The truth is, I'm at a bit of a crossroads blogging-wise. So far, I've used this blog as a venue for hashing out arguments about whatever issue—political, artistic, philosophical—I happen to feel strongly about at the time. And you, my faithful readers, have been good sports about arguing with me about them. It gives me no small pleasure to connect with old friends and indirect acquaintances through well-meaning debate.
Now that I'm out of the apostate closet, however, everything has changed. I'm no fool. I know that most of my regular readers are believing Mormons. And while I consider you a pretty open-minded bunch, I'm not sure how well my musings of late will go down. I'm still undecided about posting the story of my departure from Mormonism, which contains arguments that many of you will likely be predisposed to reject as anti-Mormon lies. Reflections on putting my post-Mormon world together are as likely to alienate my audience as they are to enlighten. And let's be honest: a blog with no readers (and no comments!) is no blog at all. So, not wanting to destroy my blog with overzealous apostasy, I have not blogged at all. (It is a Catch-22, you guys!)
Inspired by the statistical unlikelihood of coincident requests for posts, however, I am breaking the cycle of blog paucity. Brace yourselves.
Secularism is heady wine. I doubt that I can fully communicate it to my LDS friends, but I find not being chained to any system of belief intoxicating and empowering. I relish in the intellectual and moral freedom I have claimed since leaving Mormonism. I no longer have to worry about twisting myself into a belief in self-contradictory or unsupported truth claims. If evidence is lacking, I can discard at will from my epistemological deck. Similarly, I am free to follow my moral compass without compromise. I no longer need dissemble in defense of any creed. I no longer need condemn something as sinful merely because a religious leader commands it. If I cannot see the evil in a particular practice, I am under no obligation to regard that practice as immoral.
This moral freedom, I argue, dismantles one of the few truly evil components of religion. Let me illustrate with an example. In New Jersey, a lesbian couple sought to rent a pavilion, owned by the Methodist-affiliated Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, for their civil union ceremony. The OGCMA refused, citing a religious objection to same-sex unions. The couple successfully sued the OGCMA for discrimination, but I don't want to talk about the court case. I want to focus on the following quote, by OGCMA administrator Rev. Scott Hoffman:
The principle was a strongly held religious belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman. We're not casting any aspersions or making any judgments. It's just, that's where we stand, and we've always stood that way, and that's why we said no.
I take Hoffman at his word. He probably isn't trying to judge anyone. He probably doesn't even feel that the couple are bad people. I'll go even so far as to conjecture that, in his bones, he finds nothing particularly evil in this couple's desire to formalize their commitment. (If I am wrong about Hoffman, I am not wrong about some of you; I have witnessed firsthand the widespread moral ambivalence over homosexuality in my generation of Mormons.) But his religious convictions tell him that he cannot support same-sex unions, and he does not permit himself the freedom to disagree.
There will always be homophobes, just like there will always be racists and there will always be misopogonists. Such people don't need to be told to condemn; they will always find justification for their cruel and intolerant behaviors. But to make a decent person like Hoffman commit to those same prejudices requires something more. It requires dogma, which religion all too often is willing to provide. At its worst, religion puts a divine seal of approval on the prejudices of the previous generation, compelling the believer to reject even when, left to his own conscience, he would prefer to accept.
Leaving Mormonism has exacted costs both practical and emotional. I can't avoid that. But the freedom from institutional prejudice, the freedom to be as good a person as I make up my mind to be, has made it worth every penny.
10 comments:
Matt, my friend. You know me. I am a feeler. When I read in your Christmas blog that you had left the church, it broke my heart. As annoying as that may be, that was my reaction. I am sad. This is because I love the gospel, I love God, I love Christ more than anything. I cannot deny their existence. I cannot. I hope you will respect that.
That being said, I wish you would elaborate more on your decision to leave the church. I would like to understand. Not because I plan on bringing you back into the fold. I don't. I just like understanding people.
This post enlightens me to a degree; I understand your argument and it does make sense. But maybe a little more explanation? Actually, to be honest, I always kind of wondered if you would leave the church. Just recalling conversations we've had in the past, particularly conversations regarding Life of Pi and the validity of people's testimonies.You always seemed skeptical.
I hope I am not annoying you or trying to delve too deep. Again, I just want to understand.
No matter what, I will always have tremendous respect for you. I think you and Amanda are awesome people and I'm glad to know you. I named a pizza after you, for crying out loud.
Is secularism a deep, full-bodied wine, or is it more of flavourful, rich-tasting wine? ;)
To be honest, while I stand on the Mormon side of things, if you don't believe in a religion any more and don't really feel like you're a part of it, it makes sense that you wouldn't really be a part of it any more.
If you became a U of U fan, however, I couldn't forgive you.
Not withstanding my previous comment, which was completely silly (and even recycled a used bit), I think you're onto something in terms of homosexuality and society. It is probably our generation's biggest controversy, and I would imagine there have been thousands of Mormons who have left the church because of the Church's stance on this matter. I think with increased media pressure and peer acceptance of homosexuality, the trend is toward more acceptance of gays and lesbians.
Though here is a very interesting philosophical debate that many have had and I would be curious to find out what you think of the following question: Can you be against same sex marriage and still not be a homophobe?
This keeps coming up, and I think the answer to this question has political, social, and personal ramifications for many Americans.
this is grant of g&r fame. i am not smart enough anymore to figure out how to leave nonymous comments.
great thought provoking posts matt, this and the last, which i missed at the time. (i won't bother with the comma because why can't the thoughts provoked be great together with the posts?)
and way to slip in a beard joke to lighten everyone up on such a serious topic.
a couple things that struck me:
"... not being chained to any system of belief ..."
and:
"... free to follow my moral compass without compromise ..."
personally i am increasing second guessing myself the older i get as to whether i think and do what i think and do because of me or because i am being influenced by others i interact with, hear, read, etc. in other words, would i be the same person regardless of the world around me, if there were no world around me? is there such a thing as thought and action that is not influenced from the outside? is there such a thing as a moral compass, if by moral compass we mean (ideally) objective quasi metaphysical true inner self?
Marie: No need to apologize. You can pry all you like without offending me. I'm not surprised that you saw this coming: you were there at ground zero when I my doubts were starting to take root. I suppose I'll have to dust off the extra-long exit story I wrote a few months ago and post it. I will appreciate your feedback.
Chad: It's certainly possible to oppose SSM without being homophobic--I know tons of such people, most of whom are believing Mormons. But I argue that if such people had no religious motivation they probably wouldn't oppose it. And that's exactly the problem I'm trying to point out in my post. Every time I see a thoughtful, considerate latter-day saint wringing his hands over how a loving God could inflict "same-sex attraction" on someone, I see someone who, absent the constraints of Mormonism, would feel no need to condemn homosexuality. Someone else's prejudice has been has been incorporated into orthodoxy, and the faithful, out of a sincere desire to follow their beliefs, are forced to toe a line they would otherwise ignore.
Grant: I knew I could count on you to catch the beard reference. I was afraid everyone would read it as "misogyny".
I was never a very good Platonist, so I won't posit an ideal moral compass untouched by the material world and sense experience. I don't think it's possible to disentangle, for example, my Mormon upbringing and my academic training from my personal moral sense. But I think we can distinguish between the id-level impact of experience and surroundings on moral sense and the superego-level constraints imposed by dogma. As a Mormon I could privately struggle to understand how homosexuality is a sin, and I could even support SSM if I were willing to endure a little hostility from my fellow Mormons. But it would be difficult indeed to come to the conclusion that there is precisely no sin in homosexuality and remain a believing Mormon. I'm not just influenced by the morals and teachings of those around me; I'm explicitly limited in what I can believe without breaking Mormonism's back.
And, for Chad: secularism is a hearty Cabernet. It pairs well with red meat and communism.
Matt, I understand your views of freedom to set your own moral compass instead of setting by the mussings, whims, or personal morales of a religious leader, and I would completely agree except that the moral compass comes from God not mortal religionists whose individual experiences may have shaped a differing moral outlock and compass. I truly believe that God's ways are higher than man's ways and His understanding of ethics, morals, and values is beyond and "better" than my own, or than any mortal person (pious religious leader to amoral criminal). This is where faith in Christ comes in as I have faith that His standards he sets through scriptures, prophets, priesthood channels, and personal revelation.
As we are leaning in one of my MPH classes it is essential for leaders to develop their own values and morals, work in an environment that shares their personal values and morals, and lead according to those values and morales. I have explicitly chosen to allign my values and morals with Jesus Christ. I don't view this as confining as I think out and test out some values and morals that I initially question. Rather than being restricted by Christ's moral compass I feel directed.
I'm sorry I missed the beard reference-I didn't know what that word meant so I just skipped over it. If it makes you feel any better, I didn't persue an opportunity to be a temple worker (my bishop asked me to be one) because I wanted to be able to grow a Leprechaun chinstrap for St. Patrick's Day. I don't understand why that rule exists for temple workers so maybe I'm avoiding it in an unhealthy way instead of figuring out how and why my morals and God's differ. :-) It doesn't really matter now that I'm going back on Chemo and committments are kind of out the window now anyway.
grant here again.
good point matt. i think you put it well when you say that you don't think it's possible to disentangle, for example, your mormon upbringing and your academic training from your personal moral sense.
i guess what i am wondering, to stick with your example, is whether there is not a similar restriction on the other hand: am i free to think that homosexuality is a sin or to oppose same sex marriage for whatever reason? or is there something or someone/s, a zeitgeist, a more or less official dogma of the secular university, legal precedent perahps that stands in the way and limits my freedom in that regard, influencing me as might a religion?
whether homosexuality is a sin or not, whatever example we use, aren't we influenced on both/all sides so long as we are interacting with other humans and want to be part of a society or culture, be it religious, secular, etc.?
Puls: Unfortunately I'm not sure if we can find common ground here, because in rejecting the truth of Mormonism I necessarily dispute that its teachings come from God. Even if I were to accept the church's truth claims, your argument requires that the morals of Mormon be identical to those of Jesus Christ. Considering the fact that even over the short history of Mormonism its moral teachings have evolved considerably, that premise is hard to stomach. I think about the best you can argue is that Mormonism presents a mortality-inflected approximation of Christ's teachings, with the details left up to the individual to work out through the influence of the holy ghost. But don't let Salt Lake catch you saying that...
It would be wonderful if there were a moral system in which we could a priori have perfect confidence. But even as a faithful Latter-day saint it was far too simplistic and problematic to consider Mormonism to be that system.
Grant: Ah ha. I see where you're going with this.
The short answer to your question is 'yes'. Any group that (a) has an enforced, official dogma and (b) is able to become part of one's self-identity is more-or-less equivalent to an orthodox religion for our purposes. There are certainly those for whom political affiliation more than qualifies, so you have people who find believing we are on the left-hand side of the Laffer curve just as unthinkable as does a latter-day saint believing that homosexuality is not a sin. The difference, as I see it, is that a political group is one that you sign up for; political preferences are somewhat hereditary, but not to the extent of orthodox religion. The same goes for any other organization (a secular university, etc).
But I concede to the tyranny of the zeitgeist, at least in a few areas. I don't think the zeitgeist is currently enough to, say, compel even the irreligious into supporting same-sex marriage. But in (say) twenty years, when courts have ruled bans on SSM illegal, it will be very difficult to believe that gay marriage is intrinsically wrong, just as it is now with segregation. The same thing happened after Loving v. Virginia, when the court struck down anti-miscegenation laws. Suddenly public opinion, which was mixed on the issue, pegged hard for support of mixed-race marriages. Those who held to their old views quickly became pariahs, viewed as out of touch and bigoted. (Incidentally, I'm convinced that this--and not the dissolution of the family--is what the LDS church fears about SSM. They don't want a repeat of the 1970s in which they were on the margins of decent society.)
So yes: I am limited, in fundamental ways, in what I can believe without kicking rather hard against the pricks of the society I live in. So, before you pounce, let me admit it: I am not as morally free as my original post suggested. I am still restricted by cultural blind spots. But by asserting political independence and casting off an ideologically intrusive religion, I am as morally free as I know how to be. You might think those shackles are trivial compared to the confines of society--and you might even be right--but I still feel liberated in my newfound freedom of conscience.
Post a Comment