When Friends Ask Me Why I Left Mormonism

Today I received an email from a distant friend who had just learned from my family members that I have left the church. Her letter was warm and expressed empathy, but her primary purpose in writing was to "get me back on the straight and narrow path," as she put it. This was my reply:

Thank you for your concern. I am of course unhappy to hear that my life choices have caused my family members to experience pain and grief. However, I must live a life that is true to my own beliefs and convictions. Simply put, I have realized for myself that the church is not true and it is not what it claims to be. This realization came from several years of intense study and deep introspection. I will not go into detail to describe to you how I reached that conclusion because I don't want to be accused of trying to hurt you or "lead you astray." But let me be clear that I am quite certain for myself that the church is not true. [1]

Again, it upsets me to hear that my life decisions make other people upset. I do not like to cause other people to suffer. But I cannot live a false life just to make other people happy. I need to live a life that is consistent with my personal beliefs for my own well-being---even if others do not approve of my decisions. I tried to live the Mormon life for many years despite not believing in it. That was a mistake. It caused me to experience intense depression and severe anxiety to pretend to be a believer when I was not. I needed to leave Mormonism in order to have peace of mind. It was not easy to leave, but I feel a lot happier outside of the church than I did when I was inside.

I will continue to be your friend if you would like me to. I will continue to treat you with respect and warmth. I would hope that you would extend me the same courtesy. Thank you.

Generally in these kinds of conversations with friends, my goal is to be clear and honest about my reasons for leaving without going into a lot of detail (because I don't want to cause the other person to get too defensive). Since these kinds of conversations can be a game-changer for some relationships, I usually try to make it clear how I will continue to act in the relationship in the future, i.e. with continued respect and kindness. I tell them that I would hope to be treated the same way in return. If necessary, I sometimes add a "boundary" (like a clear behavior request).

Family members are a little different. In the first place, it's fairly rare for a family member to want to discuss my relationship with the church directly and openly. But when they do approach me, I tend to be less direct in those kinds of conversations. For example, when my sibling who is on a mission bears testimony to me in an email, I usually don't respond to it directly and I tend to change the subject. Since sibling relationships have much higher stakes, I would prefer to have those conversations in private and face-to-face where I can communicate with love and respect. In other words, my goal with those kinds of conversations tends to be to forestall discussion until the conditions for a conversation are more ideal. Honestly, I'm also fine with avoiding the topic and just letting it be the proverbial elephant in the room.

I'm not sure about the ideal way to handle these conversations. I don't really think there is an ideal way when both parties disagree so fundamentally about the key issues. Especially when it would take several days/months/years of library research to get to the point where a meaningful exchange of ideas about the church could occur.

Most people haven't done the scholarly groundwork to really have an in-depth conversation with me about polyandry, the theodicy, Biblical history/archaeology, church history, Book of Mormon/Doctrine and Covenants/Pearl of Great Price textual criticism, freemasonry, etc. etc. etc. I'm not saying that to be elitist; I'm just saying that until people have done their homework to make sure we're all having a conversation on equal terms with equal access to the same sources of knowledge, then we're not very likely to have a productive conversation. So, usually my goal is to try to communicate that I still love and respect the people in my life, while at the same time remaining true to my own sense of self. If someone does decide to take me up on the library challenge, then we can have a dialogue. But I'm also content to let the status quo remain.

Footnotes

[1] Sometimes people from other faith traditions read my blog. As an FYI for those individuals, Mormons frequently repeat the phrase "I know the church is true" when bearing testimony of their belief in Mormonism. This binary phrasing often strikes outsiders as being oddly absolutist, but it is basically shorthand for the set of beliefs that comprise the theology of Mormonism (and whatever that means to the individual expressing it).

Is Mormonism Harmful?

My husband and I have been engaging in an ongoing conversation over the last several weeks about whether Mormonism is harmful or not. Since it was a fairly interesting conversation, I thought I would record some of the highlights here.

How it all got started...

For various reasons, I ended up listening to several recent Mormon Expositor episodes back to back a few weeks ago. I happened to listen to one episode in which Brandt (one of the Expositor's lovable token believers) mentioned he was sad when people leave the church because he felt that Mormonism was a good way to live. Later that day I listened to another episode in which Matthew Crowley said he felt that Mormonism was a harmful religion. That led me to ask: who is right? Is Mormonism a good way to live or is it harmful? Is it possibly both at the same time? I decided to answer this question for myself.

As an apostate myself, I've rubbed shoulders with a lot of people who have experienced genuine pain as a result of Mormonism. I've met people who have developed eating disorders and other mental issues because of Mormonism, people who have had their relationships with friends/family badly damaged because of Mormonism, and people who have experienced tremendous cruelty at the hands of the Mormon community---some to the point of attempting suicide. I myself have experienced depression and anxiety as a result of my faith transition out of Mormonism. So on the one hand, I think there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that Mormonism has the potential to cause harm.

But on the other hand, I have to admit that prior to my de-conversion, Mormonism did not cause me any personal harm. It worked fine for me while I believed in it. The same seems to be true for my believing family members; they seem genuinely happy and healthy living as Mormons. My husband's family also appears to be happy and healthy in their Mormon lifestyles. Therefore, there is also probably enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that Mormonism has the potential to be a good influence on people's lives.

So, that was the general idea that my husband and I discussed at first: Mormonism works great for people who fit the standard Mormon narrative. If you're faithful, white, middle-class, employed, mentally healthy, extroverted, American, married with kids, politically conservative and you fit the traditional norms for your gender, Mormonism is likely to be a good fit for you. Even if you don't fit every single one of those criteria, you should still fit in and feel relatively comfortable within Mormonism if you've got most of them down at least. And there are a number of people who can (more or less) fit into those social categories without too much trouble. I did. My husband did. My family did. And things were relatively stable and normal in our Mormon lives (until the faith crisis came, of course).

The problem is that anecdotal evidence like this isn't really a good basis for a sound argument. Both sides can easily cherry-pick all the anecdotal evidence they want to prove their side is right. And while qualitative data like that can be helpful for understanding the key issues that are in play, it doesn't necessarily get us any closer to understanding the way Mormonism systematically operates in people's everyday lives. After all, it's possible that the harm caused by Mormonism is not unique to Mormonism at all; it might instead symptomatic of religion in general. So my husband and I decided we needed to examine the theology and culture of Mormonism itself to determine whether it was uniquely more or less harmful to people's lives compared to other religions or social institutions.

What happens if we put on our feminist glasses and look again?

Since I dabble here and there in Mormon feminism, I frequently come across a lot of personal stories of pain and malcontent related to gender problems in the church. As my conversation with my husband continued, I began to wonder if approaching the topic from a feminist lens might be useful for examining the church systemically. So, I suggested that we work our way through LDS Wave's I Feel Unequal list as a way of continuing the conversation. We combed through the list, discussing each item as it related to our larger question of whether the church is harmful or not. Our purpose was to brainstorm whether there were specific aspects of Mormonism as an institution or an ideology that made it uniquely more or less harmful than other social institutions or ideologies.

I'll spare you the details of our lengthy conversation about the Wave list, but we did ultimately agree that the church had a harmful stance on gender. As the list makes fairly clear, gender inequality (and its related issues) are fairly deeply woven into contemporary Mormon theology and culture. Although the list never states it explicitly, it's clear that many of the problems are caused by one of three general problems: 1) the fact that women do not hold the priesthood equally with men and consequently do not have an equal role in church governance, 2) LDS doctrines about gender essentialism, and 3) antiquated institutional/cultural practices that endure because of historical tradition or short-sightedness (rather than for theological reasons). The gender inequality within the church is quite extensive and most certainly has the potential to cause a great deal of harm---such as domestic violence, gender stereotyping, double standards, self-esteem issues, mental health issues, etc.

But the real question we were examining was whether the gender inequality of the church is unique to Mormon ideology or not. While there are some unique aspects of Mormon theology and culture that reinforce gender essentialism, these basic gender ideologies did not entirely originate in Mormonism. Most were simply inherited from Christianity or from mainstream American conservative culture at large. Mormonism perhaps differs by degree, if anything. (For example, Mormonism ups the ante by asserting gender was determined in the pre-existence and that marriage is necessary to achieve godhood---possibly even polygamous marriage depending on which kind of Mormon you're talking to.) But the basic gender ideologies are the same as those found in other Western religious and conservative social institutions---which means that sexism pre-dates Mormonism. For example, women cannot hold the priesthood within Catholicism (as was the case for most Christian denominations up until fairly recently) and conservative religious groups like the Missouri Synod Lutherans still strongly advocate for traditional gender roles---to a degree that sometimes surpasses the discourse about gender within Mormonism, in my opinion. [1]

The conclusion that we came to after reviewing the WAVE list was that, while Mormonism does indeed have the potential to cause harm, it doesn't necessarily cause any more or less harm than other religious or social institutions. If we were to examine the utilitarianism of Mormonism from the perspective of race, cultural imperialism, and sexual orientation, I'm confident the same pattern would emerge.

The virtue of checks and balances

That doesn't mean I'm excusing Mormonism for its potential to cause harm. Nor does it mean that I'm trying to minimize the very real pain that Mormonism has caused to many individuals. Rather, my argument is that these same harmful patterns can be found in many different human institutions---religious or otherwise. (Governments, businesses, unions, etc.)

Humans create institutions because they can accomplish their goals more effectively when they work together as a collective body rather than as solitary individuals. But there's no such thing as a perfect institution---and it's worth noting that some institutions are a lot healthier than others. The primary element that separates healthy institutions from unhealthy ones is whether they are capable of self-correction. In other words, healthy institutions are ones which are capable of 1) recognizing when a certain belief or practice is somehow wrong or harmful, and 2) adapting its policies to correct beliefs or practices that have been proven wrong or harmful.

Here's a few institutional elements that are important for self-correction (off the top of my head):

• Does the institution have a system of checks and balances in place to ensure that no one individual or governing body has carte blanche to makes all the decisions for the group (creating the possibility for tyranny or for myopic decisions being made in an echo chamber)?
• At any time can someone inside or outside the institution offer sincere, well-meaning criticism or alternative perspectives to its leaders without fear of reproach?
• Does the institution promote the free exchange of ideas and independent thought? Does it seek to understand and possibly adopt good ideas that come from inside and outside of the institution?
• Does the institution allow for grass-roots communication from the bottom up between those who are in power and those who are not? Is there a process by which people both inside and outside of the institution can address grievances if they are hurt by someone within the institution?
• Does the institution foster a homogenous monoculture or a culture of hierarchy or elitism, whether consciously or not? Does it welcome diversity and alternative perspectives?
• Does the institution actively seek to promote individuals with diverse social backgrounds into leadership positions---not because of tokenism but out of a sincere desire to welcome a diversity of viewpoints when making important decisions for the organization?
• When it becomes clear that a change needs to be made, does the institution have a mechanism in place for quickly adopting that change?
• Is the institution's government centralized or de-centralized?

Again, some institutions are going to be better than others in terms of this checklist. There are very few that will be perfect. But admittedly, as I wrote this checklist, it was clear to me that Mormonism doesn't stack up very well. It might very well be a less-than-healthy institution when compared to others (although I'm sure there are others that could give it a run for its money). Although it does have a system in place for self-correction---i.e. prophetic and personal revelation---that system is clearly flawed as I have argued on this blog before.

Conclusion

The big take-away that I got from this conversation was that it helped me to better clarify my own beliefs and values independent of Mormonism. I think there are two big impediments that prevent Mormonism from being healthier than it could be: 1) the belief system is founded on principles that are ultimately flawed, and 2) the culture of dogmatism that pervades the church. By dogmatism I mean a hardened, inflexible commitment to "truths" that are not necessarily so. When any group of people dogmatically insists on clinging to flawed or false beliefs and practices in spite of evidence to the contrary, it has the potential to cause harm. (And, by the way, these problems are NOT unique to Mormonism---or even to religion in general. Not by a long shot.)

I have found that I'm less interested in believing in truths these days. I certainly want to continue seeking for the truth, but I don't want to make a hardened commitment to any one ideology any more. I don't want to set my beliefs in stone any more. That's because I've discovered that I'm often wrong, I'm often misinformed, and I'm often short-sighted. I often fail to grasp the full complexity of a given issue when I rely on my own understanding of it.

But the beauty is that I don't have to rely on my own understanding of anything. I can come to understand the complexity of an issue and expose myself to other points of view by engaging with other people in my society---especially those who are different from me. Humans and human institutions are a big part of the problem---but they are ironically part of the solution too. I may not believe in any one institutional ideology any more, but I firmly believe in the institutional processes of education and scholarly dialogue. These dialectic processes improve our lives as individuals and as a society on the whole.  They have a proven track record for success. Through education and scholarly dialogue, our society is becoming more humane, more equitable, and more moral.

That's part of what makes me proud to be a member of an educational institution---despite all of its own institutional flaws. I'm proud to teach students how to communicate better and how to engage in the process of scholarly dialogue. I'm glad to be part of something that is truly making lives better (with quantifiable results to boot!). I hope that in my own small way I can work with other people to make all human institutions a little bit healthier---whether it be the institution of Mormonism or something else.

Footnotes

[1] It's also worth mentioning that Mormonism does contain some potentially pro-feminist elements too (such as the doctrine of Heavenly Mother, the idea that Eve's choice was not only necessary but good, the existence of female ordinance workers in the temple, the Second Anointing, etc.). But, with the exception of Eve, most pro-feminist Mormon theologies are frequently censored by the institution. ---Err, I mean correlated out of the institution.

Are You Experiencing Ex-Mormon Stereotype Threat?

Recently the concept of stereotype threat has made it onto my radar.  I think this particular concept might possibly explain some of the source of the anxieties I've been experiencing in relation to the church lately (e.g. I've been having panic attacks every time I have to interact with a ward member or discuss church-related issues with family members). Read on if you think you might relate...

 

What is Stereotype Threat?

Stereotype threat is the anxiety or concern caused when a person is in a situation that has the potential to confirm a negative stereotype about their social group.

The concept of stereotype threat made it onto my radar last week when NPR did a really fascinating story about how stereotypes can drive women to quit science. The NPR story reported about the recent findings of a group of researchers (Mehl and Schmader) from the University of Arizona about the gender gap in math and science. To study this phenomena, the researchers attached something called electronically-adapted recorders (EARs) to both male and female scientists. The EARs recorded 70 soundbites of conversation a day for 30-second intervals every 12 minutes. This provided the researchers with a good random sampling of the way male and female scientists talked with other male or female colleagues.

Follow-up interviews with the test subjects found that female scientists often reporting feeling disengaged about their work after having a a conversation with a male peer. Disengagement is a key predictor of the possibility that someone might leave a career, so the scientists dug into their recordings to find out what was causing this phenomena. Listening to the recordings, the researchers found:

When female scientists talked to other female scientists, they sounded perfectly competent. But when they talked to male colleagues, Mehl and Schmader found that they sounded less competent.

One obvious explanation was that the men were being nasty to their female colleagues and throwing them off their game. Mehl and Schmader checked the tapes.

"We don't have any evidence that there is anything that men are saying to make this happen," Schmader said.

But the audiotapes did provide a clue about what was going on. When the male and female scientists weren't talking about work, the women reported feeling more engaged.

For Mehl and Schmader, this was the smoking gun that an insidious psychological phenomenon called "stereotype threat" was at work. It could potentially explain the disparity between men and women pursuing science and math careers. ...

When there's a stereotype in the air and people are worried they might confirm the stereotype by performing poorly, their fears can inadvertently make the stereotype become self-fulfilling. ...

"For a female scientist, particularly talking to a male colleague, if she thinks it's possible he might hold this stereotype, a piece of her mind is spent monitoring the conversation and monitoring what it is she is saying, and wondering whether or not she is saying the right thing, and wondering whether or not she is sounding competent, and wondering whether or not she is confirming the stereotype," Schmader said.

All this worrying is distracting. It uses up brainpower. The worst part?

"By merely worrying about that more, one ends up sounding more incompetent," Schmader said.

Mehl and Schmader think that when female scientists talk to male colleagues about research, it brings the stereotype about men, women and science to the surface.

You don't have to be a woman or an ethnic minority to experience the anxiety caused by stereotype threat. Everyone is a member of some social group for which a negative stereotype exists. Which leads me to the next section of this essay...

Negative Stereotypes about Ex-Mormons

Ask any current or former member of the church and they will confirm for you that Mormons have very clearly defined cultural stereotypes about ex-Mormons. There's the standard "Sunday School" answers for why anyone could leave the church: they left because they were offended or they left because they wanted to sin.

Here's a few more:

• They left because they never had a deeply rooted testimony in the truthfulness of the gospel. They didn't receive a spiritual confirmation of the truth. They were converted to the church and not the gospel.
• They became too focused on things that were not essential to their salvation.
• They stopped doing the things that would invite the Spirit into their lives (reading the scriptures, praying, going to the temple, etc.).
• They were deceived by Satan's lies (anti-Mormon literature, the philosophies of men).

And on and on.

And, of course, you also have the stereotypes about how people behave after leaving the church. There's the stereotype about those who "leave the church but can't leave it alone," the angry, bitter apostates whose only desire is to fight against the church and attack faithful believers. Or there's also the idea that people leave the church and descend into utter depravity and misery.

My purpose here is not to refute these stereotypes, although I do find them inaccurate and offensive. My point is just to mention that these stereotypes exist---and, like all stereotypes, they have the effect of reducing a complex group of people and their individual experiences to a biased, flattened caricature of reality.

So, Do Ex-Mormons Experience Stereotype Threat?

As I've mentioned earlier and in previous blog entries, I've been experiencing anxiety when I'm around my ward members or when I have to talk about the church with family members. I experience problems like increased heart rate, dizziness, and stress hormones flushing through my body. I've also developed a fairly mild case of social anxiety disorder---a chronic fear of being judged by others or being hyper-aware of my actions when with a group of people. It's causing me to avoid social situations. (Like I can't even go for a walk outside with my husband without feeling anxious about encountering a neighbor approaching from a distance.)

I'm starting to wonder if stereotype threat could possibly explain this phenomenon. I realized this during a Facebook conversation I had today. I was talking with someone about how to manage visiting teachers and she gave me the advice to just be real about who I was. She talked about how having visiting teachers has actually been a good way for her to help believers deconstruct misconceptions about ex-Mormons. I responded:

I really, really want to be like you and show Mormons that you can still be an ethical, pleasant person with genuine reasons for believing in the things you believe or acting the way you act. You know---a human being.

I think you're absolutely right that the best approach is to just be respectful and authentic at the same time. I think the real challenge for me is that I'm suffering from "stereotype threat," which is the anxiety that gets produced by imagining that other people will view you in a negative way because of your social group (in this case ex-Mormonism). What I mean is that while I am comfortable with the new life path I've chosen for myself, I anticipate that everyone else will be highly critical and judgmental about it (which has definitely been the case with some people). So, I basically have come to expect the worst possible reaction from everyone about my decision to leave the church. And that makes me feel extremely emotionally vulnerable and unsure about being my honest, authentic self around them---for fear of disapproval. Unlike a person's gender or race, you can "hide" your religious beliefs and I've been passing as a believing Mormon to avoid displeasing people for so long that it's been difficult adjusting to just being out and real about it all, you know?

One thing that helped me to manage my anxieties in my first few months away from the church was to repeat a mantra to myself: "I will not take personally the reactions that other people may have about my decision to leave the church." You can't control how other people respond to you and it is futile to try to please everybody, but it can be hard to let go of the desire to make everyone happy sometimes. You can't let other people to cause you to abandon your sense of self.

I'll get there eventually!

Redrawing Boundaries

My journey out of Mormonism has sometimes been a mixed bag, bringing both positive and negative changes to my life. One of the unfortunate negative changes is that I occasionally experience anxiety attacks whenever I have to talk to someone in my ward or when someone in my family tries to talk to me about the church. It's especially worse when someone stops by my house unannounced from my ward to talk with me.

I recognize on an intellectual level that the anxiety I experience is somewhat irrational. Nearly all of the time, these meetings turn out to be no big deal and are fairly harmless. The people I interact with usually have a genuine concern for my well-being and are not out to attack me. Nevertheless, I still experience sensations like a rapid heartbeat, dry mouth, mild sweatiness, and my body flushes with stress/attack hormones every time I have one of these encounters. My thoughts become intensely negative when someone from the ward sets up an appointment with me. My mind immediately jumps to the worst possible conclusions about their purpose for meeting with me and how the meeting will go. I always anticipate the worst. For this reason, I make an effort to avoid my ward members as much as I can and I try to dodge any inquiries my family makes about the church.

Obviously this stuff isn't good for my mental or physical health and it's not possible to avoid all of these encounters. For that reason, I'd like to learn how to better manage these anxiety attacks. One thing I've been doing is engaging in some self-reflection in order to understand what is at the root of this anxiety. I'm sure there's lots of different reasons why I experience anxiety: my propensity for pessimism, perhaps some mild social anxiety, and a fear of not being in full control of the situation (since I have a strong need to feel in control). But I recently had an epiphany that a big part of it comes from the concept of boundaries.

Most healthy people recognize the value of creating reasonable boundaries for themselves. They set boundaries for what they will and will not share about themselves with other people until there is a certain level of trust and intimacy in the relationship. They recognize that there are some things which are public and some things which are private. They set boundaries for what they will and will not do in certain social situations. Healthy people learn how to communicate to other people about those boundaries in ways that will hopefully not make other people defensive. It's a balancing act between being honest and showing respect. It's about being assertive and having a good sense of one's self in relation to other people. Lastly, healthy people also show respect for other people's boundaries. When someone tells them what their boundary is, they try not to cross it. They know that no means no.

I've realized that when I was a Mormon, I had no sense of how to create healthy boundaries for myself. That's partly because there's potentially a thin line between keeping some things private and lying. I definitely think that it's wrong to deliberately deceive or mislead people, particularly when withholding the truth will do harm to others. But I've also learned that there are times when it is fully appropriate not to disclose information about yourself unless you feel comfortable doing so. There are just some things that are really nobody's business until they've earned your trust---especially things like your private religious beliefs and practices. My experience in Mormonism might be different from others, but I internalized that it was dishonest and immoral to keep things about myself private, especially my beliefs. That's partly because Mormonism strongly emphasizes the public declaration of your private beliefs in church settings such as testimony meetings. Missionaries boldly knock on doors declaring their testimonies to anyone who will listen. You're also expected to fully disclose private beliefs or practices in counsels with bishops and other religious leaders with whom you may or may not have a personal relationship. To refuse to be fully candid with a religious leader would be looked upon as a sign of guilt, of having something to hide.

There might be an element of gender training at work here too, but I also internalized that it was wrong to say no if someone asked you to do something. In Mormonism, you are strongly encouraged to say yes to every calling that is extended to you. You are expected to help out whenever you are asked to serve and to do so without any complaint. You covenant in LDS temples to consecrate anything and everything that the church asks from you with no exceptions. If you are a woman, you are taught regularly that it's your job to sacrifice and give service to your children and your husband, putting their needs ahead of your own. In other words, there's not very many times when it's appropriate to say no in church culture. It's seen as rude, rebellious, or selfish to set boundaries for what you will or will not do. When people ask, you give. No boundaries. No exceptions. No personal customization. No negotiations.

I'm sure there are some fully active, believing Mormons out there who have figured out how to set healthy boundaries for themselves in spite of church culture. But somehow I wasn't one of them. Only now do I understand that it is healthy and reasonable to know your limitations and communicate them to others. Only now do I realize that it is healthy and normal to keep some things private. But I only understand it on an intellectual level; my emotions haven't quite caught up yet. I still feel anxiety, stress, guilt and shame when I set and enforce my personal boundaries. It still feels wrong to me on a gut level. It's probably going to take a while to de-program myself. But hopefully I will get there eventually.

What Happens If There Are Any Opposed?

I was fascinated to read this post on the Ex-Mormon Subbreddit by a user named JohnBrownsBody yesterday. I have no reason to suspect it's a fabrication, but I suppose it's possible. Either way, it makes for an interesting story.

Here's What Happened

The basic gist of the story is that this 17-year-old boy is an atheist whose parents still strongly believe in Mormonism. The boy's family traveled to Utah for Spring Break to see General Conference last week and brought the 17-year-old along for the Saturday afternoon session at the Conference Center.

Of course, during the Saturday afternoon session, the officers of the church are sustained by the congregation. When Uchtdorf read the names of the prophet and apostles and asked if there were any opposed, this 17-year-old raised his hand. After the sustaining votes were completed, two security guards motioned to the boy that he needed to come speak with them.

He followed them into a private room where they asked him for his name, his full address, the name of his ward, and the name of his bishop. They wrote all of this information down on a notepad. They interviewed the 17-year-old and asked him why he raised his hand to oppose the sustaining votes. He replied that he did not think that Thomas S. Monson and the apostles were prophets, seers, and revelators and so he raised his hand to indicate such. They asked him whether he came to the Conference for the purpose of voting in opposition. He explained that he came because his parents brought him.

The two security guards bore their testimony that they thought Thomas S. Monson was a great man and that they sustain him fully. They also had a discussion about what his parents must feel about him at this moment. According to the boy, the security guards listened to his response and then said: "Well, it looks like you're going through some hard times, I hope you get over it. We aren't trying to intimidate you or force you to believe something, but I hope you change your mind." The 17-year-old basically told them that probably wasn't going to happen.

The security guards frowned and then one of them silently took him out of the room. As they were leaving, the other guard stated: "We'll be in touch."

My Response

I'll give the security guards the benefit of doubt to say they were just doing their job, enforcing a policy that has been laid out for them by the organization they work for. To be fair, the security guards mentioned that this doesn't happen to them very often, so they were probably surprised and inadequately trained about how they were supposed to respond. And, oddly enough, on one level it's even nice to have all those rumors validated: if you raise your hand to oppose a leader, someone will actually take a moment to listen to you in confidence (which is undoubtedly supposed to be the intention behind that policy).

That being said, it's really difficult not to see the power dynamics underlying this entire exchange. Although the security guards emphasized that they were not trying to intimidate the boy, the entire context of the exchange suggests exactly the opposite. When a 17-old-boy is being ushered into a private room (with no parental consent or supervision, mind you) by a pair of older, male security guards---complete with suits and earpieces, how can that situation be interpreted as anything but intimidating? It evokes the imagery of a terrorist or suspected criminal being interrogated by the authorities. This is no heart-to-heart discussion with a personable ecclesiastical authority about genuine doubts and concerns that a young teenage boy is experiencing. This is a power play made by people in positions of authority against someone who has very little power in comparison. The fact that they took down his name, address, and ward information and said, "We'll be in touch" sends that message very clearly. I applaud the boy for his youthful chutzpah, but most other ordinary individuals would have felt fairly shamed and demoralized after such an experience. (Which is the whole point, right?)

The whole situation just speaks to what I've said earlier on this blog about the church failing to provide a healthy environment for independent thought. The fact that the church asks the question "Are there any opposed?" when officers are sustained superficially suggests that there is room to disagree with the sustaining out of good conscience. But we’ve all been in a meeting where a forgetful counselor neglects to ask if there are any opposed---for the very reason that no one really expects anyone to oppose it. Church members are habituated and socially pressured into voting unanimously in favor of what the leaders have proposed---which means that the possibility for dissent is ultimately only an illusion. [1] Then, when a 17-year-old calls them on their bluff, the fact that he is treated with suspicion and intimidation (as opposed to mutual respect and the open exchange of ideas) is rather telling, in my opinion.

The last thing I want to say about this is that if I worked for Kirton and McConkie (the Church's law firm), I would immediately advise the church to change their policy about how to treat dissenting votes in General Conference. I recognize that after the Cody Judy incident, the church needs a security team on hand to ensure the safety of the General Authorities. That being said, these issues need to be handled without violating the civil rights of suspects. Although I doubt this boy's parents will press charges, these security guards should have been accompanied by a lawyer who was getting this boy's parents to sign a ton of waivers for privacy, detainment, and future silence in order to avoid a lawsuit. That's because this is not only a clear example of how the church has little tolerance for criticism and dissent, but a potential violation of the boy's civil rights.

Footnotes

[1] If I'm not mistaken, from a strictly legal perspective, church members are not actually official members of the church anyway. Although the church retains membership records, the members don't actually have any voting rights in the organization/corporation like they do in other organized religions. (At least that's what I remember from the Mormon Stories interview conducted with Daymon Smith.) So, the whole voting thing is fairly farcical to begin with.

Fostering a Good Environment for Independent Thought (and Why the Church Fails to Do It)

I liked a blog entry posted by A Mormon in the Cheap Seats on the Doves and Serpents blog not too long ago. It flowcharted the epistemology (e.g. method for discovering whether something is true or not) that is taught in a traditional Sunday School.

I've modified the flowchart a little bit to discuss why I don't think the church fosters a very healthy level of independent thought---meaning that the church doesn't provide a safe environment in which its members are free to reach their own conclusions on important matters. The key feature of independent thought is being able to question authority figures or express ambivalence, skepticism, or dissent.

I like the way the Jesse Tahrili expressed the value of independent thought in his Growing Up With Scientist Mom comic strip:

Being told how to do something can be great. To bypass that initial struggle for information, to instantly understand that fire is hot without having to burn yourself. Today, you could learn more about gravity in one day than Isaac Newton learned in an entire lifetime! This method of passing down information to younger generations is something that has allowed humanity to thrive and progress for centuries. But this reliance on second-hand information is also one of our greatest downfalls. We live in an imperfect world, and to blindly trust everything we're told can be dangerous. Falsities, especially ones that we'd really like to believe, can infect our collective knowledge and proliferate like a virus. We must constantly question ourselves and seek to ensure that what we believe as truth always has a firm grounding in reality.

With that in mind, let's talk about how the church tells us to do in response to what authority figures within the church say. This is the classical epistemological model of Mormonism, as based on Doctrine and Covenants section 8 and 9:

That all seems pretty straightforward, right?

In its ideal form, I don't have too many qualms with this model of verifying whether our leaders are speaking truthfully or not. Although I don't really think that one should rely solely on emotional instinct to determine the veracity of a particular statement, it's not a bad place to start the process of critical inquiry. I also like that this model places the locus of control within the individual rather than in the authority figure; it's ultimately the responsibility of the individual to seek for and verify truth. This ideal model also suggests a fairly healthy system of “checks and balances” within church government, if you will. Every church member is taught that they have a right and a responsibility to ask the Lord whether our leaders are inspired and that they are entitled to an answer through personal revelation.

The problem is: this flowchart doesn't actually describe the process of revelation in the lived reality of most Mormons' experience. Here's the way the process of personal revelation actually works for most members of the church:

If it isn't immediately obvious, there are a number of problems with this model. The central problem is that there is only one possible conclusion: what the leader has stated is true. Although this process may superficially appear to open up the possibility for dissent and doubt, it ultimately denies it in the end. The only possible outcome is that what the leader has said is true. And if that is the only option, then it negates the possibility that this is a system in which independent thought can be cultivated in healthy ways.

This has a host of negative consequences. A few that I can think of are:

• Sexism. This is a big one for me. If only males are in positions of power (e.g. they make the bulk of the decisions for the organization and interpret church doctrine) and if these male leaders can never be in the wrong or can never be questioned or criticized, then that's deeply unfair to women in the church. It makes it impossible for women to have any kind of real influence or power within the church, which has serious consequences for women's mental health and for the overall health of the organization in general.
• Lack of accountability. When leaders cannot be questioned or criticized without fear of negative consequences, that creates a system in which there is no process for people to address grievances, to express valid concerns, or to enact necessary change. When people in an organization feel that they have no control or no voice in how the organization is run, it has the potential to create psychological problems.
• Low self-esteem or depression. In the flowchart above, you'll notice that the only possible explanation for why you can't seem to agree with your leaders is that there is something flawed with you as an individual. I bristle at the arrogant idea that the church organization and its leaders are somehow above reproach and that all of its problems lie in its inherently weak members. It's reminiscent of abusive relationships in which one person always gives and the other only takes. A relationship in which one party is always right and the other party is always wrong is NOT a healthy relationship.
• Intolerance. Most importantly, it creates a lack of support for people who do not fit the standard model in their beliefs, behavior or lifestyle. It promotes conformity to the group at the expense of the individual. It creates rigid, inflexible systems that do not adapt well to changing conditions and environments.

That's just a brief laundry list off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more potential negative outcomes that I may not have thought of. But, of course, one of the most serious consequences is that this model shuts down independent thought, moving the locus of control away from the individual members and onto the leader---who is prone to fallibility, short-sightedness, and possible corruption (even when his intentions are good).

The majority of members don't even bother to go through the classical process of asking the Lord whether the things their leader has said are true. Since it's obvious you'll end up in the same place anyway (the leader was right), why attempt to ask God directly in the first place? You might as well just save yourself the pain and skip over the whole critical thinking and evaluation process in the first place. But this is not a good option because critical inquiry and research has been the primary means through which human civilization has been advanced. Organizations which create environments that are anathema to critical inquiry are an impediment this kind of progress on a macro and micro level. This has extremely far-reaching moral implications. As painful and messy as open dialogue and skepticism can be, nearly every individual or society is much better and more healthy after having gone through the crucible of argumentation.

Now, to be fair, I want to point out that nearly all human institutions (governments, businesses, universities, families) have the potential to create environments that are not conducive to independent thought. It's probably an inevitable part of any human organization. But the fact that the church is prone to the same kinds of problems that are exhibited in other "worldly" institutions is probably yet another piece of evidence that it's just another flawed human construction---no more special or divine than any of the rest.

To the Souls of All Those Who Drink: That They May Have This Spirit to Be With Them

Last weekend my husband and I took a very big step in our journey away from Mormonism: we tried alcohol for the first time. From a purely academic perspective, I had stopped believing in the Word of Wisdom a long time ago (especially the version of the Word of Wisdom as interpreted by the contemporary church). But doubting the Word of Wisdom on an intellectual level is fairly different from experiencing it first-hand. I tried tea for the first time on my anniversary trip to Las Vegas last August. (I know, I know... It's pretty lame to go all the way to Las Vegas just to try an iced tea.) And I had tried coffee for the first time during Conference Weekend last October. Neither tea nor coffee had felt like that big of a deal. But alcohol? That was taking it to a new level.

So, last weekend we gave it a shot (pun intended). Read on if you want to see how the whole experience turned out and what I learned as a result.


The Context
By now, my husband Chris and I have been in a few different social situations where people were drinking and where we could have joined in if we had wanted to. There was a dinner party back in July with Chris's coworkers and I felt acutely awkward being the only couple who weren't drinking. Ever since then, I had thought a lot about if, when, and how I would try alcohol for the first time.

I hate to admit it, but fear was the driving motivation behind choosing to abstain from alcohol for so long. It's a very scary thing to try alcohol for the first time when you've been programmed your whole life to view alcohol as something evil and sinful---a slippery slope into Satan's open arms.

Last week I was was chatting online with my friend Brad (a long time ex-Mormon) about alcohol. I mentioned that for most never-Mormons, your first alcoholic drink is probably fairly unremarkable. On one level, it's a rite of passage. But on another level, it's also kind of mundane and ordinary---the sort of thing everyone does, so it's ultimately not that that big of a deal.

It's anything but ordinary for a Mormon. For a Mormon, it is the psychological equivalent of losing your virginity---with nearly all of the same psychosocial ramifications (only to the nth degree). When I mentioned this, Brad fully agreed. He said that having his first drink felt much scarier than having sex for the first time: it was taking your status outside of the church to a whole new level.

My conversation with Brad eventually drifted over to how Chris and I were probably going to try alcohol soon at a future dinner party this month. Brad started giving me some advice about what to try first and what things to avoid, how to drink appropriately, etc. But the more he was talking about the finer details of alcohol, the more I started to feel overwhelmed by the entire prospect.

Since it became apparent that it was going to be a psychologically difficult thing to do, I began to realize that I wanted my first experience with alcohol to be under ideal conditions. For me, that meant:

• It needed to be in a social or psuedo-social situation. Alcohol's main function is to be a social lubricant, so it wouldn't make sense to try it in total social isolation.
• But it needed to be a safe social situation. I didn't know how I would respond to alcohol in my system. Would I be friendly and sociable under the influence of alcohol? Or would I be really embarrassing or annoying? I needed someone who wouldn't judge me either way.
• At the same time, I felt I needed to be introduced to alcohol by someone who came from Mormonism---someone who would understand if I wanted to take it slow because they knew what a big step it was emotionally. I needed someone who wouldn't get mad if I decided to chicken out. And someone who wouldn't get upset if I took a sip of $60 wine and said, "That's disgusting!"
• Lastly, I needed someone who could humor my husband's need for scientific experimentation. I definitely wouldn't be doing any drinking unless my husband Chris was with me, but he had always insisted he wanted his first experiment with alcohol to be under controlled conditions in which he could closely monitor the effects it had on him. In other words: he needed it to appeal to his intellectual side (which is where he feels most comfortable and safe).

As I thought more about it, I came to the conclusion that I needed my friend Brad to help introduce me and my husband into the world of alcohol. He was the perfect one to do it: he and I had been friends for more than a decade, he was an ex-Mormon and had supported me during my entire faith crisis, he was a connoissuer of fine wines, and he was spontaneous enough to be willing to fly over to Utah to share my first drink with me and my husband. When I mentioned it to him, he was totally excited about it and booked the next weekend flight out from California.

I felt enthusiastic about the decision at the time, but that enthusiasm quickly started to wane and turn into anxiety in the 48 hours leading up to our little alcohol party. Visions of disapproving parents danced through my head. ("You'll become an alcoholic after just one drink! It's in your genes!") I started seeing the signs that I was getting stressed: my muscles tensed up, I started getting migraines, and I began yelling at my kids more frequently. I wasn't sure if I was going to be able to go through with it.

The next afternoon (Saturday), Brad showed up on my doorstep with more alcohol than I had ever seen in my life: two cardboard boxes and 6 grocery bags worth of beers, wines, and liqueurs. The alcohol he brought filled up my entire kitchen counter. There wasn't room in the fridge for much else after putting away all the alcohol that needed to be chilled. I was awestruck by how much cold, hard cash Brad had invested in my first experience with alcohol. (THANK YOU, BRAD! That truly was a beau geste.) And while it was thrilling to see all that alcohol, it was emotionally overwhelming at the same time. (Incidentally, Brad didn't intend for us to drink all of it: just to experiment with the full range of alcohol to see what we liked. See: I told you he understood my husband's scientific mind.) Eventually, I couldn't put it off any longer, and it was time to begin...


What We Tried and What We Liked/Hated
We started drinking around 7:00 after our kids went to bed. Chris had made an elaborate Japanese dish called Nabe that is eaten over the course of an hour. We ate dinner and sampled a few different wines from the gamut of white to red, light to strong. I wrote down that we tried:

• Frog's Leap - a classic Chardonnay (white wine)
• A to Z - an unsoaked Chardonnay from Oregon (white)
• Ridge - a Sonoma County (Geyserville) Zinfadel (white)
• Riesling
• Caymus - an expensive Cabernet Sauvignon (a strong red wine; this was Brad's drink of choice for the rest of the night)

Chris hated all of them. The smell and taste of the alcohol was just too strong for him. For me, the taste was just fine. That's probably because I've always had a very open palette. (I absolutely loved sushi the first time I tried it, for example.) For Chris, some of the wines caused an intense burning sensation going down. I didn't really experience that. I had a light burning sensation, but it was much lighter than the burning sensation I get from drinking something like Coke (which I drink on a fairly regular basis). The only drawback was that since the wines were young, they had a really strong finish. This made it so that the wine tasted stronger (and therefore not quite as enjoyable) with each sip for me.

Later in the evening (like around 9:00 and going as late as 1:00), we moved on to hard liquors. We tried:

• Amaretto Sour (Amaretto with Sweet and Sour mix; had a sweet taste)
• Buttery Nipple shots (Buttershots liqueur with Irish cream; had a butterscotch taste)
• Red-Headed Sluts (cranberry juice and Jagermeister; a drink that tasted like black licorice)
• Long Island Iced Tea (a variety of alcohols in this one such as tequila and gin; imitates the taste of tea)
• Caribou Lou (pineapple juice, coconut rum and 151 proof alcohol; had a tropical taste)
• Lime Ricki (we did it with grape-infused vodka, lime juice, etc.; had a sweet taste)

As for me, the Amaretto Sour was my favorite drink of the night, but I appreciated the taste of all of them (for the most part). The Long Island Iced Tea was a little too much for me because the gin was too strong. Since I have a sweet tooth, I probably would have liked the Lime Ricki a lot better if we had used regular Sprite instead of Sprite Zero.

Chris ended up having a sensitivity to the taste of alcohol and didn't enjoy any of the drinks. He preferred shots because they were over quickly. The Caribou Lou was his favorite drink of the night because, although the 151 was (obviously) a very high proof, it wasn't as noticeable since the alcohol ratio was fairly low compared to the pineapple juice.

We never got around to trying any of the beers Brad brought, so I'll have to report on those later when we get around to opening them.


How We Acted While Under the Influence
Brad talked about the different levels of intoxication. Here's how he defined it:

1. Sober: Little to no alcohol in your system
2. Buzzed: You can start to feel the effects (such as a slight buzz), but they will be fairly light
3. Well-lubricated: You can't concentrate as well and the effects become stronger
4. Drunk: You'll have trouble with coordination and the effects will be fairly strong
5. Blitzed: Your brain won't be in control of your body very much (for example, you'll want to walk one direction and go the other)

Chris and I floated between level 2-3 for most of the night. Brad broke some of his personal rules and floated between 3-4 for most of the night.

It had surprised me how easily and how quickly you could increase your level of intoxication---and also how subtle the differences were from one level to the next. In that moment, it made a lot more sense why alcohol could potentially be abused if you were not trying to deliberately remain in control of your rate of consumption. That being said, I didn't think it was that difficult for me to drink smart and responsibly. I think I will be able to maintain control of my alcohol consumption as long as I make the decision beforehand how far I will and won't go in general.

Going into the evening, I was very nervous about what kind of drunk I'd be. I was really hoping that I would be a happy drunk as opposed to being a quiet drunk, an angry drunk or a sad drunk. Although I'm sure that I might act differently in a different social context, I was pleased to discover that both Chris and I were happy, sociable drunks. I became a lot chattier, I laughed at jokes more easily, and I just generally became more relaxed and laid back. That was fairly pleasant.

After dinner, we played karaoke until 2am. I have a lot of fun playing karaoke when I'm sober, but I would say that alcohol probably made it 10-20% more enjoyable. (The highlight of the night was the hilarious trio while singing Lionel Ritchie's "All Night Long.") I noticed that I paid significantly less attention to the scores I was getting on karaoke (I'm normally very competitive), but I was still able to sing pretty well. Strangely enough, I had a much easier time sustaining the really long notes without running out of breath (or even getting remotely close to running out of breath). That probably means I was singing with my diaphragm a lot more (which makes sense since it's natural to sing with your diaphragm but somehow we get unconsciously socially programmed out of doing it). That was pretty awesome.

One thing that surprised me was that even though I could feel the effects of alcohol on my body, I didn't feel like I wasn't me. I felt mostly normal and able to concentrate (for the most part). My whole life I had thought that being drunk was like this:

Since I had never aspired to be Homer Simpson, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that it wasn't really like that. At the same time, I found that what Brad had said was right: it was much easier to see how alcohol was changing the people around me than it was to see it in myself. I could see how that aspect of feeling mostly normal while intoxicated (when you really weren't) could also lead to potential alcohol abuse or to poor decision-making even though you feel as though you're fully in control. But again, I think if you exercise self-discipline and try to remain self-aware, it wouldn't be that difficult to keep your behavior in check. Better yet: ask your friends to help you remain self-aware.

My social inhibitions were definitely reduced while drinking. Chris looked way more attractive to me---and something that surprised me was that I also perceived myself as being more attractive when I looked in the mirror (during my many trips to the bathroom during the night). Maybe it was that slight flush in my cheeks---I don't know. I also became a lot more open to the idea of having sex and I consequently became more openly affectionate with Chris, which is probably something I wouldn't normally do in the presence of friends while sober (or at least not to that degree). I think for that reason, it's important to make decisions beforehand about what kinds of behaviors you will or will not do while you're intoxicated. It would be slightly harder to make good decisions in the heat of the moment. (But only slightly harder.)


Reactions from the Following Day
Even though we drank a fairly substantial amount, I didn't have a hangover the next morning. That's because, per Brad's advice, we kept ourselves well-hydrated with lots of water (hence the many trips I had to make to the bathroom). We also spread out our drinks over a long period of time which gave our body enough time to metabolize it at a reasonable rate. So, physically there were no problems.

I wasn't really in the best mood the following day, but I'm not certain whether that was a direct result of the alcohol or because I was running on a meager 4 hours of sleep. (The kids got up at 6:30am, the little angels!) Also, in the morning I didn't feel like I was fully able to concentrate yet, but I was well enough to be functional.

The only really negative aspect of it all was that I hadn't been able to find a substitute teacher for my Primary class. I was in a pretty sour mood just by virtue of having to be at church (which generally bugs me anyway) and I didn't have much patience with the kids. It didn't help that I felt pretty hypocritical sitting in church when I had been drinking the night before. Now, when I use the word hypocritical, I'm not using that term to imply that I was experiencing guilt or regret---I didn't feel any of that. It's more like I just felt really lame that I was still stuck in church performing Mormonism and keeping up appearances. I wanted to stop living a double life, to just be out and be done with it. (For the record, we've resolved to leave officially some time between April and July, depending on the circumstances.)

But more importantly, I felt like I had reached a new plateau in my journey out of Mormonism the night before. I felt like I was genuinely not a Mormon any more. It was like an anti-baptism, in some ways. (Heh, heh... Baptism by spirits.) In a certain sense, drinking alcohol for the first time seemed like a symbolic action on par with a religious ritual---entering into a different way of life with different expectations for myself.

I also felt very empowered. I felt like I could exercise constraint and good judgment despite what my mother believes. (Her first accusation upon discovering I wasn't wearing my garments was that I must have started drinking and was on the verge of becoming an alcoholic.) I felt that I no longer had to be motivated to avoid alcohol because of fear or shame, but that I could control my alcohol consumption through self-knowledge and experience. It made me feel a little bit more mature.

The fear of becoming an alcoholic is still in the back of my mind, but it's not a very serious threat to me any more. The only reason it's on my radar at all is because I pretty much enjoyed the taste of alcohol and liked the effect that it had on me socially. But I think that I have the self-discipline to keep from drinking excessively. One reason I think I'll be okay is because I was older than 25 before I started drinking and so my brain is fully mature and more averse to risk-taking than a teenager's brain is. Another reason is that Chris honestly doesn't have a desire to do very much drinking since he strongly disliked the taste of alcohol. So, I won't have very much pressure from him to drink---and he'll be a pretty good watchdog. Mostly I just think the occasional alcoholic drink will help me loosen me up at large parties when I'm in the company of new people---since I tend to be fairly slow to warm up in new social situations. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

The biggest surprise for me was that alcohol is really no big deal. It does help life seem a little bit nicer when you're intoxicated, but it's not like it's a life-changing, mind-altering level of pleasure. It was just nice. And it's not all that horrible and evil as I had been led to believe most of my life. If anything, the effects of alcohol were underwhelming. This weekend I saw first-hand that the church fetishizes alcohol, over-exaggerating its negative effects and making it more important than it needs to be. (A problematic mindset that can actually make you more prone to alcoholism, in my opinion.)

All in all, my first experience with alcohol was a positive one. To be honest, it's how I would want my kids to be introduced to alcohol when they're older, if I could choose the perfect world for them. Thanks again, Brad, for a great weekend!

Now the real question is: where will we hide all the leftover alcohol when my mother-in-law comes to visit in two weeks?

Weighing in on the Podcast Wars: Mormon Expression vs. Mormon Stories

Mormon Expression did a podcast last week in which they responded to criticisms from people who said their tone had become too negative lately. It unleashed a lot of strong comments from listeners (both those who agreed with the criticisms and those who wanted to defend Mormon Expression). A lot of the defenders said some unkind things about John Dehlin (who runs the Mormon Stories and Mormon Matters podcasts), prompting another Mormon Expression listener to call them on the carpet for that.

I'm going to go Swiss on this whole debate. I'm neutral on this matter because I like both of these podcasts. (I'll go ahead and lump Mormon Stories and Mormon Matters in together.) I'm a paying subscriber to both, giving both an equal financial contribution. I like them both for what they're trying to do. And I would defend both of them from criticisms if the opportunity arose.

But how do they each stack up in terms of their credibility? Read on to find out...


Criteria for Evaluating Resources
My main responsibility as an educator at UVU is to teach students how to think critically. One of the key tasks involved in critical thought is learning how to determine whether a particular source is credible and trustworthy or not. Since your argument is only as strong as your evidence/sources, you need to make sure your sources are reliable.

I teach my students that there are seven criteria for determining whether you should use a source to support your argument in a paper:

1. Authoritativeness - The root word of "authoritativeness" is "author" and it therefore refers to the background of the author and the reputation of the publisher. Is the author an expert (an authority) in their field? Do they have some sort of strong educational or personal background that qualifies them to make an informed statement on this topic? Does the publisher have a good reputation for publishing trustworthy materials?
2. Quality of Research and Methodology - Are the sources that they use to back their argument reliable and trustworthy (preferably scholarly and peer-reviewed as opposed to being journalistic or web-based)? Did they include formal citations accurately so that others could verify their resources were credible? If they conducted an experiment, were the conditions of the experiment sound, using basic scientific principles to control for all factors?
3. Objectivity and/or Degree of Advocacy - This refers to whether they are adopting an objective tone or not. There's nothing wrong with arguing a particular position, but are they doing so in a way that is respectful of counterarguments or of alternate viewpoints? If they are arguing a position, how strongly are they arguing for that position? Are they using black-and-white, polemical language or are they showing the complexity of the topic by examining all possible viewpoints on the matter? Are they pushing an agenda or are they willing to let the audience reach their own conclusions on the matter?
4. Timeliness and Currency - Has the source been published in the last 5 or 10 years? Does it reflect the most current research and perspectives on this topic? This is especially important when researching medical topics, as our academic knowledge about human health becomes updated very rapidly. This is less important when studying historical topics, but it is till a good rule-of-thumb.
5. Aimed at a Scholarly vs. a Popular Audience - Is it written for other scholars who are experts in the field or is it written for a mainstream audience? Scholarly texts can be more challenging to read and understand, but texts for a popular audience can sometimes water down the information or accidentally distort the information in the process of making it more palatable. Another important consideration is whether they are trying to make a profit off the information or not. Are they publishing it for the purpose of advancing scholarly knowledge on the topic or are they publishing it for a more self-interested purpose?
6. Primary vs. Secondary Source - Primary sources are documents created by people with first-hand experience with a topic. Secondary sources are created second-hand. The authors were not directly involved in the topic themselves. In academia, a primary document would be a scholarly article reporting on the results of an experiment conducted by the authors. A secondary document would be a journalist who is reporting about that experiment in a magazine. In historical research, a primary document would be a letter, journal entry, interview, or some other record from a person who experienced that historical event first-hand. A secondary document would be a person writing about the event afterwards who did not experience it first-hand. Whenever possible, primary sources are preferable because secondary sources can sometimes lose something in translation.
7. Usefulness - This is a catch-all category. How useful is the source to what you are particularly trying to accomplish in your research? That can vary from source to source depending on what you're trying to do.

Now, just because a particular resource is weak in one of those areas doesn't necessarily mean that you should throw it out. Think of these seven criteria as being seven channels of input that you can use to determine the resource's overall credibility, kind of like the buttons on an audio equalizer:

If a particular resource is high on all 7 channels, it's definitely a good resource. If it's mostly high, it's probably still reliable, but you should take it with a grain of salt. If it's low on most of these channels, you should probably avoid it.

With that in mind, let's pit John vs. John and evaluate how both Mormon Expression and Mormon Stories/Matters stands up to this criteria.

Mormon Expression

Authoritativeness: I give them an A or an A- on this category. Mormon Expression features a lot of interviews with scholars and others who are authorities in their field. Either that or the interviewees have studied the topic personally in a great deal of depth. When the podcast is a panel discussion, all of the panelists are expected to have heavily researched their topics beforehand or to have some extensive first-hand experience in the matter. Some panelists are occasionally weaker than others (depending on the topic), but all in all, they are generally well-informed.

Quality of Research and Methodology: I give them an A- or B+ on this category. I probably would have given them a higher score on this, but one complaint I have about Mormon Expression is that they don't always indicate where their information comes from. I prefer going to primary sources when I can so that I can study the topic further or determine whether I agree with the panelists' interpretation of the evidence. But they do sometimes cite their sources informally and, when they do, the sources seem relatively credible and scholarly.

Objectivity and/or Degree of Advocacy: This one is difficult to quantify, but I think I'd give them a B+ on this one. It's difficult to evaluate this because I think they make a genuine effort to have balance in the panelists that they invite to discuss topics on the show. I like the new believing voices they've been having on the show (like Brandt and Jessie) because they do a good job of arguing for their position while still being respectful of divergent viewpoints. However, John Larsen is usually the moderator on Mormon Expression and, as such, he exerts some control over the conversation. This sometimes makes the conversation weigh in favor of the ex-Mormon position a little bit. Plus, John has been ramping up his use of polemical language a bit more lately. I generally agree with his arguments, but the use of polemics is occasionally troubling because it reminds me too much of the black-and-white thinking that I distrust (whether it's coming from the church, from FoxNews or from the Internet). Any time I hear an extreme position being taken, it sets off my internal warning bells. It doesn't mean I throw it out, but it means that I proceed with caution. I've learned that every issue worth talking about is more complex than absolutist logic allows for. Mormonism is no exception.

Timeliness and Currency: Sure, I'll give it an A. It's not really an applicable category here, but they do talk frequently about current events. And when they're talking about historical topics, timeliness is not as important.

Aimed at a Scholarly vs. Popular Audience: I'll give it an A- or B+ here. It's definitely aimed at a popular audience and it's trying to be good entertainment. Therefore, the information or the evidence can sometimes be diluted in translation. However, I don't think they have any kind of desire to profit from Mormon Expression. Donations to the podcast go to running the podcast itself and nothing else. They're doing the podcast because they find the topic interesting and they want to think/talk about Mormon issues. In essence, they really do want to advance a scholarly discussion about Mormonism---but in an accessible form.

Primary vs. Secondary Source: I'll give it a A- or a B+ here as well. It's obviously a secondary source itself, but they try to research using primary documentation whenever possible. Again, I might give them a more solid A- if they cited their research better.

Usefulness: This is going to fluctuate from listener to listener, but for me personally, I'll give it an A-. I have found that it definitely expanded my understanding of my religion. I prefer academic, scholarly examinations of Mormonism that are grounded in good research and good arguments. Mormon Expression satisfies this need for me. What I especially like about Mormon Expression is how democratic it is. If you want to voice an opinion, you can do it on Mormon Expression. They'll let anyone who has something useful to say onto the podcast. No censorship. Just democratic exchange. That's Mormon Expression's greatest strength. It can sometimes backfire on them, but it's ultimately what makes their podcast so great. It's like one giant peer review.

Overall Grade: It's in the A- or B+ range, depending on the episode.

Mormon Stories/Mormon Matters

Authoritativeness: I'll give them an A in this category. They tend to have experts on the podcast to talk about their area or expertise or they feature people who have had first-hand experience with the topic. This is a strength of the podcast.

Quality of Research and Methodology: I'll give them an A- in this category. They usually informally cite their sources and their sources tend to be scholarly and trustworthy. Sometimes they link to their sources in the podcast notes, which is helpful. It's clear they put a lot of pre-discussion and research into their podcasts.

Objectivity and/or Degree of Advocacy: I'll give them a B+ in this category. They try very deliberately to be accepting of lots of points of view and they often succeed, but it does sometimes feel like they push the "Stay LDS" agenda a little rigorously. They've also been known to delete comments and things that are not in keeping with their mission or tone. That's good for PR, but the tradeoff is that it can shut down the democratic exchange of ideas by not allowing all viewpoints onto the table. Although there is an element of censorship to it, I will grant them a pass if they are removing comments from people who are making unfair character attacks or being unnecessarily abrasive. Plus, I recognize that podcasts do have some responsibility to ensure that people who agree to appear on your podcast will not be treated rudely by listeners. Otherwise you risk of getting a bad reputation and alienating potentially good guests from coming on the podcast in the future. Good guests are the lifeblood of a podcast and a bad reputation can kill you off. (I've seen this happen with movie podcasts I listen to.)

Timeliness and Currency: I'll give them an A on this one for the same reasons I gave Mormon Expression an A too. This category doesn't apply so much when they discuss historical topics and they do a good job of discussing topics that are current events in Mormonism.

Aimed at a Scholarly vs. Popular Audience: I'll give them the same score as Mormon Expression on this one: a B+. And pretty much for all of the same reasons (see above).

Primary vs. Secondary Source: I'll give them an B+ here. Like Mormon Expression, they are a secondary source. They do draw on primary sources for inspiration, but less so than Mormon Expression does. (Like I'm thinking of how the Mormon Expression folks will actually read primary documents such as scriptures, hymns, or discourses in their discussions.)

Usefulness: Again, this will also fluctuate from individual to individual. For me personally, I'll give it a B+ at this point in time. Since my faith in Mormonism is at 1-2% (meaning, it's not very strong), Mormon Stories and Mormon Matters are not as relevant to me in my spiritual journey as they were in the past. However, they were very, very important to me at one point. They provide a safe place where people can transition to wherever it is they need to go on their faith journey. Even though they're somewhat more boring (sorry!) compared to Mormon Expression, I still think they have valid arguments and interesting perspectives on Mormon issues. And I do appreciate their attempts at balanced discussion.

Overall Grade: A general A-, possibly a B+.


Conclusion
For me, both podcasts come out equal in the end. They both have good content. They just have different scopes, purposes, and audiences. In some ways, it really does come down to the usefulness category and what you look for in a podcast. I think I personally prefer Mormon Expression because I prefer democratic exchange, because the topics on Mormon Expression are a little more interesting and also because of where I'm at in my life right now. But how lovely that I don't have to choose. I can listen to and enjoy them both for what they're worth. Mormon Stories/Matters appeals to my heart and Mormon Expression appeals to my head. That seems like a good balance.

Feel free to chime in and let me know if you agree or disagree with my assessment. As I said, I'm a big fan of democratic dialogue, so your two cents matter to me. :)

Changing Leaves, Changing Callings, Changing Feelings

This image is from a page of my journal earlier this year. It's a graphical representation of how I "outgrew" Mormonism, if you will. I recently shared it with the Mormon Expression folks as part of an episode on which my husband and I appear:

So, one Sunday about a month and a half ago, my husband and I were playing a video game in our living room when there was a knock at the door. It was the 2nd counselor in the Bishopric, stopping by for a surprise visit. It made me nervous instantly. My pulse went up; my muscles tensed. What was he doing stopping by our house for a surprise visit?

It turns out he wanted to give us a new calling to serve as Primary Teachers to the 6-7 year olds. They've been having lots of problems staffing the Primary and so we had been substitute teaching quite a bit the last year. I guess they decided to make us official members of the Primary staff. We asked the 2nd counselor if we could step into our bedroom and discuss whether we should take the calling or not.

The discussion was a vigorous one. I had previously made a promise to myself that I would not accept another calling so that we could gradually transition out of the church. But then when push came to shove, I chickened out. I didn't want to deal with the consequences of "coming out" about being non-believers at that exact moment. The timing felt too sudden. At that immediate moment, I just wanted the 2nd counselor to go away and saying yes seemed like the easiest and most direct way to make that happen. Besides, I kind of liked the 6-7 year olds, so it couldn't be that bad.

Now that a month has gone by, I feel that working in the Primary has been a mixed bag. On the one hand, it's a lot more work to prepare a lesson every week. (I'm a perfectionist, so I can't just phone it in---which makes this calling sometimes very time-consuming and occasionally stressful.) But on the other hand, it's actually been easier to just go back to the basics. I feel like I can teach general humanistic principles in Mormon terms without compromising my integrity too much. And it's been really nice not to attend Sunday School or Relief Society---where the lessons range from being mind-numbingly boring (at best) to offensive (at worst).

As a result of being in Primary, there have been times when I've started to feel somewhat complacent about being at church---and sometimes even comfortable. But just when I start to feel that way, something always seems to come along to take me out of that state, to remind me that I don't really belong here because I'm not a believer.

For example, last Sunday we were assigned a new home teacher who I'll refer to as "Brother W." Brother W. is an uber-Mormon. Very much the TBM, seminary-teacher type. He's probably the only guy in the ward who actually does his home teaching. So, why was he suddenly assigned to us? It could be just a benign decision, but part of me feels paranoid that I've said too much, that I've made it onto somebody's radar, that we're being "watched over." It's irrational and silly, but I can't quite shake the feeling I'm being scrutinized by the people around me. I was really paranoid at church this last week, watching what everyone said to me, how they looked at me, etc. I was frustrated with my own heightened sense of self-consciousness, honestly. It felt like being a teenager again.

Anyhow, since I no longer teach Relief Society, I think I'm going to delve into the archives of the Gospel Principles lessons I taught in the past and continue working through those in my blog. I'll try to shoot for one lesson a month as my free time permits. So, stay tuned!

A Feminist Review of Daughters in My Kingdom: Part Two

This is a continuation of my review of the church's recent publication Daughters in My Kingdom: The History and Work of Relief Society. See Part One in which I discuss how the book constructs a historical narrative to justify the church's contemporary auxiliary structure. I discussed chapters 1, 2, and 6 in detail in that review. In this part, I will discuss chapters 3-5, 7, and 10. If you would like to read my in-depth, 20 page notes on the book, you're welcome to check out this Google Doc.

Service, Service, Service, SERVICE!
Chapters 3, 4, and 5 were definitely the strongest chapters in the book and I actually enjoyed them (for the most part). They told the history of the Mormon women from 1846-1945, with a particular emphasis on the acts of service performed by Mormon women.

Chapter 3 focuses on the pioneer exodus from Nauvoo to the West. It highlights the tremendous strength of the pioneer women and how they often had to make the trek with a very low ratio of men since most of the men had joined the Mormon Battalion. It talked about how women supported each other on the plains and how they endured tremendous suffering as the result of sickness and death. It highlighted early acts of service performed by women who had just newly settled down in Utah such as making clothing for local Indians and helping Saints who were still traveling Westward.

Chapter 4 covered the period of the reintroduction of the Relief Society from 1866 to about 1910. It again highlighted the contributions of women during this period such as:

• The establishment of the Deseret Silk Association, chaired by Zina D. H. Young
• The Relief Society practice of saving and storing wheat in silos
• How women during this period of time frequently traveled to the East to be trained in medicine and then worked as medical doctors when they returned to the West

This chapter also mentioned some great things like women's publications (such as the Women's Exponent and the Relief Society Magazine), women's suffrage, and demonstrations put on by Mormon women to in which they argued that they were not inferior to other women in the world.

Chapter 5 covered the years spanning World War I to World War II. It also emphasized acts of service performed by women such as:

• Relief Societies that volunteered with the Red Cross and National Council of Defense during World War I
• Raising money and sewing quilts for soldiers or for European families that had been devastated by war
• The Relief Society's creation of the Social Service Department, which helped with adoption and assisting low-income families
• The creation of hospitals by local Relief Societies, which often offered free courses in nurses training
• The organization of the Church Welfare Program, which was run in coordination with the Relief Society

I actually really enjoyed these chapters quite a bit. It was remarkable to see the accomplishments of Mormon women throughout the last two centuries. In some ways it made me mourn how assertive and proactive the Mormon women of the past appear to have been compared with the Mormon women of today. Had the book ended after chapter 5, I would have given Daughters in My Kingdom a generally positive review for the way in which it highlighted and celebrated the often forgotten contributions of women in the past. But, alas, it didn't end there.

Service and Charity as an Innate Female Attribute
Chapter 7 marked a transition in the purpose of the book. All the previous chapters had been devoted to telling the history of the Relief Society and the remarkable contributions of Mormon women collectively and individually. But in Chapter 7, it switched from telling a historical narrative to a more didactic argument about women's divine nature and their prescribed roles within the church.

While reading this chapter, I began to suspect that this book was appropriating the history of the Relief Society for its own rhetorical purposes. Rather than just telling the story of the remarkable accomplishments of Mormon women and letting that stand on its own merit, in Chapter 7 the book began to impose a narrow interpretation of what that history meant. The previous 6 chapters of the book had been emphasizing the service that had been given by the Relief Society in the past. In Chapter 7, it began to emphasize that giving service is a divine attribute of being female.

Here's a few quotes from the chapter that caused me to get that vibe:

• "Visiting teaching has become a vehicle for Latter-day Saint women worldwide to love, nurture, and serve---to 'act accoding to those sympathies which God has planted in your bosoms,' as Joseph Smith taught" (112).
• President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, a counselor in the First Presidency, said: 'You wonderful sisters render compassionate service to others for reasons that supersede desires for personal benefits' " (112).

Then in chapter 10, my suspicions were confirmed when the rhetoric about womanhood and service became much more overt. Notice the repeated assertions in from Chapter 10 that service and charity are innate female attributes:

• "[S]isters in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have been taught to live up to their divine potential by fulfilling God's purposes for them. As they come to understand who they really are---God's daughters, with an innate capacity to love and nurture---they reach their potential as holy women. With charity in their hearts, they fulfill the purposes of Relief Society" (171).
• "The Lord has endowed women with an innate desire to serve and bless others" (171).
• Quoting Elder Russell M. Ballard, it states that women have "an innate tendency to put the well-being of others ahead of [their] own" (172).
• "The Prophet Joseph Smith taught, 'It is natural for females to have feelings of charity' " (172).
• "For true charity to blossom in their hearts, women must combine their innate compassion with faith in Jesus Christ" (173).

I think that on the surface level, the authors of this book (who, incidentally, are unknown to us) probably imagine that these kinds of statements are a way of praising women. After all, it's a rather high compliment to say that women, by their very nature, have an innate capacity for charity, the "pure love of Christ" (Moroni 7:47). Service to others is always considered a noble act---so to suggest that service is an innate female quality is somewhat ennobling, right?

Unfortunately any kind of essentialization of gender is bound to be problematic. While I feel that giving service is very noble in and of itself---and I really do want to applaud the sacrifices Mormon women have made in service to others---I worry that the suggestion that charity is an innate female trait is very problematic. The word "service" comes from the Latin word servitium which means "servitude" and "slavery." It's closely related to the word "servant." And so, to suggest that a desire to serve is an innate female trait feels dangerously close to suggest that it's a woman's innate role to serve everyone, to put selflessly put everyone else's needs before her own.

I don't think that suggests a very healthy role for women. In those kinds of statements, I don't hear any acknowledgment that a woman should set reasonable boundaries for what she will or will not do for others (in order to avoid being taken advantage of or to be abused by others). I don't hear any acknowledgement that a woman should freely choose to serve others (as opposed to doing it out of a sense of duty or obligation). I don't hear any acknowledgement that some women may not find personal satisfaction in service to others and that she should be free to choose that lifestyle or find some other path to fulfillment if she will. In short, let's allow each woman to individually define her purpose in life for herself.

When I finished Daughters in My Kingdom, I created this image to express the way I felt about it:

I just felt that the whole book was a way of allowing male General Authorities to ventriloquize women and femininity rather than let women define their own femininity for themselves. And the leaders of the church ventriloquize womanhood because it ultimately serves them---by reinforcing the system of patriarchy.

For a more eloquent exploration of this problem, check out the Mormon Matters Podcast about motherhood.

***

I have more I could say about Daughters in My Kingdom, but I'm ready to move onto thinking and writing about other church-related things. So we'll just leave it at that. Feel free to check out my Google Doc if you want more of my thoughts on the whole thing.