Face Your Problems - Mormon Indoctrination

Mormons are indoctrinated. I recognize that this statement is controversial and might offend some of you. Many of you might think that “indoctrinated” is too strong of a word, but I stand by what I say, and will hopefully be able to communicate to you why I think so with evidence to back up my reasoning. I make a lot of generalizations about Mormonism, and these are made from my experiences. I have seen and heard from others, though, that their experiences have been the same.

True to sacrament meeting procedure, I will begin by defining indoctrination. Most definitions basically say that indoctrination is to teach something so that people will think uncritically about it. Wikipedia's definition is as follows: "Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned."

Indoctrination has a lot of negative connotations, and not without reason. To be indoctrinated means to disregard any criticism and accept something not based on actual evidence, but simply because you want to, which as most people understand, is no grounds for knowledge.

I would like to clarify that I am not saying that the church leadership intentionally indoctrinates its members, though some people would certainly say so. I believe that religion evolves, and for the most part all religions indoctrinate their congregations (to a certain degree) in order to survive. When beliefs are only founded on the willingness to believe them, it is detrimental to those beliefs to consider alternatives.

I would also like to point out that not all Mormons are indoctrinated. There are people out there who have critically looked at the church and determined that it is the best option for them. These people, though perhaps the most faithful, are often looked down upon or even ostracized by the Mormon community or leadership. One such instance is Kate Kelly, who was excommunicated because she continually criticized and spoke out against the oppressive patriarchy of the church. Although she is technically not a mormon anymore, she wants to be, even though she recognizes that the Mormon church is imperfect.

I would now like to discuss the reason I find the Mormon church to be a system of indoctrination. In order to do so, I will be drawing heavily from my experience, and by drawing parallels between other systems of indoctrination. I will be drawing these parallels, not to equate the systems, but to provide examples of indoctrination strategies that will hopefully illustrate how the church keeps its people from true knowledge.

One foundational principle of the Mormon church is that it has a modern day prophet. Mormons have songs, scriptures, and talks that all emphasize the importance of “following the prophet”. This differs from other christian churches who don’t believe that we need modern day prophets. According to mormon teachings, the Prophet will guide and direct the church. Essentially, he speaks for God. He receives revelation, and then communicates this revelation to the church. As this LDS site points out, the prophet will “never lead the church astray”. My understanding of this is that he will never take the church in the wrong direction, and will never proclaim false teachings. Basically, the prophet is never wrong. Never mind that countless prophetic teaching have been revoked, such as Brigham Young’s “Adam-God Doctrine”. According to Mormon teachings, if you disagree with the prophet, you are wrong. The prophet is revered by most within the Mormon church, indeed, among mormon circles he is seen much like a celebrity.  

This “follow the leader” thinking can be found throughout history. Those in power want to stay in power. If the peoples are following the leader, then they are also not rebelling. In many past societies, criticizing  kings, and dictators would usually result in a death sentence. One of the things that makes democracy so great, is that people can (theoretically) criticize a politician and his decisions. It is in oppressive, dictatorial regimes that we find people faithfully devoted to the “one true leader”. This is not to say that the prophet does not speak for god. I will not try to dispute that here. What I am saying, is that entities which seek to control its peoples often use a central figure (i.e. the Prophet) to create a sense of devotion and unbending faith amongst its peoples.

Some point out that “We’re not blindly following the prophet. We pray to god to know if he is the correct leader of his church.” This is faulty thinking. Church members will always sustain whoever is put into office, because if you disagree, you’re essentially disagreeing with god. Mormons raise their hands to sustain someone to a position in the church, to supposedly show your support. But if you don’t, people look down on you. You are suddenly a weirdy, who, for whatever reason, is not faithful. Nobody actually disagrees with what the prophet says, because in doing so you disagree with god.

Another strategy that indoctrinizers (I just made up that word) use is propaganda. Two components of propaganda are the use of one-sided, publicised material, and the eradication of opposing voices. These two components are heavily present in the Mormon church. For instance, to be an active member in the church you must go to church every week, participate in meetings throughout the week, have family home evening every monday, go to the temple, watch general conference, attend ward functions, as well as study the scriptures and pray daily. The constant bombardment of church teachings has a heavy influence on the brain, and doesn’t allow for much contradiction.

Another example of the church’s use of propaganda is the attempted elimination of non church approved sources of information. Lessons taught in sunday school, talks given over the pulpit, and general authorities often warn against reading or viewing material contrary to mormon beliefs. This is not without reason. People who leave the church often do so because they find information about the Mormon church that is less than pleasing. Many who encounter these sources of information feel betrayed by the Mormon church, leading them to discredit anything else the church teaches or says. It is natural then that the church would want to teach its members to avoid these sources of information. Of course, the church would never (nor be expect to) publish material that contradicts its teachings; but trying to push out opposing voices signals to me that they don’t want people to do actual research or investigation, out of fear that people might learn truths not taught within the walls of the local church buildings.

If members of the church begin to publicly criticize it, they are frequently disfellowshipped or excommunicated. As I pointed out earlier, the church excommunicated Kate Kelly earlier this year. This excommunication signals to other critics that speaking out will not be tolerated. Kate Kelly was not proposing radical ideas, nor was she physically attacking the church. She was simply making her opinion known, and she was excommunicated as a result. This is not unlike political regimes in WWII, which would remove dissenting voices from the population. John Dehlin, a prominent gay-rights advocate was also excommunicated this year, though he was in stronger opposition to the church. In September of 1993, the church excommunicated six individuals who openly opposed some church teachings, giving factual evidence to support their reasoning. They have come to be called the September Six. This signaled to most people that the church was attempting to repress intellectuals who had evidence that pointed out flaws in the church or church system. I can’t personally speak to this, as I don’t have much knowledge on the subject. What I do know, however, is that excommunication is a silencing tool; it’s used to discredit people who speak out and cause them a great deal of stress, as being excommunicated has serious implications for family and social relationships.

I was always taught that it was okay to have questions, but never to doubt. When I had questions, I was to seek church approved answers, of which there are few. Only scriptures and current church publications were to be consulted. I talked about the trouble with this thinking in my first post, but I will reiterate it here. You cannot base the truthfulness, or accuracy of something on the thing itself, or a feeling you get. If you only read the scriptures and church talks for knowledge, of course you will believe in it. This is not to say that these are not legitimate sources of knowledge, but rather to say that only consulting these sources is much like only reading “toyota approved” literature when buying a car; it may have many truths, but is definitely one-sided.

If you have doubts, you are taught to push them aside, and to not think about them. Some call this faith. I call it willful ignorance. Faith is about trusting in god, regardless of anything you have read or heard about him. It is looking at all the facts, and determining that you want to put your trust in him. Faith is not believing in god simply because that’s all you’ve ever considered.

The church puts forth a false version of history. I’ll get into this latter on in my blog, but it is pretty evident that what we’re taught in primary and other church meetings are far from the actual truth. The church has actually recently released some essays in an attempt to come to terms with its controversial history (they, for example, admit that Joseph Smith was a polygamist). You can read one of the essays here. This is all very well, but until the church stops revering Joseph Smith as nearly second to Christ, church members will continue to not think critically about its history. Some mormons I know easily dismiss any allegations brought up about church history, without really considering the facts. This is a blatant result of indoctrination.

Perhaps the most indoctrinat-y thing the church does is to teach children the gospel as fact, and without fault. Shortly after you’re born into a mormon family, you are blessed in the church. You attend primary every week where you’re taught the Book of Mormon as if it is undisputed history. It baffled me as a kid that everyone wasn’t mormon, because in my mind it was the only thing to be. At the age of 8, you choose to formally join the church even though you don’t know there is another option, and are considered incapable of making most other life decisions at this age. Furthermore, if you chose to not be baptized you would be met with criticism, intervention, or at least an overall pressure to be baptized. Even as a kid I felt that there was something strange about this. When I was baptized, I had no real conception of what that commitment entailed. I did it because everyone did it, because you were praised for your “choice”, and because there was usually food afterward.

When you turn 12, there are youth activities every week, which serve to further fortify your religious convictions, and social network. At 14, you have to go to seminary every school day, and learn about the gospel. When you turn 18 or 19, you can (and often do) serve a mission soon after. Two years spent doing nothing but learning gospel principles and studying the scriptures is sure to indoctrinate people further. The church constantly consumes your time. Everything you do comes back to the church, and it is a system like this that signals to me a desire to convince people to not think “critically” about the church.

Again, I don’t think many of these things are intentional. I hardly think the general authorities sit around deviously planning how to indoctrinate its members. What I am arguing is that it happens, whether intentional or not, and that it leads to members who are not truly faithful, but are instead ignorantly believing and blindly devoted. If your faith is really strong, you should be able to accept god, in spite of having accepted the arguments presented against him, not out of ignorance.

As I said before, not all mormons are indoctrinated, or have since overcome their indoctrination. I, myself, was indoctrinated and am still trying to weed out the mormon roots in from my mind. For example, sometimes when confronted with a difficult situation I have the urge to pray or to fast. While some may say that this is the spirit talking, I think it is a result of having been taught to do so for my entire life, mostly through example. Because this is how I approached problems in the past, it is how I react to a problem immediately. But then I remember that god never answered my prayers, and I could never fast very well. It is me who has overcome my problems and difficulties, not god. And I think it is inappropriate to credit God with all the scientific discoveries and progress we’ve made in every field. Man has brought about these miraculous findings, cures, technology, and ideologies (like democracy), and it demeans those achievements when we attribute them to God.

To conclude this abnormally long blog post, I will tell all you mormons that it is not too late to escape indoctrination. You don’t even have to leave the church to do so. It is a problem that can be addressed, even within the confines of the church. Johanna Brooks, my favorite sunday school teacher is a mormon feminist who wrote about the Kate Kelly incident in her blog askamormongirl.com. She said:

“We hoped this day would not come. Because we know that excommunication courts are a nineteenth-century Mormon solution to twenty-first century Mormon problems. Exiling and shaming a dozen, two dozen, one hundred, one thousand heterodox Mormons won’t close the book on women’s issues, or LGBT issues, or historical controversies in Mormonism. You could rid the church of an entire generation of querulous bloggers and grassroots organizers and another will rise and take its place. Because these controversies are not private and individual. They are not personal problems. They are the product of Mormon history, Mormon doctrine, and Mormon culture. We didn’t invent them. We inherited them, as will the generations to follow, each taking its turn in the search for truth. Because that is what Mormonism means.

It is this view that mormons must take. Confront problems, instead of pushing them aside as they have done so for decades. In a an age of internet and extensive communication they cannot continue to be willfully ignorant.

Thanks to yall for reading this terribly long, unorganized, flawed, grammatically incorrect blog. I hope what I’ve said has helped at least one of you.

Joshua Read

COMING SOON: THE MORMON TRAP - WHY IT'S SO HARD TO LEAVE

Dearest Readers,
I would like to clarify a few things in light of issues that have been brought up to me. First I would like to discuss the purpose of this blog. There are a few reasons for me writing this. One reason is that it is very therapeutic for me. Being able to put my thoughts down on paper really helps me sort them out and deal with emotions. Another reason is that I hope I can help those struggling with church doctrine, or gay feelings. I want them to know that there are legitimate options available to them. A third reason is that I want Mormons to understand why I left. Some of you may see this as a desperate attempt to justify my beliefs, but in reality, I just want to be understood. I want Mormons to know that there are other opinions out there that have as much validity as theirs. As a result, sometimes I may come off a little harsh towards the Mormon church. This is a common symptom of ex-mormons; we feel betrayed and feel like lashing out. I do my very best to be fair to the Mormon church. I provide church approved sources, and try to quote directly.

That being said, I am far from perfect. I want my blog to be interesting and entertaining, so sometimes I am satirical. It is also difficult to include the whole discussion of an issue. When I try to do that I find myself writing ten pages or more. I'm a busy person so I don't have time to discuss each view point thoroughly. People would also get bored really quickly and I don't want that. As I've said, if you have a problem with what I've written, or an objection, I will do my best to respond. I try to be understanding, and acknowledge everyone's viewpoints, and if I'm not doing that I would like to be aware of it. I do not want people to feel as if I am attacking their beliefs. Rather, I would hope you see it as a critique.

Another problem is that a majority of my knowledge about the Mormon beliefs comes from my time spent there. As a result, it is biased, and I acknowledge that. But I also think that  personal account is much more valuable than arguing theology and theory, and is infinitely more interesting.

I would now like to address something that I wrote about in my last post, that I realize I didn't explain thoroughly enough. When I cited President Packers talk, I mentioned that he said it was okay to use violence against gay people. Some people noted that he was only advocating violence against those trying to force themselves on you. In this, I would condone violence, if need be. However, President Packer doesn't give very much information about the story, so some say you can't draw conclusions about his intent.
The issue that I have is not with the actual story. Violence has been committed against gay people for a long time, and while not excusable, is not a reason to condemn the entire Mormon church. What I have a problem with is the way he presented it, which subtly conveyed that it is okay to hurt gay people. His obliqueness and vagueness about the situation is the problem. I will lay this out in equation form to help you understand.
In a normal situation this is what we would have:

          Person makes inappropriate, aggressive  sexual advances = Okay to attack

Packer however, presented the situation like this:

          Person who is gay makes sexual advances = Okay to attack

Perhaps the missionary was aggressive, or perhaps he just made a sexual comment. Packer fails to mention anything about how the straight missionary was approached, and by omitting these details, the audience equates an approval of violence with the fact that he was gay, not with forceful sexual advances. Whether or not Packer intended to approve violence against homosexuals, the rhetoric he used contributes to an overall atmosphere of anti-gayness. It is this sort of thinking that encouraged and continues to encourage stereotyping and discrimination.

As I said in my last post, the Mormons are generally very loving and accepting. Currently, the church has the most progressive stance on the issue that they could have, without actually changing church doctrine. In my post, I was not trying to say that the Mormon church advocates for a Gay Witch Hunt, but I was trying to explain why the church's attitude towards homosexuality contributed to me leaving. I used Packers talk to emphasize the hurtful undertones that often pervade in the church, even with an appearance of acceptance and love.

I hope this clears up any confusion, and makes more clear my point.

Just so you know, next week I will have more to say about Mormons and the gays, but it will be in a legal, equal marriage, context.

Thanks for reading,
 Joshua Read

THE MORMONS, THE GAYS, AND ME

Dearest everyone,

This has been the most difficult blog post to write; not because I am overcome with emotion or some flaky reason like that, but because there is so much to say and discuss. There are several things about the Mormon church, and Mormon culture that pertain to this subject which I haven’t discussed yet. However, I promised I would talk about the gays so I’m gonna do it. Please, enjoy.

Let me start by saying that Mormons, in my opinion are one of the best conservative religions a gay could be born into. Mormon’s policy on homosexuality is that it is not a sin, but acting on it is. The official church welcomes gay members with open arms, something the Catholic church only very recently has tried to do (their invitation to the gays was quickly revoked). Mormons, for the most part, are very loving and have a modern view of homosexuality. As a result, they don’t try to “pray the gay away”, understanding that it’s not something that can be changed. The official church says that homosexuality is only a mortal temptation, and if people are faithful, they can live a celibate life in the gospel. As a result, straight Mormons have a difficult time understanding why a gay person would leave the church.  

I have made a list of the reasons why I left, why others might have left, and why the church’s position on homosexuality is hurtful and not as supportive as it might appear.

1. Forcing people to push down their gay feelings is severely damaging to people’s mental health. The church and most of society agrees that thoughts become our actions. As such, the church reasons, if you don’t think homosexual thoughts, then you won’t have homosexual temptations or sex. Quite simple, right? False. I can’t speak for others, but in my experience it is impossible to shut out gay “temptations”. You can try, but it doesn't last very long, and soon you are trapped in a cycle of guilt. I tried all the methods: singing a hymn, praying, distracting myself. No matter what I did, I kept coming back to thinking about boys. I prayed once, asking God if he could help me act straight. It didn't work, because that’s not what I truly wanted to do.

I point to numerous suicides by LGBT youth in the church. Basically, the church is saying, “You should live a celibate, heterosexual life in the church or die trying.” Indeed, if you follow church logic, it almost makes sense. If, when people die, they are released from a “temporal struggle” that they have been wrestling with their whole life, doesn't suicide make sense? In heaven you will be “cured” and will be able to be married, which is basically what the gospel revolves around. I never personally contemplated suicide, but I remember thinking how nice it would be to die, just so that I could finally be straight.

2. Many people argue that people should be able to live a celibate life. It’s been pointed out to me numerous times that there are straight people in the church who never get married, and presumably live without ever having sex. Why can I not just do that? Homosexuals and celibate people are not the same. Heterosexual Mormons are told that their sexual urges are natural, and while you shouldn't entertain or act on them till marriage, they are desires which are appropriate. John Bytheway (a famous Mormon comedian) notes that in the scriptures it says to “bridle your passions” and says that this means to control them, rather than squash them out. I assume he’s talking to straight people, because gay people are basically told to get rid of them.

In the video below, John Dehlin says that LGBT Mormons leading a celibate lifestyle have dismal life satisfaction ratings. If “man is that he might have joy”, how is this church approved lifestyle leading to such despair?

One of the most significant parts of having a body is that (for the vast majority of people) we want to have sex. Mormons are caught up in “dominating” the body. Salvation is essentially achieved when we can deny our bodies pretty much everything it really wants. However, any competent psychologist will tell you that while you shouldn't give your body everything it wants, you should give it some of what it it wants. In regards to sex, mormons do have a way to achieve this: marriage. Gay people, however, are essentially on a life long fast.

Most of you Mormons know how difficult it is to fast for just two meals, let alone a few days. Now imagine having to be on a diet your entire life. You know how good that chocolate cake tastes. You know how refreshing lemonade is on a hot day. You know how mac n’ cheese is the best food to have ever existed. But you are only allowed to eat broccoli and carrots. What if you don’t like broccoli and carrots? What if the thought of ever having intimate relations with a vegetable was disgusting to you, but you are only allowed to eat them? You’re life would be pretty miserable. So if you are a straight Mormon, don’t even try to tell a gay person they should live celibately. It makes you a hypocrite.

3. Even though the official church now decries gay bashing or mistreatment of gays, there is still much of the church that is not respectful or kind. I remember being in Young Mens and the young men leaders sometimes saying “that’s gay” in a degrading manner. Stereotyping is highly prevalent, and (at least in my young mens quorum) I constantly felt less than the other young men because I preferred to bake and sing to  playing sports and shooting guns. Many of you Mormons might say, “Well, the church is perfect, its members are not.” To that I would say a few things. One, the church is far from perfect. Two, would you want to go to a church where you are constantly marginalized? The church is made up of its members; their hands and mouths are the ones preaching and doing the work. An ideology may be “perfect”, but in practicality is awful. Just look at communism, or the law of consecration. As long as gay is seen as less than straight (which it is, don’t even argue with me on this) there will be a superiority complex that is degrading and will encourage stereotyping which will continue to push gays away from the church.

4. The church used to be very hostile to gay people. Boyd K. Packer (a leading authority) said in 1976 that it was appropriate to use violence against gay people. True, this was almost 40 years ago, but if you’re going to profess to be the perfect church you can’t be changing policy all the time. Continuing to say that a man who condoned violence against gay people is an apostle of Jesus Christ might be one reason other churches don’t necessarily think of you as christian. You can find his talk here: http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml

I would now like to talk about some things I’ve heard people say about me, or to me and respond to them.

• “If you want it bad enough, you’ll stay in the church”
• To blunt, I don’t want it badly enough. I did once, but when you do any actual research on the church, you’ll find it’s a lot less glamorous and perfect as you think. Look at all my other blog posts (and read the ones in the future) to find out why.
• “I just want you to see the gay lifestyle so you’ll know how bad it is.”
• This is just flat out offensive. You’re making such a generalization, it makes you look bad. I just can’t even say how wrong this is. There is no such thing as a “gay lifestyle”.
• “You’re just following the crowd.”
• Really? Following the crowd? You mean all my friends who are mormon? When I was going to church, few of my friends existed outside of the church. If I had followed the crowd, I would have gone to BYU-I like I was supposed to. I paved my own way. I’m proud of it, so don’t you try to demean my achievement.
• “Gay sex is filthy”
• For those of you who think this is accurate, go say this to an actual gay person and discover for yourself how offensive it is. Gay often times have sex to express their love for each other, and saying it is filthy implies they have the same morals as you and believes in the same god as you, which they clearly don’t.

This is an excellent video to watch on this issue. Seriously, everyone should watch this short talk given by a Mormon guy about gays:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MxCXjfAunk

I know that some gay Mormons stay in the church. If that works for them that is fine, but it didn't work for me, and I would ask that you don’t say, “He stayed. Why can’t you?” I am not him. He is not me.

Thanks so much for reading. Please contact me if you have any concerns, objections, or support.

• Joshua Read

Hi everyone,
I would like to make a correction to earlier statements. Unmarried people do get into the celestial kingdom. However, they don't achieve the same sort of glory as married people. From Mormon scripture, Doctrine and Covenants 132:

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

 17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

Thanks!

- Joshua Read

Hi Everyone,

I know that I promised to talk about the gays, which I will get to, but I feel that in order to do so I need to first inform you all about Mormon's view on the family. Read it all, because it's important for my next post. So here goes. Mormons hold the family unit in the highest regard. They believe that we will be with our family in the after life, and, in fact, you can't obtain celestial glory without being married. They consider the family to be extremely sacred.

 This is called "The Family: A Proclamation to the World.", and is a very concise and straightforward declaration of what the LDS church believes about gender roles, homosexuality, marriage, and in general the family. 

This document is framed in many church buildings and in many church member's homes. It is continually referenced in General Conference and other church meetings. As children and teenagers, Mormons are made to read it and understand its principles and guidelines. A few aspects of this proclamation I agree with. Abusing children is obviously not acceptable, but I highly doubt that this is contested by very many people. 

One problem with this document arises in the second paragraph. It says, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual, premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." The fact is that gender is not straightforward and divided as Mormons, and much of society would have us believe. In my LGBT class, we discussed what traits generally define masculinity and femininity. We came up with a list: Men should be strong, determined, competitive, active, and non-emotional. Women on the other hand should be small, delicate, submissive, graceful, quiet, emotional, and passive. But when we think about it, many men sometimes exhibit the feminine traits, and vice versa. You probably know many men that are not very strong or tall, or are very emotional. You also probably know women who are athletic, outgoing, or not delicate at all. What this says about gender, is that the traits which define men and women are mostly socially constructed. 

I, for example, would make a pretty piss poor ideal boy. I don't like sports, I cry all the time, I love musicals and baking, I am not really competitive, and I like to watch chick-flicks like Titanic over and over again. 

"But wait!" You might say, "People are literally born one gender or the other." This is actually an entirely false statement. Depending on your definition of boy or girl, there is variation between the two. If you define someone by their genitalia, then you have to recognize that it is not very uncommon for people to be born with both a penis and a vagina or other ambiguous genitalia. What should we call them? If we remove the penis does God then recognize them as a girl? If they keep both private parts, where do they fit in the proclamation? 

If your definition of gender is based on chromosomes, your foundation is even faultier. Frequently, people are born with an extra chromosome, or other chromosomal abnormalities. What sex are they? (Usually, it seems, these people do identify with a certain gender, but still their chromosomes don't define it.) 

As in most of nature, there is a great deal of variability among the sexes in both physical characteristics and personality. I realize that it is easy for many of us to slip into the thinking that being one gender or the other is natural, but we must remember that even if the majority of people fit into the category of boy or girl, it would be wrong and incorrect to say that everyone does.

                                                          *****************

Now I will explain the plan of salvation, which Mormons use to explain where we came from, why we're here, and where we are going. It is the first missionary lesson taught to people unlucky enough to not have made up some lame excuse quickly enough. 

In the pre-mortal existence (before earth) our spirits lived with heavenly father. Then he said, "Um. Excuse me. Hello? Yes. I know it's nice up here, but y'all gotta go." He said we would get bodies and thus be subject to temptation, but Jesus would come and die for us, because even though God is all powerful he doesn't make the rules. Then Satan said, "OMG. Daddy! I will go and force everyone to be good, so they can all go to heaven and it will be perf-nugs!" God said no, so Satan threw a temper-tantrum and he and his followers were thrown out of heaven and didn't get to have bodies.

So then we all get here on planet earth, and we are told to go to church every Sunday, pray to god, and avoid terrible sins like drinking tea and masturbating, and murder. Then Jesus came and because he died we can all repent, which allows us to return to God, because, in the wise words of Hanna Montana, "Nobody's Perfect".

Then we die, and we go to Spirit Paradise if you're a good Mormon, or to Spirit prison if you are a bad Mormon or a non-mormon. Then the spirits from spirit paradise go on a mission to spirit prison, so that even in death you have to pretend you're extremely busy when the missionaries come knocking. Anybody that is converted gets to go to spirit paradise where they have swimming pools and wi-fi.

Finally, judgement day comes, and God pulls out his naughty or nice list and we get separated into three "Kingdoms of Glory". Although it's not really clear who goes into what category, the lowest kingdom, called the Telestial Kingdom will be for everyone who was a bad Mormon, or who was bad person in life.

The second, called the Terrestrial, is for people who would have been good Mormons, but only accepted it in the after-life.

Then the bestest, most greatest, most exciting kingdom is the celestial kingdom. This is for all the good Mormons, who repented, prayed and bought a pie from Costco for the ward Christmas party. Oh. And you have to be heterosexually married. You heard me right. Your personal righteousness is not only determined by how good you are, but by if you got married or not. (In fairness, they say you'll have a chance to be married in spirit paradise or something)

And there you have it. The plan of salvation in 60 seconds or less. I recognize that it was satirical, but for those of you who are interested here is a Mormon approved website that fairly represents it. I wish I could have found one with the nifty diagram, but this is all I got. If you want the nifty diagram you can look it up on Wikipedia. http://www.mormon.org/beliefs/plan-of-salvation. You can also read about the three Kingdoms of Glory in the Doctrine and Covenants which is really long and boring.

Basically, we are here on earth to be tried and tested, but another primary goal is to get married and "multiply and replenish the earth". The church actually has "single wards" which is church, but only single, young adults go there. It's basically a dating website for mormons. Can you see why it would be so hard to be gay in a church that literally puts you in a congregation designated to get people married?

Anyways, with that groundwork laid, I promise, promise, promise, I will talk about the gays next time.

- Joshua Read

P.S. Sorry for any spelling or grammar mistakes. I really don't care.
P.S.S. All of you Mormons should never refer to gay people as "the gays" as I do in most of my posts. Only I can do that, because I am gay.   

Hi Y'all, 

I realize that my last post was pretty heavy, filled with controversy, and all around not very exciting or funny. That being said, I wrote it, because it's how I feel, and felt that people should know where I stand and what I do or don't believe in. This post was going to be about Mormons and the Gays, but I don't want this to only be a blog about me in relation to the Mormon church, so I will simply postpone that post and instead tell you all about registration, which I'm sure sounds very boring to most of you. Let me assure you that it was. But don't be a two-faced, half-hearted friend who only reads the beginning of my blog posts and then stops. Be a one-faced, whole-hearted human being who has compassion on this person who is not incredulously well with words. Anyways, here goes: 

I went to orientation. I didn't want to, but they essentially made me. And what's worse, they made me pay 100+ dollars for it. 100 dollars. Like, 11.11111 hours of delivering pizzas. I cannot stress enough to you how stupid it is that I had to spend 100 dollars to go to this thing. But, I figured, if I'm spending 100 dollars, it's gotta be really informative and worth my whole Saturday. Not only did the 100 dollars pay for parking (which makes no since, nobody was parked at SDSU because school hadn't started yet), it also paid for lunch, a class catalog, and a fancy tiny notebook with sticky notes and little tabs to stick on the inside of books (this probably cost them as much as 3 dollars to make, and I didn't even use it). 

So, with those things subtracted (I'll roughly estimate 20 dollars for actual physical materials), that leaves 80 dollars to pay for staff and whatnot, so I assumed they would have good speakers, with interesting and engaging things to say about the school I am currently attending. I guess it was money well spent as long as you consider money not well spent to be well spent. The first portion of orientation was an hour long talk about how great it is to be an Aztec, and how tough it is to get in, and how we are driven individuals, and how they know we can all succeed. Yes, I know I am really awesome, hard-working individual, and I'm sure your school is just about the best thing god ever placed upon the dreary earth. However, I am here to get a piece of paper with my name on it, not listen to you talk about how life is an exploding marshmallow of happiness when you're an Aztec.

The next hour was devoted to an anti-rape presentation. I am aware that this is a very prevalent issue especially on college campuses. An issue of which I would be mildly interested to learn about, as long as the presentation isn't a video of a black and white PowerPoint, with a voice over that reads the entire, text-dense slides to you in a voice similar to a tour guide's voice describing all the beautiful scenery in a barren Saharan Desert. "Ladies and Gentlemen, to you're left you will see piles of dirt. And on the right, dirt in piles. Very shortly we will be able to see a slightly taller dirt pile." You get the point. As I looked around I could see that nobody was paying attention. Most students had taken out their phones, and the staff probably would have, except that they were on the stand and had to look like they were interested. Their "interested" faces were mostly just staring into space, probably thinking of all the other things they would rather do on a Saturday morning. 

The most useful part of the first half of the day is when they told us everything we need to graduate. Something that I could have looked up online in less than 15 minutes. So that was fun. I guess. 

Then the best part of the day came. LUNCH. To be fair, it hard to be more exciting than a meal, but they could have tried a little harder to be more exiting than a burger and some chips. Anyways, I got to sit and eat lunch with my friend Kelli Godfrey who is also going to SDSU. Shout out to you, Kelli for being the most exciting thing that happened to me that day. (That is, if you're reading this, and if you're not then you should refer to the 1st paragraph were I talk about half-hearted friends).

After an entire hour and a half for lunch we divided ourselves into separate majors and went to have smaller discussions with the chairs of each department (For you stupids out there: we talked to people, not the actual chairs in the Business building). That was slightly informative, but only for about 20 minutes and then I had to wait as people declared their majors. I couldn't because I failed to take Business Calculus while at Grossmont, so because I missed one class I can't continue with my major yet. It sucks. But anyways, then we got register for classes, which they told us we would only be able to do at orientation, which is pretty much the only reason I went. 

To register, we went to the schools website, which I could have done at home. Then we used the website to register. Which I could have done at home. Basically, the moral of the story is that I could have done it at home. Instead of paying 100 dollars to spend my Saturday at the school. 

This is the one thing that frustrates me most about SDSU. They have tuition, which is very low so I am not complaining. I think that it is certainly acceptable to charge as much as they do for a good college education. But tuition isn't the only bill you have to pay. There are something like 300 dollars in campus fees, 100 dollars for orientation, 135 dollars for a parking permit, and 15 dollars for an I.D. Yes you heard me right, (well, read me right?) 15 dollars for a plastic card that costs less than 2 dollars to print. On top of that you have all the books you need to buy, and I'm amazed that anyone can pay for it all when living on their own. To all those people putting themselves through college: You are the strongest of us all. 

Love ya'll,

- Joshua Read 

UP NEXT: MORMONS AND THE GAYS: AN UNSATISFACTORY EXPLANATION

(I promise, this will be next, and will be much more interesting than the orientation that I paid 100 dollars to go to. 100 dollars. What the hell?)