Go to God...And then go looking for WMDs.

Well, I know it's been a while, but I thought I'd be back to say hullo. It's been a crazy week with a stolen bike here and a broken car window there, and some general frustration with the world. But anything I wanted to write about regarding my petty problems has once again been overshadowed by something I saw at MollyMuses. From her post:

"The following was forwarded to me by a friend. A Facebook comment made today by Natalie Hess, a Provo-based real estate agent, read:

This is going to be bold, so be prepared. I’m so sick of hearing about lds people who are watching & reading anti-lds propaganda & then actually believing it as 100% truth. Seriously use your brains people! Don’t believe everything u watch/read. Consider the source, usually it’s begrudged people coming up w/ this crap!

Richard Dutcher, yes the Richard Dutcher who made “God’s Army” and “Brigham City”, replied:

And this is going to be unpopular. So be prepared.

You have a point, Natalie. But, as one who has studied and researched more Mormon history and doctrine than anyone I know (other than some scholars and published writer friends of mine), there is another side to that coin.

There are so very many church members who are familiar with only material published by the church/Deseret Book. And then they come into contact with something controversial from an outside source (not all outside sources are “anti-Mormon” by the way) and turn to Deseret Book or the church for an explanation and…guess what? There’s little to nothing.

And so they research a little more and find out not only that what some of these outside sources are saying is true, but that the church deliberately hid and/or lied about the information. And then they’re really confused. They’ve trusted in the church, they’ve sacrificed for the church, they’ve LIVED for the church, and then they find out that the church has lied to them, repeatedly.

It can be quite a faith shaker. In many cases, a faith destroyer.

Yes, there are anti-Mormons who lie and cheat (using partial information) and do anything they can to fight against Mormonism. But there are very many historians and scholars with no axe to grind who simply put forth material that is contrary to the church’s official story.

Some of us can manage to live with the cognitive dissonance of holding two contrary realities as somehow both true. Some of us can’t.

Be patient with those who are struggling with information that is shaking their faith. They’ll need your support. It is a hellacious ride which will most likely end in a very painful collision with reality.

It is also a painfully confusing experience to realize that the church you love and have sacrificed for is withholding information from you, while your “enemy” is telling you the truth. So very painful and confusing."

As always, I'm skeptical as to whether or not it was actually the Richard Dutcher sitting in front of the computer screen, typing away on Facebook, but I find that this makes for interesting conversation all the same. While I have great appreciation for Mr. Dutcher's courage in being so blunt and honest, the ensuing conversation was what caught my undivided attention.

A favorite highlight was the feigned surprise at 'ol Joey Smith being imperfect (an attitude that still manages to insinuate that he ultimately was) and Dutcher's clever reply of "I think if Thomas Monson sends you off on a trip and then humps your wife while you're gone you'll feel somewhat differently." (also, some poor bastard named Devin advises we "get on [our] knees and ask for it." hah!)

Humor aside, what I loathe is the attitudes and the generic "solutions". Generic is not a strong enough word. Here are the problems these people believe they are addressing:

1. People are looking at anti-mormon literature and believing it, which is stupid of them because ALL anti-mormon literature is the inflated fiction of disgruntled ex-mormons

2. People are looking for reasons to cease believing because walking away from something you've known, trusted and sacrificed for your whole life, while facing social rejection is waaaay easier than being mormon.

3. People have doubts and, being mindless sheep, have NO idea how to deal with them.

What multiple commenters advised we doubting Thomases do is go to God. As one who has "gone to God" on numerous occasions and come back with only an empty stomach and a feeling that I spent an hour in prayer, banging my head piously against the East wall, I feel like these people owe me something a little more substantial.

From a psychological perspective, here's what'll happen when you "Go to God" without being a truly objective judge: you'll get a "feeling" in favor of the church being true, because ignoring or rejecting what has more evidence but happened a long time ago is a more powerful catharsis (yeah, I'm going Freudian on your asses) than leaving the beliefs you've been socially punished for doubting, immeasurably reinforced for believing, and looking at the people closest to you and saying "I don't think I agree with your core lifestyle and beliefs anymore." Here's what I meant by that run-on: as a species, we're terrified of change. Our present status is what we know; it is cushy and comfortable to us. We adjust to the changes that are thrown at us, but to consciously invite change, specifically change that leads to unknown consequences and the possible loss of social trusts, is not something we do very naturally. More natural is to look at a conflict, like "My patriarchal blessing seems a little generic" and simply reject it. That burning you're getting in your bosom for rejecting the aforementioned statement is really your mind saying "yes, this is comfortable and safe, this does not invite change or any form of rejection from my peers. They will probably applaud me for coming to this conclusion. I like applause."

The fact is, when the leaders of the LDS church say "ask God and find out for yourselves" what I really hear is "ponder it and come to the right conclusion-*nudge*nudge*wink*wink* You know, the one we're spoon feeding you."

My response to all of this genericness is one generic word: Think. Think for yourselves, choose what is strong and sensible, not what feels fuzzy and soft, because if some one goes breaking into my proverbial house I'd rather have a Rottweiler than a Pomeranian. In other words, if I should explain why I believe the way I do, I want a solid argument that will mow an unwelcome invader into the ground. The truth is what it is, not what you feel it to be.

To close, our friend Devin also had this to say: "Isn't it great that testimonies aren't based in fact finding or knowing the exact truthful history of what actually happened?" No, Devin. That is terrifying. Basing everything that you are, everything you believe, everything you live, on something for which you haven't found facts is dangerous. People who live this way have been known to go looking for WMDs in Iraq.

Greetings

Hello (hopefully) smiling faces! I'm a newby to Outer Blogness and can now be found at the Main Street Plaza! As a taste for what I normally shoot for when I'm not over stressed and writing more (*boring*) personal stuff, here's my latest (and first) contribution to the USU-SHAFT site. If I ever survive this semester, I've got plans for more :)

Sisters in Zion

Quickie-Church Resignation

So, I just laid out the final version of my semester to-do list and realized that, once again, I've screwed myself into cramming 16 weeks into 2 weeks. Good thing I do my best work under pressure. Still, I wanted to pop over and say hello to the blogosphere since it's given me so much in terms of procrastination.

I've been checking out some great blogs, notably Molly Muses and Pure Mormonism. These are two very thoughtful and intelligent bloggers with very different styles and perspectives.

Anywho, I'm trying to blog a little to calm my nerves so I can focus on my mountain of homework (and for a graduate student, that means something very different than for an undergrad).

I've been thinking a lot lately about resigning from the church and having my name officially removed from their records. It's an issue on which I am very torn and looking for opinions and advice (come on you three followers, I know if I believe hard enough you'll hear me). In my typical fashion, I've broken it into a list (generously speaking) of pros and cons

Cons

1. My family will be devastated.

The church is everything to them and, despite our differences and arguments, they ARE my family. I don't want to hurt them.

2. I'm a doubting Thomas, no matter where I go.

I'm an agnostic with the road running solidly both ways. Yes, I lean toward atheism and 99% of the time, I'm sure the church isn't true. I'm angry at its sexism, racism and homophobia and I know logically that the Book of Mormon was never very solid for me. Still, there is that tiny little part of me that felt those things and believed them, that little part that is terrified of the eternal retribution I've supposedly earned for myself. Removing my name changes me in that sense, so I was never baptised, etc. I'm worried that I'll be empty (which is silly and holds to the elitism so often seen amongst members of the church. I was well brainwashed indeed).

3. It's like voting.

Does my one little gesture really make any tiff of difference to LDS, Inc.?

Pros

1. It's like voting.

One might not make a difference, but I still feel obligated to do my tiny part in affecting the numbers.

2. Freedom of Association

I don't want my name associated with an organization that so diligently impinges on the rights and free will of others.

3. The Church TM is unethical in plenty more ways than one.

The ethics of my profession prescribe that I not adhere to the practices of unethical organizations. The Church Inc.'s advocation of "Reparative" therapies for LGBT individuals makes them unethical in the eyes of my profession. I'd rather choose the APA any day.

4. I want to send a message

However small, I want the people who see my letter (even if there is only one who reads it) to know that I didn't leave because I was lazy or wanting to sin. I left because what they do is wrong, what they teach is wrong and because they are abandoning and abusing some of their most diligent members. I left because they have created a culture that is both exclusive and harmful in society.

So, tell me what you think. Most of my friends who have left (a small number in itself) report that they don't really feel any different. Is it worth it to send an angry letter to an office building full of elitist white men in expensive, tithing-purchased suits that will never give it a second glance? I really don't know.

Brace Yourselves, I'm Pissed.

Not that there are comments on my blog anyway (3 loyal followers, that might mean I'm questioning your existence), but brace yourselves for a personal entry, potentially filled with frustration and mirth.

I get frustrated with school. I get frustrated with people. Hell, I get ridiculously frustrated with the media, politics and media politics. All those things aside, I find that my levels of frustration are well within the normal bounds of average humanity. The one exclusion: The LDS Church.

Currently, I'm so frustrated, preoccupied and brain-dead, that I'm sitting behind my laptop, blogging to a seemingly empty Internet (excluding porn, since that makes up like 90% of the internet) as I watch "Child's Play" for the first time in my life. Despite the questionable acting, generic script and notably outdated effects, I'll admit that I was honestly jumpy and suspended until Chucky fully came to life on camera. Then it became a comedy. God, how I long for the 80s sometimes.

Anyway, I've been reading a bit about Brigham Young, and I have to say he was never a man of whom I was too horribly fond. After reading a sermon from his journal of discourses, I like him even less. In what I believe to be a therapeutic statement, I may even go as far as to call him an asshole.

Also, how does a 3lb. doll have the weight, strength and force to strangle a full grown man with a pair of heavy-duty insulated cables? And where did Chucky pick up that butcher knife? The cop doesn't seem stupid enough to just keep one in his back seat...

But back to my point: I go to read things like that (seriously, get acquainted with Brigham Young's wives and you'll wonder how he got a University named after him) to remind myself why I left the church. The church leaders have a consistent track record for only one thing of which I am aware: planting preconceptions of why people leave the church. One of the most common supposed reasons is rebellion. We leave because being Mormon is too hard. In a way, that's true, but it's not that I got lazy or just wanted to rebel (and yes, my sister genuinely thought for a while that I left just to spite our parents. It's been oodles of fun). I left because I was lied to, because I was tired of ignoring my common sense, tired of defending something that gave me nothing but disappointment and rejection in return. It gets exhausting and lying to yourself about existential things that affect the very fabric of your existence is indeed hard.

Unfortunately, when your entire family is Mormon, LDS inc. is the gift that keeps on-a-givin'. I want to live with my partner, but "it will break [my mother's] heart," because it's against church values. We're already living together anyway, just not formally. But fine; I want to elope because I'm plenty ready to be married to my partner and I want to live with him. BUT, "it will break [my mother's] heart." The place I pay rent for is both uncomfortable and unwelcoming. My roommate informed me that having a roommate is beneath her. But I have to stay in this situation because of the arbitrary values of a bunch of old white men in suites. My parents want me to have an actual wedding with actual people in an actual wedding dress.

I just want to fucking get married. And frankly, I don't want my family there. Whenever we talk about it, there's the comment "Of course we want you to get married in the temple but we're still happy for you. We still want to share that with you." In other words, "Congratulations on your honorable mention." I honestly don't want a wedding. I'm weird, I know, but I've NEVER wanted a big wedding. I've always wanted the minimum, because for me, it's about being married, not getting married.
I'm very private about my relationships, especially intimacy. The level of emotional intimacy I need to trust some one enough to commit to them for the rest of my life is not something I want to make a spectacle out of. It's my private business and I'll share it with my partner, thank you very much. That's just my style. I watched my extended family bitch about my cousin's wedding. Yes, his wife is a little high maintenance, but the elitist, "this is second-rate" attitude was palpable. I don't want any of that "It's not in the temple but it's still nice" bullshit ruining the happiest day of my life. It's a wonderful, damnit, and that's it. No buts about it.

So to summarize, my options that don't "break my [mother's] heart" are: 1. continue paying overpriced rent for a shack where I'm not welcome in order to satisfy the values of a bunch of men who don't know me or deserve my respect, 2. uh... well, I guess there's just the one. Nothing about this is fair.

Oh, did I mention the quote from my dad: "We'd rather you elope to city hall with a JoP and than move in together."
...But if I elope they'll be heartbroken. Because they'll miss my honorable mention wedding.

The old biggots in white suits are still dictating my happiness. Awesome.

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.

The Case for Freedom FROM Religion

If anyone has any suggestions for a direction to take this sucker, message or comment. I'm afraid I have too much going on in my head to keep anything organized. It helps if I have specific topics to keep everything from getting too caddywampus.

Suppose we'll start here:

Glenn Beck. Fuck you.

No, but in all seriousness, Glenn Beck stands as an awe-inspiring reminder of the dangers of free speech. He is the voice of the ignorant and small-minded. Granted, he has moments that make me want to shake his hand, and others that make me want to roll his head.

I'm ashamed to say that I abandoned my principles today (as an atheist I'm not supposed to have any anyway) and sat down to watch Glenn Beck. I contributed to his viewership and I am so, so sorry.

Amidst some bunk and planted definitions from his very Aryan audience, the topic of today's episode dealt with why Freedom of Religion doesn't mean Freedom from Religion.

Here's a fun activity: go to this website, hit ctrl + f, and type in the word "religion." 3 matches right? 2 of them are in titles on the page. Now type the word "God." No matches? Interesting. Here is the part of the Constitution that mentions religion, the 1st amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances"

Right there, that's it. Those 44 words comprise the American obsessions of freedom of religion, speech and the press. What Beck and so many of his followers are calling for is a religious government, a Christian government. Not a theocracy, but a Christian government. The only way I can understand that is that they want to declare Christianity the official religion in the U.S. Never mind the impracticality and total lack of hope for making members of each denomination agree on policy, let's look at the legality and principle.

1. The establishment of a national religion means that only the religious will have a voice. It negates the existence and opinions of the non religious. Keep that in mind when you recall that over 90% of practicing physicians and roughly 70% of psychologists are not affiliated with a particular religion.

2. In a rather redundant statement, the establishment of a "religious government" discounts the opinions, beliefs and thoughts of the people who are not religious. Again, keep the doctors and scientists in mind. You know, the people who brought you little conveniences like modern medicine? What Beck is calling for is tyranny of the majority.

3. Justice is blind. TRUE justice is blind. It does not know race, sexual orientation, national origin, biological sex, gender-identity, etc. It knows ACTIONS and it judges them with complete objectivity. The justice for which Beck and his cronies are calling is fake justice, it is tyranny of the majority. They claim that they are being oppressed by the non-religious minority, but the reality is that the majority opinion is not always right. Large numbers of people are not always a source for good ideas. That last reference had 4 million members at one point. But, seriously. I'm really not struggling for examples.

4. Plain and simple, the establishment of a national religion is a direct violation of the first amendment. To declare Christianity the primary religion of the United States would require the passage of a law, which Congress is to make none of respecting the establishment of religion and the free practice thereof.

Because I'm a bit of a nerd, I was researching Joseph Goebbels earlier today and some interesting parallels struck me. I'm certainly not suggesting that the government has a branch devoted to propaganda (a triumph for the first amendment), but it is ridiculous to say that propaganda does not still exist. To say that any news media is "fair and balanced" is a silly notion. Everyone wants to sell issues of their paper, everyone wants viewers and everyone has sponsors. To varying extents, you have to say what they tell you to say and show what the people want to see. Even if that's not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

While I think extreme patriotism can be dangerous, I am proud of my heritage as an American and I am limitlessly thankful for the priceless rights outlined for me in my country's constitution. My problem is that people like Glenn Beck threaten those great rights.

I'm certainly no purveyor of apocalyptic, doomsday ideology; on the contrary, I think America's best years could very realistically lie before us. That is why I hesitate to make this comparison, but I think it is vitally important to learn from the mistakes of the past and if we cannot learn from WWII Germany, then history has all been in vain.

Anti-semitism was a growing ideology in Germany, especially during the depression that followed WWI. People typically dismiss anti-semitism as "bigoted" but I believe this does not dismiss it from warranting examination. It is the same breed of sentiment that oppressed blacks in the U.S. for so many years, the same mentality that fuels hate crimes across the globe. It is even akin to the ideology that fuels radical Muslim groups. It is a hatred for a particular group of people for reasons beyond known experience and fact. It is hatred because of difference in race, religion and/or lifestyle. Yes, Western "lifestyle" is fuel for extremist hatred, so don't think I'm just sitting here pushing the so-called "gay agenda." It is time we learned from the hate of our predecessors.

There is also the very prevalent argument that America was founded on "Christian values" and as a "Christian nation." The latter is something I have already addressed, but the former is something I find both ignorant and offensive. My values are no different than the average Christian: charity, hope, compassion. Faith is not one of my values because there are too many ways in which it is dangerous and misplaced. I see it as a form of submission to an unseen, inconsistent force.

To the religious right: we are not attacking you. We are not asking you to practice your faith in secret or to abandon your values. We are asking you to allow us the same courtesies you have. We are asking for equality. For Justice to be blind, she must not be religious.

Stop teaching religion in tax-dollar funded schools. Set us on equal ground. You can still pray there, but don't ask us to. You can still trust in God, but don't ask us to.

Stop telling the LGBT community they can't get married. They are not hurting you or trying to destroy your marriage. All they want is the same legal right you have. Nothing special. The catharsis of coming out is a costly one for so many people. Let them have a little peace and a white pickett fence with the consenting person of their choosing.

If all goes well, my next entry should address the idea of the "persecution complex." We'll see when it happens, school has been absorbing my life.

N.D.

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.