So now I’m officially exited from the Mormon Church.

Dear Bishop,

I would like to formally resign from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This resignation notice is in accordance with legal precedent (Norman Hancock lawsuit against LDS Church). I fully understand that resignation nullifies any blessings, offerings, sealings, endowments, exaltings, glorifications, benedictions, commendations, and honorifics bestowed upon me by Church members and leadership in accordance with their obsequious servitude to the Overlord God.

Following my early childhood indoctrination and coerced baptism¹, I have since gained the skeptical and rational faculties of an adult mind. I have determined, through the use of these faculties², that the Church is false, its doctrines are peccant fabrications, and its behavior is both odious and morally foul. The Church leadership, in concordance with the mental dysfunction signified by a belief in an omniscient dictatorship without corroborating evidence, has historically stood and continues to stand in the way of human rights, love, compassion and general mental health³. The manner in which believers are inculcated, brainwashed, and held psychologically and emotionally hostage as sheep, rather than edified and educated, is, for an organization that purports to upstanding moral character and decency and pretends to specific saintly guidance, hypocritically repugnant without excuse.

Also, I’m gay.

Apostatically,
Eric Hennigan

1. Baptism officially marks the beginning of my membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well as my complicity to obey the Overlord God. But, this ceremony took place when I was 8 years old, and (even my own mother agrees) that nobody at that age is legally or morally capable of making decisions that concern the rest of their life. Instead, I now conjecture that this ceremony is specifically scheduled during childhood development, at a time when I would not have the personal fortitude or psychological independence necessary to allow declination a viable option, so that the baptismal covenant can be later used as a bludgeoning reminder that I have already agreed to submit.
2. Using my own mind is apparently a sin in the eyes of Church leadership. “When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.” – Boyd K. Packer. Considering the conclusions I’ve reached, I can readily understand why independent thought is perceived as a threat to the Church hive-mind.
3. Specifically, I am referring to the subjugation of women, to Joseph Smith’s marriage of a 14 yr old girl against her will, to the much delayed acceptance that people of color can share the blessings of priesthood, to the current misinformation being spread about homosexuals, and to the high rate of prescription anti-depressant use among members.

Ray began his talk with a really rousing and impassioned speech about being touched by the Holy Spirit; this got quite a few laughs, and is a very effective attention grabber at an atheist gathering. As a sample of religious behavior it demonstrates a few effective communication mechanisms. After studying psychology and religion (used to be a minister) he tried answer a few questions: “Why do religious people behave the way they do? Why is it so powerful and persuading?”

His theory is this: Religion is a virus. It has strategic pattern of spreading and uses vectors of infection. It reinforces itself with a guilt cycle, sexual control, and mass hypnosis. This makes people who have the infection behave in certain, identifiable patterns. The reinforcement also makes it difficult for a person to leave their religion.

Ray first got the viral analogy from Richard Dawkin’s essay Viruses of the Mind and used it to explain the biggest memetic virus around. From here on I’m going to outline the big ideas from the talk, if you want details get the book.

Religious fundamentalists (regardless of their particular flavor) all behave the same way, talk the same way, etc. The ministers preach, gesture, dramatic pause, pace, etc. in a way that encourages mass hypnosis and trance (same thing is done by big successful politicians, e.g. Hitler’s rallies). This pattern also discourages critical thinking. Many ministers use trigger phrases (‘just’ used 20 times in 2 minutes).

Because believers have been infected by a virus, you cannot talk them out of it with logic. It would be akin to curing the flu with argument. Also, depending on how you argue, esp. if you’re assertive, you can easily raise their religious defense system, which will cause them to stop listening. So more successful persuasion uses compassionate outreach, and dances around the religion virus. It’s more important to relate as human beings than to disinfect.

Many viruses participate in brain control. Dennett points an the lancet fluke, but there are many others. Part of the mind control is to spread the infection. This can happen horizontally (mormons do missionary work) or vertically (through the parents, catholics encourage breeding). Not too many are purely vertical (Amish, and Druze).

Most people are infected when they are young and have no rational immune system, you get infected socially (through friends, family) and you are more susceptible when under stress (immune system weakens). Many religions popularize converts (St. Paul), and they have a behavior that helps to spread the infection: proselytize, money donation, break ties with former family/friends. Many are also relapsing into the religion that they grew up with (chicken pox -> shingles).

Churches form the epicenter of infection and use many techniques: Hypnotic sermons, emphasize guilt and stress in daily life, provide social needs, control sexual behavior, indoctrinating music, and childhood intimidation. This can be seen in the video of Sarah Palin getting cured by a witch-hunter in Kenya.

Often relaxation is paired with a guilt message. A different church will usually set of defense mechanisms. The minister speaking style and cadence is targeted for emotional appeal, and induces a trance in the audience. This can be seen in cult leaders, dictators, and videos of John Piper (a popular minister). The guilt message is reinforced in lyrics (Amazing Grace, what a wretch I am) and sermons (not worthy without God’s guidance).

A typical church program is geared to provide a weekly booster shot, and puts its victims on an emotional rollercoaster:

• quiet music as walk in, encourage peace
• open with song about triumph and hope
• then a song with sin and guilt, to make you feel unworthy
• another song about salvation
• followed by a song about rising up and promises of hope
• a sermon about dealing with guilt and self-doubt
• a song about commitment or self-sacrifice before the collection plate is passed
• finally end with a song about joy, happiness or redemption to leave you feeling great

Churches also offer their members a sense of community, but only one if you share their form of the infection (otherwise you’ll be very uncomfortable). Vectors are used: Rick Warren, Ted Haggard, The Pope. Sometimes the message is coded: when the pope says that europe is immoral, it really means: Catholics breed faster, we’re falling behind!. Getting more Holy Spirit translates to “stop questioning everything”.

Many times you’re put on a guilt cycle, where you commit a sin (sex before marriage) and then get forgiven (confession). But forgiveness is more difficult each time, so it reinforces negative patterns of behavior that get a person hooked on the redemption. Often the punishment is more severe (increasing the number of Hail Mary’s). Esp. for sex, religion often takes a thing you’re prone to do anyway, condemns it and then offers you the cure. But constantly the message is: you’re never good enough, and you’re incomplete without the virus.

One of the more interesting conclusions that Ray came to was that religions have a difficult time propagating in a sex positive culture. Their first move into a new culture is often to make sex a taboo. We have the power to combat this situation by talking openly and willingly about sex. Sex is used as part of the guilt cycle, because it’s something humans will do regardless of their belief system.

Then there are statistical revelations: If Jesus (and religion) are supposed to help your marriage…

• Then why are the most religious segment also the least married? (black women)
• Why is the highest divorce rate among evangelicals and fundamentalists?
• Why does MS, one of the most secular states, have such a low divorce rate?

So, when dealing with a religious person, remember that the virus is in control. Don’t raise their defense mechanisms by attacking their religion. Remember that their under the influence, and cut them some slack in matters of logic. Promote humanistic relationships, and express your concerns without mentioning religion. Read between the lines and respond in a positive manner. You can actually see that their entire personality will change.

When scientists in a field are instructed to avoid publicly admiting when they’re wrong, and are advised that improving the public’s perception of science is not best served by doing better science, then you know that field is steeped in intolerance towards dissent, and political pressure to give assent to orthodoxy. These are not the signs of a healthy science.

Which, while technically an accurate statement, is very misleading in this context. When we look at what Scott actually said, she’s effectively counseling scientists to be careful about their phrasing. Importantly, those working in evolution should avoid hyperbole about their discoveries. She wants scientists to be aware of the following problem:

So people get confused when scientists discover things and change ideas?

Yes, all the time. This is one of the real confusions about evolution. Creationists have done a splendid job of convincing the public that evolution is weak science because scientists are always changing their minds about things.

So, Luskin (and other creationists) are actually responsible for Eugenie’s reaction! They’ve been pouncing all over science, politicizing evolution with a “Teach the controversy” campaign and continuous whining about “being blacklisted from the journals”. They’ve been rejected from journals because they have no falsifiable claims, nor associated experiments; they then tried to push the creationism into schools, but were thrown out in the Scope’s Monkey Trial and again in Dover, Pennsylvania; and now they’ve jumped on an “equal-time in science classrooms” even though the comparison is akin to astrology vs astronomy.

This has really gone on for long enough that Eugenie feels she must remind scientists that:

What’s the current state of the effort to keep schools teaching evolution?

Sometimes it feels like the Red Queen around here, where we’re running as hard as we can to stay in the same place. The thing is, creationism evolves. And for every victory we have, there’s pressure on the creationists to change their approach. We constantly have to shift our response. Ultimately the solution to this problem is not going to come from pouring more science on it.

What should scientists and people who care about science do?

I’m calling on scientists to be citizens. American education is decentralized. Which means it’s politicized. To make a change … you have to be a citizen who pays attention to local elections and votes [for] the right people. You can’t just sit back and expect that the magnificence of science will reveal itself and everybody will … accept the science.

Though Luskin takes warps these comments to imply that science itself isn’t healthy, he should be reminded that the whole political situation is the fault of the creationists! They’ve got a strategic attack with the Wedge Document that’s mostly taken the scientific community by surprise. Then, when scientists make outrageous claims (like when New Scientist had a cover proclaiming Darwin was Wrong) the creationists blow it all out of proportion. That’s why Eugenie is recommending that scientists not try for these kinds of claims; it’s inaccurate and the distortion is too easily inflated by creationist cohorts.

So, Luskin, like all creationists before him, has once again reversed cause and effect and confused his premise and conclusion. It’s not that science is dogmatic because Scott has to encourage carefully worded discoveries; It’s that the political climate surrounding evolution has become so highly charged that it can no longer tolerate the hyperbole that scientists naturally inject into their claims to sell their importance to other scientists. And the entire problem was manufactured by the creationists! And Luskin continues to flame the distortion in his post that prompted this whole rant.

Oh, and one more thing: Any time that a creationist claims the Earth was created in 6,000 years, point them over to Yes, Millions of Years! and then ask who’s rejecting what evidence!

Reading the objections to the bill reminded me of a conversation that I had with a friend about The Bible and Homosexuality, who claimed that I had misinterpreted the following passage:

• Romans 1:26-27

  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

I claimed that this was the only passage mentioning lesbianism. But apparently this is not true, the real interpretation I would never have guessed because I’m not misogynistic enough.

Apparently the sin of women in this passage, isn’t that they slept with each other; it’s that they refused to sleep with a man (their natural use). And the men sinned in that they disregarded the women for their natural use.

I know that the Bible is awash in passages that treat women as chattel, but, really, this is just too much! I have to agree with Christopher Hitchens when he says that Christianity is immoral. I’m also perplexed by the statistics which show a slightly higher religiosity among women; do people even read their Bible, or are they too busy thumping it?! I think that many of the moral gains achieved by our culture have been made in spite of the Bible. It’s a good thing that our secular culture promotes equality and tolerance; because the Bible sure doesn’t!

There is much more information available on this topic than I can faithfully represent here. Additionally there are now more pro-gay interpretations that weren’t around when I first looked into this topic in 2003. I’d like to point out that given that homosexuality afflicts approximately 10-15% of the population, the Bible is remarkably silent on the entire issue, and has only a few scant passages that mention it.

The clobber passages.
There are about 6 passages that refer to homosexuality in the Bible, these are called the clobber passages. Most of them refer to homosexual acts in a negative manner. I’ll go through them very briefly, outlining the rationalizations used to dismiss them. All of this information (and much, much more) is available through Religious Tolerance, which also provides a very nice summary table.

• Gensis 19
  

  The story of Sodom and Gomorrah.

  This whole story really refers to inhospitality and/or rape, and doesn’t not specifically condemn homosexual practice.

• Leviticus 18:22
  

  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

  This is part of a whole prescription of behavior referred to as the Mosaic Code. So many things are abominable (wearing mixed fabrics, eating shellfish, tattoos), that we can safely ignore this passage, as we also safely ignore most of the other 611 proscriptions. The Hebrew word “to’ebah” which is usually translated as abomination, really means “ritually improper” and so it applies to ancient Israelite culture, and not to us.

• Leviticus 20:13
  

  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

  The capital punishment is today viewed as far to extreme, even if one finds homosexuality detestable. So many things in the Bible call for the death penalty that we can safely ignore this punishment along with the others. J. Nelson interprets the passage by claiming “It is grounded in the old Jewish understanding that women are less worthy than men. For a man to have sex with another man ‘as with a woman’ insults the other man, because women are to be treated as property.” The National Gay Pentecostal Alliance prefers a more literal translation of the passage that uses the phrase “homosexual sex while on a woman’s bed” and so only limits where the act can occur.

• Romans 1:26-27
  

  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

  This passage is also the only passage that refers to lesbianism (which western culture has a distinct habit of ignoring). The Liberal interpretation claims that Paul is distinctly addressing Rome, and the reversion to paganism, together with the associated sexual orgies. He’s decrying the inducement (through celebratory wines) of frenzied sexual activity that would go against one’s basic heterosexual nature. This should be viewed as a crime against oneself, and is punishable through STD.

• I Corinthians 6:9-10.
  

  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakoi), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai),
  Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

  Here Paul is using the word “arsenokoitai” which he made up for this passage, so we have some translation difficulties. Given that “arsen” means “man” and “koitai” means “beds”, he’s probably referring to customers of male prostitution at pagan temples.

• 1 Timothy 1:9-10
  

  Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
  For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

  Again, the word arsenokoitai appears. This time the passage has controversy about whether or not Paul even wrote it, or if it was written 80 years after his death and falsely attributed to him. Either way it probably refers to male prostitution or (at best) the act of male-male sex (orientation is a much more modern concept).

• Jude 1:7
  

  Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

  Here, the condemnation is on sexual perversion, about which the passage is not specific. It refers to the intent of the mob to rape the angles, which can be interpreted as a condemnation of rape in general or bestial (non-human) rape in specific.

Ok, so most of the (very few) passages that mention homosexuality are dismissable using contextual arguments. The most difficult passage to reconcile is Leviticus 20:13 which I’m willing to toss out by arguing that he Mosaic code applies only to ancient cultures, and that, since Jesus, we have a new (more flexible) contract with God.

I find the phrase “their blood shall be upon them” extremely troubling. I’d translate it as meaning that the executioner is not personally responsible for upholding God’s wish that the offenders be put to death. This is not at all innocuous. As evidence, take the case of Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder, who were murdered in their home by Tyler and Matthew Williams, who did not consider the killing of Matson and Mowder to be murder, but a “judgement” instead, claiming that they were “obeying the law of God”. In my opinion, religions have got to be more vigilant at policing their own members. Actions like this give me a philosophically hostile attitude to organized belief systems in general, and Christianity in particular.

Take also the fact that many teenagers commit suicide because they find themselves to be homosexual amongst a religious or conservative and intolerant home/town/city/community. Or that many of those who do survive such environments are extremely self-deprecating, or have such low self esteem that they compulsively engage in self-destructive behavior. Religion has much to answer for on this topic, and moreso the longer they hold out. I’m reminded of how many religious zealots used the Bible to support slavery or the laws prohibiting mixed marriage. We all know which way the wind is blowing, so I’m secure in knowing that one day, almost all society will look back on these viewpoints the way that I see them now.

I honestly cannot fathom how an educated person could think that we derive our morality from some ancient book, or even that it would be handed down from on high. I personally find many of the views espoused in the Bible to be patently immoral and unnecessarily divisive. I also can’t fathom why a gay or lesbian person would even want to associate themselves with such an inflexible code of morality. Humans have a remarkable capacity to simultaneously hold what I’d consider to be logically incompatible belief systems that will never cease to amaze me.

The panel wasn’t quite what I was expecting. A normal sized room, with about a dozen people in the audience (one gay couple together for 33years) and 4 people (2 lesbian, 2 gay) on a panel. They simply shared their life’s testimony, and then answered a few brief questions from the audience.

A couple of them had come from a traditional, highly conservative, Catholic background. When growing up, the most powerful aspect of Church doctrine was the “Sin, Confess, Absolution” cycle. God was portrayed as a judgemental god, and required that all his followers repent for their redemption. In this type of environment, being a homosexual is not something that one confesses without horrible social repercussions. So they remained closeted for quite awhile. When they finally did (internally) come to terms with “how God felt about homosexuals” they were able to bear some of the traditional ostracism, by drawing support from a different community: Episcopals.

A couple of the panelists also struggled for a very long time with their personal identity. They were under the impression that God wouldn’t love them unless they were straight. They couldn’t figure out wether the feelings they felt toward the same sex, and the lack of feeling towards the opposite sex, were fixed. One kept hoping for change, the other kept questioning. The text of the Bible didn’t initially help out very much, as it speaks sparsely on the issue (more about this next week). But over time, reality endured, the feelings didn’t change, so the understanding of the Bible did. Each finally came to the understanding that, on the whole, God sides with the oppressed and outcast, the second-class citizens. Each person also came to an emotional realization that God == Love, and that this love is channeled through the support of friends and the community. [St. Luke's in particular has been very active in pro-gay-marriage parades, and an active tightly-knit pro-homo ministry.]

The most interesting thread, that all panelists shared, was that they felt lost without a personal relationship with God, and were afraid of revealing their internal feelings when they conflicted with what is socially right and proper. Having been through an identity search myself, I can relate to this issue. It isn’t something that you willingly share with friends and family, and you can carry the burdensome questions about yourself for a quite a long time (years). Because almost everybody (with varying degrees) has a similar tale (and who wouldn’t during the adolescent transition to adulthood), and nearly everyone is going to have psychological crutches that they use for support during such a time, I can see why the need to have a relationship with God would become reinforced through the resolution of the personal crisis. Especially so when the issue is as deep as coming to terms with yourself as a homosexual, in a society which doesn’t always approve.

In America, the Episcopals have carved out for themselves a niche here. They embrace the plurality, with extended ministries of compassion and love; providing a safe, inclusive haven for the homosexuals outcast from other religions. (One of the panelists effectively lost his friends because they refused to be seen with him in public after he came out). For those that have a religious understanding of the world, the Episcopals have a wonderfully supportive community.

I actually attended so that I could hear the rationalizations that they have to go through to believe in a God that loves them in spite of the literal text in the Bible. But this will have to wait until next week, when one of the panelists gives a speech about what the Bible says concerning homosexuality. So next time, it’ll be back to logical argument; rather than observations about the emotional and psychological support that an inclusive, compassionate, religious community provides.