Outer Lightness » Main Street Plaza

Expand blog entries with this slider:

Main Street Plaza (15 unread)

Giving things up

Posted: July 29th, 2010, 7:00am EDT by UrbanKoda

Tags: [edit]

This is my first post on Main Street Plaza. I’m grateful for the opportunity to share some thoughts with you, and hopeful that I can contribute something to a community which has been a huge support to me over the past few years.

That almost sounds like the way I would have started a sacrament talk a few years ago!! This post is about leaving Mormonism and actually, I think it may dovetail nicely with the post aerin64 did yesterday. Perhaps before I get to the leaving part, we should look at the joining part.

Back in the days when I was a missionary, perhaps the hardest thing about helping a new member come into the church was the stuff they had to give up. We shared this amazing story with them about prophesy in modern days, eternal families and a church community in which they could participate, and once they accepted a part of that, the rest seemed to come naturally.

The stuff they had to give up though… First for many it was their own church and religious community, and then it was a matter for many of quitting coffee, alcohol and tobacco products. The thing I most feared asking them to give up was 10 percent of their income, but for many they were coming from a background where they had been doing something similar anyway.

I got thinking about this the other day, as I thought about my continuing journey out of the church and out of Mormonism. There is plenty I have to gain in this journey, and it has all seemed to come naturally. Coffee isn’t exactly that bad for you, and once you’ve had that, moving over the odd alcoholic beverage with dinner or friends really isn’t a big deal either. I suspect if I didn’t live in Utah, it would be even less of a deal.

But then I got thinking about what I was giving up. Somethings seem obvious and are really easy. Sunday meetings, continuous guilt that I’m not doing my calling as well as I could and an extra layer of underwear when it’s hotter than Hades outside. There are things though that I hadn’t considered when I began this journey, and one of them is the idea of the outside world in a pure state of dichotomy.

Let me explain… for my entire life the idea of dichotomy has been drummed into my head. God is good, Satan is evil. Mormonism is good, other churches are evil. Not drinking alcohol is good, drinking alcohol makes you evil (even 1 sip). You and I could go on and on for days with this list, but the final thing I want to add is this one. Joseph Smith is good, anyone who opposes him is evil.

Joseph Smith – the one man that all of us who have been in the Church revered and likely the cause of much of the reason that those of us who have left, have chosen to do so. Handling it was really easy for me, as I simply switched the roles. Clearly Joseph did some bad stuff, and lied about other stuff, so naturally Joseph Smith is evil (as are all who defend him) and any who oppose him are good.

Isn’t there more to all of us than simply being either good or evil though? I think I could be considered pretty good in some aspects of my life and likely evil in others, and there are a myriad of aspects in between where I am a mix of both. I’ve noticed this when I read things which defend some of Joseph Smith’s actions, or share his history in a positive light. I get angry when people try to defend him and yet I find myself questioning why I have those feelings. Was he not just a man, with a similar collection of attributes both good and bad, and countless more in between those extremes… Much like all of us?

The problem is that I still have in my mind the doctrine of the dichotomy of good and evil. I still judge Joseph Smith on the scales – was he all good, or all bad, and I do the same with those around me. Just snap judgments – this person is good, that person is evil.

I suspect a psychologist could have an absolute field day with my brain, but for now I’m hoping to overcome it on my own. Trying to see people as the complex people they are, and respecting their existence, as much as I value my own. I think I’m making progress, but as with everything in the path out of Mormonism… 30 plus years of brain washing can’t be undone over night.

How about you? Have you struggled to overcome the dichotomy of good and evil, and are there perhaps other things you’ve had to give up to walk away from it all?
In Vacuums

Posted: July 28th, 2010, 1:31pm EDT by aerin64

Tags: [edit]

We had a long discussion recently about an author’s personal background here. The discussion centered around whether or not an author’s personal background was fair game. Particularly if an author’s background appears to relate to their work (or illuminate parts of their work).

I would like to suggest that an author’s background may be an important part of any discussion of a piece of literature. It might not be the only thing to discuss (what’s the plot like? What is the use of language? How believable are the characters, the dialogue?) – but it could be a part of the discussion.

Many famous authors are just as famous for their lives as their work (Byron, Hemmingway, Oscar Wilde, Dorothy Parker, etc.) It’s hard to divorce where the fame over the work ends and the noterity begins.

Could we appreciate those authors (Byron, Hemmingway or Dosteovsky) without knowing some of their personal life? Of course – many people aren’t aware of some of the more colorful parts of the authors’ pasts. I think it leads to greater understanding of an individual work. Knowing a war was going on when something was written – and that the author either opposed or supported that war. Or understanding the McCarthy trials, and reading Arthur Miller’s “The Crucible”.

Art doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

But it’s also problematic if people write only from their own direct experiences.

I once heard a male author remark that he could write from the female perspective because he had a wife and three daughters. Something didn’t sit right with me about his comment.

I don’t think male authors can always write well about the female perspective or vice versa. What I think irks me is the idea that one novel or one piece of work is the sum total of a population’s “experience”. And this goes for women, men, gays, mormons, etc.

Historically, there are “under-served” populations that did not have their own voices in art and literature. As mentioned in this exponent post – some populations are overlooked by publishing in favor of majority authors.

Does this mean that one population (like men) can’t write about another population (women)? Is one opinion more or less valid?

I believe moderation is the key. I think each serious author has the obligation to research the populations they are writing about. I think it would be disingenuous for me to write about flying planes in Alaska – as I’ve never even been to Alaska. With that said, imagination is a component, and part of the process. I don’t have to have been a pilot in Alaska to be able to write about those experiences.

Which leads me to mormonism.

Authors (bloggers or authors of published work) shouldn’t have to prove mormon credentials or tell everything about their own mormon experience(s) in order to write about mormonism, growing up mormon, or living amongst mormons. There is a long discussion on Andrew’s blog here about this very topic.

To me, it seems like another version of the age-old convert vs. born “in the covenant” mormon. The insidious argument that because someone was not born LDS, they don’t really know mormonism, can’t really know mormonism. And it is true, just as someone who is born Roman Catholic is different than someone who converts, mormons also have different histories.

Yet with that said, the one experience or perspective doesn’t invalidate the other. Many faithful LDS might not like reading what we write, those of us who have left the LDS church in whatever capacity. That doesn’t mean that we can’t try to better understand where the faithful are coming from; and that we can’t speak up about our experiences and opinions.

An author shouldn’t have to explain where they come from, or what their beliefs are, before stating their opinion. But they should be prepared to defend what they’ve written.
Sunday in Outer Blogness: Variations on the Theme of Difference!

Posted: July 25th, 2010, 4:09am EDT by chanson

Enclosure: [download]

Tags: [edit]

Wow, what a week! Chock-full of discussions revolving around the theme of differences among people. First, conformity within the community, defining it. Check out this Mormon Matters discussion on the doctrine of wearing a white shirt to church — (maybe I’m being insensitive so say this, but) the passionate debate over it is hilarious! It reminded my of what a terrible job I’m doing of conforming to exmo grooming standards — I just have the traditional one-piercing-per-earlobe, and no other piercings or tattoos. The thing is, though, that I was born in 1971, and tatts and multiple piercings weren’t in style when I was forming my aesthetic preferences, so they don’t really look that attractive to me. But I get that it’s different for other people, and that’s A-OK!

(On a related note, my parents are visiting, and one of the only appropriate English speaking churches my dad could find to attend this morning was a “Gen-X” church. He described it to my mom as a “youth” church. Then I had to laugh and explain that “Gen-X” is not “youth” — it’s old fogies like me and my husband .)

Anyway, where was I? Oh, yeah, naturally I’m jealous that the discussion on Mormon Matters is generally so much more lively than here at Main Street Plaza (no matter how many times I try to convince people to write us some interesting new articles — thanks Alan for helping). But nobody is under pressure to conform, and no matter how many times we disagree with the conceit that you have to pay tithing to earn the right to criticize Mormonism, or with that “you can leave the church but you can’t leave it alone” thing — the thing is that most former Mormons really do start angry, then kind of get bored of talking about Mormonism and wander off to smell the roses. Maybe they swing by occasionally to contemplate their Mormon background (or for fun), but it’s not the same as the motivation to contemplate Mormonism that comes from 20 hours a week of meetings and callings….

Of course, there are more ways to be different than just wearing a colored shirt. You could be handicapped. Or gay. You may have heard about the recent tragedy. Some are making a connection with the politics of prop 8 and the (intentionally?) ironic NOM. The Swearing Elders argue that the CoJCoL-dS is not doing its image a favor. However, TGD points us to the controversy (over questionable taste and who’s the drama queen…?).

Then there’s the friction between different groups! Curtis asks the far right about their policies towards immigrants. And continuing our discussion of one group trying to speak for another, check out this eye-popping tea-party letter “from a colored person”! Or this proto-tea-party editorial. Then there’s Christian privilege vs. Islam. Just read this interview with the Christian pastor behind “International Burn-a-Koran Day.” But the question starts getting a little more complicated when we ask if it’s reasonable to ban the Burka. (For some fascinating perspectives on it, listen to this Ireland Newstalk Radio panel including Maryam Namazie. Personally, while I consider her work valuable, I didn’t totally agree with her reasoning; OTOH, the lady explaining why she chooses to wear a Niquab came off as completely insane…). On a much lighter note, check out what happens when Fred Phelps congregation meets Comic Con!

In other religious-right-politics, Sarah Palin made an amusing gaffe, but she was totally overshadowed by the star power of Glenn Beck! Sunstone has a two part “Rough Stone Roaring” series on him. And Mormon Coffee argues that Beck’s theology is more Christian than Mormon.

Lastly, I’d like to highlight some of the discussion of what is (IMHO) one of the most amusing points about Mormonism of late: The Gospel Principles manual taking the traditional boring meetings to a whole new level of boring — previously thought impossible! Look at the intriguing symbolism in LDS architecture! Watch the faithful try to correct, justify, or even make heads or tails of the situation. Watch the exmos try to help. Sort of.

Whew, that should be plenty to chew on! Happy Sunday!
Faithful LDS women and m/m romance consumption

Posted: July 24th, 2010, 7:21am EDT by Alan

Tags: [edit]

Over at A Motley Vision after the review of my novel, I was on the defensive for a while. My concern had been that I had been positioned as an “other,” although I was assured that I’m merely “on the fringe.” Obviously, any storytelling about homosexuality in the Church assumes a position in the sense of: “Is this a ‘faithful’ story?” If the characters “act on their attractions,” the answer tends to be “no,” unless the characters repent and return to being chaste — and even then, the very depiction of not being chaste can send the story to the “unfaithful” pile. In my story, not only do the characters act on their attractions, but the review criticized the faithful position in my novel to be “on the fringe.”

So, the conversation continued, and I stated:

The demographic of “faithful Mormons who don’t mind seeing two guys who are intimate” exists. They are people who disagree with the Church on the topic of homosexuality, but are otherwise faithful. They include members of divided families; women who are interested in same-sex romance as a genre (a rather popular genre these days, actually); converts to the Church, etc. There is a lot of diversity in this regard that falls “under the radar.”

[...]There are of course faithful gay people in the Church who might be interested in my book, not because they’re biting their fingernails about whether they should enter a same-sex relationship (i.e, they’re “on their way out”), but simply because they’re gay and the book features Mormons.

All of a sudden, the conversation flipped and people sided with me. At least, this is how I felt. One commenter posted:

I know quite a few female m/m authors. They’re raking in the dough, lemme tell ya. From everything I can gather, m/m romance outsells m/f and menage (in any combination) about 5:1.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a portion of that customer base is LDS.

Now, I follow the M/M romance and yaoi communities (my own desires as a gay male have been heavily influenced by the imaginations of Japanese female mangaka) and any next novel I write would be geared toward this market. I assumed Mormonism and M/M romance overlap, simply because of the sheer size of the M/M romance market. The question is, how much do they overlap? Who are the faithful LDS women consuming this stuff? How do they think about their consumption as faithful LDS women?

An LDS woman emailed me some time ago who is herself an M/M romance writer. An excerpt from her emails [with her permission to tell her story] is as follows:

Since I’m both a homoerotic romance writer and Mormon mother of four I find it a tremendously difficult and strange thing to walk in both worlds. But I have the sense that there’s something wrong, that we throw away the brilliance of creation when we don’t embrace the diversity of it. And plus, I was a convert, so no one really expected me to tow the party line faithfully, or if they did, they weren’t listening to me when they invited me in.

[...]My work comes up at church only because after California Prop #8 I stopped going to the temple and declined to be interviewed further. I stopped attending church during the worst of that for several months, and then when my children asked me to return, I spoke with the Bishop and informed him that I write same-sex romance novels, that I don’t agree with the policy of the church, that I think that the position they take now is both spiritually and morally incorrect, and that it reflects a gaping hole in the doctrine and needs to be fixed.

[...]I asked them if they had a problem with me attending church because I wasn’t likely to change my mind, and my Bishop, who is really a pretty interesting guy said, “Well. We can agree that the savior made the atonement for you right? That you believe in that, and you’re grateful?” And I said yes. And he said, “Then come to church for the savior, and to honor him and be with your family and we’ll agree to disagree on the rest.” I don’t know if I’d attend if they refused me the sacrament or something. I’ve never taken the sacrament, say, when I’m in a Catholic church where I know it would be a misuse of their sacred beliefs because I don’t share them.

(I’m going to invite this particular M/M romance writer to MSP. =) )
a little black e-book for Mormons

Posted: July 22nd, 2010, 8:00am EDT by profxm

Tags: [edit]
Ever wanted to meet a Jew turned Mormon? How about a female, in her mid-20s, living in South America, who is a former Buddhist? I haven’t, really, but a new feature on Mormon.org allows you to search for them: Meet Mormons. (FYI, lots of former Jews, no former Buddhists meeting my target criteria). Strangely, there’s one more box without dropdown options. I’m hoping they add a sexiness rating. (You know you are too!)

So, two questions here:
1. Do you think anyone will actually use this to investigate the church?
2. What social psychological research is the LDS Church drawing on to think this is a good idea for converting people to the religion?
My guess for number 1: Virtually zero and the feature will be gone in a year or so because it will actually be counter-productive. Most of the people who use it will be flamers. The few genuinely interested will ask honest questions and get back bizarro answers from ordinary members, leading them to conclude the Church is bizarro.

My guess for number 2: Social contact theory; getting to know someone in an outgroup reduces prejudice against them.
What’s love got to do with it?

Posted: July 22nd, 2010, 1:39am EDT by chanson

Tags: [edit]

I’ve just written a review (here) of Steven H. Lee’s compelling memoir Falling into Life. One thing I didn’t mention in the review — but one of the most fascinating aspects of it — is that it represents perhaps the most complete two-sided portrait of an LDS mixed-orientation-marriage that exists.

It turns out that Steven’s ex-wife Jennifer wrote her own memoir about their marriage a few years ago (My Ex is Having Sex with Rex), which I reviewed here. And — as Steven explains in his book — he never read his ex-wife’s book. So you see two totally independent perspectives on the same story.

It is fascinating to read these two heartfelt (sometimes heart-rending) accounts back-to-back. To give you a taste, I’ll just quote a few of the passages where they each describe how they felt.

First he says:

There wasn’t any way for me to escape thinking about men. And as time wore on, it became the most insidious problem of my life. I did not want this. It scared me, and I ran to it. The more I lied, the more I felt like it was an addiction of sorts, and I began to mentally see it as such. (The Evergreen program would prey on this feeling later in my life with great success.) The harder I fought against it, the more pull I felt to do it. What scared me the most was that in those moments when I was with a man, it felt so natural, so wonderful, so complete, much more so than when I was with my wife. Men created a spark in my heart.

I felt sick all the time, and the only things that would stop it for awhile was to give in to it. Attending church never helped it, attending temple ceremonies never helped it, doing every single thing I had been taught my entire life to end sinful behavior never helped it. What the fuck was wrong with me? Why couldn’t I ditch this? I had everything I needed to stop it, but I couldn’t. The structure was perfect, the Gospel was true, I was the problem. I began to attack myself even worse. And the lower I got, the only recourse was men.

There were a few close encounters when she asked me point blank in those first four years, I always denied it, and I simply cranked up the sex. I was good at sex, although I rarely instigated it, and we learned to have it well together, I think. I was never good at oral sex; I only tried a few times when she requested me to stop. We kept it always in missionary mode and for the most part, all sixteen years were pretty frequent. I never stopped having sex with her because I did enjoy it, and because it meant I was a straight, good husband. Hell, I was queer and I performed better than most Mormon men did, and we had more sex in one month than most Mormon men have in a year.

and:

After we consummated our marriage, I knew I was doomed. The spark was not there. I was lost. I had been counseled that marriage would make me straight, and in that one moment, in my first thrust, I knew it was a lie. I wanted my heart to pound, I wanted this so bad, and it was not happening. It was not going to save me, it was not going to happen. She was a virgin who was saving herself for marriage, only to marry a gay man. I knew it was a tragedy of epic proportions.

I didn’t give up. Maybe God could still save me somehow. It was a sin, I was hell-bound, and she was going to be my salvation.

Here’s what she says:

One of the men said his sex life was like going to the theater when no movie was playing.

Yes, that’s sometimes how my marriage to a gay man felt. The funny thing is, I was happy. I now realize that the happiness derived primarily from our family life. We didn’t fight much about kids or money, and we’d settled into a groove regarding shared responsibilities. We talked and laughed a lot. We had festive times and fun on family vacations.

Now, the times when Steve and I share a joke or I make him laugh really hard are the times I miss our marriage relationship most. On the other hand, our fights mostly centered on communication: How we said something, why we said something, or why we didn’t say something. We could fight for hours over communication issues. During our fights, I used to say that his way of communicating and behaving made me feel not loved.

In a sense, I was dead right. He wasn’t capable of loving me as I loved him. I believe the foundation of his love for me was focused effort and suppression. That is, he focused his effort and attention on having a wife and family while constantly fighting to suppress a strong biological drive. But the more he suppressed the drive, the more he was driven towards it. What did that make me? The obstacle.

Out loud, Steve has said that religion was the major obstacle, but I was the one he was committed to, the one he had children with, and the one he had a shared life with — for sixteen years. I was the one crying and screaming in front of him. He made a good effort to love our way of living, but I think ultimately when you live with an obstacle, you eventually itch to move that obstacle — either consciously or subconsciously.

I often felt desperate in our marriage — desperate to feel fully loved, highly desired, and truly content. I would glimse these things and try harder at the marriage. My counselor calls this “variable ratio reinforcement” — an intermittent type of reinforcement. I experienced a brief glimse of what I wanted and it was wonderful. Then it would vanish and I’d eagerly await its recurrence. I became hooked on a relationship that lacked the fundamental connection that provides the foundation for most heterosexual relationships. My self-criticism soared. Because I believed Steve was the only man who would love me, I created a fictitious ideal of what our relationship could be. I believed that if we overcame insurmountable odds, our love would be incredible.

And today? He says:

After all this time with Rex, I have come to understand what it is that heterosexual marriages have had all along. It’s an ease of love and life, an inherent desire for that person you live with at all times, drawn to them as they go about their life activites, suddenly taken aback by their courtesies, their graces, their sweetness. Sleeping in those positions where you feel so safe, snuggling off to sleep, and waking in the night feeling so drawn to that person next to you. I am finally in the right place at the right time. I don’t even think about “being gay” now. All the pain of the past has drifted away from me, and I have found something indescribable, something just right. I feel safe and sound.

Unfortunately, I don’t have any info on what she’s up to these days. I hope she’s doing well. Maybe she’ll come by and give us an update.
How bad must things be in the US?

Posted: July 21st, 2010, 8:00am EDT by profxm

Tags: [edit]

Did anyone else catch the latest change to proselytizing in the US? Mormon missionaries are now surfing the web looking for people. Baptism numbers must be way down if the LDS Church is allowing missionaries to spend time online searching for converts (of course, with a companion looking over their should the whole time). According to the article, they’re cruising Facebook and other blog sites, posting and trying to start up conversations with people. Anyone have their profile on Facebook? I’d totally “friend” them! ;)

Think they’d be up to doing a guest post on MSP?
OK, who all is going to the Sunstone Symposium this year?

Posted: July 20th, 2010, 11:30am EDT by chanson

Tags: [edit]

Of course we can read the nearly final program, but — if you’re presenting — please feel free to tell us a few enticing words about your presentation.

Note: Mr. Deity will be there!!

(Also, feel free to tell me what you think of the ad on page 40. .)
Sunday in Outer Blogness: Hard Facts Edition!

Posted: July 18th, 2010, 9:25am EDT by chanson

Tags: [edit]

Wow, everybody is talking about this new study that suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts — and often become even more attached to their beliefs. Why are former Mormons so interested in this topic? What’s the connection? Oh, yeah, this.

This whole topic makes me want to question so many fun facts! Like America’s popular Horatio Alger level-playing-field-where-everyone-can-win dream. (Strangely enough, the founding texts of Mormonism lean more Socialist.) Polygamy: dissimulation encouraging others to set the conversational agenda? How real is race? Was the Liahona just a compass? And what about those Jaredite Barges? Hate mail: good or bad? Apostates: everybody knows they’re miserable, right? Should we go back to the church and try to make it work? And what about the evidence that Jesus was never a skirt-wearing hippy? And I don’t even know how to describe this one, but good luck if you can make heads or tails of those facts.

(That wasn’t very good questioning, was it? I don’t think I linked to anything I really disagree with this time. Well, maybe we’ll get some enlightening discussion in the comments…)

Oh, well. Here’s the follow-up to the Mormons-and-gay-marriage in Argentina question. Oh, and the long-awaited men’s edition of Fascinating Womanhood is finally available! That should provide some interesting reading for the week…
Sunday in Outer Blogness: World Cup Edition!

Posted: July 11th, 2010, 2:45pm EDT by chanson

Tags: [edit]

That’s my excuse for getting this done so late today — along with another billion people, we had some important watching-the-world-cup-final to do at our house. It was very exciting, especially after it went into extra innings and everything. (And Andrew thought one needs an ulterior motive to post about soccer/football! — he finds an interesting insight to comment on nonetheless.)

There was big news this week on the same-sex-marriage front! A federal judge has just ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional! Meanwhile the LDS First Presidency sent a letter to Argentina, opposing same-sex marriage. (Plus, we have a couple more coming out stories.) Meanwhile, Maureen — despite being in love with her husband and planning to stay together with him — is planning to get divorced in solidarity with the gay couples who don’t have the right to marry!

There was some interesting conflict and cooperation across belief lines in Outer Blogness this week. Yet another innocuous atheist billboard was vandalized, and a Christian pundit praised the vandals as heroes. Speaking of vandalism, here‘s a point about a famous monument that I bet you’ve never thought about. (Meanwhile, freedom to baptize the dead is still intact.) John Dehlin posted a fascinating series of interviews with Richard Packham — including one where he asked Packham for the story of his sister’s suicide — then changed his mind, out of consideration for the family’s feelings. We also have two heart-warming stories of true friendship surviving after one friend leaves the LDS church. Aerin’s kids have had a positive learning experience at a Christian pre-school. And some Reddit friends are opening up some constructive dialog between the LDS Reddit and the exmo Reddit.

On the funny side, find out why the LDS Stake Single Adults heave some ‘splaining to do and why Mormonism tastes like Spam — in poem form! (And have you heard of Most Precious Blood of Jesus Day?) It’s nice to try to respect other people’s beliefs, but some things are just begging to be mocked, like the Left Behind series. Reina was surprised by how worried folks at church were about Satan — doubly surprising considering that he’s not nearly the scariest villain of the Bible. Hmm, seems like we could use some alternate book recommendations.

In History, Runtu has researched a fascinating comparison between the actions of two churches in East Germany just before the fall of the Berlin Wall. In Philosophy, do truth and evidence matter? Let’s hear from Carl Sagan and from a pop artist called Nas.

Is everybody ready for conference season? I know some of our regular contributors will be attending the Sunstone Symposium, plus a famous guy will be there! Or consider attending the John Whitmer Historical Association Conference — that one will feature my brother and my Mom!
Do people leave the church for greener grass?

Posted: July 9th, 2010, 8:33pm EDT by Andrew S

Tags: [edit]

I was just reading a fascinating new post at Times & Seasons — Wanted: Greener Grass.

I won’t lie; part of what amused me was the link to a study of children’s drawings that captured their preconceived notions of what kind of person a scientist is (with implications as to the gender stereotypes harbored by boys and girls and how mutable those stereotypes are after experience with actual scientists.)

But that wasn’t all. Of course, Dane’s own article was interesting because of its hypothesis about (some of) those who leave the church and its comparison and contrast of the respective ideological “pastures” or “lawns” of groups quite ideologically distinct from the church.

(As an aside, one thing I appreciated about Dane’s article is that he admits early: whatever his hypotheses about why he thinks some people might leave the church, he doesn’t know why. I think this kind of humility is commendable [and good for both sides of the fence].)

Structurally, Dane’s article is concise. Why might people leave? To get to greener grass. What can we do with that? Analyze whether the grass within the LDS church really is all that brown and patchy, or whether the grass outside of the LDS church is far richer or greener in comparison. Conclusion? The second part (at least) is not the case, because interestingly enough, we can find some of the same points of discomfort (poor attitudes regarding intellectuals, gays, women, artists, etc.,) within groups that are drastically different from the church (like the communist Chinese government). A human problem, not a Mormon problem.

I think that there are plenty of examples that do show stunning insensitivity, intolerance, or oppression outside of the church, so without going too far deeper into the nuances and plausible objections, I might be willing to concede that point.

However, I haven’t addressed the first part of the question. Just because the grass on the other side isn’t all that greener, does that mean all the grass is green? Or can’t all the grass be brown and patchy? I guess our mileage will vary here, but I suppose that the people who have issues regarding race, the precarious treatment of intellectuals, feminists, and gay people, and so on in the church also see and have issues with those same things elsewhere in the world. I imagine that if they are not direct activists for change within the church, then they are activists for change somewhere else or in some other fashion.

…but here’s the clincher that I don’t think is addressed. With the church, we have an entity that claims divine revelation, inspired leadership, a plan of salvation and happiness, and the fulness of the Gospel. For the church to be “on par” with the rest of the world — which we are led to believe is wayward, sinful, in need of our message — this is not comforting or easy to square away.

I know that for me, it was tough to try to align doctrinal expectations of a grand creation, a caring force within the universe, the true path via divine revelation and the restored Gospel, and so forth, with a creation that apparently was not all that grand, a universe that apparently was uncaring — if not hostile — and a pathway of revelation that apparently was just as mundane and laden with misdirection as everyone else’s supposedly false or misguided paths.

So, leaving wasn’t so much about finding greener grass, but in realizing that there wasn’t much difference in the grasses at all.

I know people say: “The church is true, but the people are not,” but it seems to me that the only way I can interface and interact with the church is through people. Corporations may be legal persons according to the Supreme Court, but I suspect that if the entire C-suite, the entire board of directors, the entire group of shareholders, and all other people jumped ship, the corporation would not survive.

When people have suggested that I (or anyone else) lighten up on the church…that I take it less seriously…that I stop expecting so much from it…I point out that I am doing that. By not accepting the church as the source of grand and ultimate truth. Understanding that the church is like any other human enterprise is refreshing not because it reveals greener grass elsewhere, but because it offers a way out of our panic from seeing that the church’s grass isn’t all that green.

(And I’ll note that none of this even *touches* other pressing questions, such as the historicity of various scriptures and whatnot.)
“Mormon” and “Queer” at Crossroads

Posted: July 7th, 2010, 1:23pm EDT by Alan

Tags: [edit]

I’ve been active on this blog since chanson reviewed my gay, Mormon novel Ockham’s Razor last October. I will be presenting a paper about my novel at this year’s Sunstone Symposium titled “Two Paradigms for ‘Gay.’” (Half of my presentation will also concern Jonathan Langford’s novel No Going Back–also reviewed by chanson). Gerald Argetsinger, who is an associate professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology, founded at last year’s Sunstone what he’s terming “The Gay Mormon Literature Project.” Check it out if you’re interested.

Right now, however, I’ve decided to open up this 7,700 word article titled “‘Mormon’ and ‘Queer at Crossroads” to the community for feedback. This is also mainly to share my scholarship, as I think the arguments I make in the article are important and timely. The article is under review with a couple of journals, a process that takes usually a few months. In terms of public scholarship for “gay Mormon” stuff, an academic journal is not as helpful to the community as distribution to other outlets, such as Affirmation or North Star. But I am interested in publishing and going back to school for a PhD someday…plus, I figure Affirmation/North Star would be more interested in published scholarship, anyway.

Here is the article’s abstract:

This paper argues that as Mormon sexual mores shifted in the last quarter of the twentieth century and sexuality within marriage was viewed as more than simply for procreation (but also for desire and intimacy between husband and wife), Latter-day Saint culture effectively subscribed to the concept of “heterosexuality.” As a result, Mormonism’s “eternal gender” implies an “eternal heterogender,” which has affected the ways church leaders address homosexuality. “Same-gender attraction” is said to be “repaired in Heaven.” Using the work of queer theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, this paper examines the discourse of the Church over the last 30 years in policy and social services, demonstrating that an affective framework of “mercy/wrath”—indicative of the “homosexual/heterosexual” dyad—is currently in play in Mormonism. The exclusionary concept of “same-gender attraction” is at the center of this framework, used to keep queer desire at bay, but not without contradiction.

Hopefully, what I’m saying here is clear (though I suspect it might not be for some since it’s basically 30 pages condensed into one paragraph). The article explains it thoroughly. I’m very excited about this piece because it brings together queer theory and religious cultural studies, which is a fairly rare occurrence, especially in the realm of conservative religion. But given the ways in which the same, tired arguments keep butting heads, I think the whole “same-gender attraction” thing needed some historical and theoretical framing.
Studying the Original

Posted: July 6th, 2010, 10:33am EDT by aerin64

Tags: [edit]

I recently saw the documentary “Who the #$&% is Jackson Pollock” about Teri Horton, a woman who may have purchased a Jackson Pollock painting at a thrift store for $5.

It was a fascinating documentary, with a clear perspective. The crux of the film is that Teri cannot prove that the painting is in fact, a Jackson Pollock painting. Through forensics, it appears as if a fingerprint of Pollock’s is on the back of her painting. Also, you look at the painting, and certified Pollock paintings, and it certainly looks very convincing. In a court of law, it’s possible that this evidence could be used to convict a criminal. Or, it could be faked. Either way, it’s a powerful argument.

I admit I have a soft spot for Horton, seemingly a salt of the earth type of person. And I have interacted with snobby art people in the past. I suppose saying someone is a snobby art person isn’t very kind, but perhaps very opinionated, particular art expert(s) is a better way to put it. The documentary shows the clear difference in class in this country. There are differences in class in the U.S., and it does have to do with education but also socio-economic status.

The tension between the art community and the scientific community in the film is pretty inspiring. And yet MSP readers might ask, how does all this relate to mormonism? Well, first of all, we actually have Teri Horton’s painting which can be studied and examined. It was shown multiple times during the film, and one of the forensic experts had examined the paint type(s) – as well as the paint drippings on the floor of Pollock’s studio.

It goes without saying that we cannot see the gold plates that the book of mormon was translated from. Only twelve people claim to have actually seen them (the three and eight witnesses), in addition to Joseph Smith *. They are inaccessible to forensic, scientific and art/artifact communities for study and examination.

Whether or not Teri Horton’s painting was actually painted by Jackson Pollock, we may never know for sure. The fingerprint analysis is still being reviewed. I’m sure there will be continued investigation, and the experts (both forensic and artistic) may continue to disagree. In the end, I don’t really have a dog in this fight. It matters to Ms. Horton and to the art community at large. Perhaps (as I saw on one website), artists will be fingerprinted to make sure that their work is correctly identified.

And it is not out of the realm of possibility that Jackson Pollock did paint the work, and his wife and dealer(s) never knew about it (or never recorded it accurately). The point is, the original work can be studied, today. It can be compared to other works by the artist. It can be sampled for evidence. In the film, they took a section of the painting and compared it with a known Pollock work. It seemed remarkably similar to my untrained layperson’s eye.

And that’s the other thing is Ms. Horton’s favor, to my mind. It is in her interest to allow as many people to review and study it as possible, in order to reach consensus. And consensus can be difficult to reach at times.

It seems to me that it would have been in Joseph Smith’s best interest, or the early LDS church to allow everyone possible to review and test the gold plates. To weigh them, measure them, study them. As it is, that’s not possible (unless the gold plates are somewhere that I wasn’t aware of that independent scientists can review). The burden of proof rests with someone making a claim. Faith in the miracle of the Book of Mormon is not enough for everyone.

*I was pretty certain only the 3 witnesses and 8 witnesses (in addition to Joseph Smith) claimed to see the plates. I could be mistaken, however.
Sunday in Outer Blogness: Independence Day Edition!

Posted: July 4th, 2010, 7:33am EDT by chanson

Tags: [edit]

Yes, Britta has declared her independence from the CoJCoL-dS! I found her blog through her Irreligiosophy interview — along with a couple other exmo blogs that I hope everyone will welcome to the Outer Blogness community! Andrew S has written an interesting series comparing this community to other blog communities.

Can an online community be considered a real community? Perhaps. Here we have a warm and colorful story of some online MoHos meeting up in real life to attend NYC pride. (I wonder if they saw the St. Francis Xavier Church group.) In (cold) IRL community news, a family of faithful Mormons actually sold their house and moved — just because their neighbors left the church (and have tattoos)!! Wow, ouch! (For another interesting contrast, check out these warm and cold family chats…)

Anyway, it turns out that it’s also the 4th of July today. However, apparently, it’s not Independence Day in Utah, despite the popular penchant for blurring Christianity and US nationalism. (Though, interestingly, despite gross inequality in most of the US, Utah turns out to be a bit of a Socialist utopia.)

Of course, other countries have their own-church-and-state quirks — have you been following the royal wedding in Sweeden? (It’s been all over the popular press here in Switzerland.) Things look promising for secularism in neighboring Denmark, though. (Secularism is not a religion, BTW, says a public service announcement from BCC.) Oh, and did you know that Australia’s Prime Minister is an atheist?

Wow, we’ve come a long way since Bible, Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and even Joseph Smith‘s days!

And now for this week’s helpful tips: Remember that an analogy is not meant to be taken literally, a picture of Jesus is not actually Jesus, and polygamy is the hottest new trend!
Knowledge, Community, and Relationships

Posted: July 2nd, 2010, 1:53pm EDT by Andrew S

Tags: [edit]

Over at the faithful Mormon blog Faith-Promoting Rumor is a discussion enticingly titled “Do Relationships Make the Church True and False?”

This post is a short enough one that you should just go over there and read it, but I guess I will still highlight some points here…when I was reading it, I will say that one idea I was apprehensive about finding was the idea of trying to bottle ex-Mormons as those people who leave because “they’ve been offended.” Or maybe “the church is true but the people aren’t.”

I personally think that my apprehensions were unfounded…I didn’t get that vibe from reading the article. Instead, I got a much different vibe.

(First of all, I think that the paper about exit narratives to which TT refers is Seth Payne’s; it can be found here. The Mormon Expression podcast [to which you all should listen!] interviewed Seth over his study here.)

But getting back to vibes…the vibe I got was a tentative search into a new and drastically different understanding of truth than many of us might want to speak about (and which a commenter seems to introduce as well.)

Here is part of the final paragraph of the article, for example:

In this theory, knowledge has a sociology, a context which makes certain ways of knowing and understanding possible. Truth only appears to be such based on the understanding that is made possible within a given situation. The kinds of truths that one can accept (or not) is determined not by some objective set of “facts,” but by the conditions in one’s life that make that truth possible (or not). In this view, knowledge and truth are historically contingent and socially determined, at least at the level of “meaning” (hopefully that satisfies the analytic philosophers).

This is in light of what TT had written before:

When people discover something and leave, it is more the feeling of lonliness and betrayal inside the church than the discovery itself. The shared experiences are often found with others who’ve felt similarly alone and betrayed. Finding a community with whom one can relate inside the church helps to reestablish the sense of trust for other members helps many who have been shaken. When people stay, it is often the community of the saints which makes the experience of testimony possible.

I think there are a few critiques that might be made of TT’s article. The first might be a criticism that tries to argue that truth is about facts, and so we oughtn’t escape the facts. Commenter Heather seems to evoke something of this kind of argument. To her, the betrayal of the church is not the betrayal of the ward community (and so people cannot be cajoled into being a part of something they feel has betrayed them simply because they have good rapport with the congregation.)

I may be getting Heather’s argument incorrect, but the idea here seems to be that the betrayal of the church is something that relates to objective facts (e.g., the church has lied about its history, about its truth claims, or whatever else), so this betrayal supersedes anything else.

The first response I could think about giving would come from my understanding of TT’s own words. I think that the language relating to knowledge that is currently popular (and that emphasizes objectivity) is historically contingent and socially determined. I think that writers such as Philip Kenneson have had their say on the idea of objective truth (namely, to point out that it doesn’t exist, and this is a good thing too.) While I think this is a good article to read as well (and can provide some insight into even the idea of objectivity being contingent on a certain zeitgeist), I note that this one is a bit longer, so perhaps you should get to it when you have some more time?

The heart of the response could accuse both ways. Why are we to believe that the reason to be a member is because it is objectively true? (Because if defending the objective truth of the church fails, then why shouldn’t someone like Heather leave?) In actuality, shouldn’t the church be trying to give reasons for non-members and doubting members to give (or continue to give) the church a hearing? Shouldn’t the church be striving to achieve moral authority (if they can) first, to show why we should care first? (In this way, it’s easy to see why the church has emphasized objective truth claims first. Most people have been shown to care about the authority of objective truth claims from things like science. But such can be a double-edged sword, obviously.)

A second argument, that I think Heather’s point also hints at, is that the community can be supporting, so it isn’t even true that those who leave only because of an unsupporting community.

I think, though, that this can be addressed by showing that most communities aren’t exactly supporting in the way they need to be. For example, support can’t just be having friendly faithful members who continue to remain nice and accepting. Support also must include trying to find a way to alleviate the loneliness and alienation that may come from finding out unsavory aspects of the church’s history and/or doctrine, and in working together to work with an individual through and past it. To mourn with those who mourn.

Perhaps this is implausible for much at the church at this time…because I suspect that one thing that would need to happen is for people to be able to feel comfortable being in the church even with unorthodox beliefs or practices. Can a ward support an unbelieving member who does not agree with church policies toward homosexuals? Can an unbelieving member ever be comfortable in airing these view out…or even in airing views that aren’t politically conservative (as many wards’ politically conservative members apparently are)? Should the church even strive for a community like this? (I could imagine there would be people who would say this isn’t a goal worth seeking…)

It seems to me that only when the question on disaffected members’ minds…the one that they desperately scramble for answers to…shifts away from “Why should I stay?” or “How could I stay?” to “Why should I leave?” or “How could I leave?” will we know that there is that kind of support.

← June 2010 (29 items) August 2010 (35 items) →

Outer Lightness » Main Street Plaza » July 2010

Feeds

Main Street Plaza (15 unread)

Posted: July 29th, 2010, 7:00am EDT by UrbanKoda

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 28th, 2010, 1:31pm EDT by aerin64

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 25th, 2010, 4:09am EDT by chanson

Enclosure: [download]

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 24th, 2010, 7:21am EDT by Alan

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 22nd, 2010, 8:00am EDT by profxm

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 22nd, 2010, 1:39am EDT by chanson

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 21st, 2010, 8:00am EDT by profxm

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 20th, 2010, 11:30am EDT by chanson

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 18th, 2010, 9:25am EDT by chanson

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 11th, 2010, 2:45pm EDT by chanson

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 9th, 2010, 8:33pm EDT by Andrew S

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 7th, 2010, 1:23pm EDT by Alan

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 6th, 2010, 10:33am EDT by aerin64

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 4th, 2010, 7:33am EDT by chanson

Tags: [edit]

Posted: July 2nd, 2010, 1:53pm EDT by Andrew S

Tags: [edit]