate in church activities, remind him that the scriptures say "if the parents fail to teach their children, the sin be upon the head of the parents" and that you're willing to accept that risk. If he is still unwilling to let them participate, then remind him that you are their parent, not him. Help your children find other activities that they can participate in.  This is likely to result in church leaders attempting to subvert your children and have them called in for an interview without your knowledge.

3.) If your children find themselves being asked to come "interview with the bishop" teach them to respond with, "I'm not permitted to do that without my parents personally telling me I can." If they find themselves coerced into the bishops office and asked questions of a sexual nature, they are to respond with "My parents have forbidden me to answer any questions about what I do with my body. I need to leave now." Role play with them so that they know to stand up, walk out, and immediately find an adult they trust (or know that you trust.)

4.) If your child reports to you that they were called in and sexually questioned in a worthiness interview, strongly consider filing a legal complaint for sexual harassment of a minor.

No longer can you consider these "Worthiness Interviews" harmless. There are now hundreds of documented cases describing the damage people have lived with for decades, but were previously unwilling to share because of shame. 

_____________________________________________________________________________

Since Church Leaders have no understanding of healthy boundaries nor are they willing to establish them, it is our responsibility to teach them.

_____________________________________________________________________________

You are the parent of your child. You now have the responsibility for their safety. The church has broken trust with its members in revealing information obtained through a "worthiness interview." They have broken trust in protecting a predator.  They have broken trust in engaging in a smear campaign. Now you know and it is YOUR responsibility to protect them and yourselves. 

Fixing the Broken LDS System

LDS - Fixing a Broken System

These were the words my son, who is a doctoral candidate at Utah State University, said to me when visiting late last year. The Mormon Church has seen serious erosion in their “good name” over the last few years. No longer do they claim that they are “the fastest growing church” because statistically the evidence shows that their growth rate has pretty much flattened out, and closure of stakes, missions, wards and branches indicate that they may even be in a negative growth pattern. Perusing the Interwebs, forums for ex-Mormons have exploded, with the ex-Mormon subreddit indicating now more than 72,000 members.

Why the hostility?

As a deeply believing member, I was told repeatedly by church leaders that this was a sign of the “truth” of Mormonism, and that the entire world would combine against us. “Satan would throw all his forces at us to ‘stop the work from moving forward.’” 

It is a narrative which upon examination doesn't ring true. 

The church’s woes of late are self-inflicted. Let me provide a little historical context.

In 2002 a 14 year old girl, Elizabeth Smart, was abducted from her house by a religious fanatic, who proceeded to serially rape his victim. These details were unknown until she was rescued approximately 9 months later. She later stated, that she didn’t even try to escape her abductors because she’d been raped and she’d been taught in church that her self-worth was directly tied to her purity. In other words, her church taught her concepts that amount to victim shaming. 

In 2008 the church staunchly stood behind Proposition 8 in California. Church Leaders made demands of many members for substantial amounts of funding in an attempt to sway the public into voting for it, setting up phone banks, marches and door-to-door campaigns as part of the political effort. People in California and other states recognized this as blatantly bigoted behavior, and saw it as seeking to strip rights from a minority group for “who they are,” with Mormons claiming it an issue of “morality” rather than bigotry. It generated significant hostility. 

In June of 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marriage Equality. 

The church’s response was to quietly add a policy to the church handbook which stated that any same sex couple who married was required to be excommunicated for the charge of “apostasy.” This wasn’t the worst of it. As a matter of policy, those couples who had children under the age of eight were told that their children were to be denied the blessings of baptism because of their parents. When the new policy was leaked in November of 2015, there was an enormous uproar in both the LDS and Ex-Mormon communities. A large protest was organized and resulted in many submitting letters of resignation. Many viewed this not only as an attack on a minority group but as Church leadership holding children hostage against same-sex couples who were still members at that time. 

In recent months, the subjugation of women in our society has been brought into brilliant focus with the hashtag #Metoo. Women, in unprecedented numbers, have stepped forward. They are describing how they have been sexually abused, gaslighted and victimized by powerful men and organizations. The country is starting to get a glimpse of an enormous national systemic problem. Rob Porter, a face of power on the national scene was identified as a Mormon serial abuser who was protected by his (our) own religious organization.

Others also began to come forward with their experiences as children, who were molested, raped, shamed and guilted for sexual experimentation, masturbation, and desire, sparking an entirely new #Metoo moment for the Mormon community exposing decades of ecclesiastical abuse.

As part of these stories of physical abuse, sexual abuse, shame and victimization, we are beginning to understand that victim shaming is playing a large part in protecting predators. It indicates that predators are protected by systemic failures, primarily by organizations which revere patriarchy or power. Fundamentalist Christian religions, Islam, and the GOP are included, where women are further victimized by the attempt to strip basic human rights, reproductive health, and reproductive control. It’s first a community, now a nationwide, perhaps a worldwide problem.

In recent months, an organization, started by Sam Young, “ProtectTheChildren.org” has been gathering stories of both Mormons and ex-Mormons who were subjected to “Worthiness Interviews” during which they were deeply shamed, made to feel enormous guilt for normal masturbatory behavior, and in some cases, exposed to predators who took advantage of the Mormon system to act, inflicting horrifying abuse, and then compounding the sexual abuse with spiritual abuse, shame and guilt. These stories also include details of religious leaders who were again protected by a system of patriarchy, where the children were further victimized and shamed for reporting their abusers. Between Sam's petition and another, more than 54,000 people have signed petitions to stop this harmful practice.

The effects on these children have been profound, ranging from self-hatred, to diminished capacity for intimacy, fear of healthy sexuality, suicidal ideation, and in some tragic cases, suicide. These stories are gut wrenching. More than 400 stories are now on Sam's site, and I've seen many hundreds more posted on Reddit, and dozens of internet forums.

That brings us to the most recent catastrophic PR blunder by the LDS church, in which Church Leaders engaged in subtle victim blaming to protect one of their own, Elder Joseph L. Bishop. What Elder Bishop did, was to use his position over young LDS women to engage in predatory behavior. Church Leaders were made aware of his predatory behavior years prior, and in what appears to be an attempt to “preserve the good name of the church,” they chose to utilize hush money and victim shaming to protect him. 

The initial article by the Deseret News can be considered a hit piece, seemingly intentionally written with subtle cues for a Mormon audience with an intentional thrust of victim blaming, utilizing code words to indicate that the victim was now an outsider and shouldn’t be trusted. Here is a brilliant rebuttal to the church's PR statement. The story continues to unfold with revelations that the “basement office” was validated by an MTC employee. It was also confirmed by church spokesman Eric Hawking stating that they knew of Elder Bishop’s “second office.” Now the church has also revealed that another MTC victim came forward 8 years ago. 

EIGHT YEARS! The LDS church leaders have known of this for EIGHT YEARS and instead of excommunicating this man, they chose instead to protect him. This is a signal of a massive systemic failure within Mormonism. Many members want to make this about a “bad person” who slipped through the cracks. It’s not. Until we see this as systemic failure of beliefs, practices, and policies, casualties will mount, and defections accelerate. 

We, as a society need to get beyond blame. We’ve got to eliminate the “shame” and start talking about where the system is broken. The church is not “perfect.” If it was, we wouldn’t be here as a society, needing this discussion.

How is the system broken? 

First and most fundamentally, Mormonism is a “Patriarchal Order” where men are valued and women are given lip service. Men have all the authority and women are ignored. An old adage my ex-wife once shared with me is “Men are the head of the home and women are the neck that turns the head.” Unfortunately, in a system where men are the supreme authority, this is only wishful thinking. Automatically, in any conflict between man and woman, a patriarchal system gives precedence to the man and the Rob Porters are given protection and comfort at the expense of their wives, who are basically told to “shut up and support their husbands. This is God’s will.” Until women are viewed and valued as equal, the system cannot be fixed.

Second, and also key to the problem is the Mormon belief that sexuality is the province of Church Leadership in that they have the right to determine worthiness based on sexual behavior. It justifies thinking that any sex outside of marriage gives permission for the church to enact disciplinary councils to humiliate, shame, and ultimately decide on membership privileges for sexual misconduct. In the end, as demonstrated by Joseph L. Bishop, such "worthiness interviews" have no value as a means of maintaining holiness in the temple. People who lie are often not caught and attend the temple unworthily anyway. NewNameNoah infiltrated and filmed the temple ceremony showing that a "Bishop's discernment" failed entirely.

Sexual behavior regardless of church assertions is private, and to demand accounting of our genital usage is nothing more or less than voyeurism. It is an egregious boundary violation. Even worse,

The only time the church should ever engage in disciplinary councils is when leaders violate the sanctity of their callings by engaging in sexual, physical, or spiritual abuse. Excommunicating any lay member for "sexual sins" is, in my opinion, a form of spiritual abuse, unless that sin is a violent crime against another. Until Mormonism as an institution sheds the belief that they have a right to control sexual behavior, the system will remain broken. 

Third, sexuality in any form including “thinking about it” is taught to members in adolescence as sexual sin, and based on a scripture in the Book of Mormon, Alma 39:5 is taught as the “sin next to murder in its seriousness.” Sexual shame is literally in the DNA of the Church. Many of us experienced the lessons which describe sexual experience in terms of “purity” drawing parallels to “licked cupcakes,” “chewed bubble gum” and “nails in boards” (you can remove the nail but the hole is still there.) Somehow, sexual thought and experience makes you worthless. Such belief prevents fixing the system.

It is a well known and understood psychological theory that most predators were originally victims. In restricting, condemning, and shaming all sexual behavior, Mormonism exists in an environment of severe sexual repression, even seeking to take away masturbation as a safety outlet for sexual relief. This results in some expressing sexual frustration in unhealthy ways, taking the form of rape, incest, and molestation. For others, it results in deep depression, shame, self-hatred, and self harm. In seeking abject control of members' sexuality, the church perpetuates the predator/victim/predator cycle. 

Fourth, we now understand through decades of psychological experiments, that human sexuality is a need. Denying needs results in obsession. Years ago, a volunteer experiment was conducted where participants agreed to forgo solid food for a period of time. This occurred in a prison. Nutrition was met through a bland liquid diet. Before long, the inmates were subscribing to cooking magazines, having meetings to discuss food and generally obsessing over it. Sex and intimacy is recognized today as being as important on "Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs" as food, water and shelter.

In condemning any form of sexual behavior, the church is attempting to control a need. By doing so, they create sexual perversion and "addiction to porn." Shaming such behavior actually feeds into the obsession cycle. As it is both a need and instinctual in nature, given the right circumstances humans eventually cave to instinctual bodily demands. Jonathan Haidt, in “The Happiness Hypothesis” describes this as “the elephant running away with the rider.” He uses an apt metaphor by describing our conscious mind as a rider and our unconscious mind as an elephant. As a need, when the elephant runs away with the rider, conscious thought is overridden by subconscious need and in that state, rights of others will become subordinate to fulfilling the need.

Fifth, the church has created an environment where members have been conditioned to see the church as a “perfect organization” where Christ is at the head and gives all needful instruction to the leaders, who pass this information as needed to the membership. This top down structure has been further enforced through holy covenant. “Thou shalt not…engage in evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed.” “Contention is of the devil.” “Leaders should not be criticized even if the criticism is true.” 

This has created a communications void in which two way communication has been cut off. Criticism provides a valuable feedback mechanism that lets leaders know when they are straying from the values of the membership. In denying this feedback mechanism, the church has gradually moved further and further away from meeting the needs of the members. In short, they have forgotten that the church is there to support the members and now take the view that the members are there to support the church…and by extension, submit to the General Authorities’ will.

Venerating leadership IS a system failure. Wilford Woodruff taught, “God will never permit the prophet to lead the church astray, before doing so, he will destroy the prophet.” Teachings by other leaders include “Obedience is the first law of heaven,” “Do as the prophet commands, even if he is wrong you will be blessed,” “Once the prophet has spoken the thinking is done.” And finally, "If it be by my voice or the voice of my servant, it is the same." Such declarations imply a doctrine of infallibility. It has created a system of unthinking trust and obedience. Leaders are seen as having a direct line to God and mere members believe they shouldn’t challenge leadership pronouncements. In fact, those who do are deemed to be in “apostasy” and are often excommunicated. This failure is one of silencing honest dissent. 

Collectively, we have abrogated our own morality and thinking in favor of a leader’s “divine proclamation.”

In Conclusion:

Mormonism’s current woes are a result of systems failures, dangerous policies, ill advised PR moves, victim shaming, pro-leadership/pro-adult male protection, female/child subjugation, along with sexual and spiritual abuse, all of which are resulting in defections from the church, and increased hostility from those outside the church.

It is my position that the church’s whitewashed history, doctrinal contradictions, Book of Abraham issues, Book of Mormon historicity and other issues generally come into play after people reach a point where sexual abuse caused by Mormon sexual teachings and its spiritual counterpart of shaming and guilt have reduced a member to a state of spiritual desperation. No matter how hard we try, those of us violated by the spiritual abuse of shame, can never be “good enough.”

Forcing Children's Confessions

Every now and then life just slaps you upside the head with an understanding that makes you realize how blind cultural programming can make you. 

I was listening to “The Cultural Hall” podcast with Sam Young talking about his petition to stop sexual questioning of LDS children in their annual and semi-annual “worthiness interviews.” You can listen to the podcast here.

Sam made a statement in this podcast that hit me like a brick to the face. I’m still reeling from it. He said,

“You know, the problem with these interviews is that they are coerced confessions.”

His statement here is amazingly intuitive…and a very large part of what is wrong with them. Growing up I went through my share of these interviews and frankly, I detested them. I was always uncomfortable especially when the bishops would start into the sexual questions, and for the record, yes, I lied about masturbation too, which never set well with me. I was raised in a home where honesty was valued.

Let’s call these interviews by their proper name, “coerced confessions.” Digging a little deeper, it’s important to understand that forced confessions are a mark of zealotry. The only difference between a forced confession today and one that occurred during the horrible period of the Spanish Inquisition was that today they can't use physical torture and they can’t burn you at the stake for heresy. They can do something almost as bad though. They can shame you, tell your parents, and make life a living hell.

I saw one young lady stand up in “Fast and Testimony meeting,” who apologized to the entire ward for having gotten pregnant out of wedlock. It was forty-seven years ago and I was only eight years old, yet I can still remember clearly the shame and embarrassment on her face.  I’m honestly surprised she never committed suicide.  I know others who did. I’m surmising here, but I have a high degree of suspicion that the bishop of the time required her to do that as part of her “repentance process.”

There’s quite a substantial difference between someone who turns to the bishop for help and one who is coerced into confessing sexual sins. Unfortunately, the sexual repression inherent in a religion which views sex outside of marriage as “the sin next to murder” doesn’t usually bode well for the person coming to ask for help as it exposes them to church discipline…which is unfortunately public in nature.  Such discipline can range from being restricted from partaking of the sacrament (a public service) to restriction from participating in church activities (even more public) to outright expulsion from the church. In the world of Mormon Leadership Roulette, honesty can be risky, especially given the cultural shame surrounding sex in Mormonism.

The sexual shame arising from the idea that “sex is the sin next to murder” which is based on a set of Book of Mormon verses (Alma 39:3-5) has resulted in a church which has left an astonishing legacy of marital problems in its wake, from marriages with extremely poor sexual communication, to sexual inhibitions between partners, to men and women who still struggle with intimacy in marriage when they are middle aged. I can say this as one who has experienced these problems. The lack of sexual intimacy was a core issue in the demise of my first marriage.

Recently Utah declared porn to be a “public health crisis.” It’s fascinating when one recognizes that the Mormon church publicly denounces porn, but doesn’t understand, nor is it willing to admit its own role in creating this so-called crisis.

I had the opportunity at one point to sit down and discuss these issues with one of the top “sexual addiction” therapists in the state of Utah. In our discussion he made some fairly significant points.

He said,

"It’s unfortunate that the church doesn’t recognize its role in creating sexual porn addicts. First, they’ve created a taboo around sex, so nobody is comfortable talking about it. In doing so they’ve given sex an aura of mystery and desirability made all the more so, because its very taboo-ness adds to the excitement and danger of finding out.  Second, parents are uncomfortable talking about sex with the children and it shuts down any ‘licit’ channels of communication. Where do they have to go to get information?  Well, today we have this resource called the Internet…and along with that comes access to porn. Third, porn is never going to tell you ‘no.’ These things all come together in a perfect storm…but it all starts with the church demonizing sex, and sexual behavior.  It is unfortunate, because sex is a human need and the shaming and demonizing sets up a person to obsess over sex rather than dealing with it in healthy ways."

The final piece of the equation though gets back to “worthiness interviews.” Here is where children are coerced in confessing their “bedroom sins” and where they are shamed and humiliated.  Here is where guilt is applied in a mistaken tactic of stopping masturbatory behavior.  Here is where children are taught to self-loath for a normal behavior.

As recently stated by the LDS Church, "worthiness interviews are considered an integral part of Mormonism." Here is where Sam's brick hit me, in realizing that we justify these interviews as “okay” because we have been culturally conditioned to think that sitting down with our untrained neighbor, (whether a plumber, or a CEO) behind a closed door, we should grant him the privilege of judging us, judging our worthiness. Even worse, we grant this person the right of questioning and judging our innocent children for sexual behavior (which in any other situation is considered “creepy” if not “criminal.”)  This is in an interview not of our choosing, and we all are being required to "confess our sins.” We and our children didn't come in to be "helped." We were "called in" and questioned for the purpose of being judged.

I never felt safe in a Mormon church in an emotional sense of the word. I realize now that it was a result of “coerced confessions.” It was the demand that I share private behavior and risk having it made public through “church discipline.”

Please help us stop the shaming and guilt for normal behavior. Sign Sam Young’s petition here.

Mormon Worthiness Interviews: Or How To Indoctrinate Toxic Shame

Mormon Worthiness Interviews:

Or How To Indoctrinate Toxic Shame

Remorse, shame, and guilt. 

Arguably, these three words describe the most painful moments of our lives. Some think that they are the same thing. I think that there are distinctions among them which have important bearing on our social interactions. Without understanding these distinctions  we make assumptions which can have long term and damaging influence on our lives and the lives of our friends and family.

Regrettably, America is fundamentally a shaming culture. We shame  and blame people and behavior we disapprove of,  regardless of whether or not harm was caused . In my view the fundamental difference between guilt and remorse is that guilt is imposed through shame, where remorse is the internal acknowledgement of our basic empathy. When we have caused harm to another our own internal compass makes us feel remorse. Guilt however is a result of shame, and is not remorse. Guilt is externally imposed, remorse is internal and a product of empathy.

Let me give a personal example. I figured out the masturbation thing at around 12 years of age. I did it, it felt good, and I went on with life. Periodically, I'd do it again. I didn't feel one iota of remorse for doing so. I never associated it with sexual behavior, nor did I need porn. (This was back in the pre-Internet days.)  

At around 15 years of age, I was summoned for a “worthiness interview.” As a Mormon, these annual interviews were employed to make sure we were “living to the standards of the Church“

During this “interview” I was placed in an office with a man more than twice my age. There were no others in the office with us. The door was closed, and there was no window. The man conducting the interview is known in Mormonism as a “Bishop,” which is analogous to a pastor in Christian sects. In Mormonism though, these men aren't just pastors, they are also viewed as “judges in Israel.”

According to Mormon theology these men aren't only placed in authority over the congregation they are also granted, by virtue of their “calling” an extra measure of “spiritual discernment.”  Such discernment is to be used in ascertaining a member’s “worthiness” to “serve in positions of responsibility.”  More importantly, they are to decide when a member hasn't kept the “standards of the Church,” the type of punishment and length of time endured without a recurrence of “sinful behavior“ before a member has sufficiently repented and is welcomed back into full acceptance in the Church. 

 In the interests of full disclosure these punishments fall (generally) into one of four actions.

1. The member is forbidden from taking “the Sacrament.” This is a weekly, public ceremony. Doesn't seem like much of a punishment, right? For an adolescent and teenager though, it can be mortifying. For these ages, not taking the sacrament generally has one meaning, you did the big no no, and were involved in some kind of sexual sin, like masturbation or petting. In a society obsessed with sexual purity, this is a much more serious social punishment than it appears to outsiders. 
2. In addition to the first condition, the member is also forbidden  from participating in classes, giving prayers, or making comments. This is usually done for those who've engaged in sexual intercourse, committing the sin of fornication. It is a form of additional social shaming.
3. The member is called into a bishop's court and “disfellowshipped.” This is a formal proceeding and goes on a permanent record which follows you from place to place throughout your life. This is usually done to repeat fornicators although it entirely depends on the Bishop...something that as a member we referred to as "Leadership roulette."
4. The member is called into a full “disciplinary council” and judged by the “High Council”…twelve men who act as judge and jury. These are for cases involving adultery rather than fornication, and usually result in expulsion from the church. In Mormonism this is known as “excommunication.“ Apostasy, Gay marriage, and other serious “sins” are also grounds for disciplinary councils and expulsion.

Funny thing is, members seem to think that because nothing is said outside the bishop's office about "why" sinners aren't permitted to participate, means that confidentiality has been maintained. It made it quite easy to decode who had done what, without anything being said publicly. In the cruelty of teenage years, this sometimes resulted in bullying.

Mormonism has an unhealthy focus and viewpoint regarding human sexuality. 

In the Book of Mormon, Alma 39:3-5 says:

3 And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel.

4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.

5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?

(emphasis added)

This is the scriptural source from Mormon canon which provides the excuse for the boundary crossing and deeply disturbing interest in the private and personal sexual behavior of Mormon members. This is interpreted to mean that sexual behavior is “the sin next to murder” (the shedding of innocent blood.) For some reason, the church leaders think that they have the right and the power...even the responsiblility to dive deeply into members' sexual behavior.

Starting at about age twelve, lessons of sexual purity are included in the segregated young men’s and young women's Sunday classes. These classes include this passage above, and also include analogies drawing comparisons between those who've engaged in sexual behavior as being soiled like “licked cupcakes and chewed bubblegum.”

One commonly used resource in the past was a book entitled “The Miracle of Forgiveness” which taught that ALL sexual behavior, including masturbation and petting, fell into this category of being "sexual sin" and therefore “the sin next to murder.” It also taught gems like, masturbation leads to homosexuality, which leads to bestiality.

Huh? What?!

Additionally, “Prophets” (a title given to the head leader of the Mormon church) in the past taught that it was better to be dead than [sexually] defiled. It is important to understand the cultural backdrop of Mormonism to understand the devastating depth of sexual shaming.

With this information, let’s return to that 15 year old boy, me, sitting in the bishop’s office experiencing his first sexual shaming interview.

Bishop: “Do you believe in God the father, in his son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost?”

Me: “Yes.”

Bishop: “Do you strive to keep the commandments of God?”

Me: Yes.

Bishop: “Do you keep the law of chastity?”

Me: “Yes.”

Bishop: “Do you have a problem with  masturbation?”

Me: Huh? What's that? I wonder… if he means… ‘THAT.’ “No, no problem.”

Mind you, that was an honest response. Up to that point it wasn’t a problem. But a man I respected and trusted, a church authority just defined it as one.

There were a few other questions but I really don't remember them now.

It was some months later I finally found out what it meant. My cultural programming kicked in and guilt fell on me like a mountain. Not only was I guilty of the sin next to murder, I’d lied about it to a man who was representing GOD!

That was when I started thinking about suicide. I’d do my best to leave my little factory alone, sometimes going an entire week…then I’d relapse. I prayed until I had calluses on my knees to be able to stop. I considered self mutilation very seriously.  Guilt didn’t stop me. In fact it made it worse because I was constantly obsessing over it. And, I kept all the guilt and shame bottled up… entirely bottled up. To discuss it with anyone put me at social risk.

I endured 30 years of daily suicidal thoughts up until I left the church…all over a single interview... An interview which had me at age 45, standing in a cold mountain valley at 2:00 am, with a gun to my head. That was the day I walked away from Mormonism. Only when I rejected the sexual mindf*ck of Mormonism and learned that masturbation is a normal developmental stage of maturation was I able to forgive the fifteen year old in me. I didn’t feel remorse for masturbation prior to that interview because there was nothing to trigger my empathetic “I’ve  harmed someone” feelings. But once I accepted that masturbation was “wrong” (not just wrong, but a sin comparable to murder) I was helpless against the guilt. 

I've seen and heard statements that “guilt” is “necessary.” It IS necessary when one person is trying to control another. If one can successfully impose shame then the corresponding guilt makes a powerful tool for control. Take sex, which is a human need, make it a sin comparable to murder, get people to buy in… and congratulations…you just gained slave-like control.

Mormonism isn’t about “making better people.” It is all about control. Shame, guilt, and the threat of social isolation are its weapons. Depression, repression, obsession, and anxiety are the result. 

The Art of Deception, an opinion article by Max D. Crapo

The Art of Deception

Recently David Bednar, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints engaged in a question and answer session with Spanish speaking members of the Church.

The question was “How can homosexual members of the church live and remain steadfast in the gospel?”

What followed was a classic example of political posturing, vague generalizations, an apples-to-oranges comparison, subtle shaming through trivialization and capped with an outright lie.

There is an unwritten rule in politics. If you are asked a question you do not want to answer, change the question and answer that one instead. Without missing a beat, Bednar responded,

“First I want to change the question. There are no homosexual members of the church. We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior. We are sons and daughters of God and all of us have different challenges in the flesh.”

Let’s break this statement down and analyze it. Taken as a whole this statement is patently false. The church does have homosexual members. They may be “in the closet” or they may be out but “not acting on their urges.” Membership in the community of “sons and daughters of God” is not mutually exclusive with being members of communities which identify on sexual orientation. Also, Church leaders clearly define the importance of our sexual orientation since the church, in its “Proclamation to the Family” boldly declares that the only Godly sanctioned relationship is that of “one man and one woman”… in other words, a heterosexual relationship. It serves to demonstrate that the church values heterosexuality.

Psychologically, this statement is an act of trivializing a core component of human identity. It is a form of shaming by minimizing. It is analogous to saying “Your sexual identity is meaningless.” Your sexual identity is a base (foundational) component in your overall identity. In trivializing gender attraction, Bednar is intimating that it is an unimportant aspect of life…suggesting to homosexuals that living a celibate life without intimacy doesn’t matter. It trivializes those who are same sex oriented and ignores their need for human intimacy.

Bednar then goes on to make an apples-to-oranges comparison.

“Would it be a challenge to be very beautiful or very handsome, and in the world in which we live, never develop deep character because we are able to open doors and have success just because of our physical appearance? And we become shallow and superficial in many aspects of our lives.”

In Mormonism, physical beauty is not considered in any way “sinful” nor is one so gifted punished for utilizing their beauty or physical attraction as an advantage. Shallow people are not “eternally condemned” for being shallow. In fact, comparing gender attraction with physical beauty is shallow, in and of itself. The major difference between “acting on beauty” and “acting on homosexual gender attraction” though, buys you a one-way ticket to a “disciplinary council” where members are punished for homosexual behavior. 

“Some people have physical limitations. They may be born with a body that is not fully functional, or we may have an inclination to be attracted to those of the same sex.”

This statement is a deliberate attempt to insinuate that people with same sex gender orientation are somehow broken, thus the comparison to people who are handicapped in some way. It is, again, shaming through the use of trivialization. It is roughly equivalent to saying “These people who are legally recognized as broken are able to cope with their disabilities, so what are you whining about? They have to live with their ‘problems’ so why can’t you shut up and just endure like they do?” It is another apples-to-oranges comparison, because again, those with disabilities aren’t going to be “eternally condemned” for “acting on their disabilities.” 

“Through the atonement of Jesus Christ we are blessed with moral agency. Agency is the capacity to act and not simply be acted upon.”  [Picks up water bottle and holds above his head] “This is a bottle of water. It’s an object. It has no capacity to act. It is an object that can only be acted upon. So this object moves if I cause it to move, or if some other force causes it to move. You and I are not objects. We are agents. Blessed with agency because of the atonement of Christ, and with that agency we are to act and not be acted upon. That agency gives us the capacity to determine how we will respond to the variety of challenges we will experience in the flesh. So, you choose, you act in accordance with the teachings of Christ.”

In this statement, Bednar is shaming homosexuals through what I would call “spiritual abuse.” He deceptively trivializes both the power of sexual urges, and the human need for companionship and intimacy. In every single human society, solitary confinement is a punishment reserved for the worst of criminals. In requiring homosexuals to act against their gender orientation, he is cruelly advocating for a life of celibacy and loneliness, a life without intimacy, tantamount to social solitary confinement. His use of “choice” is not actually “choice”, but an imposed “moral imperative” for gays and lesbians to act against their own best interests.  His presumptive use of “acting in accordance with the teachings of Christ” implies that homosexuality pits them “against Christ.”  Yet, there is no scriptural basis to conclude that Christ was opposed to homosexuality. He was surprisingly silent on the subject.

“Simply being attracted to someone of the same gender is not a sin.”

It wasn’t that many years ago that Same Sex Attraction (SSA) was considered to be a sin.  This statement at least shows that LDS leaders have finally recognized that homosexuality is an inborn trait rather than a choice. Too bad they are unable to accept that perhaps God has a purpose for gays. Doesn’t an inborn trait indicate that maybe God made them that way?

 There are many members of the church who may have some manifestation of that attraction. They honor their covenants, they keep the commandments, they are worthy. They can receive the blessings of the temple and they can serve in the church. It is when we act on the inclination or the attraction – that’s when it becomes a sin. So, the reason I began my answer as I did, is that in this question, the word "homosexual" was used to describe or label a member of the church. It’s an inaccurate label. We are sons and daughter of god and we determine how respond to the variety of challenges we experience in mortality through the proper exercise of our moral agency.”

This is basically a reiteration of what was stated above. Yes, there ARE homosexuals, and the label is accurate. I agree that it isn’t a complete picture of an individual. That said, sexual orientation is certainly a core part of an individual’s identity and the entire statement is again a reiteration of the imposed “moral imperative” with another dose of trivialization. “They are worthy” is a subtle reminder that these men believe firmly that they have the right to judge and condemn. Sadly, members of the church believe they have that right too.

“Moral agency” is Mormon codespeak for “sexual behavior.” Sexual shame is the lynchpin for LDS leadership to exert control in the Mormon community. This blog explains in more detail.

“Now I want to speak very directly to you. The world teaches that we must be tolerant and accepting. There are some things we do not accept or tolerate. We love all people with whatever challenge any person faces.”

This statement is the church’s “line in the sand”… the point with which they refuse to move.  The overt message is that we love everyone no matter what their problems are, but the covert message is “if you are gay and act on it, you are outta here.” Restated, it is “we accept but we don’t, we tolerate but we don’t do that either.”

“The purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and of the Savior's church, is to assist people in receiving the strength to deal with the challenge.”

 -- It is important to recognize that this statement is a blaming statement. If you do not receive such help then “somehow” the blame is on you. You weren’t righteous enough or you didn’t pray hard enough, or in some other way “YOU” are at fault. This message is the one that results in suicides. It is also the excuse used by church leaders to use shame and guilt over normal sexual behavior to take punitive actions against members. This statement is used to steal sexual empowerment from members.

Finally, the next statement is where we get to the crux of the matter.

“So we do not discriminate, and we are not bigots. We extend Christ-like love to all sons and daughters of God.”

Except…they do discriminate and they are bigots! This statement is an outright lie. They extend neither tolerance nor love to sons and daughters which act on homosexual “urges” even in legally sanctioned unions.  They promptly expunge them from the records of the church. Bigotry is defined as “treating someone with prejudice based on an inborn trait such as skin color, DNA, and other such traits” of which gender orientation is included. Facebook is exposing many instances where married gays and lesbians are being called into so-called “courts of love” and excommunicated. In many cases these couples haven’t been actively involved in the church for a long time, yet Church leaders are practically dragging them in to “disciplinary courts” to shame and excommunicate them. This is an expression of love?  I certainly don’t want to see what their “hate” looks like. It certainly demonstrates both discrimination and bigotry.

The rest of his comments refer to the “Proclamation to the Family” which form the basis of Mormonism’s institutionalized bigotry.

In the end, the church has every right to discriminate against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and the transgendered. If they were honest, they would simply acknowledge their bigotry and their religious right to do so. To deny that it is bigotry though, is deceitful. To claim that “we do not discriminate” when clearly they do, is a lie.

According to the scriptures, “by their fruits ye shall know them” and the fruits of LDS leaders are rotten. They demonstrate love which is not love, kindness which is not kind, tolerance which is not tolerant and “truth” which is built on lies.

It doesn’t much seem to match Jesus’ command to “love one another,” does it?

(Here is the transcribed text of Bednar’s comments. I am including them here so that those who are interested have full context.)

Question:

How can homosexual members of the church live and remain steadfast in the gospel?

Bednar’s response:

First I want to change the question. There are no homosexual members of the church. We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior. We are sons and daughters of God and all of us have different challenges in the flesh. There are many different types of challenges. Would it be a challenge to be very beautiful or very handsome, and in the world in which we live, never develop deep character because we are able to open doors and have success just because of our physical appearance? And we become shallow and superficial in many aspects of our lives.

That can be a challenge in the flesh.

Some people have physical limitations. They may be born with a body that is not fully functional, or we may have an inclination to be attracted to those of the same sex. Through the atonement of Jesus Christ we are blessed with moral agency. Agency is the capacity to act and not simply be acted upon.

[Picks up water bottle and holds above his head]

This is a bottle of water. It’s an object. It has no capacity to act. It is an object that can only be acted upon. So this object moves if I cause it to move, or if some other force causes it to move. My wife is afraid I'm going to hit her with the bottle of water.

You and I are not objects. We are agents. Blessed with agency because of the atonement of Christ, and with that agency we are to act and not be acted upon. That agency gives us the capacity to determine how we will respond to the variety of challenges we will experience in the flesh. So, you choose, you act in accordance with the teachings of Christ.

Simply being attracted to someone of the same gender is not a sin. There are many members of the church who may have some manifestation of that attraction. They honor their covenants, they keep the commandments, they are worthy. They can receive the blessings of the temple and they can serve in the church. It is when we act on the inclination or the attraction – that’s when it becomes a sin. So, the reason I began my answer as I did, is that in this question, the word "homosexual" was used to describe or label a member of the church. It’s an inaccurate label. We are sons and daughter of god and we determine how respond to the variety of challenges we experience in mortality through the proper exercise of our moral agency.

Now I want to speak very directly to you. The world teaches that we must be tolerant and accepting. There are some things we do not accept or tolerate. We love all people with whatever challenge any person faces. The purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and of the Savior's church, is to assist people in receiving the strength to deal with the challenge. So we do not discriminate, and we are not bigots. We extend Christ-like love to all sons and daughters of God.

But what is the purpose of the father's plan? We come to the earth, we are blessed to receive a physical body. Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God, and the family is central to the Father's plan for the eternal destiny and happiness of his children. That plan is halted in anything but a marriage between a man and a woman. Now, Joseph Smith didn’t create the plan. Thomas Monson didn’t create the plan. God the eternal father created the plan. The savior through his atonement makes the plan operational, effective in our lives, and the father has not changed his mind about how the plan should operate. So please do not let the voices of the world confuse you or lead you in a different direction, as you come to better understand the fathers plan, then you will understand the purpose for marriage between a man and a woman. I hope that’s responsive to the question.

Anything that anyone would like to add?

A related point is that there is a divinely designed difference between a female spirit and a male spirit. You need to read and study over and over again the family proclamation. It teaches that gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. So, whenever you take those divinely designed differences - the capacities and talents of the female spirit and a male spirit, and they are sealed together by the power of the priesthood, it creates a unity and a oneness, a whole, that cannot be achieved any other way. Sister Bednar and I have been married for 41 years. She is, other than the Holy Ghost, she is the greatest teacher I have ever had. She does not think like I think. She does not see what I see, and I learn a lot from the things that she thinks and sees that are different from me. Sometimes men and women get frustrated with each other because they don’t see things the same way. They're not supposed to see things the same way. And the education that comes from a man and a woman in a marriage ordained of God is one of the richest blessings in this life.

Now we've taken a long time in responding to this question, but hopefully you can sense that the length of this answer emphasizes the importance of this topic in the world in which we live. That's why we've taken quite so long.

FINDING COMMUNITY AFTER BELIEFS ARE SHATTERED

Finding Community After Beliefs Are Shattered

By Max Crapo

In recent years, we've seen a surge of increasing secularism in Western Civilization.  Many attribute it to the Internet ("Religions may not survive the Internet").  The truth is, broad exposure to troubling facts, inconsistencies, double-speak, hypocrisy, scientific evidence invalidating religious dogma and many other subjects are profoundly impacting the demographics in America.

For a number of years I have considered the destruction of religion a positive thing along with a move to secularization.  There is one aspect of secularization which I do find troubling: The loss of community.

As a former Mormon and an acknowledged atheist myself, this problem of community has been a significant issue.  One of the problems of leaving a high-demand religion like Mormonism is the profound influence and scarring which occurs due to to the spiritual, financial and sexual abuse which members incur merely by exposure to the religion. Unless someone has lived under such conditions, it is very difficult to understand the profound impact it exerts on our lives.


Mormonism strongly enforces an homogeneous belief system which results in members all living to a certain standard.  Those who vary in any way from this standard are harshly criticized and judged to be unworthy.  Members in good standing must submerge their genuine personalities and layer themselves with coat after coat of Mormon dogma.  Upon my own exodus, my ex-wife made the statement, "I feel like I never knew you."  Sadly, this is an accurate statement.  Trouble is, I never knew myself.  I recognized at a young age that letting people know the REAL me was asking for social suicide. Toeing the party line was quite literally, survival, especially when your community was better than 90% active Mormon. So, I daubed the cement of dogma over my authenticity and let it harden into the person others thought I should be.  What I really wanted or thought was worse than valueless, it was heretical.


At 45 years of age, I finally could no longer endure the cognitive dissonance.  The concrete I'd armored my beliefs in began to rot and crack. I began to ask questions. I gave myself permission to look, really look at sources outside of the church and what I found vaporized my Mormon shell as surely as a nuclear bomb and was almost as devastating.  It not only destroyed my belief, but it destroyed my relationships, my marriage and my family.  It was a personal meltdown and a loss of my entire community. The falsehoods of Mormonism were unable to withstand the radiation of truth, and that truth separated me from my tribe.

Today, nearly a decade later, I still feel the loss of that community keenly. At the time I left, there was only one community that I knew of which catered to those leaving the church.  It was an online community known as "PostMormon.org," started by a man named Jeff Ricks and a person who has become a valued friend of mine.  His community was literally life-saving for me during those dark days of shunning after my belief system collapsed. I will always honor and respect Jeff Ricks for being a pioneer in an hostile environment and for being a man of deep integrity.

Today, we have Facebook with a myriad of pages providing support online for those going through the crisis created by the collapse of belief.  I'm am an active participant on those pages and excited that they exist. They are important and needed for those who are now experiencing for the first time the shunning and judgment which accompanies rejection of belief. They can be described as communities, but I think they fall short of fulfilling the need for intimate, face-to-face community.



For centuries, our religions have been a gathering place, a place where people laughed, cried,
worshiped, found marriage partners, and buried their loved ones. This was the foundation of community.




It's taken some time for me to acknowledge that religion with its dogma and exclusivity, and requirements to believe in silly things in order to take part of the community, is really only a small part of the problem.  The larger part of the problem is the abuse of "power." Any time you have a group of people with similar beliefs, goals, and attitudes, that group represents a block of power.  Eventually someone will seize that power.  Then utilizing "doctrine", guilt, shame, and fear they will twist that power into something that furthers their own purposes. It eventually divides and destroys the community.


Even Buddhism, which has long been recognized as a "peaceful religion" isn't immune to this effect. This article exposes a violent side to the religion which I found totally shocking.  Upon further reflection though, I realized that the religion is again only part of the problem.  It is the abuse of power which has turned a mostly benign belief system into something ugly.



Fundamentalism seems to require believers to shut off their cognitive processes. There is a sense of "I trust my leaders and therefore if they say it then I must follow them...even if I feel personally uncomfortable with what they said or did." Loyalty and purity are valued above empathy and fairness.  Oddly enough, even a cursory reading of the New Testament will demonstrate that Jesus valued kindness and fairness over purity, and in fact made several scathing comments about the Pharisees and their rules.

So, how do we reclaim our community?  How do we stop the subversion of our communities by those who would warp the power to personal ends?

To resurrect an old slogan, the answer is "Question Authority."  Instead of accepting the overt explanation, look closely what is being taught and ask yourself the following questions:

Who does this help?
Who does this hurt?
Who is being left out of the picture?
What information is being left out of the picture?Does this fit within your sense of justice, fairness or empathy?

For those who still believe, there is something you can do. Demand transparency of your leaders.  Require accounting for every penny taken in and every penny spent. Forbid private meetings among church leaders. Restore the practice of Common Consent. Know where your church leaders are spending money.  Never engage in blind trust of your leaders. A church which does this is going to be a lot less attractive for a power play.

Tell your leaders that they will not receive another penny of tithing until they meet these demands. Stop the secrecy.  Take back your control. They have no problem holding you accountable.



Isn't it time that you held them accountable?

Five Things To Consider When Exiting Mormonism

Five Things To Consider When Exiting Mormonism

By Max Crapo

Today, November 14th 2015, hundreds, if not thousands, will gather in Salt Lake City Utah to protest the LD$ Church's move to institutionalize bigotry. Many of those attending are taking the further step of separating themselves from the harsh and unjust policies of Mormonism by submitting their resignations.

It is a painful step.

It hurts to let go of cherished beliefs.  Mormonism is a "high demand" religion consuming literally billions of dollars taken from members pockets, and hundreds of millions in man-hours of time. Even worse, the act of separating yourself from the church often has real life consequences.  Family's are torn apart, and shunning by still believing family, occurs frequently.  Resignation is going to leave a "gospel sized" hole in your heart.

Standing up for what you know is right is both freeing and empowering. Once you leave, you are going to feel an amazing sense of lightness. The heavy yoke of oppressive beliefs along with the sense that for the first time in your life you are in charge of your own life is a feeling quite literally unmatched by any other.

Resignation is accompanied by heady euphoria and punctuated by grief and sadness. It is a roller-coaster of powerful emotions, many of which are difficult for Mormons to process.

As one who has been through this process, I'd like to offer a little advice.

1) Don't hide from the feelings of grief. You have just lost your community and your beliefs...beliefs which have been a part of you for your entire time as a Mormon.  Grieving is an important step on your road to owning yourself and finding authenticity. Whatever you do, don't rush into another church.  Deprogramming from a high demand religion takes time.  Steven Hassan, one of the foremost psychologists on cult deprogramming (and a cult survivor himself) suggests that it takes, on average one month of deprogramming for every year involved in a cult.

2) As you grieve you are going to begin to see all of the lies you've been fed through nearly 200 years of Mormon history.  Most of us go through a period of intense study to learn the accurate history which has been whitewashed and polished to make it more "faithful."  I encourage you to study.  As you do, you will go through a period of intense anger.  "The truth will set you free...but first it will piss you off."

Almost from birth Mormons are taught to eschew feelings of anger.  This blog talks about why and how church leaders seek to steal your anger from you. Processing your anger is probably the most important part of deprogramming.  Don't shy away from it.  The deeper you bury it and the longer you hide from it, the more damage it does. Don't try to rush through it either.  Process it. Ask yourself why you are angry. As you process it, it will begin to fade away.  Like all wounds, exposure to air helps them heal.


3) Many, when first leaving the church rush out and try all of the things they'd been forbidden to do. I have no problem with this because I think experience teaches us important lessons. It is only through experience that we can truly understand both life and "who we are." I caution you to take it slow and careful and please remain on the right side of the law.  It is really easy to get yourself into a lot of trouble when the brakes have been removed.  The problem with growing up in a high demand religion like Mormonism is for your entire life, someone else has been in control of the brakes.  Now you have to learn the control.  It's really easy to misjudge and end up in a (metaphorical) accident.



4) As you fall down the rabbit hole you're going to learn just how deep it goes. Things that were done in God's name in early church history are shocking and disgusting. People were murdered, non-Mormons were plundered, and there were conspiracies committed at the highest levels of church leadership. Resist the urge to share your new-found knowledge with your still believing family and friends. At this point it will only create a bigger gulf between you and them.  Church issues are getting more and more public exposure and eventually, your loved ones are going to question. At that point, guide them to resources like Mormonthink.com and CESLetter.com. Let them find out for themselves. It is far more effective when they do.

 5) For those of you resigning over the church's mistreatment and institutionalizing of bigotry toward the gays and their children, CONGRATULATIONS!!!  You have shown that you possess the most important trait of all...empathy. True morality is found in empathy. You've shown that you value fairness and kindness.




You're trading in a harsh, inflexible, externally imposed "moral code" and gain something far more valuable...a "moral compass."

I'm really glad I left the church when I did, even though it was at a time when support groups were few and far between. I've watched over the years since as support groups have exploded across the Interwebs and people worldwide are communicating together.





Remember that gospel sized hole in your heart?  Give it time to heal.  Reevaluate your beliefs and your priorities.  Over time that hole will fill in and you will own yourself.



Above all, remember this; you are not alone.