A (hopefully) Thoughtful Response to Boyd K. Packer

In the words of Elie Wiesel,

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human
beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality
helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never
the tormented."

So, I will not be silent. You are probably wondering what all the ruckus is about (or probably not). Well, here's a video to get you started. Full talk here, for those of you worried about context.

Frankly, putting it into context doesn't help anything for me. President Packer's words are still as biting and hurtful in the full talk as they are in the segment. I am frustrated and alarmed that he can preach such ignorance from the pulpit, a pulpit with literally millions of listeners. Four things stood out most (hopefully my contempt is minimized for the sake of sound argument).

1. You're not born with your gayness
What he said: "Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and the unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone?"
Why it hurts: If not God, who do we credit for bringing homosexuality into the world? This is truly a step backwards because it reinforces the old-school idea that it is the fault of the individual or his/her parents. Some one did something horribly wrong that resulted in this person being gay. God didn't do it, you did it to yourself. The problem is that we don't know what we did or when we did it.
Why it is wrong: It is the norm for same-sex attraction to emerge around the onset of puberty, when everyone else is starting to feel opposite-sex attractions. What could a child (A CHILD!) have done to be labeled "impure and unnatural," and punished with loneliness for the rest of his/her natural life? This kind of logic tells us that we are inherently flawed but we cannot understand why. It is the equivalent of putting a 6-year-old in time-out for 24/7 and not giving him any idea why he got there. All he knows is that he is a bad boy.
And, of course, the scientific evidence that sexual orientation is largely genetic is ever-mounting. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Holy Grail: a lecture from a BYU professor of biology on the biological evidence for homosexuality.

2. Your gayness can be cured
What he said: "You can if you will, break the habits and conquer the addiction and come away from that which is not worthy of any member of the church...'Wo unto them who call evil good and good evil...'"
Why it hurts: Imagine a person who has spent his entire life as a devout mormon. He's struggled since childhood with an attraction to males, but he never acted on it. He breaks down and tells his family when he is 19. They send him to repairative therapy, telling him he can be "fixed." What is wrong with him? He is a gentle, compassionate person who is trying to be honest with his family and himself. Hearing from your family and from the church leaders you trust that you, a well-adjusted, decent human being who strives every day to be Christ-like, need to be repaired.
Why it is wrong: Repairative therapy does not work. Here are the APA's definitions and explanations on their website. Here's a report from their task force. This isn't even the anecdotal evidence that people seem to love so much. I can point you to at least 3 people (just off the top of my head) who have been through repairative therapy. Not only are they still full of gayness, but they concluded "therapy" emotionally and psychologically beaten and scarred. Not everyone in the LGBT community has the "luxury" of being bisexual. At least I have some hope of pleasing these old white men in suits because I can marry a member of the opposite sex and be perfectly happy. That's the difference though, I can be happy. I get to choose my partner because I love him, not because I have to. The only paths LGT individuals have that are "Packer-friendly" are 1) to suppress their sexual orientation and fake a happy marriage to some one they are not attracted to or 2) spend their life celibate. The first is a clear violation of the church's principles of honesty and integrity, while the second is a violation of the laws of nature. Humans are intensely social animals and to spend life without sex, one of our most intensely social experiences is unhealthy. Even more unhealthy is to spend our lives alone. We need to be cuddled, to hold hands. In developing children, touch causes the brain to release the adrenocorticotropic hormone, needed for growth of brain and body. Without it we whither away. Do not ask the most social beings on earth to spend their entire lives alone. A just God would not ask that of only some of his children, nor would a compassionate God ask it of any.

3. Voting for your gayness is stupid and futile
What he said: "[T]here are those today who not only tolerate but advocate voting to change laws that would legalize immorality. As if a vote could somehow alter the designs of God's laws of nature. A law against nature would be impossible to enforce. For instance, what good would the law against--vote against the law of gravity do?"
Why it hurts: First off, do I even need to address how ludicrous and insultingly unworkable his comparison to voting against gravity really is? Because I will if I need to. Packer is saying that same-sex marriage is completely immoral. Let me rephrase that: two people who love each other, committing to be love and support each other for the rest of their lives, through good times and bad, is immoral. Two people finding love, comfort, acceptance and understanding in one another amidst a title wave of intolerance is immoral.
Why it is wrong: He is passing judgement. Judgement upon something he does not understand. He is also reiterating the age-old argument that homosexuality is unnatural and against the laws of nature. Please refer to the above "Holy Grail" link for my response to that. There is also the notion that such a "law against nature would be impossible to enforce." In his words, "not so." If it's legal for gay people to get married, gay people are going to get married, the world will keep spinning and the Mets will still suck. It's that simple.
4. If your gayness wins, we all lose
What he said: "History demonstrates over and over again that moral standards cannot be changed by battle and cannot be changed by ballot. To legalize that which is basically wrong or evil will not prevent the pain and penalties that will follow as sure as night follows day."
Why it hurts: I'll admit, this one is more ludicrous than than its predecessor, so much so that it is hardly as painful as a pinch on the arm from a 2-year-old.
Why it is wrong: Conversely, this section has me stumped for where to begin. First off, history is full of civilizations that thought they were doing what was ok. There was a lot of conquering going on and history is written by the victors. That's really all there is to it. If we conquer our enemies, odds are that we're going to brag about how "righteous" we were and how "wicked" they were. But the truth is, history as we know it can be pretty biased and the Founding Fathers were actually dicks sometimes. Slightly visceral reaction, right? Well, there might be the same reaction if I say the Israelites conquered Canaan and justified their war with religion. It's ok, it's the same with Islam and Catholicism. My point is, "History demonstrates" is a highly inadequate platform for an argument. We can certainly learn from events in history, but the only thing history seems to really "demonstrate" is that people try to justify everything with religion.
I would also like to add a mention of the Church's old stance against blacks. Brigham Young said: 1) "We knew that the children of Ham (African Americans) were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them" (JoD, vol. 2, p. 172).
2) "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so" (JoD, vol. 10, p. 110)

Elder Packer, a brave president issued the Emmancipation Proclaimation and freed the slaves, and after a long and courageous struggle, Black Americans have achieved the equality they deserved all along. Though you have before, I dare you to support Young's statement now. I dare you.

This law of which he speaks can be changed by a ballot and someday it will. I have faith (yes, faith!) in the rising generation of Americans. I cling to hope that they will outgrow the trivial and intolerant lessons of their predecessors, just as those predecessors came forward from the racism and intolerance of their own parents and grandparents. Intellectualism is my religion and more of my peers are seeking it. The time for these old bigoted lessons in sheep's clothing is limited.

I believe in progress. I believe in people.

Between Heaven and Hell

I know what you're thinking, empty blogging space, "You said you'd go chronologically and cover your journey out of the LDS church!" Well...I'll get there...eventually. Right now I have something interesting that occurred the other day. And don't worry, it's religion-related; I'm not going to bore you with my less-than-exciting life of cleaning animal poop in a pet store day in and day out while Godzilla breathes fire down my neck between cigarettes. Sorry, I kind of hate my job and can't wait for school to start.

Anyway, I found that I am a child in limbo and it is highly possible that I will remain their until the end of my days. I was an insider, the overwhelming majority of my extended (and obviously immediate) family remains "on the inside," and my adult life and most of its favored people remain on the outside. I am caught in between.

I recently accompanied my partner to his parents' house where some of his father's cousins were visiting. One of them asked my partner what it was like to grow up out here and his response included the phrase "it's very Mormon out here." Well...that is a simple fact. It's Utah. There are a lot of Mormons. Mormons will tell you there are a lot of Mormons. Most of his friends growing up were not LDS and he knew people who wanted nothing to do with him when they found out he was not a member. Sadly, this is a common experience and my partner is certainly NOT the first person to communicate it.

What was odd was that I found myself wanting to defend the people, maybe because I am finally learning to separate my immediate family from my Mormon stereotype. I'm not proud to admit that I ever placed it upon them, but hey, things have been kind of rough. Anyway, my family are not Utah Mormons and that is something that I, unfortunately, say with great pride. All I could say to this inquiring man, who I will probably never see again was, "It's not supposed to be like that. Southern Mormons are so different than the ones out here. It's not supposed to be like that." And this is true. It isn't.

So here is my question: How is it supposed to be? One of the phrases I struggled with most as I left the church was "By their fruits ye shall know them." I saw the fruits of a large concentration of LDS members and they savored strongly of bitterness. In the region of the church headquarters, the city of its best-known university, and the two states with its highest concentration of faithful members, I saw a culture that even my still-devout family did not care for. To utilize the metaphor of the olive tree, it seemed to me that the tree had become wild. This idea was further cemented when I watched the church's actions in support of Proposition 8.

My quandary is this: who are the true mormons; the ones in the South who are loving and accepting, or the ones out here who are members of an exclusive club? Yes, it may be evident that the Southern mormons follow more closely the teachings and actions of Christ, but who are the Mormons? What are they really about anymore?

N.D.

We Were the Victims of Ourselves, Maybe the Children of a Lesser God

My original plan was to tackle this thing chronologically, but I've decided the following post has its place and that place is right here. Also, I must ask forgiveness for utilizing a popular song lyric as the title, it just seemed so fitting.

In a recent post on this quite interesting website, a friend of mine mentioned that most mormons seem to believe that people exit the church because they were offended.

"And you know what, I was offended. I was (and am) offended that the LDS Church would have me worship a god who perpetrated the above mass murder [refer to 3Nephi, 8 & 9]. And not just any god, but Christ--the prince of peace. On the cross, Christ (according to Luke's gospel) plead with the Father to forgive his killers. Are
we to honestly believe that this same Christ, just moments later, would burn, bury and drown 16 cities and their inhabitants? "

This comment, combined with my recent first viewing of this disturbing documentary has spurred me into writing this post.

It took a surprising amount of energy to keep myself from becoming truly angry and bitter when I left the church. In fairness, I must admit that I was not wholly successful, but have nevertheless made my finest effort in maintaining civility and understanding, offering respect where it is given in return. But I digress. The point is this: I'm angry.

Leaving a religion like Mormonism is rather difficult because you have all these glorious promises (being w/ your spouse for eternity, etc.) that suddenly disappear. Most would argue that they disappear because the one to receive them has rejected them. Not so. I'm afraid I must convey a bit of personal information in order to make my point. I've mentioned previously that I am bisexual, and I mean that in the true sense of the term. I haven't gotten curious after a series of negative experiences with the opposite sex and it's not that I'm just open to trying anything. For me, the experience of attraction to either sex is identical and has been since the onset of puberty.

Like any good closeted conservative christian, I spent my entire adolescence fighting and repressing it, an experience that I believe to be psychologically and emotionally debillitating. The religious explanation was that in the pre-existence (a concept fairly unique to mormons), I was a particularly strong spirit and was "blessed" with the challenge of overcoming this temptation that not everyone would have to face. I was born with it and had to accept that I would die with it. My mission was to find an obedient and loyal returned missionary to marry in the temple. After a number of what I believe to be valiant efforts, I encountered a particularly difficult experience in which I was forced to face my own repressed sexuality. When I told my boyfriend at the time just what I was (though I had no intentions to act on my inclinations toward females) he rather lost his cool. After 24 hours of silence and a phone call to his mother, he declared that he still loved me and could accept me. How noble, I know.

His mentality was frankly, not much different from my own, so his overreaction was exactly what I expected. Still, I felt slightly indignant that he should be so burdened by this very personal ordeal of mine. It seemed a bit too noble for him to declare he could still love me when he knew nothing of my personal experience and even used it as a method of abuse. In a way, I owe him for the pain because it woke me up. All he really did was emphasize what the church had told me all along: I was only worth the time if I rejected and ignored that part of myself. Still I fought it and after the relationship ended, I found myself praying about it, long after I thought I'd come to peace with the issue. "Heavenly Father," I said, "If it is your will, I will carry this burden for the rest of my life. If it means I must spend my life alone, I will do so if it is your plan for me." I was completely submissive and can honestly say that I had never said a more faithful prayer in my life. My answer was a very clear "No, you have proven yourself. This is no longer your burden to bear and I release you from it." What a powerful experience that was for me. I rose from my knees as the tears streamed from my face. Two weeks later, I discovered what a magnificent lie it had been; my attraction to women was no less than my attraction to men. My promise of freedom was only a reinstallation of the chains, after a decade of already-tested faith and unceasingly vigilant and damaging repression. My sexuality was no longer a struggle when I let go of God. Only then did I understand I was worth loving exactly as I was and am. It was neither pride, nor self-love. It was simply self-acceptance, one of the most potentially saving events in the human psychological experience.

So, why exactly am I angry? Most faithful mormons who hear this experience respond immediately with "Well maybe you misinterpreted it." Why thank you, I didn't even think of that a 479th time. Of course I considered that, but how do you misinterpret something that is as clear to you as the morning sun? I should also add that I questioned it at the time of the prayer and was given a firm "Yes." on my interpretation. "Well, we don't understand everything in this life." How is that a good enough answer when the contrary makes perfect sense? I was insulted to find everyone, my bishop, my friends and my own family, questioning me after a lifetime of being called a "spiritual rock." In the moment that something contradictory arose, I was the variable, because a lying God is not possible. God lied blatantly to my face, people. It wasn't a priesthood blessing that didn't come to pass, it wasn't a feeling, it was a promise, in words, made directly to me.

I'm angry because I was told that any part of myself that contradicted the teachings of the church was something less. RMs were typically frightened of a woman whose ultimate goal was s a PhD in Psychology and who dared to argue against ill-formed arguments and rationalization. When I disagreed with the church on Proposition 8, I learned I could be considered for having my temple recommend revoked. I wasn't considered because I didn't live in California and because the practice was too controversial to become widespread. Nevertheless, I became the metaphorical racist grandma that everyone hopes will fall asleep at the family reunion. I was expected to be silent for thinking that people who didn't share my religious beliefs should still share my rights. My politics were based on my desire for others to practice their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in peace, just as I wanted to mine; separation of church and state in order to protect the religious and agnostics/atheists alike. I was frowned upon and that struck me as fundamentally wrong.

I was often told that I thought too much or too deeply, simply because I needed a reason for everything. I needed to understand the deepest "hows" and "whys," but when I came to a contradiction, I was simply "thinking too much." Many of my questions went unanswered and some people that I asked became uneasy around me. I'm angry because I was lied to and because I lied to myself. What a genuine crime to tell a curious child she is thinking too much!

In contrast, it seems impossible, even to those who know me best, that I might be on to something, that I could think for myself. My mother often responds in anger, "I blame [aforementioned boyfriend] for this. I know you say you got here by yourself, but I think he had so much to do with it and put things into your head." In a sense she is correct, but not the one she intends. Another comment I receive is "I blame that stupid major of yours. Sorry, I know you love it, but I blame it for this." How nonsensical! This is probably a reiteration, but I have a bachelor's degree in psychology and am focused primarily on research into disabilities/disorders and their physiological bases (again b/c of my desire for tangible evidence). These comments of outrage do not make sense to me. The people who encouraged me (and I thank them) to go to college, are condemning something that encourages thought and evidence, simply because it contradicts the religion in which I was raised. Whether I am truly of high intelligence remains to be seen, but that is what I was so often told growing up. Why now, when I am finally beginning to trust myself and that intelligence, am I pegged as a mindless zombie, easily swayed by boys and professors? Suddenly the overthinker was incapable of thinking for herself at all!

Most of all, I am angry because of the time I lost. I spent far too much of my life being soothed by the notion that it would all get better when I died and went to be with God. I could have had greater appreciation for the present and what it was trying to teach me. For too long did I expect the second coming of Christ, eliminating the necessity of worry over the welfare of our planet. I thought I was humble, when in reality I was far too proud. It is not possible to be humble with respect to others when they themselves are "nons" and you belong to the "only true church upon the earth."

Along with lost time, I am angry for the joy I missed. I have one life. I am small and insignificant in the grand scheme of the cosmos. At the same time, I finally understand what a miracle is. For life to evolve the way it has and to a level of intelligence such as ours is surely a rarity in the universe. As Carl Sagan said, "Every cell is a triumph of natural selection and we're made of trillions of cells." Surely that is a beautiful thought. I am the result of aeons of evolution and millenia of cognitive adaptation. To me, that is so much more awe-inspiring than anything I was raised believing, especially doctrines that are such a source of hate and disagreement. How I wish I could have known that so long ago, rather than suffering under the self-loathing and guilt that my religion so readily reinforced.

What matters is that I know it now. I am angry and I was offended, but I am also joyous to have a grasp of my own capabilities and to finally give credit to my own intelligence and the awesome intelligence of my species. I can finally have a relationship with some one I find wholly appealing (agnostic argument style has always been kind of sexy to me...) and I can finally love myself and feel loved by some one else for everything that I am. Everything from my sexuality to my intelligence, to my tomboyish quirks can be not only acceptable, but beautiful. It is incredibly freeing to say "I believe/know this," knowing that you got there on your own, even against the odds. And that what you believe has tangible, measurable evidence behind it! I do not know everything, but I feel that I am finally free to attempt to. It is in my personality and written into my very DNA.

What's goin' on in the world today?

Goodness me, I hate unpacking more than I hate mushrooms slathered in mayonnaise and cabbage. So, here I am, blogging.
It's been interesting so far: broken water heater, broken shower head, the university that sent me an acceptance letter can't find my application. Ah, yes, what a lovely day indeed.

There's also this weird business of being cut off. It's both liberating and terrifying and I have to say, it sometimes treads the fine line of disownership. Emotionally, anyway. But, it's the Internet and I don't need to get into that stuff today.

I spent far too much of my day yesterday investigating some material on my former religion, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, affectionately known as the Mormons. I don't wish to go offending, of course, but I found a great deal of the material quite interesting. My queries resulted in an idea for a series of blogs, essentially addressing my relationship with the church, as well as my views and reasons for leaving. I'm not trying to offend anyone, this goes against my nature. I'm just doing what I do, which is simply writing to write. I'm opening my brain to the airwaves (so to speak) and wondering what literary samples may unfold. There's also the fact that this is not really something I have covered before. Before I start into anything, let me say this: I do not wish to be labeled an "anti-mormon." This term is far too black-and-white and suggests some relationship of villain and victim. Far beit from me to try and pick on a major religion and multi-million dollar corporation. (not that I'm a bailout package, either *ba-zing!*)

No, I do not consider myself "anti-mormon," such a title is absurd, especially because I am one of only a handful of people in my extended family who does not participate in the church. As for atheists in my family, I believe I have a cousin-in-law who would back me up and that's it. Oh, and my parents each have 6 siblings. Yes, it gets lonely. As for immediate family, I am easily the only one to wander off on my own. Also a bit lonely at times.

Now, to start, I'd like to begin with the generalities. Let's start with organized religion. Generally, I am not a fan. Buddhism is probably the only one I really find appealing and this is because people seek it out if they wish to convert. In order to become a Buddhist, you must first have what is known in English as "The Thought of Enlightenment." Then you seek out the Dharma, or doctrine. Should the urge strike you after learning the basics, you can take the Bodhisattva vow. But, I digress. All I'm really saying is that proselytizing isn't really their style and I like that. They support the idea of free will and of people finding the truth in their own time. I also think several other religions have borrowed teachings and ideals from Buddhism, which is why they are probably one of the only religions to which I will profess liking what they think.

Other than that, I find organized religion (parts of Buddhism included) to be inherently flawed. Because I live in a primarly Judeochristian society (dominantly christian and, more specifically mormon) I am addressing these things from such a standpoint. While I may have some opinions about Islam or Hinduism or Taosim or whatever, I can't say I know enough about them individually to have a valid opinion. For that reason, consider them excluded from the diatribe that should follow.

The inherent flaw that I see in the bulk of organized religion is its assumption that people can all follow one path and adhere to one code. Do I agree that all people should adhere to the conduct of being good neighbors and not killing or stealing? Generally yes. But of course there are situations where even these do not apply completely. Case and point: a home break-in and the Heinz Dilemma respectively.

The fact is that people differ with widely differing experiences. Universality is a flawed assumption because each situation is unique in one or multiple ways.

But N.D., you may ask, if you're an atheist, how can you say morals exist, let alone that we should adhere to them? Don't worry, that's the subject for the next post.

For now, I've gotta unpack like a crazy person, but I'll be back. Fear not!
Hasta Luego!
N.D.