How You Become the 'Bad Guy'

Last week the LDS Church excommunicated activist and Ordain Women founder Kate Kelly. The fact that she was condemned by her local church authorities for apostasy is not news. What was news to me was the response the LDS church leaders released late last week claiming that questioning and doubting is something that is allowed within the Mormon community. "Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding," the statement reads.

I don't want to talk about Kate Kelly. But I do want to talk about the church's official statement. Thanks to the Internet, many of the questions that were ignored or denied by the authorities of the church can now be discussed.

It has been almost seven years since I started this blog. I started with a very political motivation. At the time, I was wading around in what is now commonly labeled "tea party" ideology. Ron Paul, The Constitution, Ezra Taft Benson, The Constitution, Cleon Skousen, The Constitution. I have since dipped into discussions of religion, among other topics. Over time my views have evolved toward a more liberal ideology, and back toward a more moderate view.


I don't consider myself a talented writer, but I have always enjoyed making the attempt. When I was a college student, I would write letters to the university paper, as well as the town rag. It is a way for me to process my thinking. When I began discussing/debating, at first it didn't seem to be a problem that I made political/religious points; not in the period where I supported conservative causes and followed church doctrine strictly. Later on, in so many cases, trying to talk about these questions caused friction and discomfort among those with whom I interacted in real life (after I was not a conservative ditto-head anymore).

Strangely enough, most of these same people were uncomfortable with what I would write online as well. So... it's not advisable to talk with people face-to-face about topics like politics or religion, but it's also not a good idea to write about them online. This has more often than not caused me much worry and apprehension, and in recent years, I all but stopped writing on this blog. So it was surprising to me to find out that these discussions were somehow welcome at church, of all places. I guess I started blogging because I didn't have a place to go with all these questions. And when I started asking, I found it caused conflict online and offline. I guess I assumed if I couldn't talk about it with most family members, and if I couldn't talk about it online, then bringing it up at church probably wouldn't be a good idea. If only I had known...

The only arrow I had left in my quiver that allowed me to get away with some of my unorthodox behavior and actions was that I was a lifelong active mormon. But since I haven't attended for a few months now, and I don't intend on returning anytime soon, I have no ability to talk about these things in a familiar setting online. To the believers, I am now Kate Kelly; I am the apostate; I am angry; I am whatever they need to label me so as to not have to actually respond to the problems I am pointing out. An ally wouldn't ask these questions anyway. And we don't associate with people like that, either. But yes, we allow for questions....

IF.... you use the right tone
   .... you ask in the right way
   .... you ask in faith and not doubt
   .... you take no for an answer
   .... you come up with the same answer as the leaders in the end

BUT ... don't talk to just anybody
         ... don't post questions/doubts online
         ... don't believe anything that isn't correlated church material
         ... don't assume there are any answers in this life

After listing the countless stipulations for when someone CAN raise questions, there is very little room, and then we all know the right answers already, so I can't really figure out what the questioning is for.

The truth is, for years I had this blog, I listened to Mormon Stories, I was a member of a private Mormon Stories message board, and later part of private Facebook forums. I listened to more podcasts. I read church history books. I wrote blogs that for some reason I hoped no one in the church would read. I met dozens if not hundreds of bloggers who wouldn't even use their real names because they were afraid to be found out by family members and peers. They were afraid possibly to lose their employment with BYU, or be released from callings at church, or looked upon with distrust by family and friends. Seems like strange behavior in a church that "welcomes doubts and questions."

As for myself, I found answers, but they were not the ones I expected, and they often were in conflict with what was said in official church sources, if they were addressed at all. I have been doing this for years, along with tens of thousands of others with similar questions, online. If questions or doubts were welcome in church, there would be no need for places such as these to exist. If they were welcome, local church leaders would actually know about some of these questions and how to respond to at least a portion of them. Why would we feel like we had to go into private hiding places, where we could feel safe behind a cloak of anonymity, like a drug or sex dealer, just because we didn't have that unshaken testimony? 

The simple fact is, what the church, and what my church associations wanted was silence. Silence is so much easier. Believing without questioning is so much more smooth. You see, they are never uncomfortable with religion as a topic; only when the discussion falls in line with what is acceptable at church, or is considered faith-promoting. They send tens of thousands of young men and women out into the world to profess their beliefs on religion throughout the globe. However, the communication is usually only one-way. We have the truth, listen to us, but we aren't interested in anything that falls outside our "truth." As for politics... you are basically always welcome to bring your political views to the table as a Mormon. Mormons are very active citizens, and are very informed on political matters. You usually just can't question war, christianity, capitalism, republicanism, conservatism, scripture, income inequality, patriarchy, misogyny, heterosexuality, or traditional marriage (see: mormon plural marriage). I'm sure I'm leaving some important topics out.

The LDS church is saying questions are welcome because it sounds good for public relations. I welcome anyone to come visit with me about some of the questions I have. I have never been uncomfortable having those kinds of discussions. But there have been so many arbitrary rules imposed on when it's okay to discuss, that I honestly don't know if it's ever okay anymore. So I would love to see it. I would love to find out where the space is for people like me, during regular church activities, where we are allowed to talk about evolution, science, Book of Mormon historicity, gay marriage, Book of Abraham translation, priesthood/temple bans, Adam/God doctrine, blood atonement, Book of Mormon translation, Doctrine and Covenants / church history revisions, etc. I have been out of activity for months now, and have never discussed any of these questions with any true believers within my local church community - the community where I was born and raised. It's uncomfortable to talk about, I understand. I just don't want anyone pointing the finger at me as to why no conversations are happening. I don't point the finger back at my faith community, either. I point it straight at the fact that questions and doubting are NOT welcomed. Not really. Not by most Mormon leaders.

I know of a person who left the church long ago, who will not have anything to do with his family because they still are associated with the Mormon church. I always thought there must be something really wrong with him. Sure, he doesn't want to be Mormon anymore, but why can't he let his family alone? Now I wonder if I understand a little better. I never wanted to be labeled and classified as the enemy. But the longer I don't have contact with my church counterparts, including my family, the narrative that they use to describe me and explain the why's and the how's of it all support the narrative that those who leave the church (who can't leave it alone) are deceived, are unhappy, are sinful, are angry, are whatever we need to label them to support the ideology that the LDS church is perfect. It's sad. I can't imagine not wanting to have anything to do with my family, but I can see how both parties could be going down that path.


Communication is difficult. Certainly, if the antagonism continues to grow, either silently or outwardly, it will not be all their fault. But it will not be all mine, either. It's unfortunate that we let these wedges fester because it is too uncomfortable to talk openly about difficult subjects, where things are not always black and white.

I was raised with the idea that telling the truth was the best policy. I guess telling the truth never was that easy. I guess if you insist long enough, you eventually become the bad guy. 

I Want Nothing but the Truth....but.....

January 5, 2011

A few weeks ago one of the parents of a boy that comes to daycare every day gifted us some different spoils from a recent hunting excursion - jerky, sausage, ground meat, etc. Usually his gifts are savory and mouth-watering. However, this batch of jerky did not impress me, nor did it impress my wife. Before we even consumed half the bag, we threw the rest away.

Flash forward to yesterday, and a scene that is familiar to just about anyone comes into play - this same parent asking my wife and I, "did you eat the jerky? Did you like it?"

I am a person who really hates to be disingenuous, and yet in situations like these, I know what my response is going to be.... "Yeah, it was great!"

Growing up, especially in the LDS church, I was taught very well that lying was wrong, and that there is no gray area between right and wrong. Thus, in my very literalistic, unexperienced way of viewing things, I understood this as meaning "never lie for any reason, ever!" Of course, as I continued to gain experience and knowledge, I realized that this black and white thinking didn't really apply in all circumstances.

However, I would have thought it would apply in God's one and only true church. How could a lie (or the corollary, not telling a lie but just not telling the truth either) ever serve the members of the church? But it seems that even for God, telling the truth can have undesired consequences.

I am reading a biography of Spencer W. Kimball by his son Edward, and while the book can often times be interpreted as potentially faith-promoting, Ed Kimball tries to just tell things the way they are. Thus, you can find quotes like this one from Dallin H. Oaks (p. 190), "Even though something is true, we are not necessarily justified in communicating it."

To further illustrate this point, Edward points out disagreements various leaders had over the publishing of certain church histories by the LDS Historical Department, such as The Story of the Latter-Day Saints. Apostles Ezra Taft Benson, Boyd K. Packer, and Delbert L. Stapley objected to including things like how Brigham Young chewed tobacco (to deaden the pain of bad teeth), or how the Word of Wisdom came about at a time in the nineteenth century when other people were also adopting similar health guidelines.

I guess even though I have tried to form a more nuanced view of the world, it is easy for me to hold the church up to what I consider a higher standard. If the church is going to go around saying it is the only place where people can find all the truth, then they had better tell the truth, and/or not cover it up.

I have read all sorts of materials and books that would probably be considered "anti-mormon" by your average member of the church. At first it was a little disconcerting, but I just could not turn away. While my views of the church have changed rather significantly over the past several years, I don't think anything I could read could be as trying to my faith in the hierarchy as knowing they try to cover things up ostensibly to promote faith and protect testimonies. Knowing that this happens throws everything else up into the air.

But maybe the church just sees itself as an extension of myself - not wanting to admit that the jerky stinks, to save face, or to preserve a healthy reputation. But we are not just talking about lying to someone who wants to know if you liked their jerky. These are questions about who will or won't be saved, or whether or not there is even a life after this one. That's why I think the church has to be held to the highest standard possible. But one still has to wonder, is it always better to tell the truth? Are we, as well as the church, ever justified in telling a lie, or not telling the whole truth? I was always good at asking questions that have no definite answers...

P.S. I am not trying to say I think the church is not true (as nebulous as the term 'true' can be for me most of the time). I am only trying to point out that even with questions of belief, there may not always be one right and one wrong answer. I think the leaders recognize this, but don't want to admit it openly, probably for the same reasons they don't admit a lot of things.

A Cantankerous Myth

May 31, 2010

Coming from an upbringing that insists constantly to be the custodian of truth, I find it interesting that some in my religious heritage do not even seem to begin understanding the erroneous nature of some of their most basic beliefs.

While my church purports to be politically neutral, it is often difficult to disconnect religion from politics completely. Sometimes the two are one and the same. In this context, one of the ideas that has affected me most negatively is simply this: you can't be Mormon and a democrat.

Just for the record, I am not a part of any political party. But while some might point out the simply benign nature of the above statement, it is obvious that among many of your average mainstream LDS people, this is basically a play off of a statement made by one of Mormon conservatives most beloved disciple, Ezra Taft Benson: "No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction." Today we could just insert the word "democrat" for "socialist."

Many conservatives want to use words like those of Benson to contend that being a so-called liberal means you are not worthy, not faithful, not patriotic. It seems that such individuals are unaware of the history of the church, yet they sometimes take this idea to such an extreme that they cannot tolerate anyone who has a distinct point of view. Progressives/liberals are enemies to the causes of God and country. They are a cancer that undermines the foundation of our constitutional government. I have personally experienced this lack of understanding and tolerance from people, some of them very close to me.

While I am despised by some for just acknowledging that it is okay for people to have different points of view, whatever the religious background, the viewpoint that a Mormon has to be connected with republicanism/conservatism is simply false.

Take this opinion from Hugh B. Brown, at the time a member of the church's First Presidency:

"Every person is entitled to his or her opinion, which will be respected as long as he or she respects the opinions of others. Individual General Authorities have the right and privilege to express their own opinions, which, when expressed, represent their opinions only. There may be different opinions among the General Authorities, but we are united on the basic principles of the gospel. When it comes to expressing an opinion on some other organization or some political or quasi-political question, one hopes that the authorities of the church will have the good grace not to be extreme, to keep near the center of the road. All my life I have advocated that people in and out of the church should think through every proposition presented to them. Positions may be modified as time passes by discussing them with others, but there should be no question that both liberals and conservatives in the church are free to express their opinions."
** from "An Abundant Life: The Memoirs of Hugh B. Brown," p. 131.**

More recently it is well known that the late James E. Faust, also an Apostle and member of the First Presidency, was a Utah democrat.

I was especially miffed to just recently find an article from 1998 of an interview with Marlin K. Jensen, another democrat, and current church historian:

"There is sort of a division along Mormon/non-Mormon, Republican/Democratic lines," says Elder Marlin Jensen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy. "We regret that more than anything -- that there would become a church party and a non-church party. That would be the last thing that we would want to have happen."

How is it that I could be taught for years that being a democrat was akin to being an apostate when this is simply not true? Did most of the individuals from whom I heard this idea even know any democrats personally? Even if they feel strongly about their conservative views, are they justified in ostracizing and rejecting those of different opinions? Is their behavior in any way Christlike? Coming from a tradition of being cruelly persecuted as Mormons, it is jaw-dropping to see Mormons do an about-face and persecute others just because they have differing political views.

Jesus taught us to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us. I do not really think that differing opinions are really justification for classifying people as enemies. We should be able to appreciate and respect one another. We should be glad that not everyone has the same point of view. We should expect that even with the most righteous of motivations, different people will see the world in opposing ways. As President Brown said, as long as we are respectful, we deserve others' respect.

I am convinced that the conservatives I know have good intentions. Their reasoning is generally sound for believing the things they do. But there is no justification for judgments of large segments of society because of their politics. Defending the indefensible in this way makes their position appear tenuous and weak, for they refuse to even engage in discussion of anything but that which merely goes along with what they already believe. Such an attitude has the potential to be just as damaging to the country as any supposed progressive cancer.

On a day when we honor those who have sacrificed their lives and families for our freedoms, it would be good to remember that those heroes died in defense of the rights we all enjoy to think and believe as we choose, black and white, liberal and conservative, democrat and republican, christian and atheist.

Happy Independence Day

As we take some time to reflect on the great country of which we are a part on its Independence Day, I hope we can all read, and reflect on the words of our nation's most important documents - the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution.

Ezra Taft Benson spoke of the declaration's signers:
"At the conclusion of the Declaration of Independence, they wrote, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” This Declaration was a promise that would demand terrible sacrifice on the part of its signers. Five of the signers were captured as traitors and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the Revolutionary War; another had two sons captured. Nine died from wounds or from the hardships of the war. The Lord said He “redeemed the land by the shedding of blood” (D&C 101:80). Nephi recorded that the Founders “were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations” (1 Ne. 13:19)." [Ezra Taft Benson, “Our Divine Constitution,” Ensign, Nov 1987, 4]

Several of the Constitution's framers wrote of the a divine hand that intervened in the country's affairs; how the document would not have come about without that divine guidance:

Alexander Hamilton, famous as the originator of The Federalist papers and author of fifty-one of the essays, said: “For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system, which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interest” (Essays on the Constitution of the United States, ed. Paul L. Ford, 1892, pp. 251–52).

Charles Pinckney, a very active participant and author of the Pinckney Plan during the Convention, said: "When the great work was done and published, I was struck with amazement. Nothing less than the superintending Hand of Providence, that so miraculously carried us through the war … could have brought it about so complete, upon the whole” (Essays on the Constitution, p. 412)."

"During his first inaugural address in 1789, President George Washington, a man who was raised up by God, said: “No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the affairs of men, more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency” (First Inaugural Address, 30 Apr. 1789).

Certainly, we live in a great nation. Let us give thanks to God for the freedoms we enjoy every day. Let us use those freedoms to continue improving the country each day in whatever way we can.

As the month of July opens, I also am brought to reflect on the sacrifice of our pioneer forbears. Those people that gave so much to keep the Church together, who crossed the great plains and suffered tremendous losses because of their great faith. I hope we can pay tribute to them and be grateful for their lives. Suzy, Camden, Charlize, and I have been singing pioneer songs all week, and it really is great to remember them and sing about their lives together.

I leave you with a great quote from President N. Eldon Tanner:

"It was all part of God’s plan—the coming of Columbus, the colonization, wise men raised up to frame the Constitution, Joseph Smith prepared for his part in the restoration of the gospel, even the persecution which drove the Saints to the Rocky Mountains where the Church could continue to grow.

"What does all this mean to you and me as individuals? It means that God, as our Father, made all these arrangements for you and me. We were part of his eternal scheme. And so it is not enough merely to observe these various anniversaries, but we must recommit and rededicate ourselves to uphold the convictions and the principles upon which the blessings we enjoy are predicated. We too must be prepared to sacrifice, where necessary, to keep our freedoms inviolate. My father used to say: “The true way to honor the past is to improve upon it.”

"Therefore, we should love God more. We should serve our fellowmen better. We should keep all the commandments. We should be better prepared as parents to teach our children to pray and to walk uprightly before the Lord, and to assume their responsibilities. It would be tragic if for fear of the challenge involved the descendants of those who gave so liberally and sacrificed so much shrank from the duties of their day and time.

"On the other hand, a willingness to work for needed reforms and a better world would guarantee for us a special place in history as it did for them. We should be constantly striving for improvement of ourselves and our surroundings." [N. Eldon Tanner, “Pioneers Are Still Needed,” Ensign, Jul 1976, 2]

Happy 4th of July and Pioneer Day everyone!!