You may have been born that way... but it was your choice!

I recently posted this article on Facebook: http://www.occupydemocrats.com/a-nun-brilliantly-exposed-pro-life-hypocrites-with-this-hard-hitting-quote/> It is an article in which a nun calls out the conservatives in this country with this quote:

"I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-
birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”

 Now the article is clearly about the way we treat children who are poor and disadvantaged once they are born. The article is not about abortion. The conservatives in my feed couldn't help but make it about that.  You can read the entire thread here:

https://www.facebook.com/kqdudley/posts/10207627350105610?comment_id=10207659129900085&notif_t=feed_comment_reply 

David, a 20 something white Mormon male who lives in Provo, UT, entered into the discussion. What caught my attention was his application of Mormon theology.  I am very familiar with his mind set here.  I had just forgotten how twisted it can be.

In regards to the moral and up righteous, I was recognizing or trying to recognize that there are people of variable moral focuses.  My point when using those words was that pretty much no matter what, if a woman who is raped and impregnated, of her own choice, decides to go through the pregnancy and raise the child, no one is going to come up to her and say "You are a terrible person, how dare you do what you just did, it was morally wrong for the following reasons:" because they would have no reasons.  If you can come up with one please, go ahead and tell me.  As for fertilization and conception, that is focused primarily in both my knowledge of biological science and religious belief.  I believe that we were all spirits before we came into this mortal life.  I believe we Volunteered to come into this mortal existence because it was only through experiencing mortality and being able to choose between right and wrong that we would be able to become more like our Heavenly Father, the father of our spirits.  I believe that when conception occurs, when the ova and sperm cell combine, that that new cell which is now as capable of becoming an adult human being as a baby outside of the womb, is given to one of my spirit brothers and sisters who still lies beyond the veil.  That body, though it be a single cell, is theirs, and just for us the moment it dies there goes all future chances for mortal experience in this life for them, they don't get another body.  This is why the "It would be better if they don't get born in a terrible situation" argument doesn't work with me.  I believe the(y) Volunteered, knowing full well what they were getting themselves into, to be put in that body.

Mormons believe we were all spirits in a pre-existence.  The number of bodies are finite and were all conceived by a heavenly father (god) and a heavenly mother.  It also could be a father and several mothers because polygamy is still alive and well in the afterlife. They are conceived mechanically the same way you and I were conceived by our parents.  They gestate in the same way humans do now.

If a child dies in childbirth or in the womb it is considered to have lived its life.  It has one chance to get a mortal body.  That is it.

Here is where the theology becomes concerning:  Mormons believe that we all choose to come to earth and to get a body.  We knew, in some cases we would be born into challenging situations. Those might be:

• to a mother that was raped
• it might be in desperate poverty
• that might be with a physical or mental disability
• that might be with "same sex attraction"

It matters not the plight... we chose it!  This belief disconnects your average Mormon from empathy and divorces them from any responsibility to fix anything outside of their sphere.  It also allows them to dogmatically cling to "god's law" without considering the harm or potential harm the the theology may cause. 

What Mormon's fail to see is the disconnect in believing the above and the application of "free will" in this life.  The life you chose was pre-determined.  You knew you would be born to a woman who was raped.  Therefore she had not choice but to be raped.  The male who raped her had no choice.  If they hadn't been complicit in their destiny you wouldn't be able to realize your own. They fail to see how it leads to "this life must be endured" mentality instead of "this life should be lived."

It is easy for David to regurgitate these teachings.  It is much more difficult for him to think critically about what they really mean.  This is the pernicious nature of Mormonism.  It divorces the believer from critical thought... because that is the only way it can survive.  It does that at the expense of the human condition and ultimately harms our humanity.  

Who is watching and why it matters how we talk about homosexuality

A couple of years ago I was engaged in a discussion on gay rights on Michelle Willis's board.  The subject was the Jc Penney ads featuring lesbian mothers.  It was argument I engaged in with passion.  I supported, as I have since 1984, the rights of homosexuals to live a genuine life.  I was up against the pious and self-righteous Mormons on Michelle's board.  Trite arguments were volleyed back and forth.  I knew there was no way to "win" the argument with these people but I was still up for the fight.  In the middle of the whole mess I got a private message.  It was one of Michelle's friends who had been watching the debate.  The messages was a "thank you for the support".  'I thought Michelle was my friend.  I can see that she is not.' Was the tone.  While Michelle lost a friend that day, that person knew there was an ally who was willing to stand up.

Last Friday, a federal judge struck a fatal blow to Utah's amendment 3.  The Facebook feed blew up.  I have engaged in as many conversations as I could on those feeds.  Some might even call me a troll because I engage even when I am not invited

Why?

Because people are watching that is why.  I was reminded of this when I read a friends beautiful and eloquent response to his mother who was asking if his support for gay rights would change it it were his own child.  He of course said no... and that people are watching.  People in pain who are trying to find someone to talk to.

So when you are fighting equality in your Facebook feed who are you helping?

Are you standing up for your god?

Does he really need you to stand up to him?

Are you standing up for your church?

Are you on the church's legal team?  Do they really need you.

Are you standing up for freedom and the constitution?

Are you a constitutional attorney... and don't you see the hypocrisy?

Who are you hurting?

You are likely hurting someone who isn't vocal.  Someone who is sitting in the dark crying because they feel like there is something wrong with them.  Someone who may be your child, sibling, maybe even your own parent.  What they are is a human being who needs support, love and acceptance.  They didn't ask for this and to ask them to deny who they are is harmful.  To characterize their being as a "sin", as a "choice" as a "lifestyle" or one that is "not to be acted on" inflicts an undue amount of pain.

The LGBT community inside of Mormonism has one of the highest suicide rates.  The LGBT community in the United States has a suicide rate that exceeds the national average.   It is time we stop treating them like they are throw aways.

I am a supporter of equality.  I support the choices consenting adults make out of love. I support teaching our children how to develop healthy fulfilling intimate relationships with whomever they love.  It is not about sin.  It is about humans.

Conversely, I do not support bigotry and on this blog I will identify bigots by first and last name.  The world should know who you are.  Those who are watching should know who is not safe.

Sexism: Just another reason David Alvord is Wrong for South Jordan!

Sexism:

1
:  prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially :  discrimination against women2
:  behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

My discussion around David Alvord's candidacy for Mayor of South Jordan has been as much about temperament as anything.  Well David can't help himself.  If you are from Utah and know anything about Mormonism you have probably heard of the Ordain Women movement.  It is a feminist movement that asks the Mormon church to treat members of all sexes equally.  They staged a protest during the last LDS General conference.  They are brave women who know asking for equality means they risk excommunication and ostracism.  However David Alvord, the sexist, thinks it is fair to belittle their request.

   So he was supported by a few folks but largely criticized by others for his flippant insensitivity and sexism.  As a result, David did what he usually does... he deleted the post.  He also did what he usually does... put up another post to make his point.

  I support David's right to "BLURT".  I would just think he would use a filter knowing that he was running for political office and someone like me might write about it.  Why would he do such a thing?  Well, because he was defending the church thats why!

I think, most importantly, he thinks sexism is ordained by god:

It is becoming clearer that David Alvord lacks the temperament to be Mayor.  He has a context in which he looks at the world that makes him a poor candidate to represent the rest of the community.  South Jordan needs a leader that is fair to everyone no matter their sex or religion.

Gender is Essential?

EDIT!

YouTube, allegedly, removed this video because it was reported as bullying. (Thanks TGD)

Follow this link to the LDS Church's website to view it:

Gender is Essential
The LDS Church as moved the link again
Gender is Essential is now located here!

The LDS church (The Mormons) published a new website in which it was attempting to acknowledge that homosexuality was an inborn trait.  They have noted that it is an affliction that the membership must not succumb to.  It also implores members to love those who are gay because it is not their fault.

This video produced and published after the release of the website is a kick to the preverbal nuts of a gay member.  If gender is essential then what about gender identity?  Is it not essential.  I have never chose to be straight.  It is what I am.  If your god creates people that are outside of his law.... he is a sadist.

A couple of lessons for the membership:  First, sex is what is between your legs.  It is your sex that gives your the ability to procreate.  Gender is in your head.  Gender is hardwired.  It is not a choice. It is what determines who you are attracted to.  My gender is essential to my heterosexual marriage.  Not my ability to have children.  My gender is what makes that relationship satisfying and has made it last for 26 years.  If I was attracted to men, I could still make babies with a woman but the relationship would not be permanent or satisfying.

Second, videos like this, may inform your prejudices but they do not show compassion for homosexuals.  They do little to curb the suicide rate.  In fact they are harmful.  They are harmful to the children who were exploited to act in this evil video.  They are harmful to the future of your church.  They are harmful to those who are gay, lesbian and transgendered but, too ashamed of the gender your petulant god has given them to embrace it.

This video is disgusting and manipulative.  I am amazed that anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ would offer their time and talents to this discordant message.

I guess there are no Mormons running for president.... the gloves are off.

Arrogance , God, and the Election

Helamen 5:2
For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.~ Book of Mormon

I saw the above posted on Facebook after the announcement of Obama's re-election and when it became apparent Gay Marriage would be approved in four more states.  I have several issues with this quoted scripture.  First, it comes from a 19th century work that has as much chance of being the word of god as Nate Silver the chance gave to Romney to win the election.

Second, It is used to justify an apocalyptic world view.  Some how slightly over 50% of the country is out of step with god and we will suffer his wrath.  It also suggest that the laws that come from this elected government can be ignored.

Third, it is used to justify the "chosen people" mentality Mormons have.  Somehow the 6 million, give or take 40% depending on how you view activity, living in the United States know more about what it is to be moral and righteous than the 300 million other folks who report they believe in god.  No one has suffered more and they will be rewarded.

Finally, lets talk about choosing evil as suggested by the quote above.  Is it not evil to deny complete salvation based upon race.  Is it not evil to deny equality in marriage to couples who love each other.  Is it not evil to teach children that their normal sexual development is a sin. Is it not evil to propagate the myth of Mormonism on to additional generations when its origins and history have been proven to be questionable and the likelihood it is all made up is more likely Obama's predicted reelection.

As for me, I support the President.  I think we are continuing on a trajectory of tolerance, acceptance, and inclusiveness.  We are valuing people and not ideology.  I think women, children, minorities and (if they can put aside their prejudice) white men and women will be better off.  The election was not an movement to evil.  It was banishment of evil.  The kind of evil that hurts people.  That is what America voted down on Nov. 6th.

Impressions v. Evidence: Why I am having Hall Sex with the Church

At first impression you might believe the bottom line is longer.  The evidence shows they are the same length.

Definition:

HALL SEX - After you've been married for many, many years you just pass each other in the hall and say "FUCK YOU"

I was woken to day by my wife who was on the phone to my son.  My son was telling Lisa that he had lost his Trax pass on the way to the train.  She said they got out late to take him to Trax because she had forgot it was our day to drive him and his class mate to the train station.  I was a little ornery because I usually am at 6:30 in the morning.  Our conversation went like this:

Me: Did he put the lanyard around his neck?

Lisa: Yes he was wearing it.  I saw it trailing him as he ran to catch the train.

Me: Did he take it off.

Lisa: He said no.  I have told him to look under his seat and to make sure he is not sitting on it.

Me: Where does he think he lost it.

Lisa: When he was running to catch the train.

Me: Then it wasn't around his neck.

Lisa: Yes it was.  I saw it trailing him when he ran to the train.

We took a ride to the Trax Platform and looked for his lanyard.  It was nowhere to be found.

Me: There is no way he had it around his neck and it is not there.

Lisa: (in a tone that said, "You are an ass.  I know what I saw. I was there.  You weren't. Keep this up we will only have hall sex for the next month.) I know what I saw Kevin.  It was around his neck.

Me: (Because I know I am an ass) It is physically impossible for a lanyard that is around someone's neck to just fall off. There is a physical object there that prevents that from happening.  It's called a neck.  So either he didn't put it around his neck or he didn't have it to begin with.

Lisa : (Glare.)  (Didn't you get the gist from my tone in the previous comment.  Why do you have to push me). !

Me:  This is bullshit.  That kid is going to cost me another $60 bucks for a replacement pass.  I have to make a trip into Salt Lake to rescue his sorry ass. (Did I mention I am not the most agreeable at 6:30.

Because the assertion he was wearing his pass seemed physically improbable.  I continued to look around the kitchen, where he usually gets ready for school, and where he dumps his stuff when he comes home from school.  Under his coat and his kilt(which should have been in his bedroom) sitting on the bench in the front entry was.... his Trax pass.

Me: I found it.  I will take it to him this morning.

Lisa: I could have sworn I saw him wearing it.  It must have been the ties on his jacket.

Based upon the goodbye kiss this morning hall sex is probably not on my agenda, that is unless I assert that she is wrong again.  I am treading on thin ice.

As I have given some consideration to this minor crisis it was clear to me.  Lisa asserted what she believed to be true.  She thought she had seen the lanyard around his neck.  However the evidence for her belief was an impression.  She interpreted what she saw as the lanyard.

I, on the other hand, initially accepted her assertion but then some other things failed to add up.  Where was the lanyard.  Did it make it around his neck.  What has been my history with him.  How organized is he.  There is no lanyard at the station.  The evidence was not supporting the recalled event.  A little more probing actually proved the assumption was false.

I related this to the discussion in the LDS General Conference this last weekend on how you get confirmation the church is true.  A Facebook acquaintance posted this quote:

The more we act upon impressions, the more the Lord will entrust to us...
Never postpone a prompting.
Thomas S. Monson

There was this further warning to the faithful and the call to repentance for those who seek truth outside of official sources:

Some have immersed themselves in internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and in some cases invent shortcomings of early church leaders. Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony. Any who have made these choices can repent and be spiritually renewed.
Elder Quentin L. Cook, General Conference, October 2012

Using impressions is a poor way to evaluate the truth.  Search for evidence should be encouraged an celebrated not decried.  The problem is:  The LDS church knows there is evidence out there that makes the probability of its truth claims slim to none.  It has ignored or denied its past despite the evidence that suggests that past is checkered.  They continue to tell members there is nothing to see in a manner that is equal to ignoring the man behind the curtain.  This is why I continue to have hall sex with the church.  

Chick-Fil-A: Hate & the Boldness Facebook gives us to say stupid shit!

I have not only watched but participated in the Chick-fil-A debate.  When it comes to this company, I, in typical hipster fashion, have declined to give this restaurant my business for a couple of years now.  First of all, I think their chicken batter is too sweet but more importantly they divert a large portion of their profits to hate organizations like National Organization for Marriage (NOM).  The issue here is not Dan Cathy's professions of faith or his personal belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.  It is the infusion of cash into the political lobbying machine that seeks to make his personal beliefs the laws of the land.  

So Facebook becomes the battlefield for this debate.  One Facebook Friend posted a photo of he and his wife holding up their Chick-fil-A bag.  It was the photo which instigated this brief discussion:

• We are not just posting our support of Chick-fil-A . . . We are going to the store in support of their strong values.16 hours ago · 

Kevin Dudley Which values are those....
16 hours ago · 

• 
   Kevin, don't play coy with me . . . you know right values, even if you chose to hide from them.16 hours ago · 

Kevin Dudley Yes I know love. That is not what you are suggesting we support here. Say it out loud. I am not playing coy. What is the value you support with this message?

What are the right values? The biblical definition of marriage? Or in Utah, the Mormon definition of marriage where polygamy is still doctrinal and practiced eternally? I loved this authors take on biblical marriage and the Chick-fil-A controversy:

My Daughter posted the following MEME to her Facebook page:

She got the following response: 

Nope. They are both equally depressing & disturbing. And I ate at chick fil a today. Mmm.. Homophobia never tasted sooo good. =)

What I find interesting is that they are willing to very proudly show their prejudice. What is the basis for the hate? Scripture? Both posters are Mormons. Both will cite scripture for their hate but neither, I'll bet, would be willing to openly deride a black person or a native American. There is scriptural and doctrinal basis for both.

Finally there was a Christian from Texas who posted this:

• • 

    Kevin Dudley It is not his view that has folk upset. It is his donation of over 5 million dollars to organizations who believe they have a right to enforce their views of marriage on the rest of us by denying homosexuals the secular right of marriage.

    23 hours ago · 
  • 
    

    Christian from Texas: In AMERICA, people have the right to support whatever organization they want.

    23 hours ago · 
  • 
    

    Opposing point of view: So then Hate is inherently Christian, and we shouldn't be surprised when Christians show hate towards others? I'm pretty sure that's not what Jesus taught.

    23 hours ago · 
  • 

    Kevin Dudley Sure they do and others have the right to take offense and to openly protest their business activities. Which is why this meme is... well.... Stupid!

    23 hours ago · 
  • 
    

    Christian from Texas: Not hate, just sticking to Biblical values. I see homosexual sex as no worse of a sin than any non marital sex, sin is sin, and nobody but God can judge us. But if he chooses to support organizations in support of traditional marital values, more power to him. I will go get my chick-fil-a now.

So in America we have the right to support who or whatever belief we choose?  We do. She is right.  However we have an obligation, as well, to keep their religious views that have no basis in reality out of our public policy.  So Dan Cathy can support traditional marriage.  However when he uses his money to support the limitation of others rights he changes the discussion.  I will choose to divert my money to companies that support equality.  I will commit to withhold my money, referrals, and my support from those businesses and business owners who support biblically inspired hate.  I will further commit to actively speaking out against them and their beliefs until it is as embarrassing to be on open gay basher as it is to be an open racist.  So enjoy your Chick-fil-A.  I hope humble pie is served for desert.

Belief in God Renders you Deaf.... and Kills your compassion!

Is this photo dangerous? Is it obscene?

It is if you are a member of the religious right.  It is if you subscribe to the American Family Association's One Million Moms.  I entered into a protracted Facebook debate because the One Million Moms group decided to target Jc Penney for showing loving a loving lesbian couple and their family in an ad campaign.  Sadly, the sword was taken up by a bunch of Mormon moms in my area and spread to Facebook.  What I found quickly in the debate on Facebook was that those moms were completely without compassion.  They could not see that this campaign is hurtful to people.  You know people, with skin, hair, eyes, and feelings.  They could not see the parallels to the way the blacks were treated in their own church, during the civil rights movement and throughout our not to distant past in the his country.  Hell, they cannot even see the parallels to their own purported persecution in the mid 19th century.  Instead we see nuggets like this being repeated:

I don't hate anyone who is gay or lesbian. Marriage was ordained by God to be between a man and a woman. Period. It's kind of ironic that people for years did not feel the need to get married because it was just a piece of paper. As soon as the gay and lesbian community realized it was something they could not choose, it became something they wanted. Marriage is designed by God to create children. Lets make laws to have benefits for partners, but stop trying to destroy marriage. That is a hate agenda in my book. ....  Thanks for posting this. I will never shop at JC Penney again.

So she does not hate gay and lesbian folks but the push for marriage equality is hate.  She also repeats the talking points of the right that have been show to be full of fallacious arguments.

I've recently unfriended a bunch of people on my facebook page for their constant posting of hateful anti right rantings. I didn't call them and get mad at them, I just removed them so I don't have to be insulted everyday. I'm just tired of the other side (a minorityin this society by the way) dictating what I have to believe all the time.

Yet he is willing to dictate what the left does...hypocrisy here?

I have several relatives that have chosen a homosexual lifestyle. I love them very deeply and am grateful they are a part of my family. And I believe in God's plan--that families can be together forever, when sealed by the holy spirit of promise. Heavenly Father requires us to live His law if we desire to return to Him and be together as eternal families.

And how does the accepting attitude of Jc Penney threaten her beliefs?  It doesn't!

The next two are the problem and lead to my point:

Sorry Kevin, but you are wrong. It is most definitely NOT something you are born with, nor is God's law an "arbitrary moral construct that has its basis in the Old Testament." It is a law that transends time and space, an eternal truth that one day ALL will know and have to answer for; and yes, we can KNOW that our religious views are correct and that they will serve us quite well in the next life. God's laws are eternal, they have always been there and they will always be there.        is right to oppose this ad. I feel sorry for the little girl and the other girl not shown in the picture. They will grow up being taught something that isn't true.

As if the claims of Mormonism have any evidence of being true?

There is no "oppression" in stating a fact! Men and women create children together in the beautiful bonds of marriage because God created us and gave us a sacred power to create life. There is nothing wrong, mean, or hateful about stating the obvious that so many people are trying to ignore and normalize. Homosexuality is not the way God intended us to live, it doesn't make sense and will not make us happy eternally, which is His plan. Men are that they might have joy. Marriage between a man and woman is so central to Gods plan and very sacred to me. So I will support Michelle and Sara in never shopping at JC Penney again. So sad they choose to lower standards to make people think this is alright.

I had a person contact me during the debate and thank me for my persistence in making the point that bigotry is bigotry whether you are religious or not and this issue is about compassion.  This person said, however, that once they play the god card they stop listening to reason.  He is right.



 The problem with this type of bigotry is that is gets passed on to the young.  This high schooler repeats the party line without stopping to analyze how foolish the statements are. The idea that god makes you gay to test you is not only absurd but it removes compassion from the believer.

         is right, It was ordained by God, marriage is only to be between a man and woman, it doesnt matter what society thinks about it if its true. Im not about to believe in it just to go with the flow. I know its wrong, and yes i know you are born with it, but you are born with it because Our Heavenly Father knows you're strong. Its just like any other thing everyone else has to overcome, just like being addicted to chocolate! Just a bit harder to live with. You're not going to hell because your gay, and its not against the rules to be attracted to the same sex, but you are not to act on it. Just something you have to overcome and be strong with. So quit giving       a hard time about it, she is right, get used to it (Kevin).I have nothing wrong with homosexuality but when they start ads about it. it certainly does bother me. PS dont attack the church if you have not read the scriptures and UNDERSTAND them, it just makes you sound like a fool. PSS sorry if i hurt anyones feelings but some comments got me fired up.

I pointed out, during the debate, the LDS church has been on the wrong side of history on many issues, the blacks (inter-racial marriage and the priesthood), polygamy, and they would be found to be on the wrong side of history on homosexuality.  However, my comments were of no consequence.  I was outed by one clever Facebooker who looked up my profile:

There is not going to be any common ground found with Kevin Dudley. Just checked out his profile, and he is extremely anti Mormon. Homosexuality is clearly one of MANY issues he has with the LDS church. Mormons will lose every time with people like Kevin. Just my two cents, for what it's worth.

My calls for compassion were completely ignored.  It is easier to see homosexuals as sinners who have been lead away by Satan or as sinners who failed to pass the test that god gave them.  What is clear is they are not to have an equal standing in gods society.  I enjoyed this post and photo my friend Andrew Hackman put up after the North Carolina vote to ban gay marriage:

Do you think any of these scowling, angry women thought of themselves as bigots? I would guess not. They probably thought of themselves as moral, upstanding, God-loving folk; who were only looking to protect their children and their families. However, history rightly remembers them as bigots. 

In the same way, I am sure the folks who voted for Amendment One in North Carolina would never self-identify as bigots. They probably think of themselves as moral, upstanding, God-loving folk; who are only looking to protect their children and their families.

But history will also, rightly, remember them as bigots.

 These are powerful words and words I agree with completely.  To all of you who have tried to marginalize homosexuals and to keep them in the closet and out of the the public eye; To those of you who use your piety to your god to temper your compassion; to those of you who think your eternal salvation rests on controlling others... you are bigots and I am ashamed to admit this is still a problem in 2012.  Please support me in letting JC Penney know you find the ad campaign progressive and appropriate by signing Change. org's petition.

A Plea to My LDS and Religious Friends... Put Your Children Before Your Faith!

I am going to broach a sensitive topic here.

I read a thread on LDS.net that has really troubled me.  I am going to paste the young woman's original post here.  This young lady's plea breaks my heart. Her suffering is obvious and needless. I am so disturbed by this girl suffering it has me on the edge of tears. The tragedy here is her religion will likely destroy her when in reality she has done nothing that is abnormal and to call it sinful shows the depraved nature of piety.

I have a rather sensitive topic that I would like advice on. I have been looking on this site, and other people have posted similar topics. If this is not appropriate then I will remove.

I am a girl, and I have a problem with Masturbation. I have been working with my Bishop, for almost 7 months and have not made a lot of progress. He is starting to get frustrated with me.

I've had an issue for around 4 years. I have read a lot of materials that are pornographic in nature(have not looked at visual much) and that is the reason, as well as a coping method.

This is the only sin in this manner that I have committed, I have not done anything with anyone. I am not very good at self-control and that is part of it as well.

I'm home schooled and do not have siblings living at home. I live in a fairly isolated area, and besides Seminary, I don't really have a lot of interaction with people besides my parents.

My parents have major issues in their marriage, there is not a lot of respect on either party's part, and they fight a lot of the time, really ripping into each other. It's not a very healthy environment for me and I get pushed and need to escape.

My bishop is fairly new, only being in the office for 9 months or so. He is also my families home teacher. I reported to him on a daily basis for 5 months, and have now gone to a weekly basis, with an extra report if I mess up. I meet with him around every 2-3 weeks for 15 minutes generally.

Before I started working with him, I had a problem about every day, every other day. The longest I went in the 3 1/2 years was a week without doing it. I read a lot of bad books during that time period.

Now, I can go 1-3 weeks. The longest I was able to go was 4 1/2 weeks, at which point I had an issue. I was making some progress until about the end of August, and then I started messing up more, but not back to where I was. I started listening to music that was a bit suggestive as well as reading things that were as well. I started backsliding big time.

I've now cut out the suggestive material 99%. I've been pretty clean on it for 2 weeks, but there were issues during that time anyway. When I am sick, or having my period, I would use this to distract, or in the case of cramps, it did actually help. I have times of the month when I'm a lot more likely to do it, so it depends.

When I started working with him, I made a lot more of an effort and then, well, I'm not. I'm not sure quite how to get back to the point of actually wanting to stop. My problem is that I also need some other type of outlet I can do to distract myself as a replacement.

I suffer from depression, worse some times and not quite as bad others. I've been suicidal and I still consider it sometimes.

At this point I am not taking the sacrament. My dad is like "Ok, it's time, you need to be done" but what I don't think he realizes is that for me it is an addiction and it's very hard to stop or want to stop. My goal is to go to college next year, so I am limited time wise.

With my bishop as far as he is concerned. He is a really decent man, and I have a lot of respect for him. Overall he has been very patient and understanding but it's been 7 months and no difference, or not much. He wants me to see a counselor and has brought it up in email 4 times as well as 1 time in a meeting.

I've told him no and he finally stopped talking about it after I asked him to. Is it needed for me to meet with him more often? This sunday will be the 3rd week and as far as I know I'm not meeting with him. He was out of town, so that's part of it.

How much should I expect from him, and what can I do so I can make progress? I have been reading a lot of church books, fasting once a week, and also sitting in the Temple Foyer for several hours while my Dad does work. I am making an effort but it's just not good enough it seems.

The problem here is she needs professional help.  She needs it from an unbiased counselor who will treat her as an individual not a member of the faith.  To be fair help has been suggested by her bishop; but, she needs counseling for depression not masturbation.  The girl is in an impossible situation.  She has no voice of reason in her circle of influence.  Her parents' marriage is not healthy.  The child his home schooled and segregated from her peers.  She is caught in vicious and needless cycle guilt, repentance, denial and self loathing.  This cycle could be broken by on adult in her sphere telling her, 'What you are doing is normal and is nobody's business but yours.'

I know your faith is important to you; but, there is a problem when the faith is deemed more important than the child.  My plea is: if you are doing this to your child... please stop.  There is plenty of evidence indicating masturbation is a normal part of development.  It is healthy and serves a purpose.  This uninspired policy stance will destroy this young lady.  It has already destroyed many children before her.  To ask children to deny their humanity in this manner is equal to making using the toilet a sin.  It is a normal body function that hurts no one

In this case religious leaders who interject them selves into the personal intimate lives of the youth are wrong.  There are countless examples of the leaders of faith being wrong.  Change in your church comes from you. That is why the LDS Church changed the policy on blacks holding the priesthood.  It was politically motivated and was causing a rift in the membership.   Demand they revise their stance on this matter.  Demand they stay our of the sexual development of your children.  Ignore advice that comes from leaders who have a degree in law or business and not child development.  Most importantly let your children know that you love them and there is nothing wrong with developing normal sexual awareness.  Nurture your child not the misguided policies on sexuality.  Put your child before your faith.

Sexual Development In a Fishbowl - The Mormon Problem with Sex

Over the last month, three articles regarding modesty or sex addiction have come to my attention.  One was the Children's Friend article on modesty. The second was brought to my attention by my friend Thad and was linked in PostMormon.org.  The article appeared on KSL.com and describes a mother's reasons for banning Barbie dolls from her home.  The third article was this gem written by a marriage and family therapist from St. George.

It is well known that I consume and digest many things in the Mormon Culture of Utah.  It is also well known that I am an open critic of the LDS Church's policies on sex and sexuality and the harm I perceive they do.  This post is no exception.

First I will address briefly the Children's friend article.  The mother has a four year old who is worried about modesty.... and the mother furthers the neurosis by giving her an undershirt to cover the bare shoulders under her sun dress.  The mother then celebrates her four year-old's modesty.  First of all there is no such thing as four year-old modesty.  This is a self concept that has been imposed on the child and is not natural and circumvents the natural development of the child.  As many posters have written already on this topic... shoulders and four year-olds are not sexy.  However, when we engage in a practice of covering every inch of flesh; the net result is, we sexualize those portions of the body which normally wouldn't be sexy.

The next article was written by a mother who had taken the bold step of banning Barbie from her home. Not because of the unrealistic body image that Barbie represents for her daughters but because of the thoughts a naked pink silhouette would give to her sons.

Then one day my oldest son (a big second-grader at the time) came up to me with a half-naked Barbie doll in his hands and said to me sternly, "Mom, I don't think this is an appropriate toy." He had just had a fatherly talk with my husband about what is "appropriate" and what is "a poison worse than the black plague of death itself and should be avoided at all costs, lest it rot your mind like an unstoppable rebel force."

So first of all why would you be giving your 7/8 year old boy a talk about pornography?  Why would you start him on the path of self flagellant guilt.  Making him aware of his sexuality and giving shame to his natural development is not the sign of healthy family... it is the sign of a family who engages in cultish behavior.

I know for families of girls, Barbies are a lifeline, an institution even. But that is not my family. My daughters are surrounded by brothers. Hot-blooded, American boys who should not be put into tough, compromising spots every time they're rooting around the playroom on a quest to find that one LEGO piece to complete their set.

Again, it is the neurosis developed inside of the family that puts boys in the compromising position.  Is it appropriate to make the female form responsible for the boys behavior?  I believe we are sending the message that our daughters are objects and men are unable to control themselves.

And then there was this comment left on the now closed comment board:

Mickelle W.
posted 1 day ago
i personally hate seeing a naked barbie or ken doll laying on the floor of my house. but don't feel like it is fair to allow my son to have his boy toys if i am not going to allow my little girl to have hers. so when the dolls are purchased they become mine long enough to color on a leotard, or boxers depending on the sex of the doll. now who cares if my 7 year old son and all his macho boy friends take off the doll clothes in a front to get sisters goat. barbie remains modest, and mom remains un-bugged that their is a naked toy lying on the floor.

This brand of craziness does not breed children with healthy sexual identities.   Is not the Barbie the appropriate metaphor for the Mormon view of women?  She looks good without any capacity of enjoying sex.  That is where this programming leads and culture is replete with examples.

The final article and the one that really spawned this post was the one written by Geoff Steurer.  He discusses the talk he had with his father-in-law, 15 years ago, when he asked for his wife's hand in marriage.  He said, now the internet is more prevalent, he believes father-in-laws should be asking their potential son-in-laws about potentially sexually addictive behavior.

I have no doubt that if I were to go through that same interview today, her father would more than likely include one more line of questioning. I imagine it would sound something like this:
“Pornography is such a common struggle for so many young men these days. Naturally, I worry that this is something you have struggled with as a teenager or young adult. Will you please describe your experience with pornography and how you’ve handled it?”

Geoff, is a therapist.  They don't mind telling you that in the article.  However what they don't tell you is that pornography addiction and sexual addiction are not recognized by the APA.  He also does not tell you that masturbation is a normal sexual behavior.  Use of pornography for that purpose is considered normal.  Sexual addiction and pornography use at all, in LDS communities, is immediately assigned to addiction status even if the use is occasional and does not interfere with daily functioning.

If there isn’t a father in the home, then I still think it’s a good idea for the mother to have this conversation with the boyfriend. As awkward as it may seem to bring up this topic, I believe it’s even more awkward to deal with the potential aftermath if this issue surfaces later in marriage. 

Please note that if you are personally struggling with an unresolved pornography problem, it will make it difficult, if not impossible, to counsel a future son-in-law about your concerns. You will feel like a phony and will either avoid the conversation all together, or minimize the seriousness of it as a way to protect yourself from the reality of your own struggles. If you have struggled with pornography and haven’t fully repented and recovered from the impact on your life, make sure that you’re actively working the same recovery process you would expect from this young man.

Does anyone see this as a boundary issue?

Discussion Points:

• Tell me about your experience with pornography over your lifetime.

• Is there a history of pornography use in your immediate or extended family?

• How do you define pornography?

• How have you healed from the impact of pornography on your life?

• Who helped you overcome your problems with pornography?

• How do you currently protect yourself from pornography?

• Have you ever wanted to stop viewing pornography, but couldn’t?

I know what I would have and would still tell my father-in-law if this came up... 'it is none of your business!'

Under his bullet point red flags the author says to worry if:

He insists that he’s never even seen pornography and appears “too perfect” in his responses. Recognize that even though he may not have seen hardcore pornography, we live in a culture saturated with pornographic images. If he acts like he doesn’t notice or isn’t affected by those, you need to be concerned. Every man should acknowledge the occasional pull from images that are designed to draw our attention and entice us.

The author is turning windmills into dragons.  He has to convince you that your normal sexual feelings and compulsions are abnormal.  So if you are looking at the Victoria Secret Catalogue  or the underwear section of the JcPenny Catalogue you are on the "slippery slope."  The problem with the author's stance here; is it is out of sync with contemporary thought on the issues of sexual development.  The migration to pornography may be more normal than the dogmatic abstinence of everything sexual.

It occurred to me, as I read the last article, growing up Mormon, especially in Utah, that you develop sexually in a fishbowl.  From the beginning, we have over protective and ill informed mothers inserting themselves into our sexuality.  If it is not the constant and unhealthy messages of modesty, it is interest in what we do in our private exploration.  We have Bishops, Stake Presidents and now future father-in-laws, asking us about our sexual habits as if they had a personal investment in it.  Mormons like to create distance between the practices of the FLDS and find the recent revelations that Jeffs engaged in sex in the temple with his brides in front of the witnesses disturbing.  Are they really that far removed from engaging in that type of voyeurism when they insert themselves into every aspect of, not only their children's, but every member's sexual practices?  Not just every member but also members of the unaffiliated community.

I have seen appropriately dressed females chastised for wearing clothing, that covers all of the appropriate regions, because they might be provocative or the are wearing fishnets and shorts.  I have had mother's assert that they would not allow their son's to engage in a stage kiss; because, they wanted their son's first kiss to be with the woman he was going to marry.  I have heard lectures of modesty given to unaffiliated girls who were also prepubescent and I have seen third parties put into a position of monitoring adult behavior to prevent any potential for adultery.

The Mormon obsession with sex is not healthy.  I have seen it cripple marriages and more importantly the healthy development of sexual attitudes and identities in children.  Instead of the fishbowl mentality it is time members tell everyone outside of their marriage "it is none of your business".  It is also time that we allow our children to develop sexually and to explore their bodies in a safe and nurturing environment that acknowledges that sex and sexual development are deeply personal and you are allowed to get aroused and deal with that arousal in a healthy, private, and pro-social way.  It is time we tell those loud and uniformed voices that what they are doing with their children is abusive and needs to stop.

... and I Like to Jog Naked

I have struggled with how to approach this topic or if I should even discuss it.  We held my Mother's funeral on July 20th.  It was kind of non-traditional for Utah.  There was a small private viewing held for her close friends and family who could not be with her when she died.  Her children, including myself, did not attend the viewing because we said our goodbyes at her bedside as she struggled with the disease and and eventually died.  We did not need that part of closure.  We held the service at graveside.

I look at funerals somewhat differently than my religious friends and family do.  I don't believe that my loved ones are on the other side waiting for me.  There is simply no evidence this is the case.  So, the funeral is my last opportunity to publicly memorialize my loved ones memory.

My mother had 4 children.  3 are atheists.  My youngest sister is a practicing Mormon.  There had been quite a bit of discussion between my siblings and I, with my mother's input ,as to how we would proceed after her death.  Her wishes were met as were ours.  No one's voice was drowned out and the discussion was civil and all sides were represented.  The plan was: My mother would be buried in a pink dress with her mother's ring.  She made it clear she did not want to be cremated.  She did not care if the coffin was expensive.  She did not want the service in a church.  She did not believe the Mormons had the corner on god and found them to be pushy and judgmental and she did not want her children to be lectured.  If the weather was warm she wanted to service to be graveside.  If the weather was cold she wanted us to have it indoors so those who came to pay respects would not be cold.  She did not want a viewing if we did not want to hold one.  We would not pray at the graveside and there would be no official religious representation.

When we met with the funeral director we outlined what we wanted to have happen and he was extremely helpful in assisting us in meeting those requests.  His compassion and sensitivity were a noted quality and we enjoyed, as much as you can, his assistance and would recommend his company without hesitation.  During our conversations it was clear that there would not be a religious rite of any kind for this funeral.  My   mother's sister asked if they could hold a family prayer at the viewing as they closed the casket.  It was made clear that we did not have a problem with the prayer (we wouldn't be there after all) if it made them feel better but there would be none graveside.

The service was successful.  I conducted.  There was a musical number sung by my daughter Jessica and my sister-in-law Jennifer.  My Aunt Nene read a beautiful poem she wrote for my mother.  I made opening remarks followed by an open mic and concluded with closing remarks offered by me again.  I operated in the capacity that my siblings had requested and expected me to.  By all accounts, the service was beautiful simple and was exactly the type of service my mother wanted.

My Mother's Siblings and their families at her funeral 07/20/2011

So curmudgeon what is the issue?

We had three guests at our little secular funeral who found it necessary to use the open mic as an opportunity to bear their testimonies.  They could not stand the fact we were fine without the mention of the Mormon church or Jesus Christ, the plan of salvation, or even god.   Additionally, the hearse driver pulled me aside.  He told me that he had heard that there might be an anti-religion sentiment to our service.  He told me that he was happy to see that no one was forced out of their beliefs.  He thought it would have been wrong to not allow people to speak.  My mother's siblings attended the funeral in their Wrangler's.  They were dressed informally.  I was dressed in a black suit, white shirt, and red and black tie.  The hearse driver mistook me for the out voted religious minority at the service.  He made a broad assumption that I was a "member of the church" and about shit when he realized he was talking to one of the "angry militant atheists".  I was gracious and let him and the other's say their peace.  I didn't attempt to stop them.  I was non confrontational.

During this process many people have expressed their condolences and a few have had to add that they know my mother is in a better place, is watching down on me, is with her relatives, or is comforting someone else who is recently deceased.  As people would offer their religious views including the afterlife while offering their condolences I found myself turning them off or going somewhere else in my head until they were done while graciously accepting their kindness.  I don't understand why there is an imperative for them to share those things with people who do not want them.  I don't share my atheism unless it is solicited.

My point of this writing is to illustrate how unwanted religious expression is really a two way street.  Imagine, if you will, if I were attending a Mormon funeral and told the guests at the funeral that this is it.  Your loved one is going to rot in the ground and you will never seen them again.  While this is what I believe I have never shared it during a persons most painful or emotional times.  What if I made a point of telling them that they can pray their lives away but there is no one there to hear them.  Would any of those conversations give comfort to a hurting human?  No!  Neither do expressions of faith to an atheist.  My father-in-law put this in perspective to one of my wife's siblings.  He told them, 'you need to understand for Kevin this is it.  There is no more and he will never see his mother again.'  That was an appropriate acknowledgement of what I believed.  He did not offer faith promoting insights to me instead he cried with us and gave us incredible emotional support.

I have said it before, unsolicited expressions of faith are icky.  Faith, like your bedroom habits, should be shared when solicited and with like minded people.... otherwise keep them to yourself.

I think the next time someone offers an unsolicited and otherwise inappropriate expression of faith to me my response is going to be... " ...and I like to jog naked."  Well, as long as were sharing inappropriate information....