Being Alone

I was reading this book, by Austin Dacey today and I was inspired by this section:

"The belief in a personal deity - a being with whom the believer can have a personal relationship - is a denial of the private self.  If there is such a being, then it knows us better than we know ourselves, and we are not alone (even when we might prefer to be.)"

So, are we then free to decide what is best for us or obligated to defer to the will of the deity? Are our thoughts our own or are they controlled? A deity inclined to be always with us - always monitoring our behaviors, thoughts, and feelings, couldn't possibly be above controlling those thoughts and emotions, could it?

I had a mini panic attack when I read the words "we are not alone." As an introvert, the thought of having insufficient time and privacy to sit with my thoughts and think about what I think literally makes my palms sweat. When I was a member, the concept that my every behavior, thought and feeling was observed, recorded, and judged (see Book of Life) offended me - not because I had a guilty conscience - but because it made me feel violated.  Apparently the thought still makes me feel violated. But, immediately after I had an indignant rant to myself about the "right" I believe I have to observe and interact with nature and the universe as I please and privately (thank-you-very-much), I thought, "I shouldn't want to be alone.  Being alone is the great human fear.  I should want to take peace in the thought that there may be a loving deity ALWAYS with me." Fortunately, I was able to quickly talk myself out of this reasoning because I really believe that it should be up to me to decide when I want to be alone with my thoughts and emotions and when and with whom to share them.  If there were a deity, I'd prefer one who waited to be invited into my head.  Why should it be black-and-white - all alone in this scary, bleak world or constantly watched and critiqued? (The obvious answer, we all know too well, is that teaching someone that God is watching them is a great way to control people right down to causing them to CENSOR THEIR OWN THOUGHTS and doubts.)

It annoys me that thoughts like the one in blue above even pop into my head to begin with.  I hate that I still, after 10 years away from the Church, censor or confront myself in this way - that I replace my own thoughts with fallacies, learned too well in my youth, meant to keep me in the Church and believing that it is what I want or what I need to feel peace and joy.  What a waste of time and mental energy to have to think/talk myself back out of those fallacies!  What better use might I find for those precious wasted moments?  What reflections do I miss out on when my normal stream of consciousness is so abruptly and rudely interrupted by these programmed thoughts I've been taught?  It just makes me so darn mad (fucking bat-shit angry!).

Positive Psychology

I just got out of group therapy.  Today's topic was Positive Psychology.  "Think yourself happy" and all that.  A few weeks ago, I would have told you that optimists are just delusional and that happiness is an illusion.  I was in a bad place.  But now, I want to bear my testimony of Positive Psychology.  I know that it is true.  I know that you can find temporary happiness (or at least a lightening of depression) just by thinking about the shit* that makes you happy or HAS made you happy in the past and the small positive things that happen during your day. (Today I was running late for an appointment but I was spared a scolding because the other person was just a hair later. Rock on!!!)

So....I was thinking that in this spirit, maybe we could all think of some positive consequences of time we spent in the Church and/or from the struggle getting out.  I'll start:

1. If I hadn't been raised in and then pushed back against the Church, I don't think I would know myself nearly as well as I do.
2. Being raised in the Church made me the feminist I am today.
3. I recognize fake and forced happiness and how this is different from the real happiness that comes with being authentic to oneself and others. 
4. I have had the opportunity to see that my mother and other members of my extended family aren't fixated on my religious/non-religious status and love me despite my angry atheistic leanings.  I am extremely grateful for this.  I know that many of you (including my own husband) haven't had the same luck. 
5. It kept me out of trouble? Maybe.  I was a pretty good kid anyway and I don't remember being overly obsessed with the rules.
6. I recognize the difference between being good for goodness sake and following my own innate humanistic conscience and not because I've been burdened with guilt or striving toward some eternal reward.

So, what do you say?  Can you help me see more positive consequences of having been a member?  Also, feel free to chime in if you were a member of other faiths/traditions.

*Sorry. I say "shit" when I mean "stuff" because I have 20 years clean of not swearing that I mean to get back by swearing A LOT until I am 40.

The (Imaginary/Fucking) War on Christmas...or why I am sick of the whiny Christian majority playing the martyr. Poor Babies.

I saw this on a Mormon Mommy Bore Blog and now I am pissed. Basically, it says,  "Oh hey, wouldn't it be great to behave like very un-Christian little assholes and gum up the works of the ACLU by sending them a shit-load of Christmas spam mail?  You know, to punish them for stealing our "right" to force our irrational beliefs and holiday celebrations on the sum total of society and representing 'the atheists' in the legal War on Christmas^TM?"

I don't believe that there IS a War on Christmas.  (I would love to know what you all think about it.) What I think IS happening is that non-believers and/or members of non-Christian faiths are sick of seeing our government and government-funded agencies/organizations/schools submit to the will of the Christian majority who think they are special and deserve special treatment.  They already have voting power. AND they are already placated/wooed with Christmas songs playing in every goddamn store in the country from November 1st until January 1st. When was the last time you heard I Have a Little Dreidel playing in the mall?  Do they really NEED nativity scenes on government property my tax dollars build and maintain? Are nativity scenes in their own yards and on church property not enough?  Do they really NEED their children to celebrate a religious holiday at school?  Do they really NEED conifers strung with lights and cheesy decorations to be called "Christmas" trees? Is "Holiday" tree, which could be pretty all-inclusive for the faithful and the non-faithful alike, really a huge concession or sacrifice? It's not like Christians invented the whole lights-on-trees idea so why do they think they have a "right" to lay claim on it now?  Martyrs, martyrs, martyrs.  Poor, poor babies.

I think it would be "clever" (by clever, I mean childish but fun) if we flooded this blog post with comments explaining why religious traditions don't need to be flaunted all over the public sphere and why it isn't a "right" to have a nativity in front of capital buildings and courthouses. Remember, "Just don't be rude or crude."  This woman and her readers need an education. 

I'm (kind of) sorry to be scattered and ranty.  I think I'm back!

Because we said so, that's why.

From this New Era article:

Why do we call ourselves the only true church?

The Lord has declared that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (D&C 1:30). This restored Church is true because it is the Savior’s Church; He is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). And it is a living church because of the workings and gifts of the Holy Ghost. How blessed we are to live at a time when the priesthood is upon the earth and we can receive the Holy Ghost. -Elder David A. Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

***So, we call ourselves the only true church because we've declared ourselves the only true church in this scripture specific to our (only true) church and we can know that this scripture is true because it is given specifically to the only true church? 

Do they think teenagers are stupid?  Are LDS teenagers incapable of recognizing circular reasoning? Or, just too distracted by and enamored with their self-declared leaders to listen to/read carefully the answers to simple, reasonable, and worthwhile questions? 

From the same article:

Why don’t I get answers to my prayers?

With even your strongest faith, God will not always reward you immediately according to your desires. Rather, God will respond with what in His eternal plan is best for you, when it will yield the greatest advantage. Be thankful that sometimes God lets you struggle for a long time before that answer comes. That causes your faith to increase and your character to grow. - Elder Richard G. Scott of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

***Does it though?  Really? In at least one case I know of, God's silence caused faith to diminish and nagging doubts of Gods existence to grow. In addition, it resulted in the defiant and willful use of critical thinking skills against the warnings of my (self-declared) (only true) church leaders.  I have to wonder, if God knows that this will be the consequence of God ignoring prayers (because he knows us all quite intimately) why would he withhold communication? Is it part of his plan that some of us will lose faith and leave the (only true) church? Does he set some of us up to fail? That would be a really dick move, would it not? 

Absent

I've been missing around here for almost a month.  I've been missing from the comments sections of other blogs as well.  There have been some things and stuff going on and the long-story-made-short is that those things and that stuff were of higher priority than ranting blogging about my former religion.  At first, I really tried to find the time to at least keep up on new posts from all of the great ex-Mormon blogs.  But, at some point I was too busy and too emotionally and physically exhausted to even do that.  I've really missed reading your blogs and I hope to get caught up on your posts quickly.

Despite my absence, my average daily traffic hasn't really decreased that much.  I appreciate everyone who still clicked over to see if I had posted.  I'm sorry that I hadn't.

That said, I am slowly finding my legs again and I intend to get back to my bitter, former-Mormon, ranting-and-raving self soon (but also gradually).  I will start by reading and commenting on other blogs. Then, I'll get inspired and start writing here again.  

I have missed this blogging community! For reals. Amen.

Some Boyd K. Packer gems on Church history

Emphasis mine.


"There is a temptation for the writer or teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful."


"Some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy."


On LDS historians: "One who chooses to follow the tenets of his profession, regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for 'advanced history', is himself in spiritual jeopardy. If that one is a member of the Church, he has broken his covenants and will be held accountable."

I suppose truth might not always be faith-promoting or useful for keeping the members in line and in the dark. But still:

Anger, Symantics, and Criticism of Religion (specifically Mormonism)

Anger. Good? Bad? Maybe I feel guilty about being angry only because I was told that "angry apostates" are bad and one should never converse with them. Alternatively or additionally, maybe it's because society tells us that religious belief is not to be questioned or insulted.  It is "sacred" and therefore above reproach. (Uhhh, it isn't sacred to me.  It's sick.)  To criticize someones religion is to personally insult them. Criticizing a religion is somehow a bigoted, hateful, prejudicial, discriminatory, and "persecuting" exercise.  It can't be a simple form of healthy skepticism, trusting ones intellect, relying on reason and logic, or trusting ones own conscience when it differs from scripture or the word of a self-declared string of "prophets". I mean, it's one thing to question religion personally and privately, but one simply cannot be permitted to share their discoveries or interpretations with others in hopes of helping a friend or family member, or curious and searching stranger, to see the light. So, a blog critical of ones former religion is labeled as "anti-Mormon" when in fact it is merely an examination of how significant time spent in the LDS Church has affected or still affects us after leaving said church. It isn't "anti-Mormon" it is just ex- or former-Mormon in nature.  At worst, most of the blogs I have read are anti-LDS church, anti-LDS policies, anti-unhealthy LDS social behaviors, or anti-LDS gospel and "revelation." I have rarely seen a blog directly critical of Mormons as a group or individual Mormons (other than those anointed uber-leaders who are clearly representatives of the church).

Am I angry?  Hell yeah! But, I am sick of feeling guilty about it and being labeled as anti-Mormon or an angry apostate. I am merely a critical, disapproving "apostate" who happens to be quite angry about some things.  I have plenty of really good reasons to be angry at the LDS Church.  But, the LDS Church isn't just its people.  It is an organization, an entity, a business.  Can one be bigoted and hateful for being critical, not of a group of people or individuals within that group, but of an organization or business and its mandates, methods and policies? Are you a bigot because you criticize a Church for being bigoted and repressive?

I hate Walmart.  I hate shopping there because it is not a pleasant place to shop and I prefer its best competition (Target) for its greater cleanliness and stock of better items.  Even when Target is more expensive, I still prefer to pay a bit more in order to have a shopping experience that doesn't creep me out.  But mostly, I hate the Walmart business model.  I hate that they don't treat their employees well or support their right to unionize. I don't want to give a company with a disgraceful business model my money so that it can stay in business. Does that make me bigoted, hateful, prejudicial, or spiteful?  I don't think so.

I don't hate Mormons. (Other than a few I went to high school with, but that wasn't because they were Mormon, it was because they were bitchy or assholey and I would have hated them if they were atheists as well). I don't disregard Mormon opinions, beliefs or values.  I don't oppose the right of Mormons to be heard in the market of ideas. Everyone has equal right to explain their point of view. I just hate Mormonism as a way of life and system of shared beliefs and values that I find reprehensible.  I hate the LDS church as an entity and business because it is discriminatory and preaches hate from the pulpit and spends members tithes (or interest on accounts that contain those funds) to build multi-billion dollar malls and resorts without asking the members to vote on it.  I hate it because although it is part of one of its Articles of Faith and a temple recommend question, the LDS Church is not "honest in its dealings with its fellow man" and instead behaves poorly and then does its best to cover it up, then deny it, then attempt to put a positive spin on it.

I guess I am angry and former-Mormon (which I think is more honest and fair than labeling those who leave as "apostates" in order to impart the negative connotations of the word and stir up caution and fear). But I don't think these are logical reasons to discount my point-of-view or refuse to even hear or acknowledge it. 

Side note: Can anyone think of another group better than Mormons at playing the martyr?

Fake it 'till you make it

I feel like faking it until you make it is a trap.

To gain a testimony, you are supposed to read the scriptures then pray with a broken heart and a contrite spirit about whether the gospel is true (and a bunch of other more specific stuff about HF, Jesus, and JS and the restored church- see link).  Then, you will be given a testimony through some confirmation from a still small voice.  But, if you don't get that confirmation then you aren't sufficiently broken-hearted or contrite or you haven't read the scriptures enough or prayed enough.  SOMETHING is wrong with you.  It's not that god doesn't exist or that he doesn't love you.  You must not be truly ready to receive the spirit into your heart.  So, then what?  Well, you fake it 'till you make it, of course.  You keep reading the scriptures, and praying, and trying to be more humble and modest, and most importantly, paying a full tithe.

Well, that shit could go on in an infinite loop.  And all the while your self esteem is getting squelched, guilt is eating you alive and your desperation to hear that still small voice or feel the burning in your busom is increasing. Maybe, the desperation reaches a threshold.  That threshold is when you either say, "Hey, I really honestly gave that my best shot (and my youth) and you know what? I don't think any of that crap is true and I am sick of feeling bad about myself" and walk (or run) away. OR, you finally are so mentally and emotionally exhausted, broken and desperate, that you convince yourself that some minuscule warm, fuzzy feeling was your confirmation - Hallelujah! 

Now, some lucky souls are so willing to believe whatever they are spoon-fed (hey, it's easier than thinking, right?) that they pretty much get that confirmation after their first round of scripture study and prayer and they never question it again.  Others go through the loop infinitely, faking it all along.  Some number eventually reach their individual threshold and experience one of those two outcomes.  But, the point is, the faking-it-'till-you-make-it-potentially-infinite-loop traps a lot of people in the church indefinitely and it keeps the rest in (playing and paying along) far longer than it should.

I feel like I was totally dooped.  I recognized the circular nature of the gain-a-testimony-prescription quite early, maybe at 7 or 8 years of age, and I STILL WENT THROUGH THE LOOP for another 13 years or so.  WHY?  Would I tolerate such a loop in my science?  Say someone said "Perform this experiment and if you don't get the desired results, you suck. Keep trying until you get the results I want you to get," Would I do so?  Hell no!  That's not good science.  You form a hypothesis and you test it and you accept that your hypothesis is usually wrong, but if you are lucky, the data lead you in a more interesting direction.  Then you start again with a different hypothesis.  But if you don't get the result you expect or hope for (or must get if you are ever going to get the fuck out of grad school) after, like, 3 trials or so, you do something different.  Maybe you give up completely on that experiment, but at the VERY LEAST, you change a variable. "The definition of madness, is doing the same thing and expecting a different result."

I pretty much live my whole life by the scientific method. So, why did I stick with the testimony loop?  Well, because people like to please each other, especially others we love or whose love sustains us.  We want to believe what those beloved people tell us, to believe what they believe.  We want to fit in to our communities.  When the people we love most in the world seem to affirm that the gain-a-testimony loop is the way to go, we'll probably go that way.  We fake it until we make it, or until it breaks us.

Here's to being broken and breaking free! Here's to the scientific method!  Here's to the application of reason to our lives!

The Virgin Lips Club

At BYU, I had a boyfriend, from Orem, who proudly belonged to something called The Virgin Lips Club.  I nearly shot 2% milk out of my nose when this Guy and a couple of his friends were discussing this with my roommate in my kitchen before Guy and I had started dating.  Coming from California, I'd never met a boy who was proud to have made it through high school without kissing a girl.  On our first date, I got clarification that he actually intended to wait until he was engaged to kiss a girl. En-fucking-gaged!  This is extreme even for BYU guys, no?  I thought this was utter nonsense and took it as a personal challenge.  Some time later I sort of sneak-attack kissed him then apologized profusely (with fingers crossed behind my back).  He adopted a never-look-back attitude about the whole thing and left the club without honor but with full gusto!   Six months later, we were in our respective bishop's offices trying to...ummm...clear up a few things* so that Guy could go on a mission.  Whoops!

Did any of you belong to the Virgin Lips Club? 

*Post-edit: None of those things were significant enough to keep the boyfriend from going on his mission on schedule and my bishop only asked me to skip the sacrament for one week.  I think he was kinda confused as to why I felt the need to bring it to his attention.  It seemed a little overkill to me too but the boyfriend was freaking out, pretty much as one might expect from a boy who felt that he needed to save his first kiss for the girl he was going to marry. 

"Formerly" Sweet Spirit

"She's a sweet spirit" or "She has a sweet spirit" is usually something an RM says about the girl he's known for all of 4 weeks when he believes he's received "personal revelation" that he should marry her.  Alternatively, this may be something said about just about any nice, single Mormon girl by just about any other Mormon.

I think "Sweet Spirit" is just code for a girl/young woman who is submissive, malleable, perpetually and impossibly agreeable, and really spiritual.  Am I right? Well, those are the connotations it has for me. It wasn't exactly something I aspired to.  But, I was "accused" of having a sweet spirit on more than one occasion.  (I put up with a lot of shit when I was younger.)

A few months ago, I got into it with someone, let's call her Jen.  During the argument (which took place on FB of course), she said "you used to be so sweet."  Hot-doggity if you want to piss me off, accuse me of being formerly sweet.  It's a double insult! It implies I was sweet at one point, which is not something I ever desired to be, AND it further implies that I'm now...well...what?  Bitchy? Assertive? Opinionated?  Apt to argue with you or tell you when I think you're wrong or just being an asshat?  I don't know.  In the case of Jen, I know exactly why she'd had the impression that I was sweet at one point.  I was terrified of her and most of her family and I didn't feel like I was "allowed" to speak up to them.  Or, perhaps more accurately, I didn't feel like it was my responsibility to stand up to them.  So, I let a lot of things slide - like gossip, misogyny, lies, back-handed "compliments" to name a few.  But, at some point, I got FED UP and I started calling them out when I disagreed with them or when I felt they had wronged or insulted me.  So, now I'm not sweet in their eyes and I prefer it that way.

"Sweet" seems so hard to define when applied to a girl/woman.  After all, we females are not literally made of sugar, spice, and everything nice. And, no one has ever licked me before declaring me sweet.  Certainly, no one has ever licked my spirit before declaring me to have a sweet one.  It's weird, this term of endearment/disparagement.

If you have another take on the term "Sweet Spirit" or if it has other or different connotations for you, I'd love to hear all about it.