"Your difference is the medicine the world needs"

A few years ago I attended ACTF, a college theatre conference. There were acting, tech and writing competitions, workshops on all things theatre and performances by colleges from the western United States. I was there as a new play dramaturge for the 10-minute play writing contest, and it was awesome.

While I was there, I saw a play called Dear Harvey. The title references Harvey Milk, the first openly gay politician. It was a mosaic piece about the history and experience in the gay community, and was of the most incredible pieces I've ever seen. Most of us walked out crying at the injustice and pain experienced by this community.

One line in particular stuck out to me, "Your difference is the medicine the world needs." Harvey Milk encouraged people to come out to their friends and family because he knew it was harder to hate a group of people, to deny them rights if a friend or family member is a part of that group. That has been true in my experience. I was never very comfortable with the church's stance on gay marriage, but I dealt with and defended it for a while because it was what my church told me to. But as friends came out to me, I started to realize I couldn't just sit on the sidelines. If I didn't speak up for my friends, I was siding with those who would deny them rights. It was knowing and loving my gay friends that turned me from a fence sitter to a gay rights advocate.

Recently on a Facebook thread (I spend way too much time on Facebook) someone posted his experience of coming out to a church friend and the reaction he got. I thought it was an awesome story, and share it with permission.

Nic D.
"Today at church in a Father's Day talk a member went off about how society is going down on the backs of the iniquity of homosexuals everywhere, gays are no better than animals and gay marriage will destroy families and gay parents destroy children. How evil homosexuality is and how ashamed they should be for corrupting things God intended otherwise. Given my internal compass I am not offended by this but I looked around at everyone and wondered who else could be gay and hearing this. I tried to be cured and was in a hetero marriage that ended in divorce but I am a Dad as well. After sacrament I took this brother, he is a good man btw, in the hall and talked with him. I just told him I was gay and started testifying of the deep struggles I had for years trying to be cured. How much I love my kids and try to be the best Dad to them. How I did not choose this and I have an undeniable testimony of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ including a strong relationship with them. And an even deeper testimony that they have always known i was gay, have never treated me differently and loved me even though I am gay. His face turned more and more pale white as I talked. I looked up at him to notice at the end tears streaming down his face. This is a brother I have befriended, helped through struggles, helped with his house and moving, helped him anytime he needed it and always smiled and asked how he was doing. He said, "I just can't stop crying I feel the spirit so strong right now. I am so, so sorry. I, I, I didn't know I mean you have kids, I mean I need to repent so bad. You're gay? That entirely changes everything I have ever felt or been taught about gay people." He hugged me and kept crying. And apologized several more times. I told him even more than me I worried about others who heard it and their thoughts and feelings. He said "I will go to the Bishop and ask him how I can correct this, so I can share what I have learned and my apology." So he did. Contention comes from one place, not God. We too easily politicize everything but souls are not political pawns to be played with. They are beautiful, intrinsically worth it children of God! Miracles happen as we reach out in love and understanding ONE soul at a time! I know this works as we have the courage to be ourselves and testify of tru principles"

There's Someone Wrong on the Internet! (And they might be Mormon)

This comic has been floating around Facebook, and I love it. I describes my life entirely too accurately. I know I'm not the only one; if people didn't want to talk about what they thought social media would not exist. I was talking with my mom about social media the other day and she said that even on cooking sites she goes on, people argue heatedly over the merits of recipes. People like to say what they think.

There are many who say social media is dangerous and pointless. I don't deny that it can eat up large chunks of time if you let it, that it can hurt social skills if people use it as their only source of interaction, and that you can find garbage that you don't want to see. But none of those things are exclusive to social media; you can waste time and find things you are uncomfortable with anywhere, and you can isolate yourself without social media. I believe there are major benefits to social networking sites. They allow people to find communities of like-minded people who don't live in their area. They allow for the spread of information (I get a lot of my updates on feminist issues and Mormon issues from various Facebook groups0 as well as vetting for that information. With hundreds of people looking at something, you are more likely to be made aware if it is inaccurate or made up.

The church struggles with social networking sites, and the internet in general. It hasn't seemed to realize that anything it has ever said, in private or public, is available somewhere. They can change or remove information from the sources they control, but not everywhere. For example, they edited a talk given by Bro. Packer a few years ago in general conference. In the Ensign and on the video-feed on LDS.org, it was different then the original. But people had recorded and transcribed the original, so you can still find it and use it. The same is true with historical information, church policy that isn't readily available through church sources (like parts of the Church Handbook of Instruction), personal experiences with the church and many other things.

Another problem I've noticed is encouraging members to bear testimony using social networking sites. I've seen many members do this, and generally it's pretty innocuous. like posting quotes or conference talks. Generally the only comments they get are from fellow Mormons agreeing with whatever it is. That's more preaching to the choir then missionary work, but whatever. Occasionally I see things that only Mormons will get, like someone who took two weeks and posted an Article of Faith as his status every day. He was trying to prove that Mormons were Christian, but since only a few actually talk about Christ, and many (number 10 comes to mind) are straight up confusing if you aren't Mormon (and sometimes even if you are.) Many non-members would look at that and just say "huh?" I guess confusion can lead to questions which could lead to missionary work, but often if I see something I really don't get on Facebook I just ignore it. Then you run into the problem of people reacting in anger if someone does ask a question about their religious posts, because they aren't prepared to deal with those questions.

But the biggest problem I've seen is people who, in an attempt to make the church look good or defend it actually end up making it and themselves look bad. This seems to happen mostly when trying to defend the church's stance on gay marriage and other social issues, or when trying to prove that the church is right for everyone. I've heard people say that they don't care if they hurt other people's feeling because they are defending what's right. I've heard God is prejudiced, that people who leave the church will be punished and all kinds of things that make people look bigoted and cruel and make the church look like an institution that cares more about being right then loving others and following Christ. In trying to defend the church's policies, the church comes out looking more bigoted then it did before they tried.

This was brought home in a recent Facebook thread on my wall. The person who did the most damage is in dark blue and I'm in dark green. A friend took this picture because it was astounding how much this person did not know about their own faith. They claimed that the church's stance on sin and homosexuality has never changed, and continued to say that after being shown changes in the CHI. They refused to believe that a man can be sealed to two living women, claiming anyone who did that was doing it without the knowledge of the church. Again, this is something the church has a policy on. They give permission for a man to be sealed a second time if he is legally divorced. This person simply did not know enough about their own religion to defend it well and because they were uneducated they ended up looking really stupid and making the church look stupid. How is it missionary work to say that the church doesn't do something when it does? And how are you a credible missionary if you don't know your own religion?

For a while now I've been thinking that the church should stop telling people to bear testimony on social networking sites. People are used to doing so in church where everyone nods, and even if someone disagrees they generally don't say anything. People rarely have to defend their testimonies in church. The same is not true online; not everyone shares your beliefs and since it is a public forum, questions and comments are fair game. In my mind if you put something up in a public forum, you should be able to explain it and answer legitimate questions. But the irritation that arises when someone is asked to explain something in their testimony is interesting; what exactly do they want to happen. If someone is interested, wouldn't they ask questions. And if those questions were shut down in anger, wouldn't that push people away from the church? Until people can discuss their testimonies intelligently and understand the church well enough to know what they are talking about, I'm not sure social networking is the best missionary tool.

It Doesn’t All Come Down to Joseph Smit

In conversations with people about my concerns with the LDS church, they often say “Well, it all comes down to whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or not. If you believe he was a prophet then your concerns don’t matter.” That mentality is supported by this quote forGordon Hinckley “That is the way I feel about it. Our whole strength rests on the validity of [the First Vision.] It either occurred or it did not occur. If it did not, then this work is a fraud. If it did, then it is the most important and wonderful work under the heavens.” I’m not really sure what this argument is supposed to prove; I guess the idea is that either I believe in Joseph Smith and should therefore should just let my issues go or I don’t believe in Joseph Smith and am therefore an apostate and not worth listening to.

The problem is, that argument doesn’t hold up. Belief in the church does not come down to whether Joseph Smith was a prophet or not because the church he started is incredibly different from the church that exists today. If we were still the church of Joseph Smith, we’d be polygamists, with very different temple experiences, living the law of consecration, speaking in tongues and seeing visions. Women would be giving blessings, running their own organization with their own money and decision-making power and lesson manuals. Members of the first presidency and quorum of the twelve would disagree, and do it in public. Doctrine and manuals would not be correlated, conference talks would not be edited to put them in line with orthodoxy. These are just the things I cam come up with off the top of my head. The church has been through major changes since the days of Joseph Smith. So to my mind it is entirely possible to believe that Joseph Smith was inspired without believing in the modern church. That isn’t to say I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, but as far as the truth of the modern church goes, it’s almost irrelevant whether he was or not.

So why did Gordon Hinckley made a statement like this? Why do members tell me the same thing? If Mormons aren’t actually living the church Joseph Smith started, why is he the one people always come back to? Part of me wonders if it’s because it’s an easy blanket statement to make. It’s easy to say, “Well, if you believe this part, then you should just sweep all your worries under the rug because one part being true makes it all true.” The First Vision is an awesome story; it teaches that anyone can have remarkable experiences, that God answers prayers, that anyone can do important things and matter to God. That’s a lot easier to accept then things like polygamy or sexism and racism in the church. The hope appears to be that if someone believes enough in one part, they will believe in the whole.

But this, in my experience, has a tendency to backfire. It has for me anyway. There are parts of the church that I still believe, that feel right to me at this point in my life. There are parts that feel wrong to me; I mean inherently wrong in my soul, and have always felt that way. If that were okay; if I could say “I believe in x but not y” and have the be accepted, then I could stay. And the truth is, everyone doesthat. No one does everything, no one believes everything. How many Mormons say the keep the Word of Wisdom and eat meat every day? How many don’t pay fast offerings? How many have a problem with polygamy? How many believe in evolution? You get my point. But publically it’s called being a cafeteria Mormon, and you catch flack if you express doubt or ask questions publically. So, even though every Mormon does it, there is no space for vocalizing it in Mormonism. So people leave because they don’t believe it all, and have been told it’s all or none. So if they don’t believe it all, they feel there is no place for them. Many go from believing in Mormonism to believing in nothing connected to religion. The all or nothing model sticks, and it makes people leave the church. Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to the church, since they care so much about numbers and maintaining activity, to move away from the all or nothing mentality?

The One Thing I Regret About My Marriage

Three years ago I was sealed to my husband in the Oakland Temple. His whole family was there. Mine was not. My grandparents were not present and neither were my sisters. My grandparents are not Mormon and my sisters were not endowed although both held temple recommends.

 I grew up hearing that the only valid marriage was in the temple. And since I live in the United States, I also knew that if I chose to do a different kind of wedding ceremony before my sealing, I would have to wait a year for no apparent reason. (Although if I had done something after, there wouldn’t have

been anything the church could do about it. Not like they would have cancelled my sealing for going to another church or courthouse. Wish I’d thought of that at the time.) It didn’t occur to me that I had any other option aside from a temple sealing. So I chose to be married in a place where some of my family were forbidden to enter.

The church claims that it is pro-family, that family is the most important thing. But it feel utterly justified in banning family members from some of life’s most special events and punishing those members (at least in the US) who choose their family over the church by making them wait a year to be sealed and attaching a stigma to that wait. So basically the church is only pro all-Mormon, all endowed families. My sisters were worthy to enter the temple, but were banned from my wedding anyway. How is that pro-family?

I feel I owe my grandparents an apology. My sisters are members, and one of them is making the same choice I did next month. But my grandparents aren’t members. They were not allowed to see their only child, my mother, get married. They are still angry about it, and in my mind they have every right to be. And then I did the same thing to them. I chose to exclude them from my wedding. And I feel so guilty for that. There are very few things I regret doing, but that is one of them, and it physically hurts to think of the heartless way I acted.

The truth is, because of health issues, they likely wouldn’t have been able to come to California anyway. But they still knew that if they had they would have been unwelcome. They knew they wouldn’t have been allowed to see me get married, and that I made the decision to leave them out. That was not the right choice for me to make. It was wrong of me to choose the church over my family. And I want to tell them I'm sorry. I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to apologize to them because it would probably cause problems with my mother. They might hold it over her head or ask her why she hasn’t apologized. And with my sister getting married in the temple, they might give her a hard time too. (Our relationship with them is complicated.) But I feel like I need to make some kind of restitution to them somewhere, so here it is.

Dear Oma and Opa, I owe you an apology. When I got married I did so in a place where you were not welcome. I should not have done that. Even if you had not been able to come, I should have gotten married somewhere that would have welcomed you if you had been there. I should have made it clear that my family was more important to me then some religion. What I did was wrong and unkind and I am so sorry.

I should have gotten married somewhere that welcomed my whole family, not just those who believe a certain way. I regret the decision I made to marry in an LDS temple and if I had it to do over again, I would do it differently. I’m sorry for the decision I made and if that decision hurt your feelings or made you think I cared more about a church then you. I did not feel that way then, and certainly do not feel that way now. Any religion that would exclude family from events like weddings is wrong and I’m ashamed to have been a part of something like that. I wish I had figured that out sooner.

Things You Should Never Say to a Person Who is Childless by Choice

I recently read an article called “Infertility: 16 Things You Should Never Say to a Woman Who is Childless but Not by Choice.” It was posted on the FMH Facebook page, and I was shocked by the insensitivity experienced by the author of this article and those commenting on the Facebook thread. I imagine that most people don’t intend to be rude, but honestly.

On the Facebook thread, someone said that she could write a similar list of things not to say to women who are childless by choice. I like that idea, so here’s my attempt. I haven’t too many experiences with people being insensitive about my choice, mostly because we’ve only been married three years and K is still in school. But I’ve gotten a few comments. Recently there were a couple of episodes on Daughters of Mormonism discussing being childless by choice, so I’m drawing on that as well. Here’s goes:

1. “Oh, you’ll change your mind.” You’re right, I might. But I might not. And assuming you know me better then I know myself and that I made this choice lightly enough to just change my mind one day is a little absurd, don’t you think? 

2. “But kids are so much fun!” That’s your opinion. I don’t find little kids all that much fun. Why would that change if they are mine and I’m around them all day, every day? And is it a good idea to do something as big as having kids just because it’s fun? 

3. “Being a mother is the best thing you can do.” Being a mother is a great thing to do. And there are all kinds of great things that people can do, for themselves, their families, their communities. The best thing that someone can do depends on the person. There is no one best thing for everyone. 

4. “You’re being selfish.” Why is selfish to choose myself and family’s needs over someone who doesn’t exist? I don’t have children that I am neglecting, I am just choosing the needs of people who are already alive over the needs of someone who does not exist. I also feel that there are so many people who are already alive who need help, and that the people who are alive and in need should take precedence. And at this point, I would make a bad parent because I would resent my kids. I’m choosing not to put a child into that situation because that would be unfair to them. How is that selfish? 

5. “There are kids waiting for you in the spirit world.” First, show me doctrinally (Saturday’s Warrior does not count) that we are assigned spirit children. I know that many people feel that way about their children. I don’t discount their experience, but I don’t share it. It could also be said that there are people here who are waiting for help; children waiting for a stable home. Why do spirits count more than those that are already here? 

6. “But there are women who can’t have kids and want to!” I understand that. It is a sad thing. But how exactly would me having kids help them? It wouldn’t change their situation at all. 

7. “God wants you to have kids.” I am entitled to personal revelation for my life. You are not entitled to revelation about my life. So you don’t know what God wants me to do. Trust me when I say that I do. 

8. “You need to give your mom/mother-in-law grandkids.” My mom and mother-in-law won’t be the ones raising my kids. They would be my responsibility. Kids are a big deal, and having them just to make someone else happy seems like a recipe for disaster to me. 

9. Keeping talking to me as though I’ll have kids. Dude, I just told you I don’t want kids, so why are you still assuming I am? Respect me enough to respect my decision and trust me enough to believe that I am doing what I feel is right for myself and my family.

Are Mormons Moral Relativists?

Recently I got into an argument on Facebook (shocking, I know) about whether everyone is capable of being Mormon. Because I feel the God has told me that the church is wrong for me, and because of the many who leave because Mormonism feels wrong to them, I said that not everyone can be Mormon. Not everyone is capable of believing the teachings of the church (which is a good thing in my mind.) I was then accused of being a moral relativist for thinking that God can give different answers to different people.

First, here's a definition of moral relativism: "The philosophized notion that right and wrong are not absolute values, but are personalized according to the individual and his or her circumstances or cultural orientation."

When I was accused of being a moral relativist, it was because I believe God can say different things to different people. Do I think that God will tell someone to kill someone, to mistreat someone, to judge someone? No, I do not. The basis of most religions and philosophies is being kind to and serving others. If God is behind all religions and philosophies that tell people to love others, then God is being consistent, and my morality is based on loving other people.

The problem becomes that Mormons have left the two great commandments of the New Testament behind in favor of minutia like the Word of Wisdom, temple attendance, church attendance and tithing. Look at the temple recommend questions:
1. Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?
2. Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?
3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?
4. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?
5. Do you live the law of chastity?
6. Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?
7. Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
8. Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?
9. Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?
10. Are you a full-tithe payer? Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?
11. Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?
12. If you have previously received your temple endowment: Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple? Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?
13. Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?
14. Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

In my interpretation, the only questions that deals with how we treat others are 9 and 11, and 11 only applies to specific circumstances that not everyone is in. The rest are about the orthodoxy of your beliefs and behaviors that relate to the church. Even fast offerings, which are designed to take care of the physical needs of individuals, are not required, whereas tithing, which can be used to build expensive temples and malls, is required. (Yes, I'm being snarky.) But in all seriousness, a temple recommend is what gets you access to saving ordinances and loving your neighbor and serving others doesn't seem to be as important as orthodoxy of belief.

So I reject the idea that orthodoxy trumps kindness, because I find kindness and service at the heart of religions, and therefore believe God's morality is love and kindness. I am just a relativist when it comes to the things that are attached to religions and become more important then service, but believe that morality is love and service. My God tells everyone to love and care for the people around them, and if religion will help them to do that, then that religion is right for them. God will not tell someone to mistreat another. (This is my world view, and I'm open to the idea that I'm totally wrong, but at this point this makes sense to me, and allows me to try to be a better person.)

Mormonism, on the other hand, strikes me as morally relative. There seems to be nothing that is totally wrong in Mormonism; it's wrong until God says
it is okay. I'm pulling this from places like the story of Nephi killing Laban in the Book of Mormon. Nephi shows the inherent abhorrence that most people have for murder, an inherent quality that I believe is divinely inspired. But because God said murder is okay, he does it. There is something similar in a discussion of polygamy in the Book of Mormon; there is a verse that says having multiple wives is wrong, unless God says it's okay. This is after a discussion of the damage having multiple wives and concubines does to families and how those who have done so have been punished by God. But the caviot that it's okay when God says so seems to say that the damage and pain caused by polygamy and adultery would be okay if God condoned polygamy. So the morality of Mormons seems to be "X is wrong, unless God says otherwise." And God can say anything is okay. In Mormonism, and other faith traditions, God has okayed murder, rape, incest, theft, arson, lies, polygamy, genocide, and on and on. These are things that most people shy away from and agree are immoral things to do. God appears to have no moral code at all if you want to look at it that way.

Now, most of the Mormons I know would agree in this day and age God will not command people to rape or murder or whatever. But it is in the doctrine. The story of Laban is used to teach "the children [to] understand that Heavenly Father helps those who trust him and obey his commandments." God was helping Nephi get the plates by telling him to cut Laban's head off. So while most would say that it doesn't happen today, it is still present in the teachings of the church that God can make anything okay. I wonder how many Mormons, if told by the prophet who speaks for God, to attack or harm someone else would do it?

So is belief in a God who is very attached specific rules, but can okay any behavior no matter how inherently wrong it feels to most of humanity morally relative? I don't think that an element of moral relativism is bad, but I've heard many Mormons say that moral relativism is bad. If it is, how do the above examples fit into the notion that relativism is bad?

Christ Didn't Just Exist

As Easter has been coming up, I've been thinking about what my understanding of Christ is. Do I believe he is the son of God, do I believe in the Atonement, do I believe in the New Testament.

I've realized these questions show a very literalistic way of looking at the world, a trait I believe I picked up from Mormonism. In order for something to be true in Mormonism, it had to actually have happened. Joseph Smith must literally have seen God and Christ,, and translated the Book of Mormon from actual plates, and those plates must have carried a record of people who actually existed. If these things did not actually happen, the foundation of the church falls apart.

So getting back to Christ, does it matter if he was actually the son of God, or if the Atonement really took place? On some level, it might, but when it comes to how I live my life I'm not sure it does. I have no control over whether or not the Atonement happened, and if it didn't there's nothing I can do about it. I can choose to believe in it, or feel that it happened, but belief doesn't make something true.

What can have an impact on my life, and what I can control, is how the things attributed to Christ affect my behavior. I haven't done enough study on the subject to form an opinion on whether or not a man called Jesus lived. But the legacy that has become attached to his name is a beautiful thing. The idea of Jesus teaches us to love everyone, not to judge others, to care for those in need. The Atonement, whether it happened or not, is a story of someone loving people so much he was willing to suffer and die for them. the power of that kind of love is amazing to think about. Even if none of it happened, or if Jesus was just a powerful teacher, following his example can lead me to become a better, more loving person, and help me to improve the world around me. Whether or not the Atonement happened, it can still show me how to love others, even those I don't know or don't like or who are cruel to me.

So this Easter I can celebrate the example of Christ, whether he exists of not. I once heard a quote attributed to Mother Teresa: "If there is a God, I will live as he would want me to live." I may never know about the existance of God or Christ, but I can live as they might want me to.