33 responses so far ↓

• 1 Elaine // Jun 12, 2009 at 6:23 pm

  I think I understand what you’re saying, John.

  I know I’ve been through the, “but I didn’t experience that” conversation a lot, both in regards to my experience in the LDS church as well as in regards to other experiences in other environments.

  It’s really easy for me to say that it is typically Mormon for people to insist, as some have, that my experience of the church is not valid…even did not happen…because they did not experience the same thing. But it isn’t just Mormons. As I said, I’ve had the same conversation in other contexts. You know…”You liked the food at that restaurant? How could you? I ate there the other night and my soup was cold and my ice cream was melted.” Or, “You didn’t like that instructor? Because she’s great.”

  I probably do the same thing sometimes, although I try to distinguish my experience from objective fact.

  But, it is an especially frustrating conversation to have in the context of religious experience, since that is by nature subjective. Just because some people don’t seem to feel coerced into taking the temple oaths, it doesn’t mean that you couldn’t possibly have felt coerced. Yet, that seems to be what some of those who commented in the other post are saying…”I didn’t feel that, so you couldn’t possibly have.”

  That’s like saying, “I didn’t feel that earthquake, so it didn’t happen.” Unfortunately, people who take that approach do exist, inside and outside the church.

  So, I might have completely misinterpreted what you are saying here, John, but this is what came to my mind as I read your post.

• 2 EBrown // Jun 12, 2009 at 6:32 pm

  This is a place I come to for good conversation on a variety of topics, great music recommendations, and people who are or are becoming friends. You made this possible. Thank you.

• 3 Amber // Jun 12, 2009 at 6:35 pm

  Elaine’s comment reminds me not to insist that my roommate try Indian food “just one more time; it must have been a bad restaurant.”

  But I think a lot of well-intentioned people spend a lot of their energy invalidating other people’s experiences. Your post reminds me to take more care not to.

• 4 Hellmut // Jun 12, 2009 at 7:40 pm

  I am not sure that religion is inherently subjective. The strongest religions are undeterminative, which means that you cannot prove them.

  Some religions and many religious beliefs can be disproven, however. Creationism, for example, is a case in point. Other religions, such as animism, are too weak to generate the metaphors that people need to understand and explore the world.

  There is a logical solution to the personal narrative competition.

  Lets take the statement “Smoking Kills.” James says smoking kills because he has an uncle Aaron who died of lung cancer.

  Hannah replies: “Hogwash. I have been smoking for fifty years and I am still alive.”

  However, Hannah’s experience does not resurrect uncle Aaron. Therefore, Hannah’s experience does not disprove that smoking is deadly.

  Aaron gets killed by smoking.
  Therefore smoking kills.
  Hannah has not been killed by smoking.
  It does not follow that smoking does not kill.

  This sequence has the same logical structure as:

  John was surprised by the endowment.
  Therefore, the endowment is deceptive.
  Mary was not surprised by the endowment.
  It does follow that the endowment is not deceptive.

  Ultimately, you are correct, John. Your critics are invalidating your experience. But that’s not because it is subjective but because they refuse to acknowledge the evidence and its logical implications.

  Logically, you are correct and they are wrong.

• 5 Hellmut // Jun 12, 2009 at 7:42 pm

  Correction:

  Aaron gets killed by smoking.
  Therefore smoking kills.
  Hannah has not been killed by smoking.
  It does not follow that smoking does not kill.

  This sequence has the same logical structure as:

  John was surprised by the endowment.
  Therefore, the endowment is deceptive.
  Mary was not surprised by the endowment.
  It does not follow that the endowment is not deceptive.

• 6 Davis // Jun 12, 2009 at 8:48 pm

  John,

  I’m sorry I started such an issue with my original question. I hope you read my last post on that thread where I stated:

  “I asked originally to get a feel for John’s mind set around his decision. Please correct me if I am wrong John, but I have the feeling that you would say that most of your Temple/Mormon experience was accompanied by an underlying sense of coercion. If that is the case, your reply’s are valid and I can understand them.”

  I really do mean that. I hope you don’t see me as someone being argumentative.

• 7 xJane // Jun 12, 2009 at 9:14 pm

  I’m struggling to reconcile that “religious experience is subjective” because I feel in my core that it is and my desire to be an atheist, which requires some kind of objective standard against which to measure things. I’ve felt and seen things that cannot be explained by natural science nor to unbelievers. I guess that makes me a believer, of sorts.

  If we all accept the thesis that religious experience is subjective, we can say “this was wrong” for us but never for anyone else. I feel like that’s what the religionists are having difficulty with: acknowledging the Truth of your experience of their religion. But you’re doing a good job of standing up to it. You’re a strong man, my friend, and I am honored to stand on the sidelines while you take this journey.

• 8 Lessie // Jun 12, 2009 at 9:17 pm

  Hey, just wanted to chime in and say I’m grateful for this blog, for the community, etc. I’ve made some very important, lasting friendships here. And those friendships have helped me through some difficult times.

  Ganbare, my friend.

  In the main of cheese and rice, ramen

• 9 angryyoungwoman // Jun 12, 2009 at 11:44 pm

  I understand the feeling that the church/church culture/temple experience is coercive. There were so many things I loved about the church (I loved the primary program, I loved the hymns and primary songs, I loved thinking that Jesus loved me). It hurt so badly when I left, but the church had been hurting me all along. They had been trying to force me to conform to a system I couldn’t conform to. I’m still a member in name. I just haven’t taken that final step and I don’t know if I ever will.

  I have no idea what you’re going through, John, whether it’s good or bad or just confusing. Part of me wants you to sneak in a recording device and get the whole ex-ing proceedings posted for us, but that’s just the evil voice at the back of my head. Really, I just hope you’ll be ok. It’s weird to think that there are people so offended and up-in-arms about your blog that they would condemn you to their (imaginary) hell. It’s really odd.

• 10 Hellmut // Jun 13, 2009 at 5:16 am

  Davis, you are a good man.

• 11 Holly // Jun 13, 2009 at 11:41 am

  One thing that’s astonishing to me is the outrage among active Mormons at your pointing out that the death threats and penalties in the temple actually felt like, well, death threats and penalties.

  They were DESIGNED to be scary and intimidating. A desire to scare and intimidate is why the penalty for betraying the vow is death, as opposed, to, say having to drink lemonade and eat cookies for dinner on alternate Tuesdays.

  But those of us who found these intentionally scary, intimidating things scary and intimidating have a warped view of things?

• 12 Jana // Jun 13, 2009 at 1:07 pm

  I didn’t go thru the temple with the penalties and I generally had positive experiences there. What I feel was the most manipulative about it is that it is an entirely scripted performance where there is incredible social pressure to comply. Sure, no one’s holding a gun to your head to tell you that you have to do the appropriate handshake at the appropriate moment…but if you want to get married, go on a mission, or be fully active in Mormonism, you have to go through with it. In all my years of temple worship (and let me tell you, I was the kind of person who went weekly and did multiple sessions each time), I only once ever saw someone leave a session early, which was because that person became suddenly ill.

  All of my life I was told that the only way I could be exalted (or saved) was to go through the temple. This was something I “knew” with every fiber of my being. Yet I really had no idea what happened inside until I was actually there. The clothing was strange and learning the handshakes was nothing like I’d ever encountered in all of my other LDS experience. Many parts of it were symbolically beautiful, but most of it was pretty odd (and eventually rather boring because of its repetitiveness).

  As I’ve said earlier, it’s very strange to me that there is so much secrecy around the temple. I can’t see how it could diminish the beauty of anyone’s experience if they happen to know what happens beforehand. And the very most secret parts of the ceremony are actually just a few lines of a rote blessing. Nothing earthshaking or revelatory. To think that god would suggest eternal damnation (or temporal death) as a consequence for discussing a few dozen words….it really makes no sense at all. IMO, that is not a god worthy of adulation.

• 13 Holly // Jun 13, 2009 at 3:59 pm

  I have written and erased several comments here because I haven’t been reading your blog much lately, John, and I’m not entirely sure of the tone you take these days. But I started pursuing trauma studies a few years ago, because it helped me make sense of my life as a Mormon in ways nothing else before ever had. I have questions, Jana, about how and why the manipulative aspects of the temple ceremony eventually became more significant to you than the positive aspects, and if you’ve posted on that, I’d love a link to direct me to it. Mostly I want to point out that there is nothing accidental or coincidental or surprising about the coercive nature of the temple and, by extension, the entire Mormon hierarchy–that’s how patriarchal power structures work. As Jenny Edkins says in Trauma and the Memory of Politics, “the modern state, then, is a contradictory institution: a promise of safety, security and meaning alongside a reality of abuse, control and coercion” (6). That same contradiction is at play in Mormonism.

  xJane, I think I see and appreciate the generous move you’re making when saying

  If we all accept the thesis that religious experience is subjective, we can say “this was wrong” for us but never for anyone else

  but I think that, given that contemporary religion is supposed to teach things about compassion and empathy and justice and adherence to truth, denial of the contradictory nature of the modern state and the Mormon church, is just plain BAD.

  We are all connected, and institutions that coerce and abuse some of us, do in fact hurt all of us.

  There are profound political and psychological ramifications here. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that faithful Mormons by and large remain some of the most ardent and faithful supporters of the Bush administration.

  It matters that we call torture “torture” when it happens, not just “enhanced interrogation techniques.” It matters that we object to it when it happens to other people and not to us. It matters that blood oaths are understood to be, by definition, coercive.

  I have said repeatedly that I was scarred by hearing the story of Noah as a three-year-old in junior Sunday school. Somehow, even at that age, I could tell that there was something really, really wrong with God’s willingness to kill almost everyone in the world, just because they’d disappointed him.

  At some point, we have to stop teaching our children that genocide is actually an example of divine love. How can we expect them to understand either love or genocide when we conflate the two?

  NO WONDER people find the temple spiritually fulfilling, if that’s there model for how god shows his love for humanity: by killing most of them.

  I’m sure it’s also one of the reasons S&M produces such great orgasms: love and violence are inextricably linked for us, from the earliest moments of our social and spiritual training.

  Really. Edward Cullen is truly the ideal Mormon romantic hero: every bit as manipulative and coercive as the smuggest stake president. No wonder Mormon women eat that stuff up.

  p.s. People have said that these oaths were largely symbolic, but I grew up hearing stories about the Danites, the assassination squads who went around executing enemies of the church–including people who violated their temple oaths.

• 14 John // Jun 13, 2009 at 4:22 pm

  xJane/Holly: I’m not suggesting that all religious experience is subjective, and that there is no objective element to argue against. I think what I am saying is that the temple is experienced different ways by different people, and I’ll respect my Mormon friends’ experiences when they feel it as a mystical, positive, spiritual highlight, if they’ll respect my and others’ experience of it as a negative one. I’m proposing a detente of sorts, at least in this discussion space.

• 15 adamf // Jun 14, 2009 at 5:27 pm

  “I’ll respect my Mormon friends’ experiences when they feel it as a mystical, positive, spiritual highlight, if they’ll respect my and others’ experience of it as a negative one”

  Done.

  I know we probably only have a Kevin Bacon like connection, but I often enjoy this blog, even if I’m not the intended audience. Like you, I enjoy reading subjective, personal experience, especially if it is told well with some humility. I really enjoy trying to see things from others’ perspectives.

• 16 Chandelle // Jun 14, 2009 at 6:26 pm

  John, I’ve been feeling angsty since hearing of your impending boot in the ass. I suppose it was crystallized in that person, claiming to know you back when you were a good person, equating your post with being abused or molested – that was so disgusting I had to walk away at that point, and stay away. This is my favorite blog. It’s a community of sorts for me. And I had to avoid it lest I be exposed to the same sort of narcissistic, histrionic vitriol that caused me to question the Church in the first place. So yeah. That pissed me off.

  I believe the Church has a right, and a reason, to ex- you, if they choose to do so. But I also wonder if they are choosing you to make a statement. The internet is a big anonymous world and the Mormon segment of it is ballooning. The lines between ex-, post-, active, inactive, questioning, cafeteria, TBM and in-name-only are becoming more blurred all the time as individuals from across the Mormon spectrum come together in this unique way to share ideas, information and experiences. The Church must take notice of this. And perhaps leaders chose you, John, because you are one of the few talented commentators who straddles the line while being very public about his name, family, occupation and residence. You are an easy target if the Church wants to send a message. All the better if you blog everything that happens during this process. You’ll serve as an excellent warning.

  Just a little conspiracy theorizing.

  By the way, even though we’ve only met once, I consider you a (gasp) real-life friend.

• 17 xJane // Jun 14, 2009 at 8:23 pm

  Holly @13: I know people who came out of my religion-of-birth without the scars or issues I have. I may not consider them healthy or whole, but they do. I guess what I’m saying is, if you find meaning in this destructive, misogynist structure, good on you. But if you find it painful, damaging, and brutal, I’ve been there.

• 18 Kristine // Jun 15, 2009 at 1:03 pm

  John, I’m probably one of the ones making the kinds of comments you don’t like, and I’ll stop and go back to lurking, with apologies if I’ve been a boor.

  I tend to want to go to the theoretical place because personal narratives feel atomizing to me–if I’m just telling “my” truth, and others are telling theirs, we’re all isolated in some ways, and limited to a sort of content-neutral emotional response, which feels unsatisfying to me. Possibly because I’m the emotionally-stunted child of a physicist

• 19 John // Jun 15, 2009 at 2:33 pm

  Kristine: You are so not one the trolls! In fact, I’m totally thrilled to see you here. (of all places!)

  I like going into theoretical spaces as well, but I’m making a very strategic decision, in this space where I have some control over the discussion, to not go there on this topic at this time precisely because I *can’t* separate the personal and think about all of this from a purely objective place. This may be my own emotional immaturity at play , but I just don’t have the time/strength/energy to handle a full rational debate, so I’m establishing the perimeter early.

• 20 John // Jun 15, 2009 at 2:35 pm

  Chandelle, we’ve probably exchanged more at a deeper level online than most of the acquaintances I see on an almost daily basis. I’m glad we’re friends.

• 21 Dallas // Jun 16, 2009 at 12:54 pm

  with a latte in one hand and a stout in the other, I toast to your community and courage!

• 22 Craig // Jun 16, 2009 at 1:00 pm

  I understand completely what you mean, John when you say that this was your experience, and no one can say that you didn’t feel coerced, or that you somehow are betraying some value by talking about your experience and not obeying the oaths you were coerced into making.

  I remember very, very vividly how I felt going through the temple for the first time with my parents and half by parents’ branch in attendance. I never actually really wanted to go through the temple. I didn’t really want to go on a mission. But I never felt that I really had a choice. It was what I HAD to do, what was expected of me. Every week for months before I sent in my mission papers I was pestered by members who asked when I was going to go on my mission. They didn’t ask whether I wanted to, whether I was ready, whether it was even right for me, they simply said, “when are you going?” – which means, “you’re going.” There was never any doubt allowed or expressed as to whether I would acquiesce to being baptised at 8 (and be forced into making promises that NO one is ready to make), to accepting the priesthood at 12 and at 18, to going on a mission and going to the temple and making even more promises that I was force into, and didn’t choose of my own free will.

  When one is raised and indoctrinated in an extremely authoritarian version of Mormonism as I was, I don’t believe that even many adults are psychologically able to make rational decisions and enter into any sort of oath or “contract” with the church.

  The only thing my parents told me about the ceremony beforehand was that I would be from then on wearing the temple garments, and that I would be receiving a “new name”. That’s all they told me. Once in the temple I was nervous and freaked-out as hell, and if I had felt that I had any choice, I would never have gone through with it. But I didn’t have a choice – or at least that’s what it felt like.

  The only time you’re given the opportunity to leave is before they’ve told you anything about what’s going to happen. They don’t tell you what you’re going to promise to do until it’s too late and you’re forced to go through with it. I felt incredibly violated by that, and every time I went through after that. I hated every single time going to the temple, and only went through 13 times before I left the church – all within 26 months, 24 of which were my mission.

  I feel that my basic human rights were violated by the church through my (unwitting) parents and by the church directly on too many occasions to count. There were numerous instances and patters of coercion and other aspects of authoritarianism that resulted in rather extreme emotional abuse.

  That was my experience in Mormonism. Not the whole experience obviously, but the experience regarding the making of “covenants” and “oaths” and promises that I was completely coerced into and threatened with extreme punishments if I were to ever renege on those coerced promises. If that’s not psychological abuse, then I don’t know what is.

  I don’t understand how anyone can say that anyone has an obligation to a promise that is extracted in that sort of environment, under duress, coercion, and threat of harm. Some obviously don’t feel the same about their own experience in Mormonism, and I’m happy for them that they don’t, but that doesn’t mean my experience was valid and true for me, or for John, or any of the other people who’ve gone thorough anything like this.

  And it has helped me immensely to talk with you all here (and elsewhere) and hear about your own similar experiences. To know that I wasn’t the only one who felt violated in so many ways, has been a great help to me.

• 23 Kalola // Jun 16, 2009 at 6:56 pm

  So, John, have you received your invitation? It’s now Tuesday, June 16. I have this feeling you will not be receiving said invitation. Why? You told the SP that “… I make it my policy to blog any interaction I have with Church officials.” John … I think all of this will blow over because you will not be silenced. I think the SP may have expected an apology from you, which, of course, was not forthcoming. Do you think the Church leaders want more bad publicity? I doubt it. So blog away. I’m sure your blog will be shadowed. Heck, my blog has, and I’m definitely no threat to the Church since I’m no longer a member of record. I was quite bemused when I noted someone from Church headquarters was visiting my blog. Be afraid … be very afraid. Uh … I don’t think so. I have this love-hate relationship with the Church. I’m one of those “flip-floppers.” Anyway … I know you don’t know me from Eve, but I do want to wish all the best to you, Jana and your children.

• 24 John // Jun 17, 2009 at 10:48 am

  Dallas, that’s quite the image. You rock.

  Craig, I’m continually amazed at how much our experiences have in common. You said:

  And it has helped me immensely to talk with you all here (and elsewhere) and hear about your own similar experiences. To know that I wasn’t the only one who felt violated in so many ways, has been a great help to me.

  If Church leaders are reading this, I hope you’ll pay heed to Craig’s words. This is why we go public with our experiences, because otherwise we would feel isolated and aberrant. The web gives us a voice, it gives us community, and it proves that we’re not alone. Craig, I’m as buoyed by you as you are by me. Thank you.

  And I’m very sorry about all the abuse you had to endure. I’m glad that you’re out of that trap.

  Kalola, thank you. I hope you’re right, and this all blows over. I love the images on your blog, btw!

• 25 Kalola // Jun 17, 2009 at 12:21 pm

  *Blushing* Thank you, John, for the compliment about the images on my blog.

  I was just wondering, are you familiar with an on-line booklet titled “TEMPLE BOOK?” I don’t remember when and where I came across it. This is a quote from the INTRODUCTION: “Therefore, this book is a discussion of material already available to the public at large. Many members will be shocked to learn that their endowment is not really secret. … However, the truths themselves are actually VERY SECRET because they are hidden by the symbolism through which they are revealed.” “Secret?” “Sacred?” Take your pick.

  I have a PDF version of the booklet if you (or anyone else) is interested.

• 26 Craig // Jun 17, 2009 at 12:42 pm

  Thanks John. It’s always a pleasure and intellectually stimulating to read your blog.

• 27 Eric // Jun 18, 2009 at 9:03 am

  I’ll be interested to see how this plays out for you. I have left the fold as well though I haven’t been “exed” or requested that my records be removed. In your case it sounds like it was only a matter of time. By that I mean it seems like both you and the church have kind of come to the same place at the same time. The post on the temple ceremony just seems to be the catalyst. I don’t think in this case however either side is wrong. I understand why the church is so protective of these rituals, even though most of the members don’t really understand the reasons, and per the church dogma you have violated an oath. At the same time the feelings you have toward the ceremony and ritual you were a part of is very understandable, and justified. I really enjoy reading about your process and will be fascinated to see how it all shakes out. I’m glad that you are so willing to share as it has helped me understand my process a little clearer.

• 28 G // Jun 18, 2009 at 3:48 pm

  /raises glass..
  here’s to you John.

  (was going to say a whole lot more, but that’ll do.)

  (now let’s see if I can get this past CAPTCHA)

• 29 Kaimi // Jun 19, 2009 at 3:53 pm

  Hi John,

  This explanation makes a lot of sense to me. I know that there are areas in my own life that I approach using reason, and areas that I approach using emotion, and areas that blend the two.

  Your decision on how to address your own experience in the church (as a matter of storytelling and community, rather than analytical) seems entirely reasonable. (Err, did I just analyze it? Damn.)

  So, I’m happy to listen in on your church services here; thanks for the invite; and, there are going to be donuts after the service, right?

  Hugs to you, bro.

• 30 Bull // Jun 19, 2009 at 6:48 pm

  I hear you. I’ve amazed when a defender of the faith hops onto my blog and acts all amazed that I’m hostile toward the church. Hells bells the church tries to monopolize all the information their members receive. They have ample resources to rebut my little blog. I’m certainly more fair to the church than they are to apostates like us.

  The bloggernacle has been very helpful to me in finding a new community and support while losing a lifelong community that now ignores me.

• 31 xJane // Jun 20, 2009 at 7:13 am

  Craig @22/John @24: this is so similar to my experience in the Catholic Church that I am reminded why I hang out with a bunch of ex-Mos I truly hope that there is a community like MoF out there for other Catholics because I know my experience there is, like Craig’s, not unique. But I found you guys first. I feel very privileged to be able to tag along as we all go through similar things in different religions (although I don’t think anyone can top John’s threatened excommunication!).

  Kalola @23: I’ve been thinking about this & how short-sighted (that’s when I’m being charitable) it was to tell a blogger who, in the past, has been outspoken about temple stuff about some heavy temple shit that’s about to go down involving said blogger. Didn’t they get that this would be blogged about? You’d think that a smart member of the Church elite would get that John’s post would likely blow over, that he has a fairly small community of readers, and that making waves is only going to increase his hits and possibly even his readership. I would not be surprised if this just sort of goes away. Although I would also not be surprised if they really are stupid enough to go through with it.

• 32 Craig // Jun 21, 2009 at 5:19 pm

  I’m convinced that the superficial differences between religions are just that – superficial. Whether conservative Catholic, Mormon, Muslim or Evangelical, the differences are nothing compared to the similiarities.

  I’ve loved being here, and talking with and learning from all of you, especially John and you, xJane. As non-theists, no matter what religion we come from, we understand each other, and that’s a beautiful thing.

• 33 sarah k. // Jul 4, 2009 at 4:50 pm

  I have nothing to add except encouragement and positive vibes. The church’s attitude makes me giggle a little, but only when my blood isn’t boiling. Even if they do send you an invite, would you attend?

Leave a Comment