Leaving the Faith

I'm leaving the Mormon church.

This has been an incredibly difficult decision for me, one I've wrestled with for nearly three years. I have been a faithful member of the Church for over 33 years and have hinged much upon my belief in the Church and in God. However, I no longer believe that the Church is led by God, and I strongly doubt that it ever was. I'm not even certain God exists.

As you can imagine, the world feels very uncertain right now, and I do not know what the future will entail. I'm going to be spending a lot of time trying to figure out what exactly I do believe, and I have no idea where that will lead me. But it is the right thing for me to do.

This decision has not been made lightly, and it is an incredibly personal one. Like all other major, personal decisions, I would appreciate respect and discretion. Therefore, I'm not interested in entering into a debate or discussion, nor am I not interested in guilt trips, testimonies, or recommended Church readings. I don't intend on listing all of my reasons for leaving here for you to read because I respect your beliefs, and I would appreciate others responding in kind.  

You have no idea the lengths I have gone to to try to convince myself to believe, to stay, to "keep the faith," and your efforts to change my mind will be neither appreciated nor successful. 

Regardless of my faith identity, my core passion remains the same: building bridges between communities. And I will continue that work, no matter where I go. 

Love, 

Kaylynne


P.S. I don't know how much use this blog will get, but feel free to check out my website for my science updates. 

Why I Stay: Claiming Mormonism in the Face of Doubt

Sometimes, being a Mormon is hard.

I don't mean that the expectations, assignments, duties, activities, and lifestyle is hard. They certainly are, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about identifying as a Mormon. Actually being Mormon. 

It is very easy to dismiss someone going through a faith crisis. The presumption is that they want to sin or like finding fault, that they aren't praying "correctly" or reading their scriptures enough, that they are too prideful and too sensitive.

But this dismissal ignores the very real struggles of those who are genuinely searching for answers. They want to believe - no one wants to have their entire foundation crumble. They struggle because they find doctrinal or policy inconsistencies that they can't reconcile.

They struggle because a Church that is supposed to be directed by God once taught that black people were inferior and banned black men from holding the priesthood.

They struggle because divinely-inspired leaders have said and done horrible things, like comparing girls to pornography and telling rape victims that, unless they did everything to fight off their attackers, they would be better off dead.

They struggle because lessons on "virtue" are really lessons on sexual behavior.

They struggle because the refrain "God heals all things" callously ignores the real physical and mental disabilities that many will face their entire lives.

They struggle because the Church has actively fought against civil rights issues like same-sex marriage.

They struggle because girls are taught to be modest for boys.

They struggle because boys get the message that their impure thoughts and actions are caused by girls. 

They struggle because expressing doubts can leave you isolated and ostracized.

They struggle because the Church banned children of gay couples from joining the Church until they are 18.

They struggle because of the historical practice of polygamy that condemned women who wouldn't accept it.

They struggle because the Church is so concerned about its appearance that it will hide any sign of weakness or mistake instead of admitting them and forsaking them.

They struggle because female general leaders are not often consulted in major policies, including those in The Family: A Proclamation to the World.

They struggle because sexual assault victims are directed to bishops who receive no sexual assault training.

They struggle because they learn that stories of heroism and honor that their testimonies are founded on have sometimes been exaggerated, if not constructed.

They struggle because the Doctrine and Covenants teaches that anything can be justified if God commands it.

They struggle because the oft-quoted phrase, "Everything happens for reason" translates to "God wanted me to be raped."

They struggle because...

They struggle. 

These struggles are not trivial. They are not the vain imaginings of someone looking for trouble. They cannot be easily swept under the rug. These struggles represent real battles in life, most of which affect them personally, and hinge on understanding how an organization that claims to have the fullness of the gospel and modern prophets can ever accept morally questionable policies and teachings as Truth.

I see you. I hear you. I am one of you. 

There are days that I wonder why I even bother. Conversations about the Church with me are  
rarely going to end on a positive note. And sometimes I ask myself why I stay. And then I remember.

I stay because there are a few special moments that I cannot deny, no matter how hard I try.

I stay because a fundamental principle of the Gospel is that we accept all truth, no matter its source.

I stay because the network of social support can be a lifeline when you feel adrift and lost.

I stay because I don't like perfect people, and the Church is full of imperfection.

I stay because I believe in building from within.

I stay because I want much of what we teach to be true.

I stay because I recognize that putting anyone on a pedestal - your bishop, your home teacher, or your Church - is a mistake.

I stay because the Church is trying to do better, and I appreciate efforts to try to do better.

I stay because we believe in goodness, and mercy, and forgiveness - even if we're not the best at being good, and merciful, and forgiving.

I stay because I recognize that while the Gospel is perfect, the Church is not, both because the people in it are imperfect and because we have much yet to learn.

I stay because we believe that as the members become capable of accepting more Truth that we will receive more Truth. And that means that what we recognize as Truth today is incomplete, and that gives me hope for tomorrow.

I stay. 

This post can also be found at The Transfigurist. 

A Call to Repentance: The LDS Church Response to Victims of Sexual Assault

In 2016, social media was in an uproar. The Mormon Newsroom, the official organization responsible for releasing news about the LDS Church, had just released an article praising the LDS Church's approach to victims of sexual assault. Originally written in 2010 by (now) Elder Von G. Keetch, the article claimed that the Church was the "Gold Standard" in handling sexual abuse. And victims were furious. The Church quickly removed the article, announcing that it's release had been accidental, and later released an updated version (though much of the original text can be here).

The uproar was well-founded. Many of the false claims were easily renounced, including that the one that "preventing and responding to child abuse is the subject of a regular lesson taught during Sunday meetings", even though there are only two lessons (here and here) found in any church manual used for Sunday instruction that even remotely addresses preventing sexual abuse, and one of these (the far more comprehensive one) is on a near decade-long rotation. 

A Closer Look at Me: MyDailyShe Guest Post

I know I've been away from my blog far too often recently, but this whole dissertation-thing kinda sucks it out of you. But worry not - I've already started working on new content (now that I'm post-quals - yay!). 

In the meantime, check out my story on MyDailyShe - You get a close-up look at why I'm doing what I'm doing and how I hope to make the world a little better. 

-------------------------------- 

A colleague asked, “Are you aware that someone in your audience might be a sexual assault survivor?”

Yes. Yes, I am aware.

I am aware that every 98 seconds, an American is sexually assaulted.

I am aware that one woman in six is a victim of sexual assault.

I am aware that one woman in ten will be raped by an intimate partner in her lifetime.

I am a sexual assault survivor, and I am dedicated to fighting sexual assault.

For more... "Bridging Gaps Between Scientists and the Public" 

When Mormons Abandon Morality

This isn't likely to be my most coherent post. You see, it's 2 am, I've slept for two of the last twenty-four hours, and I'm not likely to fall asleep again for a while. But the nightmares are back, and there's really not a lot I can do about it.

I know I am not alone. So many others like myself are awake with the same fears, repetitions of the same terrors. All uniquely customized to match our individual stories, made-to-order horrors just for us.

The gay couple watching as their house is burned down. 
The Muslim woman attacked in the street as her hijab is ripped off and called a terrorist.
The unarmed black man kneeling as he faces a loaded gun.
The woman reliving her sexual assaults again and again.

As a multiple sexual assault survivor who every day has to tell myself that I deserve better, that This is not okay, that Things will get better, I have to admit that that mantra sounds especially hollow today.

Half of the country doesn't think that I do.
Half of the country thinks that this is just fine.
Half of the country doesn't think that there's a problem in the first place.

When the party of "family values" elects a man who openly admits to sexually assaulting women, who brags about wanting to have sex with his daughter, who has decades of recorded, flagrantly sexist comments, then I don't want your family values. If that's what your family looks like, then I want no part of it.

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Diminished Responsibility!

This fallacy occurs when we argue that our behavior should be excused because of impaired judgment, e.g. telling your teacher that they should grade your exam leniently because you were hung over and “it’s not my fault.” It is a contemporary fallacy that has arisen out of the misappropriation of the American legal concept, “diminished capacity” (that punishment for criminal acts should be decreased if the criminal’s judgment was impaired and thus would not have committed the crime under normal conditions). While being drunk may mean that you aren’t charged with first degree murder, it doesn’t mean that you are free of guilt or can’t be charged with second degree murder, and it doesn’t make the consequences of your actions any less severe. Likewise, the fact that you were hungover doesn’t somehow make your answers to your test less incorrect, and you must still live with the consequences of failing; your poor judgment in getting drunk the night before the test doesn’t excuse your performance.

Today's Logical Fallacy is...Appeal to Spite!

This fallacy occurs when someone uses existing spiteful and bitter feelings in order to dismiss an opponent’s position. Instead of actually evaluating evidence for the opponent’s position, they are exploiting the emotions of those listening in order convince them. We do this to ourselves if we justify disagreeing with someone out of existing spite instead of examining the issues. This is especially useful when combined with stereotypes (the overgeneralization fallacy) toward a particular demographic. For example, saying that you can never vote for a career politician because they are all untrustworthy combines stereotyping (all politicians are untrustworthy) with the appeal for spite (a general dislike for politicians).

Today's Logical Fallacy is...There Is No Alternative!

(TINA , Get Over It, the fait accompli, Taboo, I wish I had a magic wand.)

An extension of the false dichotomy, this fallacy occurs when someone states that a position must be taken because there are no other realistic alternatives, that all other options are irrelevant, or that since a decision has been made, there’s no going back. While it may be that the position being supported is the best position, outright dismissing other alternatives suppresses critical thinking. It relies on the acceptance of the inevitable (regardless of whether or not it is inevitable) by suggesting that we are powerless to do otherwise.

Today's Logical Fallacy is...Tautology!

A tautology is a statement that – by it’s construction - must always be true. It uses circular reasoning in that it’s conclusion is its own premise. While this type of logic can be easy to spot (“the Bible is the Word of God because it says so in the Bible”), it can be deceptive, especially when you’re presented with terms with which you are unfamiliar (“therapeutic touch works because it manipulates life force” – the definition of “therapeutic touch” is the alleged manipulation of life force, so it’s like saying that breathing keeps you alive because it exchanges carbon dioxide for oxygen). (Note: Definitions and mathematical proofs are not “arguments,” so while they meet the qualifications to be called tautologies, they aren’t tautological fallacies.) Tautologies appear to be explanations but actually provide no useful information. They are also unfalsifiable since they are entirely dependent on their own premise.

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Sending the Wrong Message!

This fallacy argues that a statement or action is wrong because it will “send the wrong message,” regardless of how correct, important, or true that statement or action is. The message that is, in fact, being sent is that their position is both fraudulent and fragile that it can be destroyed by truth. If your control of a population is based on the fear of them knowing the truth, you have no real control - nor should you.

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Reductionism!

(causal reductionism, complex cause, fallacy of the single cause, causal oversimplification, reduction fallacy)

The fallacy occurs when an explanation of an event is assumed to be a single, simple cause when it may have had multiple causes. The cause is oversimplified, preventing a more in-depth analysis, often in order to deceive the listener as to the real causes. It relies on the assumption that just because something occurred before or with the event that that “something” had to cause it (related to the correlation/causation fallacy), and it is a specific kind of false dilemma in that it presents a false simplification by ignoring the influence of other causes.

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Paralysis of Analysis!

(Procrastination) 

This fallacy occurs when someone claims that since we will never know everything, we should always avoid making decisions because any decision we would make would be illegitimate. Related to the appeal to ignorance fallacy, the primary difference here is that, instead of claiming that we will never “know” something due to lack of information, this fallacy claims that we should never “decide.” This fallacy is most easily committed when dealing with circumstantial evidence as it’s easier to dismiss.

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Appeal to Privacy!

(Mind Your Own Business - MYOB; You're Not the Boss of Me; Taboo)      

This fallacy prohibits discussion of your own behavior or viewpoints because it is private and thus “None of your business,” regardless of how dangerous, corrupt, absurd, or offensive it is. While freedom to think and act independently is essential in a successful society, this freedom doesn’t necessarily come without consequences. Some viewpoints and behavior doesn’t necessarily end with you and can have ripple effects on others and are therefore subject to scrutiny.   

Examples:

“So what if I was driving 25 over the speed limit? It’s none of your business. You’re not a cop.” (Your right to drive doesn’t supersede the right of others to have safe roads, and if you drive recklessly, then you may lose your right to drive.)

“What I do in my own home is none of your concern.” (If what you do in your own home includes harming children or other adults, then it absolutely is someone else’s concern.)

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Hot-Hand Fallacy!

Counterpart to the gambler’s fallacy, this fallacy occurs when someone predicts the outcome of a chance event to be the same as the last event (unlike the gambler’s fallacy that predicts the opposite outcome of the last event). People tend to believe that, since inanimate objects are random, they shouldn’t show tendencies (being “hot” to a particular color or number), so any streaks are based on the performance of the person generating the results. Someone in a “losing streak” gives up because they have gone cold, and vice versa.

Examples:

“I’m on a losing streak, so I should quit while I’m a head.”

“Red is hot tonight! I know what I’m betting on.”

Why We Can't Be "Color Blind": Taste the Privilege

If the world were color blind, we wouldn't have racism, but unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way. Too many people not only see color (which in itself isn't a bad thing) but also use color as means of casting judgment. And so while those who refuse to see color may not themselves be racist, they can't do anything to fight against racism. It's the difference between refusing to steal and stopping a thief, the difference between refusing to hit your wife and standing up against a man who beats his.

One requires only self-discipline; the other requires courage. 

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Inconsistency!

(Kettle logic, internal contradiction, logical inconsistency)

This logical fallacy occurs when an individual makes contradictory claims, usually by asserting that rules are followed for some beliefs, arguments, or claims but not others. It is often done by presenting multiple contradicting arguments supporting one point, and it can vary on how obvious the contradiction is. The person making the fallacy is often unaware that they are being inconsistent; lazy thinking and emotional investment can affect their perception of this fallacy. Authority figures can often get away with this fallacy because their position often protects them from challenge.

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Slothful Induction!

(poor pattern recognition, the “sticking your head in the sand” defense, “despite overwhelming evidence”) 

The opposite of the hasty generalization, this fallacy occurs when someone refuses to draw the appropriate conclusion from a clearly recognized pattern; the phrase “despite overwhelming evidence” is an indication that someone is about to commit this fallacy. Their refusal to accept what is most likely true is usually due to either their not really caring about the truth or their having a vested interest in their position (for example, cognitive dissonance occurs when someone is emotionally invested in a position and therefore likely to dismiss evidence against their position).

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Ambiguity!

(amphiboly, semantical ambiguity, type-token ambiguity, vagueness, double meaning)

This fallacy occurs when someone uses imprecise language in their argument in order to mislead the audience. Many languages include words that have multiple meanings, and when these words are used in arguments, we must be clear as to the precise definition of the word that we are using. Ambiguity is often the reason behind failed deductive reasoning. Because ambiguity is inherent to many languages, the mere presence of an ambiguous word or phrase does not automatically make it fallacious. It becomes a fallacy when it is misleading or misrepresenting the truth. This is common with politicians and psychics as a means of protection; the more vague the statement is, the less likely it will come back to hurt you. When we hear an ambiguous statement, we tend to believe the interpretation that we agree with the most.

Today's Logical Fallacy is... Argument from Motives!

(Questioning Motives)

Both a type of Ad Hominem and a type of red herring, this fallacy occurs when an argument is dismissed or supported because of the motives of the one making the claim, not the actual argument itself. Just because someone appears to have questionable motives does not mean that their position is wrong, and just because appears someone has excellent motives doesn’t mean that theirs is good. Arguments must be examined based on the evidence presented, not the person presenting the evidence. Often this fallacy is used even without evidence of a questionable motive, only the mere possibility that it might exist. Too often people rely on someone’s supposed intention as evidence for their idea: a “good person” would never recommend a bad action, a “good Christian woman” would never do something mean, and an “evil atheist” would never stop and help someone on the street. This is further complicated by the fact that, while we like to believe that we can discern someone’s motivations, we rarely even understand our own motives moreover the motives of someone else (which is why we have therapists). Relying on perceived motivations as a means of rejecting or accepting an idea is rarely wise.

Today's Logical Fallacy is...Appeal to Heaven!

(Deus Vult, Gott mit Uns, Manifest Destiny, the Special Covenant)

An extremely dangerous fallacy, this occurs when someone argues a position because it is the “will of God,” thus claiming that God has ordered, supports, or approves of a particular position or action and that it cannot be wrong or questioned. This fallacy seems more absurd when the God or religion being invoked is not one in which the listener believes, but it is exceptionally persuasive dangerous in groups of like-minded people with similar beliefs and intents.