Religion - the root of MY evil!

I was motivated to start my blog while reading Richard Dawkins' controversial book, "The God Delusion". In the preface, he tells of working with Channel Four (British television) on their two-part documentary "Root of All Evil". While promoting the documentary in the local papers, they bought a full-page ad and published a photo of the New York skyline that showed the twin towers of the World Trade Center. The caption read, "Imagine a World Without Religion".

The book is a brilliant thesis in defense of atheism, and as you read this post, I would invite you to think in broad terms beyond Christianity. The most difficult challenges in my life were generated by my membership in the Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), but in every reference to my own experience, you could substitute "Catholic", "Islam", or simply "fundamentalism" or "extremism" for the word "Mormon".

Any religion can claim to be the only path to God, rather than just another path to God, but when that religion strives to influence government to legislate their interpretation of scripture into the laws of a country, then they have crossed the line into bigotry. Let me remind you of the definition of bigotry: "the stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

The catalyst to begin my blog today was inspired by an email from an on-line group that on June 20th the Mormon Church formalized their support of a very political campaign to entrench bigotry into the California constitution. They have ordered that a letter from the prophet be read from the pulpit in every California congregation on June 29th, and this letter is instructing members to take a single polarizing position in a political campaign. With words like "Local Church leaders will provide information about how you may become involved...", "...do all you can...", and "...donating of your means and time....", the church has made it very clear that there will be no middle ground for the faithful members of the church during the November election this year.

But what about my son and my daughter who have yet to abandon their faith in the Mormon Church? I'm the youngest child in a family of six, and all five of my siblings are still TBM's (True Blue Mormons). I have 37 nieces and nephews, the majority of whom are still attending weekly church meetings. Where does this type of action by church leadership leave them?

It is well documented in history what action like this by the church does to families. At best, it polarizes congregations and divides families. At its worst, it has caused suicides and initiated disruptive church-court action against open-minded individuals and vulnerable church members like myself.

In early 2000 there was a fierce battle on in California over the passage of Proposition 22. The battle was so fierce that when one family took a vocal position against the church and refused to place a supportive lawn sign on their property, the head of the family was disfellowshipped (released from his position in the ward and had the use of priesthood authority suspended). Their main opposition was against the church's involvement in politics. Most tragically, the tension became so severe that on February 25th Stuart Matis shot himself in the head on the sidewalk of a regional California meeting house in Los Altos. A short time before his suicide he wrote this to a friend: "On the night of March 7th, many California couples will retire to their beds thrilled that they helped pass the Knight Initiative (Proposition 22). What they don't realize is that in the next room, their son or daughter is lying in bed crying and could very well one day be the victim of society's homophobia. The Knight Initiative will certainly save no family. It is codified hatred. It is anti-family, anti-love and it is wrong."

Asked to comment on the suicide, a spokesman for the "Yes on 22" campaign declined comment other than to say, "It's a personal family matter." No kidding! So why did the church and other campaigners get involved in "personal family matters" in the first place?

I think it was Stuart's mother who recounted that in a Sunday School class that she attended, and with full knowledge that she had a gay son (who was living a celibate life and still worthy of his temple recommend), a man stood up and said, "They should take every homosexual and round them up, put them on a boat, and sink it in the Mindanao Trench!"

How can you fail to see that statement as anything but bigotry?

During the campaign for Proposition 22, letters from the prophet were ordered to be read from the pulpit. The significance of this is that there is a saying in the Mormon Church that is not at all an exaggeration. The saying is, "When the Prophet speaks, the thinking has been done!"

Fast forward to May 29th, 2006 when the church once again saw fit to have a letter like this read from the pulpit, virtually commanding every Mormon to write a letter to their political leaders in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment. At 7PM that night I was personally served a letter from my bishop and my Elders Quorum president. I had been summoned to a disciplinary council at 7AM the morning of June 4th. These types of meetings are traditionally referred to as a "Court of Love", because they like to convince themselves that they are acting in my best interest out of their love for me by working out my salvation with God for me. They feel qualified to do this by virtue of their "calling" to preside over me. I asked to have my friend (and a member of my bishopric) attend with me, and was denied. I asked the stake president (the Mormon equivalent of a Cardinal) to distribute a two page letter to each man on the council that clarified my position as a gay man who was going to remain married and faithful to my wife of 25 years, and was denied.

The "court of love" was over in 35 minutes. Only two questions were asked of me (one was, "Have you been actively trying to get other members of the church to adopt your views?", to which I replied, "I have only written my personal views in my memoirs.") They debated my fate for 5 minutes and then invited me back in to pronounce my excommunication.

That same Sunday, (June 4th), a letter to the editor by Jeffrey Nielsen was published in the Salt Lake Tribune. Mr. Nielsen was a philosophy professor at BYU and was happily married to a woman and had a family. All he stated was that by reading a letter from the pulpit, essentially ordering all members of the church to adopt the church's stand on the FMA issue, that church leaders had crossed a line. He was fired the next day.

So here we are again. In the two years since my excommunication the church has made amazing strides toward reconciliation with the gay Mormons. Carol Lynn Pearson's book, "No More Goodbyes" has paved the way for this to happen. Her play, "Facing East" provides a riveting backdrop to the consequences of adopting a "no middle ground" position when it comes to homosexuals and the Bible. Pressure from SoulForce has forced BYU to stop expelling gay students, and pressure from ex-gay groups (including a demonstration by my former wife and I on the steps of Evergreen Int'l in July 2007) has forced the church to admit that they do not know what causes homosexuality and that they will never counsel a gay man to marry a woman as a "cure". They seem to have repealed all of their former printed matter on homosexuality and its causes in favor of a single brochure entitled "God Loveth His Children". All of the recent writings advocate their love for their gay brothers and sisters. It seemed that we had emerged from the dark ages and entered an age of enlightenment.

And now this. The wording of the current letter is essentially identical to those that were read in 2000 and in 2006.

Unfortunately, the consequences will therefore be almost identical as well.