Contention

Early on in my visits with my therapist, she helped me recognize a mindset worth challenging. Well, lots of mindsets, but this one in particular. When she asked, "What does love feel like?" I responded, "Love feels like... approval."

Aha. Yeah....that explained a LOOOOOOOOOOT. !!!

And do you know what is lovely about my therapist? She didn't tell me I was wrong, or I shouldn't feel that way. She just asked me the question often enough, that I started to wonder whether that was really how I wanted love to feel, and whether that feeling helped explain why I felt so incredibly cramped and stifled in my relationships. I knew that feeling cramped and stifled was not a part of my vision of how love should be.

These days, I have a new mantra: I think heaven is plurality.

I'm not sure how to achieve that kind of a world, but I believe that the first step in getting there is to recognize the false teachings in statements like these:

"he that hath the spirit of contention is ... of the devil, who is the father of contention"

Oh so it's not because we each experience life uniquely - it's because of SATAN.

"there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another"

Ironic (considering that modern-day justice is achieved through and in response to disputation) and unrealistic (the idea of a world in which everyone innately views the delineation of rights in the same way? without disagreement and discussion? absurd!). The beauty of human interaction is that through communication we can tap into a perspective bigger than our own.

Here is one in particular that I think is ridiculous. It explains the need for proselytizing:

"That perhaps they might bring them to the knowledge of the Lord their God, and convince them of the iniquity of their fathers; and that perhaps they might cure them of their hatred towards the Nephites, that they might also be brought to rejoice in the Lord their God, that they might become friendly to one another, and that there should be no more contentions in all the land which the Lord their God had given them."

Right. Because the fact that you don't like me is indicative of diseased thinking. You're clearly wrong. Only if you see things from MY point of view will I stop feeling hated, threatened. Only if you see things from MY point of view can we be friendly.

In my very strong opinion, the idea that unity/harmony requires conformity is not only flawed but also harmful. It suggests that opposing views cannot peaceably coexist.

I have a hope that they can.

Expressions of Belief

Every Monday or Tuesday, I get to read the weekly emails of my childhood best friend. She is 29, and serving a mission for the LDS Church. I love these emails. Even though I completely disagree with most of her beliefs, they don't bother me. I can relate to the sentiments expressed; I love her the more for her passion, for her sincere philanthropy. She loves the people she is serving. She is learning to see life from their points of view. That is awesome.

Recently I spoke with my aunt, trying to comfort her in her distress about my new life. Her son is on a mission. I thought, I bet I'd enjoy his letters as much as I enjoy my other friend's. And perhaps this would also help my aunt to feel like she can do *something* to soften my hard heart (hehehe). So I asked her to forward me his emails as well.

Sometimes, hearing the testimonies of others makes me sad. Sometimes, it makes me angry. But more often than not, when the testimonies are being shared by people I love, I listen and feel an increase of love in return. I realize that it makes them feel less helpless, and less hopeless too, if they can talk with me about the things that are important to them. I've also noticed that the less I am bothered by their expressions of faith, the more willing they seem to hear me share what I feel and what I believe.

Even though their words may denote what I now consider to be untrue, their deeper intended meaning is simply, "I love you." It's incredibly liberating to recognize the emotionalism of the mormon faith and not be manipulated by it. I am finally free to receive the "I love you"s, without having to accept the packages they're served in.

Visiting Teachers

When I moved to my new place in May, I transferred my records, attended the local family ward for a few weeks (a last, half-hearted attempt to find some happiness in the church), voiced my decision to switch back to a singles ward, and then went promptly inactive instead.

Then last night I was visited by two sweet ladies in their sixties.

"We are your visiting teachers!" they said. And they handed me a bag of goodies (Yes!! This is what visiting teaching is REALLY about!). I graciously accepted the candy. I mean, there was chocolate. Lots of it.

"I think you should know: I've left the church," I said.

"Oh, as in you've LEFT-left the church?" they asked.

"Yes."

"Can we still visit you?" they asked.

And for a moment, I was speechless. I even said, "I don't know...!" I thought some more. I knew that I absolutely do NOT want to sit through spiritual messages, but I also knew I don't feel threatened by them. And...then there's the matter of treats. The world needs more of the giving and receiving...of treats (grin).

"Yes, you can visit me," I decided, "as neighbors!" And I invited them in.

And they said nice things (of course I know all about niceness, I was Mormon for 28 years!), like "everyone is free to choose how to believe" and "who are we to judge" and "we are excited for your life" and absolutely no religious rubbish and they asked me about school and work and I asked them about the same and I thought...

I think there is hope. I have great hope for a new age in mormon-exmormon relationships.

And even if there isn't hope? Well, there's still chocolate.

Sexual Repression III

Sex is only for Marriage....or is Marriage only for Sex?

Before I left the church, I used to wonder how a wedding night could be anything special for a couple who had already been sleeping together.

Ha! In that very reasoning is evident my former emphasis on the sexual aspect of the relationship!!

Now I wonder how wedding nights for virginal idealists - who've kept their passions and imaginations in check - can help but risk being disappointing and frustrating? I mean, I have a hunch that sex is something that gets better with experience, and although inherently amazing-feeling, may actually be uncomfortable for two novices figuring things out at the same time. Or...at least for one of them.

For example, let's say the new bride does not enjoy her first sexual experience. I can only imagine that this would be disappointing, would affect her confidence in herself, could affect her husband's confidence as well, and could negatively affect their emotional relationship...hmmmmm.

Conclusion: I believe a healthy sex life is essential to marriage, and I also believe that marriage is about more than sex. Personally, I would like to start a marriage comfortable with expressing my love physically AND confident that the committment of both parties is about more than a mutual desire to get naked.

Sexual Repression II

Pornography is Satan's tool....or...just A tool?

Who would have thought I'd change my view on this one!!!

It started about a year ago, when an elementary school principal told me about an educational conference he'd attended. An interview had been shown, in which some horrible criminal suggested that his inappropriate activity had begun with an addiction to porn.

I thought to myself...surely people realize that plenty of individuals view porn on a regular basis without becoming rapists and murderers? I mean...seriously??? We're going to teach people porn is bad -- because some crazy guy liked it and also did horrible things? As if there's a cause-and-effect relationship? Sounds a little sensational to me.

Not to say that I think pornography is not potentially addictive, or potentially perversive. But so are a lot of things, particularly when they are approached for inappropriate reasons. And colored by guilt. Like overeating!! Yep. Reminds me of the vicious dieting cycle...

I watched a movie once in which a main character suggested that pornography is intended not for entertainment, but "purely for functional reasons." That made me think. Is there a function for pornography?

Conclusion: Yes. I think there is. For now, I think pornography can help people to deal with sexual needs, without participating in rash behavior. I do worry a little, that pornographic material might cultivate unrealistic expectations? I would be interested in the research (as opposed to the speculation) on this one. I'm sure there is some.

I think much of why pornography is damaging to relationships is because of the values assigned, which may not be accurate values. For example, if a wife interprets her husband's use of porn as a reflection of her own inadequacy - then YEAH, that's going to hurt! But what about a relationship in which there is mutual recognition of porn as functional (sexual desire can't be satisfied by sex ALL the time, right?), rather than as a reflection of a heart's *true* desire?

I don't know! Like I said, I need to think more about this one.

Sexual Repression I

I am concerned about sexual repression in the LDS Church. I believe that some principles, intended to preserve the sanctity of sexual relations, ironically undermine healthy sexuality.

Sexual Curiosity is Unworthy...and so is Sex?

Youth are taught to consider sexual thoughts as temptations which must be controlled and minimized. Indulging in such thoughts is recognized as sin.

What is the result? The natural manifestation of desire becomes a cause for shame and guilt. Even worse, such desires begin to invite disgust. First towards self....and eventually, yes, towards sex in general.

Conclusion: Sexual curiosity is normal!! If restrained, it can backfire into a guilty obsession. If cultivated in appropriate ways, it can prepare individuals for healthy sexual experiences.

Happiness

As more of my family and friends are learning of my nonbelief, I've received several touching emails/phone calls/etc expressing concern for my happiness, and confusion about the past -- wasn't I happy before? I'd certainly seemed so to everyone else.

I liked a blog I read recently, in which an LDS girl described three levels of happiness. The happiness of the moment, of the short-term past/present/future, and of the long-term.

Those are all levels of internal happiness. It is possible that we can be happy and unhappy at the same time, on different levels. Meanwhile, our internal indicators of happiness do not necessarily coincide with how happy we appear externally (to those around us). I am a cheerful person, and learned as a teenager how to present myself as supremely happy.

Two events helped me to reconsider my definition of happiness, and my internal perception of it. The first was my mission. I came home thinking to myself, "Wow, I did not have a clue what happiness was before. Turns out it is only about half made up of good feelings; the other half is sorrow and misery."

The second event was when my good friend, a returned missionary, left the church and came out of the closet. He began a loving relationship with his partner and seemed very much at peace and happy with life.

Initially, I thought he was perhaps self-deceived about being happy? But very quickly, I realized his happiness was genuine. He was still an incredibly good, sweet, caring person. His relationship was healthy and fulfilling -- not just something carnal and self-gratifying. It really changed my worldview. I'm so grateful to him for his courage and example to me.

Before, I was momentarily happy but felt a nagging sadness. Now, I certainly have my sad moments...but learning to love and be myself with honesty, self-direction, and integrity has brought a joy and hopefulness that feels long-term.

Hate

A friend suggested that this blog breeds hate and negativity.

I wondered if that were true. And if it were, what are the implications?

Hate: a feeling of dislike so strong it demands action.
Hate: to dislike intensely; to feel antipathy or aversion towards.

Do my posts reflect hate, so defined? I would have to admit they do.

Do I hate the Mormon church? I guess so. I feel an antipathy so strong that I took action - I left. I even started posting my thoughts for the public.

Do I hate Mormon people? Absolutely not. Maybe a few individuals, but in each case it's not their mormonism that makes me "hate" them.

Do my posts encourage hate? Probably. At least in those who feel strongly one way or the other.

Do I encourage the actions of hate? Some actions I would like to encourage. Critical thinking, yes. Leaving the church for those who don't agree, yes. Other actions - hurtful actions, like violence against people, or depriving them of their right to believe what they want - I do not condone.

I appreciate the commenter who helped me consider "hate" in my life.

Now, onto negativity. There are definitely different schools of thought on this one. I used to think of feelings in terms of positive/negative, good/bad. For example, hate = negative = bad.

I no longer view feelings in the same way. Anger, for example. I am learning to view anger as neutral. We all feel it occasionally. Is it the anger that is bad? Or is it certain destructive behaviors anger might motivate that are bad?

With that perspective, I am learning to view myself...sometimes I feel sadness (but I'm opposed to self-destruction), sometimes I feel anger (but I'm in favor of different viewpoints), and sometimes I feel hate (but I'm trying my best not to be mean or coercive).*

What do you think?

Of course, there is no denying that my post "Hypocrisy" included some mean, derisive words. But I wouldn't take them back - they describe very well how I was feeling. So maybe I can't say that I'm trying not to be mean...? Or that honesty trumps meanness? Hmmmm...will have to think on that one.

Honesty

The best part of my post-mormon life has been the honesty. The honesty with my family, with friends old and new, with coworkers...

and most of all, the honesty with myself!!

It's ironic how much more honest I feel, considering that the value is supposedly so important in the LDS church and in christianity in general. Yet, somehow, my mormon interpretation of "honesty" turned into: trying to admit and be only good things on the outside, while seeking to crush and deny everything "unholy" on the inside.

For example. Perhaps, somewhere deep down in my soul, I might have felt a dislike for some person. An outsider might ask, "Do you dislike so-and-so?" The honest answer would have been a simple yes. But my morals would step in, and remind my brain that to dislike a person is unchristian, and so my response would probably have been something more like, "Oh no, I don't dislike her. We just see things differently, and she has her reasons and her good qualities of course."

Do you see how, after a lifetime of this kind of dishonesty, a person could become weighed down by the stifling grip of [religious] political correctness? To say nothing of the learned incompetence at identifying true feelings?

Yes. It was exhausting! :)

Mormon Men

I would like to qualify what I said in my last post about the superficiality of Mormon men.

It was a huge overgeneralization. But a stereotype with, I think, some substance.

When I was seventeen, my sister and I were the only active LDS kids in our high school. So I had plenty of opportunities to discuss my faith with my peers. One day, my friend Jesse said to me, "Sarah, there are only two things that guys think about: beer, and sex."

I felt sad for Jesse. I had evidence - quite a bit of it - that some men thought about more than just beer and sex. My father, my brother, my brother-in-law. The 150+ elders serving in my dad's mission. Former bishops, Sunday school instructors, church leaders I admired...all of whom were virtuous and good.

A few years later, as a 21 year-old, I had a particularly wonderful bishop. Glenn White. One of the kindest, most sincere men I've ever known. I still love that man. At the time, I dated little, and was often discouraged to find myself disappointed in the LDS young men I associated with at BYU. I took comfort in realizing that I was mistakenly hoping for the quality of a 50 year-old man - like my bishop - in a 20-something year-old kid; and was that really fair?

Of course, over the next seven years I became increasingly disillusioned with the mediocre putzes so prevalent in my singles wards. I began to rebel - sure there were some great Mormon men - but they seriously all seemed to get married by the age of 23. And why should I be stuck with the lame-o leftovers???

I also became a bit disillusioned with the married Mormon men. Their wives (especially here in Utah) were so generally cute, and fit, and fun, and...adoringly chipper. BLECH. And while women like me do very well in the church...we're honestly a bit threatening or overwhelming to most of the men. So we end up...like Sheri Dew. More blech.

So, what do I think now.

Honestly, I think Mormon men are so pressured to be pure and above the lusts of the flesh, that they begin to think they are. And they begin to believe it truly is the spirit which is guiding their attractions to women...who happen to be hot and submissive. Liars.

Also, I think Mormon women are idealized for their dependence on and semi-worship of men...and where does that leave the women who struggle to be dependent?

Give me the men of the world, who can admit their horniness. And who can be man enough to not feel intimidated by my ambition or need to make sense of the world.

Hypocrisy (EXPLICIT LANGUAGE)

Today, I read a blog in which an accomplished, faithful LDS young woman - a lawyer, about my age, about my size - told of her father's encouragement that she lose weight ("I have been praying about this" he says...), and of her own [heart-breaking] conclusion that he was inspired.

She has decided that, in order to increase her chances of mortal happiness, she will just have to be hungry and restrained for the rest of her days...

I have never wanted to say the F word so badly.

I am going to say it.

Fuck a culture that tells the world it sees with God's eyes...and in the same breath tells its women they'd better watch their figures or they may not deserve companionship in this life ("Guess if you want to eat that chocolate cake so much, you'll just have to wait 'til death to find marriage, family and happiness...too bad for YOU!").

What a load of C R A P.

I'm not saying we women shouldn't try to be attractive, but I detest Mormon men who think they are so much better - they are god's gift to the world - when they are the most superficial men I know.

Book of Mormon Authorship

[I should say up front that I have no strong opinion on the origin of the Book of Mormon, but I think there are some compelling evidences of 19th century authorship/theology/theory]

Listened to some of Craig Criddle's presentation at the Postmormon conference. Got a little bored and didn't watch the whole thing, but I did some googling and found this journal article from his studies. Interesting stuff!

My next move is to google the apologist response...

*Update* Ok here's one.

I thought he brought up some good points, that made me want to take another look at the study findings. I found it interesting though that Mormanity seemed to think Criddle et al. should have analyzed for Joseph Smith's style too - because he doesn't believe Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon anyway, right?

**Update2** And here's another apologist response. With a bit of back-and-forth debate in the comments, which I got too bored of to read all the way.

Stereotypes and Half-truths

(Couldn't help but copy Andrew's idea, and post a response of my own. It was therapeutic!)

I believe Elder Hales is a good and well-intentioned person, I really do. I honestly believe that he and other leaders of the church believe with all their hearts, and have trained themselves to see everything in such a way that it all supports and reinforces their worldview. I believe that, because of personal experience, and personal acquaintance.

But, I also believe they are misled.

And, in Elder Hales' most recent conference talk, I feel that he is perpetuating negative and inaccurate stereotypes about nonbelievers, as Truth.

1. Secularism = darkness

E. Hales decries the deepening "darkness of secularism." (And darkness, as we are taught, is bad.). Secularism is defined as a set of doctrines which reject religion. If secularism is wholly dark and evil, is religion wholly light and good? Of course not. Any educated person knows that much wrong has been done (and ignorance fostered) in the name of religion. Sometimes religion is or does bad. Is it possible that the converse is true as well, that secularism might even occasionally be a force for good?

Condemning all of secularism seems just as unfair as celebrating all of religion. Certainly there are good, AND BAD, things about both religion and secularism (its own kind of religion).

2. Questionning is bad

I was surprised when he said, "Belief in God is widely questioned and even attacked," -- as if questionning belief is on the same continuum as attacking belief. Really? Was I not taught that it requires asking questions for truths to be confirmed? I maintain that questionning is a neutral action, a prerequisite to both belief and nonbelief.

3. Attack = disagree with?
I think Mormons deserve clarification on what "attacking" means. I agree that attacking the belief of others is inappropriate. However, "disagreeing with" should not by synonymous with "attacking." I worry that sometimes that is how it feels to a people who see things so differently from the rest of the world.

4. Without belief, life is pointless

Ironically, in my own experience, de-emphasizing the life after death has made this life - the here and now - seem even more meaningful! Has heightened my desire for satisfying relationships with family and friends NOW. At the same time, I find that the collective progress of humanity takes a new priority over my own personal progress. It seems more important to use my life to further the well-being of my race, and less important to think so much about using my life to further my own salvation and that of my intimate acquaintances.

5. Without moral obligation, there would be no charity

I find that humans naturally love and care about others. Sure we care about ourselves too, but we are not without morality or charity just because we are without religion.

As Elder Hales stated, we believe as we do because of how we feel. I am saddened that so many half-truths are couched in an otherwise feel-good message, leading believing listeners to accept the inaccuracies part and parcel with the "good" stuff.

The Eye of Faith

I have always thought of myself as a rational, open-minded person. But looking back on my life, I see that I used two sets of glasses. The clear ones for viewing the world and science; the rose-colored ones for viewing my religion.

Of course, at the time, I described use of the latter as "viewing with an eye of faith."

What are some characteristics of using rose-colored glasses? At least two:

• Focusing almost exclusively on the positives
• Refusing to consider or explore the negatives, considering such to be "not very useful"

What are some consequences of using rose-colored glasses?

• Unrealistic (idealistic) expectations
• Taking personal culpability for experienced disappointments

I've never been in love myself, but I think that most wise people who have would discourage me from viewing a prospective lover exclusively through rose-colored glasses. Everyone has his flaws. In fact, isn't that one of the most beautiful things about love - seeing a person for who he/she really is, in all their human weakness, and loving them just the same?

This helps me to understand how I've so completely fallen "out-of-love" with the LDS Church. I was raised in an environment in which ugliness and humanity and inconvenient truths were continually brushed under the carpet. Flaws? What flaws? The perception of flaws was merely an indication of my own unworthiness, or lack of faith.

When I finally had the courage to take the rose-colored glasses off, I realized I was in love with a glorified ideal that was quite unlike reality. And rather than finding a lovably-imperfect-anyway reality, I found something that was incompatible with my personal values and desires.

And I couldn't, or wouldn't, put the rose-colored glasses back on. If I will love something, I will see the good and the bad and the ugly, and love all of its flawed self.

Lehi's Dream

In Elder Holland's talk last weekend (yes, after reading all the buzz, I watched it too), he spoke of Lehi's dream. He described the faithful as valiantly pressing forward, in spite of the mists of darkness and jeering taunts of the world.

I thought how my experience leaving the church could be characterized with the same imagery. I well know the confusing darkness of cognitive dissonance, and how giving up one worldview is bewildering and completely disconcerting! I also know of jeering taunts. Although my friends and family have been very kind and surprisingly supportive, they embrace an idealogy that portrays people like me as proud, foolish, or at best...misled (referring again to E. Holland's discourse).

During the past week, I had several opportunities to explain my departure from the faith. By the end, I felt a bit drained...but also surprised. During the last couple months, as I have discussed my new path with the people I care about, I have not yet had a single experience* I would describe as contentious! I wonder why...

*Note: Actually there was one pretty negative reaction from a close loved one, but I'd already forgotten because the individual called to apologize a day later and all of our interaction since then has been open and loving. Also, one person I don't care about was a bit rude, but...I think her response was irrelevant because she had no clue what was really going on, she just read some hints on my blog and jumped to some conclusions without seeking an open dialogue.

Puritan Roots

I just got back from a vacation, during which I enjoyed revisiting Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter. I found so many parallels to my own religious experience:

1. ON VIRTUE - Many women believed that only fear of punishment would support human virtue (p. 45).

2. ON JOY - Hester (the adulteress) rejected most joys as sin (p. 70).

3. ON GUILT - Mr. Dimmesdale "attributed all his presentiments" to his own sin. In other words, he blamed his dislike and distrust for Hester's husband on his own guilt and shame, refusing to believe that the other truly harbored him any ill-will (p. 117).

3b. Hester tended to explain away (justify) the sins of others, or take the blame upon herself (blame for her daughter's wildness, her husband's consuming hate, her lover's self-destruction) (p. 140).

4. ON SELF-CONCEPT - Mr. Dimmesdale tended to view others as saintly, and himself as depraved. Hester too is continually self-denigrating, accepts and even encourages the holier-than-thou condescension of others as deserved.

5. ON REVELATION - There was a tendency for persons to find plenty of individualized "revelations" (p. 128):

"It was, indeed, a majestic idea, that the destiny of nations should be revealed...on the cope of heaven. A scroll so wide might not be deemed too expansive for Providence to write a people's doom upon...

But what shall we say, when an individual discovers a revelation, addressed to himself alone, on the same vast sheet of record! In such a case, it could only be the symptom of a highly disordered mental state, when a man, rendered morbidly self-contemplative by long, intense, and secret pain, had extended his egotism over the whole expanse of nature, until the firmament itself should appear no more than a fitting page for his soul's history and fate."

Similarly, I think that Mormonism is characterized by a view of humans as more depraved than virtuous (natural man), and that it is better to deny oneself than to feel pleasure (a word which is treated with such disgust!). From my own experience, I know that I became an expert at feeling compassionate toward other sinners but abhorence only for myself, blaming myself wherever possible for any negative treatment from others (or at least blaming myself for letting it that treatment hurt/upset me). And of course, Mormons are encouraged to see the hand of God (and direct, specific individual guidance from him) everywhere. Hmmmmm....

*Page numbers refer, of course, to a particular edition. In this case, the Barnes & Noble Classics printing in 2003.