Thoughts of the Ex-religious

I've been struggling with this for some time now. I know many readers will view this negatively, or as a cry for attention. I'm going to try my best to keep it from going that direction. The fact of the matter is the things I'm going to discuss inherently will cause some anger in persons of certain viewpoints, and I can't help that. But, I will try and remain impartial and objective when stating facts.

I was born into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. For many years, it was the epitome of my identity. While I found myself constantly questioning things I thought were wrong or contradictory in the doctrine, I reminded myself god would tell me everything once I died. I didn't need to know now.

In recent years, my life experiences have taken me away from the church. Many of my past friends and even my family view this with sadness, anger, disappointment, judgement, and pity. Perhaps not always intentional, but it is a mind frame that is hard to escape. They tell me "we love you", but I know what they are actually thinking, because I once thought it too. I'm a lost sheep, I've left the straight and narrow, I've become prideful, I've forgotten what the spirit feels like, I've stopped doing the things that would build my testimony. Trust me, I know all of them.

I had a friend from my young woman days who left the church shortly after I was married. I thought those very same things about her. I even attacked her on her Facebook wall, asking how she could consider herself a good Mormon, behaving as she was. Asking what had happened to make her hate god? In a recent conversation, I apologized for my despicable behavior, now understanding exactly where she was, and wondering how I ever considered myself Christian. And the answer surprised me.

I was a good Christian. In every sense of the word. Because it's just that, Christianity teaches it's followers to be inherently judgmental, to be inherently homophobic, to be inherently misogynistic, and to be inherently condescending and very easily offended. To take ideas personally, to make character attacks on those who may disagree. To turn things personal and use circular arguments that place blame and very hurtful accusations on the person they are offended by.

Here is an example. I was advocating for sex education in public schools with someone I know, because they had posted a meme stating people who believe in sex ed and who give out contraception have no business being educators. This person accused me then of sleeping around with anyone I could find. It completely didn't make sense for them to say that, and it was very hurtful. They then said all cultures have a form of morality and consider abstinence to be the best. I contended that politely by saying some cultures even dedicate and entire day to swinging, in a ritual that takes place after drought, where they set aside their marital vows and take a new lover. This person asked how my new life was working out for me, so confused, I asked what they meant. They then inferred I personally was a swinger. Do you see how hurtful and off the wall accusations like this are? Though it seems to be the way most religious, particularly LDS, people react to things they don't agree with. I posted an article advocating for abortion rights, and gave my reasoning. I was told by another person that I was a bad person because I would have an abortion. I had never said that, and I personally wouldn't. But I understand where and why it is necessary.

It is wrong to assign blame and to make assumptions of people just because they are no longer religious. Or because they never were religious. Morality does not exist solely on the basis of religion, and does not come from deity. Morality is fluid, and varies from culture to culture. Morality is a code of ethics developed by individual societies to allow groups of people to function in harmony. So yes, in that sense, there are certain things that are "universally" accepted. But to assume a "godless" individual is amoral is wrong. And to treat them as though they are amoral is wrong.

In my experience, I've received the most contention and anger from people who consider themselves religious. They become very passionate, and sometimes in all capital letters, assert that they will stand for their beliefs and I can't sway them. They turn the blame towards me when I engage them, saying I am being condescending for stating my ideas, and rude for refuting theirs. They will not listen because I have nothing good to say, and then it ends with them pitying me and calling me a know-it-all for trying to say why I believe what I do, or no longer believe what they do. It's a catch-22. No matter how kindly you approach the subject, it's always taken with great offense, and therefore inherently ends poorly. It is because religious people do not separate themselves from their beliefs. So they take it all personally.

A past LDS leader said “If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.” – President J. Reuben Clark. So if they are so confident in their beliefs, why are they so defensive? Why will they not even allow themselves to listen to evidence contrary to their beliefs? Why will they not seek it out themselves and make an informed decision as to whether they will believe or not? I understand completely why. It has to do with fear. Fear of losing the spirit, fear of disappointing god, fear of not being with your family forever. The LDS church is very much full of fear. "Pay your tithes so you won't be burned at the last day". Don't be the weak link in the chain, be modest or you will cause men to have bad thoughts and want to take advantage of you. It's all based on fear! What kind of a church keeps its members out of fear? A cult. It pains me to say it, but the LDS church operates very much like a cult. And it's members defend it as a cult, even to the point where they will not listen to anything anyone has to say about it. I know, for me it was very hard, even though I had always wondered about certain things, to actually take the first step and examine them for myself. Its scary. It's painful. It's lonely.
Eventually, people you thought were your friends will treat you differently. Family members will stop talking to you, or about you. You will be the object of prayer and fasting, but never pleasant conversation. You will become a "taboo" subject as one person told me. I couldn't believe that. I was told they no longer talk about me or what I am doing. I'll tell you what I am doing. I get up in the morning and feed my kids breakfast. I answer emails from my photography clients, walk the dog and pick up toys. I'll wash dishes and fold the laundry. Maybe I'll watch an episode of America's Got Talent or Project Runway. Then at the end of the day, I'll make dinner, get my kids ready for bed, and spend an evening with my husband. But all of that is "Taboo" to talk about because I didn't pray, I didn't read scriptures, I didn't do visiting teaching, I probably drank a cup of coffee, and I might have thought a swear word or two. Religion is so good at being an exclusive members only country club, and very good and shunning, shaming, judging, hating and blaming.

I asked a church member how they dealt with scriptures that talked about god commanding murder, like the story of the people who were wiped out, including men, women, children, suckling babies and animals. They told me to pray for peace to be okay with it. I literally wanted to tell them they are nuts if they expected me to pray for peace about baby murder. Especially since they claimed to be "antiabortion". I asked another what they thought about Joseph Smith marrying multiple young women, some as young as 14. They responded it was natural for the time. It wasn't, it was abnormal. Polygamy was illegal, the age of consent was 15, and young girls were marrying young men, not older men. They maintained it was normal for the time, because that is what they had been taught. I asked a member how they got past the fact that the book of Abraham was actually an Egyptian burial text, even though Joseph Smith said he translated it literally by the power of god. They repeated what elder Eyring said, it was just there to awaken the idea for Joseph. I asked another member if they knew the temple ceremony mirrored the Mason Lodge rituals almost exactly, and that Joseph Smith had been a Mason. They said god revealed the fullness of the ceremony to him but he needed to experience it firsthand as a Mason. I asked why god told Nephi to kill Laban for a book, when he could have dictated the scriptures to Nephi to rewrite, or because Laban was drunk he could have snuck the scriptures out. Why did god have to command Nephi to kill someone? Why are the writings of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon word for word out of the King James version of the Bible (a book that has been translated and retranslated)? Why is there absolutely no genetic correlation between the peoples of America and the people of the middle east that would link them together within a timeframe of 1400 years? Has anyone ever thought what a mockery and injustice it is to the indigenous people of America to make up a history for them? That's like calling the story of King Arthur or Frodo and the Ring the literal history of the people of Great Britain!

And worst of all! They way religion, LDS particularly, treats women, treats homosexuals, treats different races. It's horrible! There were camps and programs to turn gay men straight. Church leaders past said black men and women would never be exalted, but serve as ministering angels to the gods. Women are still treated as "equal" lesser members who can't govern themselves and are body shamed, career shamed, and sexually shamed. I grew up wishing I had been born a boy because I hated the role that was eternally waiting for me. I also hated the prospect of being a multiple wife. I hated the way LGBTQ people were regarded, as if they were vile sinners unworthy of being called human. I hated how black people were said to be the descendants of Cain, and that their skin color was a curse. Holy cow, how ignorant is that? I hated how Native American's were "becoming fairer skinned" because of their righteousness. What a load of poppycock! Skin color is based on evolution and genetics, not subjective worthiness!

Bottom line? I don't want to pray to this kind of a god. I don't want to know if this kind of god exists. One that will turn my family away from me for thinking differently. One that will damn gays to hell for loving the way their biology functions. One that will say women and dark skinned people are less than white males. One that will shame women who medically need an abortion but condones the mass genocide of innocents. One that will impregnante a pubescent virgin (who would have been stoned if she were discovered) to give birth to a son who would eventually be brutally murdered because I drank a cup of coffee. One who professes agency exists, but is omniscient and omnipotent and therefore the ultimate reason any of us would be damned anyways. Its basically, "play by subjective rules and I won't lock you in hell". "There is only one way to get to heaven, and it's my way". Hmm, that sounds oddly familiar if you are LDS....Satan anyone? But it's okay because god said it? How many of you parents of kids plan on forcing your children to become lawyers your way? By going to one university? But studying at a certain time of day? Is there really only one way to become a lawyer? And are any of them objectively more correct than another? And if so, tell me objectively why?

Religion breeds hate. Religion breeds fear. Religion breeds. And breeds and breeds. And tries to shame and stifle anyone who wants to escape or stand up for anything different. And is so blind it can't even see what it is doing! Can't even see how much it is hurting the people around it who are just trying to live! Members give countless hours, days, money, and resources to a church that builds lavish temples in starving third world countries. That constructs giant malls with stores 99% of their membership can't shop in. Demands 10% of the income of the destitute and welfare recipients. It's sick. It's wrong. And I am relieved to say I am no longer a part of it. I urge you to look closer at the church you belong to, and ask yourself, is it really worth it? To free yourself of the fear and look at the facts. To not be swayed by anecdotes that say doubt is bad and faith is good. Doubts and questions have brought us to where we are today. You wouldn't be able to be reading this on a computer or a smart phone if people hand't questioned.

But most of all, don't let your religious ideals become who you are to the point that you ostracize the people you should love. Life is short, and life is precious. It's not worth it to remove people from yourself based on unseen deity and unevidenced promises of eternal life. Think about that the next time you tell a nonreligious family member they are taboo and call them an offensive know-it-all for basing their ideas in what is accepted reality. That is all.

Attack of the Theist

I think differently.

I have different opinions.

I don't agree with some people.

Am I allowed to talk about it? Share it? Be passionate about it? Why not?

Ever notice how theists have a strange double standard about sharing beliefs and what is sacred? They become to angry and defensive when anyone says anything that might contradict, mock, or challenge their faith. And yet, demand ultimate and complete respect for what they say about non believers (sinners). I just don't get it.

Do I consider myself an atheist? No. Because I still hope for a deity and a life after death. So I guess I'm more of an agnostic. Kind of on the fence. Because I like things about religion, and I there are some things I don't like. I believe in being kind and charitable to everyone, for allowing everyone to share what they believe and live the way that makes them happy. But to do so without fear and without judgement.

Coming from a very religious background and family, it is very difficult to openly share what I believe without making them uncomfortable or upset. They resort to attacking my character, saying that I am openly mocking their faith by sharing what I think. They delight in misinterpretation, or misconstruing what I mean. How dare I say something that would belittle their sacred religion? It becomes very hard to be honest about what I think because I'm always so scared of offending them, and opening up a theological airstrike all over my Facebook page. I can't say anything that I feel or believe, even as civilly as I do, without them coming after me. And yes, I admit, I do become equally nasty when someone attacks me as a person. Attack my ideas fine, but don't attack me.

So tell me, is this what religion teaches? To publicly scorn people who think differently? To bring people down by attacking who they are as a person instead of their ideas? If it is okay for someone to "Defend" their beliefs, why am I not allowed to do the same thing?

I have never, not once gone onto one of my religious siblings walls and attacked their beliefs as they have so publicly done about mine. I have posted a total of two things to share my opinion. One of them I removed because of how ugly it got, and how embarrassed I was that my friends would see my family treat me the way that they did. The second one, I merely said I thought a bolder move by the church would have been to not excommunicate a member for "apostasy", but again, people got defensive, twisted what I meant, and attacked my character. Is this truly what religion teaches you to do?

And then I realized, yes it is. Part of religion is about shaming a person into repentance. You are a sinner, imperfect before God. You must repent of your wrong doings and come unto God. You must defend your beliefs, even if it means hurting those closest to you. Because in the end, if you lose your family, it doesn't matter. All will be made well in the eternities, and God will reward you for hurting someone you should have loved, because it was in his name, and lets face it, for their own good.

Do you see how religion can be a very ugly thing?

I am very passionate about what I believe, and I am going to keep sharing it. Because I hope, just as any theist hopes, that what I share will have an impact for the better. If I were sharing negative things about Warren Jeffs, of course people would agree with me. But his followers would be mortally offended, and they would say to me, you cannot shake our faith, because we know he is a prophet. The problem is, every religion feels that exact same passion. And what they don't realize, is those of us who don't believe, or don't believe fully, are just as passionate.

I believe the unfair treatment of women in theology is wrong. I believe the unfair treatment of homosexuals, and in the past, different races, is wrong. I believe that excommunicating a man for his beliefs, while totally up to the organization, is counter productive. And I am going to share it. I don't understand how me sharing what I believe is any different than religious people sharing what they believe. There is just such an arrogant attitude of "we are right, you are wrong, you offend God" among theists, that they will use empty rhetoric to tear you down for sharing your belief because it contradicts their own. They will attack opposition to their faith wherever they can, even if it means harming someone they should love.

I am embarrassed about my family's (certain members, not all) conduct. And I am saddened by the nasty, snarky, arrogant personal messages attacking me as a person, and saying that I am the one in the wrong for sharing what I believe. I am saddened by the untruths and lump statements used to misinterpret what I am saying, or to accuse me of something I haven't said at all. They keep tacking on, but it's up to you, you can believe what ever you want. Except, I can't share it, because if I do, I know the reaction I will get. I have to be secretive about what I feel. I can't be open about it. I can't discuss it. I can't be honest and seek support. Because then I might offend someone. Do you have any idea how lonely that feels? To feel completely ostracized from your own family because you don't think the same way they do?

One family member even went so far as to say I continually post anti religious things on my FB wall (pretty sure she meant my husband, but is so indoctrinated into the church's teachings, she assumes I do his bidding??). I do not. If you need proof, scroll through my profile, you will find one, about John Delin. And it was not rude at all, it was  very neutral!!! The only controversial things I post are about vaccinations! VACCINATIONS! Because I think kids should be vaccinated. Good Lord people, actually read what I'm posting before you accuse me! I commented on two friends posts that were gay bashing. TO DEFEND GAYS! How is that wrong?? Holy crap, am I just blind and stupid, or is it actually wrong to discriminate?? (In the name of religion yes, which is why doctrine of the church used to state "The Negro may make it to the Celestial Kingdom, but as a ministering angel in an eternal servitude to his God". Messed up, right?? )

And guess what? Theists offend me! And the only time I have spoken up is when something was particularly harmful, like telling gays they can't live in certain homes or purchase from certain businesses. That is wrong, and I'm going to say it. And I know some people aren't going to like it. But I am trying to change that, I am trying to fight for the rights of all people to live happily and not be afraid to be who they are of share how they feel. Religion doesn't allow that. It doesn't allow you to think for yourself. You have to believe what the leaders say, you cannot question. And if you do, you will be publicly humiliated, shamed, and eventually expelled if you do not shut up. But it will all be turned right back on you, telling you are in the wrong, you are the bigot, you are the one humiliating people, you are the one causing harm. It's funny, because you are also the one that was attacked.

I'm not going to shut up. In the words of Tracy Edna Turnblad: Things need to change. And I won't stop trying to change them.

One man's salvation is another man's damnation

There are a bunch of things I have been thinking about lately, and one of them has been the concept of agency and moral objectivism. And my conclusion is this: if God exists, I don't think even he believes in moral objectivism, and he certainly does not believe in agency.

Let's step back for a moment, and argue within the realm of theology, and then afterwards we can go without it.

When I say, one man's salvation is another man's damnation, I mean that what God commands one man to do would not be acceptable for another man to do. For instance, God commanded murder, and yet there is a commandment specifically states not to kill (David and Goliath, the genocide of an entire group of people in the Bible, Nephi and Laban). God condoned certain persons to lie, (Esther about her identity, Mary and Joseph about her pregnancy) and yet many Christian religions maintain that God viewing lying as a sin. Eating pork during the law of Moses was a sin, while drinking wine was not. Today it is the opposite.

One thing that always bothered me about "commandments from God", is that they seemed to constantly be changing. And a lot of them reflect social trends. Having grown up with the view of moral objectivism (that things are moral or immoral regardless of people practicing them, and they exist eternally, independent of God), it was very confusing to me why one person would be commanded to kill, and another person would be condemned to hell for it.

Then I realized something. There is no such thing as a moral absolute. It is never absolutely wrong to kill, and it is never absolutely morally right to turn the other cheek. Which is why God commanded wars while at the same time commanding charity and love. There is no such thing as black and white. There is only gray. And anyone who thinks differently, is not seeing reality for what it is. And if God exists, he understands that. Simply put, arguing from a theological perspective, a person's entrance into eternal bliss is dependent upon one thing: obedience. Not objective morality. But obedience to God's ever changing whims. So, going from an LDS perspective, the test was to come to earth to see if we would obey God in whatever he commanded us to do. From large orders to entire groups of people, down to the little man commanded to slay an unarmed drunken aristocrat in the street.

Now the real question, how on earth does this make sense? Shouldn't the pathway to salvation remain the same regardless of the individual, regardless of the century, regardless of social media, scientific breakthroughs, genetic studies, and anthropological publications? If God is an all knowing, omniscient, perfect being, then why are his commandments and methods and tolerances in a constant state of flux? Saying that salvation is a personal thing is unfair, and unjust. One person needs to die from ebola, while one person needs to live in a rich mansion and give away millions of dollars to charity to maintain a decent image in the public eye. How is it fair to give them a similar reward if they didn't come to it under similar circumstances?

Basically, theological salvation hinges upon obedience to an unseen being's subjectivity.

The next problem is agency. I know not every religion believes in agency, or free will the same way the LDS church does, but that is the viewpoint I will speak from, because it the one I am familiar with. It is taught that each man is given the ability to choose right from wrong. Though now we can see how right and wrong are a little skewed and really, there is nothing objective about what is right and what is wrong. (Christmas example: A child out of wedlock with an individual that is not the husband in an era where it was perfectly okay to stone [murder] a woman for such actions by religious law. [Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery or fornicate]). But back to the concept of agency as it is understood, is actually a complete paradox. Most religions believe in an omnipotent, omniscient God. Roughly translated, it means God knows everything, past present and future. If this is the case, God always knew and always knows what we are going to do, even when we do not. And yet, creates commandments, rules, and restrictions for us to adhere to, knowing perfectly well when we will and when we won't. We are then punished eternally for not adhering to the subjective commandments of a being who already knew we wouldn't obey in the first place. Thus, the concept of agency exists only in the mind of the individual experiencing it, and therefore cannot be an eternal truth. How can we say we can always choose when what we will choose is already known by the one condemning or saving? Seems a little rigged. Like the whole system was created for the eternal one-per-centers to stay on top.

And if we are going to talk about what is moral, how can we in good conscience accept a an eternal being who treats different groups of people differently? Who has favorite races? Who condones the continued unfair and chauvinistic treatment of women? Who commands love for all, but condemns love when it exists outside of what is Biblically acceptable in terms of family? And who, above all, allows imperfect men to make all the decisions in his kingdom on earth? Where individuals are looked at differently for having tattoos or multiple piercings, but not for abusing prescription narcotics because it comes from a doctor. Where an abusive husband is valued more than a gay couple. Where the only life that is sacred is a week old fetus and not an enemy civilian murdered in the horrors of war, or the countless animals that are killed and used at man's leisure.

So tell me then, how can objective morality possibly exist? And how can we ever believe we are free to choose anything? I'm not saying life is a free-for-all and "I was going to kill him anyways".....but I'm saying eternal damnation and salvation can't happen the way religion teaches it based on the facts that agency can't exist with an omniscient God and everything of that nature is subjective. The only things that aren't subjective? Math.....and yeah, math.  2+2 always = 4