My grandmother was born in Salt Lake City in the 1920s. She has never been a Mormon either before or after, but when she was 8 years old, she went to a friend’s birthday party and was baptized in the pool. She didn’t know what had happened or that it had any significance. I am certain that her parents were never informed.
She lived her normal life, and married another non-Mormon, my grandfather. Fast-forward to my mother, 16 years old, living in Utah. The local ward came around to bother my grandmother, a “member” of the LDS Church. She was not, to put it mildly, interested. However, one young woman in the ward became best friends with my mother, and my mom became the only member on her side of the family. She still is.
When I found out that Maude may be pregnant, I decided right then and there that I would resign my membership. I think the whole process of resigning is faintly ridiculous and overdramatic. Who goes to the trouble of formally renouncing their membership in a voluntary organization like a church?
I would prefer to just drift away, never go back to church, never again consider myself a Mormon. Unfortunately, that’s not the way the Church works. As long as you’re on their list, they have the God-given duty to bring you back. Your soul is at stake! You’ll thank them for it, just as soon as you come back into the fold.
Even that I could deal with for the rest of my life, but the thought of the name of my son or daughter on their rolls chills me. Sure, it would only be as a “child of record” but who knows how long they really keep that information.
Unlike my parents, I am not going to raise my child in a religion. Unlike my parents, I am not going to pressure my child to follow a specific religion. If Rod or Todd wants to become a Mormon and go on a mission, he is free to do so. But he will do so with his eyes open, an option that I did not have.
Any organization that I’m voluntarily affiliated with reflects on me. The Mormon Church has a history and a present filled with racism, sexism, and homophobia. It is an organization filled with rot, from the top down. When I think about sheer amounts of time, effort, and goodwill expended on behalf of the Church by good men and women, it makes me queasy. These are people, trying to do what’s right, serving an organization that does not respect them and will use up every ounce of blood, sweat, and tears only to shamelessly ask for more.
People often say that going after tobacco companies is wrong since the adults who smoke and get cancer knew exactly what they were getting into. I disagree. Something like 80% of smokers start when they were under 18. I wonder what percentage of Mormons were baptized before they were 18.
I made a promise (that I didn’t know I was going to be making five seconds before I made it) that I would sacrifice everything I had to this Church. Unfortunately, that was before I found out that they had lied to me, lied to my parents, and expected me not to care. My parents told me this church was good, and I trusted them. My parents may love me, but they don’t always know best.
Today, I refuse to be part of this organization; I refuse to have my name associated with an entity that causes so much pain and heartache. It is full of good people and bad people, but the organization is fundamentally rotten, and has been from Fanny Alger to the Fancher Party, from Mark E. Peterson to Mark Hoffman. Goodbye.
When you used to comment on the Bloggernacle, I always thought of you as a fence sitter–no more! LOL
You said it so well. I still haven’t resigned, but I do not like having my name associated with Mormonism. Mormons (the people) I like, the institution…not so much.
By: WendyP on January 16, 2008
at 12:01 am
good to see your back to blogging ned.
i’m quite a bit more indifferent than you when it comes to church. i could never believe again, but i still hold out the possibility that i could attend somewhat regularly in the future under the right circumstances. but i definitely won’t let them baptize my son. i’ll make him wait until he was 18 and then he can do what he wants, but since right now we rarely ever attend i can’t imagine him ever wanting to join.
i’m not even to the point where i don’t like having my name associated w/ the church. i’m pretty much a mormon, even if i don’t believe in it, don’t attend church, and have a few very un-mormon vices.
i doubt i’d ever get around to resigning, but i can respect the decision of those who do. i’m still debating whether the church was on balance more of a positive or negative influence on my life, and the jury’s still out on that one.
anyway i hope you keep at the blog more regularly.
By: m on January 16, 2008
at 3:43 am
Hey, congratulations to you and Maude!! (Is this a past pregnancy, or a current one?)
I like your blog on why you resigned. I think I will blog on why I haven’t.
By: wry catcher on January 16, 2008
at 10:19 am
Also, now you’ll have to change your blog header to just “Atheist…iddly”!
By: wry catcher on January 16, 2008
at 10:20 am
Problem is, in a lot of odd little ways, “once a Mormon, always a Mormon.”
And I’m not talking about the home teachers they keep sending over to bug you either.
By: Seth R. on January 16, 2008
at 11:52 am
[...] said, having read Ned Flanders’ excellent post today, I have decided to write a bit about the faith of my family and why I don’t embrace it, [...]
By: why i didn’t resign « wry catcher on January 16, 2008
at 11:56 am
Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. I was certain that I’d get home from work and see a bunch of unpleasant comments.
If you haven’t yet, you should really check out Wry Catcher’s post (linked above) about why she hasn’t resigned. A much better response than my dashed off post deserved.
As I posted over on Wry’s blog, I do think resignation is a bit silly, and I certainly don’t think it’s for everyone. I really don’t see any difference between someone who has officially resigned, and the person who got baptized, moved away, and never set foot in church again.
WendyP– I agree: Mormons are some of the nicest people I’ve ever met. Sadly, this feels a little like handing in the key to the executive washroom.
M– I admire your evenhandedness. I got worked up in a bit of a rant yesterday, but it’s all true. Equally, Mormonism has given me some amazing opportunities.
Seth– Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I agree; I’ll always be part Mormon. I guess that’s why I’m not changing the subtitle!
By: NFlanders on January 16, 2008
at 7:32 pm
I like this post. Resigning’s an interesting thing to consider.
To resign, or not to resign. That is the question.
By: Sister Mary Lisa on January 17, 2008
at 8:46 pm
I like your post. My problem is that no matter how hard I try–being overly nice, being overly rude, being naked at the door, offering up unsavory brown beverages, making unnecessary comments about almost dead white guys–they keep coming back. Again. And again. And again. One missionary helpfully gave me the local bishop’s number so that I could call and have my name removed. I’ve let them in my house, with my kids the past two times they’ve visited. And I’ve almost given in to their requests to perform “manual labor” for me. Please tell me that I’m not going to go to hell for all of this. Thanks, Another former Mormon in recovery
By: Jane on January 25, 2008
at 12:04 pm
Thanks, Jane. If you really want to get off their list permanently, you have to actually sign a letter resigning your membership. Otherwise, they just make a note next to your name that says “Not interested right now, try back in a month or two. Maybe bring cookies next time.”
If only someone had brought me cookies!
By: NFlanders on January 26, 2008
at 4:06 am
Great post, Ned. And thanks to chanson for directing me here. You said basically what I feel. Like wry, I am still in. But like Ned, that situation will be changing. Expect a major announcement on Equality Time soon! And if wry really wants to be in Equality’s Backslappers’ Crew, she may have to amend her post.
By: Equality on January 27, 2008
at 9:00 pm
Well said, mr. flanders, sir. Good for you, well thought for your sons, and thoroughly considering the welfare of all involved. I do understand the importance of the decisions. 8 years old was too young for me, and I suspect all others as well.
It’s a very personal choice, good of you to share it with us.
– rick
By: CV Rick on February 1, 2008
at 2:55 am
Ned- I also resigned, and for similar reasons to you; I couldn’t feel like I was giving any support, even if only through my name on membership lists, to a sexism, racist, homophobic, lying organization. And I needed to protect my son from being “activated.”
I also understand the reasonings for not resigning, and I respect the decisions of people who choose not to. I did what I felt was most true for me.
By: from the ashes on February 6, 2008
at 1:08 am
We’ve been waiting, Equality. I know you’ve been busy messing with people’s Whoppers, but we need an update.
Thanks, CV Rick. Eight is ridiculously young to make this kind of decision. I don’t even remember getting baptized. I can’t believe we try to lord it over Catholics for not doing infant baptism. We just do delayed infant baptism.
From the Ashes– I agree. This is really what I felt I had to do for me and my family.
By: NFlanders on February 7, 2008
at 1:18 am
This was interesting. It reminds me of A FORESKINS LAMENT, wherein a man raised Orthodox Jewish left, lost faith, had real problems with his family. But when his son was born, he made the opposite decision you did, and had his son circumcised–a decision that surprised even him.
Anyway, I hope you get the peace you want.
By: ESO on February 8, 2008
at 9:23 pm
That is interesting, ESO. A Foreskin’s Lament is on my to-read list, but I haven’t gotten around to it yet. Of course, there’s a big gulf between circumcising your son and raising him Orthodox, but I suppose it’s still a concession to his heritage. Fortunately, Mormonism doesn’t come with all the complications of an ethnic identity.
On a lighter note, all the comments are automatically sent to my gmail account, so thanks to you, ESO, I’m getting all kinds of ads for “skin clamps.”
By: NFlanders on February 12, 2008
at 1:12 am
I am SO sorry!
By: ESO on February 16, 2008
at 10:49 am
Ned,
The United States was once sexist and racist. So why aren’t you renouncing your U. S. citizenship?
By: California Condor on February 21, 2008
at 1:05 pm
I don’t remember the U.S. getting its direction and leadership from an infallible, yet formerly racist God.
By: CV Rick on February 21, 2008
at 2:03 pm
CV Rick,
Who said Brigham Young was perfect?
By: California Condor on February 21, 2008
at 7:06 pm
Everything he preached came directly from God.
“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture” – Brigham Young(Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p.95).
If that’s not enough for you? Here’s some others.
President and prophet Ezra Taft Benson stated: “…the Prophet does not have to say ‘Thus saith the Lord’ to give us scripture” (Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophets, BYU Devotional, Feb 26, 1980, p.3,6).
President Heber C. Kimball said: “But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong” (Journal of Discourses, vol.6, p.32).
Game-Set-Match.
By: CV Rick on February 21, 2008
at 8:36 pm
CVRick makes some great points (better than I could–and with sources!! Nice!).
The problem is that the two situations are not analogous. The United States Government does not claim to be in communication with and acting on behalf of a deity (at least not now that Huckabee is out of the race). Looking on the history of the Mormon Church, at Adam-God, Book of Mormon geography, African-American discrimination, polygamy, polyandry, and all these other things that Modern Mormons regard as the mere failings of men, I have to say that God’s phone line must have an awful lot of static on it. And that doesn’t even start to take account of the ongoing discrimination against women and homosexuals.
The only satisfactory explanation is that none of the last sixteen prophets noticed the voicemail light flashing. “You have three-hundred and seventy-two unheard messages. First unheard message… ‘Joseph, this is God. Listen, call me back as soon as you get this. I don’t think this polygamy thing is such a good idea…’”
By: NFlanders on February 22, 2008
at 2:06 am
You’re right, NFlanders . . . that voicemail is full.
What I should’ve done is point out to California Condor that he was raising a great big strawman. No one claimed Brigham Young was anything – that was CC changing the subject. This was about the infallibility of a racist God. He couldn’t argue that, so he sputtered something about B.Y. as a fallible man.
It’s a typical tactic of those who’ve lost the footing in a debate and really common among the religious and hosts on Fox News.
By: CV Rick on February 22, 2008
at 3:12 am
CV Rick,
Where does Mormonism teach that God was racist?
Some Mormon leaders in the past probably let their personal racism shape what they said.
By: California Condor on February 22, 2008
at 3:55 pm
Ned Flanders,
God’s phone line definitely has static for us because we are mere mortals. We are required to take a leap of faith based on the spiritual manifestations we do receive.
By: California Condor on February 22, 2008
at 3:59 pm
California Condor,
Why do you have to use strawman arguments?
The logical progression is – god is infallible, the words of the prophets speaking sermons are the words of god, the words of the prophets are racist, the words of god are racist, god is a racist. You can’t fall back on the “Fallible Man” argument when I specifically provided you quotes whereby those words are to be considered scripture. If you fall back on the “fallible man” argument with respect to words spoken as scripture, then the whole house of cards comes falling down and your religion is nothing more than sham and the claims of divine communication completely debunked.
Where do you want to go with this? Do you accept the words of the prophets when spoken as inspired by God and specifically said to be scripture? Or do you claim the they were just men and thereby making their inspired words open to picking and choosing for your own convenience, thereby making the religion and its scriptures uninspired tripe?
Your choice here – - the inspired words of the prophet are true and part of the personally restored church of God or the words of the prophet are occasionally inspired and not when that prophet claimed to be speaking inspired words of God? If it’s the former, your God’s a racist. If it’s the latter, your religion is a joke.
By: CV Rick on February 22, 2008
at 4:26 pm
CV Rick,
The strawman in this argument is your insistence that Mormons believe every word uttered by a prophet was correct. The reality is that we believe these men were human beings and subject to error.
We have a saying in the Church with which I’m sure you’re familiar: “Line upon line, precept upon precept.” Think about what that means.
By: California Condor on February 22, 2008
at 5:28 pm
California Condor . . . I know this is really hard for you, but I’m again going to quote Brigham Young. Follow along, please.
“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture” – Brigham Young(Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p.95).
What does that mean?
First – Was he a Prophet of the True and Living God?
Second – Would the Prophet of the True and Living God utter those words in an official church publication if they weren’t true?
Third – Do you believe those words to be true?
Step by step – - this ought to be easy.
By: CV Rick on February 22, 2008
at 5:53 pm
First – Was he a Prophet of the True and Living God?
Yes.
Second – Would the Prophet of the True and Living God utter those words in an official church publication if they weren’t true?
Possibly; he was human and prone to mistakes. Plus, this might have been some hyperbole. Also, you need to look at the context of this statement. Furthermore, you need to look at how this statement was recorded. Any amateur historian will tell you that history is open to interpretation.
Third – Do you believe those words to be true?
Possibly. First of all, it depends on how you define the words “preached a sermon.” Also, as any casual Bible scholar can tell you, the canon of “scripture” is not flawless.
Or, on the other hand, maybe Brigham Young was wrong when he made this statement. After all, Mormons don’t believe he was perfect.
By: California Condor on February 22, 2008
at 6:34 pm
That’s cute. I’m done with you, Condor . . . you’re no different than any other apologist and coward who can’t back his beliefs without equivocating. Your religion is a sham, built on the crumbling blocks of charlatan’s words.
By: CV Rick on February 22, 2008
at 6:51 pm
CV Rick,
How am I equivocating?
By: California Condor on February 22, 2008
at 7:25 pm
Well, I’m a little late coming back to the party, but hey, if California Condor can stick around after CV Rick gives him the business, then he’s alright with me.
This is how I see the problem, C.C. You have God on one hand, who is perfect. You have any Mormon prophet on the other hand, who we can all agree is decidely not perfect. The question is, how does “being a prophet of God” have ANY meaning, when we explain away all of their prophecies, teachings and pronouncements as “speaking as a man”?
To put it another way, if there’s that much static on the line, then you might as well hang up, because you’re not actually communicating at all. And if there’s no communication going on, then it’s not really God’s church.
I don’t begrudge you your believing, but you have to admit that it’s a little bit of a cop-out to say everytime we find out that a former (or current) prophet has said something that turns out to be untrue, or racist, or sexist, or wacky, “Oh, he’s just speaking as a man.”
What kind of God would allow his one and only Church to be a racist church for 150 years? If you can find a satisfactory explanation for that, then by all means, stay in the Church. I cannot, and therefore, I haven’t.
By: NFlanders on February 24, 2008
at 4:23 am
C.C.
Ned,
The United States was once sexist and racist. So why aren’t you renouncing your U. S. citizenship?
Was once? It most certainly still is.
There is a qualitative difference between leaving a church and renouncing citizenship in a country. I don’t believe the two can really be realistically compared.
By: jcfitzner on February 27, 2008
at 1:56 am
That’s a very good point, JC. Also still racist and sexist is the Church. It’s kind of hard to be progressive when your organization bars 51% of its members from real leadership positions and has as its ur-text a book that claims your skin gets lighter when you’re righteous. Yikes. Fortunately, I think most Mormons are very uncomfortable with the racist stuff (not so much the sexist stuff) and just try to forget about it as soon as possible after it comes up. I know I did.
By: NFlanders on February 28, 2008
at 1:35 am
Very few would attach the label “progressive” to the LdS church. It may have been at one time, about 178 years ago, but not any more.
I was always bothered by the more righteous the whiter you are thing. And I totally agree with you that the racist elements in the church are mostly ignored by most members. Unfortunately they embrace sexism and most of all homophobia with open arms – even the women and gays.
You know something weird is going on when you can get minorities to willingly discriminate against themselves.
By: Craig on February 28, 2008
at 3:28 am