Being a Mormon XY Parent

Having been a stay-at-home dad, I wanted to comment on the collection of stay-at-home dad articles in issue 163 (June 2011).

I really resonated with the absolute loneliness some of the articles described. Stay-at-home dads certainly experience it in our culture at large and even more so in Mormon culture. As a SAHD, I would sometimes get comments from non-Mormon men about how cool it would be to just hang out at home, build a man cave, and assemble the world’s most awesome fantasy football team. What they didn’t know is that the intense loneliness can be downright depressing.

Most of the loneliness comes from the obstacles to interacting with other stay-at-home parents, especially Mormon moms. It is so humiliating to call a family in the ward to ask if their daughter would like to have a play date with my daughter only to be asked if my wife will be there. Even worse is trying to explain to my daughter that the reason friend “XX” can’t play with her is because I am an XY. Why does being a male in the Church = creep? The consequence of this dynamic is that no one in my daughter’s circle of friends is Mormon. It’s the Jews, Catholics, and atheists who let their daughters play with mine in spite of my XY-ness. I’m glad she has such a diverse set of friends, but the downside is that she has no desire to attend church because she doesn’t believe she has any friends there.

When I was a SAHD, I didn’t have time to carry out my priesthood duties because my wife worked more than 100 hours a week as a medical resident. At the time, I felt like I was failing because I couldn’t take the sacrament to the hospital or help ward members move; I couldn’t even attend priesthood meetings without bringing my daughter. There was absolutely no reassurance that I was doing anything right, even though I was sacrificing all my desires to raise this child. A reassuring narrative would have helped, but it didn’t exist. Secretly, I hoped God would give my wife some kind of epiphany that the job she was pursuing was wrong-headed so we could finally live up to “Proclamation” standards.

I no longer look to church leaders for any advice and don’t expect to hear anything helpful from the institutional Church. I stopped attending regularly a few years ago because I left meetings more anxious and beaten down than uplifted and strengthened. I find that the Church has plenty of succor for those who encounter misfortune while trying to follow the beaten path, but none for those trying to forge an alternate path.

Ironically, my wife and I were recently called to teach the marriage and family class. With two non-believing, non-orthodox Mormons teaching, they have no idea what they are in for!

Chris

Utah

Incident at the Utah Symposium

I would like to call your attention to an incident that occurred at your Utah Sunstone Symposium at Weber State University. On 6 August 2011, I attended a presentation by Fred Collier entitled “Early Israelite/Christian Doctrine Regarding the Primordial Incarnation of Yahweh and Satan,” and sat through what I considered to be a rather rambling presentation. Near the end of his remarks, Mr. Collier stated that there were literal, incarnated descendents of Satan active on the earth today.

When Mr. Collier invited questions, one individual asked him to identify these literal, incarnated descendents of Satan. To my amazement, Mr. Collier responded, “International bankers . . . Jewish international bankers.” I immediately stood up, called him an expletive and walked out. The individual who had asked the question joined me.

I discussed this incident with Symposium organizers, who expressed similar concern and outrage. They promised that the incident would be brought to the attention of the Sunstone Board. I am now writing to ask Sunstone to publicly repudiate and condemn Mr. Collier’s statement as bigoted, ignorant, anti-Semitic, and totally unacceptable. I am also asking Sunstone to ban Mr. Collier from ever making another presentation at any Sunstone organized event until he makes a public apology for his outrageous statement.

Robert E. Snyder

Sandy, Utah

Sunstone Board Response

I acted as the chair for the session featuring Fred Collier’s presentation at the 2011 Utah Sunstone Symposium. While highly unusual, his presentation was reviewed and cleared by the Sunstone staff prior to the symposium. His anti-Semitic remarks were delivered after his paper was read, during the question and answer period.

During these informal remarks, Collier declared that international bankers and Jews were the literal descendants of Satan on earth. This shocking anti-Semitic assertion is unique in my experience as a long-time participant of the annual symposium. I believe that I represent the board of Sunstone in stating that we condemn these anti-Semitic remarks without reservation. They are not welcome at Sunstone.

The first principle of Jesus Christ’s teachings is the honest, competent search for truth. The second is compassion. The Sunstone Symposium tries to uphold these two virtues. Collier’s comments are a reminder of why we support Sunstone, serving as a remnant of the task that lies before us as we seek to become better latter-day saints in the open and honest search for truth.

In condemning Collier’s imbalanced, cruel mythology, we also condemn the long-standing anti-intellectual tradition that inspired it. This anti-Semitism dates back to early Christianity and the Gospels themselves. John Dominic Crossan has recently argued that the traditional Passion narratives are vehicles for anti-Semitism and are not only unhistorical, but dangerous. Drawing on the best of biblical, anthropological, sociological and historical research, Crossan demonstrates that it was the Roman government that tried and executed Jesus as a social agitator. Ultimately, the belief that the Jews killed Jesus is an early Christian myth (directed against rival Jewish groups) that must be eradicated from authentic Christian and Mormon faith. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon perpetuates the myth that the Jews “hath slain the Messiah” and that the Jews, therefore, were the most wicked people on earth. (1 Nephi 10:11, 2 Nephi 10:3)

A 1968 study by Armand Mauss published in Sociological Analysis concludes that, while Mormons are generally less anti-Semitic than most Christians, they still hold to negative religious views of Jews—for example, the notion that God is punishing the Jews because of their wickedness. Collier relies upon these anti-Semitic scriptural readings, in particular the text from John 8, in which Jesus purportedly asserts to “the Jews,” “Ye are of your father the devil.” In the language of the text, Jesus speaks to “the Jews” as if he is not one of them. Competent biblical scholars have concluded that these words do not originate from the historical Jesus but were added by later Gentile Christians as a way to interpret their rejection by mainstream Judaism. But what was once a squabble between religious siblings, has grown into a vehicle for persecution.

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught us that the biblical text has been corrupted and that all scripture is subject to human error and misinterpretation. Yet we still sometimes cling to our views of biblical inerrancy with a naïve literalism, even if it means adopting the cruelty of anti-Semitism. In Collier’s comments, we are reaping the harvest of anti-intellectual readings of sacred texts.

We all have been thrust into the play called Mormonism. This drama opens with the tragedy of persecution, followed by the farce of anti-intellectualism. But I see a new and final act behind the curtains. From out of Mormonism’s deep mountain valleys, shall yet arise a new and ragged resolution, a final dramatic act guided by truth, and inspired by compassion. I hope that Fred Collier will choose to join us.

Mark Thomas

Holladay, Utah

Symposium Director’s Response

Given the fireworks following Fred Collier’s presentation, some might wonder how this session came to be on the program. Mr. Collier’s proposal arrived after the deadline but I considered it anyway since there were virtually no other proposals on biblical topics. Incarnations of Yahweh wasn’t a topic I was neither familiar with nor interested in personally, but I thought some Symposium attendees might find it appealing.

I spoke with Mr. Collier several times to ask for revisions, to get a better feel for his topic, and to suggest that he dial back on extensive scripture quotes in favor of a more focused analysis. During these discussions, nothing came up about the topic or his personal views that gave me reconsider including the session in the program. I asked board member Mark Thomas, who has a background in biblical studies, to chair the session.

An urgent text called me to the registration desk in order to speak with Robert E. Snyder, who was understandably livid about what had transpired. As Snyder and Thomas recounted the details of Collier’s anti-Semitic comments during the Q&A period, there was only one word to describe my reaction: anguish.

I told Mr. Snyder that Mr. Collier’s sentiments ran afoul of Sunstone’s expectation of goodwill and respect from its presenters and that the board would join me in condemning the anti-Semitic remarks as offensive and intolerable.

I appreciate Mr. Snyder’s talking with me about this incident and for his patience as Sunstone’s leadership has deliberated how best to respond. It still pains me that Mr. Snyder’s first time attending a Sunstone Symposium was marred by anti-Semitic comments, as this behavior is resoundingly offensive, especially to a Jewish convert to Mormonism like Mr. Snyder.

Mary Ellen Robertson

Ogden, Utah

Tying Ourselves to the Mast

I was surprised by John Dehlin’s summary of Dr. Stephanie Buehler’s comments in the roundtable discussion “Pornography, Masturbation, Sex, and Marriage in Mormonism” (Sunstone 164): “It sounds like your advice to teens is to be moderate about masturbation and pornography usage: don’t have shame and guilt, use good judgment.” That conclusion does not seem warranted by the discussion itself. In fact, Dr. Buelher seems to be careful about making such generalizations and aware of the complex and quixotic nature of the adolescent libido: “When the adolescent’s social skills start to decline, when they get involved in a sordid world [of pornography] that has become their central world—that’s when things become problematic.” She also says that she never recommends that anyone look at pornography, concluding that it can lead to sexual dysfunction and an inability to relate intimately to a partner.

It seems to me extremely irresponsible to recommend moderation in pornography for teenagers—or for anyone. The oversimplification and narcissism of pornographic sex has a tendency to strip sex of its complexity, beauty, and the possibility of deep intimate bonding with another person. As a high school teacher of sex education is quoted in a New York Times Magazine article (20 November 2011), “There is no romanticism or intimacy in porn. Porn is strictly sexual.”

In relation to teen involvement with pornography, Dehlin says, “Don’t have shame and guilt, use good judgment.” Marybeth Raynes wisely says that we should make a distinction between these two emotions: “Guilt is ‘I made a mistake,’ and shame is ‘I am a mistake.’” As a bishop of a singles’ ward in Los Angeles during the eighties, I found myself suggesting to some members of my congregation that they should feel more guilt, and to others less (invariably over sexual issues). “Good judgment” is difficult to exercise when one is in the thrall of lust or passion, especially since the teenage brain hasn’t yet fully developed long-term judgment faculties.

One of the enlightened teachings of the Restoration is that our sexual feelings are not only natural but intended by our Creator to provide pleasure, joy, and deep intimacy. Most of us find it challenging to keep our erotic poise, to find that elusive, delicate balance between our desire for personal sexual expression and sexual fulfillment with and through another person, especially when either is constrained by religious or cultural prohibitions. If, as Latter-day Saints believe, sex is—or at least has the potential for being—eternal, then there is much we can learn in our earthly sexual stewardships that might magnify their possibilities in the next. I contend that the usual demeaning and degrading nature of pornography (as enticing and as exciting as it may sometimes be) ultimately works against the ultimate promises and possibilities of sex.

I worry that internet pornography, now seemingly as ubiquitous as air, may entice teens by its allure before they have a mature understanding of its potentially corrosive effects on their psyches. Whether frequent use of pornography can be classified as an addiction or “merely” a manifestation of obsessive-compulsive behavior may be an open question at present, but some studies show that internet pornography is tied to an increase in sexual addiction, perhaps especially among young people.

This being said, it is still true that Mormon culture’s inclination toward Puritanism and repression of sex leaves many with unhealthy and even dysfunctional attitudes. But if Puritanism is our Scylla, then the libertine licentiousness of contemporary society is our Charybdis. Negotiating our way between the two is perilous but not impossible. And, unlike Odysseus, when we venture into dangerous waters we have the liberating truths about our sexual natures from modern revelation, scientific research, and the redemptive power of Christ to help us. In other words, it may not always be advisable to have someone tie us to the mast so that we can enjoy the siren song of illicit desire without succumbing to its destructive powers.

Since sexual fulfillment is something that most healthy people desire, it is incumbent on all of us to have compassion for anyone (including ourselves) for whom such fulfillment, for whatever reason, may not always—or ever—be possible. In such matters we need an abundance humility, empathy and, especially, charity.

Robert A. Rees

Mill Valley, CA

Overcoming Sexual Illiteracy

Bravo to Dr. Stephanie Buehler, Natasha Helfer Parker, and John Dehlin! Their roundtable on sex is remarkable. It has the potential to help Mormons of all ages and marriage statuses overcome the fear and ignorance too often born of Mormonism’s culture of erotophobia.

Lack of sexual awareness, including awareness of how one finds sexual satisfaction, results too often in life-long inhibitions, sexual dysfunction, and broken marriages. As LDS therapist Jennifer Finlayson-Fife recently told Peggy Fletcher Stack in the Salt Lake Tribune, most Mormon couples get “precious little instruction about what good and healthy sex is.” Finlayson-Fife encourages LDS couples “to explore their bodies and different ways to find satisfaction” (Salt Lake Tribune, 11 November 2011).

With tact and sensitivity, the October 2011 roundtable suggests some basic truths that LDS need to hear: Masturbation can be a perfectly normal activity with health benefits; erotica and pornography can help people achieve their sexual goals; a wife may need to explore herself, even through masturbation, to learn how to reach orgasm, and then teach her husband how to bring her pleasure.

At a time when LDS culture continues to condemn sexual self-exploration and so many other kinds of sexual expression, as obscene, the true obscenity, I believe, is the shame, unhappiness, and dysfunction that Mormon erotophobia can produce.

Martin Robinson

Raleigh, North Carolina

Got Nudism?

Concerning the acceptance and exploration of one’s body as discussed in the Roundtable section of Sunstone (Issue 164), my first wife and I were next to sexually incompatible (though on a day-to-day basis, we got along together just fine). For much of our marriage, she would not disrobe in front of me, and intercourse would occur usually only once a month. I tried to get her to read books on sexuality and go to therapy with me, but she refused.

After our divorce, I became a nudist. I enjoy being disrobed with others; it gives me a great feeling of openness and freedom. The feeling of sunshine and breeze on my skin is indescribable, and swimming is a delight. I like interacting with people who are not hung up on their body image. No longer am I consumed by the curiosity of my youth about what the human body looks like.

I dated around and ended up introducing five active LDS women to nudism. They appreciated the opportunity to let go of their hangups about body image, and though we were often nude together, not once did we have sexual relations. My current wife of 20 years, also active LDS, has found that she enjoys participating in nudist camps as well.

i believe that if more individuals adopted the nudist lifestyle, the demands for pornography would diminish.

Age and disease have affected me such that I am now impotent. I sometimes reflect on all those years of my first marriage when I was denied sexual intercourse. What a waste.

Name Withheld

Aunt Lula vs. “Ernie”

I enjoyed Gary James Bergera’s “The Monitoring of BYU Faculty Tithing Payments: 1957–1963” (Sunstone 164). Having left BYU campus to go to Indonesia in 1957, I narrowly escaped this inquisition myself.

However, my son reminded me of my Aunt Lula’s encounter with Wilkinson over precisely this issue.

For four years, Aunt Lula had been chair of the Home Study Department in the Department of Continuing Education where she had infused vitality into a previously moribund program. Whereas only 400 students had enrolled in 1955, enrollment had reached the thousands by 1959.

Aunt Lula always enjoyed telling of her day of tithing reckoning with “Ernie” Wilkinson.

“I dressed for the meeting. I wore my navy blue suit with a red flower.” Aunt Lula was a large woman, approaching six feet tall, and she understood the influence of color and her physical size.

“Ernie looked very small sitting behind his large oak desk in his big chair. I sat up and looked straight across the desk at him.”

Wilkinson began the conversation with pleasantries, praising Aunt Lula’s good work, but quickly turned to his agenda item. In a stern voice, he queried, “Sister Clegg, why have you not paid any tithing?”

Aunt Lula let some strategic silence pass before she firmly said, “President Wilkinson, I have already paid my tithing! Look at my low salary compared with my credentials and my accomplishments. When you pay women as much as you pay men, then I may consider offering tithes in the regular way. As I see it, my tithing has already been deducted from my salary in full amount, and even more so.”

She related that Wilkinson first frowned, then chuckled softly. “Sister Clegg, maybe so, maybe, so. Maybe you are right. Please keep up the good work.”

Aunt Lula’s salary never changed.

Garth N. Jones

Salt Lake City, Utah

Perpetuating a Myth

Levi Peterson’s story “Return of the Native” was, as is to be expected from such an important figure in Mormon letters, moving, vivid, and well-written. Which makes the messages under the writing all the more insidious and offensive. Peterson portrayed rape as being a consequence of a forbidden lust Rulon is unable  to contain. But rape is not a result of unbridled hormones. It is the result of a desire for control and power, of seeing the victim as an object to be conquered and forced, instead of an individual with their own integrity. Rulon describes himself raping his cousin because “after that long, lingering kiss, a frantic, furnace-fed flame drove through me and there was no stopping me,” as if rape occurs because arousal is something that can not be controlled. That is a dangerous and pernicious myth. Dangerous to women who believe it is their fault for turning on a man who rapes her, dangerous for men who buy into the idea that their animal lust is too big to overcome, thus turning a sacred power into a weapon. Rulon raped Cassia because he did not see her as a person, because he was angry about his desire for her, because he wanted to “have” her, not because he was so turned on.

I would dismiss this scene as being a consequence of an unreliable narrator if it weren’t for the total betrayal of Cassia, the rape victim, in the end of the story. It is a moving scene to have her forgive her rapist, but what was presented was not forgiveness, it was a manifestation of victimhood. Cassia tells Rulon, “I forgave you long ago. . . . How could I not? Don’t we still love each other? Have we ever stopped?”

Rape victims regularly tell themselves they have fallen in love with their rapists as a way of rewriting the story and taking control over what happened to them. What Peterson presents to us is not a tale of true forgiveness, it is a tale of a woman victimized by every male in her life, and convincing herself that it was all OK because they loved her. Rape is still rape, even if it happens at the hand of someone you love. For Cassia to truly forgive Rulon, she would not say it was alright since they loved each other, she would say that what he did was horrible, but it was not about her. That she had forgiven him so that she could move on, free and unencumbered, knowing she bore no guilt for what he did, but demanding recognition for what she suffered. Anything less is a distortion of forgiveness, and damaging to every person involved.

It takes a great writer to make a rapist sympathetic. I am sorely disappointed that Peterson chose to do it in a way that perpetuates false beliefs about rape and its consequences, as well as the process of true forgiveness.

Tresa Edmunds

Modesto, California