hello again!

Hello em-mos, mos and never-mos!

It has been a very very eventful year in my world! mostly good, some hard. And through it all I would think "oh yeah, there was that  blog. That was good. I should do that more!" and then I wouldn't.

Ok. Life gets in the way of my blogging. Though in fairness my life is much much fuller, richer and sweeter than it ever was before!

But should you have a question, should you need help, or advice I can offer, If your loved one is getting involved with the church and you find it troubling and you want some answers, if you are having doubts about  the church and need someone safe and distant to confide in and ask questions of, I'm not too far away.

askanexmormon@gmail.com.

Write anytime.

This may be a farewell post, or it may not! we shall see!

Thank you for reading, commenting and giving me a space to learn about the larger world while i left the safety and harm or my old one and I wish you well!

A few more excellent communities for those with questions, both in and out of the church:

http://www.lifeaftermormonism.net/

http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/

How does the LDS community View the non-traditional family?

Anonaymous Asks: 


"Please feel free to disregard this question if it comes at a bad time for you personally, but what level of stigma, if any, does divorce have among Mormons? For example, if you were still Mormon, and moved into a new area where you didn't know anyone as a divorced single mother, how would you be viewed in comparison to a still-married mother, a widow with a child, a never-married single mother with a biological child, or the single mother of an adopted child? How about fathers in similar circumstances?

It seems like there has been a lot of "one man, one woman" talk lately which has come up because of same-sex marriage. Has it had an adverse effect on straight Mormons who don't have their families "properly" set up?"


This is an excellent question, and the answer is not a simple yes or no. The ideal family within Mainstream Mormonism has been one man, and one woman and children for a long time. As far as I was taught, even when polygamy was actively practiced it was not widely practiced. (I could be wrong on this, as it turns out I have not had the most reliable church history teachers throughout my life, and I have gotten the cleansed version of things.) But at least as long as I have been alive, it was one man, one woman, and children. 


That said, it is recognized that families don't all fit the mold. The main point when a family doesn't fit the mold isn't "are they or aren't they," but rather "What are they seeking? Why are they where they are? and What are their goals and aspirations?" This is true of ANY family that doesn't fit the mold. If a couple has no children--did they choose it? (that's BAD!) or is it something they are fighting to try and overcome? (that's GOOD!) A woman is single . . .  because she hasnt' found the right man, but does want greatly to be married? (good) or because she has chosen education and career? (bad) 


The examples you asked about--


a divorced single mother: who left? was there abuse? did she leave protecting her kids? did he cheat? the why matters. Is she temple worthy? Is she looking to remarry a nice LDS man? if so than she will be looked on with sympathy and given support and encouragement. 


If she left to be with someone else, or because she wasn't fulfilled . . . that might be different. Though I am racking my brains trying to think of anyone I ever met in church who was a divorced single mother where it wasn't a case of the father being the villain, and I can't think of any. I'll throw that out to readers. did you know any divorced single mothers, active in the church, who weren't victims? 


a still-married mother: This is best. you should stay married. if your marriage sucks, work harder. Endure. This is a link to one of the videos in the "I'm an Ex-Mormon" series and Heather talks about the advice she was given about her unhappy marriage.  


A widow with a child: Well who doesn't love the widows! Monson is a particular advocate of helping the widows and orphans. It's quite a joke among some former mormons. But again, it is assumed they are still striving to live the gospel, that if they weren't widows they would still be happily married for eternity. That as widows, they are faithful to their dead husbands and they live worthy to go to the temple. 


A never-married single mother with a biological child: This one is tougher. Why didn't she place the child? Did the birth father prevent her from placing? Strangly, the Church is one of the few places where it is BETTER to place a child for adoption, than to keep it if you are single and have no hope of marrying the other parent. This is not the case in most of the United States and probably not the world. But within the church . . .  she should marry, or place the baby. (good) Keeping the baby is not looked on highly. there is a stigma. not severe if she is living everything else to the best of her ability. She can repent her immorality. And she might marry. But this is a very very hard position for a young mother to be in. Her child is worthy of pity. 


On a personal note, I HUGELY support placing babies for adoption over keeping them if the mother is young or unable to care for the child. I am an adoptive mother and wouldn't BE a mother if my child's birthparents hadn't made that choice. I am continually baffled by a country that vilifies birthparents for placing babies, but makes it nearly impossible for a young woman who is considering placing a baby to do so without the burden of immense guilt. the same people who would congratulate me on my adoption would criticize my child's birthparent. But I assure you they would only do it once. 


But I digress . . . 


The single mother of an adopted child: unheard of. Just doesn't happen. (I'm sure it probably does, but it is not common and would be shocking.) Single people are not encouraged to adopt. LDS family services won't place a baby with a single parent.


What about fathers in the same circumstances: Again . . . how did he come to be a single father? is he looking righteously to remedy the situation? Is he living righteously in all other areas? was it his choice? or not? If he didn't chose it and he is striving to be a good dad and live the gospel, then he will receive great sympathy and encouragement. And probably love and baked goods from the older single females (spinsters) in the ward. 


If he chose it or if he isn't looking to marry, he may be looked down on. And his children pitied. 


This is the official church stance on what a family should be. It is not flexible. In the Proclamation it states: 

"THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

I added the highlighting. As you can see, variations are acceptable . . . but only for acceptable reasons. And that poor unwed mother . . .  she better repent well. 

I hope this was enlightening to you and thanks for the question! I've missed my blog and I'm happy to be settled enough to write again! 

Thanks for reading and please send me your questions to askanexmormon@gmail.com

Molly 

Many Apologies!

I have been silent! Not because I have lacked interest or desire to post, but time has been at a premium. Divorce is never easy and mine is no exception. We have had a few moves but now seem to be settled and things should even out swiftly!

Not been easy, but I think it will be worth it!

so hit me with your questions!

Just something to leave you with: I have had a chance to see the Musical "The Book of Mormon."

I laughed until I cried!

Oh Matt and Trey . . . one or both of you are recovering Mormons, I can tell!

The play is brilliantly done, South-Park-filthy, hysterically funny. Partly because all those little tidbits you are sure must be jokes . . . AREN'T! They are true!

Very excellent.

I also read Krakauer's "Under the Banners of Heaven." I am going to need to write about that one. While the book focuses on the fundamentalist sects, it does a good job looking at the roots that the Mainstream LDS church shares with the fundamentalist sects.

Unlike many former mormons, I never could bear LDS history, as taught in the church. Too neat. Too pat. Too cleansed. It was a bit of an emotional rollercoaster to read the history of the culture I was raised in. I highly recommend the book.

Thanks for your patience!

Molly

A little bit Dirrrty! or not! The Law of Chastity--part 2

Chastity for mormons is not a simple thing, though on the inside of the church it doesn't feel as complicated as it really is. Today I'm going to talk about the general dress code, and avoiding the "appearance of evil."

Mormon's are a modest lot. They really are. Modesty in dress, manner and speech and action is all very important, taught from an early age, really pushed hard in the teen years, and carries on into adulthood. Children are dressed from a very young age the way they would dress if they did wear garments. that means nothing sleeveless, nothing that shows belly and nothing too short. This is something that follows into the teen years. The most scandelous things I ever wore were my cheerleading uniforms, and one off the shoulders home coming dress. ohhh it felt like decadent wickedness! I savored those days when I was in my tiny skirt and showing off my long legs.

But I knew girls whos mothers sewed modesty pannels into their prom and home coming dresses. I have known mothers who started their kids wearing undershirts early on, so they would be ready for the day they went to the temple and got garments. Hey! I saw you roll your eyes there!

The idea is that the body is a temple and as such should be kept clean and pure and chaste. and that if you dress modestly, you will act modestly. In church men and boys generally wear suits and ties, white shirts are preferred over colors. In general men will be clean shaven with short haircuts. Now and then you see a beard or mustache, but at the same time, now and then a letter from some church authority will be read over the pulpit saying men should be clean shaven.

Women wear skirts and dresses to church. very rarely you will see someone in pants, typically an investigator or a new member or a visitor. someone who doesn't know better. Cleavage is of course inappropriate. skirts shouldn't be above the knee. garment for the endowed adults are not to be rolled up or tucked up to accomodate fashion. they are to be worn against the skin. yep. Bras go OVER the garments, ladies. Sexy, eh?

Now in part one we saw an ambiguous video that I won't inflict on you again about how far is too far. Rules for adults are almost stranger. you are to avoid the "appearance of evil." A woman home alone, with out her husband, shouldn't even allow another man into the house. I used to get really nervous if I had to have a plumber or carpet cleaner to the house when I was home alone. not because I thought there was danger, but because there might be the appearance of evil. Men and women who are not married to each other are not to be alone together. not to ride in a car alone together, or be in either home alone together. people might get the wrong idea, you see. this is part of why home teachers come in pairs. so when they go to a single woman's house there is a built in chaperone.

One of my more recent horrifying realizations is that there really is no touching. oh lots of hand shakes, and the occasional half hug. but men and women, women and women, men and men, just really don't touch. not to hug, or pat on the back or anything. I had no idea how much I liked that sort of touchy feely stuff till i got out and met others who did touch me, and hug me and pat my back. I hadn't been aware of how much I needed that kind of contact.

This subject is by no means exhausted. We will revisit it soon!

Questions or comments for me? please leave them in the comments below, email the to askanexmormon@gmail.com

You can also find me on twitter @MollyNoLonger. No question is too weird!

Feel the POWER!! The Mormon Priesthood power, that is.

I was talking to a friend who after four years and countless discussions about religion, I still manage to surprise with bits and pieces of information about mormons. Somehow we got onto the topic of the Priesthood and how I had managed not to mention that in the past four years I don't know! His response was "Why is there no blog post about this?"

So here we go!

The Priesthood is the literal power to act in the name of God. It is the reason Mormons say theirs is the "Only True and Living" church on the earth, because they are the only ones with the priesthood.

The story goes like this: The priesthood was on the earth in ancient times (two types, Aaronic and Melchizedek--both with the authority to do different things, like baptize, bless, marry, heal, pass the sacrament, etc.) and they were used in the ancient church and Jesus gave the priesthood to his apostles through the laying on of hands. When the apostles died, the Priesthood was lost from the earth. This is the reason there had to be a restoration. It is the reason Martin Luther's efforts at reform were not enough. It is why when Joseph Smith prayed he received as an answer the very dramatic first vision.

The challenge was how to get the ancient priest hood into the modern era, considering everyone who held it was dead and it must be passed on through the laying on of hands.

President Gordon B Hinkley, the previous prophet, said it very susinctly:

"“This day of organization was, in effect, a day of commencement, the graduation for Joseph from ten years of remarkable schooling. It had begun with the incomparable vision in the grove in the spring of 1820, when the Father and the Son appeared to the fourteen-year-old boy. It had continued with the tutoring from Moroni, with both warnings and instructions given on multiple occasions. Then there was the translation of the ancient record, and the inspiration, the knowledge, the revelation that came from that experience. There was the bestowal of divine authority, the ancient priesthood again conferred upon men by those who were its rightful possessors—John the Baptist in the case of the Aaronic Priesthood, and Peter, James, and John in the case of the Melchizedek. There were revelations, a number of them, in which the voice of God was heard again, and the channel of communication opened between man and the Creator. All of these were preliminary to that historic April 6” (“150-Year Drama: A Personal View of Our History,” Ensign, Apr. 1980, 11–12)." 




Yes. John the Baptist gave Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry the Aaronic priesthood and Peter, James and John gave them the Melchizedek Priesthood.

The Aaronic Priesthood is the lesser of the two. Boys today receive it at the age of twelve. In the mainstream LDS church women are not permitted the Priesthood, and are instead given the divine gift of motherhood. (that's a whole other blog post!) Most of the "church approved" sources about the priesthood that I have personal access to are fairly vague. I am a woman after all. But Wiki says some interesting things. Later today I'll have a few of my male friends who are in the know verify, or if you, dear reader, can verify please let me know in the comments. What I do know is that at twelve, boys pass and bless the sacrament (similar to communion . . .sort of).

At 18, just before they go on missions, they can receive the Melchizedek Priesthood. Again we will look to Wiki for more detail than I have ever had access to. I do know that at this point they can give blessings of healing and comfort, and baptize. They can give babies a name and a blessing. They can confer the gift of the Holy Ghost on the newly baptized.

Now women and the Priesthood is a whole other situation. While I never held the priesthood I was supposed to be privy to it's power through my husband's Priesthood. There are stories of women who would bless their dying children with healing in the absence of their husbands. I think there is one about a woman who blessed the dying cow that the family relied on. Here is a rather disturbing lesson that women in the Relief Society (the Women's Organization within the church) are given regularly regarding their relationship to the Priesthood and to Priesthood holders.

I feel a future blog post about the patriarchal nature of the church coming on soon.

Mormons feel most sincerely that all gifts of the spirit: tongues, healing, revelation, visions, interpretation of tongues, and any others they choose to attribute to the spirit (I used to think following directions was probably a gift of the spirit) are all a direct result of the power of the priesthood.

Got a question or comment? please share! you can send questions to askanexmormon@gmail.com or put it in the comments! You can find me on Twitter @MollyNoLonger as well!

EDIT: one more lovely tidbit . . . Every LDS man with the priesthood can trace the lineage of his Priesthood back to Jesus Christ, through Joseph Smith. I was very very surprised to see how small the list was for the men in my life.

You wanna talk about sex? --the Law of Chastity part 1

Ah the Law of Chastity . . . complex . . . . ambiguous . . . positively dangerous . . . very very controlling . . . and way too big to discuss in a single post. So today we will start here. A word of warning before viewing that video . . . it is pure ambiguous propaganda and more than a little creepy. It also echoes every standards night I ever went to. And I went to no less than 6.

Everyone back? did you get a glass of water to wash down the bad taste in your mouth? Maybe that's just me. I will admit the sexual dysfunctions instilled by the church have taken me many many hours of therapy to over come. And chances are they will take me many many more before I feel fully free of them. but this is where they began, as a teenager being told that I shouldn't even hold hands with a guy. No kissing, no "petting", no "necking", don't be alone with a boy. Don't date till you are sixteen and even then stay in groups and date only in public places.

"For the Strength of Youth" is a pamphlet young people--12 to 18--are give annually to help keep them on the straight and narrow path. It covers a myriad of topics from music and language to choosing friends, dating and sexual purity.

Ostensibly the goal is to raise youth who will be righteous and go on to serve missions and be wives and mothers, and raise righteous children.

In reality though it is isolating, serving to limit the circle of people you spend time with to mostly other LDS people. It's not even that the church teaches abstinence over safe sex. They teach something even higher. Don't do anything to engender the strong passions of sexuality.

The rules are so ambiguous. It's a bit like trying to keep someone from burning themselves on the stove top by never letting them in the kitchen at all.

Masturbation is a big no no. And the church disagrees with oral sex even between a husband and wife. So they do not teach safe smart sex. For a brief time to regulate my cycles, I was put on birth control. my mother was horrified. She was very upset by the thought that taking the pills would some how make  me think it would be ok to have sex. Like learning about being safe or smart would make me feel the need to rush out and become the school harlot.

The total repression of sexuality leads to married couples who often have no idea what they are doing. They don't have the experience to know what they want or need sexually. They avoid sources that could teach them. Sex is sacred so they don't talk about it much outside of the marriage. Sex is reproductive, so they have large families, often starting very very young. and if they should have difficulty conceiving they are in for pain and misery. Years of it.

This is the very broadest look at sexuality as taught in the mormon church. there are so many areas where the church controls this, often in subtle ways, that it will take a few posts to cover.

have any questions about it? Send them my way, in the comments, on twitter @mollynolonger or email me at askanexmormon@gmail.com

Guest Exmormon answers the question: Why do Mormons who are getting married exclude family and friends from attending weddings in Mormon Temples?

A big thanks to Suspicious Minds for this next essay addressing the exclusion of family from LDS Temple Weddings. 


"Many LDS Members are ashamed that North American Saints who choose to have a civil ceremony are penalized when it comes to the temple. Any man and woman who chooses to have a civil ceremony first, must wait a full year before solemnizing their marriage vows in the temple -- no matter what. Even if they are living the Church standards and are obedient members that are free from any sin that would bar them from the temple, they are still considered unworthy of a temple sealing for a minimum one year.

Many Mormon’s living outside of North America are NOT penalized the same way in those countries where the law requires a civil ceremony to be recognized as a legal  marriage prior to any religious ritual.

So rather than face the harsh penalty of waiting a full year and the stigma of choosing a civil wedding ceremony first, most North American LDS couples choose to have only a temple marriage and sealing, and their family members and friends who are not active LDS adults cannot attend their ceremony.

For a church that through media advertising promotes itself as family values oriented, it’s simply incomprehensible that the Church denies family members be present at a wedding, a time considered by all to be a joyous celebration that brings and unites an entire family.  By it’s very actions through it’s policies, the Church fosters marital disharmony, shame and guilt that is harsh for the couple and their loved ones who do not fit the "acceptable mormon standards" required for entrance into the temple wedding.

The temple wedding presents a cruel dilemma to first generation converts and those from mixed-faith families.  On the one hand members of the LDS Church have the promise of the temple sealing, to be with the people they love as a family after death.  The Church warns that a civil wedding only binds the couple till death do they part.  The temple sealing however is for time and all eternity.  The irony is for active worthy Mormons to secure for themselves those sealing blessings of an eternal family, some have to leave the very people they want that promise to apply to at the temple doors.

Don't let your loved ones be hurt.  Tell the leadership of the Mormon Church that it’s about time for family and to give people the choice without penalizing and isolating family.

For more information and how to get involved, check out the petition for change. http://www.templeweddingpetition.org

Family, isn’t it about time?"

On a personal note--Molly speaking now--my sibling was excluded from my wedding for being underage by 6 months. 

If you have a question about mormons or mormonism maybe you should ask an ex-mormon! 

askanexmormon@gmail.com