HARD LINES AND HARD CHOICES

HARD LINES AND HARD CHOICES

By Max Crapo

As a teen growing up in the 1970’s and in the heart of a small Mormon community, I remember clearly sitting in the church on Tuesday nights attending a youth meeting known at that time as “Mutual.”  I’d just become a member of the “Deacon’s Quorum” in the ward to which I belonged. I still clearly remember a picture hung on the wall which proclaimed:

“The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.”
   --Doctrine and Covenants 93:36

I occasionally find myself reflecting on this statement. As an atheist, I recognize there being two intents behind this scriptural reference.  It was both a nod toward expressing the majesty of God, and an encouragement to learn. 

The Mormonism of my youth valued education, the gaining of knowledge and wisdom. Of course learning was strictly defined as only having value as long as we subjugated ourselves to “the will of God.”  In the Mormon lexicon, this actually means “being obedient to the leadership of the church.”

Another teaching which was common during my youth, was the idea of “line upon line.”  This was in reference to Joseph Smith teaching about “revelation” and how we were to develop our own connection with God such that he could teach us through revelation to achieve perfection in God’s eyes. It was also an acknowledgement that we still had much to learn. These were core teachings in my own life and I found great value in them.

Over time, I saw the church gradually shift from an emphasis on knowledge and learning to an emphasis on obedience.  It was stressed over and over again that obedience to the leadership of the church was obedience to God.  There is an LDS Children's song which the lyrics include 

Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet; don't go astray.
Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

For nearly two centuries, the church has elevated the status of it's leaders.  Wilford Woodruff, in his position as President and Prophet of the church, once taught over the pulpit:

"I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." -- The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, sel. G. Homer Durham [1946], 212–13

I think it is fair to agree that this can be easily interpreted as a doctrine of “infallibility” and Wilford Woodruff's words have been repeated through generations of Mormons as “truth.”

Over the last century, we’ve seen an explosion in the knowledge which the practice of scientific principles has provided for us.  It is a sum of knowledge staggering in its depths and profundity. We’ve learned, for example, that sexual behavior and attraction isn’t binary.  Instead it is found in a spectrum ranging from completely heterosexual to completely homosexual, and that it is entirely incidental to the individual where they fall in that spectrum.   

At one time, Mormonism made the claim that “all truth could be found within its precepts” and Mormonism quite readily accepted the advances made in a myriad of scientific fields.  This changed of course, when Science and Theology no longer agreed.  Since that time, Mormonism as a religion, has only moved to agreement when the documented evidence became overwhelming. Certain doctrines within Mormonism have remained inviolate though, and in 1998 the LDS Church set in stone the doctrine of “Family” going so far as to enshrine it in a document known as a “The Family: A Proclamation  to the World.”  In this document, only a single relationship was recognized as having validity; that of a marriage made of “one man and one woman.”  No other relationship is (or may be) permitted. 

This policy(?) was written at a time when science began to recognize that homosexuality may not be a “choice” and instead may be an inherent trait, as much a part of them as the color of their skin, their hair and their eyes. Some forward thinking Mormon faithful likely recognized the danger in such a theory and preemptively began advocating for a written policy to enshrine his own worldview, and thus was born “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Today, the church has a problem.  They have written themselves into a corner with no graceful way out. Their “one man-one woman” policy is now considered doctrinal, and to back down from the only “revelation” they have issued in the last three decades comes firmly up against their implied “doctrine of infallibility.” To admit that they made a mistake and acknowledge that a homosexual relationship is one of the many “normal” states of humanity completely undermines their own credibility as “Prophets, seers, and revelators.”

The concept of “line upon line” could have been their way out.  They could have said “We have learned much about the science of sexuality and are seeking clarification of God’s will in this matter.”  They could have chosen to be inclusive instead of exclusive. Their choice was to double down and take a hard line stance. The backlash against the leadership for this choice has been enormous and I think caught LDS leadership quite by surprise.

Homosexuality, has serious implications for Mormon theology, there is no question about that.   However, in taking a hard line stance, the church has now fractured and it may already be too late to heal. I don’t think they have much choice except to proceed now, and become an acknowledged hate group promoting bigotry against a minority group. They’ll take a significant hit in membership but the remaining members will be loyal and committed to their vision, even if it bears no resemblance to a Christ-like vision of love.

So now, I guess you have to ask yourself.  Which side are you going to join? The side that values love, kindness, and acceptance?  Or are you going to join the side that values obedience, judgment and condemnation? 

Are you going to be inclusive or exclusive?  It really is your choice. No one can make it but you. 

Just remember though, silence is tacit agreement.  

BOILING THE FROG

BOILING THE FROG

BY MAX CRAPO

There is an oft-quoted cautionary tale used in Mormon upbringing.  The claim is made that if you drop a frog into a pan of boiling water that it will jump out so quickly that it will be unharmed.  The story further claims that if you put the frog in water of a comfortable temperature and then heat it up slowly that the frog will, all unnoticed, be boiled alive.

Recently I read that this was debunked, that when the temperature gets to be too much for the frog, it hops out of the water and goes on its merry way.

The point of this story, of course, is to warn us of the danger in being exposed to sin.  We get all comfortable in our sin and soon we are also boiled alive…or, in other words, the devil has come to collect our soul.

As a metaphor for sin, now that it has been debunked, it’s pretty useless.  There is another situation though, which I think it fits quite well.

In 2006, the mental shelf which I was carrying was beginning to sag.  You know the shelf I’m talking about, it is the one where we place all our “questions”, the ones which don’t seem to have an answer that fit within the Mormon mold.  Personally I think the most accurate term is “our shelf of cognitive dissonance.”  We place those questions there to compartmentalize our belief from our unbelief so we don’t have to look at or deal with the dissonance.

It is really an unproductive method of dealing with those questions because, over time, the weight keeps increasing as the questions pile up.  Eventually, the weight becomes too much and our shelf breaks.  Instead of one question to deal with, now we have hundreds and we now have to deal with them all at the same time. 

Or to switch back to our original metaphor, the water gets too hot and the frog jumps out.

It has been an interesting experience to look back over the last (nearly) ten years and observe the changes in the organization I once loved, and even more so, to observe the changes in the people I also love in regards to their belief in the church.  These are changes, I’m sad to say, which have not been for the better. 

When I finally worked up the courage to give voice to my questions and found the resolve to look beyond the church’s “approved” sources, what I found was more than shocking.  It was heart-rending, devastating, painful, and confusing. Suddenly I was seeing historically documented evidence which showed that my beloved prophet and founder of Mormonism was not what the church had spent decades claiming him to be.  My shelf broke, the water was too hot, and this frog jumped out. 

I’m often asked, “Why do you care?  What does it matter? You’re no longer part of this group and these people enjoy the (metaphorical) temperature.  Why don’t you just go away and let them be happy?” 

So let me respond.  “Why do we have weather forecasters?  What good does it do to know when a hurricane is coming?  Why should we care?  They’re happy in their homes.”

When I looked back at the pot, I realized that there were literally millions of frogs slowly getting cooked. I can't ignore it because these are our family, our friends, and our community.

Strangely, though, when I tried to point out the historical, documented evidence of Joseph Smith’s misdeeds beginning with his polygamy, I was called a liar and an apostate, accused of being the devil’s merchant. I was accused of “tearing down treasured beliefs” and slandering a “good man.”  





What value is there in holding Iron pyrite and claiming it as “gold?”  For beliefs to mean something, shouldn’t they be based in fact rather than deceit?  Don’t we have laws which offer punishment and retribution for those who use deceit to get gain? 

Over and over I was told that I was just repeating “anti-Mormon lies.”  Beginning in 2013, the church started to release essays on the “troublesome” issues of Mormonism.  One of these essays acknowledged Joseph Smith’s polygamy, even going so far as to describe his marriage to Helen Mar Kimball as a marriage to a young woman “a few months away from her 15^th birthday.  I guess that sounds better than “married a 14 year old.” 








What stunned me most though, was how suddenly, quite literally overnight, members went from saying “You’re a liar” to “We’ve always known that. I don’t understand why you are trying to make this such a big deal.” I guess for them, the water still isn’t hot enough to see how the beliefs are warping their perceptions.






The church has released essay after essay, acknowledging for the first time since the church started the doctrinal Correlation Committee in the early 1960’s, that Joseph Smith did in fact use a seer stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon, that he did NOT in fact “translate” the Egyptian Papyrus to create the Book of Abraham, even admitted that women at one time were ordained with the priesthood and were actively involved in giving blessings. 

I’ve watched in dumbfounded amazement as the members continue to absorb, accept, and even acknowledge that the history they were taught was sanitized and whitewashed to make it more faith promoting…and then they excuse it all with a mere Jedi hand wave and say “The prophets and apostles are/were not the perfect men you are looking for.”

How hot does the water have to get before you begin to feel the burn of deception?

Thursday, November 5^th 2015, the church modified its handbook to deliberately harm the children of Gay couples…and within hours, members yet again justified it all as “love,” even “protection of the gay couple’s children.” Tell me again, how does isolation of these children equal love?  How does requiring a child to disavow their gay parent’s lifestyle form closer family bonds?  How does requiring them to separate from their gay parent’s household in any way create a loving atmosphere? 









It is a policy not designed for family.  It is a policy intended to separate families. It is a policy of “SHUNNING.”  








So why do we have weather forecasters and hurricane warnings?  Should we care when ISIS murders innocent civilians?  Should we care when a company defrauds their employees of their retirement money? Should we care when a religion uses fraud to obtain wealth?  Should we care if a church poisons the community against a minority group, just because they can? What does it matter? After all, the members are happy in their beliefs. 

The answer is "empathy." That's why we get involved and that's why we care. 

Is the water getting hot yet?

CULLING THE HERD

CULLING THE HERD

BY DWIGHT REID

Here’s the news: The Mormon Church is moving from fleecing the flock to culling the herd.

How so? Here’s how.

Consider the financial profile of the Church from a deductive perspective.
For the better part of the past decade, the Church has brought in an estimated $6 billion yearly in donations. This number comes from publicly available information in countries where the church is required to report its income, and then extrapolated to apply to the rest of the world, taking into account relative wealth of other countries and their citizens that are likely to be donating. This is the low end of the estimates.

Even though their membership numbers remain stable or even show a slight increase this is not necessarily an indication that donations are keeping pace. The Church’s membership numbers are suspect to say the very least. Their numbers show a two percent growth rate, but real census data reveal that in the areas of highest conversion rates, as many as 75% of new members are inactive after one year. The actual number of butts in the seats is probably in decline, and possibly has been for a few years. The attrition rate has been high for at least that long, but the Internet has wounded the church, badly enough that it is now hemorrhaging members. For an organization which needs to pad it’s numbers to avoid the appearance of being the cult that it is, this loss is bad P.R. To lose those members in areas that were stable, and the donations reliable and plentiful, may prove devastating. Even if the worldwide membership is not in decline, there is another problem.

Church membership is shifting from the rich folk in the states, to the poor and more ignorant third world. Third world countries are poor. The same number of members gained in sub Saharan Africa as are lost in Great Britain, does not equate to the same income from tithing. Revenue has got to be plummeting.

This is certainly consistent with the Church’s increased real estate investments. The church has always owned non-religion related properties. Newspapers come to mind as do many businesses that date back to the early days in Utah when the church owned most everything that was profitable in the state. Now they have added the City Creek Center, a large Philadelphia high rise and an immense cattle ranch in Florida. How immense is an immense cattle ranch? The LDS Divinely Guided Real Estate Conglomerate, or as they are more widely known, the Mormon Church, owns a bit more than 2% of all the land in the state of Florida. Is there money in cattle ranching? Who cares, the church is in it for the long run. (they know that Christ is not coming back) The church has applied for and received permission from the Florida State and County Governments, to construct and sell the largest housing development ever. With a potential value estimated at 1.2 trillion dollars (that is not a typo, it really does say Trillion) Interesting that the church is going to make a ridiculous sum of money selling land that may be underwater in another 100 years. Get rid of it before the rise in the ocean level leaves it submerged. The phrase, “If you believe that, I’ve got some swampland for sale” takes on new meaning.

 Donations will not be the Church’s primary source of revenue a decade from now. Maybe not in half a decade, maybe not even now. The real estate investments and the minuscule amounts given to real charitable causes are an indication that they do not care as much about public opinion as they have in the past. The Church is facing, or expects to be facing, some serious cash flow problems if they rely strictly on tithes and offerings. The Church is not cash poor. It has sizable reserves. They get a good deal on Temple construction but they do pay cash for them so there is money in the vault. But the Church can no longer afford to simply sit on the cash and let donations trickle in. The Divinely Inspired Real Estate Conglomerate, has become seriously proactive with their financial well-being.
There are two areas of recent Church activity that don’t make sense without the perspective above. First, if your eye is on the bottom line, then why build expensive temples; and, second, why chase off tithe paying members with the seer stone announcement which otherwise might never have come to light?

Two speculative hypotheses might explain these glaring anomalies.

First, temples: Why spend millions on buildings that don't produce any revenue? That becomes less of an enigma when you state it correctly.

The temples don’t directly produce revenue.

The temples are open only to those who pay tithing. This is the group that the church cares about most. If there is a temple in your vicinity. it is added incentive to keep current on your tithing. The temple recommend is a badge of prestige that can be worn only by the best. “Best” in this case means highest donors. In addition, maintaining a temple recommend requires a constant supply of busy work, which  keeps the diligent from having time to get into trouble, by, for instance, visiting anti-Mormon websites. It also plays into the control ethos, and the “sunk-cost” fallacy: The more time you invest in the church, the stronger your incentive to believe rather than admit to yourself that you have been conned. I know not whether the percentage of full tithe payers is higher in areas with temples, but in principle this could be confirmed or contradicted.

Second, seer stones. This hypothesis is even more speculative, but it has the advantage of making falsifiable predictions.

Here’s one prophesy: In the next 24 months, you will see a quiet selling off of older buildings and buildings in low-income areas.



Publicizing the seer stones) makes no sense unless the Church is culling the herd. The truest of true-blue Mormons are doing what we have all been scratching our heads at, doubling down. The Mormon rejoinder that "we have always known that" is both false and tiresome. What if the essays and the seer stones and whatever faith-destroying revelations come next, are being revealed not because the Church was losing members and wanted to increase transparency? This has not been their M.O. in the past—ever.

What if instead the de facto admission was instead to the Church’s projection that those least likely to pay a full tithe would also be the first to jump ship? Yes, the Church would lose a few tithe paying families. But if the goal is to rid the rolls of deadwood and to consolidate the remaining cash cows into far fewer buildings, and in doing so, providing a cash influx from property sales and reducing overhead by eliminating maintenance costs on low income ward buildings, then this is a win-win strategy.

The Church already knows that the faithful will believe any numbers they hand out for membership.  Recent articles state that the church has begun downplaying membership growth and totals. (1*) The Church is taking the actions it would take, if the goal is to trade the slow trickle of apostates and continued problems with inactive or less active members, for a wholesale evacuation of undesirables and the resulting financial benefits of selling off the unprofitable Ward houses and lowering the electric bill in one fell swoop.

The actions of the church in the last year are a struggle to understand.  But in light of the above interpretations, they make sense.

Additionally, the church questionnaires that have been circulated probably showed that among full tithe payers, marriage equality, equal rights for LGBTs and gender equality, are not as popular as they are to the general membership.

This whole philosophy can be summed up as maximize profits at the cost of the less financially desirable. That fits their modus operendi , to a tee.

As a supporting argument, consider the Apologists. Anyone following the run-ins with Loran Blood and his minions can see that these people are not the least bit concerned with honesty. Their tactics are so blatantly without even the appearance of integrity, that you wonder, why do they spend the time? What is the motivation behind their character assassination, misrepresentation, blatant dishonesty and worse?

Here’s why. Or so I propose: Many of the internet apologists are on payroll, or at the least, fulfilling a church calling. The church claimed for years that they were financially uninvolved with FARMS or FAIR. I believe it was David Twede who found the paper trail through which the church was financing the even less reputable apologists.

If an apologist prevents a few hundred members from leaving, how much lost income has he prevented over a decade? The answer is millions. If you want to see devotion, check out how the sycophants commenting on his blog treat Greg Trimble as a junior apostle. Even with the church's notorious tightwad nature, doesn't it make sense to fire the janitorial staff and spend the money on a few dozen high profile Internet shills? We know they have already done at least the first part of that.

The church is not in its death throes, not by far. If as an entity you own three universities, a Philadelphia high-rise rental property, $3 billion worth of nearly-new mall space, and 2% of the land in Florida, as well as a few dozen extraneous businesses (like a major newspaper, etc.), then you should be able to weather about any storm. Free money from customers that ask for no return on their investment, and an unpaid sales staff numbering in the tens of thousands, are also enviable business models.

The bastards are going to be around for a while.  But we are seeing the beginning of the transition from a corporation pretending to be a church, to a Real Estate Conglomerate, acting as if it were a Real Estate Conglomerate. And if religion eventually disappears from the planet (hey, I can dream can't I?) We will still be able to buy a nice condo from Mormoncorp.

I wrote this about a month ago. I didn’t post it because it seemed almost too speculative to have explanatory value. I decided to pigeon-hole it until and unless the church took actions that appeared to guarantee an exodus of the less faithful. Then the SLC television station announced that the One True Church Of God On Earth, had just irritated the holy hell out of any member who is LBGT or has family who is. It will drive a wedge between the church and LGBT allies, and it will disgust any member with integrity. At least that last one does not seem to have the potential to claim more than a few dozen. The other groups though, probably were on the precipice and many may have been withholding their tithing as a form of protest. So the church has just done something that defied explanation. They could have gone on without doing this and no one would have cared, it will cost them members, it has the potential to strengthen the base, if you think the base is primarily hard core bigots. The entire action announced on Thursday made no sense whatsoever.
Until you read this.
(1)                                                                                                                                        www.patheos.com/Topics/Future-of-Faith-in-America/Mormonism/Mormonisms-Future-Patrick-Mason-08-05-2015

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.