am I betraying them?
I couldn't care less about the church and the Strengthening the Members Committee and church discipline if they were to care about my blog. Not that they will. I don't care that I'm open about my feelings about the church, that I call into question the origins and doctrines, that I talk openly about garments and temples. Whether my tone is angry, contemplative, sorrowful, happy, or indifferent, I'll say what I need to about the church and the church consequences be damned. As my husband teased me, "Now you're officially an anti-Mormon because of the blog." I could officially be ex'ed. And I'm fine with that. That's just one more count against the church, ex'ing someone for freedom of expression and difference of opinion.
But why is it that with this blog, I feel like I'm betraying my family? They would be shocked if they found this, and absolutely devastated if they found out I wrote it. They know I'm "inactive," that I've "strayed from the straight and narrow," "let go of the iron rod." But I'm horrified at the thought of any one of them finding my online persona.
So why do I write what I do? Why don't I keep the swearing down, the insults out, and talk on a more respectful publishable-in-Sunstone-let's-agree-to-disagree kind of posts? Ones that, while they would disagree with me, I wouldn't be ashamed of if they did find them?
I wish I could say that I truly think that Mormonism is just one of many belief systems, all on par with each other, but different to suit different people's needs. But I can't say that in total honesty. I actually do believe Mormonism has some good aspects, and for a certain kind of person, it works well enough. But I do think it's lesser, and I do think it has a lot of destructive aspects. While I see religions as presenting many valid paths, I see the Mormon path as a largely negative one.
While I can say to my family, "We've just chosen different paths, let's respect each other's space," I still harbor a hope that they will reevaluate their beliefs and give up Mormon literalism. I still think that anyone is better off if they really take the chance to ask the big questions in life, outside of Mormon epistemology of "if it feels good, it's true."
Is that two-faced of me? Part of me feels like it is. But part of me knows that they are thinking the same about me. That they say, "Okay, do your thing, we'll respect your changing beliefs," to my face, but really they believe that I'll come back to the fold. Really, they don't see my atheism as one valid path of many.
Maybe someday I'll get to that post-Mormon place where I can respect Mormonism as a religion again. Respect, but disagree. Just like I do with Islam, Catholicism, Hinduism. Maybe someday, I'll be able to make a long list of good things Mormonism did for me.
But until then, I'll post critically if I need to.
Perhaps happiness is the key. If I am happy on my path, my family should respect that. And I am happy. If they are happy within Mormonism, I should respect that. As long as they are happy. Are they happy? And if they are, are they happy because of Mormonism or despite Mormonism?
16 comments:
And if they are, are they happy because of Mormonism or despite Mormonism?
I think a lot of us feel the same way, saying we respect their belief in mormonism but secretly hoping we've shaken things up enough to cause them to re-evaluate their path.
I mostly just want them to stop predicting my destruction because I drink coffee and beer. Maybe they'd find out humanity isn't as bad as they're told.
I'm inclined to agree with you; Mormonism isn't a live-and-let-live religion. Christianity in general isn't, but Mormonism is one of its most controlling and "imperialistic" creeds (in the sense that its goal is to "convert" the whole world, and anything less is unacceptable). It is extremely harmful to people outside it and within it, on many different levels. I'm sure people have written on it at length, but I'm going to have to make an extensive blog post of my own about why the "but it does good things" argument is itself a corrosive lie. I'll spare you my rantings here, though. :)
Have you ever read Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian"? Or "Suddenly Strangers" by Brad and Chris Morin? The first is one of my favorites, and the latter is the *best* and most clear-headed book on post-Mormon experience I have *ever* read. (And my wife, LB, is finding it to be the book that is finally enabling her to, once and for all, leave the church and its guilt behind.) I highly recommend them both.
Anyway, SML turned me on to your blog, and I am really enjoying reading about your journey!
I'm out to my family. I'm no longer a member. But I blog anonymously... well... with an online persona. Why? Donna would be devastated. I don't totally understand it but I remain on the down low so I can continue to be totally honest in my writing.
I think you're great. I found your page through a link on Google. I'm a Christian (Baptist) with a Mormon boyfriend (who just left on his mission to Brazil). We are not staying together because of our differing beliefs and I have this overwhelming feeling of sadness for him. Sadness that he's giving up to years of his life for a faith based on works and fear. More power to you. I hope everything works out for you.
And by the way, I've done a lot of research on Mormonism and their views on drinking. Supposedly there are large excerpts that have been deleted from the Church history of accounts where Joseph Smith drank (beer and wine) with fellow Mormons. My belief is that anything in moderation is ok.
It's interesting to evaluate why we prefer our blogs to be secret from our loved ones. My parents don't know of my blog, but my siblings and in-law siblings do. But not the parents. My husband and kids know of my blog too.
I'm finding I have to somewhat curb what I say sometimes, and that may not be what I'd prefer. I do it only because I want to avoid the conflict or hurt feelings that could arise when they read what I say. So....could your desire to keep your blog from them be merely a wish to not have to curb what you say? It could be as simple as that.
For what it's worth, I love your blog and look forward to your posts.
zarathustra,
Though I can't speak for JW or 7DA, I know that Baptist and Catholic do not (in general) treat disaffected/innactive members the way the LDS church does...not even close. I have disaffected/innactive members of each of these faiths in my family and only the LDS church thinks the disaffected member is on a destructive path to the lower kingdom.
With Catholic and Baptist, you can attend Sunday worship whenever you want, and believe whatever you want, but try that with the LDS church and you are shunned, looked down upon, made someone's project. There is no room for someone that isn't 100% LDS in the LDS faith. Everywhere you turn you have to bear your testimony or testify of the truthfulness of whatever. You either have to lie, be rude, or go innactive.
Gluby- The imperialism is certainly one of the negative things. Other churches have had extensive imperialism (colonialism in Africa, for example) in the past. As long as they stopped, admitted they were mistaken, I can handle it. But the Mormon church won't admit mistakes; they just pretend God wanted it to be that way (blacks and the priesthood). Blame their mistakes on God. I've read parts of Suddenly Strangers and liked it; I'll check out Russell.
pete & SML- I think it is a thing of needing to be honest and open on my blog, and not being able to if some certain people read it. There is at least one still-attending LDS that reads this, but I'm not afraid of being honest if front of her, because she appreciates the honesty even if she doesn't agree or understand everything. I think it would cause a lot of pain for my family, and I don't want to do that to them. But I still write it; hence the sense of betraying them.
anonymous Baptist- Welcome! What a harrowing experience, to see a boyfriend leave to proselytize. And it's true about the early church leaders drinking--how do you think they saw all those visions of God in the Kirtland temple? Many religious/spiritual experiences in history are drug-induced!
Zarathustra- I knew you'd catch me on that point. I'm still contemplating our conversation in that regard, and I'll work on some posts. (Will you?) I think you are correct that leavers of certain other literalist religions have very similar experiences to Mormons. I have spoken w/ Lutheran, Southern Baptist leavers, and heard their experiences of being totally shunned by family, of being diagnosable with depression, etc.
bishop rick has a point. Most Christian churches will contact people who stop attending once or twice to check up, then leave them alone. Many Christian churches recognize that different congregations appeal to different people, and let that be. Some think they are just as right as Mormons do, it's true. And I'll never join those, though I could see myself joining a liberal Protestant church. Maybe.
Jer said, "I mostly just want them to stop predicting my destruction because I drink coffee and beer. Maybe they'd find out humanity isn't as bad as they're told."
With me, I don't know if my family has adjusted their idea of a archetypal apostate, or if they just don't let themselves think I am _really_ an apostate. Like they think "FTA can't be one of _those_!" rather than "Oh, maybe apostates aren't so awful after all."
But I don't really know what they're thinking. 'Cause we don't talk about it for the most part.
Ashes, I agree with everything you've written here and feel that the only way to really overcome mormonism is to be brutally honest with yourself when writing about it. That's why I'm not a fan of self censorship. Blogging is a tool to work out these demons. Toning down a post so you don't offend anyone just doesn't make any sense.
I think it will be a great day when I can say I respect the mormon church as an organization. I don't see that coming anytime soon.
Z- True, the church has contacted me only a couple times, maybe 3 or 4. But we also haven't moved out of the ward we stopped attending, so the bishop knows our stance and is respecting it by not contacting us. But he's also not; we are on somebody's home and visiting teaching lists. When they get a new bishop, we'll likely be talked about, and may be contacted again.
Other churches would have dropped us from the roles by now. But according to the church we ARE Mormon, and they will feel every right and obligation to encourage our kids toward baptism, to follow your around with your records. They will call extended family for your address if they "lose" you. They will drag their feet for at the very least 30 days if we turned in our resignations. And once we do, they will still keep records on us. If they found this blog, they would call me in for discipline. If I published something, they would call me in for discipline.
They "respect" my space by not contacting me...much. But they disrespect it by keeping me on their lists, putting two HTers "in charge" of me, and hoping to get their hooks on DS when he turns 8. And someone will probably find my records if I resign and re-baptize me when I'm dead. Yeah, I'll be dead, but I think the only thing we leave (other than our molecules) is other's memory, how they think of us--and re-baptizing me is disrespecting my memory and therefore me.
FTA, Zarathustra and others,
In regard to the what makes Mormonism unique in this regard:
You know, I have put a lot of thought into this, and here are some of the things I have come up with:
1) The vision that drove its invention was extremely Old Testament in character. Whereas Judaism was essentially tribal and was formed during a period in which it held absolute, brutally unchallengeable theocratic rule, Christianity started as a religion in which it was subject to secular rule. Thus, Christianity is less immediately controlling of its members and, even in the old-style Catholic form (Crusades and Inquisition and all) less likely to assert absolute dominion over them than was Judaism during the periods when the Jews were ruled by their own priests. Of course, not by much -- Catholicism became a theocratic religion, but the central distinction is that it was forced to share and compete for power with a parallel stratum of secular rulers (think of Feudal Europe). The priests themselves did not rule.
Mormonism was an attempt, in my ongoing analysis, to combine the feel and mysticism of Christianity (which was, after all, ideologically hegemonic in America -- no one could have gotten away with creating Neo-Judaistic utopian movements on a grand scale without immediate anti-Semitic reaction) with the style and methodology of original, extra-crispy-style pre-Christianity Judaism. And it is clear that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had definite theocratic ambitions as well as enforcement mechanisms (Danites, etc.).
This is a large part of why Mormonism is so extremely clannish -- it's based on a tribal mold. And it is part of the explanation why it has been so hostile to other religions; when you rule theocratically, why bother with ecumenicalism? When you don't plan to share power, why accommodate anyone -- even the U.S. government? (That attitude changed after the fed. gov't sent troops and was on the cusp of prosecuting Brigham Young for the Mountain Meadow(s?) Massacre.) Why play nice with your religious competitors?
2) Mormonism developed in an era and region heavily infected with three elements: puritanism, Victorianism and revivalism. It also was developed in an era of reaction against the Age of Reason, and so contains explicit refutations of Enlightenment era thought that has been otherwise internalized in most other creeds (unwillingly, I might add -- I do NOT credit ANY religion, and particularly Catholicism, with changing willingly out of compassion or understanding -- they change only when not changing means losing legitimacy or power).
3) Mormonism has had to backpedal and deal with all of its inconsistencies and skeletons (some of them horrific) in the closet. It doesn't have the benefit of ancientness, and so its origins themselves are open to scrutiny, and fail miserably in that light. Christianity as a whole is so much harder to scrutinize because, over fifteen centuries since it became the dominant religion of the West, it has managed to destroy almost ALL writings that were not "faith promoting."
Side note on Catholicism: You know that whole Dark Ages thing, and how Catholic monks are credited with preserving some candlelight of knowledge in that bleak period? Bullshit. The Catholic Church caused the Dark Ages by systematically suppressing all others and destroying knowledge -- book burning is not a Nazi thing so much as it is a Catholic thing. The Irish and other monks who preserved classical texts did so in VIOLATION of church policy. Catholicism hasn't a leg to stand on in casting aspersions on Mormonism; both creeds have done little but harm humanity. End of sidenote.
Anyway, so Mormonism has had to go on the offensive to "protect" its members from contact with the incredible amounts of incriminating information about it out there. This accounts for much of its anti-rational hysteria and controlling nature as well.
FTA:
Sorry for turning this into a theological debate. If it bothers you or you feel it is a distraction from the content or character of your blog, please tell us, away with you boneheaded fops!
Zarathustra:
Wow, my friend! Smaller paragraphs, please!
I do come from an historical perspective, and, frankly, I am dismayed at how many commentators on religion and philosophy, both apologists and critics, seem to consider it marginally-relevant, instead focusing on simplistic assumptions about historical context. This ahistoricism happens to be the number one (and most damning) criticism of traditional scholarship by critical studies scholars.
I will encapsulate your arguments and answer them succinctly.
1) You argue that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young could not have garnered a tribalistic/theocratic perspective on early Judaism from available source materials given his upbringing and perspective.
This is an odd argument to make. It is rather painfully obvious to anyone but a well-trained theological apologist, at least in the King James version of the Old Testament.
But perhaps this is a definitional issue. I am perhaps using a loose definition of "tribal," captured in two essential characteristics: (1) complete cultural, racial and geographical separateness from surrounding peoples; and (2) hostility to assimilation or miscegenation.
Everything evident in the Old Testament is that there was no "conversion" to Judaism. The religion was not a universal one, to whom anyone who confessed faith in Yahweh could be a member.
It was strictly a religion of the Jewish people.
This aspect of early Judaism, I must disagree, is very evident in the Old Testament.
The theocratic nature of early Judaism is even more blatantly obvious. Judaism was replete with references to the government of Israel being the priests, who could, after all, dispense capital punishment for heresy.
Indeed, please tell me where one would need to be up-to-date on the latest Judaic Studies to be exposed to these conceptions.
(2) You challenge my statement that Judaism held "absolute, brutally unchallengeable theocratic rule" with the proposition that Judaism has always competed with rival creeds.
Oh, yes, Judaism did recognize rival creeds in the surrounding territories. Indeed, it recognized them with a fierce, bloody hostility. Of course it was concerned about loss of members of the tribe to competing religions. It didn't rule the WORLD, Zarathustra.
Observe:
If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God.
Deuteronomy 13:7-11 (emphasis added)
The Old Testament is replete with examples of brutal use of power to pursue and crush heresy within Judaism's jurisdiction. This, well, presumes the executive authority to carry out such edicts. There are also plenty of other examples of theocratic brutality (genocide, harsh treatment of dissidence and disobedience, etc.) which I don't feel need to be listed here; we're all adults with some familiarity, and to deny such a thing is beyond reasonableness.
They all point clearly to unity of political and religious power. If this is insufficient for you, conduct a mental exercise in which you think about the religious pronouncements of religions that do not wield political power; do they pronounce death sentences? Do they call for banishment?
(3) Joseph Smith only adopted isolationism in response to persecution.
Of course! All the approved church history materials indicate a bunch of pleasant lambs brutally persecuted by those around them, and thus you have some support for this claim.
But, then again, the non-approved evidence shows this to be poppycock. The Mormons did their own share of persecution, and Smith and Young were EXTREMELY ambitious men, including grand political ambitions. Joseph Smith certainly wanted to "integrate" with society -- on his own terms, of course, which included becoming president of the United States and converting America to Mormonism. Again, no one has patience for this subject to be explored here, but the evidence shows this claim to be, again, self-serving bullshit.
Your analysis is based on cherry-picked, willfully-blind history. Are you sure you're not Mormon?
(4) In response to my statement that I do not credit any religion, particularly Catholicism, with willing change out of compassion or understanding, as opposed to grudging change only when required to maintain legitimacy, you wrote, "This is a very sad view of religion.
My answer is that, of course, I would expect you to think so. I have merely taken your misplaced faith in religion and put it back where it belongs -- in humanity and its ability to do better.
(5) In response to my statement that the origins of Christianity are difficult to scrutinize because it has destroyed contra evidence over the past fifteen centuries, you wrote, "This seems overly naive."
I respond: Your sentence is overly vague. Here's an exercise: find for me a criticism of Christianity from the first millennium of Christian Era western history. Where are all the writings of its opponents, hmm? Strangely absent. Where did they all go? Maybe there weren't any such critics? But we know there were because some writings by Christian authors from the period mentioned them in order to refute them.
I wouldn't call a recognition of Christianity's zealous desire to eliminate all traces of heresy "naive." It's what we who believe in history call, well, history.
(6) You state that the Dark Ages never happened, and that the Catholic Church did not seek to systematically destroy writings and suppress knowledge of which it disapproved. You drop an impressive-looking list of names (most of which are Catholic thinkers and saints) that you assure me prove otherwise.
I answer: The onset of the movement toward reason was around the 11th century, according to observers like Bertrand Russell. Some timid inquiry within the rule of Christendom did occur, but only where it was utterly not a threat, or where it was twisted in order to be faith-promoting.
Catholicism had for a long time demonized knowledge itself. But human beings are human beings, and some were curious and inquisitive despite Catholicism's best efforts.
I guess your dismissal of what I write as "nonsensical" is conclusory and constitutes an entire "weasel paragraph" (as opposed to a "weasel word").
The fact that seems to present itself in striking relief is that you are a religious apologist who has not really looked at anything outside the scope of approved, or at least "safer," sources on religion.
Your kind and mine will always be at war (figuratively speaking, mostly), because you will not consider evidence that goes outside the safe scope of reputable ecumenical scholarship.
Either way, I don't think you'll get a lot of traction in ex-Mormondom, though perhaps you may; I can't speak for others. But what I can speak for is that all of us here are quite acquainted with the concept of deceit and evidence-tampering by religious leaders. We know how the lie works, and it is only a matter of application to apply it to other contexts.
Good luck in your studies.
gluby- you said "Your kind and mine will always be at war (figuratively speaking, mostly), because you will not consider evidence that goes outside the safe scope of reputable ecumenical scholarship.
Either way, I don't think you'll get a lot of traction in ex-Mormondom, though perhaps you may; I can't speak for others. But what I can speak for is that all of us here are quite acquainted with the concept of deceit and evidence-tampering by religious leaders. We know how the lie works, and it is only a matter of application to apply it to other contexts.
Good luck in your studies." about Z. Oh, preaching to the crowd, my man, you're preaching to the crowd. You've misread Z greatly. I'm sure he'll respond to defend himself!
gluby & Z- you're debate is very welcome on my blog. Just keep it to the debate, and not ad hominim. You don't know each other, or each other's actual background, and it's easy to misread things in the text. I'm sure you both, like me, just love the debate.
Uh oh!
In that case, sorry if I have misread you, Zarathustra. And sorry if I got a little, well, rough.
As you might be able to tell, I have little patience and get a little sharp-edged when I encounter what I perceive as irresponsible apologetics or smugly conclusory argumentation. My own context: I just got out of a law school environment filled with arrogant Mormons who don't know much beyond what they're supposed to, but can argue up a sanctimonious storm. Judgmental people. Tolerance is, of course, a high virtue, but I am one of those who are conscientiously intolerant of intolerance.
Since my entry into the ex-mormon blogscene, I've seen several people trying to "rescue" ex-mormons and "bring them back to the fold," often rehashing arguments so simplistic and purposefully ignorant of the concerns ex-mormons have raised as to be insulting. I also have gotten a little warlike at times in response to aggressive, intimidatory tactics by religious (and nonreligious, for that matter) conservatives in general -- not in an ad hominem manner, but certainly in a manner that comes off as an unremitting rebuke.
Be that as it may, my apologies if I have misjudged you and subjected you to some undeserved harshness. I imagine I was thrown off by some of your arguments contra my analysis, which were a bit oversimplistic and presumptuous of facts. (I'm not trying to criticize here -- just explaining my perceptions, wrong though they may or may not be, that led to my putting on a bit of war paint.)
I promise to behave, though I do not promise to be reverent. :)
Yeah, looking back, I see that I was unduly harsh.
I imagine, between being used to doing battle with those who will not argue honorably and my anger at the pain caused by the church, I open fired at the first thing that looked like an enemy uniform, as it were. (Not that I see the world in dualistic, us vs. them terms -- it was just a serviceable metaphor.)
A double apology for the tone, Zarathustra (and FTA).
Post a Comment