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

The Art of Deception

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question:

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

Bednar’s response:

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

That can be a challenge in the flesh.

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

[Picks up water bottle and holds above his head]

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

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

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

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

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

Anything that anyone would like to add?

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

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

FINDING COMMUNITY AFTER BELIEFS ARE SHATTERED

Finding Community After Beliefs Are Shattered

By Max Crapo

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

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

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


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


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

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

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



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




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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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



Isn't it time that you held them accountable?

Five Things To Consider When Exiting Mormonism

Five Things To Consider When Exiting Mormonism

By Max Crapo

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

It is a painful step.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



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

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




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

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





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



Above all, remember this; you are not alone.

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.