MORMONISM: STEALING ANGER

MORMONISM: STEALING ANGER

BY MAX CRAPO

It never fails, when I am arguing with someone who deeply believes in Mormonism, I get a specific comment. Those of you in similar circumstances I’ll bet know the comment I am referencing. 

“Wow, you apostates are sure angry and bitter, aren’t you?”

Within Mormonism, angry is a pejorative.  I think this is a corollary to the idea that living the gospel makes you happy.  It is as though anger and the gospel of happiness are incompatible. Certainly, members of the church hurl these phrases at those who no longer believe as though they are magic talismans imbued with the power to negate whatever point we are trying to make.  In debate circles, the term is “ad-hominem fallacy” otherwise known as “attack against the man.”  It is an attempt to discredit the statement, by discrediting the person. 

Discrediting a person is a valid tactic when an argument rests on testimony given by the person being attacked.  For example, “John is lying when he says he saw Bill steal the money.  John was in a barbershop across town and was not able to see Bill steal the money during the time the money was stolen.”  This is an appropriate use of an “ad-hominem.” Almost any other use constitutes a fallacy.

Mormons seem to almost instinctively turn to this fallacy when faced with an evidence based argument. In another example;

Joseph Smith claimed to see God and Jesus.  However in other accounts written by Joseph Smith, no mention is made of seeing God.  In the three versions written by Joseph Smith only the last one mentions God.  In six others written by those whom were given accounts of Joseph’s experience, (by Joseph) all of them vary in significant details, none of which mention seeing God.  The variance in these details is important, because it casts doubt on Joseph Smith’s testimony. 

When faced with an example like this, the response is almost always, “why are you so angry?” There really is no good response to this argument, so they can only shift to an ad-hominem attack.  In the example above though, there are no emotionally expressive words used.  So why does the true believer assume that the “apostate” is angry? A few quotes from recent Mormon leaders show how Mormon theology denigrates anger and may provide some insights into why true believing Mormons make an automatic jump into an assumption of anger, and why their use constitutes both a pejorative and an ad-hominem fallacy.

"To be angry is to yield to the influence of Satan."--Thomas S. Monson, “School Thy Feelings, O My Brother,” October 2009 General Conference

In a stunning example of cult programming, Mormonism extends control over members through the liberal use of taking emotional responses and applying a rational meaning. Emotions are an instinctive response.  Emotions occur in humans, much earlier than cognitive development.  As such emotions are an “irrational” response.  In this case “irrational” is defined as a "non-cognitive" response.  In fact, the amygdala is a part of the primitive brain which developed long before (evolutionarily speaking) the prefrontal cortex which is where we engage in “cognitive thinking.” 

When we accept the idea that feelings of warmth, peace, and happiness are manifestations of “the spirit” then we have no choice but to agree to the belief that feelings of anger, fear, depression, disgust, and distrust are manifestations of “Satan” or in more popular Mormon parlance, “the adversary.” 

It is a deliberate method of hijacking emotional responses and assigning them rational meanings. Emotions (all of them) are a fundamental part of our makeup and our individuality. They serve an important function by telling us how we feel. They are not however, a tool where unseen entities communicate with us. If we want to be psychologically healthy we must learn to listen to our emotional state, both good and bad and recognize that they are an emotional “barometer” of how WE feel.

Don’t get me wrong.  Exerting control over our emotions is necessary.  The following statement is actually a good example of the damage that can occur if we fail to keep our emotions in check.

 "It is when we become angry that we get into trouble.  The road rage that affects our highways is a hateful expression of anger."
--Gordon B. Hinckley, “Slow to Anger,” October 2007 General Conference

However, this statement taken in its entirety is false. It isn’t when we become “angry” that we get into trouble…it is when we act inappropriately on our anger that we get into trouble.  

There is an interesting fact regarding brain physiology which recent brain image scans have revealed.  When someone has an instinctive emotional response, the more powerful the response, the more powerfully the amygdala responds. The instinctive response is referred to in psychology as “the low road.” It is called this because the response bypasses the cognitive processes altogether. Cognitive processes take time and the amygdala houses the “fight or flight” portion of the brain. It takes control almost instantly in order to perform its primary function; to ensure your survival. 

“The high road” is the neural path through our prefrontal cortex. It is where we weigh, consider, and evaluate our response.  With time and practice we can learn to recognize and mute somewhat the low road reaction and re-establish rational thinking and conscious control by evaluating the situation through the “high road”.  It is also why punishment under the law is considerably more severe when actions are deemed “premeditated.”  There is conscious thought and understanding behind premeditated actions.

"Anger is not an expression of strength. It is an indication of one’s inability to control his thoughts, words, his emotions. Of course it is easy to get angry. When the weakness of anger takes over, the strength of reason leaves. Cultivate within yourselves the mighty power of self-discipline."

--Gordon B. Hinckley, “Our Solemn Responsibilities,” October 1991 General Conference

Although Mr. Hinckley expresses the response of the “the low road” quite well, (bolded, above) the entire statement is a vilification of anger rather than a vilification of an inappropriate response. The advice to cultivate self-discipline is good, but his denigration of anger is completely wrong and it is very harmful.  Anger is not something you “choose” to feel. Instead it is an instinctive reaction, which should be recognized, acknowledged and acted on in appropriate ways.  In denigrating anger, Mr. Hinckley is advocating that members reject anger. What we should reject is an inappropriate response.  When people are unable to process their anger, it is turned inward.  Today, it is nearly proverbial, “anger turned inward becomes depression.” In fact, a major portion of healing from Mormonism is the necessity of processing (in some cases) decades of repressed anger.

Taken from an evolutionary viewpoint though, all of our emotions are necessary, including those which have been vilified by Mormon Leadership. Anger is a recognition that something is wrong and you are being harmed. It serves as a goad to help bring about change. Were our “negative” emotions unnecessary, it is unlikely that we would have survived to have these traits today.

It is important to note that heightened emotions both positive AND negative impact cognitive processing. The very best salesman seek to get you excited.  In doing so, your excitement shuts down cognitive processing and makes you far more susceptible to emotion responses.  Religion takes advantage of this as well, by seeking to get you excited and positive about church membership and ideas of “forever families” and “prophets which know the way back to God.” Next thing you know, you’ve been baptized and successfully recruited into a cult.

"Anger, hatred, and contention are foes not easily subdued. These enemies inevitably leave in their destructive wake tears of sorrow, the pain of conflict, and the shattered hopes of what could have been. Their sphere of influence is not restricted to the battlefields of war but can be observed altogether too frequently in the home, around the hearth, and within the heart. So soon do many forget and so late do they remember the counsel of the Lord: “There shall be no disputations among you, …"

--Thomas S. Monson, The Path to Peace, April 1994 General Conference

Every statement made by church leaders quoted above has a purpose. It is to make you docile, forgiving, submissive, and weak. It is to create sheeple who are unable to articulate anger rightly felt. All of these emotions, anger, hatred, contention and other variants serve a purpose. They are not “foes” rather they are a source of significant power…power which is dangerous to leadership.  When leaders are able to successfully vilify any emotion what they have done is stolen power and turned it against you.  Anger is probably the single strongest motivator available to the human spirit.  It is not weakness as decried above.  When harnessed properly, it becomes a source of change.  

It was harnessed anger which ended the Vietnam War, it was harnessed anger which brought about changes in racial discrimination. It was harnessed anger which brought us marriage equality.

Never underestimate the power (or the value) of anger.

MORMONISM: THE MARRIAGE CRISIS

MORMONISM: THE MARRIAGE CRISIS
By Max Crapo

In a recent address for a YSA (Young Single Adult) fireside, Elder Russell M. Ballard made an off the cuff comment which was politically unwise. He said:

“It's just that simple ladies. If you aren't married, put on a little lipstick so you don't look like a man.”

The entire video can be seen here. The remark can be observed at the 1 hour and 25 minute mark.

This statement is breathtaking in its exposure of the depths of Mormon misogyny. In a single statement, he blamed women for their lack of effort and their looks, emotionally stabbing them in the heart and twisting the knife over what is increasingly becoming a crisis in the church.

As was discussed in this “Time” article, Mormonism is in the early stages of a marriage crisis. Statistics quoted from this article claim that there is an increasing gap between the numbers of single women to single men.  At the time this article was published the ratio was 1.7:1 in Utah. Recent estimates put this ratio at closer to 2:1, Men statistically are more likely to leave the church than women, which is resulting in an increasing surplus of women. In the context of Russell M. Ballard’s remarks, it is the men who are delaying marriage but blaming the women as the reason.  As the Time’s article points out, men have no real incentive to marry.  With the plethora of dating choices someone else “better” might come along.

Mormon leaders correctly see this as the beginning of a crisis.  Here’s why. The church has two sources for increasing membership.  The first is through recruitment, and to that end the church has more than 85,000 missionaries going door-to-door.  Despite nearly doubling the number of missionaries in recent years, the church’s annual recruitment numbers have remained nearly static. Retention rates of Mormon converts demonstrate that nearly 2/3rds of converts are no longer active by the end of the first year of membership. Some estimates are claiming that upwards of 50% of returned missionaries are leaving the church within five years of the completion of their mission.

The second method of increasing membership, and the one which has been the far more effective method of recruitment, is LDS birthrates.  Mormons have long been known as a group with significantly higher than average birthrates. In recent years those numbers have been declining and are approaching national averages. Indoctrinated from birth, members are far more likely to remain active (and more importantly) tithe-paying members.

Talks by Thomas S. Monson and Richard G. Scott in LDS General Conference are becoming increasingly shrill, chastising men for their unwillingness to date and marry. 

“Now, I have thought a lot lately about you young men who are of an age to marry but who have not yet felt to do so. I see lovely young ladies who desire to be married and to raise families, and yet their opportunities are limited because so many young men are postponing marriage.”  --Thomas S. Monson, “Priesthood Power” April 2011

“If you are a young man of appropriate age and are not married, don't waste time in idle pursuits," Scott urged. "Get on with life and focus on getting married. Don't just coast through this period of life."--Quoted by Sltrib.com

The reasons for this, I think go beyond the sheer availability of women and the lack of men.

As I recently dicussed in this blog post, sexual control by Mormon leaders is one of the defining characteristics of Mormonism.  Almost from birth both boys and girls are taught lessons on the “evils” of sex outside of marriage. It is compared in Mormon scripture to be one of the most serious of sins, “next to murder in its seriousness.”  Sexual guilt and shaming are staples of Mormon lessons.  Masturbation is taught as a sin, pornography is called “the new drug” and comparisons are drawn between sexual experience and “licked cupcakes” or “chewed bubblegum.”  Girls are taught that their value is measured by their “virtue” and their “modesty.” Sex is nearly always taught from a culture of fear. Girls are taught through messages of "modesty" that they are “responsible” for the sexual thoughts of men and often blamed for assaults by men. These teachings are reinforced through one-on-one worthiness interviews which include highly inappropriate questions regarding sexual experience and behavior. As quoted from a dear friend after being raped:

"Distraught and not knowing where to turn, I went to my bishop and told him what happened. The bishop asked for detailed information...did I let him touch me on my breasts on the outside and inside of my clothes? Did I let him touch me on my private parts on the outside and inside of my clothes? How loudly did I say no? How forcefully did I push him away? He then informs me that I am responsible for the young man's sexual behavior and puts me on probation. I am not allowed to hold a church calling, to pray or take the sacrament for 6 months. I am devastated and confused but he assures me that I am responsible for the young man’s behavior."

Mormons are counseled (very nearly forbidden) by church leadership to date prior to age sixteen. After that age they are encouraged to only go on “group dates” to reduce the risk of sexual impropriety. Upon graduation boys are strongly encouraged to go on missions where they live in an environment which enforces “arm’s length” rules in any interactions with members of the opposite sex.  Women are permitted to serve missions at age 19 and are subject to the same arms length rule.  This one-and-a-half to two year period of missionary service is tightly controlled with rules which fill a nearly 60 page book known as the missionary handbook. It is a book which missionaries are required to carry at all times.

After returning from a mission, the boys are then finally encouraged to find an “eternal mate.”

Almost from the time of the onset of puberty, touching is frowned on, and sexual touching is called sinful. How then are Mormon men and women to cross this enormous gulf to become “one?” Even those who are successful in finding a spouse and marry, this indoctrination goes on to detrimentally impact intimacy in marriage. Psychologically, these young men and women have been taught their entire lives to fear their own and each other’s sexuality.  It is a form of programming which is deeply inculcated and difficult to overcome. Men begin to loath themselves for even feeling sexual desire. Sexual repression is nearly inescapable. Sex becomes hidden and dark and the only outlet prior to marriage is usually porn.

For women, the emphasis of these teachings supports something even worse, a belief that their only value is an intact hymen prior to marriage and a fruitful womb after. Further, the teachings on modesty reinforce the belief that they are the guardians of sexual purity and must at all costs be the brakes on sexual behavior in the marriage. After all, culturally, they are responsible for men's thoughts.

These are devastating messages and impact our psyche deeply.  A ceremony and a piece of cake are not things which are going to magically undo a lifetime of indoctrination.

In focusing on sexual behavior as a lever of control, Mormon leadership is now becoming a victim of their own success. In a slight rewording of an old adage, “Life is sexually transmitted.” In seeking abject control over members through the most powerful tool of control, that of sexuality, they have created an environment where members may “disassociate.” This is a psychological state where those so afflicted are unable to form meaningful, lasting, and deeply intimate relationships. Dating, marriage and family as an "expected duty" sans meaningful intimacy is seldom a recipe for marital bliss.

In a classic example of "the law of unintended consequences" it is in short, unwitting religious sabotage of what should be the most intimate relationship of our lives. For some, this indoctrination has created a lifelong sentence of emotional isolation. Others, through counseling and therapy are eventually able to overcome intimacy issues. Then there are those fortunate few who escape the indoctrination through luck, personality, home life or some combination of all these things.
They are truly the "fortunate few."

MORMONISM: REDEFINING HAPPINESS

MORMONISM: REDEFINING HAPPINESS

By Max Crapo

One of the axioms of Mormonism is thus quoted “Wickedness never was happiness.”  Like most axioms there is a fair amount of truth in the statement.  For people with a highly developed sense of empathy, causing harm to another does bring with it considerable emotional pain.  I remember as a child getting into the occasional fist fight, as children sometimes do, over often quite silly reasons.  Invariably I lost those fights because bringing myself to hit another person was difficult for me. Hurting others is something I’ve never enjoyed.  I personally define wickedness as “deliberately causing harm to another.” Mormonism however, has a different definition.

I remember attending church one day when a lovely woman stood up and said, “I know that if I can live the gospel with perfection, I will be happy.” With sudden clarity, I knew this woman was desperately unhappy. She was kind, empathetic, and a wonderful human being. What possible reason could she have for unhappiness? Her children and mine were good friends and often played together. It took me several years before I was finally able to recognize the source of her unhappiness. 

“As we seek to be happy, we should remember that the only way to real happiness is to live the gospel. We will find peaceful, eternal happiness as we strive to keep the commandments, pray for strength, repent of our sins, participate in wholesome activities, and give meaningful service.”   --LDS.org “Happiness”

“Living the Gospel” is Mormon code-speak for strict obedience to the rules, regulations, commandments, and teachings of Mormonism.

Webster defines happiness this way :

“a :  a state of well-being and contentment :  joy”

“b :  a pleasurable or satisfying experience”

There is a serious disconnect between these two definitions. Webster describes an emotional state.  Mormonism describes a state which is conditional on meeting a set of requirements. Happiness is no longer something that occurs but becomes something that must be earned.

When a Mormon tells you that he/she is happy, what they are really saying is that they are “living the Gospel.” Their emotional state is irrelevant. They can be desperately depressed, angry, or frustrated, but because they are doing their best to “live the gospel” they are by (the Mormon) definition, “happy.”

A recent study shows that antidepressant usage among Utahns is the highest in the nation. 
From the Los Angeles Times article “Study Finds Utah Leads Nation in Antidepressant Use” October 9, 2002.

“Antidepressant drugs are prescribed in Utah more often than in any other state, at a rate nearly twice the national average.”

“Other states with high antidepressant use were Maine and Oregon. Utah's rate of antidepressant use was twice the rate of California and nearly three times the rates in New York and New Jersey, the study showed.”

 “Utah also leads the nation in the use of narcotic painkillers such as codeine and morphine-based drugs, the study found, and is ranked seventh in total prescriptions overall. Kentucky ranked first.”

Mormonism is a belief system with a convoluted set of requirements. One of the problems with these requirements is that there is no clear set of rules, and often rules contradict each other.  This leads to a condition known as “double-bind”; a state where one must deal with two conflicting imperatives and no way of resolving the contradiction. In layman terms, you are “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.” The “double-bind” is well understood as a significant cause of depression and frustration.

The double-bind has a time honored example taking place in the mythological Garden of Eden.  The First Commandment given in the Garden of Eden is to “not partake of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”  The second commandment was to go forth and replenish the earth, a commandment which couldn't be fulfilled without breaking the first commandment.  Then what does God do?  He says, “in the day thou partaketh thereof, thou shalt surely die.”  Furthermore, in the classic double-bind model, the victim is prevented from asking for clarification.  In this example, what is the next thing God does?  He goes away for a time, preventing Adam and Eve from asking for clarification.

Here is an example a little more subtle in nature; modesty.  Girls are taught they are responsible for boys’ thoughts.  It is impossible for anyone to control another’s thoughts.  If a girl is assaulted, it is her fault because she caused the boy’s bad thoughts.  The double-bind exists because she is tasked with controlling something she has no control over; another’s thoughts.

In Mormonism the greatest double-bind occurs because of the scriptural requirement for perfection. “Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.” 2^nd Nephi 12:48.  This also mirrors the biblical requirement found in Matthew 5:48. When there are conflicting commandments, the requirement for perfection is impossible.  

When coupled with the definition of Mormon “Happiness”, where in order to be happy one must “live the gospel” the requirement for perfection sets up a mental trap. One is always “falling short”; perfection is out of reach, and so then is “true happiness.” For a Mormon, the process of exaltation (achieving the highest degree of glory in the Celestial Kingdom) requires “earning your way into heaven” which means constantly striving “for perfection.”

It also places a Mormon in the unenviable state of not being permitted to admit to unhappiness. To admit to being unhappy is tantamount to admitting to sin. After all, if one is “living the gospel” then one is by definition, “happy.”

Happiness as re-defined by Mormonism is a lever of control. The reward for “living the gospel” isn’t happiness; it’s slavery.  Striving for perfection is not a path to happiness, it is doing your level best to live your life to another’s ideal. “Wickedness never was happiness” but in the Mormon lexicon “wickedness” is defined in terms far beyond “deliberately causing harm to another.” Wickedness is defined in terms of your sexual behavior, specific dietary regulations, obedience to Mormon leader’s dictates, daring to question dubious history, and challenges to the power of Mormon patriarchy. 

Wickedness, in Mormonism’s strictest definition is “disobedience to Mormon Leadership.” 

MORMONISM: EXTENDING POWER THROUGH SEXUAL CONTROL

Mormonism: Extending Power Through Sexual Control

By Max Crapo

At five years of age, I was caught “playing doctor” with the neighbor girl.  I remember very clearly my mother telling me that “God was ashamed of me.” I was utterly heartbroken.  From that moment in my life there was a gulf between me and God.  It is probably no surprise that as an adult I’m a non-believer in God. Truth is, my interest in the opposite sex at that age is normal.  It’s about then in the childhood development life cycle we become aware of gender differences. Growing up in a high-demand, high control cult though, sabotages normal sexual development.  For some reason most fundamentalist religions, whether they be Christian, Muslim or Mormon fixate on sexual control. It seems to be an outgrowth of the “Patriarchal” nature of religions which are offshoots of the Abrahamic philosophy.

Being raised in a traditional Mormon household, I was, of course, fascinated by these gender differences, a fascination which I am quite certain was heightened by the “taboo” nature of my interest. “Modesty” was the byword of the day and in obedience to the religious texts and rules of the culture, every attempt was made to thwart my natural curiosity in anything remotely sexual. Due to my mother’s unfortunate attempt at control, I was instantly indoctrinated with deep and abiding shame over sexual behavior.  Did it stop my curiosity?  Not in the slightest. It did however create feelings of despair, depression, anger, and self-hatred.

Where things get dicey is at the onset of puberty.  Suddenly, I was flooded with sexual desire.  It is an unfortunate truth that when boys hit puberty, testosterone production goes from zero to 100%. We are flooded with this hormone, and frankly have no idea what to do with it. It doesn’t take long before we figure out how to take care of the sexual needs, usually (and safely) through self-pleasure. Starting around age 12, I availed myself of this “safety-valve” and thought nothing of it. In my mind and innocence self-pleasure was unrelated to sex.

As Mormons grow up, the LDS church encourages the Bishops to start conducting worthiness interviews starting during adolescence. I was subjected to my first worthiness interview at age 15.  During the course of that interview the Bishop asked me questions about my sexual behavior. (These were questions asked behind closed doors with no parental supervision)

 “Are you sexually clean?” (Code words for “are you having sex with anyone.”)

"Yes sir."

“Do you have a problem with masturbation?” 

“Masturbation? What’s that?” I quietly thought to myself.

“No sir, no problem.” 

Truthfully, it wasn’t a problem. Up to this point I had no idea that it was prohibited. I wondered if he was talking about self-pleasure though. When I got home, I looked it up in the dictionary…and the guilt came crashing in. I spent the next 30 years battling suicidal depression over this single issue. It was something I desperately tried to quit and was never quite able to do.

Sexual behavior is a frequently visited lesson in the Mormon Church.  Lessons which compare sexuality with “licked cupcakes” or chewed bubblegum are used to further stigmatize sexual behavior.  Girls are taught that their virtue is irreplaceable and to engage in sexual behavior is to destroy their value. Elizabeth Smart talks about how these teachings were a factor in extending her captivity after her abduction and subsequent rape.

My studies in sexual development  indicates that the onset of sexual hormone production in women follows a different path than men. Hormone production in women starts out very low and gradually increases over a period of several years, peaking usually in the mid-thirties. Women generally don’t become interested in sexual activity (in the average development cycle) until their late teens or early twenties. Sexual interest is not triggered until blood hormone levels reach a certain point. I’d hazard a guess that this is nature’s way to delay reproduction until adults have reached a point of emotional and mental maturity where taking on a dependent is feasible. Men’s testosterone production peaks shortly after puberty and then begins a slow decline over the rest of their life.

Sexuality becomes a target as a mechanism of control because our sexuality is at the core of our identity.  It colors every relationship we have. As such, the moment we are convinced to surrender our sexuality, we no longer own ourselves. It is much easier to gain control over sexuality when a child is young than as an adult. In shaming me over sexual interest at five years of age, my mother unwittingly began grooming me for sexual control by Mormon leadership. The levers of control are further deepened by making a sin of normal behavior (masturbation) and then starting “accountability” reviews through “worthiness interviews.”  By doing so, sexual control is stripped away, emotionally and mentally, and deposited in the hands of church leadership. When mental and emotional maturity are achieved, sexual behavior is tightly controlled through teachings of “proper” sexual activity, meaning sex only between husband and wife.

The Finger of Shame

The idea that my sexuality was subject to external control was cemented in that very first worthiness interview. As one programmed from early youth to believe in God, and that church leaders were the “representatives of God,” I willingly handed over my control of my sexuality to an external entity, one who I believed had the right and the power to judge me. In my view, my very salvation was in the hands of the Bishop; this man, who in Mormon theology is a “judge in Israel” and tasked with overseeing my salvation.

Worthiness interviews are a requirement throughout the life of a Mormon. As a member approaches adulthood, young men are encouraged to serve missions (encouragement is very heavy handed, stopping just short of “requirement”) and women are permitted to go if they wish.  Heaven help any youth who succumbs to “sexual sin.” Mormon theology teaches that “sexual sin is second only to murder in its seriousness.” The consequences of this teaching are profound and serious, to families who have ejected children from homes to youths who have committed suicide for failure to maintain “sexual purity.”  I have lost friends and my children have lost friends to suicide over this very issue.

Once a member becomes an adult, they are encouraged to attend the temple where they are compelled to accept certain covenants, one of which is a covenant to “the Law of Chasity” which states that you will not have sex except with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully married.  Most Mormons are not married when they first go through the temple. This occurs at a period when a member is the most likely to engage in sexual activity without marriage. They are single and within a period of high hormone production.

Mormon Leaders use public humiliation as a method of punishment.  It’s done subtly (in most cases) where the transgressor is forbidden from participating in public venues. For young men this means that they are not permitted to bless and pass the Sacrament, a public service. If they are asked to participate they have to tell their peers that they are not permitted to do so.  While they are not required to tell their peers “why” they are unable to participate, the rest of the peers are free to try to guess…thus ensuring public humiliation. Depending on the “seriousness” of the transgression, they can also be forbidden for praying in class, giving a talk, teaching a lesson and so on. Social ostracizing is employed to encourage behavioral conformity.

Interestingly, short of being “excommunicated” (stripped of church membership) one of the requirements for reinstatement is “paying tithing.” If tithing is not paid, the transgressor will remain on “probation” until tithing is caught up, regardless of the transgressor’s “forsaking the behavior” for which he/she is accused.

Guilt and shame are employed to keep the member constantly striving to please their external “handler” which is always a church leader. Worthiness interviews are where control is enacted. As adults there are two church leaders tasked with worthiness interviews; one by the Bishop (similar to a pastor in charge of a congregation) and a Stake President, who is in charge of a group of congregations. Worthiness is expressed in the form of a signed temple recommend signed by both the Bishop and the Stake President.

Mormonism is a religion which worships sex.  In fact, for almost 200 years the church has taught that only in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom will one be able to procreate and progress. It is a reward given only to those who are obedient to all the laws and commandments of Mormonism. Worthy men will be given the “worthy” wives of unworthy men.  An eternity of sex with multiple women becomes the ultimate reward. Recently, with public scrutiny on Mormonism, LDS leaders have downplayed this doctrinal teaching.

It is simple to break this cycle of control...simple but not easy.  All one must do is recognize that their sexuality is theirs to control. It is that simple. Unfortunately, it is the rejection of shame and guilt, indoctrinated since birth that’s hard. A lifetime of indoctrination isn’t rejected overnight. Fundamentally, it is a shift from an “external locus of control” (owned by church leaders) to an “internal locus of control” (self-directed). The moment you reclaim your sexual control, you have severed your connection with the church.

Sexual control is so integral to the church that its loss of control over your sexual behavior is grounds for excommunication, judged and condemned as “the loss of your worthiness.” You might not be excommunicated for reclaiming your control but the moment you act on it, you are subject to church punishment up to and including the severing of your membership. This is done through a so-called "Court of Love" where you must stand and be judged by the Stake High Council, comprised of a group of 12 men. By most accounts, excommunication for sexual sins is a most "humiliating experience."

Such a "court" is a violation of privacy, an exposure of the most intimate of acts to a group of men who have ordained themselves the arbiters of your sexual purity. It is the most egregious violation of boundaries and a fundamental sign of a cult. In Mormonism, the very word "morality" is a pseudonym for "sexuality" and your worthiness hinges on your sexual compliance to church rules...and because it is so central to the core of your very identity, it is the most powerful lever of control.

MORMONISM: CULTURE OF SHUNNING

Public announcement of excommunications circa 1947

--Deseret News

Mormonism: Culture of Shunning
By Max D. Crapo

In a BBC interview Mar 30, 2012, Jeffrey R. Holland categorically denied that Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormonism) engages in shunning.  In fact, Mormonism has no “doctrine” or “principle” of shunning such as the Amish and other select religious sects do. However, the Mormon culture, teachings and canonized scripture are full of examples which subtly encourage “shunning” as a practice, if not as a principle. 

(Included are excerpts of just a few of many statements on shunning from my ex-Mormon friends)

*I was working twelve hour days in an effort to get my business off the ground. When I got home at the end of each day, my wife gave me the silent treatment. If I sat down next to her, she'd stand up and walk out of the room. It was so stressful. After a few weeks of this, I started having chest pain and a visit to the doctor with an EKG showed signs of a heart attack.  My doctor said to me, "I can't advise you to get divorced, but if something doesn't change you will probably be dead within two years."

In my own exodus from Mormonism the culture of shunning quickly became apparent, from formerly close siblings who quit communicating with me, to a bishop who encouraged my (now ex) wife to divorce me.  Within weeks of leaving, very few ward members would even talk to me.  Several times, when I was grocery shopping, a ward member would see me, turn around and go the other way.  It was heart rending. This is not an uncommon occurrence as reported to me by many of my ex-Mormon friends.

*Several family members said that it would be easier to deal with our death than us leaving the church (because we would have gone straight to the Celestial Kingdom, but now we will be in outer darkness of course). Several of my in laws said "this has been the hardest thing I have ever been through" after we left the church. My MIL had cancer, lost her mother at a young age, had a miscarriage, one of her sons ran over and killed a child (not his fault).

In every human society, solitary confinement is a punishment.  It is a punishment reserved for the worst offenders.  Banishment in ages past was the ultimate punishment because loss of tribe usually meant death. Humans have evolved to see banishment, social ostracizing, and the silent treatment to be on par with death.  Frequently “social suicide” becomes suicide "in fact."  The human condition is such that connection with other humans is a need.  Babies who are left alone frequently die from lack of touch. Those who don’t “disassociate” and are unable to form meaningful relationships with others.  

*His brother said, "I know you feel the need to stand by your wife, but there are some things you shouldn't stick with your wife through."

Shunning is a form of solitary confinement, embodied in social ostracizing and coupled with the silent treatment. It destroys friendships, divides family, and tears people apart. It is an attempt to force behavior through emotional cruelty. It is the antithesis of kindness, and the very opposite of Christ-like behavior.

*When I was married the bishop told my husband... I would divorce her if I was married to her.  My husband told me that with relish. I never confronted the bishop.

While Mormon leaders outwardly condemn the practice of shunning, what happens behind closed doors is a different story.  In order to attend the LDS Church’s holiest of ceremonies, one must pass a “worthiness” interview which consists of a series of questions.  Pertinent to shunning, the question is asked:

“Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to, or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” This is easily interpreted as a directive to shun those who leave the church.

*My stake president counseled my husband to not let me discuss church issues when I was going through my faith transition. My husband and I had agreed that tithing would be cut in half, part to the church, part to the charity if my choice. The stake president then intervened and told him to go back to a full tithe. The stake president (who is also an attorney) counseled my husband to open a separate banking account, in his name only, to "protect himself". I had never given my husband a reason to worry about over-spending.*

Denigration of those who have left Mormonism has a long history, beginning in the days of Joseph Smith, and carried throughout Mormon history.  For example, early in the history of Mormonism, Brigham Young had this to say on the subject of “apostasy.”

“On this particular point I said a little a Sunday or two ago. I will now take the liberty of saying a little more. If there is a despicable character on the face of the earth, it is an apostate from this Church. He is a traitor who has deceived his best friends, betrayed his trust, and forfeited every principle of honor that God placed within him. They may think they are respected, but they are not. They are disgraced in their own eyes. There is not much honesty within them; they have forfeited their heaven, sold their birthright, and betrayed their friends. What will the devil do with such characters? Will he have them in his kingdom? Yes, he will be obliged to, because he is an apostate himself. He apostatized from the Celestial Kingdom, and was thrust down to hell. Yet, when apostates get to his kingdom, he will say—“I do not like you, for you are just as mean as I am. I was a traitor and a liar, and I am yet. I despise myself and every character that betrays his trust.””

--Remarks by President Brigham Young, delivered in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, June 30th, 1867.  Reported by David W. Evans.

*My ex-wife's father is part of a temple presidency. Once he knew I had left the church, he told her to leave me. His concern was her salvation and the salvation of my children. Then about a week before the divorce was final he sent us both a letter telling us how selfish we were being for getting divorced and because we weren't thinking of the wellbeing of his grandchildren (he never referred to them as our children, only HIS grandchildren). He called us both to repentance in the letter and counseled us to think about the consequences our actions would have on his grandchildren. I didn't reply to his letter. It seemed so hypocritical to me that he would advise his daughter to divorce me and then call her to repentance for divorcing me.

In October of 2014, Neil Anderson, an Apostle for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints quoted former LDS Apostle Neil A. Maxwell:

“Studying the Church . . . through the eyes of its defectors,” Elder Neal A. Maxwell once said, is “like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus.  Defectors always tell us more about themselves than about that from which they have departed.”

--Neil Anderson, General Conference, October 2014, "Joseph Smith."

Although this comment is not a direct call to shun those who have left the church, the parallel between Mormon "apostates" and Judas was clearly an attempt to link in the minds of the believers the idea that apostates are traitors. 

*My ex got a blessing from a man in the ward that the lord was preparing a new man for her while we were still married.

"The Bitter Fruits of Apostasy"  from the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith says, 

“From what source emanated the principle which has ever been manifested by apostates from the true Church to persecute with double diligence, and seek with double perseverance, to destroy those whom they once professed to love, with whom they once communed, and with whom they once covenanted to strive with every power in righteousness to obtain the rest of God? Perhaps our brethren will say the same that caused Satan to seek to overthrow the kingdom of God, because he himself was evil, and God’s kingdom is holy.”

This is a clear accusation that ex-Mormons are "Satan's minions" as Satan is the source alluded to in this paragraph. It is a subtle accusation that "apostates" have been deluded by and are promoting through lies and deceit an unholy agenda.  The denigration and slander is unmistakable, and members incorporate these ideas into dealing with family who has left.  The psychological implications are terribly damaging to familial interpersonal relationships. The judgment and condemnation is present in every conversation with still believing family members. These pejoratives are internalized by members and "apostates" are often referred to as deluded by Satan, deceivers, and liars.

--"The Bitter Fruits of Apostasy," The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith"

*My sister wrote my ex a letter telling him he could divorce me if I wasn't going to keep my covenants.

*My brother in law told my wife he'd be there for her if she left me. The whole ward gave my wife condolences and pity and couldn't help but chime in with shitty statements about people who leave. And my bishop gave a whole talk in church specifically mentioning things we'd said in an interview and blaming me for laziness and a host of other weaknesses.  […] But yeah, he didn't "council" my wife to leave me, just treated it like her leaving was a forgone conclusion and gave her advice and gentle pushes in that direction. 

In recent years, Thomas S. Monson, the current President of the LDS Church remarked, 

"Throughout the journey along the pathway of life, there are casualties. Some depart from the road markers which point toward life eternal, only to discover the detour chosen ultimately leads to a dead end. Indifference, carelessness, selfishness, and sin all take their costly toll in human lives.

Change for the better can come to all. Over the years we have issued appeals to the less active, the offended, the critical, the transgressor—to come back. “Come back and feast at the table of the Lord, and taste again the sweet and satisfying fruits of fellowship with the Saints.””

--"Looking Back and Moving Forward", President Thomas S. Monson, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

This list of pejoratives issued by the highest leader in the Church gave each church member permission to slot those who have left into a list of categories. These are: indifferent, careless, critical, transgressor, offended, and sinner.  Such a list actually ignores the real reason for apostasy. Those reasons include intentional deception of critical historical facts, whitewashing of early leader's lives, doctrinal contradictions, Book of Mormon anachronisms, and scientific discoveries which negate the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, the Great Flood, and the Tower of Babel...things, on which the entire foundation of Mormonism rests.

Instead of asking why apostates have left, members ask "for which of these following reasons did you leave? To sin? Were you offended? Did you just get tired of trying to live the gospel (lazy?) The assumption by members is that there are no legitimate reasons for departure...further eroding the relationships within the families of true believers.

*My mother in law basically tried to recruit an army of people to try and convince my husband to divorce me. My SIL told me about it. SIL and MIL are not exactly on speaking terms, so for MIL to go to SIL to try and "recruit" her was a big deal. If she went to her, she was going to EVERYBODY. Saying that I was not a worthy wife and I'm dragging him down. I was pregnant at the time and she even went so far as to say "I knew that baby was a mistake. Now she has him trapped." Luckily, my husband isn't an asshole and that was the last straw for him. He wrote her off for trying to dismantle his family over something so trivial.” 

Religious denigration of those of us who have chosen a different path has resulted in the wreckage of human connections; with the corpses of valuable relationships strewn on the beaches and shoals of religious divide. We are accused of being bitter, and angry because of our defection.  It is pointed at as a "consequence of the loss of the Holy Spirit" rather than what it really is...the rejection, the condemnation, and the judgment of our still believing family.  Our anger and our bitterness is caused by grief of the death or wounding of our most important relationships, engendered by the Mormon culture of shunning. 

MORMONISM AND THE TEMPLE: EXTENDING CONTROL OVER MEMBERSHIP

MORMONISM AND THE TEMPLE: EXTENDING CONTROL OVER MEMBERSHIP

By Max D. Crapo

Just exactly to whom DID you covenant to obey in the LDS Temple?

The Temple is the pinnacle of doctrinal control in Mormonism.  From birth, (or conversion) every Mormon is taught to view the Temple as the ultimate goal and the ultimate reward for being Mormon.  It is the reward for having surrendered your humanity, for molding yourself into the homogeneity required of "a Mormon"... for becoming a person with almost no distinguishing characteristics from any other Mormon. Such homogeneity is an inescapable consequence of the "law of obedience."

As a youth, I imagined that the temple was going to be the place where deep doctrinal principles were going to be taught.  I thought it was going to be an experience of wonderful and beautiful "sacredness."  What I experienced was something vastly different.  The temple is where the final elements of total control are introduced and compelled through a series of "covenants."  These covenants, Mormons are told are not "secret" but are "sacred" and are to never be talked about outside the temple, thus preserving the secrets and rendering the distinction between "secret" and "sacred" entirely moot.

______________________________

______________________________

These covenants are a series of promises which are not revealed to a Mormon until they are in the temple, and the only warning provided to those going through for the first time is this:

______________________________

"If you proceed and receive your full endowment, you will be required to take upon yourselves sacred obligations, the violation of which will bring upon you the judgment of God; for God will not be mocked. If any of you desire to withdraw rather than accept these obligations of your own free will and choice, you may now make it known by raising your hand." 

Note the threat of divine punishment.

______________________________

Going through the temple is an important rite of passage in a Mormon's life.  The person, going through this experience for the first time is usually surrounded by family and friends, many who have often traveled great distances to be with them. There is intense peer pressure to accept this condition and move forward.  For me, I chose to go forward because those in the room had all been through it, and were there supporting me. I trusted that these covenants wouldn't be too extreme or they wouldn't be there with me. Little did I know... 

As a practicing Mormon, I also knew full well that the repercussions from withdrawing would make my life a living hell.  There would be constant judgment and condemnation, I would be consistently viewed as “lesser”, pitied for my “lack of faith.”  No matter what the consequences of taking on these covenants, it would be better than withdrawing from the ceremony.

The Temple ceremony starts out innocuously enough and uses the “Six Creative Periods” as written by Joseph Smith in the “Pearl of Great Price” a compilation of Joseph Smith’s alleged revelations, translations, and scriptural re-writes as an introduction into the Temple narrative. At key points, there are interruptions to the ceremony where each of the five required covenants are made. 

These covenants are as follows:

______________________________

·         The Law of Obedience
·         The Law of Sacrifice
·         The Law of the Gospel
·         The Law of Chasity
·         The Law of Consecration

______________________________

The Law of Obedience

From the text the temple ceremony:

“ELOHIM: Inasmuch as Eve was the first to eat of the forbidden fruit, if she will covenant that from this time forth she will obey the Law of the Lord, and will hearken unto your counsel as you hearken unto mine, and if you will covenant that from this time forth you will obey the Law of Elohim (the name of the Mormon God), we will give unto you the Law of Obedience and Sacrifice, and we will provide a Savior for you, whereby you may come back into our presence, and with us partake of Eternal Life and exaltation.“

Mormons attending the ceremony are then told that they must consider themselves as if they were Adam and Eve, and are required to agree to the same conditions listed above.  (Prior to 1990, the requirement also included “Eve” covenanting to “obey her husband.”  This was softened in 1990 to “Hearken to her husband’s council.”

The first step of extending control by Mormon leadership is a requirement for obedience administered by "sacred covenant."

______________________________

______________________________

Each of you bow your head and say "Yes."

The Law of Sacrifice

From the text of the temple ceremony:

“ELOHIM: Brethren and sisters, we will now put you under covenant to obey and keep the Law of Sacrifice, as contained in the Holy Scriptures. This Law of Sacrifice was given to Adam in the Garden of Eden, who, when he was driven out of the garden, built an altar on which he offered sacrifices; and after many days, an angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: "Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord?" Adam said: "I know not, save the Lord commanded me." And then the angel spake saying: "This is a similitude of the sacrifice of the Only Begotten of the Father, who is full of grace and truth. Wherefore, thou shalt do all that thou dost in the name of the Son, and thou shalt repent, and call upon God in the name of the Son forevermore.""

"The posterity of Adam down to Moses, and from Moses to Jesus Christ offered up the first fruits of the field, and the firstlings of the flock, which continued until the death of Jesus Christ, which ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood. And as Jesus Christ has laid down his life for the redemption of mankind, so we should covenant to sacrifice all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God."

Note: In Mormon theology, Mormonism is “The kingdom of God.”

"All arise. Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar that you will observe and keep the Law of Sacrifice, as contained in the Holy Scriptures, as it has been explained to you. Each of you bow your head and say ‘yes.’”

The second step of extending control by Mormon Leadership is a "call for sacrifice" extending to "all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary..."

______________________________

______________________________

Each of you bow your head and say "Yes."

The Law of the Gospel

From the text of the temple ceremony:

“PETER: A couple will now come to the altar. (Witness couple comes to the altar as before.) Brethren and sisters, this couple at the altar represents all of you as if at the altar, and you will be under the same obligations as they will be. We are required to give unto you the Law of the Gospel as contained in the Holy Scriptures; to give unto you also a charge to avoid all light mindedness, loud laughter, evil speaking of the Lord's anointed, the taking of the name of God in vain, and every other unholy and impure practice, and to cause you to receive these by covenant.

"All arise." (All patrons stand.) "Each of you bring your right arm to the square."

"Each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses, that you will observe and keep the Law of the Gospel and this charge as it has been explained to you. Each of you bow your head and say "Yes."

The third step of extending control by Mormon Leadership is the introduction of prohibitions with no clear definition, evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed (a vague definition used to squash any dissent or disagreement with any of the church leaders) and a broad creation of a category called “unholy and impure practice.”

______________________________

  This category is a “catch-all” and can be used for whatever church leaders decide. 

 “Evil Speaking” is a prohibition used to silence dissent.

______________________________

The Law of Chasity

From the text of the temple ceremony:

“PETER: A couple will now come to the altar. (Witness Couple comes as before.) We are instructed to give unto you the law of Chastity; which is, that each of you shall have no sexual relations except with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.

All please arise. (All patrons stand up.) Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses that you will observe and keep the Law of Chastity, as it has been explained to you.

The fourth step of extending control by Mormon Leadership is in hijacking ownership of your sexual organs, in defining what is proper “usage” and in doing so turning sexual experience into “sin.”

______________________________

Each of you bow your head and say "Yes."

Of all the covenants this one seems, on the surface to be the most straight-forward.  A little deeper analysis of this covenant though shows that it is probably the one providing church leadership with the greatest control.  First of all, human sexuality lies at the core of who you are. If that can be controlled, then in a very real way, the person with ownership of your sexuality quite literally owns you. It is why rape is not considered a crime of sex, but rather a crime of power.  Secondly the definition of “sexual relations” is quite nebulous.  Prior to 1990, this covenant used the words “sexual intercourse” rather than “sexual relations.”  This seemingly innocuous change provides enormous control levers leaders can use for exerting control.  What is “sexual relations?”  Is it kissing?  Is it petting?  Is it sexual intercourse?”  The very ambiguity creates tremendous opportunity for leaders to enact sanctions against Mormons for any and all behavior which a leader can choose to call “sexual.”

______________________________

The Law of Consecration

From the text of the temple ceremony:

“PETER: A couple will now come to the altar (The Witness couple comes forward, and kneels at the altar as before.) We are instructed to give unto you the Law of Consecration as contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants (The Officiator picks up a copy of the Doctrine and Covenants from the altar, and holds it up in view of all patrons.), in connection with the Law of the Gospel and the Law of Sacrifice which you have already received. It is that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.”

“All arise.” (All patrons stand.) Each of you bring your right arm to the square.

“You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.“

The fifth step of extending learship control is to require by sacred covenant your willing collusion to give "everything you have, everything you are, everything you may get, and everything you may become "to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

NOT GOD!

______________________________

This is the where you finally discover to whom you are making all of your covenants. 

______________________________
Each of you bow your head and say "yes."

In every single covenant you promise and covenant “Before God, Angels, and these Witnesses.”  The very wording relegates God as a WITNESS, and NOT the party to who you are covenanting. 

______________________________

In a nutshell, the entire Mormon temple ceremony is designed to get you to voluntarily surrender yourself into mental and physical slavery to Mormon leadership for a conditional promise...that God will grant you exaltation in Heaven and then only if you live to the rules and requirements of the leadership.